Talk:Union for Traditional Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Union for Traditional Judaism 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: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Material being removed from article 2.1 Halivini responsum material 2.2 Partnership minyan 2.3 Jewish Center of Teaneck 2.4 Electricity and Shabbat 2.5 Inherited positions 3 Page protection 4 Changes to intro

[edit] Introduction

The introduction was somewhat lacking in describing the UTJ-material therefor was added. Text more relevant to the origin of the UTJ was moved to the origin section and combined with extant text.Rachas 17:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material being removed from article

Some anonymous IPs are removing material from this article, claiming it represents "factual errors." The material is sourced. If editors can find a reliable source they are welcome to do so but sourced material cannot be removed on an editor's say-so that it is anomous. I'm going to go over the sources for the each of the claims being removed here briefly, then I will protect the page. I ask the IP editors to propose edits deleting this material here. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halivini responsum material

• Halivni wrote a responsum for the Conservative movement authorizing ordaining women rabbis. The source is: .[1] Footnote 44 of this source cites (and the source itself describes and quotes a few passages from) the following manuscript:

David Weiss Halivni, On Ordination of Women, manuscript pp. 9-16, included in the unpublished 1979 collection On the Ordination of Women as Rabbis: Position Papers of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America which was later published as the volume edited by Simon Greenberg, without Halivni’s paper. The 1979 collection is available in the Jewish Theological Seminary Library, BM 726.J48 1983.

Note that as this source indicates the manuscript was never published and hence this citation cannot be used directly. But the paper which quotes it WAS published, and it IS a reliable source for the existence and contents of the unpublished Halivni manuscript. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since the paper was never published - this belongs on Rabbi Halivni's biography page not UTJ's. The official UTJ position since its inception was not to ordain women as rabbis see Liberman in Tomekh kaHalakhah v.1, 1986. Please correct.Romabers 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Halivni was a founder and key figure in the UTJ and the rabbis who broke away from Conservative Judaism to found it did so over the process the Conservative Movement used to approve women's ordination, I believe HaLivni's position is relevant. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In his autobiography "The Book an The Sword", published by Westview Press, 1996, page 105, Rabbi Halivni clearly says that the paper he wrote while still at the Seminary was later withdrawn. Rabbi Halivni is our teacher, mentor and the greatest Talmud scholar today, but Rabbi Halivni in not equal UTJ and UTJ is not equal Rabbi Halivni. This clearly belongs on his biography page.Romabers 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the following reliably-sourced sentence is very relevant to a neutral historical view of the UTJ's origins and belongs in and should be restored to the origins section:

Rabbi Halivni had written a responsum supporting the ordination of women as rabbis, although by a more gradual process than the one approved by the JTS faculty.[2]

I understand there is no dispute here as to the factual existence of the responsum, the only issue is whether mentioning it is relevant to the article. Because per WP:NPOV the article cannot be limited to UTJ official positions and and UTJ views of its own history, I am asking the neutral third party for a review opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a slight concern that the citation for the Halivni citation is not sufficient since it is from the CLJS which has its own agendas about how they'd want to portray pre-existing responsa. However, the existence of the responsum is not disputed and I have trouble seeing the CLJS quote it so far out of context as to it matter much in this case. Since Halivni is the founder of UTJ, Halivini's earlier opinions are relevant and should be included. JoshuaZ 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Romabers in that R' Halivni's positions prior to the founding of the UTJ are more appropriately referenced on his biography page. Insofar has the Halivni paper, which was written for the Law Committee of the Conservative movement, and was later withdrawn, in the context still of the Conservative movement; when combined with the original position of the UTJ which did not permit the ordination of women, would tend to suggest that this discussion should be associated with R' Halivni directly. Or, perhaps, in the article on the Conservative Movement, or on Women's issues in Judaism, or some such. I am concerned that inclusion here obfuscates the point of the origin of the UTJ - the dispute was not over the 'subject' (women's ordination), but in the 'method'.Rachas 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partnership minyan

• The Union for Traditional Judaism supported a Partnership Minyan -- [3] See the September 29, 2004 article "Gay Rabbi in New York Gives Sermon on Rosh Hashanah - Synagogue Loosing Support" and note the passage "The Union for Traditional Judaism is pulling its support from the Montauk Minyan, which featured Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg as one of its speakers during the holiday, the New York Jewish Week reported" Here's the Montauk minyan's announcement of it's Shira Hadasha style services: [4] --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• The support from the Montauk Minyan was pulled off more than a year before it went the "Partnership" style from the dates of the same articles you've referenced. Please correct.Romabers 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a bulletin article from the Jewish Center of Teaneck, NJ, the synagogue of the UTJ's headquarters, explaining its Shira Hadasha "copycat" minyan in detail including women's aliyot and all the rest: [5] (See "Shira Hadasha: It's OK to be a copycat" on p. 5). I understand the Teaneck Jewish Center membership voted this past summer to put a mechitza in its main sanctuary, end its prior three-minyan approach which had included a Conservadox non-mechitza and a Shira Hadasha style service, and continue with what had been its standard Orthodox minyan style as its only service format. The Partnership minyan format may no longer be an acceptable option in UTJ, but the fact that UTJ congregations embraced the Partnership minyan format when it first came out is relevant. --Shirahadasha 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted here (Romabers) and elsewhere (below, see Electricity), the basic assumptions here are incorrect. See Romabers comment. Also, the Jewish Center of Teaneck is NOT the synagogue of the UTJ's headquarters. The UTJ synagogue in Teaneck is Netivot Shalom. The entire basis for this section is not factual. Please remove references to the Teaneck Jewish Center and all comments about Partnership Minyanim. They are not relevant to the UTJ. Rachas 12:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree it is possible the Montauk Minyan may have changed its format between the time that the UTJ withdrew its support and the date of the source indicating it was a Partnership Minyan. Withdrew the statement for the time being but am asking neutral administrator to give this a second look. See below re Jewish Center of Teaneck. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your corrections. A quote from the article cited above [6] "Montauk Minyan will be trying a new format for the service" and that's at the end of 2005, while the support was pulled off around High Holidays in 2004.Romabers 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Center of Teaneck

This 2007 source [7] agrees that the Jewish Center of Teaneck recently described itself as "independent Traditional" and not affiliated with the UTJ. This source [8] does say that Netivot Shalom was the UTJ's flagship synagogue in 2001. It also indicates a Morasha rabbi became the Rabbi of the Teaneck Jewish Center. It is possible an editor may have assumed that describing itself as "Traditional" plus hiring a UTJ rabbi as its rabbi implied UTJ affiliation. --Shirahadasha 14:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree we have a source that the UTJ is not affiliated and don't have a clear source indicating it is. Removing material here for the time being. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Center of Teaneck, NJ, historically was a Conservative synagogue which did not have a mechitza, hired a UTJ rabbi in 2001 [9] and described itself as "Traditional", and introduced multiple services including ones with and without, [10] including a Shira Hadasha-style (Partnership minyan) service [11] and in 2007 described itself as "independent traditional" and not affiliated with the UTJ and moved to mechitzah-based services [12].

[edit] Electricity and Shabbat

• Electricity and Shabbat. The UTJ's first book of responsa, with inherited Conservative positions, was in 1986. I understand the UTJ has essentially retracted this book and is no longer regarding it as its official view of Halacha. I believe the article needs to explain the history, including that it began with the Conservative position on these issues but later came to retract it. --Shirahadasha 05:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• This is hardly a leniency, after all Shlomo Zalman Auerbach himself said it's permitted - unless we want to be consistent and include the same statement on the page for Haredi Judaism. For the summary of Halakhic positions see Jachter and Broyde [13]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.29.2 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2007

Moreover, "leniency" implies that there is some kind of a normative position - which appears to violate Wikipedia policy on the neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.29.2 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2007

• You clearly agree that the UTJ permits electricity on Shabbat, the only issue is whether doing so should be characterized as a leniency or not. I'm changing the word "leniencies" to "positions" to address this. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• After reviewing Tomekh kaHalakhah vol.1, published by the UTJ in 1986 there is nothing of the sort - permitting or forbidding use of electricity on Shabbat. Unless clear and reliable reference could be provided please remove the the sentence. Please correct.Romabers 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this comment was initially unsourced and the only on-line source I could find for it is weak. My understanding is that UTJ congregations including the Teaneck one used microphones in their conservative-style services on Shabbat (at least previously) but there may not be adequate proof of this. I am further reviewing. --Shirahadasha 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked a neutral administrator not previously involved in the article to review this dispute and check both the sourcing and relevance issues for these three points. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Several points - the UTJ affilated synagogue in Teaneck is Netivot Shalom, not the Teaneck Jewish Center. Netivot Shalom is an Orthodox congregation, and does neither permit the use of microphones on the Sabbath, nor have 'conservative-style services'. And even if Netivot Shalom did permit the use of microphones, that would not equate to a blanket permission to use electricity. Please remove the statements regarding electricity, and the references to the Teaneck Jewish Center. Rachas 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• • After further review agree that source for microphone use on Shabbat is not reliable and hence have removed statement. --Shirahadasha 15:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Note: This [14] was the source for the claim that the UTJ permitted the use of microphones on Shabbat. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inherited positions

The way it was written does not make it any more clear what the UTJ is. What positions exactly were inherited from the Conservative Judaism which were specific to that movement? Any examples? References?Romabers 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This [15] was the source for the claim that the UTJ retained certain leniences. Since we previously agreed it wasn't a sufficiently reliable source in the context of use of electricity on Shabbat, agree it also isn't a reliable source for claim regarding leniencies or inherited positions. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I have temporarily protected the page. Please discuss proposed edits on this discussion page. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please make requested corrections. Why not just go to the source and contact UTJ directly with the questions about their purpose,practices and believes? They are on the web. Regards, Romabers 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the sources to support the statement that the page contains factual errors have been cited. So what's the reason to protect the page now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.96.143 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have unprotected the page. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to intro

The intro was recently changed to, among other things, add these statements:

Though officially non-denominational, the UTJ is understood[16] to have many components typically associated with a religious denomination, i.e. a seminary, an association of clergy, and a committee which has authority over religious issues. The UTJ is often viewed[17] as representing a denomination nestled between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism.

But we recently agreed that the shamash.org source was not a reliable source to support a claim -- specifically made in that source -- that the UTJ permits microphones on shabbat. A source cannot be selectively reliable, usable when it says things one agrees with but unreliable when it says things one disagrees with it. Under Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, either the source is reliable and everything in it is fair game (as long as an "according to..." is used for disputed claims) or a source is unreliable and nothing it says can be used. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied the following from User talk:Shirahadasha#Union for Traditional Judaism --Shirahadasha 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

B"H - Shirahadasha, Hello! Thank you for your comment about the shamash.org reference in the Intro section. I agree, it is a little conflicting - the reference was meant to give an example of opinion, not a reference of fact. I will find another example. All the best, kt - Rachas 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)