Talk:Tzniut

Orthodox views in dispute

Hello RK, pleased to be edit warring with you again :-). Could you stop tinkering with the orthodox views and then claiming that these are still orthodox views? You're correct that many "customs" of tzeniut have evolved into halakha, but this is hardly localised to tzeniut. There are literally hundreds of instances where custom has become law, and it is utterly pointless to make that point over here (do it on halakha if the mood strikes you).

I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Could you give me a specific example? What Orthodox Jewish view do you think my edits have misrepresented? Also, I do not follow your logic. (A) You admit that I pointed out that something true happened in regards to tzeniut. Fine. (B) You note that this process is also true in many other cases. Fine. (C) You conclude that this is false and must be removed. Huh? (D) It is very to the point to discuss the differences in laws of tzeniut here, and how the laws of tzeniut developed. Why in the world would you remove the subject from here, and put it elsewhere? It just looks like you are trying to hide any discussion of how Jewish customs on this topic evolved. Why? RK 16:56, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I also slashed Rabbi Monique's block quote. I've complained to you previously about long quotes that add little to the article, apart from reinforcing a POV you've just represented. She manages to take Reb Moshe's p'sak for extenuating circumstances and turn it into a lechatechilah. That is not how halakha works, unless you happen to be of the persuation that any bedieved can be turned into a heter. (Outsiders, please excuse the jargon.) JFW | T@lk 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(A) Sorry, JFW, but these are not long quotes; how can you know so much about Jewish texts, and then imagine that one paragraph is "long"? That's nonsense. Serious Jewish texts are hundreds of pages long, and often contain two or three page-long quotes. The same is true of secular academic articles and books. Finally, consider the many other Wikipedia articles we have; they too have many quotes of similar lenght. The only quote I added is well within these normal Wikipedia parameters. RK

(B) I think that you may misunderstand how Wikipedia articles grow. We do not slash factual content to "balance" an article. This is a brand new encyclopedia, built on user contributions. We add new content to add balance. We welcome new additions to provide many points of view. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we say something like According to group A, such and such is the policy, while according to group B, such and such is the policy. We do not take sides. As such, we would welcome your addition of Orthodox points of view into this article. However, as the article currently existed, it only pushed the Orthodox Jewish point of view, which was a clear NPOV violation. That is why a Conservative POV was added. This article needs to grow by adding facts, history, quotes, and discussion representing a few points of view, not cutting all POV's except the Orthodox one. If you feel the need to further explain the Orthodox position, and add quotes, fine. But please do not cut out 100% of all points of view other than your own. RK 17:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Response:

• You made an artificial distinction. Many present-day observances originated as customs, but to group them in the way you did it misrepresents the present situation.
• I agree that the conservative POV should be mentioned, but Rabbi Monique's comment added nothing that you hadn't already mentioned. I could give (if I had the time) the full text of all Reb Moshe's teshuvos on tzeniut, but this is not constructive. There are no quotes at all in the article now, apart from the scriptural ones at the top.
• I did not cut other POVs. If you think so, please provide a specific example. JFW | T@lk 17:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

spelling

I'm curious why you've chosen the spelling tzeniut as opposed to tzniut. To my knowledge, tzniut is equally close to the correct pronunciation and is the more common transliteration. --WikiGnome 19:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tzniut redirects to Tzeniut, so it's no problem. But you've got a good point there. Maybe it's to make the word easier to read for a broader audience? -- Daverocks 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Cherney Article

A reference, Ben Cherney's article 'kol Isha', was deleted. It's a perfectly good primary source and an Orthodox one, although it happens to discuss lenient as well as strict perspectives. Deleting sources inconsistent with ones POV is against WP policy. --Shirahadasha 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You already used the same article as a reference, and I retained that reference. You can't have it both ways. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Modern Orthodox Feminist Alliance view vs everyone else in Orthodoxy

Why the need to twist this article's views when dealing with Orthodoxy, to convey the views of a minority from the Orthodox Feminist Alliance when the teachings of the rest of Orthodoxy are not like it in any way, shape, size or form on the subject of tzeniut especially regarding kol isha (female voices) in Halakha? IZAK 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, I found a link to Saul Berman's 1980 Kol Isha article (naturally enough, on the Edah website) and I'm adding it to the references. We've discussed the Sederei Eish's classic responsum before. There are lenient minority views, and historically whole communities who've accepted them. Leniency in this area is not the preserve of JOFA. --Shirahadasha 01:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll second Shirahadasha. The views of "normative" Orthodoxy are already well-represented, and the careful reader will not make a mistake as to what the majority holds. But we cannot excise the minority from this disussion. Witness the following quotation from Rabbi Avraham Shammah: From my childhood [under Syrian Jewish-Orthodox immigrants to Israel] until my adulthood I do not remember closing my ears, nor was I instructed to do so, and I heard the best music, both from the Orient and the West, even when performed by female singers, and even at live performances. Apparently, the principle is based on the fact that there is no intent here for some forbidden pleasure. [People] have testified to me that there were Torah-observant Jews at the performances of the famous Egyptian singer, Umm Kulthum [considered by some to be Egypt’s most famous and distinguished twentieth century singer], and even more than that, they listened to her songs and learned them well, even though some of the songs had inappropriate words. Prayer leaders (among them scholars) used her tunes [in the prayer services], until this day, with the approval of halakhic authorities, who knew quite well the source [of these tunes].

I'm sure many would also like to excise from the public record, the fact that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef drank coffee in Egyptian-Arab coffee houses. Sevendust62 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mechitza, Shoulder height???

BS"D

I though that a mechitza had to be taller than the tallest woman. And, unless I am much mistaken, shoulder hieght was a Psak from a modernish posek. Could someone clarify, Please. Shaul avrom 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that disputes over the height of a Mechitza be mentioned in the Mechitza article, not the Tzeniut article. There are multiple positions on what the proper height should be. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My Hakoros Hatov. Exactly how do I do that?? --Shaul avrom 00:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mekhita can be 40 some inches or less tall accordint to Moishe Feinstein, taller than than the tallest person according to most others, usually considered to be 70 in. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, we added a section on this issue to the Mechitza article. Please add content and discuss the issue there. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other tznius issues

Think it should be mentioned that showing wealth in houses and cars is also discouraged by poskim an untnius, or tnius in speach and action, sitting positions, bicycles, women driving, eating on the street, drinking water in public, etc. 88.152.101.127 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not much here is mentioned on women's hair covering except that it is halakha according to Orthodox Judaism. The article acknowledges that a number of Modern Orthodox Jews do not cover their hair outside of synagogues. Is there any dispute as to whether or not this practice is halakha? I understand that it was relatively common and relatively undisputed practice for Orthodox and Modern Orthodox women to leave their hair uncovered until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.222.101 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Irony

I'm sure the irony of the following sentence early in the article isn't lost on anyone:

"The Talmud boasts that humility is one of the characteristic traits of the Jewish people. (Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 79a.)"

Perhaps a rephrasing would be appropriate?

I think a section should be added about the historical practices of modesty among Jewish men and women as mentioned in the Talmudic literature... which I see no where mentioned on this site. I have already added a bit about this in the Modesty article under the Jewish section. I believe this is important due to apprently mass ignorance about the high level of modesty many of even our not so distant ancestors kept. Throughout practically all non-European communities the same level of modesty in dress was observed up unto this last century - just as it is mentioned in the Talmud BEFORE the rise of Islam. Some examples of a small minority which still practice such levels of modesty are some of the most traditional individuals among Yemenite Jews and Ethiopian Jews. The particular aspect of traditional tzniut among these various communities concerned use of the radheedh. I already wrote a little about this in the Jewish section of the article on Modesty. There I kept it short. Is anyone willing to put together a similar section concerning tzniut in the Talmudic period unto the Middle Ages and/or on tzniut as observed in the majority of non-European communities up unto this last century? I believe this information must be included somehow in this article... Omedyashar 23:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are some references: In the photo section of Mori Yosef Qafehh's book Halikhot Teimon one sees how Yemenite Jewish women of the area of Sa'ana dressed in private and in public. They wore a radheedh in public which they would pull over their face leaving their eyes exposed, when they would encounter a man with whom they were unfamiliar. The style of Jewish women's hair/head-covering in Yemen was very clearly distinct from the style of the muslim women. The Jewish women of Sa'ana area placed the radheedh on top of the gargoush - a hood type haircovering which was slightly coned at the top.

There is a book in English called "The Yemenites: 2,000 years of Jewish History," with photos showing how Jewish women of other regions in Yemen dressed/dress.

________________________________________

Israel & Ishmael ( Studies in Muslim - Jewish Relations) Edited by Tudor Parfitt in chapter titled "Cover Her Face:" Jewish Women & Veiling in Islaamic Civilisation by Yedida K. Stillman pages 13 - 29 [also includes a chapter on the Hemerayit Kingdom of Yemen]

Pictures of female Jewish dress (references learned from the above book):

Jewish woman in Smyrna, Turky in late 1700's/early 1800's; painting of Jewish woman indoors -- hair covered face exposed/ outdoors -- only eyes exposed; From "A History of Jewish Costume, 1973, page 42; A. Rubens.

Actual photo of Jewish woman in Baghdad, Iraq wearing a radheedh which the Jews there called khiliy and the Muslims called pica -- from "Album of Jewry of Iraq," A. Twena Ramla, 1981 p.171

Actual photo of a group of several Jewish women from Tunis, Tunisia in early 20th century visiting a cemetary, all but one wearing traditional dress - consists of a large radheedh called 'tantar,' which sits on top of a cone type hat the women wear underneath it; The radheedh practically covers them entirely; from Robert Attal. [Here is a similar and clearly related photo I found online: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/pages/J12I276T.jpg ]

Actual photo of Jewish Berber woman from Tafilatt/lt?, Morocco wearing radheedh; Jean Besancenot Collection.

Actual photo: Rabat - Les mellahs de Rabat - Sale', Paris 1927; J. Goulven. Omedyashar 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the ark covering (parochet)

the ark is covered by the parochet a curtain to hide the scroll definitely worth the trouble because it's holy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.199.249.30 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Conservative Judaism and the Mechitza

This article mistakenly states that "Conservative, Liberal, and Reform congregations do not separate the sexes during services." In fact, some Conservative synagogues do employ a mechitza. I have edited accordingly.

The appropriate way to dress

Writing "ground rules", especially extra-stringent ones, is just plain inappropriate. Ankles must be covered? Nobody holds that to be the law. Sleeves must cover the wrists? Wrong, only the elbows. Not a single hair may be visible? Wrong again! A tefach of hair may be showing according to most poskim - covering everything is only a stringency. The other points are subject to argument, so I won't go into them now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.204.163 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You'e right about wrists. Ankles is a different story. In any case, I think we need to copy the whole section here (to talk) and work on it until everyone is satisfied. I have to go now, will see about it later on. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it finally not because of whether or not it was stringent, but because it was unsourced, and it provided how-to instructions. If there was sourced information in the article stating that some people follow these stringencies, that would not be a problem. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hair covering

I see that like many hot-button issues, hair covering within tznius is going through many revisions. I do not believe that the current state of the article about wigs is accurate. For example: 1) I wrote modern wigs, which was changed to modern practice of wearing wigs. This is simply untrue. It is by no means a modern practice. My reference to various sources, including Rema was edited out. It actually goes back much further than that, to the Rishon, Yesha d'Trani. 2) Rav Elyashiv himself does not assur *all* wigs, as he made clear in a recent conversation made public. It will likely get edited back and forth a bunch of times, with all sorts of inaccurate information. A pity. joshwaxman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.213.80 (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted "questionable halachic foundation" which an anonymous user put in. This was put in before any of the significant information was added about major poskim maintaining wigs were permitted. For example Rema. This phrase, I would argue, violates the neutral point of view. -- Joshwaxman (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought on the hair-covering section:

I think that there is a lot of confusion between Halachah and minhag. Just because (many?) people observe a minhag and think that it is Halachah, does not mean that it actually is Halachah. It is my understanding that wearing a wig in particular has disputed Halachik support.

Another thing to note is that tzniut in general is a contextual measure -- back in Mishnaic days, people - both men and women - dressed very differently from how we do now. That, however, does not mean that the way they dressed is the only way to be modest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.52.240 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wigs are indeed subject to dispute, but there are more than enough poskim who allow and even positively support the wearing of wigs that those who wish to wear them have no need to worry about the position of those who forbid them.

Some tzniut rules are contextual, but many are not. The minimal requirement for hair covering is definitely not contextual; context may, however, require more than the universal minimum. -- Zsero (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A single-purpose IP has lately been inserting the blatantly false claim that hair-covering by married women is merely a "custom" rather than a law. Of course this is like claiming that wearing seat belts is an American custom not required by law; in fact it's not such a widespread custom, because many people don't wear them, but there can be no question at all that it is a law, and any attempt to insert "another point of view" would be deleted instantly and without comment. It's sad that I feel the need to add this comment to justify my deletion of an equally blatant falsehood. -- Zsero (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This same editor has also been claiming that rabbis don't establish halachic laws, which is ridiculous, and that the rabbinic term das/dat means "custom", when in fact in means law, as was correctly translated the first time. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Haroldsultan has now suggested in edit summaries that dat does not mean "law" but "custom". This is not a supportable theory, as can be readily seen by looking at the other offenses included in dat Moshe: oath breaking, having sex while nidah, not taking chalah, and feeding her husband treif. Surely nobody would suggest that any of those are mere "custom". They are all transgressions against binding law - the law of Moshe. Where else is dat used? The Torah refers to itself as eish dat; would Haroldsultan translate this as "a fiery custom"? What about achat dato lehamit? Would Haroldsultan render this as "his custom is the same - to be killed"? No, dat means "law", or "mandatory rule". -- Zsero (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A new anonymous IP (that has never edited before) is now claiming that the Mishna says uncovered hair is merely a breach of dat yehudit — an interpretation explicitly rejected by the Gemara! -- Zsero (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the IP's claim about "referring vaguely". This is explicit in the gemara, which is cited in the article. Look it up yourself. This is not interpretation or analysis, it's the gemara's own statement. -- Zsero (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Debresser for undoing this edit that has been there for so long without anyone noticing how false it was. "Footnote 36" indeed! One expects cited sources to at least be what they are claimed to be. Representing a pseudonymous reader comment as if it were a footnote to an article by a notable author is not up to WP's expected standard of editing. -- Zsero (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And more IP addresses that have never edited before show up and start contradicting an open gemara. The gemara's words are not ambiguous; there is only one way to read them: that when the mishna says going in the street with uncovered hair violates dat yehudit it means hair that is covered by a basket, and that going with literally uncovered hair is de'oraita. That is what the gemara says, and the gemara is the authority and source for jewish law; no later source can contradict it, and no earlier source matters. So what are these IPs on about, and where did they all suddenly come from? -- Zsero (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's apparently Haroldsultan editing while logged out from various computers at Columbia University. Enigma^msg 05:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Enigma^msg 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Columbia IP address is me... just created a username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expert483 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Can someone clarify:

In Modern Orthodox practice it is generally accepted for sleeves to reach the elbows and shirts to cover the collarbone, skirts to cover the knees with or without tights, and not wear pants in the presence of men.

...it doesn't seem to make sense. AndyJones (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove it, because it does not seem to add anything substantial, and is unsourced as well. Debresser (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what doesn't make sense. Enigma^msg 05:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It is unsourced. 2. Does it mean that sleeves have obligations? Or should it say "It is accepted for women to wear cloths with sleeves that reach etc."? 3. What do it mean "acceptable"? Of course that is acceptable! What would be wrong with long sleeves?! The issue is whether it is obligatory/recommended. 4. What we really need to know is if there are any normatives. What practise is a poor substitute for that. 5. Readng the sentence in continuation of the previous one about Orthodox Judaism, I see no big differences, just a little more (superfluous?) details.

Is this enough? Debresser (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's unsourced. What I'm saying is that it makes sense to me. It doesn't say what the rules or obligations are, just that it's "generally accepted" in such circles. Enigma^msg 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The original poster has not specified what doesn't "make sense." We can talk in circles about this but unless we receive clarification from the original poster as to what criticism was intended I don't think we are going to resolve this. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that he meant my point #3. Anyway, I propose taking this sentence out, for all the reasons I mentioned. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue

In the female singing voice section I think there is a serious case of undue weight for the so-called "novel ruling". Its arguments are expounded upon, many quotations given. Its opposition is treated likewise. I think one sentence is all that is needed. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that both sides of the issue are gone into in some depth. I don't think that would be "undue weight," necessarily. I'm referring to where you say that "Its opposition is treated likewise."

Or are you saying that the subject of the "female singing voice" (kol isha) is gone into in too much depth within the context of Tzniut? As long as the article is not overly long I think such in-depth treatment is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Debresser is right that the two recent permissive responsa, and the arguments for and against them, are given far more weight than the mainstream position. These two responsa are not quite WP:FRINGE, but definitely fringey, the authors are not widely recognised authorities, and while their arguments are certainly rooted in the mainstream and are notable enough to justify their mention in the WP article, they should not dominate the section. The entire discussion of these two responsa needs to be cut drastically, but not in a way that misrepresents or short-changes them. In other words, they should get their due weight, but not more than that. -- Zsero (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That was precisely what I meant, Zsero. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. The alternative obviously would be to expand upon the mainstream position. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much to expand on quite straightforward halachot. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps one of you should do it. I can't do it, because I would likely shorten it to no more than 2-3 sentences. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why finding sources that verify (or discredit) the edits made by User:Haroldsultan is a mitzvah: An argument

User:Haroldsultan has made edits which suggest that tzniut should be more leniently interpreted than what is currently described, on this page, as the normative Orthodox position. I think that editing a page such as Tzniut is more serious than many people give it credit for, because Wikipedia editors can make real contributions to Jewish outreach. They usually don't get to see the contributions they make, but people they might not expect are reading the pages. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jewish people are likely to view the Tzniut page in the near future. In practice if not in Halakha, English Wikipedia's pages are some of the most authoritative Judaism related pages on the Web, because Wikipedia is so many people's first stop for research. For example, I was directed to this page as part of the independent Judaism related study I am doing, connected to an organized program I participated in. The perceived stringency of Orthodox Judaism alienates many Jews from the religion as a whole, and if a more lenient view than what is described in the articles exists, presenting it on Wikipedia will help to combat that perception. I, for one, was happy to see the lenient view. The last thing we want is for Jews to become angry with Judaism because of what they believe is over-restrictiveness--and people really do use Wikipedia as a source for their Jewish knowledge. --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you write regarding the importance of the accuracy of Wikipedia. However, it's a simple fact that Haroldsultan is wrong. There are plenty of sources. Since I currently work approximately 50 hours per week I don't really have time to bring a lot of sources. However, any normative Orthodox Jew can tell you that Haroldsultan is completely wrong. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree he is plainly wrong. And that is sourced with three references already. I can find additional written, contemporary sources without a problem, but it seems that the IP editors who led to the two week protection of this page and now User:Haroldsultan insist on interpreting sources in ways that are not representative of Judaism. I am not sure this section warrant more sources, and in view of the above doubt they would be helpfull. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't that he's "interpreting sources in ways that are not representative of Judaism"; it's that he's interpreting them in ways that are not "representative" of themselves! If the Talmud passage cited could be interpreted two ways then he'd be entitled to present the alternative interpretation, at least with suitable cautions; but it can't. He can still argue that the law doesn't follow this passage, because there is some other passage elsewhere that is more authoritative; but he can't deny that it says what it does. -- Zsero (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that he believes in what he's writing, partly because of an off-Wikipedia email correspondence I've had with him. I'd like to find out where he got his ideas from, and whether those sources would be verifiable by this encyclopedia's standards. In the meantime, if you would add the additional sources you mentioned that support what Wikipedia already says, I would find those helpful. --AFriedman (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The sources that support what WP now says are already there. What the Talmud says is sourced directly to the appropriate page in the Talmud; if you can read it you will see that it says exactly what the article says it says. The Rambam is similarly sourced directly to his words, which are linked. The statement that the halacha requires hair-covering is sourced to a secondary English source that is linked, and that you can read for yourself. More sources might be nice just to bolster the case, but aren't actually needed. As for Haroldsultan, if he believes what he is writing it can only be because he has never looked at the Talmud himself, and is probably incapable of doing so in the original, but is relying on tertiary sources of dubious integrity. In particular, his claim that dat does not mean "law" has been refuted in detail above. -- Zsero (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try and conduct my own investigation of whether verifiable sources exist to back up his edits. --AFriedman (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a few more references, including the Shulchan Aruch and a 1989 halachic work. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Debresser. --AFriedman (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It took some time before I could have a good look at the subject, but once I did, I was able to make the following, rather astounding edit.[1] Debresser (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That was quite an astounding edit. Not everyone agrees with Maimonides on every issue, but that's quite a strong stance on his part. I think you've also presented it very well. --AFriedman (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Only once we get deep into the halacha, do we understand it clearly. I have seen so every time. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's so true. I'd like to learn more Talmud and Rabbinic commentary myself. --AFriedman (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so astounding about the additional sources Debresser added; the Rambam's opinion has been there (and linked to the original) for quite a while. But more sources do bolster the case. I still have to go through R Broyde's Techumin article to find the more lenient sources and add them for completeness. Learning the sugya is definitely a prerequisite for discussing it, though, and it's clear that Haroldsultan did not do so (e.g. he seems unaware of the gemara on the next page that explains the word kolanit in the mishna). -- Zsero (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PS if you like we can make a shiur. Any particular subject interest you? -- Zsero (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Re: a shiur, that might be very nice. I'll have more time after Dec. 23, when my last final exam is over. What part of the world do you come from, and what branch of Judaism do you belong to? I'd be interested in seeing any Userboxes you put on your Userpage, if you're so inclined. Also, I think Wikiversity might be an interesting place to develop pages related to Judaism and other topics. Over there, you're allowed to do OR and develop learning resources of many different types. --AFriedman (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in "Yerushalayim d'America", AKA Brooklyn יע״א. But with the wonders of modern tech we can compass the globe. And I'm Orthodox. -- Zsero (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be going off topic and for people who are interested in the new topic, I'm moving the discussion to Zsero's talk page. --AFriedman (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the subject. The "astounding" part of the edit is that "dat Moshe" is the same as "Biblical" (mi d'oraita). Debresser (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that neither one necessarily means literally de'oraita. For instance, dat moshe includes causing him to eat food that is only rabbinically forbidden. That's only de'oraita in the sense that all rabbinic laws are included by reference in lo tasur. -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(fixed) That is completely right. The main point is to avoid the implication that "dat Moshe" is something that is less than "mi d'oraita", while in reality it includes both biblical and rabbincal precepts. Even guidelines of behavior that have become distinguishing for the Jewish nation and have thereby received the status of law to such an extent that a man may divorce a woman who does not keep them without paying her the amount promised at the time of their marriage, and that is called "das yehudis". Debresser (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you're conflating dat Moshe with dat yehudit ("the law of a Jewish woman", not as Haroldsultan translated it), which is a distinct category. For instance, going out in the street with her hair covered only by a basket is a violation of dat yehudit but not of dat Moshe. "Guidelines of behaviour" do not seem to count as dat Moshe. -- Zsero (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Even Ha'ezer 115, and you'll see that I am not confusing anything here. It's all explicitely in there as I say. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it right now, and I don't see what you say. Where exactly should I be looking? -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That was "das yehudis". I'll fix the paragraph above. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious POV

Howdy! I do understand AFriedman's comments above that many people turn to WP for authentic knowledge and it is a powerful tool for kiruv. That being said, kiruv can not be the goal of any WP article as it is inherently a POV perspective and in violation of soapboxing. If we are creating an article on tzniut than it should present the facts. Statements like:

Conservative and Reform Judaism do not regard these rules as applicable.

means (IMHO): Understand that these are the rules. C & R Jews do not follow them. This is POV-pushing. A few lines later in the article:

Conservative and Reform Judaism chooses not to follow...

Anyway, you get my drift. Kiruv is great, but this is not the place. Joe407 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, and good edit. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually it is the case that Reform, at least, does understand that these are the rules and chooses not to follow them. Reform doesn't dispute what the halacha is, it just regards the entire system as optional. -- Zsero (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Reform holds that the rules have been changed. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps both alternatives exist? In any case, AFriedman was right to add a Citation needed tag. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I agree with your edits and I've put a couple of templates in the article. In terms of kiruv vs. POV pushing, I also agree that the goal of a Wikipedia article should not be kiruv. However, everyone has a point of view and I do think that the desire to represent one's POV (e.g. by editing Judaism-related Wikipedia articles with kiruv in mind) is a legitimate reason to edit Wikipedia. It is certainly consistent with the desire to build an encyclopedia, and in a good editor's hands tends to lead to valuable contributions. Few people who know about a subject can be truly unbiased, and article neutrality tends to be achieved by individual editors coming in with thoughts of their own, working with other editors and being respectful of other editors' POVs even when they are not the same. The point where someone is going against WP policy about POV pushing might be when that person is actively getting in the way of other editors who are working to make the article NPOV, or violating some other policy about how to behave on WP.

As an analogy: An editor with a great deal of pride in New York City recently added Frederick Douglass' view of his time in New York City to the article about the American historical figure Frederick Douglass. I don't think there's any problem with an edit like that.

Re: Reform Judaism, obviously the best way to verify the article's information is by looking at Reform responsa. I don't know what they would say offhand. --AFriedman (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)