Talk:Forbidden relationships in Judaism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the concluding admin also stated:

There is a clear consensus to keep this article, although a difference of opinion on whether to merge the content of another article to it or to merge it with something else. This is an editorial decision though that can and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and does not influence the AFD's outcome. As such, closing this AFD as "keep" does not mean consensus is against merging anything anywhere.

To read the discussion so far about merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism, further comments should be made below.

Merging[edit]

I'd like to point out that if no-one makes further comments about the merge, I'll do it myself, and without further guidance I won't be doing anything except basically almost entirely converting it to a redirect. Newman Luke (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge Arayot into here? This is the better title on the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that everyone else's opinion too? Newman Luke (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus about a merge, let alone about which direction it should go. I personally would be bold, and see what people would do. Even if the direction were to be reverted later, the merge would stay, one way or the other. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the merge would be not much more than a redirect, if the direction were to be into Arayot. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. The arayot are not specified there so much. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what it seems to me is basically, delete this article, and then move Arayot here. Newman Luke (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe there should be an English title, either way. The term "Arayot" is not one a lot of observant Jewish people know, let alone gentile English speakers. I am an Orthodox Jew with a Jewish education, yet I never heard the term. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must be quite unusual that an Orthodox Jew does not know of one of the only three things (idolary, murder, and gillui arayot) that Orthodox Judaism says a Jew must never do, even to the point of dying rather than transgressing the prohibition on them. I find that a very odd state of affairs, given how much something that important would most likely be drummed into them, repeatedly, through their parents and Jewish schooling. I wonder what the reason for that is? Newman Luke (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know these concepts, and in fact, I have contributed to the articles about them. It is just the Hebrew terminology I am less familiar with. The same is true for much of my family and friends, mostly Modern Orthodox Jews. We all know it in English but not Hebrew. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two articles. The result is definitely more complete than either of the two articles were before, but still needs to be completed in some sections. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But now the article is completely incorrect. All forbidden reltionships are treated as Arayot. Can you fix this?Mzk1 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbianism[edit]

Who is this Rabbi Eisenberg and how does he override a clear statement of the Shulchan Aruch? (Yes, I know the source rules. But there is a lot of nonsense out there.) Also see the main article, which also contradicts this.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I solved the issue with my edit. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it doesn't really clarify, unless you mean the prohibition is Rabbinical. (P.S. Nice to meet you.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to meet you too. Yes, this prohibition is rabbinical. Feel free to rephrase it if that wasn't clear enough. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know more about this than I do. Where is this from? (P.S. I know I just made a number of unsourced edits. I will fix this very soon; it's not like sources for this are hard to find.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it in the Rambam, Issurei Bi'ah 21:8. Same in the Shulchan Oruch (who quotes that Rambam) in Even Ho'ezer 20:2. There it looks as a biblical prohibition, on first glance, but nowhere have I seen anything explicit, and I can see arguments to say it is rabbinical as well. I haven't seen the source in the article. In conclusion, I take back my previous words, that the prohibition is rabbinical, because I am not sure any more. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., rewrote it. What do you think? Also, if I rewrite the page (someday), do you think the lists should be removed? They can always open a Bible if they want the full listing. The Arayot should defifinitely be separated out in their own section.Mzk1 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rewrote it well. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is in a separate section as it is. the argument that they can always open a bible, is not a good argument for an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I will not undo your revert. The reason I wrote it was that traditional Judaism does not require reasons. I thought this was a vanilla way of saying this, particularly without a source on my part. Otherwise, someone will say - the reason does not apply, therefore -. Do you have better phrasing?
Regarding the list, perhaps the list of Arayot and Sheniyot should be put into a sub-srticle; that would hopefully not have the objections of the orgiginal separation. Without checking carefully, I think the list of Sheniyot here is not inclusive, and the full list is I think too long to put here. I would also like to rewrite some of the relations in Arayot in simpler English, without forcing Halacha's iterpretation on the verse - which also should be mentioned. Good Shabbos.Mzk1 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a list it has no chance of standing on its own. Better keep it as part of this article. Which is after all about the same subject. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. Just one last thing, as I guess I don't understand the concept. (This is long-term anyway.) There are, I think, over 20 Shniyot. Wouldn't this make the article rather long? I see all kind of lists of actors in some series and things like that? Why wouldn't this be the same?Mzk1 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list is not what makes an article long. The definition of long is somewhere over 35kb, which means we measure characters, not length on the paper. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Step-sister[edit]

In correcting the list taken from Leviticus, I tried to stick to the literal meaning, leaving interpretation for afterwards. I note that the original had a step-sister. Step-sisters are permitted in Jewish law. I suppose someone interprets it this way because a sister is already mentioned; the Rabbis have their own interpretation. (I may have slightly gone against it in the list, but the end result is the same.) Looking at the main article, which is quite secular, I only see a Karatite view prohibiting a step-sister. Does anyone know where this is from? Mzk1 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf-mute[edit]

(Mostly to DeBresser) Regarding the last revert, I felt it important because people with the handicap might take offense; there are in fact several opinions as to what constitutes a cheresh (and possibly even a shoteh) today. The original was worse, "completely forbidden" - not only untrue but contradicted by its own source. (I can't believe I'm quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia. At least it wasn't the Jewish Virtual Library - you might as well quote someone's blog. There is a definite problem with the over-dependance on Internet sources.)

I would think "it should be noted", is not different from other things I have seen in Wikipedia, and certainly not in real encyclopedias. Do you have a better phrase, assuming I get a good source? I have some handicap in the area as I live in Haifa, but I have at least one idea. I thought about it and it was the best I could think of.

Regarding Sheniyot, I would not put a list, as I found the main article, and they claim there are various opinions; there may be truth to this, in spite of their angle. (I did make a very slight correction there.)

Do you think that I should check with you (no one else seems interested) before posting? I have no problem with your reverts, but I'm not sure you like what I'm trying to do.Mzk1 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be bothered by what I or any other editor might or might not like. You are obviously working to improve this article along the guidelines of Wikipedia, and that is all that matters to me. I did notice that apart from the two of us there aren't many other editors actively involved in what is going on on this page. If you want to have broader input, perhaps post a short notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism.
Instead of "It should be noted that such and such" it is more encyclopedical to say "such and such" straightforward.
After your explanation I would have no problems with it if you would return a sentence like the one I removed. Although I don't think it is necessary, or even advisable, at least as long as there is no reference to a source detailing the opinions. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you. That was nice of you to say.Mzk1 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting[edit]

A couple of people have taken upon themselves to unilaterally (bilaterally) rewute the entire article to suit themselves, without any discussion at all.

Let's take an example:

"The more popular forms of modern Judaism - Reform, Progressive (known in the USA as Reconstructionist), and Liberal". All right, any statistics here? How are you counting? Are you arbitrarily putting different groups together? Is "Orthodox" only observant? (What if we applied that rule to Catholics?) We have about five, six million Jews here in Israel, almost all de facto Orthodox, whether or not they believe or observe.

If they don't believe or observe then as far as statistics are concerned they aren't. Sticking a sign on a guy saying "woman" doesn't make them one. If they don't support the Orthodox view, then regardless of the label, they still don't support the Orthodox view. Ethnic backgrounds are irrelevant; this material is about what is believed. The National Jewish Population Survey, for example, had Orthodox Judaism down at less than 16%, that's pretty definitely a minority by most people's standards. For comparison, Reform was at 38%. And for the record, it doesn't suit me at all, but it is important to flag that the material following the statement is NOT the view of most Jews - just the view of a specific minority. Otherwise it has undue weight, and that would be a bad thing. Newman Luke (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K, let's take it one-by-one.
In my example, I gave Catholics. A relative of mine is Catholic, divorced, and remarried. According to his religion, he is commiting adultery. Yet he is still Catholic. A chart published in the New York Times many years ago showed that Catholics had more abortions than Jews or Protestants. According to Catholicism (and Maimonidies) this is murder. But they are still Catholics.
The fact is that in spite of support from the courts beyond their numbers, the other denominations have never got far here. Even people who are secular, when they observe, they observe Orthodox. Leaving out the secular, we have Orthodox and Traditional, making up (there are lots of polls) perhaps 40 - 55% of the Jewish population of 5 - 6 million. That's more than 38% of the American population.
Worldwide, no-one has a majority. Who has a plurality? I don't know, and neither do you. Lumping together various groups seems POV.
Oh, one other thing. You give the Karaites top billing, even though there are relatively few left, then you put down the traditional viewpoint, even though it predominated for at least a thousand years. Which is it? Mzk1 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should avoid the word "popular". And I agree that Karaism receives too much attention on Judaism articles. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try another (leaving out that "in Later Judaism" is POV):

"In Orthodox Judaism, a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority, some of the relationships forbade by the bible are regarded as such serious wickedness that one should be willing to die, rather than commit them[49];"

This is a statement in the Talmud, not some late opinion. I suppose you will say it was clarified later. So, then, Maimonidies, for example, practiced "Orthodox Judaismm a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority", while Reconstructionist Judaism is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? All of these definitions are POV.

If its in the Talmud, where's the cite for it? Where's the cite for the bit of the Talmud that says that - not something vaguely similar or more general - but specifically that? I'm fine with the claim that its in the Talmud, but that needs to be cited for before the article can claim it is.
But if its only clarified later then its not clarified in the Talmud, is it? So you can't legitimately claim that it is. You can only say that so-and-so interpreted/instructed-that/declared the Talmud to mean - you have to say who it was, you can't attribute it directly to the Talmud. Newman Luke (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 74, to start. There are others. It wasn't hard to find; open Maimonidies, check the commentaries. But that wasn't my point. My point was that the law was misrepresented as some late, minority opinion within Rabbinic Judaism, which is false. By clarified I meant not that it wasn't clear, but that one can find many opinions in the Talmud.
Which is where I get to the definitions, which seem POV. Are you claiming that Refrom is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? Are you saying the Maimonidies was Orthodox? (Fine with me, but I want that clarified.) Reform does not accept the Torah as absolute, much less the Talmud.
You could have said, "Traditional Judaism says that the prohibitions in Leviticus are so severe that one must die rather than violate them. Today, most Jews do not follow Traditional Judaism." I don't know that I would have objected to that, and it would have made the same point. (However, you would then have to qualify lots of other things. Best to put the disclaimer in one place.)Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows (or should know, and that is why they are linked) what the various forms of Judaism are. Apart from that, Orthodox Judaism is the source from which all other modern forms of Judaism (excluding Karaism) developed/branched off. A schism that is still in the process of enlarging. As such, Orthodox Judaism has been more longlived, more influential, and more distinct, than those modern movements. It is therefore a good idea to clarify its points of view first and foremost. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I want the traditional view to be the only one stated? No, but I want it to be clear so someone interested can find it, and I want some balance. Mzk1 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Just one user.Mzk1 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I recommend this page stay protected until a decent discussion takes place. Personally, I have spent hours researching small changes only to see one or two people rewrite it to suit their own personal prejudices.

Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes. Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.

Can someone tell me where things go from here? Mzk1 (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the goal of the protection is to be sure that discussion occurs. Please make a proposal for how you think the page should be changed. If you think your small changes were valid, but were overridden, you could mention a couple of them here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, Mzk1, the protection is for a short while. Also fortunately, if the edit warring continues after the block is lifted, the warring editors will probably be blocked for awhile. I think everybody hopes that the editors involved with this article will come back to the discussion page and talk about the changes they want to make, so that they all can come to a consensus. I've seen this happen before as long as all editors keep in mind that the main thrust is the improvement of this article, and WP!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. My point is that he re-wrote the entire article without discussing it. Debresser reverted, and then, I believe, policy is that we now discuss it and then make changes. But the questions is, where do we start from? Do we start from the original article, or do we start from the NL's rewrite and have to defend every departure from it? I know that the article was flawed, I was working to slowly improve it, and NL is certainly welcome to callaborate, but he is trying to take personal posession of it. There is also the issue of TONE. Mzk1 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it another way. If NL comes back, as I expect, and again rewrites the article before discussing it, then what? Can I revert? Will I get blocked if I do? Mzk1 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is the age-old struggle between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, plus the requirement for WP:CONSENSUS to consider here. The idea is to preserve all good content while ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and that any new content added is also reliably sourced. If NL comes back after protection is lifted and resumes editing without discussion and without reliably sourcing his edits, then it is incumbent upon other involved editors to take action. Again, I'm hoping it does not come to this, but rather, I'd like to see NL bring his ideas to the discussion page so they can be subject to consensus among yourself and other involved editors.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss sourcing, its in the edit history. I deliberately made clear in the edit history what the sources were, so that you could answer your own questions about that instead of asking me them. They are, mentioned here for your ease (not that its difficult to look in the reference section of the article, or down the edit summary in the history), almost entirely mainstream encyclopedias, used in, among other areas, university theology, and mainly public domain too. All of them recognised as reliable sources, and all of the public domain ones the basis for many many pre-existing wikipedia articles.
"My point is that he re-wrote the entire article without discussing it."
Here's a suitable quote from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles:
So according to the official policy, anyone claiming that consensus is needed before huge changes is committing "ownership behaviour", which the policy condemns.
Making lots of edits is NOT taking personal possession of an article. Its just making lots of edits. Trying to take personal possession is when you claim that people need to get approval from you before they make lots of edits.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for reversion. Blanket reverting is unacceptable. It says that in the WP:REVERT policy. Reverting anything other than simple vandalism is inappropriate.
Now you state Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes., so if you don't want people to fix it up or add that material, how exactly do you think its going to get there?.
You also state Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.. Now if you think about it, that applies more to the reverters than I - I haven't refused to discuss anything, in fact I've repeatedly asked debresser to point to specific content he feels is factually inaccurate, or specific edits he thinks violate policy or are otherwise inappropriate. It is Debresser who has refused to discuss these things and reverted regardless. Newman Luke (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Newman Luke, I would like to assume good faith on your part, but you don't make it easy. Perhaps you can focus me in on these places where you've tried to get Debresser to discuss and he's refused? I can find nothing like that on this Talk page where it should be found.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Newman Luke - I've highlighted the multiple requests there in bold, so they are easy to find. I'm glad you can see there's no comment by Debresser on the talk page - the first place he should have raised any issue on content. I find it strange you don't complain to him about not using this page to discuss his issues before, or even after, blanket reverting. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concerns I (and others) have are of a general nature, and since you have made edits (or rather rewrites) to a few Judaism related articles at the same time, I added my opinion to a previously existing post about you on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:Newman_Luke, and left you a note on your talk page. So please do not say I didn't take you to the discussion table. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How material should get into an article is by "collaboration". It says so in that policy you cited above. The example you give is, I believe, misunderstood by you, by the way. If one editor were to say to you, "You must get a consensus!" then YES, you could argue "ownership". However when more than one editor is saying that you need consensus before making sweeping changes, this constitutes a desire for a collaborative effort. So you cannot raise the issue of ownership here because it does not apply!
WP:OWN applies to a gang of multiple editors too - see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#multiple editors. The examples there apply to multiple editors, not just one. Here is what it says constitute ownership behaviour:
so according to the official policy, you're committing ownership behaviour, which is forbade. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, one editor making lots of edits without collaboration and consensus is most assuredly that editor trying to take control and ownership of the article. When other editors who are also involved in the improvement of this article say to you, get a consensus first, or they outright revert you, this means that you are flagrantly disregarding their opinions. That's acting like an "owner", isn't it?
On the other editors part, it is. Not on mine. Here's another example of what WP:OWN says constitutes ownership behaviour:
again, you're committing what WP:OWN says is ownership behaviour. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus: There are several involved editors who want to have a say in any changes made to this article. It is a controversial subject, and so cooperative collaboration among involved editors becomes paramount to the improvement of such an article. Please discuss the changes you want to make here on this talk page before you make them.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind people having a say, the only one who has though is Mzk1. Absolutely the only person who's asked anything about the actual specific edits is Mzk1. And I've responded to that. Now if all you are going to do is make general complaints about the editor, then you really shouldn't be here. Here's another quote from WP:OWN:
I suggest you do so. Its official policy. Newman Luke (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not simply edit. You reverted. You erased things on which there was discussion and consensus on this page without discussing further. (Ironically, the consensus was not my opinion.) For example, the list of Arayot, which I questioned at first, and then carefully edited to be NPOV, not traditional (mother-in-law) or otherwise (step-sister). You just threw it out (=reverted, look it up), without discussion. I also wanted to make sweeping changes, but did not because I wanted consensus and good sources.Mzk1 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check my edits fully, you'll see that I actually erased extremely little. The incest-relationships - there's already a full detailed article for that, this article doesn't need to go into it in detail, and to do so would be a violation of WP:FORKING; at the same time, it needs to comply with Wikipedia:Summary style in relation to that topic. That's the change I made there, its how policy says an article should be.Newman Luke (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sweeping editorial changes with little or no concern for the opinions of other editors is what is against policy here. However, I shall take your good advice from this point onward if you will do same. I shall stop addressing your actions and begin discussing topics. There are several concerns from other editors expressed on this Talk page, especially in the next section. Thank you very much for getting back to basics and for your concerns regarding the improvement of this and related articles!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the 'other editors' wrote what was here before in the first place too, 'they' happen to be mainly me. Debresser/etc. may have moved it to this article from the one that was merged into it, but I was the one who originated that text. So the thing being changed was mainly my own work - the main person whose opinion might have been affected by my changes to their edits was actually in fact me. But regardless of that, sweeping change is not against policy. Claiming that sweeping change needs advanced consent is against policy - its explicitly denounced in WP:OWN. Newman Luke (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the changes; it's that you refused to follow BRD.Mzk1 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to start a discussion[edit]

(To NL) If possible, I would like to write the article together. We have different sources and types of knowledge, and perhaps we can collaborate. I do not mean just us, but no-one else has seemed interested.

I should point out that the article is "in Judaism", not "in the Bible", or in "among the ancient Hebrews". Therefore, if you wish to include something, it should be something that, in context, is Judaism. Furthermore, Judaism is what is (or was), not what one thinks it should be.

One last thing. The Bible should not be used as a source unless the interpretation is clear and non-controversial, or unless one is stating that the literal meaning is given. Otherwise we have OR, as the Bible is a primary source. I suppose that would apply to the Talmud also, but I am not sure.

Following are my reasons for giving a prominent place to the traditional viewpoint:

1. It is the law of the land for the five to six million Jews of Israel, if they wish to get married here, excepting the small number of Karaites and Samaritans. Whether everyone likes it or not, this is a fact, and most people eventually do get married here. I suspect this is also true in the rest of the Middle East (Lebanon, for example) where there is no civil marriage.

2. It predominated in Jewish life for over a thousand years, to the point where the start is controversial. (I think it is telling that Josephus states that almost everyone followed the Pharisees, but we needn't go back that far.)

3. This specific topic is pretty clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement on the major issues. This is as opposed to opinions on earlier times, where all is basically speculation (the exception being the Karaites and perhaps the Samaritans).

4. Other viewpoints with a large following often start from the traditional viewpoint. In spite of attacks on the EJ and JE (encyclopedias) as being anti-traditional, the traditional view is given a prominent place there.

5. In spite of erosion, the traditional view is still one of the largest among practicing Jews, and an even larger practice (when they practice) according to it (see above). It is also the only one that is world-wide.

In order to discuss (assuming you wish to do that), it would help if I understood what you are talking about.

Who (what groups at what times) do you include within Orthodox Judaism? Within Rabbinic Judaism? Within Talmudic Judaism?

Thank you.Mzk1 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One note on the opening paragraph. I do not see how the Karaite interpretation is prominent enough to put in the opening paragraph. Karaism is very small currently; furthermore, at various points and places in history, the Karaites did not call themselves Jews. I am not saying to leave it out of the article.Mzk1 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if consensus is impossible, I suppose separate pages on traditional and other viewpoints are possible. I suspect that the laws of the State of Israel are at least as important as the sonic screwdriver.Mzk1 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concerns raised by Mzk1, specifically 1. This is an article about Judaism, and should use sources and language that show precisely that. 2. We should use more relevant (=normative) sources than the Torah. 3. Karaism is overly present in Judaism articles. It definitely has no place in the lede of any general Judaism article. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to speak for a moment about other viewpoints.

I am not clear on how relevant the Critical viewpoint is to Judaism, as opposed to Biblical study. It is relevant to the more recent denominations, provided they make use of it - but this has to be shown. Other than that, it does not appear relevant at least as far back as the Hasmoneans. Before that, the critical viewpoint (unlike the traditional) considers the Bible to be late and not necessarily either historical or universally followed. So exactly where does it impact on actual Judaism as believed or practiced? More specifically, for NL or others wishing to present this viewpoint, how long do you contend this sort of Judaism existed, and how widespread was it among the Jews? Would you even call it Judaism? I am not being ironic - I am asking.

Regarding the more recent denominations, I am not the one to add their viewpoints, but I welcome others to do so, so as to make the article complete. But it is kind of hard to determine what they are. Even if you have a resolution or ruling from the CCAR, this only applies to the U.S. Of course, this does not mean that an attempt should not be made. (This is as opposed to the traditional viewpoint, where there has been unaminity on most general issues of this topic for a long time.) Mzk1 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to make a point about the one issue we did have a discussion about, above. I fear I have forgotten Hanlon's Razor (modified), and assumed malice where the cause was lack of knowledge. The category of things that one gives up one's life for is called "yahoreg v'al ya'avor". This is so basic in Jadaism, that it is now an expression in modern secular Hebrew; my Moslem boss uses it. (Easy to provide a cite; just check a dictionary.) What I am saying is the the new editor does not have the background to describe the traditional viewpoint, just as I do not have the background to describe the non-traditional one. Thus the need for collaboration.Mzk1 (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Primary/Secondary Sources. I agree that the Bible is a primary source, but I haven't used it as one. The source I used, a secondary source, refers to the Bible, and for that matter the Talmud, and I have simply preserved those references. Its obvious that the same rule applies to the Talmud - that its almost entirely a primary source; the only thing its a secondary source for is biblical exegesis.
(B.1) Israel is not Judaism and Judaism is not Israel. This isn't Forbidden relationships in Israel, its forbidden relationships in Judaism. So Israel's policy does not get pride of place here. And even then you note the exception of Karaites, who are Jews as far as Wikipedia's (R)NPOV policy is concerned
(B.2) It may have escaped your notice, but Josephus died centuries before the Mishnah was written, well over 300 years before the Gemara(s). There is no hard evidence that what the Jews in his time did corresponds precisely with the policy of the later Mishnah/Gemara; that is only the view of some Jewish denominations, and it wouldn't be compliant with NPOV to claim that they did.
(B.3) It may be clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement but this isn't Forbidden relationships in traditional Judaism, the title actually covers all forms of Judaism, and that includes not only Karaites, but also Cochin, Liberal, Mountain, Mizrahi, Reform, Sephardi, etc. as well. Plus all the different views of what constitutes traditional Judaism. For example, the Shulchan Aruch wasn't written 1000 years ago, so its proposals may be current now in so-called traditional Judaism but they weren't followed before it was written; maybe the Shulchan Aruch lines up perfectly with exactly what 99% of all Jews were doing just before it, but I doubt that, and regardless of my view you'd need evidence for the claim. Giving just one form, which is now a minority, the predominant position, is a massive contravention of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.
(B.4) I have never seen evidence for other views start[ing] from the traditional viewpoint. The fact that major Encyclopedias, including both Jewish Encyclopedias (the JE and EJ) don't is a good enough argument for me that wikipedia shouldn't either. The claim that both the EJ and JE are anti-traditional needs to be heavily backed up by evidence; remember, happens to contradict view X isn't even remotely the same as deliberately pushing an anti-X point of view. And the traditional view isn't actually given prominent place there; the JE articles are mainly organised in chronological order - bible -> talmud & rabbis of the middle ages -> modern. The structure there is more or less the same as I've put here.
(B.5) Reform & Liberal (Reconstructionist & Reform if you're in the US/Israel) combined form the majority viewpoint among practicing Jews. The last actual survey had Orthodox down at 16%; that's not a majority by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, non-practicing Jews are still Jews and they still have views.
(C) Ultimately it doesn't matter one jot who counts as Orthodox, or Rabbinic, or what else have you. Because discussing that, taking that into consideration, is original research. The only thinkg that matters is what the sources say. And they say that which I wrote.
Newman Luke (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about Judaism biblical criticism has no place, as it is a field of study, not part of a religion or any system of ethical values (as the definition of Judaism). At the same time, if there is any relevant information, it could perhaps be added in a separate section, because that is more practical. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this. Biblical Criticism is, in a sense, the speculation of a certain group of scholars about what Judasim once was. It should be noted that it predominates - perhaps wrongly - in a number of articles referenced from here. Could you clarify your point? (Just to clarify, I personally don't believe that Judaism was ever other than traditional, but my opinon is not relevant here.) Mzk1 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to clarify myself any better. As I see it religion and criticism of it are two different things. One is a matter of faith, the other of academic study. The study starts from the premises that the religion is based upon anything but Divine revelation. They study different things, addressing different questions. Therefore they are incompatible, and as such should be treated in separate articles. Debresser (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, you've confused what this is. I know you're a Rabbi, but Wikipedia is not a yeshiva, nor is it a how-to guide. Its an encyclopedia. Writing an article as if a faith is based on true Divine revelation is one of the most extreme violations of WP:NPOV I have ever seen proposed. Academic study is exactly what its for. Secondary sources, remember, are the ideal here, remember, not primary ones, voices looking at the religion, not those expressing it. Discussion by scholars about what Judaism was, or is, or will be, is exactly what is supposed to be in articles about Judaism. Newman Luke (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NL, I don't know why you suddenly decided to respond, after all of this time. I saw on your page that there is a complaint against you; I have never had responses from you in their absence.

Be that as it may, it is difficult to know what your sources are if you don't cite them in the article. If I don't see a source, I have to assume you made it up.

The JE is useless for predominent view among Jews, because the composition of the Jewish community today is completely different.

The people in Israel are Jews; you said as much. They seldom go to a non-Orthodox synagogue or practice any non-Orthodox form of Judaism. They have agreed, for whatever reason, political expediency included, to allow the "Orthodox monopoly".

I don't know what else to say, because you are continually using straw-man arguments; responding to anything other than what I actually said. I said you are arbitarily combining different viewpoints to make your majority, and you responded by doing just that. You say that there is no proof that Josephus was <<exactly>> the same as Talmudic Judaism (who said that?) . Yet find me a source that Reform Jews the world over have the <<exact>> same view on any matter of Jewish law. I said the U.S. is not the world, Israel is at least as big, and you repeat your aguments as if the U.S. is the world - and claim I said Israel was! You used the term "practicing" for reform, yet where are your statistics on what percentage of any group are "practicing"? And where are your world-wide statistics on anything? And if numbers TODAY are so important, why mention the Karaites?

Regarding the Shulchan Aruch, it is a continuation of a tradition. Look at the Mishnah Torah and see if it is a different one. The precise rulings are irrelevant. (Besides, the S.A. is largely based on it. The Shulchan Aruch does what an encyclopedia like JE (but not Wikipedia) is supposed to do; it synthesises earlier sources. And then it is peer-reviewed by the various commentaries on the page, which quote other opinions. I do not quote it without checking every single one; you get weighted opinions.) If you understood your sources, would you refer Talmudic statements here to the Talmud, there to the Middle Ages, and there to Orthodoxy? How did you come up with strange formulations like the Talmud says a Perutah and the later Rabbis said at least as much? Is that actually in a source?

The bottom line is that I wanted to work together and you say My Way or the Highway. My attempt to start a discussion appears to have failed.Mzk1 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject raised by Newman Luke is indeed a tricky one. So far there has been an unwritten consensus to regard Jewish scholars as secondary sources when discussing Halakha. This was mentioned once in a discussion I took part in, and met with agreement. It is reasonable, given the character of these works, which are written in the form of secondary sources. Anyway, this talk page is not where that should be discussed. If someone would want to raise that issue seriously, the logical place for it would be WikiProject Judaism. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he also appears to insist, without proof that his encyclopedias are secondary sources, which the policies do not say, and he has not given any proof that they are. But I fear he has gone from lack of knowledge to outright distortion. Look at this:
"It may be clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement but this isn't Forbidden relationships in traditional Judaism, the title actually covers all forms of Judaism, and that includes not only Karaites, but also Cochin, Liberal, Mountain, Mizrahi, Reform, Sephardi, etc. as well."
He is clearly stating that Cochin, Mountain, Mizrahi, and Sephardi Jews are not "traditional Judaism". But he MUST know that the Shulchan Aruch was written by a Sephardi, an actual Spanish exile. Ditto Maimonidies. Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews sit together on the Rabbinical courts of Israel. Rabbi Kapach the famous Yemenite translator of Jewish writings in Arabic, sat on the Rabbibical Court and continually rules that women were entitled to divorces based directly on Maimonidies; presumably the other two judges outvoted him. This is from in interview in the israeli newspaper B'Sheva a while back - with Rabbi Duchovsky, who (as the article explains) was not only almost Chief Rabbi, but refused a place on the SECULAR court system.
This is another distortion of the sources. The EJ introduces various local customs as a list of quaint customs. Yet he gives the customs of small ethnic groups undue weight. The funny part is where he introduces the common custom of "bedekin" as some Asian custom. Maybe I should upload my wedding pictures. :-) Mzk1 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for the page[edit]

(Does anybody use talk pages anymore?)

I see there is a new editor who is making some nice, organic fixes. I have some ideas for the page and would like to see what others think.

The main problem with the page (to me) is the mixing of Arayot and other relations in the header. I would like to put a header right under the intro called Arayot. This would have an explanation of what they are (the list in Lev.) and someting about terminology. Then a list of bullet points on what makes them unique, starting with the verse (Karet), and continuing through the Talmud (martyrdom, ability to kill the rapist), and then on (mamzer) and finally individual opinions (seconday prohibition being Biblical according the Maimonidies).

Then put Adultery, Incest, Niddah, etc. as subheadings.

I have a pretty good idea what to write, but I want to get the references together.

I would also like to modify the first paragraph to mention a little of the moral aspect (sanctity, from the text, Rashi, Maimonidies). This might be more controversial.

Any comments?Mzk1 (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that by far not all forbidden relations in Judaism are Arayot. If you are going to make that more clear, that can only be good. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intermarriage[edit]

"Religious intermarriage is forbidden in traditional Judaism." Is it allowed anywhere? I mean, officially? Debresser (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, unless you want to include the stuff in the JE that NL put in several places (and I am attempting to modify, help welcomed there) - perhaps that stuff is obsolete. Take it out if you wish. Mzk1 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be interested in how you view content from the JE. For example, if the JE contains material implying that there was a strong traditional opinion allowing Jewish-Christian intermarriage, or more-or-less stating that at the time of the Torah there was no such thing as conversion, how would one characterize the viewpoint, particularly to constrast it with the traditional one? The use of Rabbi Solomon Shechter almost make me characterize it (anachronistically) as a Conservative Jewish viewpoint. How should one treat such material? We have disagreed here before, and I would like your view.Mzk1 (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to see sources for such opinions. Conversion in Judaism dates back to the time of our forefathers, according to the religious traditions. If there were a movement in Judaism that would state such a thing (as those two examples you gave here), then we could mention it. If it were part of some Biblical criticism, then it could be brought in such an article. But otherwise, I see no way we can have such information in any article about Judaism. The first step in any case is finding a reliable source. Likely the nature of the source will make it easier to see where the information would fit in. Debresser (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to material where the source is Jewish Encyclopedia.Mzk1 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about sex outside of marriage, sex that is not adultery (i.e., "fornication" "impurity", or other)? And, Polygamy?[edit]

I skimmed the article, and it referred to many kinds of sexual relations. But I didn't see any reference to sex that is not: adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, rape, etc. Some people might call sex or physical intimacies "fornication", "impurity", sex outside of marriage, making out, petting, or something else. And there are also the topics of what constitutes sex or not, and whether or when masturbation is an issue. Are there separate articles for these? I at least didn't see any reference in this article to "fornication" or masturbation. I for one would be interested in Judaism views on these topics, but don't have knowledge expertise to add to the article. However, I do know that the Bible (Tanakh) refers to sex between unmarried men and women. However, if it is not coitus, does it affect one's status as a "virgin"? (which the Torah has laws regarding). The Bible (Tanakh, Torah) also refers to and permits both monogamy and polygamy (with a king not "multiplying wives" being referred to). Do other editors have knowledge of these various topics within Judaism? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is about relationships, not sex. Yes, we should have something about sex outside of marriage, concubines, and about kings also. The first is forbidden by rabbinical law. The second was practised in biblical times (their is a disagreement whether they have a ktuba or not), but not in our times. Include that their is a disagreement about the lawfulness of concubines in our times. The latter were allowed multiple wives, but with some restriction. If I have time, I'll do my best write something down. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For DeBresser:
I've long had an idea of how to resturcture this article, but have not managed to get to it. If anyone is interested...
Regarding outside marriage, I would put it this way (summarized), "The main issue with relations with an unmarried woman is that generally she does not go to the mikvah, and thus the serious (or ervah, if we mentioned it) prohibition of niddah is incurred.(ref-Shulchan Aruch on pilegesh) Where this issue is not present, then the issue depends upon the definition of the biblical prohibition of harlotry (sp?); Maimonides considers any relations with an unmarried woman to violate this prohibition, while Ra'avad considers this prohibition to refer to promiscuous behavior. (Might mention safek d'oraita if one is pretty sure it applies.) (Also mention any other possible prohibitions, if one has sources, including for married men.)
Short answer on the rest for Misty MH:
Masturbation is prohibited, but this is not the place. There are references that expand "thou shalt not commit adultery" to also refer to onanism and heterosexual sodomy, but I would add that to adultery.
For both:
Polygamy is not immoral in Judaism (very important to state!), but it is prohibited to Western Jews by either custom or a late rabbinical decree (herem). (Mention exceptions, which go beyond Heter Meah Rabbanim, see Igrot Moshe.) However, because Israeli secular law prohibits polygamy (was this endorsed by the rabbanut?) unless one already had multiple wives before arriving in Israel (Baba Sali for example), it is seldom practiced even by Eastern Jews.
Just my two Agorot.Mzk1 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mzk1, I think you mixed up concubines and just simple extramarital relations. The latter are most certainly forbidden by rabbinical law. All the things you bring above are mentioned about concubines, if memory serves me.
I personally would leave out the details about polygamy, per WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well promiscuous behavior, however defined, is prohibited by the Torah even according to the Ra'avd (for women only?). But if you have sources for Rabbinic prohibitions, I would love to know what they are. (And of course that would be added in the next sentence.)
Regarding Polygamy, I think this is an important distinction between Christianity and Judaism. The former (at least according to many contemporary views) considers it immoral; the latter does not. This is also necessary to explain the differences between men and women regarding divorce. This is widely misreported; for example, a book written on the subject a few years ago (as quoted in the American Spectator) falsely claimed that Jews had given up polygamy way before the Cherem. The revered Rav Abuchateira of Netivot had four wives, as he was already married to them when he came to Israel.Mzk1 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About concubines, I still think you mixed up two different things here. I'll try and look it up one of these days. About polygamy, I just said I would leave out the details, not the main points. What you say sounds good, just that I see absolutely no reason to go into the exceptions. Debresser (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues of unmarried women and concubines are treated in the beginning of chapter 26 of Even Ha'ezer.
The Helkat mehokek in his first commentary there mentions the prohibition of an unmarried woman (pnuya) as being derabbanan and not de'oraita. Note that understanding this halakha is complicated by the fact that the word "znut"/"liznot" in modern Hebrew does not have the same meaning as in halakhic works.
The Beit Yisrael brings various proofs that it is allowed to have a concubine, as does the Gra quoting the Ramban. As to the opinion that having a concubine would be forbidden de'oiraita, that opinion is disproved by both the Helkat mehokek and the Beit Yisrael. Only the Rambam holds that concubines are allowed only for kings, and even that is not the unanimous understanding of the Rambam's opinion. Not to mention that, to use the words of the Beit Yisrael in relation to this opinion of the Rambam, "ha'isur ein mevuar lehedya" ("there is no clear source for this prohibition").
The reason you mentioned, because the woman surely doesn't go to the mikveh and the consequent prohibition of niddah, that would not apply at all in the case of a concubine. Concubine is an official status of a woman who has kiddushin but no Ketubah, and there is no reason to worry that she would be ashamed and not go to the mikveh. That would apply in the case which we would call in Hebrew "havera" (girlfriend). In the case of a girlfriend, there would therefore be both a rabbinical prohibition, since she is a pnuya, as well as a prohibition de'oraita which is niddah.
I hope I have explained all aspects of this subject in a clear way. Please ask me if something needs further explanation. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you are clearly more knowledgeable in this area than I, the way I put it is the way the Rema put it in EH 26/1. And the Ramabam is pretty clear, I would think. The Ra'avad/Rema is referring to a woman without Kiddushin at all (not like the Yerushalmi). Perhaps I am wrong, but the only thing I would add is that some say there is also a Rabbinic prohibition, and perhaps add "particularly in the case of a married man". (Are there clear sources that cherem d'rabeinu gersom applies to male infidelity?)Mzk1 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to show is that the Rema is talking about something very specific, while the subject encompasses various possible scenarios. Also, your words that the Rambam is clear, are contradicted by the fact that some understand his words differently. In addition, what is the relevance of his words in the matter, when almost all disagree with him? Debresser (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"One's wife's sister during one's wife's lifetime, even if since divorced (Leviticus 18:18)" How does this prohibition deals with Jacob marrying Rachel and her sister Leah ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.216.25 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the Torah was given. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need the banner?[edit]

I don't see any particular controversy here for a while. We all agree to accept all non-fringe viewpoints.Mzk1 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a banner is not a mark of shame. It is there because the subject is prone to sudden heated discussions. On the other hand, if someone were to remove the banner, I wouldn't be the one to insist on returning it. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a newcomer to this article I find the banners detract from the sense of authority (if such a thing can be conferred to Wikipedia). They seem to imply that there is disagreement where it might not exist. Barring the discussion about Niddah, could the first banner be removed by citing a Mishneh or Rashi source instead of the Torah itself? Or are only modern academic sources accepted? Chaim1221 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and bisexuality section[edit]

There is much discussion about 4 opinions on the interpretation of the verse in Leviticus 18:22, However the actual verse itself (with it's translation) is missing. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the opinions. I want to add both verses (literal precise translation) as an introduction to the 4 opinions. Due to all the discussions - I am first consulting the talk page. Caseeart (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a good idea. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality (added POV template)[edit]

This article, without being honest about the fact that it is doing so, equates Judaism with Orthodox Judaism. Millions of Jews, primarily though not exclusively in the United States, reject many tenets held by Orthodox Jews, and don't accept its holding itself out as being the only "genuine" Judaism. My modest attempts to improve the article in this regard were reverted by @debresser.

(If it isn't Orthodox Judaism, but rather Halakhic Judaism, or Rabbinic Judaism, or Chabad Judaism, or some other variety, my apologies. But the point remains.)

deisenbe (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You made two edits. Let's discuss. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most Jews today reject the whole concept of Niddah. This is _traditional_ Judaism, historical Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, Orthodox or Haredi Judaism. But it isn't part of Judaism today without qualification. I put a qualification in, and you took it out. deisenbe (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old point. It could even be that it was you who made this mistake before. "Jews" is not "Judaism", and what Jews believe is not necessarily indicative of the tenets of the religion that is called Judaism. Secular Jews do not a religion make. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Reform Jews are not practicing Judaism, then what are they doing in their synagogues? Pagan ceremonies? In other words, I do not agree with your equating all non-Orthodox Jews with secular Jews. That is not a neutral position. deisenbe (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this topic was discussed further up on this page, and that I am not the first to find that Debresser does not have a NPOV. As someone argues there, this article is not "Forbidden relationships in Halakhic Judaism". To equate Halakhic Judaism with Judaism is not NPOV. deisenbe (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss here. You just repeat the same thing, without understanding what is explained to you. I never equated non-Orthodox Jews with secular Jews, as you claim. I explained that "Jews" are people, and "Judaism" is a religion, and this article is not about people, but about the religion.
You say most Jews reject the concept of Niddah. That is not interesting on this page, which is not about Jews, or even most Jews. On this page it is only relevant if certain denominations of Judaism would reject the concept. Such statements you have not made on this talkpage. You did make them in your edits, without any sources apart from your personal opinion. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Then on the talkpage you start talking about Jews, as opposed to Judaism and its denominations. In short, if you have any statements about Judaism, and sources for them, please let us know. Debresser (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it you are the one who is not hearing what I am saying. We agree completely that this article is about Judaism and not about Jews. Where we disagree is that we have different views of what Judaism is.
Your definition of Judaism is not in harmony with that given in the WP article on it, where at the beginning it says that it "encompasses the religion, philosophy, culture and way of life of the Jewish people.[4]" Judaism is not just a religion.
Debresser, yes or no: can one practice Judaism without following the Orthodox definition of it? Without following Halakha? deisenbe (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will not answer this last question, since it is a personal one, and does not fall within the discussion of a Wikipedia article.
I did not define "Judaism" here or anywhere else, so I utterly fail to understand why you make any statements about my definition of Judaism.
On top of all that, you did not make any point in your last comment here. So let me repeat: if you have any statements about Judaism, and sources for them, please let us know. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, we did have this discussion before: at Talk:Judaism_and_sexuality#Examples_of_lack_of_neutral_POV. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we did. It's exactly the same problem.
If you do not have a definition of Judaism, you would not be writing about this or any other article on Judaism. But of course you do, you just will not admit it.
When you reverted my changes you betrayed your definition of Judaism. My request is that you stop reverting my changes. Niddah is not part of mainstream Judaism today. Not my Judaism. Not that of a majority of Jews. It's part of your Judaism? That's fine. You can define Judaism however you want, for you. But you're anything but neutral. Your definition is a minority one. deisenbe (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You make many mistakes. Content related, as well as tactical and strategical. Your claims are based on a confused understanding of basic concepts like "Jew", "Judaism" and "denominations in Judaism". The tactical errors are that you make claims that are not supported by sources, and that you try to change a consensus version of an article without garnering consensus first. The strategical error is that is that you attack editors personally (with equally vague claims, truth be said), which makes sure no editor will pass up a chance to revert you. Debresser (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's nice. You say I don't understand basic concepts, but you won't share your own understanding of them so I could learn from you. Could you refer me to some source from which I could learn these concepts?
You know, I had a course on logic back in college.
You can't write on something - or revert someone else's corrections - without knowing what subject you're talking about. You may not share your definition, you may not even be consciously aware of it, but it is logically (philosophically) impossible to say anything other than gibberish about any topic without knowing (defining) what you're talking about. Unless you're discussing the definition.
I will say my definition of Judaism: that which WP gives, as of today (Judaism). So far @Debresser has not stated, in an article on "Forbidden relationships in Judaism", what he understands Judaism to be.
You complain I'm not giving sources. I will, once we agree what the subject of the article is.
You complain I have made personal attacks on you. I was unaware of this. Would you specify what you believe to be a personal (irrelevant) attack? Thank you.
Personal attacks are not a justification for reversion. deisenbe (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You accuse me at every chance of editing according to my personal believes rather than editing objectively. That insults me. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incest[edit]

I added two verses from Leviticus related to the closeness of relations when it came to incest. I guess the Author of this article seems to think they can omit the key verse from this section of the Torah and begin reading after that point? I am not sure, but the Torah should be taken at it's fullness or shortsightedness is bound to happen. This section Leviticus 18 was my Haftorah so I've included some Talmud and Mishnah references as well as a book on Canaanite practices which discuss their incest to further back up my reasoning for continually adding Leviticus 18:6 in. If the author would require it I can continue to cite Jewish sources from the Talmud, Torah, Mishnah Torah, and other places as well as historical accounts of such prohibitions against inbreeding with genetic relatives? I can literally do this because there are literally mountains of writings that support my addition of this prohibition which has always been in place.

To be clear I wish to make sure my Haftorah portion isn't molested or portions omitted to allow for some depravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed this, again. For the same reasons as previously: 1. What does the addition add that isn't already specified later on in that section? Also, definitely not all genetic relatives are included in the prohibition, so this is vague or actually even misleading. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And one I will re-add, please read cited material as yes all genetic relationships are included in the prohibition. The midrash I shared even discussed removing someone's eyes for looking at their first cousin. I was going to add in the other sections of the Torah which more broadly forbid genetic relatives from cohabitation or marriage, but the scope of the section was from just Achar Mot so I kept the Talmud, Midrash, and Torah citations to just that section. May I also ask what your connection to Judaism is because it is obviously not as an authority or practitioner since you are not just wholly ignorant of the Torah but also intentionally omitting portions of it to create some incestuous imaging of Judaism while working at maintaining a Wikipedia page by editing it during the Shabbat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sorry, but you are wrong when claiming that "all genetic relationships are included in the prohibition". And let's not make this personal, please. But since you ask, I am a rabbi, and in Israel it was not Shabbat when I edited. I actually read these verses last Yom Kippur for our congregation. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to help you understand the text there. It starts of in Leviticus 18:6 with a preface: don't have relations with close family. Then in the sentences after that it specifies which family members precisely are included in the prohibition. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing personal but I don't really think it is appropriate to have a gentile try to dictate to a Jew what the meaning of their Haftorah was and omit passages from it. You legit make edits during the Shabbat in Israel, your edits are time stamped in UTC you poser not any of the American timezones and at this point your continual revisions are borderline antisemitic as they do intentionally paint a picture of Jewish depravity rather than what our religious tenants actually are. Let me explain my Torah section to you antisemitic pagan: the section begins with a general prohibition as a rule of thumb (if you are related by blood then don't) and then dives down deeper into more specific prohibitions. To rationalize it as you have is to limit the majority of the prohibitions in the Torah like "don't murder" becomes don't murder in the Negev and "treat they neighbors" then becomes treat just those from modern Jordan instead of treat everyone as you would like to be treated. What is even more shocking is that you claim to be a Rabbi, which clearly you are not, but then you are not the least bit familiar with the Talmud, Midrash or for that matter even the Torah. You're lie about being Jewish or some sort of authority is completely transparent especially since you literally made a work edit in the middle of the Sabbath during a fast day. Legit you're being like super duper ignorant and I cannot tell if you're just down right dumb, trolling, or a plain old fashion antisemite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just submitted a Dispute Resolution, we can navigate this issue through that process because you've found a way to bring my temper out. I really do not like that you've molested my Haftorah to propagandize a false narrative. I am sorry, but I was circumcised over this thing so I take it a bit personally seeing as there as an alteration made to my body due to it and also I had to spend several years of my childhood in Hebrew school memorizing specifically this one section of the Torah and related materials for my Bar Mitzvah. Please understand that before judging too harshly my temper in the matter because you essentially crossed a very personal line and then blatantly lied to me about being Jewish and a Rabbi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian forbidden[edit]

The Christian church does not recognize any marriage between Christians and Jews. Any spouse and children will need to convert to Theism. The interpretation of Ezra is the same for Christians. 95.91.214.178 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forbidden_relationships_in_Judaism&oldid=1201507317"