Apathetic EP

"Heirs to the tradition"

If I am not mistaken, Conservative Judaism claims to be "heirs to the tradition" of original Judaism and Orthodox Judaism is a right-wing perversion. Is this true? If it is, and Maimonidies was then what would now be referred to as Conservative, how could Conservative Jews not accept that the Torah is a product of direct divine revelation, something Maimonidies asserts? Does Conservative Judaism claim that this assertion is not really his? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious question dressed up in alot of confusion. Maimonides is not and never should be considered Conservative or Orthodox. Such designations are purely anachronistic. Maimonidies's code is not considered binding for Consrevative Jews nor is it binding on Orthodox Jews. Maimonidies was put in Herem for his philosophical writings; Orthodox practice is based on Karo's Shulkhan Arukh. As regards his principles of faith -- these were not universally accepted either. There were other formulations before and after Maimonides. Most controversial was his insistence that a person may not beleive that God has a corporeal form. All the Maimonidiean stuff aside - I think Rosenbach is asking a fundamental question regarding Conservative Judaism. How can Conservative Judaism believe itself to be "traditional" when the historicity of long held and "fundamental" beliefs are questioned or sometimes rejected? I think the answer lies in what it means to be "Traditional". The meaning of "tradition" is probably different to those with an orthodix bent versus a conservative bent. Perhaps an expert in Conservative Judaism could help enlighten Mr. Rosenbach.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Takhanot"

The article says:

"rabbis in our day and age are empowered to issue takhanot (decrees)"

"Takhanot" is a strange word. "Takhana" (תחנה) means "station". The word "takkana" (תקנה) may be appropriate in this context, but i am not 100% sure. Can anyone please clarify that? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"are not allowed to perform"

The article says:

"Conservative Rabbis are not allowed to perform intermarriages"

This is unclear. Who can allow or disallow this? Don't the rabbis decide about this themselves in a council, or maybe according to their own conscience?

If major organizations of Conservative rabbis have decided to not allow their members to perform intermarriages, it must be stated clearly which organization have decided it. If there is no such decision, but in practice Conservative rabbis do not do it, then the article must say so clearly: "Conservative Rabbis do not perform intermarriages" and a source must be provided.

Thanks in advance for clarification. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! This decision, holding that a Conservative synagogue is prohibitted from hosting a reception or party related to an intermarriage, begins with a mention of a Standard of Rabbinic Practice prohibiting Rabbinical Assembly members from being present at an intermarriage. In Conservative Judaism, standards, like Jewish law, are set by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Positive-Historical

Some errors that need to be corrected:

1. "Positive-Historical," which meant that one should have a positive attitude towards accepting Jewish law and tradition" - this is incorrect - It actually refers to a 19th cntury movement called positivism (see wiki).

2. "Frankel taught that Jewish law was not static, but rather has always developed in response to changing conditions" - I don't think this is a sufficiently nuanced depiction of Frankels view.Wolf2191 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)