Talk:Relationships between Jewish religious movements/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Are Haredi views presented in context?

This "quote-mining" of Haredi views is as pernicious as the anti-Semitic quote-mining of the Talmud and other Jewish works. It needs to be cleaned up quickly, and a reasonable summary position provided. Jayjg 04:34, 28 July 2004 (UTC)

(1) We must not remove these quotes; in fact, the entire reason that they exist here to begin with was that previous Wikipedia editors denied that Orthodox rabbis would ever have had said any such thing. Time and again a small number of contributors simply denied that such statements were made, or that such acts occured. The only way to stop this useless revisionism was to present quotes and sources. In any case, all good books on any aspect of Judaism contains many substantial quotes. The point is to use the quotes to illustrate ideas and points of view, and not as a substitute for an original article. RK

Again, I can't understand your point. This is a Wikipedia article, not a book, and long quotes don't belong in it. However, when I try to summarize these views, you refer to them as "ultra-Orthodox propaganda" and delete them. Jayjg 17:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

(2) I am hurt by your labelling me as being as bad as anti-Semites, for the sin of presenting Ultra-Orthodox Jewish beliefs. You have compared this to quote mining. If this were true, then for every one of these attacks against non-Orthodox Judaism by Haredi rabbis, there would be many kind ones. So show us these quotesd! I for one would love to learn about statements from leading Haredi rabbis, yeshivas, and rabbinical organizations that provide such counter-balance. If such statements exist, this article would be improved by writing about them. Are there really many positive statements about Conservative Judaism, about Reform Judaism, about Reconstructionist Judaism? I would be be overjoyed to learn about their existence. RK

I am still waiting for such contributions. RK 17:00, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want; you won't allow me to include negative Haredi beliefs about other groups as "propaganda", but insist I include positive Haredi quotes about other groups. Jayjg 17:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

(3)As you may have noted, I have taken pains to search for such counter-balancing quotes from respected Orthodox rabbis. Note, however, it does not count if we find quotes by Haredim who say that they love individual Reform Jews as individual people, and that they only hate Reform Judaism and the teachings of Reform. That kind of language is precisely what non-Orthodox Jews are hurt by. We all know that many Haredi rabbis want Reform Jews to abandon Reform and join Haredi Judaism, but that is not tolerance or acceptance of Reform; that is proselytism. There is nothing wrong with that view, by the way. I imagine that many Reform and Cons. rabbis may feel the same. RK 20:47, 2 August 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg writes "prank calls from teenager boys aren't news". I agree. But in a climate of hatespeech, numerous physical assaults and vandalism, such death threats are news, and the Israeli police and press have taken these death threats seriously. Please stop deleting from the article all information about Haredi actions which you find embarssing; that is not NPOV, that is censorship. RK 17:00, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

I don't find any Haredi activities "embarassing"; again, please stop trying to personalize this. The issue is not whether or not these things have happened (though documentation of them would be welcome), but whether they are worth mentioning in this article. My point remains, prank calls by teenagers, which are neither encouraged nor sanctioned by Yeshiva leaders, are not worth mentioning. Jayjg 17:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Source for views of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein:

 Weddings performed by a Conservative rabbi have a doubtful status.
 Even if that rabbi is among the good ones who do not eat forbidden
 foods and who do not desecrate the Sabbath publicly by driving a
 car to the synagogue, he does not have the presumption of propriety
 And is automatically invalid because of the doubt that exists.
 In addition, since he is a member of the Conservative rabbinate
 which abrogates several mitzvot of the Torah as well as most
 rabbinic prohibitions - where is a matter of heresy - he is invalid
 as a witness even if we know nothing about him.  For as the Rambam
 has written (Laws of witnesses 11:16) APIKURISIM AND SINNERS do
 not have to be listed among those who are listed as witnesses
 SINCE ONLY THE ORDINARY WICKED OF ISRAEL ARE TO BE LISTED.
 THESE REBELS AND DENIERS ARE WORSE THAN NON-JEWS, FOR NON-JEWS ARE
 NOT PLACED IN THE PIT [Gehenna] AND ARE NOT BROUGHT UP FROM IT,
 WHERE SUCH JEWS ARE PLACED IN THE PIT AND NOT BROUGHT UP. 
 [i.e. eternal damnation in Gehenna].
 (Igrot Moshe (The responsa of Moshe Feinstein) 1985 Responsa written in 1980, Part III, item 13)

In our time, when the only practical issue is that of validity,
What counts is the public knowledge and presumption. And there
Is no public knowledge or presumption greater than the fact that
he accepts Conservative doctrine, which denies many laws of the
Torah, and perhaps also denies the Revelation at Mount Sinai if
he is a rabbi in a Conservative synagogue.  Even if he does
What he does for a livelihood he is still disqualified as a
witness since he is a heretic, and in the matter of heresy we do
Not distinguish heresy as ideology, and heresy for the purpose
of profit.  In fact the latter is worse, for we find that all
agree that one who sins because of temptation is disqualified
but a sinner in principle is not invalid.  In any event, with
these Conservative rabbis it is a matter of denying many laws
of the Torah, and they are disqualified from testifying even
if we have assumed that they have not transgressed any negative
commandments which involve the penalty of lashes.  SINCE THEY
TAKE HIGH PAY FOR THEIR WORK, IS ALSO A MATTER OF SINNING
because of desire, and according to Rashi they are disqualified.

  Igrot Moshe (The responsa of Moshe Feinstein) 1985
  Responsa written in 1980 (Part III, item 13)

Lengthy quotes, balance

The tendency to fill the page with lengthy quotes is bad form; positions should be summarized, and links provided. There's lots more work to be done in this area, but I've gotten started for now. Also, balance must be achieved; one cannot baldly present Haredi anti-Reform and Conservative statements, and then when faced with similar anti-Haredi quotes from Reform and Conservative leaders, either delete them, or surround them with excuses, or say "they were only done in response too...". Jayjg 05:56, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it. You are the only person here who has deleted a discussion of the events and statements made, which provide context to understand the statementsd made by various groups. RK

In any case, we must not remove these quotes. It is impossible to discuss the subject without explaining why people have the views that they do. Why have Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodox rabbis felt the need to make the statements they have made? Any discussion demands presenting the facts within their historical context. Unfortunately, you still have a tendency to to hide any facts about Haredi Judaism that you find embarassing, which makes it impossible to write an article. How can we discuss the C, R, or MO response to Haredi actions, when the hardi actions are not specified? That makes no sense. RK

Further, what you wrote about Reform Jews is not supported by the reference you have. Your text made Reform Jews in general all look like anti-Semites who hate Orthodox Jews. That is outrageous. Nothing in the article even comes close to saying any such thing; nothing in the article is about Reform Judaism in general, nor about Orthodox Judaism in general. Such views exist only within the paranoid imagination of Avi Shafran. If you want to present the views of Reform Judaism, go ahead, but do so honestly, with accurate quotes, and in context. RK 14:46, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the ad hominem comments, as I've said before, I don't respond to them.

Regarding the Haredi quotes:

1. Excessive quotes are not good form; positions should be summarized, with some reference to brief quotes, followed by links. I would welcome any such efforts in the Haredi section.
2. Quotes on Haredi views belong in the Haredi section, not sprinkled throughout the piece.

Regarding the Reform quotes:

1. The articles are quite clear that Reform leaders said what they did, and the Reform leaders do not deny it; inclusion of the quotes make no other implications.
2. Apologetics for these statements should not be invented by you; there is no evidence that Yoffie's statements were made in response to any of the statements you inserted into the Reform sections.

Jayjg, you have now passed from partisan bickering into bald-faced lying. I am astonished and saddened to see you do this. You are making up things which were not in Rabbi Regev's speech, you are falsely attributing his views to the entire Reform leadership, and you disingenuously deleted his actual quotes on the subject. Your behaviour over the last week has worsened significantly; this libel against non-Orthodox Jews has crossed the line into deliberate fraud. RK 23:55, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

Please stop the emotional diatribes and deal with the issues. What specifically do you object to? Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Conservative section:

1. The article is about the Conservative relations with other Jewish groups. It is not the place for lengthy justifications of Conservative philosophy, creed, or practice.

Jayjg, you are totally wrong. This article is precisely the place for this. This article is not just a collection of quotes. Rather, we need to present a group's point of view, and explain why they have this point of view. This article is part of an encyclopedia, and its very job is to give a contextual explanation. Your attempts to hide all points of view that you disagree with is a violation of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. RK 23:55, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not with "hiding" the POV, but placing it where it might belong, in the Haredi section. The Haredi view of Conservative groups doesn't belong in the Conservative views section. The context is provided by the contrasting sections; at most a brief sentence is required. And apologetics certainly have no place in an article; "Conservatives dislike Haredim only because the Haredim said and did all these mean things", followed by a half dozen mined quotes, is apologetics of the worst sort. Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

1. It is inappropriate to hide the fact that at the founding of the Conservative movement its views of Orthodox and Reform were quite negative; on the contrary, that is a vital part of the article, including what it is they saw as wrong with each movement. The quote quite aptly summarizes that Conservative view.

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about; I did no such thing. Stop attacking statements I never made and actions I never undertook. RK

You removed the quote regarding "Stupid Orthodoxy, Insane Reform"; that is what I referred to. Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Modern Orthodox section:

1. Again, the quotes are too long; the positions should be summarized.
2. Positions of essentially fringe groups like Edah should not be presented as normative simply because they accord with the Conservative view.
3. Your analysis of the move rightwards of Modern Orthodoxy as a partly a reaction to Reform's "patrilineal descent" decision is unsupported at best.

Edah is not a fringe group; they represent a great many Orthodox rabbis and congregations, and many thousands of Orthodox Jews. I understand that Haredi rabbis have a great deal of hatred for them, and wish that they would go away and not be mentioned. But this encyclopedia is not controlled by Haredim. RK 23:55, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

How exactly would you measure that? What makes you think they represent a majority? Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

In general, regarding Reform, your statements that Reform has unilaterally changed the faith are POV.

For the dozenth time you are attacking statements I never made. Your behaviour is unbecoming a contributor to an encyclopedia; I am starting to think that you are lying about me on purpose. RK 23:55, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

You quite clearly stated "Similarly Reform Judaism unilaterally created a new definition of Judaism, effectively severing the united peoplehood that had linked Reform and non-Reform denominations together.". This is highly POV. Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Please take these comments seriously, and work with me to fix the issues in question. Time permitting, I will work on each section trying to improve it in line with the comments above. However, I will not accept any reversion of the highly flawed sections that were there before. For the past year this article has essentially been an anti-Haredi pro-Conservative polemic; this has been an issue with many articles, as has been mentioned in the Judaism project. We need to create NPOV here, not promote our personal philosophies. Jayjg 17:05, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

I re-iterate my plea above; please take this article, and NPOV, seriously, and work with me to improve it. Thanks. Jayjg 00:06, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Regev's speech

O.K., let's try to deal with these issues one at a time. Regarding Regev's speech, let's use this as a starting point:

On October 12, the Cleveland Jewish News reported on an "impassioned" High Holy Days sermon delivered by Rabbi Uri Regev of the Israel Religious Action Center whose message, according to the report, was that the events of September 11 should serve as "a wake-up call about religious zealotry" in Judaism no less than in Islam. "Left unchecked," the Cleveland Jewish News article reported the Reform leader saying, "the same kind of intolerance which drove Islamic terrorists to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon threatens to tear the state of Israel apart." And, in drawing what the article characterized as "a chilling parallel between Islamic and Israeli religious extremists" - being "the Haredi, fervently religious Orthodox Jews who comprise about 6% of the Israeli population" - Rabbi Regev was quoted as saying that "They have distorted Torah (teachings) and interpreted them as giving license to get rid of infidels." Widespread protest, predictably, ensued in the Orthodox community; opinion pieces were written taking Rabbi Regev to task, and an advertisement doing the same appeared in two Jewish weeklies.

Several weeks later, the Cleveland reporter issued a clarification, admitting to having taken a number of journalistic liberties, from omitting ellipses to combining quotes from different occasions to neglecting to note that some of her material had come from interviews with Rabbi Regev and statements he had made in informal gatherings rather than from his sermon. She also explained that Rabbi Regev had not been referring to "all" Haredim but only one of "four groups within the Haredim"; and that his "getting rid of infidels" comment had been made in the context of "acts of hate such as graffiti sprayed on non-Orthodox institutions in Israel" rather than as a description of the mindset of Haredim generally. At the same time, she asserted, Rabbi Regev "did not clarify that the individuals he considered most difficult represented only a small number of Haredim."

I take it you mean this; her reporting was so bad and misleading that she attributed beliefs to him that he did not have. And as this article shows, Orthodox rabbi are still attacking Rabbi Regev for statements that he never made. RK

• Editor admits manufacturing Rabbi Uri Regev's anti-haredi quotes

No, her reporting was bad, but hardly misleading. Regev's later "clarifications" make it clear that while he claims he meant to refer to only one of "four groups within the Haredim", he is still referring to Haredim. The comparisons between Haredim and Islamic terrorists were still there, as was the juxtaposition of the two groups. Not that we can know what was truly said, since they won't release the tapes of the sermon. It is for that reason that (contrary to earlier claims) I never quoted the statements, but merely referred to their contents, and left a linke. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

The reporter's clarification thus secured, Rabbi Saperstein sprung to his colleague's defense. While acknowledging that Rabbi Regev had used the events of September 11 to "cast a harsh spotlight on the potential effects of unchecked fundamentalism mutating malignantly in the minds of a few," Rabbi Saperstein insisted that his colleague's remarks could in no way be seen as equating Haredim with Islamic terrorists, and he called on critics to apologize for "tarnishing Rabbi Regev's reputation."

Again, that is precisely what I said. The Reform movement never slandered Orthodox Judaism as being like terrorists. The entire incident sprung for bad reporting, and from a handful of extremist Orthodox rabbis who continue to spread these falsehoods even after the fake quotes were exposed. Your text still slanders the leadership of Reform Judaism as viewing Orthodoxy as being like terrorists, even though no such beliefs exists, and after this claim has been totally disproven. RK

It is clear that the speech was given in the context of Muslim terrorists, and that he was comparing the actions of Haredim (later claiming he only meant some Haredim) to them. The incident sprang from those statements, as poorly as they were reported. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Reform Judaism does view Orthodoxy as being incorrect, as fundamentalist in their approach to Judaism, and as being intolerant. Some Reformers still see all forms of halakhic Judaism as being outdated historical anachronisms. Plenty of quotes from mainstream Reform leaders state this; no problem in mentioning this belief within the article. RK

The information, and (brief) supporting quotes would be welcome as well. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

But, with all due respect, the tarnish was and remains entirely self-inflicted. We don't know the precise words Rabbi Regev used during his sermon; our request for a tape of the sermon has been rebuffed. But what is quite clear, even after all the "clarification," is that mere days after September 11 and explicitly invoking the Islamic terrorist attacks on America, Rabbi Regev warned his listeners (either during his sermon or at other times in the presence of a reporter) that Israel's Haredi "religious extremists" are, like Islamic fundamentalists, a dire threat to the lives of others.

The tarnish is not self-inflicted. As many articles prove, the entire incident is based on bad reporting, false quotes, and a handful of extremist Orthodox rabbis who deliberately are spreading untruths about Rabbi Regev in order to manufacture hatred between Orthodox and Reform Jews. RK

Reality Check: Graffiti is not akin to murdering innocent men, women and children. Isolated incidents of vandalism have been unconditionally condemned by Haredi leaders and are entirely foreign to the overwhelming majority of Haredi Jews - as are the violent acts of Boruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir (cited by Rabbi Saperstein as examples of Jewish "fundamentalists"), neither of whom, in any event, was or is Haredi. There are no military training camps operated by Yated Ne'eman's editorial board, no suicide bombing manuals published by Shas and no anthrax mailing operations in Me'ah She'arim. To mention Haredim in the same sermon as the broad terror network against whom civilized society is at war is an obscenity.

You are still arguing against the mis-reporting of Rabbi Regev's speech, not his actual speech. RK

To make it clear, this is a quote from an article I have linked to on the Talk: page. The article itself is arguing against Regev's actual words, not the mis-reported ones. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

And if Rabbi Regev failed to make clear in his public comments that "only a small number of Haredim" fit the odious profile he described, as the Cleveland Jewish News now tells us, then we would respectfully suggest that Rabbi Saperstein's call for an apology would best be redirected toward his own colleague. [1]

It seems to me that Regev was painting Haredim as similar to the Islamic fundamentalists responsible for 9/11, and his later "clarifications" did nothing to affect the original impact. Do you see it differently? Jayjg 00:18, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do see it differently, and so does everyone else except a handful of extremist Orthodox rabbis. He even went on the record saying the opposite. He does not view all Orthodox Jews, or all Haredi Orthodox Jews, in this way. You are still attacking statements he never made and beliefs that he does not have. He was very precise in who he was criticising, and that includes those fanatics who do encourage violence. Plenty of such fanatics exist in all religious communities. Sadly, Judaism is not a significant exception to this. (Judaism, I believe, has a smaller number of such extremists, but not none.) RK 16:30, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Regev did not go on the record as saying the opposite. Rather, he later qualified his views as referring to only one of four Haredi groups. Whether he did so in his actual speech is still in question. And even in the many quotes you provided from Haredi leaders, I did not see any advocating violence against Reform and Conservative. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Reform rabbis ask for apology

Rabbi David Saperstein wrote the following in The Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, Nov. 16, 2001.

A remarkable apology by the newspaper that inadvertently began an international attack on a distinguished rabbi should lead to some serious soul-searching among the rabbi's critics. The newspaper acknowledged that it misquoted and mischaracterized the remarks of Israel Religious Action Center Director Rabbi Uri Regev. Those misquotes have been used to suggest that Regev equated the Haredim and the Orthodox to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Since these critics harshly attacked Regev for what were misquotes, hopefully the critics will now offer a good faith apology to Regev, one of the heroes of the struggle for religious liberty and religious pluralism in contemporary Israel...

...Out of fairness to these Orthodox leaders, their original assertions were based on two erroneous quotations published in the Cleveland Jewish News (CJN). The newspaper, to its credit, apologized this week for misquoting, with the result of mischaracterizing Regev's speech.

In its attack ads, however, Am Echad (which describes itself as a "coalition of Jews across the Orthodox spectrum committed to genuine Jewish unity") went far, far beyond the error in the Cleveland newspaper. Their ads suggested, astonishingly, that in these manufactured quotes Regev "equated the Orthodox with Bin Laden's cohorts" and "lump(ed) Orthodox Jews who express their commitment to tradition... with terrorists who fly passenger jets into buildings." Similar accusations were made by Jerusalem Post columnist and Am Echad Israel Director Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum (who subsequently denied that anyone had accused Regev of exactly what his own ad accuses him of).

But even if uttered as originally reported, to suggest that such assertions would be the same as equating all Orthodox, or all Haredim, or even the Haredi desecrators of non-Orthodox shuls, with the terrorists of Sept. 11 is absurd. If you give a speech about the dangers of botulism in all food, including non-kosher and kosher food, it is intellectual nonsense to condemn you for having given a speech "equating" kosher and non-kosher food.

Regev asked: What are the potential results of verbal vitriol - rising in degree and in frequency - directed against non-Orthodox Jews by some ultra-Orthodox leaders? What is being done by responsible Haredi leaders to deny the religious legitimacy of the views that spurred Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir? How should we understand Chief Rabbi Bakshi Doron's equation of Reform Jewry with the Jew Zimri, whom the Bible suggests was legitimately killed by the zealot priest Pinchas?

We have heard none of this addressed by Regev's critics. All Regev wants is the vast majority of Israelis who support recognition of Reform and Conservative rights in Israel to have a democratic voice in addressing these issues. Passionate argument is a defining characteristic of the Jewish tradition. From the time of the prophets to the age of the Talmud, from early Zionism to today's Knesset, vigorous debate has always exemplified our community's intellectual vitality. As Regev argued in Cleveland, the events of Sept. 11 brought our common humanity into sharper relief and cast a harsh spotlight on the potential effects of unchecked fundamentalism mutating malignantly in the minds of a few. Let us all in the Jewish community agree to redouble our efforts, to address our differences with civility, and to preach and practice tolerance. And let those who tarnished Regev's reputation begin by joining the CJN in correcting the record and affirming his good name.

RK, the article I quoted from responded directly to Saperstein's demand for an apology. Please review it in light of that. Thanks. Jayjg 19:17, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Attacks on archeologists

Archeologists are not a "segment of Judaism"; any attacks on them by Haredim may be interesting to some, but do not belong in an article on the "Relationship between segments of Judaism". Jayjg 19:19, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Good point. RK 22:19, 4 August 2004 (UTC) (I assume from your edit you meant your comment to go here). Jayjg 22:23, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

So you're ok with removing that section? Jayjg 22:23, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and remove it. RK

OK. I've done some work today, including adding brief quotes to the Haredi section. I plan to keep working through the rest of the article over the next few days. It will take some time. Jayjg 03:27, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Conflict at the Wall

Jayjg, please stop writing these falsehoods. "In the late 1980s non-Orthodox movements began attempting to hold non-traditional services as the Western Wall, in order to assert what they viewed as their denominational rights. " RK 16:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; these groups have stated as much. Which part do you consider false? Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

What you write never happened. You can't just make things up to insult Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews; you can't remove proven historical facts from th article, facts that were reported in newspapers. We do not care how much you and your rabbi dislike regular Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews; that does not justify falsifying facts; we refer to what you are doing as vandalism. RK 16:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Please avoid personal comments, accusations, and speculations. Also, who is the "we" that you keep referring to? Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

The indisputable historical facts are this: In the late 1980s modern Orthodox women began holding all woman prayer services in the women's section of the Kotel, the plaza adjoining the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. They had support from a number of prominent Orthodox rabbis.

Can you bring some evidence that the original groups were Orthodox women, supported by Orthodox Rabbis? Thanks. Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Women of the Wall started as an Orthodox Jewish women's tefila group and stayed that way for years. Today it says that it is non-denominational, but still holds by Orthodox halakha as normative. Many rabbis in the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) hol that such prayer groups are valid. As such, Orthodox Jewish tefila groups are permitted by many Orthodox rabbis, and meet in many places, such as Brooklyn (Flatbush), Washington Heights, Riverdale, Upper East Side of Manhattan, West Side, Staten Island, Teaneck, Englewood, Great Neck, Highland Park, Bala Cynwyd, Pa., Columbus, Skokie, Ill., Denver, Portland, Ore., Montreal, Jerusalem (Women of the Wall), London, and Melbourne. Of course, as you are aware, many other Orthodox rabbis deny that such groups have any validity. This is an inter-Orthodox dispute. See the article linked to below for a length discussion of this still ongoing dispute. RK

In 1974 Orthodox Rabbi Shlomo Goren paskened that women's tefilah groups are halakhically permissible; he reaffirmed this as late as 1989. He said that women may recite devarim she-be-kedusha (kaddish, kedusha, and borchu.) Other Orthodox rabbis agreed. By 1990 he was subjected to so much criticism that he partially retracted his psak, and claimed that his psak was actually only a theoretical analysis. According to Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and others, even Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik stated that women's tefila groups were halakhically permissible. This has been discussed at length in the pages of Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought. RK

Women's Prayer Services: Theory and Practice Rabbi Aryeh A.& Rabbi Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer3.htm

The relevant piece of your 3 paragraphs above is the claim that Women at the Wall began as an Orthodox Women's tefila group. We both agree that it is currently a non-denominational group; can you provide evidence that it was once Orthodox? Jayjg 05:05, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Near the same time, Masorti Jews (Israel's Conservative Judaism) began holding prayer services near the Kotel; however these services were not held next to the wall, bur rather behind it in the adjoining public plaza. Your statements above claim that they are all non-Orthodox (a lie), that they were all at the Kotel (a lie), and that their eal purpose was not to pray, but rather were making a public demonstration for political purposes (a hateful libel; also, how can you possibily be so arrogant as to claim to read their minds?) Cut it out. RK 16:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

From what I've read the Masorti move to a plaza near the Wall is a government compromise mandated (I believe) in 2002 or 2003. Can you bring evidence that the services were always held there? Thanks again. Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Israeli government compromise was that the Masorti Jews could move from the plaza (away from the wall) directly to the wall itself, but in a different part of the wall, at a palce called Robinson's Arch.

Can you please bring evidence of this? Thanks. Jayjg 05:05, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the larger point is that you are writing about topics of which you know little. You continually delete everything I write and ask for references, even when it is common knowledge printed in the front pages of Jewish newspapers! And yet you do not hold your own statements to the same standard of veracity. RK 18:15, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

http://www.masorti.org/media/02192004_jp.html

"Common knowledge" is one of the worst places to look for facts. Ignoring the usual ad hominem stuff, your link says the following (summarizing):

Women have always been allowed to pray at the Western Wall, but separately from men, and in private. In the past, attempts by women to worship at the Wall, while wearing prayer shawls and reading from the Torah, have provoked anger and violence from Orthodox worshipers... "The fact that that the government is willing to spend NIS 2 million to build a ramp in an archeological garden just so we won't be able to share the wall is both outrageous and a colossal waste of money," said Anat Hoffman, a leader of the Women of the Wall, and a former Jerusalem city councilwoman... The [Masorti] group has been holding small mixed prayer services at Robinson's Arch and nearby sites for the past three years.

In other words a) women's minyanim have been held at the Wall. b) Women of the Wall do not consider Robinson's arch to be part of the Wall, but rather an "archeological garden". c) Masorti groups have been holding services at Robinson's arch and nearby places for the past three years. As far as I can tell, this just confirms my position. How do you think it contradicts it? Jayjg 19:36, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Also, you are making up fake quotes about Conservative Judaism's founding documents. You repeatedly insert fraudulent quotes about how Conservative Jews were founded to fight against "Insane Orthodoxy and Stupid reform". The problem is that this is a bald-faced lie; none of the Conservative movement's ay anything of this sort; your so-called "quotes" are shockingly deliberate fraud meant to encourage hatred between Jews. I happen to own a vast library of the Conservative movement's publications, from 1900 to today, and nothign you write is in there. RK 16:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Your library may be vast, but it is certainly not everything published by the movement, which predates 1900. The Jewish Theological Seminary of America was founded in 1886, and article printed in the institution’s magazine declared that JTS would steer a course between “stupid Orthodoxy and insane Reform.” American Hebrew 57:18 (6 September 1895) Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

See my comments below. RK

Regev's statements

The same goes for your libel about the leadership of Reform Judaism; the hatespeech you attribute to them never existed; it has been proven that you were quoting from Rabbi Avi Shafran, an ulktra-Orthodox opponent of Reform, and not from the actual Reform leadership. In fact, the quotes that Rabbi Avi Shafran refers to never were spoken; the entire incident was a fraud. RK 16:37, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Actually, as I've pointed out above, I didn't quote anyone. In any event, if you read through the documentation given earlier, you will note that the specific statements were made at different times and in different venues, and sometimes conflated by the reporter, but that the basic premise was never denied; specifically, that Regev compared Haredim to the 9/11 terrorists. Jayjg 17:14, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

You relied on Rabbi Avi Shafran's deceitful slander of reform rabbis, and refused to use the actual quotes from Reform rabbis. There is no reason for your action, unless you want to simply insult reform rabbis. RK 02:44, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

I relied on a number of articles on the topic. The actual quotes themselves are no longer retreivable, as the reporter says they were conflated from various venues, and the venue itself refuses to provide tapes; for this reason I never quoted him. However, the substance of the claim is not in question, that Haredi Jews were compared to 9/11 bombers. Jayjg 05:05, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Shafran is lying. Rabbu Uri Regev did not say that Haredim are like 9/11 bombers. You are not referring to Rabbi Regev's point of view; rather, you are only quoting from Shafran's now-exposed lies about Rabbi Regev. Why can't you get this through your head? RK 18:13, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

You seem quite fixated on Shafran; I am not. But to get resolution here, which specific statements of Shafran's do you think are "lies", and why? Please be explicit. Jayjg 19:37, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Haredi quotes

RK, I'm having trouble understanding your editing position here. In the past you have been adamant about including a number of anti-Conservative and anti-Reform quotes made by Haredi leaders. As I have explained, long series of Haredi quotes (especially in an section about Conservative views) are not appropriate. That said, I felt it was important to include this information, which does reflect an underlying Haredi view, and so summarized the positions stated in these quotes into a couple of sentences. At this point you deleted the summaries, and referred to them as "ultra-Orthodox paranoid and propaganda". The summaries were taken directly from the quotes you so adamantly insisted had to be included in the article, so I can't figure out what you are trying to do any more. According to you, do these Haredi views belong in the article or not? Jayjg

I do not know which quote or quotes you are referring to. Please clarify. RK 02:53, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

These quotes:

"As darkness covers the earth, the Reform and Conservative sects that are the destroyers of the religion are trying to dig their nails into the Holy Land and receive recognition so that they may be counted among the streams of Judaism, God forbid. We hereby pronounce da'at Torah (with the authority of the Torah) that it is inconceivable to grant them any recognition whatsoever, and it is forbidden to conduct any negotiations with the destroyers who counterfeit the Torah and bring about assimilation and the destruction of Judaism in the Diaspora." -Source (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101071.html)

Rabbi Ben-Porath, the head of yeshiva Ohr Sameach, said, "sitting with the Reform and Conservative movements is worse than sitting with the PLO, because while the PLO wishes to destroy the state, these movements want to destroy Judaism itself." (Israel, 1989) -Source (http://ajc.org/pre/reform.htm),

Rabbi Shloosh of Netanya said, "Reform Jews are worse than Christians and war should be declared against them"

Rabbi Yisrael Eichler wrote that "Reform Rabbis are further from Judaism than Christians and Moslems and that they should be considered as filthy, lying, shekotzim who are criminals, who brought about the holocaust on the Jewish people".

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said, " Reform Jews should be vomited up...and thrown out of the country. They should be forbidden from settling in Israel...they have no place in Israel since they are a separate people."

At one time you insisted on having them in the article; you inserted the quotes, and reverted them a number of times when I deleted them, saying they were "critical" for "context". I then summarized them as follows:

Haredi leaders have accused these movements of attempting to "destroy Judaism", have stated that they "counterfeit the Torah and bring about assimilation", and have stated that Reform is farther from Judaism than Christianity and Islam. Haredi authorities have strongly fought attempts by the Reform and Conservative movements to gain official recognition and denominational legitimacy in Israel, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has gone so far as to say Reform Jews should not be allowed to move to Israel.

The above comes directly from your quotes, and I think it's a fair summary. I would have included links as well, but you only provided links for two of the statements, and neither of them worked. Yet when I put the summary in (as an attempted compromise) you vehemently deleted it a number of times, calling it "ultra-Orthodox propaganda" and "hatespeech". Jayjg 05:26, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

No, Jayjg, I did not refer to this summary in such a way. Are you joking with me? Time and again I write statements, and time and again you totally misinterpret everything I say, and end up arguing against what I actually wrote and believed. I did refer to other things you did, but you constantly get confused as to what I am talking about. RK

You made this [2] change which deleted the text in question, and referred to it as "Ultra-Orthodox paranoid and propaganda". If it wasn't that, then what exactly were you referring to? And are you now agreeing that it is a reasonable summary of the quotes you provided? Jayjg 19:25, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Rabbi Svei's statement about Rabbi Lamm

Rabbi Svei's statement about Rabbi Lamm was a personal comment made (according to Rabbi Svei) in response to Rabbi Lamm's failure to mention Haredi groups in a talk he gave about Orthodox accomplishments. This is clearly a conflict between individuals, and has nothing to do with Haredi views of Modern Orthodox Judaism. Jayjg 17:00, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

That is total hogwash, and I won't even pretend that you take your own analysis seriously. RK 02:49, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it is quite factual, and you would do well to take it seriously. As the Yeshiva University commentator itself points out:

Rabbi Svei issued his condemnation in the context of his displeasure with two statements Rabbi Lamm made over the course of the previous year. Rabbi Svei deplored references in Rabbi Lamm's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Centennial Address that explicated that institution's educational approach. The speech, made before assembled musmakhim and subsequently published for distribution, reiterated the avowed mission of RIETS to complement its primary commitment to Torah lishmah with "service to the Jewish community." Rabbi Svei took exception to Rabbi Lamm's failure to explicitly acknowledge contributions the "yeshiva" community has made to Orthodoxy during the RIETS address. [...a number of sentences criticizing Svei's position...] Rabbi Svei's onslaught was also inspired by his objection to Rabbi Lamm's stated support for the Neeman Commission's efforts to forge understanding among the Jewish denominations in Israel with relevance to issues of theological jurisdiction. Apparently support of this dialogue, the objective of which is to foster Jewish communal coalescence, represents to Rabbi Svei an unacceptable capitulation. [3]

Jayjg 05:11, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page to head off any further reverts and sparring, and force disagreements to the talk, after a complaint on the list. -SV 18:10, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Gotcha; RK, would you like mediation? Jayjg 18:55, 5 August 2004 (UTC)

Norman Lamm and "some prominent Hasidic rabbis"

Your text states:

According to Norman Lamm, some prominent Hasidic rabbis believe that modern Orthodox Jews like him are no longer part of the Jewish people. See "Integrity or Unity: Which?", excerpts of an address at The Orthodox Union National Rabbinic Centennial Medallion Awards Dinner)

My version is:

According to Rabbi Norman Lamm, Dean of Yeshiva University and a leader in Modern Orthodox Judaism, at least one prominent Hasidic rabbi is unsure whether modern Orthodox Jews like him are still part of the Jewish people. [4]

Aside from the fact that my version gives the actual link, the actual quote in the article is:

A few years ago I met with one of the most prominent Hasidic rabbis. In the course of a pleasant conversation, I complained about an article by the editor of a newspaper published by this group, in which he wrote that he is doesn’t understand why there is such a tumult about Kelal Yisrael (a term denoting the totality of the Jewish people), when after all, "according to our calculation there are no more than about a million people who belong in this group." I asked the Rebbe if I and my parents and wife and children and grandchildren are considered part of Kelal Yisrael. His painfully ambiguous and evasive answer was, "Rav Lamm, ihr fregt tzu harb a kashe" (Yiddish for: "Rabbi Lamm, you are posing too difficult a question.")

As is clear from the quote, Rabbi Lamm met with one Hasidic Rabbi, not some, and the Rabbi did not give a definitive answer about his beliefs, but stated that the question was too difficult for him to answer. Given the above, how can you justify your version? Jayjg 02:00, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

"stupid Orthodoxy and insane Reform" source

I've mentioned this above, but you haven't responded, so I'm mentioned it here as well. The "stupid Orthodoxy and insane Reform" quotation comes from American Hebrew 57:18 (6 September 1895), p. 426. In the history of Conservative Judaism published by the Jewish Theological Seminary, American Hebrew is described as “an unofficial voice for the [Jewish Theological] Seminary, indeed an arm of Seminary propaganda and publicity” (Tradition Renewed, volume 1, p. 38). In light of this, do you still view this as "a bald-faced lie", and insist that "none of the Conservative movement's ay anything of this sort; your so-called "quotes" are shockingly deliberate fraud meant to encourage hatred between Jews."? Jayjg 02:06, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Jayjg, but you are wrong. "Ameican Hebrew" was simply one of many newspapers that existed across the Jewish world in the 1800s. It did not teach or create the beliefs of Conservative Judaism. Unlike Orthodox Judaism, those outside of Orthodoxy allowed a wide variety of views to be debated in public. Like many non-Orthodox publications today, it was a forum, that's all.Just because one person was allowed the freedom to express his views with that one sentence does not mean that this was the official teaching of Conservative Judaism, or the reason for its founding. That's just foolish. The real facts are these: There are currently over 1.5 million Conservative Jews; including those from the 1800s until today there are many more. You simply have quoted from an article by one Orthodox rabbi who combed through 110 years of letters, articles and books from well over a million people to find one sentence, from one person, which is disingenuously using to make all Conservative Jews look bad. That's bad scholarship and done in bad faith. Look, anyone could also do the same for Orthodox Jews, or for Catholics, and find one stupid quote, to try and make all people in those religions look bad. But is that reasonable? No. Is it intellectually honest? No. It is anger-based quote-mining, and we may not slur all of Conservative Judaism's founders with one quote from an unnamed person, 110 years ago, which has nothing to do with the teachings of Conservative Judaism. RK 02:33, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

If you want to be honest at how Conservative Jews view Orthodox Jews, look at the facts: the actual founding documents of the RA, the USCJ, JTS, and their many attempts to form a union with Orthodox Jews. In total contrast to your text, the founders of Conservative Judaism repeatedly tried to merge with Orthodox Judaism. Why are you leaving the vast mainstream Conservative point of view out? And consider how the leadership of JTS referred to Reform Judaism; not as "insane", but rather as "Her majesty's loyal opposition". You are removing mainstream Conservative teachings and beliefs, and replacing them with one with random sentence. That's unjustifiable. RK 02:54, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see now you are no longer describing it as a "bald-face lie" and "so-called quote". Now, regarding your claim that the magazine did not teach the beliefs of Conservative Judasim, I repeat, in Tradition Renewed, volume 1, p. 38, the history of Conservative Judaism published by the Jewish Theological Seminary, American Hebrew is described as “an unofficial voice for the [Jewish Theological] Seminary, indeed an arm of Seminary propaganda and publicity”. The JTS itself describes it this way, this is considerably more than "one of many magazines that existed across the Jewish world in the 1800s."

This claim is incorrect. The American Hebrew was not the official voice of the Conservative movement. Rather, it was merely a newspapers that allowed people to write letters to the editor and articles. It is beyond belief and reason that you would accept that every article or letter to the editor is somehow the official point of view of the entire Conservative movement. Does every letter to the editor or article by one Orthodox Jew become representative of Orthodox Judaism? Of course not. Such a view is irrational. Further, the American The American Hebrew was more Orthodox than not! (You must remember that back then there was no formal difference between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.) RK

I repeat, in Tradition Renewed, volume 1, p. 38, the history of Conservative Judaism published by the Jewish Theological Seminary, American Hebrew is described as “an unofficial voice for the [Jewish Theological] Seminary, indeed an arm of Seminary propaganda and publicity”. Are you saying that in its official history, the Jewish Theological Seminary got it wrong? Jayjg 19:05, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

Note that Tradition Renewed did not have an article on this newspaper! Rather, it has articles on other topics, and only tangentially mentions this newspaper. So yes, based on what I have read elsewhere and in the Encyclopedia Judaica, we can safely say that the one passing sentence on this subject in Tradition Renewed is not accurate, and that's no big deal in a two volume set that has 2,000 pages, and millions of words! RK 19:22, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it "tangentially" mentioned that The American Hebrew was “an unofficial voice for the [Jewish Theological] Seminary, indeed an arm of Seminary propaganda and publicity”. And the person writing in this "arm of Seminary propaganda and publicity" did express the view that the Conservative movement would be hewing a path between "stupid Orthodoxy and insane Reform"; you wouldn't try to censor this viewpoint, would you? Jayjg 23:16, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

Please do not hurl such insults. Of course I will not censor the viewpoint of this one person. However, I neither will I allow anyone to falsely present the views of this one person as the reason that Conservative Judaism was founded. Such a claim is totally false. Should we find one hateful comment from one Orthodox Jew 100 years and present it as if that was the POV of the leadership of Orthodox Judaism, and the reason for founding it? Obviously not. RK 17:27, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Very well; we'll all avoid quote mining in the future. I'll think further on the issue of this specific quote, and how relevant it is. Jayjg 17:48, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

THE AMERICAN HEBREW, New York Jewish weekly begun in 1879. The American Hebrew was published by Philip Cowen, with editorial responsibility vested in a board of nine members, all of them young. The paper was vigorously written, favoring Orthodoxy as against Reform, and concerned with maintaining good literary standards and covering news from all parts of the Jewish world. Though Cowen denied it, the belief persisted that the paper was supported by Jacob Schiff. In 1906 Cowen sold his controlling interest to a group of leading New York Jews that included Isaac Seligman, Oscar S. Straus, Cyrus L. Sulzberger, Nathan Bijur, and Adolph Lewisohn. For the next ten years Joseph Jacobs was editor, succeeded by Herman Bernstein. During the editorship of Rabbi Isaac Landman (1918 37) The American Hebrew often took an anti-Zionist position. It was greatly interested in fostering goodwill between Jews and Christians, and in 1929 instituted an annual award for achievement in this field. Landman was succeeded by Louis H. Biden. In the course of its history The American Hebrew absorbed several Jewish weeklies. It ceased to appear as a separate publication in 1956 when it was combined with the Jewish Examiner to form the American Examiner.

From The Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing.

As for your complaints regarding quote mining, while this view does not reflect the current official position, it certainly reflected one view held in the Conservative movement. You have been quite liberal with your own quote mining of Haredi sources, it surprises me to see you object in this case. Jayjg 05:18, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

Huh? You presented it as the reason for the founding of the entire Conservative movement. Now you admit that it is only the POV of one person, from a newspaper that must have run thousands of articles and letters to the editor. Stop holding this one person's sentence as the official POV of the movement. 18:13, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

My views on it all

• 1) Haredim -RK's edit was "Thus Haredi rabbis and rabbinical organizations grant no legitimacy whatsoever to any form of Judaism other than their own." - I prefer this edit to the other one. It gives it simple and plainly.--Josiah 03:10, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Simpler but less accurate. Jayjg 05:00, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

How so?--Josiah 06:51, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

• 2) Haredim 2 - Jayig's edit removes the quote about Rabbi Lamm and has it as "The relationship between Haredi and Modern Orthodox Judaism is more complex; most Haredi Jews see Modern Orthodox Jews as allies, but they disagree with their accomodations of modernity, and view them as lax in their observance. According to Rabbi Norman Lamm, Dean of Yeshiva University and a leader in Modern Orthodox Judaism, at least one prominent Hasidic rabbi is unsure whether modern Orthodox Jews like him are still part of the Jewish people. " This is extremly sugarcoating the issue. I have not met a *single* "Ultra-Orthodox" Jew who counts Modern Orthodox Jews as part of Orthodoxy. --Josiah 03:10, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the quote about Rabbi Lamm, it is a personal disagreement between two men, not a statement about the legitimacy of Modern Orthodoxy. Please read the relevant Talk: discussions. Regarding not having met a single "Ultra-Orthodox" Jew, etc., I have. Jayjg 05:00, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Alright. It does make sense that it was talking about a person, not a school of thought.--Josiah 06:51, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Jay is still sugar-coating the issue. I have never found statements from Haredi Judaism that explicitly state respect for Modern Orthodox Judaism, but I have found many that express anger at it and disdain for it. I don't know where Jay is getting his info from, but in the real world Haredi Judaism views Modern Orthodoxy as non-Orthodox and invalid. I will be presenting even more sources and quotes in the next day or so. Jay is incorrect when he claims that this is about on person! RK 17:32, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is not "the issue" of Haredi views of Modern Orthodoxy, but rather whether or not this quote is relevant to that. As the discussion in earlier sections shows, Rabbi Svei was speaking specifically about Rabbi Lamm; he said so. If you can find other quotes that are relevant, that's wonderful, but this particular one is not. Jayjg 17:45, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

• 3) Conservative 1 - I agree with Jayig's opening paragraph, though I believe it should be changed to "moderate between Orthodoxy and Reform".--Josiah 03:10, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

• 4) I agree with Jayig's edits on paragraphs 2,3, and 4. I don't see a reason that RK's 5th paragraph should have been removed. I agree with RK's edit on theKotel. --Josiah 03:10, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Which 5th paragraph? Why do you agree with RK's edit? Jayjg 05:00, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

The one that says "Advertisements by Orthodox rabbis have been taken out in newspapers stating that it is better for Jews to stay home on Rosh Hashanah than to attend non-Orthodox services. As such, many Conservative Jews have become disenchanted with Orthodoxy, and view it as domineering and hostile." I think it should be kept in their because it is correct, American Rabbis have made similar decisions, and it gives some background on the clashes.--Josiah 06:51, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

• 5) Why was the section about theattacks on archeologists removed?!--Josiah 03:10, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Because archeologists aren't a "segment of Judaism". Again, please read relevant Talk: discussions. In fact, it would be better if you actually read them, then weighed in there. Jayjg 05:00, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Makes sense to me. The question is whether or not the archeologists represented a paticular sect of Judaism, but I doubt that could be proven. I didn't read all of the discussions, cuase well it's a bit overwhelming coming in the end of it all. --Josiah 06:51, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Reform views

Here is the current text:

Reform Judaism currently espouses the notion of religious pluralism; it believes that most Jewish denominations (including Orthodox groups and the Conservative movement) are valid expressions of Judaism. Historically the Reform view of Orthodox Judaism has been highly negative. Reform began as a rejection of Orthodox Judaism, and early battles between Reform and Orthodox groups in Germany for control of communal leadership were fierce. Reform viewed Orthodoxy as a backward movement, attempted to do away with most traditional practices, and in the 20th century often predicted its demise. While the rhetoric generally cooled, Israeli Reform leader Rabbi Uri Regev recently compared Haredi Jews to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. [5] Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, head of the American Reform movement, has called the Israeli Chief Rabbinate "[e]xtremist and radical and fanatic...a medieval chief rabbinate that is a disgrace to the Jewish people and its religion", described Haredi Judaism as "ghetto Judaism", referred to "utterly fanatic ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel who are becoming more extreme every day" and has accused "the ultra-Orthodox" of having "abused Torah for their own selfish purposes and brought it into disrepute."

Relations with the Conservative movement are much more cordial, and Conservative and Reform leaders co-operate on many areas of mutual concern. However, some of Reform's leaders have also predicted the demise of Conservative Judaism, a prediction which Conservative leaders have called called the argument "delusional" and the product of "immature" analysis.[6]

As RK currently seems to object only to the sentence on Regev, and as the facts of that incident are not entirely clear, I propose eliminating Regev's statements altogether, and using this alternative text:

Reform Judaism currently espouses the notion of religious pluralism; it believes that most Jewish denominations (including Orthodox groups and the Conservative movement) are valid expressions of Judaism. Historically the Reform view of Orthodox Judaism has been highly negative. Reform began as a rejection of Orthodox Judaism, and early battles between Reform and Orthodox groups in Germany for control of communal leadership were fierce. Reform viewed Orthodoxy as a backward movement, attempted to do away with most traditional practices, and in the 20th century often predicted its demise. While the rhetoric generally cooled, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, head of the American Reform movement, has called the Israeli Chief Rabbinate "[e]xtremist and radical and fanatic...a medieval chief rabbinate that is a disgrace to the Jewish people and its religion", described Haredi Judaism as "ghetto Judaism", referred to "utterly fanatic ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel who are becoming more extreme every day" and has accused "the ultra-Orthodox" of having "abused Torah for their own selfish purposes and brought it into disrepute," and in a 1998 article for New York’s Jewish Week, described haredi insularity as "nothing less than a betrayal of America." Simeon Maslin, past president of the Central Conference of American Rabbbis (Reform), has stated that Haredi Jews (who in his words "pray rapidly in sing-song Hebrew, pore over the Talmud in segregated yeshivot, and buy from glatt kosher butchers") have forfeited the right to be called "authentic Jews."

Relations with the Conservative movement are much more cordial, and Conservative and Reform leaders co-operate on many areas of mutual concern. However, some of Reform's leaders have also predicted the demise of Conservative Judaism, a prediction which Conservative leaders have called "delusional" and the product of "immature" analysis.[7]

Thoughts? Comments? Jayjg 15:15, 12 August 2004 (UTC)

Um, ok, silence is consent. Jayjg 19:36, 13 August 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. RK 21:56, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Non-Rabbinical Jews

I'd like to see the relationships with Rabbinical and Non-Rabbinical Jews covered as well. I'll have something about relationships between Karaites & Rabbanites, and of the "Am HaAretz" of the 2nd temple period within a week, but there are others that I'm not knowledgeable enough to cover. Could some hit Beta Israel (The Ethopian Jews)?--Josiah 16:22, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

Remove Quotes

I think all quotes should be removed from the article, they should be paraphrased instead. If a quotes with strong biases are included, then it is just bringing the war into wikipedia. Most articles do not quote extensively. Wikipedia articles are not academic papers, they are summaries of the facts. Any quoting that is felt necessary should be done in talk. --Ezra Wax 19:45, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

I agree that all lengthy quotes should be removed, though brief ones are fine. I keep hoping to get back to this article, and still plan to. By the wya, lengthy quotes are a problem found in many Jewish-related articles. Jayjg 21:26, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Draft of Karaite portion

During the Dark ages, relationships between Karaite & Rabbinical Jews were more or less fair with each other, because although they had differences in beliefs, their communities were intertwined. This changed with the coming of Sa'adia Gaon, who declared that Rabbinical Jews should seperate themselves from Karaite Jews and began a series of Refutations of Karaite views which sparked a bitter theological war between the two.

Conflicts between the two died down until the time of the Czars, when Russian Karaites circulated myths that they were not Jews, or that they were Jews who hadn't lived in Israel while Jesus lived, and even banned marriages with Rabbinical Jews (though the rule was not enforced), in order to escape the anti-semetic laws that the Russian Czars had passed.

It is said that in World War 2, the Nazis consulted 3 Orthodox Rabbis to determine whether or not Karaite Jews were, in fact, Jews. In order to save their lives, the Rabbis ruled that they were not.

Today Karaites live side by side with Rabbinical Communities, with their own synagogues and religous courts. While some Askenazi Rabbis do not believe that Karaites are Jews, recent Rabbinical Rulings have declared that Karaism is closer to Orthodoxy than Conservative and Reform Judaism. Sephardic Cheif Rabbinate Ovadiah Yossef ruled that Orthodox Jews should intermarry with Karaites in order to assimilate them into Orthodox Judaism.--Josiah 16:40, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend providing sources for most of what you have entered above, as I consider much of it POV, especially the first paragraph. Jayjg 16:46, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

In what way would you change it?--Josiah 09:30, 17 August 2004 (UTC)

Your thesis here is that Karaite Jews got along just fine with other Jews until big bad Sa'adiah Gaon came along and ruined everything. This seems like a vast over-simplification. Regarding Russia:

In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Karaites migrated to the Crimean peninsula. The Lithuanian prince Vytautus (Witold) the Great (r. 1386 - 1430) moved hundreds of Karaites from the Crimea to the north and settled them in Troki, Lutsk, and Galich (Pol., Halicz). From the early nineteenth century Karaites in Russia demanded equal rights, and several of their scholars (such as Abraham Firkovich) claimed that their origins were not Jewish. In the second half of the nineteenth century this claim was accepted; the Karaites were accorded the same rights as the Russians, and were integrated into society, serving in the tsar's army and in government service. In the Civil War that followed World War I, Karaite officers fought in the White Army against the Bolsheviks. After the Bolshevik victory they emigrated to the West, settling in Warsaw, in Berlin, in France, and in Italy.

Regarding Nazi Germany, the story of the 3 Rabbis is no legend, but this is just part of the picture:

The Nazis first came up against the problem of the Karaites when they published the regulations for enforcement of the nuremberg laws. The heads of the small Karaite community in Berlin asked the authorities to exempt them from the regulations; on the basis of their legal status in tsarist Russia, they claimed that they were not of Jewish origin. After examination of the claim, on January 5, 1939, the Reichsstelle fur Sippenforschung (Reich Agency for Investigation of Families) determined that the Karaite sect should not be considered part of the Jewish religious community with regard to those regulations, and that the racial classification of the Karaites should be decided not according to their attachment to a specific people, but according to their personal genealogy. That document became an edict, and from then on it served the Nazi authorities as the basis for dealing with the Karaites.

After the outbreak of World War II the Germans again encountered Karaites, first in occupied France, and then in occupied areas of the Soviet Union. The Commissariat generalaux questions Juives (General Office for Jewish Affairs) in Vichy France required Karaites to be registered as Jews. But on the basis of memoranda and opinions of the heads of the Orthodox church there, the Karaites attempted to prove that they were not of Jewish origin. The journal of the union Generale des Israelites de France (General Council of French Jews) claimed that the Karaites were Jews, but eventually instructions arrived from Berlin to accept the Karaites' position.

In the USSR the first Germans to come across the Karaites were the Einsatzgruppen. Although at that time the origins of this sect were not clear to the Nazis, the Einsatzgruppen attacked them in several localities, for instance in Kiev, where more than two hundred Karaites died at Babi Yar. When approaching the Crimea, the Einsatzgruppen sought clarification from Berlin, and received instructions not to harm the Karaites, since they were not of Jewish origin.

When members of the Nazi civilian government established their authority in the occupied areas of the USSR, they also met the Karaites. The heads of the Generalkommissariat of Lithuania encountered Karaites in Troki and in Vilna, among them the chief religious authority of the Karaites, Seraya Shapshal. The Generalkommissariat wrote to the reichskommissariat Ostland, which passed on the inquiry to the Ministry for the Occupied Territories in the East, located in Berlin. An exchange of letters, opinions, and position papers ensued, containing frequent references to the edict of the Reich Agency for Investigation of Families. In those documents it was again decided that the Karaites were of Turkish - Mongolian extraction, and had adopted the Jewish religion from missionaries in the Kuzari kingdom in the eighth and ninth centuries. In the late summer of 1942 the Nazis addressed separate inquiries to Jewish scholars in three ghettos: Professor Meir Balaban and Dr. Ignacy Schiper in Warsaw, Zelig Hirsh Kalmanovitch in Vilna, and Dr. Leib Landau and Dr. Yaakov Schall in Lvov. Wishing to save the Karaites from the fate of the Jews, the scholars expressed the opinion that the Karaites were not of Jewish extraction.

In May 1943 the Ministry for the Occupied Territories in the East finally determined that the Karaites were not part of the Jewish religious community, and that their origin was Turkish - Tatar - Mongolian. The determination of origin had been made, it was claimed, on the basis of racial examinations carried out among different groups of Karaites. The ministry demanded that the Karaites be treated like Turks and Tatars, in order not to anger those peoples. Politically, it was hoped that decent treatment of the Karaites would gain the sympathy of the Turks and Tatars, which the Germans needed at that time, since they were in general retreat from the USSR following the fall of Stalingrad and the withdrawal from the Caucasian front. The ministry decision saved the Karaites from the fate of their Jewish brethren -- annihilation in the framework of the "final solution" to the Jewish problem.

In the second half of 1944 the problem of the Karaites again arose, when the heads of the SS realized that about five hundred to six hundred of the sect were serving in the Waffen - SS and the Tatar division of the German army. These must have been Karaites who served in the Crimea, in local government and police, and in various auxiliary army units, and who were retreating to the west. Their families settled in the vicinity of Vienna, and there, together with the Crimean Tatars, they created the Association of Tatars and Karaites from Crimea, an organization with social objectives.

The fact that Karaites were serving in the army disturbed SS circles, and correspondence began on this matter between the heads of Heinrich Himmler's personal staff and the head office of the SS responsible for the Waffen - SS. Again the question of the Karaites' religion and origin was raised, and the decision of the Ministry for the Occupied Territories in the East was again accepted. The political reasoning was also re - endorsed: the Karaites must not be harmed because of their blood relatives, the Turks and the Tatars. The Jewish religion of the Karaites annoyed the SS circles, and it was therefore recommended not to publicize Karaite activity in the army. On December 7, 1944, Himmler approved these conclusions and recommendations, and the Karaites continued to serve in the German army until its surrender in early May 1945.

The relationship of the Karaites to the "Rabbanite" (non - Karaite) Jews is not easy to determine, in view of the dearth of evidence. Certainly, it was not uniform. In Lutsk the Karaites cooperated in the cruel treatment of the local Jews, and in Vilna and Troki they furnished precise lists of the members of their community, thereby frustrating an attempt to save hundreds of "Rabbanite" Jews who had obtained forged Karaite certificates. Those Jews were caught and killed. In other localities the Karaites helped the Jews, even providing original certificates and saving individual Jews.

This information is all from the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. Jayjg 16:39, 17 August 2004 (UTC)

And it ignores something very important. WHY where the Russian Karaim denying that they were Jews? Did they actually view themselves as not being Jews? The answer to the first one is simple - for the same reason that Jews during the Inquisition denied that they were Jews - to avoid persecution. Rabbanites and Karaites still occured in Russia at that time. Which reminds me, I need to put in information about what could be called "The Holocaust of the Karaites", which happened in 12th century Spain. On Saadia Gaon, I would compare the situation between Rabbinical and Karaitic Jews to today's relationship between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. The Haredim would be today's Sa'adia Goan's. Before Gaon came around, the communities existed together. Afterwards, they were seperated.--Josiah 06:10, 18 August 2004 (UTC)

The motivations of these Russian Karaites may be interesting, but neither you nor I can decide today what they really are. Fortunately, we do not have to, as we merely need to present the facts, not what we presume are the motivations of the various groups involved. Regarding your use of the term Holocaust, this kind of hyperbole is highly POV, as well as anachronistic. As for your claims regarding Sa'adiah Gaon, I understand your perspective; your original material made it quite clear. However, as before, what is required is evidence that your perspective is accurate. Jayjg 14:45, 18 August 2004 (UTC)

Jayig, with all due respect, saying that we don't know why they were denying they were Jews is as ignorant as saying we don't know why Jews denied they were such during the inquisition.--Josiah 14:27, 10 September 2004 (UTC)

Jews denied they were Jews during the Inquisition? Or did they deny they were practising Rabbinic Judaism? The Russian Karaite claims were effectively racial in nature, no one doubted that their faith differed, and these claims long pre-dated the Nazis. In any event, we still do not need to speculate on their motivations, we merely need to present the known facts; ideally this should be an encyclopedia article, not an apologia. Jayjg 18:45, 10 September 2004 (UTC)

Of course there were Jews who denied they were such during the inquisition (both religiously and ethnically). This is common knowledge. There is no speculation as to the motivations of the Russian Karaites, Jayig, any more than saying Jews denied they denied they practiced Judaism because the inquisition is speculation. Ask them for yourself. They'll tell you the same thing.--Josiah 22:58, 13 September 2004 (UTC)

Rather than "common knowledge" and "ask them for yourself" types of proofs, I would prefer some sort of tangible references. Jayjg 00:20, 14 September 2004 (UTC)

Would email contacts with 3 Karaite Hakhams be sufficient? I could email the 3 in question and ask if they would mind, one in paticular grew up in Russia. I may try to find a verifying source on the web, but considering until a year or two ago a search of the word 'karaite' yielded only 5 results, I'm not crossing my fingers for that one.--Josiah 01:51, 15 September 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why an e-mail correspondence with any individual would reflect any more than that individual's personal opinion. BTW, a Google search of Karaite produces around 16,000 hits, and Karaism produces another 3,500 or so. Jayjg 02:34, 15 September 2004 (UTC)

I know that *today* there are quite a few results on a google search. The reason I recommended a Karaite Hakham, paticuarly one who grew up in Russia, was for the same reasons that I would recommend a Rabbi who lived during the holocaust for info about it. FYI, marriages between Rabbinical and Karaite Jews occured during the period of time in question in Russia. I also recommended this because I don't keep up with any religious journals (and thus do not know of a specific source to refer you to, other than the descendants of those who lived in russia and/or leaders who have access to the documentation from that time period of the karaites who lived there.)--Josiah 06:53, 17 September 2004 (UTC)

I know that Conservative rabbis view the different Karaite communities as distinct; there is an official responsa from 1984 stating that Egyptian Karaites are definately Jews, and that marriage with Egyptian Karaites is not intermarriage. RK

Most American Karaim are of Egyptian Descent. Sephardic Authorities have ruled that have also ruled that Karaites are also Jews. A sephardic friend gave me a list with those who had, and it included: Rabbi David ben Zimra of Egypt, Maimonides' son - the Nagid Abraham, Rabbi Elijah of Negropont, Dayan Dr. Pinchas Toledano, Av Beit Din of the Sephardic Community in Great Britain, Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef, The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards "Accepting Egyptian karaites into our Communities", by Rabbi David H. Lincoln, adopted March 28, 1984. Published in "Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards 1980-1985".--Josiah 06:10, 18 August 2004 (UTC)

Other negative Reform views of Haredim

I'll be working some of this material into the article as well, just letting you have a look at it first:

In a 1998 article for New York’s Jewish Week, American Reform leader Eric Yoffie described haredi insularity as "nothing less than a betrayal of America." And Simeon Maslin, past president of the Central Conference of American Rabbbis (Reform), accuses ultra-Orthodox Jews "who pray rapidly in sing-song Hebrew, pore over the Talmud in segregated yeshivot, and buy from glatt kosher butchers" of having forfeited the right to be called "authentic Jews." Jayjg 05:52, 9 August 2004 (UTC)

I realize that intolerance is blind, but if you don't want "petty anecdotal villifications" of Orthodoxy, than I suggest using the same logic for the Reform section as opposed to making hypocritical edits to whitewash the Orthodox section. This is the WP encyclopedia not the Haredim encyclopedia.24.27.202.53 05:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please research the edit history before accusing anyone of "intolerance". Indeed, there can be no petty vilifications at all in an encyclopedia. That is why if you look at the history of the edits it was me who also erased many of the the above-mentioned petty statements in the reform section. Shykee 11:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I didn't need to look at the history - you edited out 'petty anecdotal vilifications' from the Orthodox section and left in the same type of vilifications in the Reform section which I subsequently removed to restore a semblance of balance. If you're going an individual, you should have a valid citation and you should quote in context - for example, what exactly was Rabbi Yoffie responding to when he made the ALLEGED inflammatory remarks that were included before I made the edit and where is the valid source? Now here's an actual quote from Rabbi Yoffie with respect to the Orthodox not recognizing Reform conversions. "The Reform movement has welcomed rising interest in conversion to Judaism; at the same time, those undergoing Reform conversion have been required to accept more demanding requirements of study and observance. Still, as my Orthodox friends remind me, without an expression of kabbalat mitzvoth (acceptance of the Law as defined by Orthodox authorities), Reform conversions cannot be recognized by the Orthodox world. Every time I discuss this matter we are left with the same impasse: they see the acceptance of kabbalat mitzvot as they define it as a sacred principle and a religious obligation that is literally an expression of Gods will, while I am not prepared to impose on would-be converts requirements that I do not accept for myself and that I do not see as consistent with my view of Jewish tradition. No amount of ideological jousting is going to resolve this issue. I do not agree with my Orthodox colleagues but I understand and respect their views, and it is for precisely that reason that I have no desire to continue the debate that Dr. Wertheimer wants to resume and that the Orthodox world has no interest in anyway. Instead, as an expression not of avoidance but of realism, I prefer to see my movement devoting its resources to promoting the study of Torah and deepening commitment to Jewish belief and practice; this is our real challenge and the area where we might hope to make a meaningful difference. Does this mean that a divided Jewish people is inevitable? I honestly do not know. I am far from sure that this will happen, simply because the common sense realism of the laity will act as a break on the schismatic tendencies of the rabbinate. In the final analysis, the terms of communal interaction will be shaped by the will of the Jewish people, the great majority of whom will have little patience for rabbinic decrees that tell two Jews that they must not marry each other." http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=7061

Doesn't sound like an intolerant hot-head as the WP article had intended to portray him and if you want to discuss relationships between Jewish religious movements, it would probably be better to highlight the issues that divide (e.g.. recognition of Reform conversions) as opposed to employing ad-hominem & attacking individuals or groups.24.27.202.53 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing me with the original user who posted those comments. I, as I stated, erased much of the inflammatory material from the reform section. If you have a personal grievance with that user, please take it to their talk page. This is not the forum for accusations of intolerance. Shykee 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

name

Shouldn't this be "Relationships between Ashkenazi religious movements"? Tomer^talk 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point! --Metzenberg 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page even exist?

I was surprised to find this page. Why does this page exist? Very few pages seem to be linked to this page? It seems to me like this page is a debating forum, not an encyclopedia page. There is some interesting material here that could be incorporated into the page Jewish denominations, which I have been working on. But basically, this page is all POV. --Metzenberg 08:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how I feel about this page but I will suggest a rationale. Judaism is not a dogmatic religion, so what people mean by "Judaism" is contentions and different Jewish movements have different views of Judaism. Yet, each major movement of Judaism accepts that members of the other movements are Jews. This means that each movement's view of "What is Judaism" involves their views of the other movements. So this material belongs in the article on Judaism. I think it may have started out there, and as the article became too long this was made its own article as a content fork. Now, either this rationale makes no sense to you, or it does make sense but you think this article can be improved. If the latter is the case by all means - improve it! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reconstructionism

Any chance of getting some info on Reconstructionism in the context of this page? 89.138.19.34 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose renaming this article

I propose renaming this article Relationships among Jewish denominations for the following reasons:

• There is an article named Jewish denominations
• Judaism and Template:Judaism refer to the movements as "denominations"
• Nitpick: "Between" refers to two parties; "among" refers to three or more

I'd appreciate other editors' views on the subject. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnote style sourcing

Because this article addresses controversies that can sometimes involve animosities, suggest using footnote-style sourcing to source each claim individually, so that the quality of sourcing for each major point can be assessed. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we re-title this article?

I think that we should come up with a new title for this article. No writers refer to the different "segments of Judaism". The more comkon terms are "denominations of Judaism" or "Jewish movements". Perhaps we could retitle this article as: RK 21:33, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between Jewish movements or

Relationship between Jewish denominations

I've been thinking along similar lines. I thought about your two suggestions, but the first didn't capture the religious nature of the movements, while the second wouldn't allow for discussion of (say) intra-Orthodox relations. How about Relationships between Jewish religious movements? Jayjg 21:45, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. RK 21:56, 15 August 2004 (UTC)

O.K., moving. Jayjg 00:13, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for another minor change to the title for this article: change "between" to "among". "Between" is for one-to-one relationships; "among" covers relationships with three or more entities. I don't know how to make such a change, so perhaps one of you would like to do so. --rich<Rich Janis 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)>