|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Halakha has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception
This source, recently added by an IP, is actually quite comprehensive and could be used to expand the article. I have cited it only in two places in the etymology section, but it should be further consulted and cited. Ibadibam (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
This article has point of view and neutrality problems, starting with TOTALY IGNORING THAT BOTH THE REFORM AND THE RECONSTRUCTIONIST MOVEMENTS PUBLISH RESPONSA LITERATURE AND HAVE MULTIPLE WRITTEN UP POINTS OF VIEW OF METAHALACHIK DISCOURSE!!!! Meanwhile, at the same time, there are discussions of HERSEY!!
Consider the point of view of a non-jew researching Halacha for the first time and reading this page, which do you think would be more important to understand
1) The reform point of view on halacha and metahalachic discourse, and how its congregations indidividually and together as a movement come together to make important descisions
2) What orthodox Jewish people think is heresey in understanding what halacha is
Given, statistically, that person is more likely going to be talking to and interacting with someone in a reform congregation qwithin the English speaking world
Hersey, in that sense, is a non-issue. Hell, for a brief period, the Mishna Torah was burnt as Heritical because it was a halachic summary (and in some cases, creating new gedarim on the fly Understanding Halacha from the various liberal movement's point of view actually IS important and radically underrepresented (and in some cases, not represented at all). Truly representing these opinions would mean a deeper dive in the idea of metahalchic discourse and responsa literature, as well as what is up with the wierd case text structure of the Talmud, in order to understand different approaches different movements take today to the questions involved in Jewish law (and even what they consider under the purview of Jewish law, since that also isn't decided in metahlachic discourse)
Unfortuantely, as the saying goes, "2 Jews, 3 opinions" - and this is also probably true for wikipedians as well. From prolific experience elsewhere, opening up a point of view edit here could potentially be a sh*tshow about the roots of authenticity inside Judaism, which frankly from a NPOV and wikipedia point of view DOESN'T MATTER. Given that Halacha and metahalchic points of view is a base source for actually understanding differences among the movements, this article actually need expert help editing without big fights from the start so that a random non-Jewish english speaker who randomly finds his/her way to this article has an ACCURATE, NUETRAL overview of different perspectives of halacha/metahalacha across all movements and how it affects what that person would see when walking into various synagogues and interacting with various Jewish communities across the english speaking world. If you were that random not Jewish person, with little to no background about Judaism or Legal theory, or anthopology, this article would not fufill that criteria - and that needs to change.