Talk:Kaifeng Jews/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question about orientation of synagogue

It says in the article that the Libai Si (synagogue) faced east. This is interesting, and I'm wondering after a source for this claim. It seems bizarre that a synagogue east of Jerusalem should face east instead of west. Is this simply the culture-centric nonsense of some misc. editor? Or is it indicative of an adaptation, either through assimilation or attempts at appeasement of local sun-oriented Chinese philosophy? Tomer ^TALK 22:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Still, no?ne has responded to my inquiry. Does the synagogue actually "face east"? or is this an insertion by someone attempting to assert a POV, who didn't think quite so much as necessary before doing so? Tomer ^TALK 08:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is not an adaptation of local Chinese practice - Chinese temples traditionally face south. Indeed the more assimilated Muslim mosques also face south. Lao Wai 19:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That would make sense since the synagouge should face Jerusalem

Which, back to my point, is west of Kaifeng... TShilo12 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Kaifeng Synagogue did indeed face the east (from the ???????), traditional Chinese buildings face the south, since in the northern Hemisphere the sun is always in the southern skies, a building facing south would naturally bring more light to the rooms. --70.18.248.120 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which raises the question of why they would face east. And how sure are you of this information? Do you have a source for it? (What does the Chinese phrase you inserted mean? And where does it come from?)

Googling "kaifeng synagogue facing" produces many sites claiming that the synagogue faced west, which would make sense, but I couldn't find any that cite a source for that information; the fact that it does stand to reason makes it suspect. (e.g. [1] [2] [3])

Zsero 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This question has been up here for some time, and nobody has yet provided a source for the synagogue facing east, except User:70.18.248.120, who provided a snippet of Chinese, but I have no idea what it means, or how it bears on the question. Accordingly, I've now added a {{Fact}} to the sentence, and if a source doesn't show up within a week or so I'm going to delete it. I thought about replacing it with "west", but I have no positive evidence that it was so, just a few web pages making that claim, and the fact that it makes sense, unlike an east-facing synagogue. Zsero 05:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The synagogue faces West. See Mandarins, Jews, and Missionaries Ch. 14 (I'm looking for the exact page and quote) and, I believe, The Jews of China Ch. 1, though I'm not sure about the second reference. Yodaat 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language links

Rdsmith4 removed non-English language links, saying they don't belong on English wiki. Is there a mandatory policy demanding this? Otherwise it's useful...even if relatively few users will be able to make use, at least there is value for those few. ~ Dpr 05:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know of no such policy, and would find it objectionable in the extreme if there were one. The deleted link is the only one with good photos, and should be kept. — Pekinensis 01:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Thanks! ~ Dpr 02:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a policy or guideline should be developed that links to non-ThisSpecificWikipediaLanguage links should specify the language of the link, but I really have no qualms with non ThisSpecificWikipediaLanguage links...then again I'm not really the person to consult about this sort of thing...for over a dozen languages, I'm more likely than not to never realize that the language of the linked-to page is different from the linked-from page. :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Minority Status

I find the discussion of the status of China's Jews a little bizarre. The Kaifeng community is not an officially recognised minority. The PRC only recognises 56 or so minorities and there are really sizeable communities lobbying for recognition. The 400 or so Jews do not have a hope simply because they are so small. They also do not meet the Marxist guidelines for any recognition as a minority. The idea that any Jew would be recognised as a PRC citizen, if that is what the article says, is even stranger. The ROC still has a patrilineal definition of citizenship and I assume the PRC does too. Not many people apply for it so it is hard to tell. The PRC does not accept dual nationality either. Could someone try to find a source for this? I do not know who wrote it but I would like to remove it. Lao Wai 19:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A little bizarre doesn't begin to describe how that information found its way into the article--you should have seen it before I edited it (rather heavily) to tone down what I thought was fairly transparent anti-PRC bias and flagrant claims of victimization interspersed w/ claims that the situation has always been rosy. Tomer ^TALK 23:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Only 400?

There are only 400 Jews left in Kaifeng today? When was this last census taken? If the number of Jews in Kaifeng only number 400, then that community is really in danger of disappearing within a generation or two. Will the Israeli government and PRC government allow the small number of Jews living in Kaifeng to make aliyah to Israel?

Thank you for your time. Please get back to me when you can.

Best wishes,

Albert

Actually, I believe the number of active Jews is probably even less than 400. From what I've read, the community is no longer active nor is the religion practiced anymore, having been absorbed into the larger community by the early twentieth century. Also, they probably don't legally count as Jews because they traced their descent patrilineally instead of matrilineally. --Yuje 16:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This community is really in troubling of disappearing soon.

Best wishes,

Albert

Which happens when a community is not discriminated against.

Is there any effort in trying to return these 400 to normative Judaism? Might it be possible to rescue this community? I know one family made aliya but it would be hard to preserve the Kaifeng community with only one family. 128.91.27.93 01:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe only Shavei Israel and the Yemin Orde have done any active work with the Kaifeng Jewish descendants. I doubt the remaining 400 Kaifeng Jewish descendants will be able to maintain their community. I hope to be wrong, however. Albert Cheng 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Aliyah

In this article about the Kaifeng Jews, it was stated that the Jews of Kaifeng had attempted to make aliyah to Israel in the past. Is there any proof of this? I haven't heard anything about it.

Best wishes,

Albert

language or languages of kaifeng jews

the article needs to answer this:

what language/languages is/are used by kaifeng jews? is there some type of judeo-chinese language? Gringo300 15:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

They are generally believed to have assimilated in most ways with the general populace, right? Is there any reason to think they (eventually) spoke anything other than the local variant of Chinese? Is it not written somewhere that most (or nearly all) forgot how to read religious Hebrew? --Dpr 05:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no evidence of any Jud?o-Chinese language. There is, however, evidence of confusion between r/d and r/l in later sifre torah from the Kaifeng community. I don't know that the article "needs" to "answer" anything...the article tells, it doesn't respond... If you feel it necessary to add something to the article about there being no evidence of the existence of Jud?o-Chinese, go for it, but I don't see how that does anything to add useful information... Tomer^TALK 05:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To be able to add any kind of information such as that, i'd first have to do a lot of research on the chinese language (which by the way i'm eventually planning to do). right now, i'm occupied with doing research on the geography of alaska, and i think i will remain so for quite a while. Gringo300 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Added a link

Hello folks,

How do you add a link to the Kaifeng Jewish web page without actually typing the actual web address of that link down?

Hello...not sure exactly what you're asking...but if you want to have a link that goes to a website without the URL showing as the text, go like this [http://www.desiredlink.tld/ whatever text you want to actually appear here] which will show up looking like this: whatever text you want to actually appear here. If you need help, let me know what the URL is for the page you want to link to, and what text you actually want to appear instead of the URL itself. Also, if you just want to insert a link w/o any text, just go [http://www.desiredlink.tld/], which will show up like this: [4]. Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah?! OK, I think I know now what you were trying to do and what you were asking about. I reinserted a slightly edited version of your text, along with a link the way I think you were trying to do it. See this edit. Tomer^talk 08:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting my information on this web page, Tomer. You truly are a Godsend. ?This unsigned comment was added by 64.231.78.144 (talk ? contribs) .

No news on the Kaifeng Jews lately?

nafaik, sadly. :-( Tomer^talk 07:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Kaifeng Jew Info ...

I am doing research for a novel centered around the life of a Kaifeng Jew in 12th century China and I recently came across some interesting information.

(1) It turns out that the Jurchen of the Jin Dynasty made the Han under their control shave the front part of their heads, like the Manchus would later do. [5] (Note - The Manchus of the Qing Dynasty came from the Jurchen tribe) I believe the Han of the Southern Song Dynasty were exempt from this fad. Since the city of Kaifeng was the capital of the Jin empire numerous times, the Jews would have had to shave their heads as well. No doubt this would have been difficult for any Kohen Priests in Kaifeng since it is forbidden for them to shave their heads:

"They [The Kohen] shall not make baldness upon their head ..." (Leviticus 21:5)[6]

• This fashion was known as ?? t?f? (?Bald-Hair or Stripped-Hair?) to the Chinese. [7] (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

(2) In 1157, Jin Emperor W?ny?n Li?ng ??? moved the Jurchen ?southern? capital from Beijing back to Kaifeng and began to reconstruct it [8] (since it was demolished 30 years earlier in the siege of 1127). Although it is not stated in the article, the Kaifeng synagogue was built in 1163. [9] Since there was only a 6 year difference in the reconstruction of Kaifeng and the completion of the Kaifeng synagogue, the Jews would have had to ask the Jin for permission to build anything within the capital. And because there is a historical record for the Kaifeng synagogue, the Jin allowed them to do it. This means the Jin must have been respectful towards foreign religions. (Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 04:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for posting this information. It has made for some very interesting reading.

I had the privilege of corresponding with Tiberiu Weisz recently. He was very well informed when it came to the subject of the Kaifeng Jews. He can be reached at this e-mail address: weiszt@att.net. Best wishes, Albert

Thanks, Albert. I have already been in contact with Mr. Weisz. I contacted him through his publisher. He is interested in my research and hopefully he uses it to append the 2nd addition of his book. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

Great! I'm looking forward to reading it!

Best wishes,

Albert

(3) Buddhism became the state religion of the Jin empire. During the "Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution" (845-46), Chinese records state Zoroastrianism and Christianity were regarded as heretical forms of Buddhism. It could be easy to conclude that Judaism was also regarded as a form of Buddhism. If this belief survived into the Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279), then the Jin must have looked upon the Kaifeng Jews in a favorable light. Kind of like Islam's philosophy of "People of the Book" in regards to Hindus. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

"Although [Jin] Prince Hailing ??? was a believer in Buddhism, he prohibited state officials to privately visit monasteries to pray for wealth and honor. Emperor Shizong ??? prohibited private people to found monasteries because Buddhist monasteries had solely to act as state foundations."[10]

Since Jin Prince Hailang (a.k.a. Emperor W?ny?n Li?ng) was executed in 1161 by his own generals, it seems more likely that the Jews asked Emperor Sh?z?ng (??) (r. 1161-1189 CE) for permission to build the synagogue. If private persons could not found monasteries then the synagogue must have had to act as a minor state foundation like its Buddhist conterpart. I think he did this because the Song dynasty had problems with layman joining the clergy to avoid taxes and military duty:

"Constant wars drained China of money. This forced the court to raise taxes and to sell Buddhist ?ordination certificates" (to prove a monk's tax, work, and military exempt status) in order to raise money. In 1067 these certificates became official policy. As a result, rich members of the lay community began to appropriate Buddhist temples in an attempt to build "cloisters" of tax exempt wealth. (But in 1109, an imperial decree stopped wealthy laymen from funding these temples and four years later in 1113 these temples lost their tax-exempt status. By 1129 it was estimated that 5,000 of thes certificates were sold on an annual basis.) Some laymen even purchased their own ordination to avoid taxes. This way they would not have to pay money to the state, nor keep the Buddhist precepts since they were not real clergy. With an uneven balance of clergy and civilians, the state lost a major source of taxes and military personnel." [7]

It could have been that the Jews were subject to the same rules of the Buddhist monasteries so that rich merchants couldn't build the cloisters of tax exempt wealth by funding the Synagogue. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

Who used you-tai first?

Is it really the case that the Jews called themselves you-tai? According to [11] it was 19th-century Christian missionaries who came up with this term, or at least the characters. Whatever is indeed the case should be made clear.

Furthermore, the article on the History of the Jews in China claims the opposite of this article: that the Chinese called Jews you-tai, and the Jews called themselves tiao-jin-jiao.

I've read countless books on the Kaifeng-Jews and it was the Chinese who referred to the Jews as Tiao-Jin-Jiao (The Sinew Plucking Sect) as they saw how the Jews? kosher butcher plucked the sinews and veins from the meat. You-Tai is also a modern phonetic translation of "Yudah" or Jew. According to the book Legends of the Chinese Jews of Kaifeng, by Prof. Xu, Xin, Director of Judaic studies at Nanjing University, the Jews referred to themselves as Yi-ci-le-ye (a phonetic pronunciation of Israelite), which meant "First-bestow-Happy-Trade" or "Chosen people, endowed by God, and contented with their lives and work". However this is based on legend.

The first line of the 1489 Kaifeng Stele says ?Now Israel established the religion?. However, a few lines later it is said, "Alas, the religion of the [Way] was transmitted and received in succession since its coming, its origin in Tianzhu" (India). At first it is stated the religion came from Israel and then it came from India. This might imply that the jews left Israel and later settled in India, before moving to China. So the Jews might have referred to themselves as different names at different times.

According to the book The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions: The Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China, by Tiberiu Weisz, the Jews referred to themselves as ?The Pure and Truth?. However, this is based on an ?oral tradition? and not historical records. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor!)

Articles on the Kaifeng Jews in Chinese

Hi guys,

I was sent some articles regarding the Kaifeng Jews last week. They were all written in Chinese Mandarin. Unfortunately, I don't have a strong command of Chinese Mandarin, so I can't read the articles on the Kaifeng Jews that were sent to me. The links to the articles are as follows:

http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2002-08-06/1145661803.html

• The article has a telling statement: "Moshe" Zhang Xing-Wang, the self-appointed spiritual head of Kaifeng Jewry's remnants, criticized the (unnamed) Jin Family (Shlomo, Dina, and Shalva) for making aliyah. "We are unlike them; we are patriotic." Perhaps he made this statement in light of the PRC's stance on (religious) emigration.

http://www.dolc.de/forum/viewthread.php?tid=279809

http://tech.qq.com/a/20060216/000065.htm

http://www.cnhistory.cn/history/china/8566.htm

Try using "Babel Fish" to translate the entire page. All you have to do is type in the url and then the language (Simplified Chinese-English) and that's it. However, sometimes the grammar is not the most fluent, but its enough to read. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

Thanks man! I'll do that!

Best wishes,

Albert

Kaifeng Jews "Abandoned Bianliang" (Kaifeng)

According to a modern translation of the 1489 Stele by Mr. Tiberiu Weiz, a teacher of Hebrew History and Chinese Religion and author of THE KAIFENG STONE INSCRIPTIONS: The Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China, some of the Kaifeng Jewish Community ?Abandoned Bianliang? (Kaifeng) and fled south along with soon-to-be Emperor Gaozong to live in Hangzhou.

There is also mention of Jewish soldiers whose bravery and loyalty are likened to General Yue Fei. When they returned from war, they were given land. I don?t remember if this ment that Jews served under Yue Fei or not. I don?t have the book infront of me right now.

I know the Jews were called up to serve under the mongol armies during the Yuan Dynasty. But how neat would it be to learn that Kaifeng Jews had served under Yue Fei? (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC))

I have the book in front of me right now and it wasn't the soldiers who fought under Yue Fei, it was the soldiers who fought under the campaigns of Emperor Taizong, the sencond Song ruler. When they returned from fighting the Liao, they were given land for supporting him. However, it wouldn't be that much of a leap for the soldiers to fight under Yue Fei. If they indeed lived in China since the Han Dynasty and had sired half Chinese children, then the Jews would have done everything to protect their new homeland of China. This includes fighting the invading Jurchen armies.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

Kaifeng, Jerusalem

Hello everybody,

A friend of mine, Dr Noam Urbach, has been working on a documentary film about the Kaifeng Jewish descendants in China. Dr Urbach is a Sinologist, and has lived and worked in China for some time. He needs additional funds to complete the editing of his film. More information about Kaifeng, Jerusalem can be found on this website:

http://www.kaifengjerusalem.com.

Please let Dr Urbach know if you can help him get the financing he needs to complete the making of his film. He can be reached at this e-mail address: nurbach@gmail.com.

Thank you very much for your time and take care.

Best wishes,

Albert

Thank you very much for taking the time to bring these links to the Talk section. I wanted to do so myself, but I was to lazy to do it. I'll post all my links in here from now on.

Ricci and Ai Tian

The story of Ricci and Ai Tian is repeated in many secondary sources, but I would really like to read the original contemporary account of this incident. None of the secondary sources seem to say where this anecdote was first published. Can anyone help me find this? --Iustinus 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but I am sure some people here do. Albert Cheng

I have three books out on the subject, so I'll check it up ASAP. Oh, and I signed your comment, Albert. Yodaat 02:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I could post in here and my name would automatically appear. My mistake! Albert Cheng 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Juifs de Chine Leslie, Donald Daniel and Dehergne, Joseph. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yodaat (talk ? contribs) 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

70 names

70? All books / websites I read on this subject put the number at seven names, eight clans. I won't change it right now, but Ghost, what is your source? Yodaat 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See the source for the "Literature" section. It is a word-by-word translation of the three steles left by the Jews. The info about the 70 names comes from the stele created in 1489. The passage reads,

"There were: Li, Yan, Ai, Gao, Mu, Zhao, Qin, Zhou, Zhang, Shi, Huang, Li, Jie, Qin, Zhang, Zuo, Bai, etc., 70 surnames."

I'm sure the reoccurrence of names like Qin and Zhang is because they are each spelled with different Chinese characters. I hope this helps.(Ghostexorcist 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks.

I'm trying to find a better source, but I haven't yet had time to go through the book. For now:

Shih Hung-mok:

The Jews of the Yunnan Province... four clans--their surnames were Shih, Li, Ai, and Ha. ... The second batch of Kaifeng Jews.. eight families... seven clans... six :different surnames: Chao, Chin, Chang, Ai, Kao, and Li.

with the endnote being that strangely, Shih omits the clan bearing his surname from the list.

I found this in Mandarins, Jews, and Missionaries by Michael Pollak. Yodaat 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have several books that say 7 surnames, however, I think this is based upon an "oral tradition". The only concrete information about the Chinese Jews was inscribed on the Kaifeng steles. One of the first books on the Chinese Jews by William Charles White describes how an inscription dating to 1679 was found in a house wall. The inscription read: ?When the foundation of the temple was laid (1163 CE) there were seventy-three surnames and 500 families (in Kaifeng)". This of course only differs from the 1489 stele by three names. Besides, the article section in question is talking about the steles, so I feel it is best to follow a modern word-by-word translation of the steles.(Ghostexorcist 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Okay. Perhaps, elsewhere in the article, we should mention that since the flood(?) there have been only 7 surnames. Yodaat 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence to support that fact that the flood had anything to do with the names being knocked down from 70 to 7. The steles say 70. However, it should be noted that there are Chinese Jew folktales that mention how the Emperor bestowed 7 names onto the Jews. Prof. Xin Xu's books on the Jews calls this a legend, but he treats it as historial fact. He says much of the tales collected in his (very good) book on Chinese Jew folklore came from the book Spring and Autumn of the Chinese Jews. (Ghostexorcist 03:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the links.  :) See [12] for the part about the flood. Yodaat 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I knew about the floods, they are discussed in the book I quoted from and from other books I have. I just meant there is no proof that the flood would have cause the names to be knocked down from 70 - 7 during the Song Dynasty. I plan on buying Mr. White's groundbreaking book on the Jews, but it is rather expensive. (Ghostexorcist 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

The Song Dynasty? Wang refers to the 1642 flood. Yodaat 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the legend that said the Song emperor gave the seven Jews the six names of his present court officials and his own. I thought maybe you were referring to the flood at the end of the Song Dynasty. The flood of 1642 does appear to have contributed to the legend after all. I?m guessing that because there were only seven families left at the time, the story of the 70 families, as told in the stele, was morphed to 7 in an oral tale. I think that should definitely be added to the page. Thanks for the link.

I?ve spoken with an expert on the subject that thinks the synagogue could have been built before the Song Dynasty. He believes the 1489 stele states the synagogue was built in the 1163 is because the Ming "traced it?s pedigree to the Song Dynasty". In fact, there were leaders of the Red Turban Rebellion who founded the "Great [later] Song Dynasty" (??). These men had close ties to Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Ming. 1163 was actually a year before the Song and Jin empires signed their second peace treaty in 1164 called the Longxing Treaty (????).(Ghostexorcist 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Oh. (It seems some people think say it was the Song emperor while others say it was the Ming.)
Didn't they have the stele after the flood? Shouldn't the Kaifeng Jews have seen the 70 names?
Thanks for the information about the synagogue, etc. It was interesting. (Similarly, the 1663 stele has the Jews arriving in China during the Chou Dynasty, (as opposed to the 1512 claim of their arriving during the Han Dynasty) perhaps to convince their neighbors that they were not newcomers.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodaat (talk • contribs)

The 1489 stele mentions the Song Emperor?s audience with the Jews. But it never mentions him giving the Jews names. The stele reads "The Emperor said: 'You returned to my China. Honor and observe the customs of your ancestors.'" It never once says the Emperor gave the Jews Chinese names like some legends say. The section talking about the jews? 70 names comes before the quoted passage. This suggests the Jews had already acquired Chinese names after living in China for so long according to the author of The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions.

I am a firm believer that they dated their arrival to antiquity to "convince their neighbors that they were not newcomers" just like you said. However, the author of the Inscriptions relies on dated Chinese records that mention tribes of Jews living in China in at least 108 BCE. Just follow this link to read the description made by a Han Dynasty General stationed on China's western border. It could just be that the general saw Persian traders or something like that, but the info is pretty compelling.

The same book even claims Jews served as soldiers under General Yue Fei.(Ghostexorcist 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

It is very likely that Jews traded with China very long before the Song Dynasty, however, not as a community. The General may have been referring to Arab or Jewish traders. Yodaat 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he believes these were Jews who had lived in India since the time of Ezra and then migrated to China. See the "Literature" section for more details.(Ghostexorcist 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

10000 years?

When Ricci met Ai T'ien, he told him of his beliefs, including his Christian belief that the Messiah had come already. Ai replied that that was impossible, after all, the Messiah was not supposed to come for another 10000 years.

Does anyone know where he got that number from? Yodaat 02:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism?

And to think, of all days, I find this on erev Tisha B'Av... The "skepticism" section was introduced by an anonymous (IP) contributor (who just happened to be a British Library link spammer...). Apparently the person responsible for the source, Dr. Xun Zhou, is quite the scholar on opium usage in China. However, I don't quite know his motivation for introducing an idea that goes against the current scholarship on Kaifeng Jewry. Nor am I familiar with the volume in which the article is found. It seems to cover mostly the Mizrahi Jewish experience in a Westernized Israel, which while certainly interesting, doesn't seem to have much to do with the Jews of China. And a quick Google search of the article name just shows only six hits. Whatever this view is, it is most likely fringe, as no other major work on the issue has yet to cite it. If someone could get me the text of the article and convince me otherwise, feel free to do so. Love the Torah link, though. --OneTopJob6 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I got 652....

His opinion is a fringe one. For now I'll make it clear that it's one scholar, and that it is far from the accepted opinion. Another person can decide if it should be completely removed.

Have a meaningful Tisha B'av,

Yodaat 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)