Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus to keep this article, although a difference of opinion on whether to merge the content of another article to it or to merge it with something else. This is an editorial decision though that can and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and does not influence the AFD's outcome. As such, closing this AFD as "keep" does not mean consensus is against merging anything anywhere. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden relationships in Judaism

edit
Forbidden relationships in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent duplicate, and possible risk of WP:POVFORK of subject matter of Arayot article. Newman Luke (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In addition to it duplicating the Arayot article, I'd like to point out that it expresses a very one-sided interpretation of the bible. See eg. its claim that 'homosexual relations' are forbidden; Conservative Judaism recently determined that its actually only anal sex that's forbade (see Homosexuality and Conservative Judaism - particularly this section), and academics and liberal Jews have long seen this, or something even less restrictive, as the correct interpretation. Newman Luke (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a problem for an article when such topics can be sub-divided into sections such as "Orthodox view"; "Conservative view" etc, otherwise obviously since Reform and Conservatism differ with Orthodoxy on almost everything it's still no reason to entirely delete articles that represent the normative views of the ways Judaism was and still is practiced at least by the Orthodox community. This is not about "child marriage" which is opposed by all streams of Judaism, but when it comes to views on homsexulaity the Orthodox view reflects the views of Judaism througought the millenia. At no point did normative Judaism ever tolerate homosexuality, on the contaray the Bible cites examples denouncing it including specific verses, regardless of innovations introuduced by Conservatism five years ago. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my point in mentioning it. My point in mentioning it is that it shows that the article as written expresses a one-sided viewpoint - to show that the article is a POV-pushing fork. Newman Luke (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for "the bible cites examples denouncing it", I'm afraid you're quite wrong; it is precisely because the bible is ambiguous about it that there's such debate over the matter. Perhaps you mean "the Talmud cites...." ? Newman Luke (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Newman: The Torah is not "ambiguous" about the immorality and sinfulness of homsexuality and never was. Judaism for the close to four millenia of its existence has never accepted nor sanctioned homosexulaity and has always condemned it even when people in the Torah may have done it. But that is not the point here. What is troubling is that yet again you perform summersaults akin to violating WP:LAWYERING of false and deceptive "pilpul" repeatedly, while you seem to think that Wikipedia is some sort of "seminary" or "law school" to debate what the Torah does or does not mean. There is no doubt that the Torah forbids homosexulaity, based on clear-cut verses Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Whatver the Talmud says or does not say anywhere does not undermine or permit what the Torah says is a sin. The fact that Reform and Conservative rabbis may now accept and allow homsexuality is simply because they deny the divinity (that is the Divine Origin) and authority of the Torah itself (that Orthodoxy does still accepts in all its varieties). The Reform and Conservative views about anything have absolutely nothing to do with the dicussions in the Talmud but more to do with whatever the modern trends of secular and gentile society may be. This is the kind of confusion you are creating by launching into needless theological debates when all that's needed is stating the facts clearly without twisting them to your or anyone's pre-conceived WP:POV. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Torah is ambiguous about the moral state of homsexuality and always has been. It does not mention homosexuality. Men falling in love with men is never described in any way. Don't confuse homosexual acts with homosexual people. Neither should you confuse homosexual acts with sexual acts between two men. They are not the same thing; there are plenty of heterosexual men who have been involved in some sort of sexual act with another man. The torah comments on a sexual act, and - if you really want to include sodom and gomorrah in this - implied sexual acts (which are never actually specified). Now I don't know of a single Jewish bible translation that actually renders these references as homosexuals rather than referring to sexual acts - not even those of the most extremely right wing Orthodox Jews. Mechon Mamre, for example, translate it "lie with mankind, as with womankind" [1], that's an act not a love preference; in fact it includes heterosexual men who do this, such as in prison, due to the inavailability of women. Last time I checked, heterosexual men were not homosexuals; therefore the Torah is ambiguous about homosexuality.
As for the conservative views. If you actually read the wikipedia article I've repeatedly pointed out, you'll see that the views in question they express about this matter are based on their understanding of the Torah, and not on their attitude to its authority. And as for Orthodox Jews, you should consider the fact that Steven Greenberg (rabbi), is an Orthodox Rabbi, and yet he is also gay, and argues that the Torah may be legitimately interpreted in a way that does not condemn homosexuality; similarly there are several other gay Orthodox Jews who do not view themselves as condemned by the Torah. You are not the only Orthodox Jew (if indeed you are an Orthodox Jew at all), so don't presume to be able to speak for all of them. It is you who is attempting to twist things. Where are your sources? My edits are sourced. Where are your sources for your counterargument?
Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a good way to deal with the topic. Needs more discussion. Just quoting the Bible does not really establish that something is forbidden in Judaism. Redddogg (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • False assertion. Classical Judaism is a Biblically-based religion, but it's important to know what is practically practiced and what is not and the subject matter in this article is still practiced. Otherwise what else is it, not a gefilta fish-eating club. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • False claim of false assertion. Classical Judaism is an Oral Law based religion; does not the Talmud say that if the Oral Law conflicts with the Bible it is Oral Law which is to be obeyed?. Many things are biblically based, but the point about the word based is that it means derived from, not an exact copy, no further information needed. This article is just the Bible, but the title claims its about Judaism, so where's the Jewish connection? Newman Luke (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Newman, you are falling into that old trap of yours and turning Wikipedia articles and discussions into debates about Jewish theology that belong in yeshivas and seminaries. There are no hard and fast rules that state "does not the Talmud say that if the Oral Law conflicts with the Bible it is Oral Law which is to be obeyed?" and neither are your untiring efforts of flogging the horse to death helpful when you start violating WP:LAWYERing by saying inscrutable things like "Many things are biblically based, but the point about the word based is that it means derived from, not an exact copy, no further information needed." When the Bible says "I am the Lord your God" it means what is says and says what it means even though there may be a million and one theological discussions about the nature of God and how He communicates with humans. But why get into these type of discussions on Wikipedia? It is acceptable for a Wikipedia article to start with Biblical source material and then build from there, so your nitpicking makes one wonder why you are conucting these kind of edit wars? IZAK (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Izak, you are the one who claimed that Redddogg made a false assertion, so don't lecture me about turning things into debates.
When the Bible says "I am the Lord your God" it is an English translation. That isn't necessarily an accurate translation of what the bible actually says. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate that particular sentence as I am Yahweh your god. That's quite a difference. Claiming it means what it says, when you're not even using an entirely accurate translation is really quite flawed. And when it says your God who is it addressing as you - Moses and the 72-70 elders, or all the Israelites there, or all Israelites ever, or everyone? And what does it mean by saying your God - that could easily be henotheism, rather than monotheism.
Exegesis is a huge subject for good reason. I am Mandy your Avon lady doesn't mean that she always is, forever, every waking moment, nor that there are no other Avon ladies. So what you actually have in your biblical quote is there could be any number of deities, but the particular one that's been assigned to you, you person or maybe people or perhaps nation or possibly their descendants as well or perhaps even everyone, at least for the moment, for some duration or other, could be the next week or so, or maybe a few years, or perhaps forever, is the one called Yahweh, which is me. And its precisely because of this ambiguity and the problems involved with translation that primary sources should not be used as the main basis of an article. See WP:PRIMARY.
Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many Biblical commentaries and analyses of Jewish law have been written [2], so the Old Testament/Torah doesn't have to be the only source. Although "Hebrew marriage law" is one description, the "prohibitions of Leviticus" seems to be more specific. Again, I hope that the focus shifts, since it's not a good idea to generalize about Judaism or any other faith. Very few Christians, for instance, ever worry about the unambiguous statement by Jesus (in the Sermon on the Mount) that any sexual relationship, with a person who has been divorced, is adultery... even if the partners are married. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, I wonder what the relationship should be between this article and such articles as Mishk'vei ishah, Leviticus 18, and The Bible and homosexuality. Possibly the first two articles could be merged into it... I should think there would need to be pointers to Biblical law in Christianity and equivalent articles in other relevant religions as well.

What's clear to me at the moment is that the article we're considering has the potential to be a major improvement over our existing coverage of this topic. Keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is notable, sourced information that therefore meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusions. Besides being covered in an entire section of the Bible itself, there are many books found on Google Books that discuss this topic. The Arayot article is not the same thing; the articles are related and can be linked to one another, but provide different factual information. Xyz7890 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure the Bible, in the original Hebrew or any other language, does not use the word "relationship" in this way. (i.e. I have a relationship with my sister, but I don't have sex with her. I have relationships with my gay friends (I'm not gay) the same. It's not the relationships that are forbidden.)Redddogg (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a separate issue to be addressed besides the deletion. I believe the article will ultimately be kept, given the number of sources that are available, and we should then discuss a better name for it. Still, in the Bible, "relations" implies sexual; obviously, pious Jewish people do not refrain from having non-sexual relationships with their blood relatives. Perhaps, we should call this Forbidden sexual relations in Judaism or something similar. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you (Xyz7890) are the creator of this article. Would you therefore be kind enough to explain - as a comment - why
(a) You don't think Arayot covers the same thing. This is the most important thing for you to explain, if you could be so kind.
Arayot seems to be related, but it seems to be a main article broken into small paragraphs on each category of Arayot. This article is more about the relationships described in the Torah, mostly in Leviticus.
But this article is called ".... in Judaism" not ".... in the Torah, mostly in Leviticus". So why do you think that an article under your title doesn't duplicate the topic of Arayot?
(b) Why you wrote that Leviticus 18:22 refers to homosexuality (as if it was homosexuality in general), and not to a specific form of homosexual sex. Despite the official view of, for example, Conservative Judaism, more Liberal strains of Judaism (between them constituting the majority of Jews), and most academics, who regard it as referring to homosexual anal sex, and not passing comment, on other acts like mutual masturbation, nor on non-sexual homosexual relationships.
The heading of this section is called "homosexuality." If there is any controversy over this being the heading here, this is an issue that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not through proposing the page for deletion and using the AfD route to hold these discussions.
I raised this issue on the grounds that it suggests the article exists to express a specific point of view, in contrast to the neutral approach of Arayot. In other words, that the attitude taken to mishk'vei ishah - that it refers to homosexuality in general - suggests that this article is a POV Fork. So I would like to know why you took that viewpoint, rather than writing neutrally, to establish whether or not this article exists for POV pushing purposes. So, why did you write that interpretation - which is only present in a few fundamentalist Christian bible versions - rather than the view of most of Judaism, and academia, and most bible versions, including english translations used in Judaism?
(c) Why you quote directly from the bible, instead of referring to secondary sources, or major Jewish literature, such as the Talmud, which has halakhic authority? (I find it very inexplicable that you do this, since your userboxes claim that you are an Orthodox Jew)
I practice as an Orthodox Jew, and I have an interest in Judaism and Jewish practice. But I have not actually studied Talmud. I read a lot, and I use Google Books to find sources normally, but it is a lot of work, and I don't try to find them all at once.
I still also find it odd that someone claiming to practice as an Orthodox Jew would not know what the term used by Orthodox Jews for forbidden sexual relationships was, given how important it must be to know what they are.
As for using "Google Books to find sources". Have you read the guidelines on reliable sources? or those on saying where you actually found it. The only source you give is a book by 'Ronald Eisenberg'. Who is that? All I can find is some medical doctor and a lawyer. This is NOT a proper source for a subject as major as this. You should be able to find proper academic writing from proper widely respected academics. Major encyclopedias. And major important rabbinic authorities like Maimonides and Joseph Karo, and their modern day equivalents. Some medical doctor, or minor lawyer, writing a book for popular consumption, simply doesn't cut it. Newman Luke (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newman Luke (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That title would be a big improvement, IMO anyway. Redddogg (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of a matter of two people who were working independently of each other on similar topics. Major improvements were made to the article Arayot beginning on October 18, with reference to various Judaic texts; and this article was started on October 25, primarily focused upon prohibitions in the Book of Leviticus. Since neither article appears to draw inspiration from the other, I think it's simply a coincidence that two of Wikipedia's thousands of editors would take an interest in Judaism during the same month. I see no merit at all in allegations of duplication, let alone the making of a "POV fork". Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Xyz-- your previous "keep" vote still counts as part of the discussion, they've just relisted it to get additional opinions. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Arayot into here. This article is notable as Newman Luke (nominator) mentioned, and has content which would not belong in the Arayot article, like forbidden relationships for Kohanim. The definition of "homosexual relations" can be left blank with a link to the main article (already there) which does discuss the different views of what constitutes homosexual relations, or, the article itself could make short mention of it. I may support a merge with the Arayot article, but only if the article is renamed to the current article name (and Aroyot as a redirect) or something similar, since Arayot does not encompass all "forbidden relationships". Shlomke (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - A comparison of this article with Arayot suggests that it does indeed represent different content, dealing with specific commandments taken directly from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, whereas Arayot examines the issue in the cultural/religious context with an emphasis on marriage rather than sexual relations (despite what the lead paragraph indicates). Since notability is not an issue it therefore seems that this is discrete and meaningful content justifying an article. (Not sure this is the best name for the article, though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment: Arayot includes only some of the forbidden sexual relations in Judaism. Maimonides in his Mishne Torah, the book of Noshim, Hilchot Ishut chapter 1 Halacha 5 writes (Translating form Hebrew, but this is available in English as well): "All Sexual relations that the Torah forbid, and of which the transgressor is punished with Kareth - and these are the ones mentioned in Leviticus in the Parasha of Acharei Mos - they are called Arayot" ... "for example a mother, sister and a daughter." Halacha 6: "There are other women who are forbidden from the tradition"... "and they are called Shniot (lit. seconds, e.i. they are second to Arayot) and these include 20 women, 1) His mothers mother 2) His mothers fathers mother 3) His fathers mother 4) His fathers fathers mother"..... Halacha 7: "All sexual relationships that the Torah forbid and of which the transgressor is not punished with Kareth - they are called Isurie Lav'in and Isurie Kedusha and they include 9: A widow for a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee, prostitute and Chalala to either a Kohen Gadol or regular Kohen, a Mamzer"... "his divorced wife after she married and got divorced from another man"... Halacha 8: "And there are some that are prohibited because of a Positive commandment (Asei) and are not included in the Isurie Lav'in: An Egyptian, an Edomite and a woman who is not a virgin to a Kohen Gadol."
  • Thus Arayot do not include all forbidden relations, so it would be a big mistake to put all possible forbidden relations in the article of Arayot. Rather the Arayot should be a subsection of a broader article dealing with all forbidden sexual relationships in Judaism. I must note that the current Arayot article includes many of these relationships which do not in fact belong there. As to the translation of Gilui Arayot, my understanding is this would be loosely translated as "revealing nakedness" Shlomke (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
uncover nakedness is the more usual translation used in English Bibles. Although modern bibles sometimes use have sex with, because that's what it actually means.
So Maimonides lists,
  • People constituting incest according to the Bible
  • The rabbinic/scribal seconds, who also constitute incest. His version of this list is distinct from that of the Talmud, Joseph Karo, etc. (though its worth noting that none of these agree completly with each other either, the Talmud itself leaving the argument unsettled)
  • People forbade from the "congregation" - Mamzers
  • Special rules for priests
But that's whats in Arayot. Or am I misreading you?Newman Luke (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not all included in Arayot. Maimonides is giving four categories of forbidden relationships:
  • 1) Arayot (if the punishment is Kareth)
  • 2) Shniot (passed down by tradition)
  • 3) Isurie Lav'in, Lav (lit. "don't") meaning Negative commandment (from the Torah itself, but without the punishment of Kareth)
  • 4) Those forbidden by the Torah because of a Positive Commandment (Asei).
Only the first category is considered Arayot. I don't think the term Arayot is used directly in the Torah. Can you point me to a specific verse? Perhaps you mean Gilui Erva which is not the same as Arayot. Shlomke (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - topic does seem to be a POV fork, and would be better if discussed in the Arayot article (and if that needs to be renamed, that would be fine with me as well). Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge To Arayot - PoVFork. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this accurate and factual article that is based on the best primary source, the Bible itself in full keeping with WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. Classical Bible-based Judaism=Torah Judaism which is what all of Orthodox Judaism strictly observes as a PRACTICAL matter to this day especially in the subject matter of this article. It needs to have more "meat" added and more sections to reflect the views of other streams of Judaism. IZAK (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. based on...primary source - see WP:PRIMARY. As for Classical Judaism and Orthodox Judaism, where is the reliable source confirming that 100% of Orthodox Judaism, including that in non-Western non-English speaking countries, or confirming that Classical Judaism has absolutely nothing at all to add to the bible about this. As for Torah Judaism, here is a quote from that article - The phrase Torah Judaism implies a belief and practice of Judaism that is based on the Torah (meaning the inclusion of the entire Torah, Tanakh, Talmud, and all the rabbinic authorities that followed) . Given your username, I assume you have some familiarity with the Talmud (though I apologise if I am wrong about this), so you must realise how much the Talmud comments on the Bible. Presumably you also know a little about the Targums, and how they are paraphrases not mere translations. So there is clearly likely to be more than just the bible, in classical Judaism, about this. This article has a title with in Judaism at the end of it. Where is the in Judaism bit? Newman Luke (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Newman, you are making the Talmud into another "Pentateuch" which it is not meant to be and even worse you are violating making this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND for "arbitrating" so-called discussions and doubtful disputes of "Talmud versus Torah" that you set up as a straw men in hypothetical and theoretical stand-offs between the Talmud and the Torah. Both the Torah and the Talmud are the core of Judaism, but it is an art and skill to know how they mesh and are practiced. Of course the Talmud is the Oral Torah, but the Talmud does not come to "dispose of" the written Torah in the manner and style you are so cavalierly doing. From the way you cite Talmud I wonder in which yeshiva or from which reliable Talmudic scholars your learned Talmud if at all? Obviously the way Reform and Conservative people, or Christians and secular scholars, conceive of and approach the Talmud is NOT the way it is studied and conveyed by knowledgeable Judaic scholars in the mainstream Orthodox yeshivas that still convey and continue in the methodology and outlook of the Talmud's creators and expositors, and I assure you their approach has absolutely no resemblance to the way you go about talking and presenting the Talmud. IZAK (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "even worse you are violating making this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND". You seem to have missed out some words between "violating" and "making".
As for Talmud vs. Torah. You seem to have failed to recollect that the Talmud contains declarations that the bible says (in the Talmud's interpretation of it) that such and such is the case, but that the rabbis are going to say something else anyway. For example, the Talmud explicitly declares that the bible in a particular location of Deuteronomy only forbids marriage to Canaanites, but then says that it (the Talmud - ie. the rabbis in it) is going to ban marriage to other nations/religious groups as well. There are very clear cases where the Talmud says that the bible says one thing but you should do another instead. Marriage of deaf-mutes, for example, being banned in the bible (according to the Talmud's understanding of it), but permitted (via sign-language) by the Talmud.
And you can't just take the Talmudic view as the only conclusion - you have to distinguish it quite sharply from the Torah, because not everyone who accepts the Torah accepts the Talmud. The Karaites, and Samaritans, for example. And that's before you've even considered non-Jews, like the Christians, etc., or considered academic approaches to the subjects.
In regard to you saying "from the way you cite Torah". I think you should go and read the Jewish Encyclopedia. Its pretty much the same there too. In fact, in many cases, its exactly the same. And as for knowledgeable Judaic scholars in the mainstream Orthodox, what does that matter to how the Torah should usually be cited in wikipedia articles? Remember, the vast majority of people who study the Torah are not Jews, most religious people who accept the Torah's authority are not Jews, most Jews who accept the Torah are not Orthodox Jews, and most Orthodox Jews who accept the Torah are not you.
And as for the approach of Yeshivas, compared to me. I think you would do well to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a yeshiva, of any denominational allegiance. Newman Luke (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your above comments, I do believe it is worth discussing somewhere other than here. This should move to the article's talk page. Most likely, at this point, this article will be kept, either as a pure keep, a merge of Arayot to this one, or a no-consensus. So I have marked the article {{pov}}, and hopefully, we can work these things out on the article's talk page, so as not to clutter this discussion with comments other than those on deciding whether to keep or delete. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. More importantly, accuracy and "factual" nature is irrelevant to this AfD. This AfD is not really about accuracy, or about "fact". Its about the fact that this article appears to be a duplicate of an already pre-existing article, and possibly even constitutes a POV-FORK. Newman Luke (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Shlomke: Merge Arayot article into Forbidden relationships in Judaism. The former is included in the latter, but the latter is not included in the former. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While this discussion has been wide ranging, AfD really is not intended to settle what is in essence a question of how best to structure and cover a notable topic. Deletion of this topic as a fork is not required; reconciliation/merger of the articles should occur, but can be considered by interested editors without an artificial deadline. WP:POVFORK wisely distinguishes articles that explicitly are about a POV from the normal prohibition; no reason to deviate from that here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forbidden_relationships_in_Judaism&oldid=1142651136"