Talk:Louis Jacobs

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

Ostracised??[edit]

The phrase "completely ostracised by orthodox rabbis" is problematic. Someone attempting to elucidate it via Wikipedia would probably go to Ostracism, then Shunning, then Cherem. We really shouldn't imply a rabbi is in cherem unless we're very clear about the matter. I'm changing "completely ostracised" to "marginalised" (I hope that's correct en-GB). --Hoziron 03:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re being denied Aliyah[edit]

I have removed the phrase 'on occasions this has appeared petty', because for those who understand the Orthodox position, granting someone such an honour is fraught with halakhic issues. From an orthodox point of view, The public Reading of the Torah is the fulfilment of a religious duty; as such one needs to do it in accordance of the laws as codified in the Codes of Law. Granting an Aliyah to Louis Jacobs for several reasons would not fall into these criteria.

This is highly disputable. Effectively it is a POV, as many would interpret halakhah in a quite diferent way. I have therefore once again removed your comment from the article. Please try to undertand how Wikipedia works, and refrain from giving your interpretation of a situation as indisputable. Also if you wish you regularly edit, please sign up as this makes it easier to discuss issues such as this.--Smerus 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added "However, Orthodox law maintains that someone who denies the Divinity of the Torah may not be accorded this honour for a variety of reasons." This is true according to the conclusions of the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries; if this is not how you are defining 'Orthodox law' (it seems to be based on the wikipedia entry) then I am happy to take suggestions as to what this should be called. If this is a good (basic) definition of Orthodox law, then I have not added a POV. I take the comment re different interpretations of halakhah; however I did try to avoid that issue. Also, to say my line was a POV and "on occasions this has appeared petty" is objective is unfair. Garry Wayland 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might perhaps say 'according to some definitions of orthodox law, someone who denies...' etc. But I query whether you can simply say 'this is true according to the conclusions of the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries'. I don't have a Shulchan Aruch with me at the moment (am working abroad) but I would be surprised if you could quote me any part of it that unequivocally substantiates your comment as 'true'. Some commentaries on the SA may come to this conclusion; others may not. That is why the whole issue was one of dispute, in the columns of the Jewish Chronicle and elsewhere. The correspondence in the JC is I think objective evidence that this action 'appeared petty', at least to some. I took care not to say that it was petty. I have tried in my contributions to this article to avoid opining whether Jacobs, or those opposed to him, have been 'right' or 'wrong'. But I also think that an article on Jacobs is not the right place for a dicsussion on the laws of aliyah. Perhaps your interest might be better served by creating a Wkipedia article on aliyah laws and referencing it to and from the Louis Jacobs article, so that readers could form their own conclusions.With best regards--Smerus 06:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews' College[edit]

Could someone with the knowledge about Jews' College please start a post about it. I am very curious about its history and current state of affairs. Thank You GZee 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK started stub. Smerus 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title "Rabbi"[edit]

I noticed that someone had removed this title from Louis's full name at the beginning of the lede. I have reinstated it as wikipedia cab do without this sort of sectarianism. (Writes someone whose move towards atheism was helped by Jacobs telling an Irish joke during a sermon during the High Holy Days.) --Peter cohen 13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DH work[edit]

This badly in need of a section that describes Jacobs attempt to reconcile the DH with tradition. If anyone has read the book it would e good if they can give a brief summary.Wolf2191 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have sought to do this - in what i hope is a non-partisan way - in a new section. Smerus 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Contradiction[edit]

The following section doesn't make sense:

"The purpose of Jacobs’s book ‘We Have Reason to Believe’ is clearly stated in its Introduction. 

   A true Jewish apologetic, eschewing obscurantism, religious schizophrenia, and intellectual dishonesty, will be based on the conviction that all truth, ‘the seals of the Holy One, blessed is He’, is one, and that a synthesis is possible between the permanent values and truth of tradition and the best thought of the day.[1]

Jacobs therefore places himself in the line of expositors from Moses Mendelssohn onwards who have sought to reconcile, or at least clearly contextualise, the concepts of Judaism with the prevalent thought and society of the modern world. "

The quote clearly states that trying to completely reconcile permanent values of truth of tradition with "the best thought of the day" - ie modern thought - is intellectual dishonesty and apologetic! How can you go on to say that "Jacobs THEREFORE...sought to reconcile...the concepts of Judaism with the prevalent thought...of the modern world". This is a striking contradiction to the quote. So, either the quote is wrong, or the paragraph underneath is completely inaccurate about the man's motives. Please can someone who has the book fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonLion (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC) LemonLion 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quotation is accurate. LemonLion's interpretation of its implications, which he is entitled to hold, is partisan to say the least. it does not have to be - and indeed should not be - reflected in a WP article. Smerus 08:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What way are you reading it exactly? Are you reading it perhaps:

A true Jewish apologetic (who is) eschewing obscurantism, religious schizophrenia, and intellectual dishonesty, will be based on the conviction that all truth, ‘the seals of the Holy One, blessed is He’, is one, and that a synthesis is possible between the permanent values and truth of tradition and the best thought of the day.[1]

I think this should be made a little more clear in the article so that people don't misread it as I did (I'll have to take your word that the quote is completely accurate). It is very odd that he uses the term 'Jewish Apologetic' in a positive context as the phrase normally has negative connotations. LemonLion 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have the book before me and can verify the accuracy of the quotation. Jacobs is using the word 'apologetic' in its strict philosophical sense, which has nothing to do with an 'apology': the Oxford English Dictionary (also before me) gives as its first definition (as an adjective) 'Of the nature of a defence; vindicatory' and as a substantive '1. a formal apology for, or a defence of[...] a doctrine [...] 2. The defensive method of argument, often spec[ifically] the argumentative defence of Christianity'. It is I think with a wry reference to the latter definition that Jacobs chose this word.Smerus 15:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Apologetics. Jheald 15:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have linked the text to this article which I hope may prevent any misunderstanding.Smerus 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the Torah was given[edit]

There is a lot of general misunderstanding about this. The Gemara - which is where Orthodox thought comes from - gives two opinions on the torah been given. They both say that it was given completely at Sinai UP TO THE POINT OF TIME that it was given. The rest of it was given either (depending on which of the two opinions you are going by...) at regular intervals until Moses died, or in one large chunk just before moses died. The whole idea of the whole torah been given at Sinai probably arrises from some Kaballistic idea of a part of the torah being infinite or something, leading to the popular phrase din Moshe m'Sinai, (law given to Moshe at Sinai). The point is, no one, not even orthodox philosophy, believes that the torah was given in it's entirety on Sinai. To that end I have replaced:

"as some Rabbinical (but not all) traditions have it, complete in its present form by God to Moses on Mount Sinai."

with...

"as Orthodox Rabbinical traditions have it, complete in its present form by God to Moses during the period beginning on Mount Sinai and ending with Moses's death."

I have used the term Orthodox, because it is more specific and relevant. Conservative, reform, liberal and obviously Mazorti philosophy doesn't have a problem with these issues in the first place. LemonLion 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this clarification. The various branches of Judaism (it is spelt 'Masorti' btw.) may indeed retain an interest in this issue and it is a bit unreasonable not to allow them some! Smerus 08:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say that other sects are not allowed to have views on this issue. Rather I was saying that they are irrelevant in this context. Jacobs was claiming to be an Orthodox Rabbi at the time. Therefore, what is relevant is that his views were conflicting with that same Orthodox tradition which he claimed to be a member of. Thankyou for the spelling clarification though :) LemonLion 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book donation[edit]

Dr. Rabbi Louis Jacobs donated his entire book collection to the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. I added this information but it was deleted. Is this piece of information not important enough to mention? --Jeloox (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again: it was not deleted but placed more appropriately in the article. Smerus (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Jeloox (talk) 09:58, 13

The following discussion appeared on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism. Please do not modify it.

Assessment discussion[edit]

This article has been rated by the project as 'importance:low'. You define 'importance:low' as This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia

I know the subject is controversial, but whichever way you look at it, to imply that he is obscure or trivial is surely unjustified. Whether or not you agree with him, Jacobs's opinions have had a profound effect on British Judaism.

It is also rated as start class, which means that it only has very basic information and lacks reliable sources. Although the first of these criteria is perhaps subjective (you will gather that I do not agree), the second certainly does not apply.

I do hope this evaluation is not a case of someone working off their own prejudices!! I would appreciate comments, or better still, a re-evaluation.--Smerus (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with a lot of importance ratings is that the boilerplate language you quoted above becomes harder to really apply when a given project has about 6000 articles, like this one does. As one of the coordinators of the (possibly adversarial, to some) Christianity WikiProject, it seems to me that we would all be better off if we came up with guidelines which are clearer given the kind of material we deal with. I am not the person who performed the assessment in question, but I tend to think that the subject in question, Louis Jacobs, may have been counted as such because of his status as the first leader of Conservative Judaism in the UK, in effect making him a subject of basically "local" interest (UK) to basically one of the then-current groups of Judaism, Conservative Judaism. If anyone is interested, I could set up the Judaism project banner to provide separate assessments for the various extant if inactive Judaism groups, thus allowing those editors whose primary interest is in one of the "branches" to have a better idea of what kinds of articles, both in terms of quality and importance, they have out there. In general, though, it is often best to leave a message on the talk page of whoever performed the assessment, which can be determined by the talk page's history, to ask such questions. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, I was the editor who made the assessment. When I assess articles, I try to think of the following scenario: if someone has zero knowledge of Judaism and was given a course in it, is it likely that this article would be on the syllabus if it was a 1 hour crash course? 1 day crash course? 1 week? 1 month, etc. If it's likely the article would come up in a 1 hour crash course, then it's usually of Top importance. If the course could go an entire semester and the article is unlikely to ever come up, it's usually Low. That being said, I have re-assessed it as "Mid". As far as the class goes, I have re-classed it as "C" because, as you mentioned, it fails to meet at least one of the criteria to be a "B". It's important to note that these assessments aren't set in stone and ANY project member is free to re-assess it at any time. I see that you've been a contributor to that article and I regret that it has upset you, and I hope you don't take it personally. shirulashem (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been around too long on WP to take anything personally - Please be assured that I was not upset, just had a broiges :-}. I am most grateful for both your comments and your re-assessment (and also for the comments of John Carter (talk)). With best wishes for a kosher Pesach, --Smerus (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Louis Jacobs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
* First of all, the article doesn't give other sources than obits, giving more reliable sources would help referencing the article.
  • Secondly, there is no reference, notes, footnotes or source section which tells the reader that all the article is original research, please name a section as such and include the material used to write the article in this named section.
*sources added --Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a picture, such is necessary to clearly identify individuals. (Fair use one would be acceptable if fair use rationale is given, but it is preferable to have a GFDL image)
*done--Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would give B-class status.
  • He obtained a PhD in what?
*added--Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead he struggled to find a synthesis that would accommodate Orthodox Jewish theology and modern day higher biblical criticism. would need to be sourced IMO.
*it is sourced in the article, which mentions the book which included these ideas --Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a statement such as His ideas about the subject were published in a book entitled We Have Reason to Believe, published in 1957. in which it is not wikilinked to an article about the book, it would be nice to have a 2-4 line summary to sum up the book's subject.
*see above--Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here again, "because of his [Jacobs's] published views"., should give the reasons for the interdiction such as what passages in the book are regarded as non-orthodox/jewish views.
  • Brodie vetoed his appointment.. Why does Brodie have such a right? Is this vetoing associated with the book publication (4 years earlier) or associated with the interdiction to succede Epstein (being the same year)?
*whether Brodie had the right or not is a matter beyond the scope of this article, but in his day, he was the Chief Rabbi and his word was law. The article makes clear that the veto was associated with the book.--Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For The defecting congregation purchased the old St. John's Wood synagogue building, and installed Jacobs as its rabbi — a post which he held until 1995 , a installment date would be ideal to know what happened between the refusal of returning to his pulpit at the Synagogue by Brodie aforementioned and his installment.
  • Jacobs was not provided the honour of an aliyah customarily given to the father of the bride, here again, why wasn't he given such a right?
*as again contained in the article, it was the grudgunf attitude of the United Synagogue which witheld this right from him --Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Selected publications should be cut down to the most useful or notable publications, the other ones can be dumped in the talk page.
*done--Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadening the article would also help. Lincher 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*ongoing revisions will try to do this --Smerus 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==More comments/answers==

  • To your above responses to the aforementioned comments, I agree with you that the sources are given though, adding footnotes would help in finding the statements in books or in the obituaries. For the other answers, I agree with the Brodie statement that would be outside of the scope of the article however, for the because of his [Jacobs's] published views statement, giving extensive passages would clearly denote what were his views and balance the present state of that section. In other words ... just add quotes from the book and it will be perfect.
  • For the Bournemouth synagogue statement where he isn't appointed aliyah, it is necessary to say that it is again partially because of the Chief Rabbi that he wasn't awarded such honor ... it wouldn't leave any doubt in those circumstances.
  • You can help yourself with the article Dovber of Mezeritch on how to add citations into the article and how to state your sources. This article can also lead you to more insight on how better this article.
  • Just for your information, personal knowledge isn't a reliable source because it may stand as original material which can't be in wikipedia.

Lincher 16:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Louis Jacobs. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Jacobs. 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) 11:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Jacobs. 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) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jacobs online[edit]

The Reading Rabbi Jacobs project doesn't appear to be active. Is there anything there which justifies retaining it? Mcljlm (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Jacobs&oldid=1207774533"