Talk:Jews/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Justification for having an article on "Jew/s"

Groups of people are associated in a number of different ways, most of which suggest better titles for the subject: if they're related by religion or belief, for example, title the article after that: Judaism, Socialism, etc. If they're related by geography or nationality, that should be covered under topics like Israel, Africa, Ottoman Empire, etc. But what about cultures and races that apply only to the people themselves and that are not related to a place or a government or a religion? There probably aren't many cases, but I can certainly think of a few: Bedoins, Huns, Zulus, and yes, Jews. And I think we do have to use singular nouns, even though the plurals make better titles, so that we can make links like "The Israeli government recognizes an immigrant as a Jew if his or her mother was Jewish..." or "The Bantu Stephen Biko was a South African activist..." So yes, I think there should be an article "Jew", which contains aspects of Jewish culture not related to the religion of Judaism or the state of Israel, and should explain the distinctions, and the fact that the term is used ambiguously (at least "Zulu" won't have that problem). -- Lee Daniel Crocker

For the record, the magic of redirects seems to take care of this already -- Jew is a redirect to the prettier title Jews, where the article sits. While it is possible for redirects to get messy when they're used extensively, I think this is a cases where it's not illegitimate to have them and use them unashamedly. (Note also that the next revision of the software will include links via redirects in the "pages that link here" list, making clean-up much easier in the case that such an article gets retitles later.) Brion VIBBER, Wednesday, May 1, 2002

My mother was not a Jew & my father was Jewish

I am a jew. My mother was not a jew. My father was jewish and as far as I can determine is a direct descendant of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. I was not raised as a jew. I have gone to synagouges for bar-mitzvah and marriages all my life. When my father died I sat shivah and said prayer each day for six months. The issue of Jewish out of the mothers blood is an insult of history. As conquered people and living in foreign lands were rape could be a problem antiqity devised a common idea, rabbinacal canonization developed - but does this rule derive from the word or will of God. Not that I can tell. Of all my family, my father had the most distintive Askanazic ethnic Jewish appearance - I look exactly like him and appear more jewish then any other offspring. So who are you to define away my ethnicity ? All my life I have been identified as a jew by non-jews and have suffered anti-semitism. Once again, who are you to define away my ethnicity? To deny there is a jewish ethnicity is ridiculous and religious or historical arguments don't stop me from enjoying a good eastern european jewish meal with my family. The insult of separation by dependence on religious law is a denial of reality and a form of anti-semitism that only a half jew not by mother can understand. As for culture, what does the non religious individual that is a jew of birth from Yeman have in common with the non-religious jew of birth from Poland or America. I guess neither would be Jews - HUH. Now we are defining away ethnicity. Much less then the Jew and Christian in New York and perhaps the Jew or Muslim from Yeman. Does the Jew eating McDonalds quarter-pounder really have that much cultural similarity to the Yemani Jew drinking goat milk? Both could be Zionist or non-Zionist- but do they both enjoy rock and roll and drink coca-cola while eating french fries. In fact, the Yemani Jew is most likely dark skinned, brown eyed and black haired whereas the American Jew may be blond and light skinned. And yet both may have Jewish mothers. And what of the 3rd generation of a mother whose family converted ? Blood, parentage, culture, religion, etc all miss the point and are points of exclusion- all arbitary. Is the religious Jew a Jew - Yes, is the half jew by father a jew- of course if you consider genetics, why on earth would a non-jew like Marx be a jew if he was an aethist whereas a god-fearing self-identifying half jew like myself be a non-jew ( specifically when every non-Jew I have ever know thinks I am a Jew). The rejection of the half-jew is designed to stop the disintergration of a religion by putting the price of ostrasim on the head of half breeds and those bold enough to marry non-jews. All these exclusionary definitions fail. Some fight to be the chosen people of God, others fight the chosen people of God. Is religion an issue, well, ethics certainly are. Can an unethical non religious half jew be a jew - What if Hitler was a Frankenberger and not a Sticklegrubber ? At times it seems all the distinctions are very pointless and all subject to misuse.

Jewish culture

Lee writes "I think there should be an article 'Jew', which contains aspects of Jewish culture not related to the religion of Judaism or the state of Israel, and should explain the distinctions, and the fact that the term is used ambiguously"

Jewish culture should be incorporated into the current entry "Jews". It already makes the distinction between a Jewish person, and a person who actually follows the religion known as Judaism; this section can be expanded if need be. However, from a historical point of view, there is no such thing as Jewish culture separate from Judaism. In fact, most Jews themselves refuse to define Judaism as a religion; its never been seen that way in the classical rabbinic era, and it isn't seen that way today by Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative or Modern Orthodox Jews. Only ultra-Orthodox Jews and secular Jews who reject all aspects of Judaism altogether treat Judaism as a religion. For the last 2,000 years, Jewish art, music, culture, literature, theology, philosophy, liturgy and religious works have all been part of one organic whole. I would say that having an article on parts of Jewish culture that are distinct from Judaism would be on oxymoron. One could, of course, have entries that specifically deal with Jewish art, Jewish literature, Jewish culture, Jewish cooking, Jewish music, etc. RK

Judaism as religion (or not)

But we do have to cover the religion as a religion, and "Judaism" is clearly the best name for it: To me, and probably to most people, the word "Judaism" implies the religion, and only the religion. And there are certainly religious influences in art, literature, and even cooking; but what about things like the Yiddish language? Holocaust remembrance? Regardless of the fact that there is lots of overlap, there is a culture and the is a religion and they need to be treated in two articles. Both of those articles, though, will naturally emphasize the links between the two subjects. --LDC

I would disagree; There never existed any Yiddish language, literature or culture, except as a part of Judaism. Where does it exist as some distinct entity that can be discussed without reference to Judaism? Nowhere. Holocaust remembrance is the one place where I think you have a valid point, because many Jews who have long since left Judaism still feel compelled to deal with the Holocaust in some way, even if they do som from a secualr, and often non-Jewish, point of view. I agree with you that there is a culture, but I just don't understand what you are referring to when you imply that there is some sort of Jewish culture distinct from Judaism. I am not aware of any. In the latter half of the 1800s, to the early part of the 20th century, many secularized Jews (many of whom were extremely anti-religion in all ways) attempted to create a secular Jewish cultures divorced from Judaism - these were the Bundists. Their movement failed. It can be examined in an article of course, but an article on the Jewish Bund culture that was divorced from Judaism would have to be noted as an exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. There also has been a huge defection from Judaism by Jews in American; most people of Jewish descent no longer consider themselves Jews, and even those that do claim that theyt do not practice Judaism. However - and this is the critical point - these secualr Jews have not created any sort of Jewish culture that exosts separately from Judaism. They simply do their own thing, without being part of any sort of cohesive community or worldview. RK

Yiddish literature was large and by secular. -- Harald

Juadism as a civilization - Mordechai Kaplan

I think that RK is taking the Mordechai Kaplan position (Judaism as a civilization)--one that I personally accept--but i have to agree with LDC about having two separate articles. There were, particularly in the last century, movements among Jews that attempted to eliminate ties with the religion. These included some Zionists, the Canaanite movement of Ratosh, and certainly the Bundists and Jewish communists. Nevertheless, they should certainly be included in an article on Jews. By the way, in support of RK's position, there is no word in Hebrew for religion. "Dat," which is now used in that sense, is a Persian word found in the Book of Esther, where it refers to the laws of Ahasueres. In that case, even the most Orthodox circles would not accept that Judaism is a religion. In fact, the only people that took that position were the early Reformers in Germany (and it was in response to a law passed in Prussia, of all places).Danny

I agree with Mordechai Kaplan that Judaism is an evolving religious civilization, and not just a religion, but note that this isn't just his view. It is also the view of every Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodod rabbi and scholar. Its not a value judgement; i.e. I am not claiming that Judaism should be a civilization that includes a religion; rather, I am pointing out that historically, this in fact is what it always has been. RK

"Religion" & Wikipedia

I think that this discussion reveals two issues that any encyclopedia article must be sensitive to. The first point is a general issue, albeit one I think many Jews would be especially sensitive to: that "religion" -- and I do not mean a particular religion or even a particular definition of religion, but rather the notion that the word religion, however defined, refers to a specific semantic domain -- is a social construct. In Western/Christian society, religion refers to an institution, including particular beliefs and practices, that are considered distinct from other institutions. But this may not be and indeed is not true for all cultures. Some cultures do not distinguish between "religion" and other domains. And I think that for most of its history, and even today for most Jews, this is true of Judaism. Even to ask "What is Jewish religion" or "How do we describe the religion of the Jews" can be anachronistic and ethnocentric questions.

My point: Wikipedia should not assume that every society has a "religion" that can and should be identified as such and be described. Anyone about to research or write about another society must first ask, does this society distinguish between religious and other institutions (beliefs/practices)? Or does it map its life and world in other ways? As Danny and RK both attest, in general, Judaism does not identify any semantic domain to be "religion;" it is not a meaningful distinction within Jewish culture and to read it into Jewish culture (at least for most of its history) could only lead to misunderstanding. (I think there are good reasons for Jews to be especially sensitive to this, but I will hold off until later so as not to create an unnecessary distraction.)

The second point is particular to Jews, although perhaps relevant to other peoples. Jews have been living in Europe since Roman times, if not since Alexander. Consequently, European culture and history has affected our own. By the 19th century the distinction between secular and religious had become very important in European society, and we should not therefore be surprised that some Jews came to ask "What is Jewish Religion" and other Jews asked "What are the possibilities for a non-religious Judaism?" I believe that the Reform and Orthodox movements grew out of attempts to define what a "Jewish Religion" would be, and as Danny points out, Zionism and other modern Jewish movements often defined themselves as non- or anti-religion. As a matter of fact, I believe that the process began with Napolean's Sanhedrin. I believe he asked Jews if they could possibly be both Jewish and French. Today one can say "yes" and appeal to some notion of multi-culturalism. But back then, the only way to say "yes" was to distinguish between nationality and religion; to say that Jews are Frenchpeople who practice a particular religion. In other words, yes, the distinction between religion and not-religion became important. I think Danny raised some points that an article should address. I suggest only that these points be framed appropriately, in terms of recent changes in how Jews have come to understand themselves that owe laregly to changes in the non-Jewish world.

Christianity

Here is why I, and perhaps other Jews, are especially sensitive to this issue. Christianity, at least for a very long time, defined itself as the fulfilment of Biblical religion, heirs to the covenant God made with Jews. To make this claim Christian theologians had to explain why there were Jews who were not Christian. Among other things, this requires a separation between "Jews" and "Jewish Religion." I know I am inviting confusion, because whatever contributors to this discussion think, I believe all of them understand "Jewish religion" to refer to the religion of Jews. Nevertheless, for early Christians, real Judaism was something that Christians practice, and non-Christian Jews had mistakenly turned their backs on their own Messiah, covenant with God, and God. It is perhaps here that a distinction between "religion" and "culture" first appears.

There has already been a lot of discussion about Christian anti-semitism, and I really do not want to reintoriduce controversy after there has been so much often constructive discussion. My point is simply that howevermuch a Christian may abhor anti-semitism and even anti-Judaism, they must be sensitive about how certain claims they make affect Jews. I think the question here over distinguishing between Jewish religion and Jewish culture raises the spectre of a secular form of a discourse that, in Christian form, seemed to Jews to be anti-semitic.

I am not claiming that the distinction between Jewish culture and Jewish religion is in and of itself anti-semitic, or will invite anti-semitism. I am just trying to explain why imposing on Jews a distinction that they themselves do not make can make Jews very very squeamish. But perhaps I speak only for myself... SR

Somebody moved the article to the singularized form. I moved talk for them. --maveric149

Karl Marx

I removed Karl Marx from the list of famous Jews. Because even thou he was born as a Jew his family abandoned the Jewish way of living, like many jews did in the beginning of the 19th century, and Karl Marx lived his life as a "normal" german. I think he was an atheist too.

Sorry if I added this reply wrong... There was no Reply-button anywhere to be found so I edited the page source.. Could anyone tell me how to do it? --BL

The replies should be appended to the end of the talk page. The page speaks about "ethnic" Jews, and Karl Marx obviously was one, even if he chose to stay away from Judaism. --Uri

There are many definitions on what a jew are. But the most important thing must be if you count yourself as a jew or not. Karl Marx didn't, he practice any jewish customs and he didn't believe in the jewish religion. He stayed away from all sorts of religion therefore he cannot be called a jew.

Just because his parents where practicing jews doesn't make him one. Even Hitler had "jewish blood" in his veins and if heritage is the most important factor then certainly he should also be called a jew? --BL

I understand what you are saying, but you are mistakenly assuming that a Jew is a believer in thr religion called Judaism. Jews themselves say that this is not so. Jews have always held themselves not to be a religious group, but rather a loose ethnic group with a common religion, history, language and culture. Even Orthodox Jews hold this way. Thus, a Jewish person who does not hold by the Jewish faith is still considered a Jew. RK

I understand what you are saying to I think.

Jews have always held themselvs not to be a religious group, but rather a loose ethnic group with a common religion, history, language and culture.

This is NOT the case with Karl Marx, he didn't share the jewish culture and in his life he had as much association with the jewish culture as any other german or englishman (or internationalist as he called himself). He just wasn't a jew any way you put it. --BL

Karl Marx's parents & Christianity

The point is, according to Jewish Law, he was Jewish, for his mother was Jewish. To include Marx on the list is not to say something about Marx, it is to say something about "Jewishness," something that many non-Jews do not understand. For Jews Jewishness is not about "blood," because even were your entire father's side of the family Jewish, most Jews would not consider you Jewish, not even half-Jewish. Nor is it about faith, for no matter what you believed, unless you were born of a Jewish mother or converted, you are not Jewish. This notion of Jewish identity simply does not fit easily into non-Jewish (Christian/racial) notions of identity.
That said, I think BL is simply wrong to speak for Marx so definitively. in the 18th Brumaire Marx wrote that "The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a mountain on the mind of the living;" it is at least possible that the man who wrote that believed that the identity of his parents and grandparents and great-grandparents were of some relevance to him. Certainly others identified him as a Jew: when he took over the editoship of the Rheinische Zeitung G. Mevissen remarked that "his restless Jewish penetration pushed every proposition of Young Hegelian doctrine to its final conclusion..." In 1843, while in Cologne, the Jewish community asked Marx for his help in presenting a parliamentary petition on behalf of the Jews and Marx agreed. Although he distanced himself from Jews in other ways, was his support due to some sense of lingering identification, or political opportunism, or a more ecumenical spirit? I do not know. All I conclude is that "Jewish identity" for the son of a convert in Germany in the 1840s was probably something more complicated than anything we might experience today, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance of Jewish identity for Marx. Slrubenstein

"Most Jews would not consider..." - this is questionable nowadays, at least in North America. Not only does Reform Judaism acknowledge patrilineal descent - most observant Conservative Jews do, in practice, if studies published in _Conservative Judaism_ are to be believed.

Definitions

So far we have came to these points that I think we all can agree on:

1. In all Jewish litterature and writings, a Jew is defined as a person who's mother is a Jew or has converted.

2. Marx mother and father was a jewish.

3. The only way to "get out" of being a Jew is to convert to another religion. 

http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4251.htm
This is incorrect. A Jew who converts to another religion is considered an apostate, and no longer a member of the Jewish community. However, the person is still considered a Jew, and if they repudiate their new religion, they are always welcome to return to the Jewish people. They do not need to "convert" back to Judaism, because they still are a Jew. RK

4. We also know that Marx was not religious, he did not worship anything.

Belief has nothing to do with one's status as a Jew. Many atheists are Jews; many atheists, in fact, are members of synagogues! While this would be incomprehensible to a Christian for Muslim, it makes perfect sense for Jews, since Judaism isn't a religion. Rather, it is an evolving religious civilization, and if one happens to be an atheist, he/she can still be a member of the Jewish community. Judaism isn't a religion in the modern western understanding of the word, and attempts to present it as one always end up in confusion. RK

Heinrich Marx, Karl's father, converted to lutheranism 1817 (KM was born 1818). KM himself was baptized 1824 (http://www.raptureinfo.com/marx.htm) but that does not constitute as a conversion. Christianity is different from Judaism in that that you have to belive in God to be titled as a Christian. Did Marx identify himself as a Jew? We dont know, the closest thing we come to an answer is "On The Jewish Question" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ But that article doesn't give us any clues to wheter Marx identified himself with the Jews or not.

In his adult life Marx never did convert, so according to the Jewish definition of a Jew he WAS a Jew. But that is the Jewish POV, in this case the definition and reality goes apart. We don't call Hitler a Jew even if one of his grandparents was one. Same reasoning applies to Marx. To summarize: It is a matter of definitions, the definition I use with which I replied and I think most readers not versed in Judaism uses versus the Jewish definition. Anyway, to me, calling Marx "a famous Jew" really gives the wrong impression of Marx. :-) --BL

I think the problem is that the definition of "Jew" is so fluid. In fact, this often leaves people falling between the cracks. Is it a religion? Is it an ethnicity? I think it is both and neither. Unfortunately, perhaps the best way to determine whether someone is a Jew is to see how anti-Semites consider them. For example, Edith Stein was a Catholic nun who died in Auschwitz because she was also a Jew. If Judaism is an ethnicity, Marx was Jewish. If it is defined by way of anti-Semitism, Marx is certainly Jewish too. If it is purely religious, then plenty of other people considered Jews would not be Jewish either. Still, the real question for me is: what does it really matter? How important is it? Not very. I would just drop the whole question. Finally, what is this bs about Hitler's grandfather? Danny



I should add the following remark. In some sense everybody should be considered a Jew how was identified as such by the Nurenberg law and was (is) a subject of persecution by antisemits. Probably the only appropriate definition is the operational one used in sociology: a person is Jewish (Gypsy etc.) if either he identifies himself so or his environment considers him to be that. (It is independent of the fact whether he is accepted to become a member of a Jewish religious community.) [Prof. I.M. Budapest, Hungary]


Something on my mind, Can anyone be born a Jew since Judaism is a religion not a race doesn’t one have to choose Judaism in order to become a Jew ,as a Muslim chooses Islam and a Christian chooses Jesus? 68.44.153.204 The Web

Talmud & Yisrael (Israelite) & Orthodoxy

The Talmud has a definite opinion on the word Jew. The word Yisrael is used to denote somebody who may marry into Judaism but is not necessarily Jewish in any other way. Judaism is a religion. Israelism is a culture. Of course, religious Jews have a culture distinct from non-religious Jews, but it is subordinate to their religion.

I take issue with nearly all the editing, but I will point out some clear problems. For one thing, as being born of a Jewish mother is a requirement for Jewishness is stated in the Talmud, your Russian theory is pure hogwash, and defammatory. Any glossing over the legal requirements of becoming a Jew reduces Jewishness to being a club, and is definitely not the Orthodox opinion and is therefore not neutral from an Orthodox point of view. Calling any halachic requirement traditional is also anti-orthodox as according to orthodoxy it is much more than traditional, it is heresy to deny the requirement. Calling Judaism an ethnicity also waters down Judaism and it must be very explicitly pointed out that there are very strong opinions about that. Ezra Wax 


    Interesting.  Where does the name Judea come from.  The TRIBE of Judah, one of the 12 tribes.  So what you are saying is that all other tribes are not Jews?  I believe that all Jews are Isrealites but not all Isrealites are Jews. Unless you take the stand depicting the name change to Israel, then all tribes are indeed Isrealites.  You have the other tribes that were distinct in their own strengths and weakness, but when a few of the other tribes stayed back with the Tribe of Judah, they maintained a way of life passed down through the ages. My question to you is "to what tribe do you really belong to?" Are you from the Tribe of Asher, Benjamin, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon or Zebulun?  What about the two sons of Joseph who recieved two portions of land, one in the name of each of his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh?  Another question, you see throughout Torah, blessings are given to the sons of Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jacob. Were there Jews in those times?  What were the ethnic labels of Abraham and the others?  I am of the belief that Torah was for all who hear the Word of our Creator.  That includes all strangers of the land who converted to accept the teachings of Torah.  The issue may be that in Torah it is written in D'Varim "In order to obey the mitzvot of Adonai, the G d which I am giving you, DO NOT ADD to what I am saying, and DO NOT SUBTRACT from it", " Everything I am commanding you, you are to take care to do.  DO NOT ADD to it or SUBTRACT from it."  or in Proverbs "DON"T ADD anything to HIS words; or HE will rebuke you, and you be found a liar".  What about the book of  Joshua, "Only be strong and very bold in taking care to follow ALL the TORAH which Moshe my servant ordered you to follow; do not turn from it either to the right or to the left; they you will succeed wherever you go.  Yes, keep this book of the TORAH on YOUR lips, and meditate on it day and night, so that you will take care to act according to everything written in it".  
    In studying thr Torah, I have found no evidence of keeping the Talmud over Torah.  Could the Talmud possibly be a philosophical approach as to how Torah should be kept? If so who was the originator of it?  As yo stated in your opening statement "The Talmud has a definite opinion on the word Jew".  THAT is exactly right, an OPINION.  I am Sephardim studying Torah.  No doubt that there are religious Jews and secular Jews, but one thing is for sure, as pupils "in tent" let us not take offense to the cultural idealism and focus on what is written in TORAH and 'Hear and Obey" what the Hand of our Creator passed down through Moshe. שלום.

Objections & policies

Ezra, you are totally wrong on many points.
  • (1) I didn't write that nonsense Russian theory; of course it must be removed.
  • (2) You don't understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy at all. It does not mean that everyone must agree with the text. Frankly, rewriting the article to your quasi-Orthodox standards is an explicit violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is forbidden.
  • (3) Attacking Wikipedia contributors as promoters of "heresy" is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV standards.
  • (4) You plainly are not even familiar with Orthodox Judaism; all Orthodox rabbis explicitly teach that Judaism is 'not a religion, and that a Jewish person who loses his/her faith in Judaism is still a Jew. You truly seem unfamiliar with the Orthodox position, and totally unaware of all other points of view.
  • (5) You keep rewriting this article to use 4th century Aramiac terminolgy. That also is a violation of our English-Wikipedia policy. We are obligated to write our articles with an eye towards a 21st century English-speaking audience, and we must explain not only how certain terms were used in the past, but also how such terms are used in the present. You keep using obscuere definitions of "Israelite" and "Jew" that are no longer used today. In fact, even Orthodox Jews do not use this terminology. Frankly, it seems as if you have very little knowledge of any denomination of Judaism, and are intent on rewriting things in your image. Please stop. RK 23:30 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting discussion. How can I be of help? -豎&#30505sv

Mere belief in Judaism does not make one Jewish

Unlike the common Western conception of membership of a religion, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence to Jewish principles of faith does not make one lose one's Jewish status.

I don't think the first sentence is an accurate statement. In fact, this is exactly like the common Western conception of membership of a religion -- mere belief in the principles of Roman Catholicism, or Greek Orthodoxy, or Lutheranism, or Mormonism, does make one a Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, or Mormon -- one must convert. The second sentence is true (you can be excommunicated for non-adherance, if severe enough), but I think also true for at least some Jews -- some ultra-Orthodox Jews have been known to question whether secular Jews should be considered Jewish. --Delirium 08:23 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Text has been changed to address this, so ignore this comment now. --Delirium 19:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews/Archive_1&oldid=1133333415"