Talk:Conservative halakha/Archive 1

Archive 1

"former" appears twice in the methodology section

in this paragraph : "A major difference between Conservative and Orthodox methodology is the former's frequent use of Takkanot (rabbinic decrees), which is far more prevalent than among the former." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quatso (talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosophies of Halakha

Understanding that this is a new article and represents a lot of work, there is currently a lot of information on specific legal decisions, but relatively little information on philosophies of and approaches to Halakha. The current controversies in the CJLS reflect a clash of philosophies as well as specific opinions, and it would be useful to have an article that goes behind the scenes of the current official stance to articulate the various views of key figures within the recent debates, e.g. Joel Roth, Elliot N. Dorff, Judith Hauptman, etc., as well as figures who believe it should drop the claim to being halakhic. This is particularly true if the intent is to merge all the Conservative Halakha-related articles together. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The tiny paragraph about homosexuality is, in a word, terrible. If you want sources, check out the homosexuality discussion with Rabbis Epstein, Roth and Dorff here, here and here.69.158.65.49 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated article to reflect this week's events. --Shirahadasha 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Location of information in Wikipedia

Currently, this article has detailed information about some issues (mainly homosexuality) but only summaries of others. For example, the Role of women in Judaism article has much more detailed information about CLJS deliberations on that issue than this article does, and similarly the Kohen, Kashrut, and other articles have more info about Conservative legal views on their subjects than this one. Suggest making things consistent, either by moving Conservative halakha material from other articles here with only summaries in the other articles, or by doing the reverse and moving detailed information on Conservative responsa from here to appropriate articles (e.g. Homosexuality and Judaism, leaving only a summary here. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Very vague... "it" believes, "it" states that... "as somebody said" conclude... vague terms for a vague non existent subject. The Schechter quotes in all due respect is foolishness, one cant contest a general subject without giving an example, he is contesting the infallibility of Halacha without marking a certain halacha as proof of his claim. Irrelevant quote, should be removed. Discuss. frummer 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For sure. Want to help fix it? :-) --yonkeltron 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mamzerut

Removed the following here:

• In Talmud Bavli a remedy for mamzerut is assimilating into a community which does not keep track of this status (Kiddushin 71a.) In practice, people simply stopped observing this distinction between mamzerim and non-mamzerim, such as when money was involved. Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben Levi states in Kiddushin 71a, top that "money purifies mamzerim", "kessef metaher mamzerim". Rashi comments on this that once someone becomes well set in terms of money, then other Jews ignore any blemish on their heritage.

• This view became codified by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah "If an impure element mixes in the pedigree of a family, and this fact is not generally known, 'once it has assimilated, it has assimilated. Anyone who knows of this is forbidden to publish the information, but must let the family continue in its presumption of unblemished pedigree."

The reason is that I can't find this reasoning anywere in the main text of the CJLS responsum on the subject, at [1]. Footnote 69 appears to be the only reference to the whole argument, and it simply cites Kidushin 71a-b for the parenthetical statement that "a family that has assimilated into the community may remain assimilated" without emphasizing this statement or making the basis of any decision. I can't find the specific quote from Yehoshua be Levi, let alone the commentary by Rashi, anywhere in the responsum. Even if I missed something and the material is in some footnote or other it's simply not anywhere near the main argument. This responsum states very clearly the core basis for the decision and this simply isn't it. This material seems to be nothing more than an editor's personal original research based on what the editor perhaps wished the CJLS had said or would like to offer as support for what the CJLS said.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was relying on what I previously learned from other Conservative (and Masorti) rabbis, and I had not read the Spitz responsum closely enough. I think that the reasoning I suggested was a mainstream Conservative belief before the Spitz responsum, but you are correct to make the changes. I think I might add info adding the view of Louis Jacobs; he wrote a book on flexibility and creativity in halakhah, with the subject of mamzerim as a special section, A Tree of Life, Littman Library. Mark3 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has to present what the CJLS actually said. The CJLS said, very clearly and prominently, that this is a case where it is abolishing a Biblical law on grounds of evolving morality, and it used this case to develop a whole philosophy for when, why, and how it should resolve Biblical law/modern morality conflicts. I understand it claimed there was precedent for its general approach. But the CJLS expressly claimed that there was no precedent for the abolition of the specific law here, it expressly said it intended to go beyond ordinary Talmudic precedents and do "explicitly" what others would do only "implicitly". What the CJLS itself claims to be doing has to be the basis for the way Wikipedia describes its actions. (unless we bring in sources providing expert comment on the CJLS). An editor's personal attempt to research post hoc precedents and present them as if they were the basis of the CJLS decision strikes as a simple case of WP:OR. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Mark3 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)