![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recently made a minor modification to a paragraph that has been in this article for over a year. In the past Danny, I and others have been in agreement on this point. However, on looking it over the point seemed too strong; it made it look as if Orthodox Jews reject all of modernity, which they certainly do not. (They live in the greater gentile society which sourrounds them, use all modern technology and medicine, and participate in the general economy and society.) As such, I changed a few words to tone down the original. Out of nowhere, Danny wrote "removed ill-informed statement by user who does not know what he is talking about." and took out the entire paragraph. All I can say is "huh"? RK 17:06, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
From Hirsch to Kook to Soloveichik to Greenberg, all have adopted ideas from the "Enlightenment," so stop your pompous posing and try to write about things you know. Danny 19:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Finally, you literally misread the entire point of the edit I made! The original paragraph made all Orthodox Jews out to be anti-modern, and in (apparent) agreement with you, I toned down this idea. Do you wish to phrase that paragraph another way? Fine, I would welcome your input. RK 19:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Is dogma inherent in mitzvot? The Maharal ( 1525 – August 22, 1609 or Elul 18) obviously cannot have argued againt Moses Mendelsohn (September 6, 1729 – January 4, 1786). Yaakov N.
For such complete article the omission of the above is curious.
Why is the Jewish holidays template at the bottom here? This article is not about a Jewish holiday. - Joshuapaquin 03:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
JFW, I don't see why what I wrote should be seen as "unbalanced". From what I understand, it has been a mainstream view in Judaism that one should not take the creation account of Gensesis literally. For the last 150 years a great many Orthodox rabbis have stressed that the Bible does not explicitly claim that the world was created six thousands years ago. That was an assumption based on the dating in Seder Olam, a non-canonical midrash that has no formal status in either Jewish law or Jewish theology. In fact, some Kabbalists teach that Jews whp accept Kabbalistic texts as geunine and accurate - which includes a great many Orthodox Jews - should understand that our universe is billions of years old. See the works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Since the development of modern geology which has proved that our world is some 4.5 billion years old, the great majority of religious Jews (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) have taught that one must find a way to re-read the Bible in accord with this finding. Why should this not be noted within the main article? RK 17:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
It is an interesting point you make since the opinion of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan is an outlier in terms of Orthodox Jews. The essay you refer to was given to Orthodox Jewish Scientists who couldn't reject what science found as evidence to the world being billions of years old. As far as I am aware, Orthodox Jews across the board accept the narrative of Genesis literally, especially in terms of the timeline of the creation of man. Other explanations exist that try to harmonize the narrative of Genesis and science; one example used is that the 24 hour day was only created on Day 4 as evident in the narrative. 204.128.182.35 ( talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes about the little known view of Kabbalists about the creation of the world and the evolution of life on Earth. He notes that the Tiferes Yisrael (Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, 19th cent) cites a tanna (rabbi of the Mishna) that God created many worlds, and destroyed them, before our world was created. He holds that fossil remains of dinosaurs are indeed millions of years old, and are the remains from these earlier worlds.
The Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ summarizes more of Aryeh Kaplan's summary:
So given the above statements in classical rabbinic literature and the Kabbalistic literature, it is hard to say that the classical Jewish view demanded that people accept that the world was created as is some 6,000 years ago. I think the text should stress that the literal understanding of creation in six days was one of a number of religious Jewish understandings, but was not the only one. RK 20:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yet, Rav Kananetsky has ruled that if a ger tzedek believed the world was millions of years old his conversion is pussel even b'di eved. One wonders how you know the above, but a gadol hador does not. The only explenation I can think of is he knows more that enlightens the above in such a way that it does not mean what you think it does. Basejumper2 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment working entirely from memory of my Yeshiva days and later study: First off, the world is described as having being created in motion, so that in answer to the chicken and egg problem, the chicken was created laying on the egg. Therefore looking back through time (as anthropologists do) there should be no recognizable divison line at the moment of creation. (If there were than freedom of choice with regard to belief in divinity would be suspended.) Therefore belief that the world was created 5768 years ago is based on a belief-statement that anything that 'happened' before that happened before creation.
Point 2 is then that there are two ways to continue with this. Method one is that none of that really happened at all, God just created the record of it. Method two is that the word creation refers to the creation of Adam and anything before that is not subject to conversation (religiously) because it has no bearing on us and our relationship to God, as we are described as children of Adam, specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisheweiss ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This vandal Special:Contributions/69.133.124.105 appears to be the same as Special:Contributions/Jmac800 and I've noted the additional alias at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/RU_Moderate.
Why is the {{ JewishHolidays}} template included in this article? It's a nice template, don't get me wrong, but I don't see what relevance it has to the Rambam's (or anyone else') interpretations of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism... Tom e r talk 09:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The main Judaism article had a very jumbled list of Maimonides' 13 Principles (henceforth referred to as 13Ps). I replaced it with the simpler, more accurate list I found on this page. However, while I believe that is sufficient for the Judaism article, the 13Ps are important enough to deserve more thorough treatement in this (or their own) article. I'm pasting below the old list that I removed from the Judaism article, as it has some useful stuff in it, despite being wrong in places. Let's try to get it up to standard and put it into this article. Nomist 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
_____________________
Actually, Maimonides explains his principles in detail in his commentary to Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek. It would seem that that should be the source for further explanation in the article as the ideas listed above bear very little resemblance to Maimonides' own explanation there. I will attempt to put an exact translation onto this talk page in the near future (time permitting). Shykee 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
Your principles are a bit mixed up, and you're missing some and you add some others.
- The Creator creates and guides all creatures , and He alone, made, makes and will make everything.
- The Creator is unique and there is no uniqueness like His in any way, and He alone is our God, Who was, Who is and Who will always be.
- The Creator is not physical and is not affected by physical phenomena, and there is no comparison whatsoever to Him.
- The Creator is the very first and the very last.
- The Creator - to Him alone is it proper to pray and it is not proper to pray to any other.
- All the words of the prophets are true.
- The prophecy of Moses out teacher was true and he was the father of all prophets - both those who preceded him and those who followed him.
- The entire Torah now in our hands is the same one that was given to Moses our teacher.
- This Torah will not be exchanged nor will there be another Torah from the Creator.
- The Creator knows all deeds of human beings and their thoughts, as it is said, "He fashions their hearts together, He comprehends all their deeds." [1]
- The Creator rewards with good those who observe his commandments and punishes those who violate his commandments.
- The Messiah will come, and even though he may delay, nevertheless it is anticipated every day that he will come.
- There will be a resuscitation of the dead whenever the wish emanates from the Creator.
[2] DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 12:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
References
It would be great to hear a response, but it seems that the lack of context in the article results in a profoundly skewered presentation of the "Rishonim's" ideas and beliefs. The article can easily be understood to imply that the Rishonim viewed Judaism as some sort of ephemeral, intangible belief system with only a few basic concepts and "principles" necessary in order to be a Jew in good standing. Some basic ideas are neglected: the controversy surrounding the enumeration of any principles at all; the idea, very clear in their writings, that these basic tenets are only underpinnings necessary for a full acceptance of the complete Written and Oral Torah. Because these criticisms would demand a very large overhaul of the article, it seems only fair to first set them forth in the "talk" area for discussion before editing. Shykee 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)shykee
The article Yetzer Hara should perhaps be expanded, or merged with Jewish principles of faith -- 201.50.123.251 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The first of the following two sentences
"Some later rabbis have attempted to reconcile the differences, saying that Maimonides' principles are covered by Albo's much shorter list. While some later rabbis have attempted to reconcile the differences, claiming that Maimonides' principles are covered by Albo's much shorter list, the difference, and alternate lists provided by other medieval rabbinic authorities seem to indicate a some level of tolerance for varying theological perspectives."
Is unnecessary. I will hereby delete it for the sake of clarity and rectitude. Fine work over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.180.201 ( talk • contribs)
I have read this and i have read Islam there is so much in common, so why is there so much hate? Why do Jews prefer Christians to Muslims when Muslims and Jews have a better history? Is Israel the source of this division? I mean the whole one god thing, the purification, the praying, Christianity is so different and yet why does this article not say "like Islam" but it compares to Chritianity? Oh yeah and the whole laws of leviticus, no pork , no usary, -- HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
the comment is in relation to the refernces to Christianity why not make the more sensible refernces to Islamic belief. So It is a suggested imporvement,-- HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
ahh found what i was looking for Abrahamic religion this is where the topic lives., thank you mr humus sapien for your time (again)-- HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Although Orthodox and traditional Jews continue to stress the divine origin of Torah, most rabbinical authorities have agreed that there is no halakhic obligation to adhere to any particular statement of principles of faith, other than a belief in the oneness of God."
Since halacha and halachic have not been defined for the reader, perhaps the sentence should read "most rabbinical authorities have agreed that there is no obligation under Jewish law to adhere..." Alternatively, you may want to link the word halacha to an appropriate wikipedia page or definition. Eyshetchayil 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Important clarification: When you write "most rabbinical authorities have agreed that there is no halakhic obligation to adhere to any particular statement of principles of faith, other than a belief in the oneness of God." you mean to say either conservative, reform, or reconstructionist rabbis. Orthodox rabbinical authorities across the board follow the opinion of Maimonides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.182.35 ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean articles of faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel. "
The above quote regarding Asher ben Jehiel's comments are false. These comments are quoted in his name because they appear in a forged set of responsa attributed to him named Besamim Rosh. This book was proven a forgery in the eighteenth century (which is also when it first appeared) by Rabbi Mordechai Bannet. The Besamim Rosh was actually written by the reformer Saul Berlin, who " attempt[ed] to undermine traditional Judaism." This quote, as well as all of the information above, can be found in Marc B. Shapiro's book The Limits of Orthodox Theology on page 21. Therefore, I believe this passage should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJS20 ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Before I begin, in the interest of fairness I must profess an ignorance of non-Orthodox Judaism. The comments below are based on a lifetime of study - in Yeshiva and afterwards - of Orthodox Judaism, mostly Misnagdish, some Chasidish. Someone else will have to clarify where the points I am making are valid only for Orthodox but not for non Orthodox.
Big huge point number one: End of 2nd paragraph: "Judaism stresses performance of deeds or commandments rather than adherence to a belief system." This is totally false. As mentioned in many places throughout Jewish law (and touched upon in the article) observance of the commandments without belief in their source or observance of all the commendments except one is considered observance of nothing at all. For example there is a statement in the Mishnah (I forget where, but near the end of order Nezikin)that "Epicurus" (often called an opikores, but actually the name of a person) has no place in the world to come. The Artscroll compilation of the Mishnah has a note on bottom that Epicurus was a contemporary of aristotle who believed in the Jewish principles from a humanistic rather than divine standpoint.
Big point number two: The article leaves out some important information about the Maimonides 13 principles of faith and others like it. At the time they were first written other rabbis took great exception (in various responsa) to certain priniciples being labeled as more fundamental than others, since it is all equally divine. Other Rabbis responded that the concentration on these particular principles of faith were based on a logical argument: given a few principles taken as axiomatic the rest follow by reason. The principles stated by Maimonides and others are therefore the ones each think must be taken as axiomitic in order to derive the others. However: All agree that all the principles of the bible are divine and neccessary. As mentioned in the article there is an educational advantage in selecting a few principles to concentrate on and it is for this reason that the Principles of Faith were written.
Next point, not sure how to handle it: the name Moses Mendelsohn in Orthodox Judaism is fairly synonymous with the term heretic. Therefore in siting principles of faith as different between the branches of Judaism this must be clarified.
Next point, while no principles of faith of the size and shape of Maimonides' 13 have been cannonized, this is specifically because much larger works, such as the Talmud in specific more than any other, is cannonized as the tome of not just law but faith as well. The Talmud is the cannonized tome of priniciples of Jewish faith. No shorter work can be described as definitive because belief is an all or none proposition. In summary of this point the statement that principles of faith are not cannonized is false. The Talmud is that cannon. -- Moisheweiss ( talk) 21:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
In The soul is pure at birth, it seems to me that this phrase: "Thus, human beings have free will..." is ill-advised. The "thus" signifies the force of a conclusion. However, that humans possess free will does not obviously follow from the capacity to do either good, or evil, or both. It would be better to simply begin, "Human beings have free will..." -- though that almost belongs under a different section. rasqual ( talk) 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Rabbi Wells, an orthodox rabbi, in a speech given at Yeshiva University comments that 'perfect faith' implies more then just faith. Perfect faith can only come through logic (as belief can differ from person to person) and therefore these principals must be according logic. He said "those that claim that religion is based on thoughtlessness or non-rationality are very sadly mistaken". He believes that logic must be the ruling force when it comes to accepting or rejecting Judaism. <== that belongs somewhere - where?
Has anyone noticed that the first four out of six sentences are all written in the negative? And that the lead reads like a discussion, not an encyclopedia entry? Yoninah ( talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Removed the negative. Problem solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.182.34 ( talk) 04:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
According to our article:
I actully heard that Rambam was excommunicated by suome rabbis at the tim, though I do not know the details. Can someone (or people) fill this in? I am not trying to get down on Rambam, but the fact that dafka he was criticized reveals a lot about the egree of dissent that Judaism can bear. I think it is a very instructive moment in Jewish history. The debate - what, specifically, were Crescas and Albo's reasons, how did Rambam or orhters respond ... would go much farther than illustrating something the article already says (at times it has been hard or controversial to establish uniformity of blief), it will actually reveal the true if heterogeneous nature of Jewish faith, by detailing the diferent things Jewish sages considered worth arguing over, and taking the time to explain what these rabbis believed, and why they disagreed so. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
At the introduction it says, "Although Jews and religious leaders share a core of monotheistic principles, Judaism has no formal statement of principles of faith such as a creed that is recognized or accepted by all."
However, it seems to me that most people know of the 10 Commandments at least. These in themselves define the principles on which an individual's relationship with God, i.e. faith, is established. Therefore there is a clear statement of such principles in the core document of Judaism, and the central authority for it in none other than God -- Meieimatai? 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In section 1.3, Reward and Punishment, it is stated: "Judaism has always considered "Tikkun Olam" (or Perfecting the world) as a fundamental reason for God's creating the world. Therefore, the concept of "life after death," in the Jewish view, is not encouraged as the sole motivating factor in performance of Judaism. Indeed it is held that one can attain closeness to God even in this world through moral and spiritual perfection."
I am under the impression that Tikkun Olam is a Kabbalistic formation, and was elucidated in the middle ages. This section is unsourced. Is there any documentation for the assertion that "Judaism has always considered "Tikkun Olam" as a fundamental reason for God's creating the world."? Mweisenfeld ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)mweisenfeld
In the French version of the 13 principles, there is a subtext to each of them that further explains their meaning. I find them quite helpful but unfortunately no references are given. My French is adequate but not great. Does anyone know of an English version of these? If so, it might not be a bad idea to add them to this article. Mike Hayes ( talk) 18:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Having grown up under the distinct impression that it is presumptuous for me to assert the existence of an Afterlife, I was surprised to read the following in this article:
"..However most Jews today believe in a Heaven as opposed to an Underworld. ..".
Understandably, opinions have evolved over time amongst American Jewry on a variety of topics. Unfortunately, the lack of an in-line citation makes it difficult for anyone to verify this purported statement of fact. At minimum, such a citation must disclose polling results, and that these results must be representative. Vonkje ( talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There are two MAJOR related issues with this article which I think is beyond me to fix. The first issue is the absence of the Mizrahi / Sephardi viewpoint (at least after the Rambam), and the second issue (quite related) is the strong emphasis on the North American division of Ashkenazi Judaism into 'sects' (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox'. The article gives the impression that these divisions span the entire Jewish world, which happens to be what most North American Ashkenazim think, however we need someone or a few people who are familiar with the Mizrahi & Sephardic viewpoints, as well as the viewpoints of Jews in Israel and elsewhere in the East. It so happens that most English-speaking Jews live in North America and are Ashkenazi, so it makes sense that the English wikipedia article reflects that viewpoint, and yet this paints an unbalanced view of the reality in which a large part of Judaism is being unrepresented. And I am aware that there are some significant differences here. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.23.57 ( talk) 21:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead on this article is not beyond salvation but it needs a serious review and something has to go. A tip would be to avoid using parenthesis for so-called clarity. It offers nothing but makes the thing hard to read. Its the lead, be general, sum up the article without trying to accommodate every single last known position to mankind. -- Inayity ( talk) 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any statement in this article of the bedrock principle of Judaism that God has no body, is incorporeal, never had a body, never will have a body, cannot have a body or any physical dimension or representation. It's as if it has been deliberately left out so that someone might think the idea of God becoming incarnate and descending to earth is a possibility not excluded by Judaism. Yet Judaism is completely against this notion. It is the third of Maimonides 13 principles: "Principle 3 -- I believe by complete faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not a body, is not affected by physical matter, and nothing whatsoever can compare to Him [or be compared with Him]." If it's mentioned in the Article and I missed it, perhaps someone can point it out. If it was left out for a reason, perhaps someone can state the reason. It should be added. Manhattantwelve ( talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Jewish principle 103.149.101.75 ( talk) 06:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand the basis to reevaluate the existence of God after the Holocaust. Nowhere does God promise constant and total protection.
In fact, God states explicitly that when the Jews will not adhere to the Torah he will unleash terror. Unfortunately, the period prior to the Holocaust was a period of unprecedented abandoning of tradition. That would make the Holocaust as a delivery of God's promise. 204.128.182.34 ( talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)