Template talk:Infobox Halacha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] This infobox must carry a warning

It is crucial that this infobox carry a warning and differentiate between Minhag, Derabannan, and De'oraisa -- otherwise the uninformed reader will have no clue how the law applies. IZAK 05:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this message is very ugly. Can't such a comment be made in some way as regards only that particular topic? A footnote on its status as an observance? Currently the general disclaimer being applied to all halakhot doesn't seem fitting on Wikipedia. jnothman talk 11:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand the message, it seems to imply that the laws needn't be followed BECAUSE they may be a derabannan or minhag. Does the first sentence have anything to do with the second?
In most articles, it decusses if it is minhag, derabannan or de'oraisa. If you feel that knowning if it is Minhag, derabannan or de'oraisa is very important then it should be added to the infobox (thought I don't think that would be an easy thing to add - most laws don't fit nicely into a catagory).
If you feel that a disclaimer is nessary (I don't think it is), it should go accross the top the the screen, no above the infobox. on top of the infobox it implies that the sources are not a pasek, but I think you mean that the article is not a pasek
also, I don't see the message in firefox, only in IE. any ideas why? Jon513 13:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jon513: Are you advocating that this template is meant to get people into "following" laws? That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Think about it, most people who read Wikipedia are not Jewish, and most Jews who read it are not religious, so who are you kidding and confusing besides yourself? On the Hebrew Wikipedia, many pages carry "warnings" at the bottom of the page (done with a template it seems): "הבהרה: ויקיפדיה אינה מקור לפסיקת הלכה" that "Wikipedia is not a source for deciding Halakha", for example as in the Hebrew article about תחום שבת for example. IZAK 11:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any disclaimer and I don't understand why there should be Jon513 16:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Jon513: The infobox (without the "disclaimer") assumes that any reader would be familair with the way Jewish law is derived and is applied, which is just not so! For example, let's take the case of Payot, even though it may be considered by some as being a direct derivative from "Bible: Leviticus 19:27" HOWEVER, following this logic, some may conclude that every Jew should maybe be like the picture of the Gerrer Rebbe on that page and grow long flowing "payot"? And if not, why not? The answer, is that "Payot" is NOT accepted as a "mitzvah" to grow payot like the Gerrrer Rebbe, it is actually mainly observed, by ALL Orthodox Jews, as a PROHIBITION to shave only certain points on the sides of the head, and it has nothing to do with growing long sidercurls or beards like many Hasidim do which is only THEIR Minhag ("custom") -- and for them it's much more part of an entirely different notion and lifestyle of "looking like a Yid" (an excuse for "kosher" social control perhaps?) than it is about keeping a the specific mitzva of Payos. If you don't get this point, then you should not be "deciding Jewish law" on Wikipedia. Don't you see that when you present the Torah this way, then someone who has no idea what the Torah and its mitvahs are all about will be completely unable to understand why it is ok to cut Payot (like most Haredi mitnagdim, Modern Orthodox, Sephardi Jews, and Lubvitchers do) but at the same time it is not ok to murder someone since it's the same Torah that commands Lo Tirtzach ("you shall not murder") in the Ten Commandments? If you cannot see the potential to cause mass harm and confusion by just placing blanket sources without a disclaimer then you know nothing about how to present the teachings and the commandments of the Torah and Judaism to people who know nothing about it. Think of people in India or China reading this for the first time and how confused they would be if you just threw "sources" at them without a warning that this is not meant as a "practical guide for Halakha in any way!" The Hebrew Wikipedia is 1000% correct to add on relevant pages "הבהרה: ויקיפדיה אינה מקור לפסיקת הלכה" that "Wikipedia is not a source for deciding Halakha!" There is much more to be said about this. I will ask some others to comment as well. IZAK 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. Most laws have different levels, parts are biblical, and parts are minhag etc. But that doesn't relate to the infobox - it relates to the article itself and I think it should be made clear in the article itself. There is a wikipedia policy about this Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates (but that is not 100% binding). I think the way it is worded now, it is not clear what you are tring to say with it. are you worried that indain will look up the Rambam and be confused? I think that having it say Halachic sources already says that is you don't know what the word halcha is (and you are welcome to find out by clicking) you don't know what these are. Jon513 13:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with IZAK that this template is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I think it should be deleted altogether. We are just a handful of Jewish editors writing for a huge audience of non-Jews who have no idea (and no desire to know) about what Judaism is. The best we can do is insert small explanations of what the mitzvot are in the article itself. At the same time, we must run the gauntlet of divergent viewpoints within Judaism (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanism, Paganism, and probably some Cristo-Jewish sympathizers whom I don't even know about) and present all their interpretations of halacha as well. It's a noble gesture to try to summarize everything in a neat template, but with so many different opinions within the religion and so many outside it, it's just too simplistic and not very helpful.
Re: the idea of a disclaimer, that seems much more applicable to a newspaper article or advertisement, in which the publisher absolves himself from responsibility of people drawing halachic decisions, or evaluating the kashrut of a food or restaurant, because of something they read in his paper. Let's just keep on with what we're doing: writing NPOV articles that give every sect a platform for its take on the mitzvah in question, and not worry that the non-Jewish reader is going to derive p'sak from all the options. Yoninah 19:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I made this template for several reason. First, it forces editors to find sources for the laws and directs future editors to an area to verify the article. Of course all wikipedia article should be sourced, but since almost all halachic article share the same basic sources it makes sense to have them here. Second, for those that want to learn more - that is the small group of orthodox jews - they have a place to go. And it doesn't really bother those that aren't going to looking it up.
Yoninah, You mentioned that we are writing for "non-Jews who have no idea (and no desire to know) about what Judaism is". I don't think that that is right perpective. Wikipedia always favors more information over less. see all the zelda articles. or any "geek" article. they all error on the side of too much information (sometimes way too much). they don't say "well we are writing to non-geeks who doen't care about these topics". And while sometimes that is true; most of the time I like that fact that there are 70 pages on Iron Chef - even if I only wanted to know a few things. if even one out a thousand people find it helpful that is enough. Even those that aren't interested in the sources per se are still getting a better verified article. As for other non-orthodox perpectives, even conservative and reform see the bible, talmud, rambam, and shulchan aruckh as the sources for these laws - albeit not a binding one. Jon513 21:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jon513: Thanks for your explanations. I agree that the articles could definitely use more sourcing, but I fear that rival ideologies are going to twist things to their benefit. A cut-and-dried template is an "in your face" type of sourcing that is going to rile Reform, Conservative, and other non-Orthodox adherents who will tell you that "that was then and this is now." I can just see the article in question turning into a war of polemics rather than an impartial encyclopedia article. Yoninah 21:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK...this response is a bit long, so please, bear with me...I think the template has merit (although it is rather largish for its function, IMHO). I also think IZAK's recommendation that we should have a disclaimer about WP not being an arbiter of halakha is valid. That said, I'm not sure we really need a disclaimer on every page about a topic touching on halakha explicitly saying so. Generally-speaking, people who seek out halakhic rulings aren't going to let something they read on Wikipedia be the last word for them (at least I certainly hope they don't!)--indeed, it's not for them, however, that such articles are written. Now, with that in mind, while it's "one click too late" to put a warning that says "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" on the top of the Circumcision or Penis article, it's not "one click too late" to put a cautionary word about WP's [lack of] halakhic authority. What all that boils down to, in other words, is that I'm not sure we have a responsibility, even halakhically, to post such a word of caution...however, I don't think there's any problem with doing so. Now, to address two things Yoninah said... first, the idea that non-Orthodox "halakhic authorities" (without delving into just exactly what that might mean) might have alternative sources for halakhoth is ludicrous. The Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards sometimes bases its tshuvoth on some arguably shaky grounds, but, despite appearances to the contrary sometimes, it's not like they're pulling a ruling on the kashruth of swordfish from a Betty Crocker cookbook. The Reform, as one of their core distinguishing principles, dismisses halakha out of hand, so what they might use as a source for coming up with a halakha is, in a word, moot. Reconstructionist theology, at least as I understand it, regards halakha as a set of historic social mores that defined Jewish culture...but is no longer binding--so their ideas about the sources of the halakhoth are equally moot: they're not coming up with new sources, nor disputing old ones, they're just saying that they're there, kinda like an ecofreak's (excuse the appellation) view of hornwort; say what you want about how it got there, what's important is that it's there and needs to be maintained to keep its beauty, to preserve as much of our world as possible, etc. etc. etc., and all expositions on its value, æsthetic, medical or otherwise, is of secondary interest (and tertiary importance). Humanist Judaism well... you get the idea. The other thing Yoninah said is that, "We are just a handful of Jewish editors writing for a huge audience of non-Jews who have no idea (and no desire to know) about what Judaism is." Jon doesn't think this is the correct perspective, I happen to think it's just plain incorrect. In my part of the world at least, non-Jews are fascinated by Jews and insatiably curious about Judaism. From that perspective alone, this template is useful. Anyhoo--enough pontification from me for now. :-) Tomertalk 04:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning from the US Constitution template

I absolutely agree with Tomer that "non-Jews are fascinated by Jews and insatiably curious about Judaism" -- so we are writing for everyone Yoninah... whoever is hooked up to the Internet and even those who will utilize information from Wikipedia in other mediums! However, my point about having a "disclaimer" is NOT because I am "worried that indain will look up the Rambam and be confused" (sic -- Jon513's words). What a joke! My concern is that the infobox provides NO CONTEXT for the reader. It presents the reader with a fait accompli making it impossible to judge the true origins, nature, or the level of application (if at all) of the Halakha in any way. It takes many years to learn this process (that is why there are semicha programs), and it can't just be "understood" by reading the Halakha article! It is precisely because you are going to have millions of non-Jews looking at these articles and then scratching their heads as if to say "Hello, what is this law? Does it apply? How important is it?" -- and the disclaimer will help them understand that not all laws are equal in Judaism because similar, by analogy, to the non-Jewish world, some things are just mores (i.e. norms and customs) for which there is no real "punishment" but then there are laws of various grades that go in ascending order from local law (minor punishments) to state law (serious/severe punishments) and then federal law (severe/extreme punishments) with the United States Constitution acting as the "written law" to guide the process and the origins of laws, and a judicial process to serve as an ongoing mechanism for the application or rejection of laws. In fact, just as an example, look at the following {{US Constitution}} template as an example of a comprehensive guideline that clarifies how US law functions, which "Infobox Halacha" so far does not do. IZAK 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


v • d • e
United States Constitution
Text
Formation
Articles
Preamble · One · Two · Three · Four · Five · Six · Seven
Amendments
Clauses
Interpretation
oooooooooooh That would be awesome! Tomertalk 10:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto! Much more comprehensive. Yoninah 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biblical verse

Should the line biblical verse point to tanakh, there are no source (that I know of) in Nevi'im or Ketuvim . I think it would make more sence to point to torah or Pentateuch Jon513 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you really want to source a Halakha…

…then you need boxes for the following as well: the Ra'avad, the Rashba's Toras Habayis, the Or Zarua, the Kol Bo, the Avudarham, the Tur, the Beis Yosef, the Rama, the Levush, the Eliya Rabba, the Shach, the Taz, the Sma, the Mogen Avraham, the Biur HaGra, the Pischei Teshuva, the Pri Megadim, the K'raisi Uplaisi, the Pri Chadash, the Pri Toar, the Darchei Teshuva, the Ashel Avraham of the Butchacher, the the Mishna Berurah, the Aruch HaShulchan, The Shulchan Aruch Harav to name a few, not even starting with the various Shaylos U'Tshuvos sefarim such as the Tashbat"z, the Avkas Rochel, the Nodeh B'yahuda, the Sha'ags Aryeh, the Avnei Nezer, the Igros Moshe, the Mishnas Shlomo, etc.

My point being that the modern-day application of Halacha is not restricted to TaNaKh, the Rambam, or the Shulkhan Arukh. My understanding is that you are following, in the main, the Orthodox understanding of Halakha—to wit the inclusion of the Shulkhan Arukh. As such, the application of the halakha has to be found as well in the various nosei kailim and the resoultion of various machlokos between those mefarshim requires a knowledge of the mesora and which shita has been accepted as a bar samcha in each case. Quoting a source can mean very little with the multitude of responsa/explanation written in the 1000–2000 years that has followed. Thus, while this template may mean well, I think that it will cause more confusion than good. -- Avi 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right lets add them! I am always in favor of more rather than less. just look at the Template:Element, it may be big, but it is good. I didn't add them originally becasue almost all of the reshomin wrote their commentaries on the talmud, so once you have the talmud source, you can find the rest. And most of the achromin you mentioned wrote on the shulkan aruchk (or are stuctured the same way), so once you have that you can find the rest. As for shaylos u'tshuvos, I was only trying to find places that write a comprehensive view on the subject (ie talks about all of the halachot of that subject, not just one question), but by all means add them.
We all know that tanakh, rambam and shulkhan arukh are not all there is to about halacha. But for someone with no previous knowleadge of the subject, it is a very good start to knowing the halacha. We just don't view it that way because we think about all of the exceptions and unussual cases, but the truth is most of what the shulkhan arukh says is Halacha and most of halacha is shulkhan arukh. The truth is, if you presented all of what these sources said in the article, you would be saying too much not too little.
Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to makes links in the template to articles that explain this. The warning as it stands now is not understandable.Jon513 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
becasue? reshomin? achromin? shulkan aruchk? waht?  :-p Tomertalk 21:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KISS principle

Well, I did not mean that now we should "violate" the Keep it Simple, Stupid principle !!!

Some Wikipedia rules for writing articles that everyone should always keep in mind are:

  1. Explain jargon
  2. Technical terms and definitions
  3. Which style to use?
  4. Think of the reader
  5. Use clear, precise and accurate terms.
  6. Check your facts

So while doing what Avi advocates is obviously going to be impossible, after all this is Wikipedia and we are not going to replicate the responsa or rabbinical literature or the contents of Category:Jewish texts, yet nevertheless, to say as Jon513 does that: "The warning as it stands now is not understandable" is also not fair given the limited constraints of this infobox thus far. It seems that Jon513 just wants everyone to accept all Halakha, as it comes from the Shulkhan Arukh, as one "stream of consciousness" and not allow for the creation of a DEFINITIONAL framework for the intellectual need to organize information, describe it, explain it, and UNDERSTAND the meaning, context, and application of any observance/mitzvah. It's kind of like he's saying; "Just accept the decrees, it matters not where they come from or how minor or major they are -- if they are part of Halakha they are just meant to be swallowed whole without any concession to the natural human need for gradual education." Now while this may be how G-d may view things from up on high, we Jews down on planet Earth amidst billions of non-Jews cannot adopt such a "holier-than-thou" attitude when trying to EDUCATE and inform others, but we must remember, that even G-d says: "Lo bashamayim hi" (Deuteronomy 30:11-14):

כי המצוה הזאת, אשר אנכי מצוך היום--לא-נפלאת הוא ממך, ולא רחקה הוא. לא בשמים, הוא: לאמר, מי יעלה-לנו השמימה ויקחה לנו, וישמענו אתה, ונעשנה. ולא-מעבר לים, הוא: לאמר, מי יעבר-לנו אל-עבר הים ויקחה לנו, וישמענו אתה, ונעשנה. כי-קרוב אליך הדבר, מאד: בפיך ובלבבך, לעשתו.

Thus what needs to be of utmost concern here is: לא בשמים הוא = KISS principle. IZAK 08:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not advocating that we should expand the template that way; It was more like arguing redcuctio ad absurdum that the templates premise has significant flaws that may preclude its use entirely. -- Avi 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the purpose of any article on Wikipedia is to convey the information of the subject in a clear, objective, "encyclopedic" fashion. As such, an article about a halacha deserves to have its sources apparent. And since virtually all halachas have the same sources, it seems that an infobox would clearly and objectively communicate those critical aspects of the halacha. Details about how much of the halacha is דאורייתבא, דרבנן, מנהג וכו don't belong in an infobox, they belong in the article. No one is proposing to eliminate all halachic articles and replace them with infoboxes. I would respond the same way to the request for a disclaimer. Whether or not there should be a disclaimer, it doesn't seem to belong in the infobox. That would seem like saying you cannot pasken from these sources. In response to the "lo beshamayim hi" complaint, I don't think someone who has chosen to click on an article about a halacha is going to feel like they are immediately expected to be keeping all the stuff that's written in the sources cited in the infobox. Even if they did feel that way, would they even know what the halacha is? In order to understand those sources alone, someone would have to be pretty knowledgable. It appears to be a moot point, either the person won't know the information or they already know it. The infobox just gives a quick tab on the halacha, not all the details of its observance. Avi's comment seems to be directed more at the existence of halachic articles on wikipedia in general than at the infobox, per se. If the halacha infobox was to be developed by those of us with the knowledge to help, it could become a resource even to the relatively knowledgable Jew who needs to look something up. If one of us happens to come across the source in טוש"ע, Rambam or Talmud, we should add it. The halacha infobox fulfills an important purpose which deserves to be developed, not deleted Mdanziger 18:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about this

I liked the idea of learning from the US Constitution template. I propose that we should do the following things

Jon513 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mildly off-topic...I once started an article that might be of development interest to some of you, obliquely related to parts of this discussion... User:TShilo12/Peirush Enjoy. Tomertalk 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not rush to create top-heavy bulky templates in haste

To repeat: I did not intend to start an "avalanche" towards creating BULKY and CUMBERSOME templates and/or infoboxes! Tomer's "Peirush" is too broad and would crowd out any page, like a cuckoo bird pushing out the original gozzlings from their own nest. Jon513 is NOT understanding my point about why I utilized the EXAMPLE of the US Constitution template to make a point. I did NOT mean to advocate that we should expaaaaaaaaand the Halacha infobox so that it starts to loook like a bloated baby elephant suffering from indigestion from all the information it has been force-fed. Tomer has already explained quite eloquently to Yoninah above that the non-Orthodox movements basically do not accept or recognize the very notion of a Halakha rooted in a Divinely-given Torah as do the Orthodox, so why waste time pasting a POLEMIC about Halakha on every article that presents a law or ritual? For example do we need to know the Reform and Conservative view about the wearing of Payot? My point thus remains very simple, that when presenting the sources for a Halakha, the reader needs to be notified that, even among very observant Orthodox Jews, even among Rishonim in fact, there can be some variance whether something is practiced or derived for one of THREE basic reasons/reasonings, because it's: 1) A Torah command (De'oraisa); 2) Rabbinical (De'rabbanan); 3) Minhag ("custom"). That's ALL. All the extra stuff/ing in the US Constitution template in essence performs a similar function: To enlighten the reader that the Law must be understood and is applied within certain contexts. It then also FUNCTIONS as a notification to the reader, in a similar way (BUT not quite the same, because giving the three reasons of De'oraisa/De'rabbanan/Minhag is at least more informative) as one finds on some of the Hebrew Wikipedia articles, that "הבהרה: ויקיפדיה אינה מקור לפסיקת הלכה" that "Wikipedia is not a source for deciding Halakha", for example as in the Hebrew article about תחום שבת. But PLEASE do NOT rush to create new monster templates. IZAK 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh...IZAK...you seem to be confusing that page, which is supposed to discuss the Pardes approach to exegesis, with the bloated (and now very mutilated) {{Judaism}} that happens to be stuck on that page as well. Tomertalk 07:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No darlin', I was responding to User:Jon513's proposed outline above. And yes, I did and still do oppose {{Judaism}} for being a hideous bloated monstrosity. And hey, Tomer, anyone who thinks that one can accomplish a "Pardes approach to exegesis" on Wikipedia must have missed the shiurim in a real yeshiva. Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia of/for information only, nothing too analytical and abstract can take place around here. The best one can hope for is that at least "just the facts ma'am" will be correct and accurate. See ya... IZAK 07:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that now you're just being purposely obstinate. Nothing about User:TShilo12/Peirush has anything to do with accomplishing a pardes approach to exegesis. The idea is to write an article about the pardes approach. Also, you know damn well I'm not isha, and that therefore, addressing me as "darlin'" and "ma'am" is completely inappropriate. Stop feigning stupidity, and stop purposely trying to insult me. Not only is it getting very old, it's both unprofessional and unbecoming. The Rambam would classify practically everything you said above to be "repulsive speech". Tomertalk 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Tislach Li' but "just the facts, ma'am" is a famous quote, apocryphally, but incorrectly, attributed to the radio show Dragnet, meaning "no embellishments, just the cut and dried facts, please." I don't think that IZAK was impugning your masculinity with that. -- Avi 15:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The "darlin'" was a definite attempt to do so. Normally I would not have associated the "just the facts, ma'am" with such a ridiculous veiled ad hom, but in conjunction with the "darlin'" and his insinuations that I'm an infantile blubbering whiner at Template talk:Juddom, I think enough is quite enough. Tomertalk 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Tomer, sorry, I did not mean to offend you, I just thought that by now you of all people would be able to live with my casual banter. Anyhow, what's with this "I think it's quite enough" talk... is this the army or somethin', sarge? You know, why not give me some credit for trying to lighten things up a bit when the air gets a little heavy sometimes? 99.99% of the time it's nothing more and nothing less. I thought we shared a common delight in our flare for langauge, but I see that I may have "over-underestimated" you, take it easy fella! IZAK 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets move forward

IZAK, you said "It seems that Jon513 just wants everyone to accept all Halakha, as it comes from the Shulkhan Arukh, as one "stream of consciousness" and not allow for the creation of a DEFINITIONAL framework for the intellectual need to organize information, describe it, explain it, and UNDERSTAND the meaning, context, and application of any observance/mitzvah." First, please don't put words in my mouth, and I will try my best not to put words in your. I stated above my reasons for creating the template and it is not to force anyone to accept Halakha.

I proposed a "DEFINITIONAL framework" to "organize information, describe it, explain it, and UNDERSTAND the meaning, context, and application", but you rejected that. (I don't know why). Just stating the sources has "potential to cause mass harm and confusion by just placing blanket sources without a disclaimer" (I don't know how). But to place any more than the two sentences is a "BULKY and CUMBERSOME templates". I like the template with no disclaimer I think it is simple clean and neat. I would be happy if the template was large and full of Halakha links. I wouldn't complain if there was a warning about paskening Halakha at the top or bottom of the page, so long as it was referring to the whole article not the sources (like the Hebrew wikipedia). I think the article should explain which parts are minhag and which are rabbinic and which are biblical. I don’t object to the words ‘halakhic sources’ being replaced with ‘Texts in Jewish law relating to this article:’; I don’t really see any difference and I don’t see a need for both.

I am, however not happy with how it stands now with the line “Note: Not meant as a definitive ruling. Some observances may be rabbinical, or customs, or Torah based.” for several reasons.

  1. The line “Note: Not meant as a definitive ruling”. is out of context by being above the infobox not above the article. Much of what is in the sources is a definitive ruling (albeit not all of it is), it is the article that is not a definitive ruling.
  2. The line ”Some observances may be rabbinical, or customs, or Torah based” is also out of context and is referring to the article. It should already have been explained in the article the different levels of the law. If it was not this warning will not ameliorate that.
  3. The two sentences are saying two different things but are lumped together in such a way to make them imply that some observances may be rabbinic or custom so they are not a definitive ruling and don’t have to be followed. I am not saying that we have to convince all wikipedians to follow Halakha but we also should not imply that Halakha is trivial since some is just customs.

IZAK, would you be happy with anything besides the template as it stands now? Jon513 20:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Jon513: All suggestions are welcome. However, when you say that you like "the template with no disclaimer I think it is simple clean and neat" it gets me just as worried as when you start advocating putting too much into it. I agree that the template should not be large, but I cannot understand your motivations for not wanting to help people at the same time. If you are going to the lengths of telling them where the Halakha comes from, why not also tell them that Halakha is NOT an intellectual or spiritual "straitjacket" of ideas that "one size fits all" but that rather, Halakha is essentially based on a three-tiered system that is an axiomatic foundation to the entire Halakhic system: De'oraisas ("[purely] Torah-derived laws); Derabannans Rabbinically-derived laws") ; and Minhag ("[mostly obligatory] Customs") and this should be driven home by the infobox as much as the sources in the infobox, in fact it's the rationale for the source/s to begin with. To say that people will read the information in the articles is like saying let's forget about the infoboxes altogether and put the information of the infoboxes into the articles, and they do and must go into the articles, yet why have a separate "infobox" when the information is in the article/s? So thus similarly, it is perfectly within good reason and it's definitely good pedagogy to have the so-called "disclaimer". That's why I cited the example of the US constitution template, not to spurn you on to create a mega-template for the Halakha infobox, but rather to show that a good template may contain QUALIFYING information that will allow any reader, not just scholars but also billions of Chinese or Indians (in China and India where they have the Internet and Wikipedia as well!) to READ and PERCEIVE instantly that what is in front of their eyes is a LEGAL SYSTEM and not just a "black and white" "Code of Law -- take it or leave style". Perhaps the wording of the disclaimer can be improved, there is always room for improvement. I am not saying that "Halakha is trivial since some is just customs", but I am trying to work with the assumption that most people who read this will not be scholars of Torah, and we can't present them with information that kullahs ["leniencies"] and chumras ["strictures"] are the same, since you are not telling them that in fact the particular article they are about to read may have different Torah vs. Rabbinical derivatives and applications than is presented in a narrow little infobox with "sources" only, but which the "disclaimer" does ALERT the reader to a larger complexity and REALITY (it makes Judaism more real and not just a confusing and dizzying "composite of zillions of do's and dont's"). Your last comment that "we also should not imply that Halakha is trivial since some is just customs" is most significant because you have repeated it a number of times and I have sensed from the start that somehow or other your intent has been to STRENGTHEN minhag ("Custom") in an attempt to show that in Halakha, minhag is "not trivial" (and by the way, I repeat that I do NOT believe that "Halakha is trivial since some is just customs", but noone should use frum ("[extremely] religious") beliefs to project the entire Shulkhan Arukh ("Code of Jewish Law") to the WORLD as an undifferentiated entity, when in it's formulation and application it is not like that at all. There is also the "FIFTH PART OF THE SHULKHAN ARUKH" that one must always include: Sechel (roughly: "[good] common sense") that is the glue that binds together the four chalakim ("sections") of the Shulkhan Arukh. So now, as one looks at the "what links here" [1] (as of 07:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)) one sees that this infobox has been inserted at seven de'oraisas; four derabannans; and at three minhagim. In addition, for each of the de'oraissas there are obviously, as there always are, derabannan-related observances that the reader of the infobox would not be aware of by a casual glance without the "disclaimer". But even more problematic is that some mitzvahs, and I will cite Payot again as just one, are presented with their source from the Torah, making them appear to be de'oraisas when in fact they are observed or even NOT OBSERVED because the rabannan did not always require the mitzvah to fulfilled in the stringent manner of the the way it's expressed in the Torah text. This is a very delicate matter and it would appear that a machmir ("stringent [in obsernce]") could try to "swing" the impression that certain mitzvahs should be observed in certain strict ways when there are in fact many reasons and opinions by the rabannan that do not require stringencies as in the case of wearing Payot. Finally, the minhagim are left to look like "orphans" in the infobox in some way, because they lack sources from the Torah which the "disclaimer" note does help to ameliorate and explain, and not to confuse. Thus:
    • For De'oraisas:
      1. Mezuzah (but some entrances only require mezuzas miderabannan and the infobox does not allow for any differences in entrances if you see it as just a pure Torah "command" without knowing that the ancient rabbis also decided applications of the mitzvahs going beyond, and sometimes less, thatn what the Torah appears to require.)
      2. Niddah (is also connected with many derabannans which are very complicated and there are many heterim that women receive based on the differences betweeen de'oraisas, derabannans, and minhag as is well-known to Orthodox women who prcatice these laws.)
      3. Tzitzit (only if wearing a four cornered begged otherwise it's a derabannan to go out of one's way to put on a tallis katan or talis. The infobox makes it seem that it is mandatory according to the Torah, which it is not, as long as one is not wearing a four-cornered begged ["grament"].)
      4. Four Species (the de'oraisa requirements to fulfil this mitzvah are much more basic than the way it's observed miderabbanan.)
      5. Mamzer (often, the status of mamzer is ultimately absolved and negated by a a duly constituted Beth din ("Jewish court of Torah law") or by a posek ("Halakhic decisor") based on earlier Halakhic problems in the mamzer's parents' kedushin -- of a de'oriassa and derabannan nature -- not having been fulfilled.)
      6. Shatnez
      7. Temurah (Halacha)
    • For Derabbanans:
      1. Hanukkah
      2. Negia (here the infobox is entirely misleading, because as negiah is commonly understood today, especially as it's explained to Baal teshuvas ["returnees to Judaism"], it basically applies to prohibiting hugging and kissing as long as there is no sexual intercourse meaning vaginal penetration by the male penis. This is obvioulsy a HIGHLY sensitive subject and it cannot be presented in "blanket terms" of "my way or the highway". It is very imporatant not to appear to be trying to "enforce" a mitzvah by means of displaying a very strict source for the prohibitions.)
      3. Yichud (This is a subject of debate and the infobox gives no context to allow the reader to appreciate that there are different levels of yichud, and different chumras ["stringencies"] as with all mitzvahs that have been added by the rabannan. It is dangerous to create the blanket impression that all cases of potential yichud are violations of the posuk ("verse") cited in the infobox.)
      4. Birkat Hamazon (first brocha is de'oraissa, the rest are derabannan that's why we have the Mishnah and Talmud and then Rishonim and Acharonim.
    • For Minhag:
      1. Kippah
      2. Payot (depends the context of how payot is used and how it's defined, it is de'oraissa if interpreted as a prohibition to shave with a razor blade. Tens of thousands of non-Hasidic Haredi Jews do not have beards and payot at all -- of course they cut them at the barber by scissors or electric razor -- so what would be the point of having this information make them seem like they are in violation of Halakha?)
      3. Lag Ba'omer (perhaps in some ways a derabannan)
Thus, the above should clarify my intent to a greater degree. IZAK 08:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So to be clear, your problem is that the infobox implies that everything in the article is in every one of the source (especially the bible verse)? Wouldn't changing the heading to "sources related to this Halakha" be enough. Jon513 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Jon513: I think you are beginning to grasp what I have been trying to say for a while now. IZAK 07:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand why you want "Note: Not meant as a definitive ruling." above the infobox. Should it be across the top of the article like the currently unused Template:Don't pasken. As it stands now it says that the sources are not a source of Halakha which is POV (just as saying that they are a source of Halakha is also POV). Jon513 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are you being difficult? It has to be made ABUNDANTLY clear that this template is in no way, shape, size or form, "laying down the (Jewish) law", it is rather a (very confusing) source of information precisely because it does NOT have any way of conveying a CONTEXT for wht it's stating and that is why it's critically important that it carry a warning to the unlearned and uninformed reader (the majority on Wikipedia -- the real tzadikim are learning in bais medrash and don't have time for Wikipedia...) IZAK 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
That is the point! I don't agree that the template is "in no way, shape, size or form" laying down the law. I think it should be netural in terms of whether you should follow Shulkhan Arukh for Halakha. I think you should. Others think you shouldn't. But either way that is POV! The fact that the Shulkhan Arukh talks about these issues, and is a source for a Halakha view for Halakhic topic is indisputiable. Jon513 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance

I've taken a shot at improving the appearance of the template; someone may be able to do better. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Jmabel: Good work! IZAK 07:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I've added the Mishnah and Talmud Yerushalmi to the template as they are both prominent works of Jewish law. Having read the discussion here, I can say that these additions are probably not controversial, but I figured I'd state the addition here anyway. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)