Talk:Kuzari

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Kuzari 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of religion Philosophical literature

I'm sorry, I don't know how to format this type of post properly, but nowhere on the page does it say when the Kuzari was actually written, although in the Influence of the Kuzari section it mentions, during that time period. Can someone find out when that was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.209.221 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zero, please note that there are two separate Kuzari principles, not just one. Only one argument is rejected as circular, the other is not circular. However the second argument is rejected as over-simplifed in so many ways as to make it unreliable (as described in the body of the article.) I did not mean to imply that both arguments were circular. RK 19:27, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please read the three sources linked at the bottom of the page. You are quite mistaken about this. --Zero 03:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mistaken about which of the two different arguments mentioned? I am quite sure that the Reform & Conservative rabbis I spoke to view one of these arguments as circular. In fact, it is logically circular. The Orthodox view is that stories about the history of other people's revelations from their gods are falible and not perfect; Orthodox Jews hold that only other people have religious literature which is prone to embellishment and exaggeration. In contrast, Orthodox Jews hold that the entire Torah has been continuously accepted as fact by the Jewish community as far back as any historical record can carry us. They believe that this is a historical fact. The Kuzari accepts this as fact, and argues that this proves that the Torah is true; after all, the Torah states that three million Israelites witnessed the revelation at Mount Sinai, and their record of this revelation - the Torah itself - has never changed. Here is where it becomes circular: We cannot actually draw this conclusion, because in fact we do not know that three million Israelites saw any such thing. The only way that anyone can believe this is by assuming that it is true. But that is precisely what the Kuzari is trying to prove. This is circular by definition, and is recognized as such by many rabbis and laypeople I have spoken to. What about this specific argument do you not find circular? RK 01:33, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

What you say about orthodox belief is true, but it isn't the Kuzari Argument. The KA does not assume there was a continuous belief in (say) Torah miSinai; rather it claims to prove it by a logical argument. Roughly speaking, the argument is that there must have been continuous belief because otherwise the first generation in which the claim was made would know that it wasn't true. (People would ask "if that is so, why didn't our parents know of it?", etc..) It is precisely because the KA does not require the listener to accept basic orthodox assumptions in advance that it is popular amongst kiruv organizations who target Jews who aren't frum enough. The main problem with KA is not one of simple logic. The main problem is that it assumes a model of how popular beliefs arise that does not correspond to reality. --Zero 03:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be a seperate article the Kuzari Proof I didn't delete the problems raised with the kuzari proof, but they are flawed. It suggests the that the events in the torah may not have been known about or may not have been understood literally by the Jews. That is ridiculous. There are many commandments in the Torah itself which the Jews practice adding to the Kuzari proof's strength. To refute the proof, you would also have to explain how all of these practices were adopted by the Jews. Some examples:

The commandments to "tell about the exodos" to "tell it to your son" to "remember the day you left egypt" etc.

All the Jewish Holidays and the Sabbath recall the exodus

Teffilin and Mezuzos both contain passages recalling the exodus.

etc.

This clearly refutes the first two objections.

The third argument shows a lack of knowlege about the proof. It doesn't claim any public miracle must be true, just one performed in front of all of the ansectors of a nation, in front of more than tens of thousands of people. No other nation claims all of their thousands of ansectors witnessed a miracle.

The fourth argument also couldn't explain ...

[edit] Seperation of articles

Any thoughts on seperating Kuzari into two articles - Kuzari and Kuzari Argument?

The former would incorporate discussion of BOOKS II-V of which the article is weak. It would also have links to the philosphic issues. While the latter on the Kuzari arguement can have a full discussion of these outreach arguments and their evaluation.--Jayrav 20:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I set up the seperate article - Kuzari Principle --Jayrav 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)