Talk:Jewish views on evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Jewish views on evolution is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Just a small word about Creation and evolution

Dear Sirs = I wonder who wrote the article named " The Evolution and Creation Controversy " Whoever tha author is/are He is a washed brain person, secularism dominat person. I just want to ask something : Who do You lean on ? Somebody's writtings, somebody's opinion, Bible is clear and states that It is God's Word. whether someone wants or NOT. The author does not know God or His Word, the author is just a braber and rely on someone's shoulders. The point is some people don't know God and are led by self-explanations. They are not familiar with the Bible and misinterprete a lot. I just wanna conclude this with some Bible statements: a) Bible is God's Word, no matter If someone agrees or not.

  People believe in every news they watch in TV, read about and no question are made.
  However, when the subject is God, they want evidences.
  The major evidence is Isreal, She is rigth there
  We are not here to prove God's Word are true, we are saved to proclaim it.
  Whoever proclaims it, know it is the Truth.

b) Isaiah The prophet states the Earth is round ( since long long ago )

  Job's book states the Earth turns itself in emptyness
  Jesus talked about the Earth explosion when Lucifer was cast into Earth.

The major pont is this: People believe there's a God, the only problem is this : They don't believe what He says. To conclude: Bible states the following : In Him ( Jesus ) is hidden all treasures of Science, knowledge and wisdon. The the time be expired, we all know the truth. Bible states that every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess, it includes me, you,science, everything and everybody, wheather they wants or not. See'ya

a==Reducing or removing the Slifkin controversy== The extensive mention of two incidents that will - with the hindsight of history - probably not be more than a ripple prompted me to remove the whole lot. Much is hearsay, and in the Slifkin controversy there are so many different versions that we cannot pretend we know the full truth. Knowing Slifkin personally I am inclined to believe his version of the facts.

The banning of books due is a big issue that is discussed within many Wikipedia articles. This issue seems especially important, since it is happening across the USA in other religions as well, especially within Protestant Christianity, but also within fundamentalist Islam. We should not underestimate the importance of reporting on this significant trend.
It seems to me that Slifkin is the kicking horse for a small number of rabbis who are attacking him in a fit of pseudo-religious politial correctness. Their religious and factual disagreement with him is not a problem; good people can seriously disagree with each other. It is their apparent their lack of even minimal civil propriety that is the problem. Some of them seem to admit that they don't want to condemn his book, yet are doing so because of political pressure. That kind of action is sometimes known as cowardice. Want kind of teacher says something that he believes to be false, just because he feels pressue to?
In any case, I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't be reporting details of the issue based on blog reports, just as we can't report on any details of any issue that are only available on blogs. But the bare facts of the case (the author, the haskamot (rabbinic approbations), the retraction of the approbations and the ban) have been well reported on and now are well-confirmed public knowledge. RK 20:51, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions within Haredi community: How should they be discussed?

It will be obvious that there is a deep division within the Haredi community to what extent the Torah account can be harmonised with the scientific account. Let's wait until the paint is dry. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that this division exists, and that we should take care not to imply that our article is stating any kind of final analysis. However, we can not wait for the "paint to dry"; Haredi Judaism (and non-Haredi Judaism) have been debating this issue for over 100 years, and the debate shows no signs of abating. We can only describe the facts as they did exist and as they currently exist. We will let future historians several centuries from now describe the resolution. RK 20:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I notice the article was originally pieced together from blog entries. A bit disconcerting. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Only one section (The banning of the books by the Zoo rabbi) initially relied on these reports. I totally agree with you that we should not include facts that are only available from blog reports, as we have no way of ascertaining their reliability. The overwhelming majority of this article is well sourced from published articles and books. I read Orthodox Jewish views from Orthodox Jewish authors, especially the many essays on this issue in Challenge, from the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, and from the works of Orthodox scientists Gerard Schroeder, whose work is widely read in Orthodox Jewish circles. I also used information from published articles in Jewish newspapers. RK 20:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kabbalistic and Rabbinic views on Creation

[edit] Kabbalah

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 very briefly describes more of Aryeh Kaplan's summary:

In Gen 1:1, G-d creates ex nihilo (matter from nothing). Then, before verse 2, these other worlds (in this opinion, epochs) rose and fell. Then, there was "chaos and emptiness" from which our world emerged. The universe as a whole, even the planet, can therefor be older than 5758 years. Since current theory is that the world started as a singularity -- in other words, not within the purvey of science, it is all a matter of faith if the ex nihilo was with the intent of the Creator or not. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quotes R' Yitzchak of Akko (a student of the Ramban, late medieval) who concludes from the Zohar that the first creation was 15.8 billion years ago -- the age astronomers and physicists seem to be converging on, given multiple ways of measuring the age. The Netziv (R' Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin), in his commentary on chumash, argues against the idea that these earlier worlds left physical evidence. It doesn't fit the precise translation of the quote, that G-d "created worlds umachrivam -- and destroyed them". Instead, the Netziv points to a medrash in which it is explained that the fall of morality in humanity in the days before the flood reflected itself in nature. Even animals interbread, leading to the monstrosities that archeologists find.
(Copyrighted text from the SCJ FAQ)

[edit] Rabbinic statements that are compatible with evolution

  • Talmud Chagiga 13b states that there were 974 generations of humans before God created Adam.
  • Many midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabba 9. (I haven't read the Anafim on this discursus myself - RK)
  • Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails!
  • Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers!
  • Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.

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 20:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know this for a fact, or are you just saying that "it is hard to say" Are you saying that Noah lived more than 5,000 years ago!? I don't think that anyone says that. Please be familiar with Rabbinic statements before you introduce your own interpretations. --DY1963 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbinic view that Genesis should not be read literally

Rabbi Norman Lamm writes:

"Maimonides, over eight centuries ago, was faced with the widely accepted Aristotelian theory of the eternity of the universe, which ostensibly contradcited the Biblical conception of creation in time. Maimonides demonstrated that Aristotle had not conclusively proved the eternity of matter, and that since eternity and creation were philosophically equally acceptable alternatives, he preferred to accept creation since this theory was the one apparently taught in Genesis. Nevertheless, Maimonides averred, were the Aristotelian theory convincingly proven, he would have accepted it and reinterpreted the verses in Genesis to accomodate the theory of the eternity of matter,."
"It is this kind of position which honest men, particularly honest believers in God and Torah, must adopt at all times, and epsecially in our times. Conventional dogmas, even if endowed with the authority of an Aristotle - ancient or modern - must be tested vigorously. If they are found wanting, we need not bother with them. But if they are found to be substantially correct, we may not overlook them. We must then use the newly discovered truths the better to truly understand our Torah - the "Torah of truth."
"What I am suggesting is that this firts part of Genesis has always been accepted, the Jewish tradition, as containing hidden doctrines, i.e. the text was never meant to be taken as a literal history. It was, as it were, meant to be interpreted and reinterpreted, Thus it that this part of the Bible, known in the Jewish tradition as Masseh Bereshit, was always considered as esoteric, containing mysteries that lie buried deep within the text and can be revealed only to the initiated. Hence, if the literal reading of this portion of the Torah contradicts what reason tells us to be the truth, it means that we have not properly understood the divine teachings and must return to the sacred text and probe ddeper into it in order to disocver what it is, after all, a single and unfied truth."
Norman Lamm The Religious Implications of Extra-Terrestrial Life, Chapter 5 of Faith and Doubt - Studies in Traditional Jewish Thought, (New York, Ktav, 1971).

[edit] Reason for including views of OU rabbis

I had written that "Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Union of Orthodox Congregations, holds that evolution is real and is compatible with Judaism."

JFW deleted this statement, stating that "he is just aping Rav Kook" I don't understand this. (Union of Orthodox Congregations is often called the OU.) This article should survey the wide array of beliefs found in the Jewish community on this issue, and illustrate which beliefs are widely held, and which are not widely held. Rabbi Weinreb is a representative of the OU, the single largest group of Orthodox congregations in North America, possibly the world. I think it is important to hear of the voices of leadings members of this very large group, so we have an idea of what many of their members believe. Also, I think it is important for this article to summarize the long-held rabbinic beliefs that Genesis was never meant to be read literally. The view of midrash Seder Olam has been a widely held view, of course, but it was not the only one. See the text by Rabbi Norman Lamm. RK 14:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Who says he is speaking on behalf of the OU? Weinreb himself is not an authority on anything. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I am Ok with your recent edits. I do want to make sure that the views of Rabbi Norman Lamm are included in this article, as he has been the most influential voice in Modern Orthodox Judaism for the last 30 years, along with that of Joseph Soloveitchik. (I know, some do not consider Soloveitchik MO, so in that case Lamm becomes the most important voice.) Lamm wrote a long and well-sourced essay in his book on Judaism way back in 1971 not just on evolution, but also on abiogenesis and the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and held that if any or all of these are proven to be correct, then this does not mean the end of Orthodox Judaism. In his view it only means that one is obligated to reinterpret Jewish texts more correctly. This essay was reprinted elsewhere, perhaps most importantly in Challenge, from the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. RK 21:29, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slifkin's First Name

Please see [1]. Mikeage 02:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nosson is Yiddish for Natan (Hebrew), or Nathan in English. --Metzenberg 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Please see this. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haredi and other traditional views

As a biologist, I am glad to see the many orthodox authorities who accept the concept of evolution--even Hirsh in 1880 was willingto accept everything except the origin of life. But I would like to see some discussion of the current views that do not accept the theory. This article seems a little one-sided, as if it were trying to prove the POV that evolution is consistent with othodoxy. How about some discussion of the contrary? I would very much like to know how those who do not accept it justify their rejection of the secular evidence. Is it simply a matter that as it is inconsistent with Torah, it cannot be true & we will therefore ignore it, or is there an attempt at argumentation as is done by the Christian fundamentalists? DGG 04:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted RK's changes to R' Hirsch's views, because I believe that the original version more accurately reflected his views. I agree with you that there is not enough information in there about Haredi views. Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (Audio Lectures - take a look at the ones on evolution and the age of the universe) offers one solution that accepts evolution and another that says that the world was created to look old. --Ezra Wax 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Rabbi Shlomo Miller is of the opinion that nature changed drastically after creation and that any projection of the present laws to before 5767 years ago will simply give nonsensical results. Furthermore, he considers it a fundamental tenet of Judaism that G-d created the world through ten "utterances" (the verses in Genesis that begin with "and G-d said") and therefore it's something that could not have happened naturally. So that the miraculous creation of the world is not simply apologetic to get around the scientific evidence, but rather fundamental in and of itself. Take a look at [Toriah.org] where his views are explained although it will be tough going. The following is his opinion in Hebrew taken from the just mentioned site:--Ezra Wax 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ובנוגע למה שכתבנו לענין ששת ימי בראשית, הנה ידוע שהקב"ה בורא ומנהיג עולמו, והנה זמן בריאת העולם נמשך כל ששת ימי בראשית וכמאמרם ז"ל בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם. והנה אלו שרוצים להתאים טעאריות של אלו שנקראים חכמי הטבע לאמונתן בששת ימי בראשית לא ימלטו מלכשל בעקרי תורתינו הקדושה שהרי אמונתינו בששת ימי בראשית הוא מעקרי האמונה וכל ענין שביתתנו בשבת הוא להעיד שהקב"ה ברא עולמו בו' ימים וביום השביעי שבת ואמר לעולמו די ואז נחקקו חקי הטבע כמו שאנו רואים היום. אולם יסוד נודע בחכמת הטבע שאם מצד הטבע גרידא יצא דבר כזה א"כ אפשר לאותו דבר לחזור ולהשנות עוד הפעם וא"כ אלו המחזיקים Big Bang Theory וכדומה, על כרחך שיטתם היא שמצד הטבע יוכל להשנות עוד הפעם שהרי מצד חקי הטבע שנוהגים עתה נעשה הדבר מתחילה ואם קרה פעם אחת בהכרח שיש אפשרות לקרות עוד הפעם.

אולם מיסודי אמונתינו הוא שרק ע"י עשרה מאמרות נבראו שמים וארץ, וא"כ מצד חקי הטבע בלי שתוף רצון הקב"ה לשנות ולבראות עולמו כבראשונה נמנע הוא מן המציאות שיברא עוד הפעם… אבל מעקרי האמונה הוא שכשנגמר מע"ב והקב"ה שבת ממלאכתו א"א בשום אופן שיתחדש הבריאה עוד הפעם ע"פ חקי הטבע אם לא ע"י רצונו יתברך ושינוי הנהגתו ממנהיג לבורא. והרוצים לפרש שכל ענין הבריאה היתה אך ורק יש מאין ומאז ועד עתה מתיחס הקב"ה לעולמו רק בתורת מנהיג הרי זה כפירה בששת ימי בראשית אשר אנו מעידים ע"ז בכל שבת.

End Quote --Ezra Wax 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: Skeptic study on Orthodox Jews

A recent scientific study described in Skeptic Magazine presented compelling evidence that modern day Orthodox Jews oppose evolutionary theory and overwhelmingly support ideas about the origin of life and the universe along the lines of Young Earth creationism [2]. Moreover, the study found that those with an educational background in the sciences were more likely to reject evolutionary theory than those without any prior scientific background. In short, the study's findings strongly suggest that rejection of and hostility towards evolutionary theory (and other findings of modern science) is at least as common among modern Orthodox Jews as it is among other religious groups more typically associated with hostility towards evolutionary theory, such as fundamentalist Christian Protestants.

I removed this passage because the study it discusses is so fundamentally flawed and irresponsible in its construction and presentation as to be libelous against Orthodox Jews.

Consider the first two statements of the study: Evolution correctly explains the origin of life. and Human beings evolved from apes. The scientifically correct response to both questions is FALSE. However, the fact that the majority of students responded false was interpreted as evidence of anti-scientific bias.

Second, the sample was unrepresentative. One cannot establish that the opinions of a small group of students at a single college represent the opinions of ALL Orthodox Jews.

Third, the author blurred the distinction between Modern Orthodox Jews (who value secular knowledge) and Haredi Jews (who often live in closed communities where only religious education is valued) AND ignored the diversity of opinion present in Orthodox Jewish communities. The article was quite evidently biased against Orthodox Judaism in favor of Conservative Judaism. There was also an inherent bias against Reform Jews, who are mentioned solely as being "not real Jews".

Finally, the survey was organized so as to ignore the distinction between what is believed and why it is believed. Scientific illiteracy and anti-scientific bias are not necessarily the same thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.249.0.58 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Your perceptions of the study's supposed short comings are a matter of personal opinion. There is a discrepancy between your appraisal of scientific consensus ("The scientifically correct response to both questions is FALSE") and the reality of widespread scientific support for evolution. Also your assertion that statistical analysis is wholly without merit misses the point. The study does not explicitely state that "ALL" Orthodox Jews do not accept evolution, nor does it engage in any sort of libel. If some academic or religious group publishes a review or denouncement of Skeptic's study, then by all means add the applicable criticism to the article. Until then, you are left with little more than personal bias and original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Mainly agree with Anetode. The scientific consensus about evolution is very clear. In any event, I think the study was highly flawed (partially for reasons discussed by the anon, but also for other reasons which become more apparent when you look at in detail). However, that is original research. If someone publishes a notable criticism of the study we can include that too but as of now this has to stay- given that is our only recent controlled study on the matter and all criticisms are OR it has to be kept in. JoshuaZ 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


I was not arguing that evolution is deemed false by the scientific community. The representations of evolutionary theory are false according to the commonly accepted form of modern evolutionary theory. Evolution explains the origins of species NOT the origins of life. Humans (depending on the definition of the word ape) either share a common ancestor with apes or ARE apes, they aren't evolved from apes.

As I'm new to Wikipedia, I must ask: if personal bias is excluded(a good idea), how is it that it is okay for the study to be presented as providing "compelling evidence" which is a subjective statement of the author's presumed opinion of the validity of the study. Also, the study does not demonstrate "hostility" towards science as that would have required (as I pointed out) asking the students why they believed what they did and how they felt about science.

I also did not argue that statistical analysis is without merit. The study did not meet the standards required for responsible statistical analysis... i.e. that the sample be demonstrably representative of the whole.

The passage's representation of the study is also flawed as it argues that the study shows that particular attitudes (not beliefs) are demonstrated by the study and that the study represents the beliefs of "modern Orthodox Jews" rather than a very small group of Orthodox Jewish students at Brooklyn College.

I could go on and on. Is there some way that the passage can be written to take a more objective view of the study that does not refer to its findings as "compelling" or "demonstrative" of the views of modern Orthodox Jews as a whole? 4.249.102.254 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The description here of the survey seems to be at variance with the Skeptic report. Here's a suggested revision:
A survey reported in Skeptic Magazine, which involved interviewing a sample of 176 Orthodox Jewish students who sat at the kosher area of a New York City public college cafeteria, was interpreted as showing general disbelief in basic scientific facts about nature and a rejection of evolution, particularly amongst those with an educational background in the sciences. It concluded that the Orthodox Jewish students, though modern enough to attend a secular public university, get their scientific information not from their professors but from their religious beliefs and from Orthodox Jewish scientists who in turn conform to the beliefs of their religious authorities. The questions relating to evolution asked students to give true or false responses to the statements “Evolution correctly explains the origin of life”, “Human beings evolved from apes", “Scientists know that evolution has been discredited but are deliberately lying", and “Statisticians have proved that the first cell could not arise by chance and evolution could not occur". [3]
On a fairly quick reading, I saw no comments about "other religious groups more typically associated with hostility towards evolutionary theory, such as fundamentalist Christian Protestants." The points about humans not evolving from apes but having a common ancestor, and evolution of course not explaining the origin of life, are valid but perhaps too subtle for the group concerned. One would have expected better questions. However as any data seems to be rare, a paragraph on these lines seems appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced the original paragraph with one based on Dave'a, but edited a little for brevity, and giving some of the numbers. I do not see that the study showed from where they had obtained their views--it seems a reasonable hypothesis on the part of the investigator, but was not actually studied. With respect to general scientific views, only 13% of the students believed the sun to go around the earth, while the article discusses the claimed return of contemporary orthodoxy to geocentric views. And Dave is right that other religions are not mentioned. I also agree that the questions asked are simplistic; further, the dichotomous choice is likely to produce stereotyped answers. There is also no comparison with non-orthodox students from the same college. I doubt any good social science journal would accept this, except as a preliminary "range-finding" study. This could be discussed in more detail, but it seems enough to link to the actual study. However, the article might perhaps also be included as an external link, as it has a good bibliography of Orthodox views together with quotes. User:DGG 07:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanks. I've taken a particular interest in this study as I'm both a regular reader of skeptic publications and a practicing Reform Jew. I think there's a definite need for more data on how disparate groups view science and the prevalence of unscientific views in society as a whole. But I think this study fell far short of the mark as far as scientific respectability is concerned and was quite disappointed to see it in Skeptic Magazine. As Wikipedia has become a trusted resource for so many, I thought maybe correcting this would be a good idea. Thanks for the help. 4.249.186.65 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If you ask a question the right way, you will get the answer you want. That's one of the problems with survey research. --Metzenberg 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced and unverified

I slapped a couple of tags on this article. First of all, it seems to be written as if Orthodox Judaism represents all of Judaism. It also appears to represent Israeli Jews, as opposed to the viewpoints of non-Israeli Jews. Also, the whole article has two references. That's it. It needs serious upgrading to meet the standards of other Evolution/Creation articles here. Orangemarlin 06:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in general. But I actually find the historical organization of the article to be the real source of the problem. Let me explain. Today the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant denominations of Christianity, like most Jews (including essentially all Modern Orthodox Jews!) accept mainstream scientific evidence about the age of the Earth, and theory of evolution, and so forth. But you would not write an article about Christian views of evolution from a historical perspective, laying out in detail that originally, Christians believed in a literalist 6-day approach. (Obviously, there are fundamentalists in Christianity today, just as there are in Judaism, although I wouldn't necessarily compare them.)
I think many Christians and Jews (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) share a vague notion of a divine role in evolutionary processes, at least when there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. The Skeptic Magazine article played on this, asking some questions that were designed to produce a sensational article, not seeking the truth about what Jews really believe.
Another point. I don't think non-Jewish readers are really going to understand that Jews have a midrashic process for interpreting the Torah through oral as well as written tradition. Because of this, "literalism" is really not much of an issue for Jews. Indeed, when I was a wicked child (which I still am), I used to love asking "black hats" for their views about evolution. (No offense to any black hats, I am just referring to my own wicked childishness.) On several occasions, I've asked a Chabad rabbi about his views, and I've always been more or less impressed by the openness of their views. So, I really don't think that many Haredi Jews are literalists, at least not ones I have asked. --Metzenberg 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main ways to improve this article

The 2 main ways, at this point, to improve the article, are such:

1.) Expand the article content a bit, include as many basic viewpoints as possible from all the main denominations (quotes from movement leaders are always best), and make everything as concise as possible in the sentence and paragraph arrangement

and

2.) Add reliable citations. Lots of them. That always helps.

Noogster 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why were Noogster's contributions blanket reverted?

I notice that all of Noogster's edits from the 25th of Feb have been reverted by Metzenberg with edit summary "Noogster's additions do not represent Jewish views on evolution. Noogster is a Messianic and a Christian Fundamentalist." Looking over the contributions, they look mostly straightforward and accurate to me. They could be better referenced, and the Kaarite section is a bit POV, but otherwise I see nothing controversial. Noogster's personal theology has no effect on whether his edits are valid - that is based entirely on content, and unless I'm missing something, the content is fine. DanielC/T+ 11:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yashanet (yasha=yeshua=Jesus) has nothing to do with Judaism's view, it is a Messianic website--different religion. That is for starters, -- Avi 12:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Rechecking the history, everything else seems to have been unsourced. -- Avi 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that yashanet link. Apart from that, I do agree that sourcing was mostly absent, but there was nothing there that justified a total revert of only Noogster's changes, seeing as many of them were simply adding links and clarifying wording, and the rest were almost entirely uncontroversial and easily referenced. I don't want to see valid contributions reverted due entirely to unrelated theological differences - many of us have been falsely accused of it before, but the edit summary of the reversion is a pretty blatant indication. DanielC/T+ 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I edit a lot of the Creationism and Evolution articles. Noogster's comments, most importantly, violate WP:NPOV, specifically the undue weight section. In other words, he's giving undue weight to a belief set that is not only not Jewish, it's marginally Christian in philosophy. I absolutely don't mind Christians or aetheists for that matter editing Jewish articles. However, if they edit, they need to edit from an NPOV, not some odd belief-set that fits into another article more than tis one. His theology is germane to his edits, because he is foisting onto the article a POV that doesn't really represent Judaism. Again, it's a Christian viewpoint that should be taken to the main Creation article--except it's already there. Orangemarlin 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the article should be NPOV and totally free of non-Jewish teachings. I stick mostly with Judaism articles myself, and have clashed with Noogster on several occasions in the past on his introducing MJ/christian beliefs where they don't belong. In this instance, however, being Orthodox and with a background in evolutionary processes, I honestly don't see the edits he made that were supposedly POV or from a christian perspective (apart from the link that Avi highlighted). If nothing else, the extensive work that he did at linking, spelling correction, and basic clarification shouldn't have been mass reverted with a couple unsourced sections. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if I'm overlooking something, but I'm just not seeing it on my own. DanielC/T+ 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Before I discuss Noogster (hate wasting too much time on this), you sound like you could contribute in some other articles, specifically ALL of the Creationist series. I am Jewish and a scientist, so I find Creationism rather laughable. In Wikipedia, almost all of the Creationist articles take on a distinctly Christian outlook. You could help in changing some of the POV, especially undue weight. I'm not a theologian, so I really stick with science, but the Christian stuff is getting annoying. As for Noogster's edits, I want to assume good faith with him/her, but his creationist writings in this article sound, well, very Christian. I've done a lot of research into Jewish dogma (if that's the right word) on Evolution and Creationism, and to tell you the truth, it is very unclear. In the US (and I'm not sure where you're located), I couldn't find any reasonable and verified source that would indicate that any religious Jew takes anything but a literalist view of the Torah (not a strict inerrancy). Only visiting Israel for Medical conferences, I couldn't even begin to state what Orthodox Judaism there might consider correct or incorrect. Noogster, however, is representing a rather non-Jewish and very Christian viewpoint of Evolution. His sources violate undue weight. I'm in agreement that his edits should be reverted. Orangemarlin 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My Response. If someone here feels that Noogster has some contributions within his material, other than the long sourced section that comes from the website yashanet (which means jesusnet in Hebrew; yasha a variant on Joshua; Jesus is Greek for Joshua), then you can pick through the pieces and restore them. Noogster's writing in this article consisted basically of 1. A long sourced section from yashanet (which is obviously not a Jewish site) and 2. Brief paragraphs about other movements in Judaism and their views on evolution.
While I didn't see anything in these other paragraphs that was really wrong, they were unsourced and not that well written. It is clear that Noogster is just not the right person to be contributing in this field. I have left a message on his user page telling him so. I have left some pretty sharp messages for him on Jewish denominations, on which I have been working. I told him that he has neither the expertise nor the neutrality to work on Jewish content here on wikipedia. I predict we will not see any more of him here.
Although my words with Noogster were pretty harsh, I think they were needed. You don't know, on wikipedia, whether you are dealing with another adult, or an enthusiastic high school student, but you can sure tell when the other contributor doesn't know what they are talking about! As far as I am concerned, the easiest thing to do with Noogster's work is to remove the whole corpus. --Metzenberg 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I see only one blatantly POV person in this discussion, and that person happens to be the person reverting all of my edits sina que non by the fact that I made them. You can most definitely remove the citation from the MJ website (the one reason I cited that article is because it is the single most informative article about Judaism and evolution that I have ever read). If you're asking about my personal beliefs, they are Jewish to the core and (not relevant to this discussion, but you get it). I believe that the counter-historical antinomian misojudaic "Jesus Christ" of Christianity is diametrically opposite the authentic Torah-teaching Ribi Yehoshua of the 1st century, per the Netzarim, Ra'anana Israel which I am learning more about now. It's interesting, I actively deny Christianity, defend the concept of Messiahship exclusively within the Jewish context, promote non-selective Torah observance, and defend the validity of Orthodox Judaism in the one discussion you've had with me so far, Metzenberg, yet you insist on calling me something I'm not almost like you think I'm hiding something. Check my edit history again and you'll see that my every edit supports my statements here. "Poorly written"? Don't be so vague, my good friend. Once again, you can remove that citation, but you're doing nothing but setting the article back otherwise. Noogster 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed the "Skeptic Magazine" article - here's why!

It is an inflammatory article, much of which simply quotes various Haredi texts out of context on subjects related to science or evolution. It presents the isolated opinions of a few Haredi decisors as if they represented all of Orthodox Judaism, and it fails to even mention that many Orthodox Jewish writers embrace scientific theories. (Kaplan, Schroeder, etc. are widely read and admired in Orthodox Jewish communities.) It generally equates Haredi views with all of Orthodoxy.

It uses a gloss of social science language such as "empirical study," yet it does not follow any of the norms of social science research to present a study and methodology that is reproducible by others. For example, the actual survey questions that were asked are not stated. Rather, they are summarized in graphs. It does not tell how or where the subjects were selected. It does not reproduce the survey or questions themselves.

The authors of the Skeptic Magazine "study" could stand to learn more about evolution itself. Their ignorance of science is revealed in some of the "questions" in their survey. Some of their "questions" reveal that the designers of the this so-called study understand very little about science. Here are some examples:

  • Are humans descended from apes? True or False? No, according to evolutionary theory, humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor.
  • Evolution correctly explains the origin of life. True or False. Is somebody kidding me? Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It explains how life evolved once it originated. The actual questions of how life originated (Did metabolism precede reproduction? Did RNA life precede DNA life? Did another nucleic acid precede RNA as the basis for life? What was the nature of the original metabolic process that sustained the first life forms? etc.) are it this point in time all unanswered.

I personally happen to believe that scientific answers for these questions will eventually be found. I'm just amazed at the hubris of the Skeptic Magazine article in claiming to know as fact what what nobody really knows yet. The authors badly need to be skeptical of their own ideas.

In short, this article in Skeptic Magazine is not an "empirical study" as it claims. Rather, it is a sloppy hit-and-run piece that has been written to please readers of Skeptic Magazine. --Metzenberg 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help is also needed in a couple of other articles. For example, Religious perspective on dinosaurs. It had a "Jewish" section which I deleted for being rather useless. Maybe you can help. Orangemarlin 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Chicago Press, new book (November 2006)

  • Cantor, Geoffrey and Marc Swetlitz, (editors). Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. 2006. ISBN: 9780226092768

PART 1: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON JEWISH RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION

  • Introduction to Part 1
  • Chapter 1. "Anglo-Jewish Responses to Evolution," by Geoffrey Cantor
  • Chapter 2. "Responses to Evolution by Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Rabbis in Twentieth-Century America," by Marc Swetlitz
  • Chapter 3. "Practically, I Am a Fundamentalist: Twentieth-Century Orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications," by Ira Robinson

PART 2: SOCIAL USES OF EVOLUTION: ANTI-SEMITISM, RACISM, AND ZIONISM

  • Introduction to Part 2
  • Chapter 4. "The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945," by Richard Weikart
  • Chapter 5. "The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945," by Paul Weindling
  • Chapter 6. "Zionism, Race, and Eugenics," by Raphael Falk

PART 3: EVOLUTION AND CONTEMPORARY JUDAISM

  • Introduction to Part 3
  • Chapter 7. "Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis," by Shai Cherry
  • Chapter 8. "Torah and Madda? Evolution in the Jewish Educational Context," by Rena Selya
  • Chapter 9. "Modern Orthodoxy and Evolution: The Models of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi A. I. Kook," by Carl Feit
  • Chapter 10. "The Order of Creation and the Emerging God: Evolution and Divine Action in the Natural World," by Lawrence Troster

I have reproduced the Table of Contents here. This book looks like it will help us out greatly in improving this article. --Metzenberg 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish opposition to evolution

I have created a new page, Jewish opposition to evolution, and I put the "creationism" template box onto it instead, replacing it here with the "Jewish topics" box. From now on, Jewish opposition to evolution is the place for material and issues such as those arising out the the Slifkin controversy. And we can focus here on mainstream views. In addition, I eliminated the term "Jewish Creationism" from the "Creationism" infobox. "Creationism" is not a Jewish concept really. --Metzenberg 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline Citations

My attention fell upon this article due to procedural concerns about a related article. I have no axe to grind with either side here.

I realize it's a lot more work, but I think this article would benefit tremendously from inline citations. That would make it much easier to weed out assertions that are not directly supported by a reliable source as required by WP:A. The way it is now, with just one inline citation and seven sources listed at the very bottom of this lengthy article, it is practically impossible for the typical WP editor to verify anything. That makes it easy for editors to insert unsupportable statements and almost guarantees that every point can be argued to death.

I suggest setting a time limit -- maybe two months -- for everybody to supply an inline citation for any factual assertion he or she would like to see retained. After the time expires, any uncited statements can be excised. It would keep editors (and the article) honest, and it might lead to this mishegas being eligible for GA or FA status.

--Butseriouslyfolks 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that citations are important, but don't go cutting anything out quite yet. The article is an oldie that I just got to working on this week. I don't think removing the citations because nobody cleaned them up is the answer. For one thing, they are actually famous quotes that we wouldn't want to see stripped out of the article. To those of us "in this field" (those who follow issues like this in the Jewish world) we already know who Norman Lamm or Samson Raphael Hirsch are and why what they said is important, and where to find it. The challenge is to write a good article and get everybody to use those citations. --Metzenberg 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting anything by excised just yet. If the people currently editing here can at least reach consensus on a reasonable amount of time to cite everything, then it would be fair to remove uncited material after the deadline passes. It would probably be helpful to notify anybody who has made significant contributions to the article. Also I'm not just saying the quotations should be cited, I'm suggesting that any sentence that asserts a fact (other than something that is common knowledge to anybody stopping by) should be supported by a direct citation. If that doesn't cut down on the squabbling, it should at least narrow it to the specific facts. Good luck! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But seriously, I think the squabbling is done for. You can see for yourself what the "Skeptic Magazine" article was. Sometimes a page needs an posek, and I guess I've taken that on for now. But seriously, what we need to do now is read that brand new University of Chicago Press book, for which I added the Table of Contents above. I have ordered it through Amazon. I think the fundamentals of who is quoted in this article are correct: Maimonides, Hirsch, Lamm, Schorsch. Really the article should be shorter, not longer. I am waiting for my new book to arrive from Amazon. If anyone else would like to join in writing this page, please order a copy of that book and lets all read it and talk about it here. --Metzenberg 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship of Jewish and evolution/creationism articles

This is my main posting on this topic. Re:

These three need direction, focus and agreemment. What purpose do these articles serve? Are they titled to accurately represent their topic? Are they able to be Neutral and Appropriately sourced encyclopedic articles.

Judaism and evolution in particular seems as much about Judaic creationism and Judaic philosophy on the origin of life and the universe.--ZayZayEM 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZay. I'm not sure what you have against Metzenberg, but you seem to follow him from article to article criticizing nearly everything he does. But whatever, I guess that's your right here on Wikipedia. I've replied on this topic before. If you spend one minute reading the "Christian" versions of these articles, mostly Creationism and Intelligent design you would realize that the real science, Evolution, should be discussed separately from junk science, pseudoscience or plain old myth. I think anyone who is seeking out a well-written treatise on Judaism and Evolution would find it in that article. It is balanced, NPOV, and probably represents 95% of both theological and common-belief of Jews in the world. If you want to know about the creationist horse manure, then they need to have their own NPOV articles. The main Evolution article briefly (and it sometimes gets edited out) mentions the Creationist hooey. There are numerous forks off of that article, and one of the parallel ones that mirrors the Judaism and Evolution article would be--Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. It is not merged into the main ID article. As a strong supporter of the Evolution articles on here, I would keep Judaism and Evolution separate from the other two articles. And the two "creationist" type of articles probably should be kept separate. Orangemarlin 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO, all three need to simply be merged into one article. - unsigned by User:Noogster


My response to ZayZayEM is located at Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. It explains why it is not appropriate for them to be merged into one article. To do so would cause this article to violate Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. --Metzenberg 20:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, they're all topics about scientific investigations into the origins and development of life on earth in relation to Judaism. Noogster 23:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong. Trying to inject your bias into the comments. One is about science--Evolution. Intelligent design is pseudoscience. Please get your facts right. Orangemarlin 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Another excellent source is Mendel Kasher's article in Talpiot (the YU journal). (I'm afraid I don't remember exactly which issue) explaining exactly how the idea of evolution can be explained according to Jewish sources. Hopefully someone less lazy than I can fit it in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 19:04, March 22, 2007

Please read it and come back and write about it. I think his articles are published under his Hebrew name Menachem Kasher. While you are at it, check out Richard Sternberg. The appropriate weight in this article I think is about one paragraph for each of these commentators, with a wikilink off to more detailed information. --Metzenberg 07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anybody good with reference tags?

The citations for the Shai Cherry article were impossible to do with the inline style, at least on the templates that I was able to find. Anybody know how to do it? Also, if you do, see if you can fix the Iggorot Moshe reference to make the volume/responsa number appear. That's Volume 3, Responsa 73. I couldn't find a way to make it come out right in the inline citation style. --Metzenberg 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts to intelligent design (and use of defnitions of wiki'd terms)

Here is the paragraph I inserted yesterday.

Intelligent design is a theory that claims that an intelligent creator is responsible for the origin of life and of humankind. Its proponents claim that their hypothesis is scientific, that it challenges the Darwinian view of evolution and its modern synthesis. Jewish theologians, organizations, and activists have maintained that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Although some have expressed support for a theistic interpretation of evolution, they have generally rejected the tenets of the intelligent design movement itself. Jewish organizations have been steadfast in their opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools as a valid scientific alternative to evolution.

Now I have changed the wording so that it is obvious that intelligent design is not a theory (I agree, it isn't, its proponents only claim that it is).

The movement for intelligent design claims that an intelligent creator is responsible for the origin of life and of humankind. Its proponents claim that their hypothesis is a scientific theory, that it challenges the Darwinian view of evolution and its modern synthesis. Jewish theologians, organizations, and activists have maintained that intelligent design is not valid science, that it is a religious concept. Although some have expressed support for a theistic interpretation of evolution, they have generally rejected the tenets of the intelligent design movement itself. Jewish organizations in the United States have been steadfast in their opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, charging that to do so would violate the separation of church and state.

ZayZayEM. This is an article that is about evolution, not intelligent design, and the people who read it do need a lead in to what intelligent design is, not just a wikilink. This entire article may eventually be part of a "Jewish perspectives" box (which I am developing) that will contain Jewish perpsectives on issues such as organ donation, abortion, homosexuality, environment, stem cell research, etc. If you have some other way of wording it, so so here: --Metzenberg 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree with Metzenberg that some explanation of "intelligent design" is in order. Especially outside of the U.S., people are likely to be completely unfamiliar with the term. I'm not sure I like either "theory" or "movement" (both grant too much). I'd just say "view". - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with "view" or "viewpoint" or "idea" probably being better than theory or movement in terms of NPOV. I'd suggest it is more of movement personally (they have set goals).--ZayZayEM 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think including defnitions is necessary. The term can be wiki'd, people unfamiliar with teh term can click on it. The Intelligent Design article is over 7000 words long and contains 135 references. The lead itself is over 250 words. It is extremely difficult to create a helpful, credible and NPOV summary in one or two sentances. Wikifications basically means we don't have to worry about that problem.--ZayZayEM 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC) There is also a main article for this section on Jewish reactions to intelligent design, which also allows the reader to click and gain more information if they don't feel satisfied with what is included in this paragraph.--ZayZayEM 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Progress to the Article, so far

This is posted for encouragement. Although I am still not in agreement with Metzenberg's comprehensive reversion/redaction of my earlier work; reactionary measures almost never result in a better Wikipedia article. But you've done a good job and this is looking like a nicely researched article. Thanks again. Noogster 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I would just like to say that I came across this article after watching a film called "Flock of Dodos", which tried to present the two sides of the Intellegent design debate. I found it interesting that in the discussion, Jewish thought was completely absent. I find myself feeling very proud (hopefully not too self righteously so) that according to the compilation in this article, the discussion is actually extremely vibrant in all circles of Judaism, without needing to pander to either of the two sides of the conventional debate. From the earliest writings on Jewish philosophy, like the midrashim and gemara, to mideval thinkers like Rambam and Ramban, and even into the twentieth century, the Jewish approach has been so catagorically different than the fundamentalist Christian approach that we can safely and courageously separate ourselves from such a polarized discusson. It seems that the main difference is that Jewish thinkers have almost always been searchers. Seeking for the truth through whatever media was available. As opposed to the modern Christian right, Jewish thinkers do not try to push old ideas on a modern world like the proverbial circle in the square. Instead, these philosophers, far closer in approach to scientists, take the information they are faced with and try to emerge with a truth that that does not need to shun either empirical evidence or traditional belief. And it is incredible how progressive ideas can be when truth is the main goal. Which brings me to the fear I have for modern orthodoxy: If we some how find ourselves stuck in this debate and instead of having faith in the truth and the truth of our faith, we somehow insist on cementing ourselves in the truth we think we know right now, we will be simply paving the way for destroying Judaism through stagnation. Had the Rabbis of the Gemara and the middle ages stopped where they began, they would never have come in touch with ideas that are now being discovered scientifically. We need to be courageous enough to believe that our Torah can withstand the tests of time and discovery and not be threatened by any new discoveries about a complex world that is still being uncovered. 24.46.72.210 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Rothschild


[edit] Citing Rambam

Shalom. Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings', it claims that Maimonides wrote that if Science and Torah were misaligned ... I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't indicate any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here.BentzyCo 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Slifkin creation.jpg

Image:Slifkin creation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

The article refers to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan(zt"l) in the present tense. He died over twenty years ago. Grimlock613 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modified tenses in article

I modified the tenses in certain parts of the article, to reflect that certain rabbis whose views are cited have been dead for some time (in the case of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes since the mid 19th century.) I also added the dates for the rabbis in question where I was able to find them. Grimlock613 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Mistake

Shouldn't the spelling "bilbical" which occurs several times in the article be "biblical"? by cantbebotheredtosignin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.227.118 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anecdote

Should we also add a blurb about Yitzhak ben Shmuel of Akko's estimation of the age of the universe as 15 billion years? Would probably be more relevant in an article about Judaism and Science but it does fit in here somewhat, he cites one of the quotes in this article as a source for that, and there's another mention of "billions of years". 216.15.63.39 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Rambam - repeated

Shalom. Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings', it claims that Maimonides wrote that if Science and Torah were misaligned ... I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't indicate any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here. BentzyCo (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's o.k. already by now, assisted by Jon513. It's in The Guide for the Perplexed, book 2, chap 25. BentzyCo (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] on Rambam and Ramban

The section on Maimonides and Nahmanides is filled with OR and irrelevancy. It says that Maimonides interprets the account of creation non-literally, as if to imply that he accepts darwin's idea of evolution. This is nonsense in the Guide 2:17, it speaks about CERTAIN THINGS in the account of creation as not being literal and that's explained elsewhere--in fact, in 2:30. See there, and you'll see that Maimonides just clarifies that certain aspects of the story shouldn't be interpreted literally, but the rest he interprets totally literally. He certainly doesn't subscribe to evolution. As for Nachmanides, 1. no source is mentioned for the claim that he interprets non-literally; 2. it's not enough to say that he offers a non-literal interpretation, because that's nothing new; many kabbalistic commentaries do so, but not because they reject the pshat, but rather because they're explaining it on a deeper level. As for Rabbi Isaac of Akko, he again said things in a kabbalistic context, so that doesn't prove that he rejected the pshat. That makes the quote from him also unacceptable OR. And the claim that "A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon" is both absurd and OR. So unless anyone has any objections, I will remove this section.--Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)