Talk:Sephardic Jews/Archive 1

where

Where is used sefardites as the language name? -- Error 03:09, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That term seems nowadays to be very rare. Here are some examples of the few current uses on the Internet. RK 14:13, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sefardites used as a synonym for ladin

They all seem to be in Catalan and refer to the Sephardim rather than to the language. -- Error 03:29, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I heard the term used this way a few years back in, of all places, Ashkenazi synagogues, by older members who are uncomfortable with changes in Hebrew pronunciation. In many synagogues in the USA, younger members have learned Hebrew in Israel or choose to use modern Hebrew pronunciations, while some older members continue to use Ashkenazi Hebrew. Sometimes older Yiddish speaking members are vaguely aware that there is a Judeo-Spanish, and confuse it with contemporary Hebrew pronunciation. --Metzenberg 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Now, here's an entry on cultural history that doesn't have a single date attatched to it, not even a century. Is Sephardic culture so perfectly uniform through time? How about a few links to particular congregations, like New York's Sheareth Israel? Wetman 12:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of terminology

Good place to start a discussion.

Another contributer insists that the use of the term 'Sephardi', to effectively denote all non-Ashkenazi Jews (apart from those from Ethiopia), should not be qualified as being incorrect. Regardless of whether such use has become common (as is the case amongst Ashkenazi Jews in Israel and elsewhere), It ought to be recognised as incorrect terminology for the purposes of this article. Sephardi Jews are as distinct a group as Ashkenazi, Arabian, Indian, and Ethiopian Jews. They have a distinct Iberian culture which has absorbed aspects of Balkan, Greek, Turkish, and other cultures following their expulsion from Spain and Portugal in the 1490s. The language spoken by the various Sephardic communities is based chiefly on Spanish, with additions from Hebrew, Turkish, and other languages.

Regardless of how common it such be, it is plainly incorrect to use the term to encompass Jews who share no such cultural background. Pavlvsrex

Everyday language in Israel today includes Iraqis and Yemenites in the word "Sephardim". That is a fact. Whether or not it used to mean that, or whether or not you believe Israelis should use the word that way, is completely irrelevant. Clearly you don't understand the process by which language evolves in meaning over time. There are tons of word in every language which have come to mean something different from what their original meaning was. The article states both the original meaning and the current meaning clearly and hides nothing. Your word "incorrect" is your POV and does not belong there. --Zero 14:50, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect Use of Terminology II

Oh, come-on! The term Sepharad DOES NOT mean only people from Iberia. That is a well known fact for anyone, who actually speaks Hebrew! Get it right guys...

Zero. This is not a reference to terms as used in Israel, or by Israelis for that matter. If you want to highlight the widespread (incorrect) use of the term by Israelis, then we should qualify it as such (as I have done).

Is this a happy compromise, or shall the war persist? Pavlvsrex

I agree with the above, that it should be deemed an incorrect usage. Yes, of course language evolves, but there are valuable distinctions worth preserving, especially in an encyclopedia. Aroundthewayboy 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

US-Israeli irradiation

What of the 1950s massive irradiation of Sephardi children by Israel funded by the US?[1] 142.177.19.171 21:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't done to Sephardi children, technically speaking. I believe that crime against humanity was committed by the Israeli government (an Ashkenazi institution) upon Mizrahi children, but they are commonly called Sephardi by the culturally ignorant. Al-Andalus 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

Some people in Israel call Sephardi to any Jew coming from an Arab nation (i.e. Egypt) Asterion 08:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Intermingling and intermarriage

Hi folks,

Love the contributions you've made to the Sephardi section at Wikipedia. They have been very informative and extremely interesting. I just have a few questions concerning Sephardi Jews that I hope you people can answer. Since you're such authorities on Sephardi Jews, I think you can. My questions are as follows:

1.) Did the Sephardi Jewish communities that resided on the Iberian Peninsula intermingle and intermarry with the "European" populations of the Iberian Peninsula to any significant degree before they were they were expelled from Iberia (after 1492 and 1497)?

I doubt intermarriage was legal. However Conversos did probably intermarry, the richer the easier. --Error 02:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2.) Many Sephardi Jews fled to territories of the Ottoman Empire, other locations in Europe, and the Americas following their expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula in the late 1490s and afterwards. Did they intermingle and intermarry with the "European" populations of the Balkans, southern France, Italy, England, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands (and its colonies Curaçao, Suriname and Aruba), Turkey, Spanish North America (Southwest United States and Mexico), Spanish South America and Brazil to any significant degree before the conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli War in 1949?

Probably only after conversion. However see Donmeh (and Jacob Frank?) for converted Sephardis that kept endogamy.

Check out the Crypto-Judaism article. It has good sourced links to genetic research of Latinos of the Southwestern United States and northern Mexico that self-identified as non-Jewish but show a good proportion as having inherited Jewish-specific genetic markers. There is also a link for the population of a state in Colombia where many are vaguely aware of partial Jewish ancestry, but possible Sephardic admixture shows even among the general population. Al-Andalus 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

3.) Many Sephardi Jews who were expelled from the Iberian peninsula in the late 1490s and afterwards fled to the lands of the Ottoman Empire. Did these Sephardi Jews intermingle and intermarry with the Muslim, Christian, and other populations living in North Africa, Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen to any significant degree before the conclusion of the first Arab-Israeli War in 1949?

I'm no authority, but from what I've read, i would have to say probably very little if at all. What makes the Sephardic jews so unique is that wherever they migrated after the expulsion, they stayed together and formed new jewish communities. They had also escaped the Christians that persecuted (and expelled) them, and the Muslims that believed they were superior to the jews. Why would they intermingle/intermarry with christians or muslims following the expulsion? Common sense dictates they wouldnt have.--Subterfugest 03:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing your answers.

Best wishes,

Albert

Thanks!

Thank you for replying. I learned a lot from your answers! I'm just wondering, did Sephardi Jews and Italian Jews who settled in Turkey ever intermarry with the Byzantine, Khazarian and other Jews who lived there?

Best wishes,

Albert

For the relationship between Ottoman Sephardis and Romaniotes, I don't know. At least some Romaniotes kept apart with their Yevanic language.

In Northern Africa, the local Jews (Berber Jews?) were initially treated as inferior by the Sephardi, but I think that the Muslim authorities didn't distinguish the communities. Local Jews aspired to the higher position of Sephardis and used Spanish names. I suppose that they tried to marry the Sephardi.

--Error 02:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There were and are intermarriages, between Romaniotes and Sepharadim, Sepharadim and Ashkenazim, and all of these and Christians and Muslims. The latter were rare but how can one think they did not happen? In recent decades in Turkey marriages between Jews and Muslims have become less rare.

The non-Sephardic Jews of these areas are often called the Maghrebi Jews. The word Maghreb means "west" in Arabic. Berbers were a non-Arab people who lived in this region, particularly in the Atlas Mountains, and the Maghrebi Jews lived amongst them. The entire western Mediterranean region was referred to as the Maghreb in the time of the Caliphs, and both Jews and Arab migrated there from the Baghdad area. Ultimately, the wealth, population, and sophistication of the Jews of Spain eclipsed that of the Jews of Baghdad. Around 1000-1100 CE, about two thirds of the world's Jewish population lived in the Iberian Peninsula. The population in Ashkenaz was still tiny, while the communities around Baghdad in the east had suffered major economic setbacks. Good source, The Jews of Islam, by Bernard Lewis. I know a woman who is of Maghrebi ancestry on her mother's side (although her mother actually grew up francophone, in Paris). --Metzenberg 10:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again

Thank you for the information. This is fascinating stuff you're telling me.

Best wishes,

Albert

A Minor Correction

You wrote 'Sefardim' in standard Hebrew whilst you should have written 'Sfaradim' for that's how it is properly pronounced in standard Hebrew.

As bizarre as it sounds, "Sephardim" is more widely used in English as the plural. The Hebrew pronunciations given, however, reflect the correct Hebrew plural, sfaradim. Tomer ^TALK July 6, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Actually, in correct Hebrew, it should be sefaradim (סְפָרַדִּים) because of the shevá na‘. But the form sefardim (סְפַרְדִּים) is another correct form. ־־ Olve 05:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Which completely ignores my point. The plural used in English is generally "Séfardim" in true Ashkenazi style.  :-) Tomer ^TALK 22:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

History lessons

This article has been educational concerning society and culture of the Sephardi, but the History section seems to pay more attention to praising wealth and status than instuctive of the actual history of the people. As one unlearned in this area, it would be appreciated if this section could be developed more along the lines of origins and events in the Iberian peninsula. Thanks. --Blainster 00:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Biblical mountains of Sephar

Weren't these the caucasus? Gen 10:30 if so how come the term came to apply to Spain?

The same is said regarding Ashkenaz, which is apparently a Caucasian people. Jewish scholars suggest that these peoples started inhabiting Europe in the years 500-700, chased by the Huns. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, who chased them to Spain? Also why does Sephar become Sephardi? what does the -di suffix indicate?

See Migration Period. Concerning the -di... sepharad is the Biblical term, and "-i" is the possessive form. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

As for how the term came to apply to Spain, it's possible first off that the Pyrenees were regarded as analogous to the Caucasus. It's also possibly completely arbitrary. Tzarfath is a little hamlet halfway between [[Tyre|Tzor]] and Tzidon. How did its name come to be applied to France? Who knows. It makes for an interesting study, but ultimately probably isn't particularly important. Tomer ^TALK 00:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

And interestingly, there is an area of the Caucasus which in ancient times was called "Iberia". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand Norman H. Finkelstein's (NOT Norman G. Fin...) explanation of the migration of Jews FROM Spain TO North Africa in the 600s, then back TO Spain with the invading Muslims in 711, in an invasion so massive that Spain's identity was swallowed up by the Arabs, it helps to explain that what Sephardim call an "expulsion," Spaniards call the "reconquest" of their homeland after 800 years of Muslim-Sephardim occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Without walls (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jews came over with the Arab occupying force, but then formed a subject group in the Islamic polity in the same way as the Christians, so to speak of a "Muslim-Sephardim occupation" is tendentious. "Swallowed up" is inaccurate too: Jewish and Christian identities were freely tolerated in Muslim Spain, while Jewish and Muslim identities were completely suppressed in Christian Spain, in a process of ethnic cleansing that is generally regarded as an impoverishment. The reconquista and the expulsion of Jews were two separate processes; Jews continued to live for centuries in the northern Christian states, and were only expelled after the conquest of Granada. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Reverts

To the anonymous user(s) who has been adding a polemical view on Torquemada's origins (not totally relevant to this article in all cases): Would you be so kind to provide some references substantiating your version? Te lo digo tambien en castellano, si vas a editar el articulo, te agradeceriamos al menos te dignaras a citar tus fuentes. Un cordial saludo, Asterion 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

With reference to Torquemada I quote an excerpt from The Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews section of the Spanish Inquisition Wikipedia article:

"...Don Isaac Abravanel, who had previously ransomed 480 Jewish Moriscos of Malaga from the Catholic monarchs by a payment of 20,000 doubloons, now offered them 600,000 crowns for the revocation of the edict. It is said also that Ferdinand hesitated, but was prevented from accepting the offer by Torquemada, the grand inquisitor (sic), who dashed into the royal presence and, throwing a crucifix down before the king and queen, asked whether, like Judas, they would betray their Lord for money." (bold added) 207.67.145.152 04:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote, but it proves nothing. The quote doesn't suggest anything that even remotely alludes to the edict not being of the making of the catholic monarchs. Furthermore, it states that Ferdinand "hesitated", and does not say whether he had or hadn't definitely made up his mind to revoke it. Following that, the actions and words attributed to Torquemada - described as the events for that specific date - does not allude the responsibility of the expulsion of the Jews upon him, or anyone other than the monarchs for that matter. I will proceed with the revert of the article. Al-Andalus 06:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

The quote proves that Torquemada insisted on the expulsion. Perhaps there is a better word than "insist" but you insist on removing the entire edit on that account. What is your reason for doing so? I am going to reverse your reversal since there is no rational basis for your reversal... 198.172.203.232 06:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure many other people insisted. But this still does not change anything, and it remains largely irrelevant. The fact remains that the Alhambra Decree was issued at the order of the Monarchs, and was signed "I, the King, I the Queen, Juan de Coloma, Secretary of the King and Queen, which I have written by order of our Majesties." Nowhere on that decree do I see Torquemada's name.

If anything, the sole responsibility should not even be placed on the royal couple, but on the queen alone. It was she that was the religious zealot. Ferdinand had always been hesitant prior to any supposed coercion by Torquemada. I would presume any hesitation of his would have had more to do with the fact that his grandmother was herself a conversa. "Isabel la Católica" was so named by the pope because of her religious zealousy, and again, this had nothing to do with Torquemada, which at the end of the day was appointed by her also.

Futhermore, Manuel I of Portugal was indeed pressured by Isabella into expelling his Jewish population- which history tells us was something he DID NOT want to do. However, unless he did, Isabella would not allow for her daughter's hand in marriage to him. Well, the end of that story is that he did end up getting married to Isabella's daughter.

As a note, accounts are that, although he unwillingly did give the order for the expulsion of Jews from Portugal to placate Isabella, he also ordered the closure of all ports of exit for the same date of expulsion, thus enabling him to trap a large proportion of the Jews, making them the property of the crown. This itself is a point of contrast, in Spain the Jews that remained (ie. couldn't get out in time) were persecuted and burnt at the stake, but in Portugal those that remained (ie. were purposely trapped by the king) were kept as crown "property" to excersice their specialty trades. He couldn't afford to loose all those merchants, physicians, educators, which were such a valuable asset to his kingdom, and as a bonus, all the profits of their labour were now be for the king. While many did leave Portugal, proportionally (compared to the expulsion of Spain which was almost absolute) many did "remain". According to some studies, it is estimated that of Portugal's current population (99% of which is Catholic professing), a quarter unknowingly descend from at least one ancestor who was a Jewish convert to Catholicism. This number does not take into account crypto-Jews, those who outwardly profess Catholicism but both know they are descendants of Jews and secretly adhere to the faith (some of which have outed themselves and rejoined mainstream Judaims after 500 years of secrecy). Anti-Jewish memory is still fresh for many Portuguese that know they are Jewish descendants; remember Salazar's dictatorship and instituted catholic zealousy? And by the way, he is also speculated to have been a descendant of conversos. Al-Andalus 20:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

My dear friend, even if you are overall correct about King Manuel's treatment of the Jews, your statement that a quarter of the Portuguese population is descendent of Jews is quite ficctional (and has tradicionally been used by anti-semitics and racists to acuse Portugal of being a "racially impure" nation...), and there are no serious studies proving that fact (and of course everyone today is descendent of everyone in some ancient point in history... still, genetic studies of the portuguese population demonstrate the obvious - it's basically a southwestern european population of paleolithic origin). Remember that severe expulsions or migrations of Jews from Portugal would only be strong in the 16th century, namely after the massacre of Lisbon and the formal establishment of the Portuguese Inquisition by King John III in 1536. The Ogre 13:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"anti-semitics and racists to acuse Portugal of being a "racially impure" nation... " What? The opinions of anti-semetics and racists do not worry me. Your preocupation that if a certain proportion of the Portugues population (whatever the percentage) possesses at least one ancestor (out of 64 or 128 ancestors, I don't know) who was a Jewish convert to Catholicism would make the Portuguese "racially impure" would only hold true if you were also one of those that held those racist and anti-semitic beliefs. Even with this admixture, the Portuguese would still be European, caucasian, and of "southwestern european paleolithic origin".

In any case, I don't know how my post became a battle field regarding the "whiteness" of the Portuguese. After stating a position that differs from yours, my opinions is nonetheless that the Portuguese are European regardless. So there is no need to stress. Al-Andalus 00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)'.

Hello Al-Andalus. I do not have a preoccupation with the fact that «a certain proportion of the Portugues population (whatever the percentage) possesses at least one ancestor (out of 64 or 128 ancestors, I don't know) who was a Jewish convert to Catholicism». And no, I'm not one of those that upholds racist and anti-Semitic beliefs. The concept of racial purity has no meaning for me and is discredited by Anthropobiology. I probably did not express myself in the best of manners... What I meant was that there is probably no difference between the Portuguese and other European nations regarding these types of ethnic admixture! So, one should not use the argument of admixture to diminish the persecutions and oppressions suffered by Jews (and others...) in Portugal. Furthermore, it is true that these types of arguments (either with Jews, Moors or Black Africans) were and are used by racist thinkers as a traditional way of discriminating against southern Europeans. Mind you, even if the facts itself were true they would not in themselves diminish southern Europeans in any way. I'm really not concerned with "who's more white" issues. What I am concerned is with the survival of certain types of arguments that, used in specific manners (such as singling out Portugal, even if for the best of reasons), are tools of discrimination and bias! Hope I made myself clear this time... The Ogre 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"one should not use the argument of admixture to diminish the persecutions and oppressions suffered by Jews (and others...) in Portugal" My post was to exemplify that indeed Jews HAVE SUFFERED "persecutions and oppressions". The argument and citation in my earlier post were given to exemplify that very point! Re-read my post. Nowhere have I attempted to "diminish" anything. So, the tangent in which you directed my post is still unexplained. Al-Andalus 02:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

Conversos

User:Al-Andalus deleted "It can be extended for those baptized Jews from the Iberian Peninsula who returned to Judaism." with "Converso status irrelevant". I restored it because the previous redaction did not make clear that there were people who were not expelled in 1492, since they were baptized, but who were later considered Sephardi when returning to Judaism. If you can rephrase the paragraph with more grace while keeping the info, do it. --Error 00:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had kept that bit in the article. It states it on my edit summary. "RV 71.38.199.37's edits (Torquemada's responsibility by "insistence" unsubstantiated. Converso status irrelevant) to The Ogre's version with info introduced by Error". My mistake. Al-Andalus 01:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC).

Actually, I've just gone to compare past versions on the hisotry page, and I DID KEEP your contribution as I stated on my edit summary. It wasn't me that deleted your contribution, so it wasn't my mistake. It was user "198.172.203.236" that deleted it when he reverted his page back to another of his own making, and while doing so he also reverted all the reversions (reverions needed because of his own vandalisms) and contributions that had been made since his last vandalisation. Not only your contribution had been deleted, but mine and user Flauto Dolce's edit as well. I am going to re-insert both my reversion of the introduction (introductions ONLY!) while keeping Flauto Dolce's and your edits (which I REPEAT I didn't delete!).

Also, you quoted me as having stated "Converso status irrelevant". Yes, I did write that, but read it in its proper context (ie. in the context of user 71.38.199.37's edits). It was in relation to my reversion of the page because of 71.38.199.37's edits that alleged the responsibility of the expulsion of 1492 was on Torquemada - which also cited his alleged status as a converso - and not on the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. Al-Andalus 01:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC).

Geographies

Isn't there a sephardic community in Romania? The writer Elias Canetti is, I think, a sephardic jew from Romania. No, he was born in Bulgaria, as he expalins in his autobiography.

The sephardic jews, according to my knowledge, also settled in parts of Albania and Croatia. Danton_20

Comparison to "Ashkenazi?" Dutch Jews

The following quote is the contribution made by user R.S.

"A notable exception to the distinct Ashkenazi and Sephardi naming traditions is found among Dutch Jews, where Ashkenazim have for centuries followed the tradition otherwise attributed to Sephardim. See Chuts."

Are not a great proportion of Dutch Jews actually a branch of Sephardim that fled from Spain to the Netherlands in 1492, and the reason why they have the same tradition is because they are Sephardim? The edit makes it seem as though the Dutch Jews are Ashkenazim. The first Jews to settle in what today is United States territory were Ladino-speaking Sephardim from the Netherlands. Al-Andalus 08:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

R.S. Replies:

Initially, at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, the Jewish residents of Amsterdam were practically exclusively Sephardim. By 1700, the Ashkenazim had outnumbered them. Fifty years later, Amsterdam's Jewish population was overwhelmingly Ashkenazi.

The following are estimates of Amsterdam's Jewish population from various sources, included in "The History of the Jews in The Netherlands", Blom, Fuks-Mansfeld and Schöffer, 2002.

1610: Sephardim 350, Ashkenazim 0
1700: Sephardim 3,000, Ashkenazim 3,200
1750: Sephardim 2,800, Ashkenazim 14,000

The reason for the shift is that Sephardim were initially welcomed by the City of Amsterdam because they brought wealth and international trading influence, whereas the Ashkenazim were mostly poor, displaced agricultural workers and were turned away. With few exceptions, the Ashkenazim settled in small communities in the provinces where they subsisted typically as pedlars and hawkers. When the Dutch lost the global race for colonial power, the economy went into decline, the provincial Ashkenazim could no longer sustain themselves, their communities collapsed (unable to maintain a minyan for prayer), and they fled in increasingly large numbers to the cities.

R.S. 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andulas: the far majority of Dutch Jews is Ashkenazi. There used to be a large Sephardic community in the 16th and 17th century, but already in the 17th century, Ashkenazi immigrants from Poland and Germany exceeded the number of Sephardim. Nowadays, the Dutch Sephardic community consists of some 270 families, on a total Jewish population of 25,000 - 30,000. Rick86 11:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Crypto-Jews to be included?

I sense an ongoing struggle as to whether or not Crypto-Jews should be included in the initial definition and I hope the following will help smooth any future decisions.

1: Someone has made it clear that the initial definition is intended to be strict and as such it is seen to exclude those who remained in the Iberian peninsular to be converted. Perhaps that was intentional.

2: Those who remained to be converted, and whose descendants later became openly practising Jews, did not relinquish their Jewish faith and practice. They practised in secret and at great personal risk.

3: At least some rabbinic wisdom pays no heed to conversion under duress.

4: As a general rule, the Crypto-Jews quit the Iberian peninsula as soon as opportunity arose, which was after the Dutch Provinces declared independence from Spanish rule in 1581.

5: Among them were some of the most influential Jewish scholars in history, including the Abendanas, the Orobios and Spinoza, to name but a few.

6: Crypto-Jews were instrumental in the success of the Amsterdam Jewish community, which was to be the world’s major centre of Jewish culture for centuries after.

In the event that their inclusion is to be reinstated, I suggest the following in the hope that it will be acceptable to all concerned.

“Many other Sephardim who were unable to leave the Iberian peninsula were coerced into conversion, but continued to practise Judaism in secret until such time as their descendants were able to migrate to religiously tolerant countries, most notably the Dutch Provinces after 1581. See Crypto-Judaism."

I have no axe to grind, except to say that I’d like this article to be incontrovertibly meaningful to all who are inspired to read it.

R.S. 01:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is not a struggle. I just want to make clear that returned Conversos are also Sephardi and Al-Andalus thinks it is already clear. My problem is that I don't know how to ellegantly express that within the current redaction.

I also want to make clear that Judaizant Conversos are not the whole of Conversos. Some were convinced Christians, others were raised as Christians, others were exposed to both religions and even Classical culture and became agnostic philosophers.

About the RS proposal, I am not sure that those who did not leave "were unable to leave". Wouldn't it be that they lacked the commitment to the faith? Comment on that.

--Error 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The strict definition states that the Sephardim were expelled at specific times depending on whether they were in Spain or Portugal, and that gives the impression that all who remained are excluded from the definition.

I agree that one must ask why they stayed and an obvious answer is that, judging by the immense wealth they eventually took with them, they were weighed down by possessions. There was in fact considerable negotiation with Spanish and Portuguese authorities before they were allowed to sell their property and it was only then that notable families finally quit.

However, I'm sure it wasn't as simple as that. Accepting expulsion would have involved leaving wealth and control to be seized by the authorities, which would have been giving in to political pressure; plus migration would doubtless have involved splitting up families and so on. As a test of their religious conviction, I take into account the danger they put themselves in by practising Judaism in secret. There are plenty of historical references to imprisonment, torture and horrible death, and they wouldn't have risked that unless they were very, very convinced of their faith.

In the case of those who finally went to Amsterdam, there were also protracted negotiations with the City of Amsterdam to make sure they would be able to set up a suitable community without the restrictions they were attempting to avoid. History indicates that those negotiations were very successful.

It took a very long time but overall, the crypto-Jews finally succeeded in retaining their religious identity, keeping immense wealth away from their suppressors, and using it to establish an immensely influencial Jewish cultural centre elsewhere.

I accept that the previously suggested addition raises the question of why they were 'unable' to leave, which would require a lengthy explanation best placed elsewhere, and so I suggest the following.

“Many Sephardim remained in the Iberian peninsular where they were coerced into conversion, but continued to practise Judaism in secret until such time as their descendants were able to migrate to religiously tolerant countries, most notably the Dutch Provinces after 1581. See Crypto-Judaism."

Note that the suggestion refers to crypto-Jews rather than Conversos so as to identify specifically those who maintained their faith and took the risks. Also, it is phrased so that it does not contradict the opening strict definition; it only adds that some did not respond to expulsion and practised Judaism in secret until later.

R.S. 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the dig deal here. The definitions already says;

• "In the proper sense, a Sephardi is a Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula, or one whose ancestors were either among the Jews expelled from Spain by order of the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabel (as codified in the Alhambra decree of 1492), or among the Jews expelled from Portugal by order of King Manuel I in 1497.

This already sets clear that it is a Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula (whether expelled or still residing there as crypto-jews, marranos or anusim). It says OR those whos ancestos were expelled, it does not say only those whose ancestors were expelled. Is this not clear enough? What is the problem? Al-Andalus 05:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

I think the problem is that the word "or" implies that what follows is an alternative definition.

R.S. 08:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was not the original qualm that was raised. But if that is now the only problem, simply change OR to AND. And hey presto, problem is fixed! Al-Andalus 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

Actually, upon closer inspection I've realised that one cannot substitute Or for And in the wording off that sentence. That would make it worse. In that case it would imply that both criteria must be met to be a Sephardi - which is not the case. As I said before, the supposed issue here was that crypto-Jews, marranos and anusim still in the Peninsula needed to be be given a special noting as also being Sephardi, but this has no grounds to even be a problem, as the sentence already implies this categorically (Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula [ie. still there or not], or one whose ancestors were either among the Jews expelled...) Al-Andalus 16:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

I don't know how or why it started. I looked at the article a few weeks ago and saw modifications being repeatedly made and withdrawn, which didn't seem very good, and I thought the problem was that the opening description seemed to exclude crypto-Jews, depending on how you read it. I have now made a small alteration which perhaps makes it both accurate and unambiguous. R.S. 17:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Genetic affinity

Has there been research done on the genetic affinity between North African Jews and the peoples of Spain, Portugal and southern France? Since the Sephardic Jews lived in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France for more than 1,500 years at least (before they moved to various countries in North Africa), wouldn't there be some genetic affinity between the North African Jews and the people of southwestern Europe today?

By what I can remembers, an in depth study on different Jewish population around the world and their genetic relationship found most Jews to be descended from ancient Israelites.

• Ashkenazim were found to be a mixture of Israelite and indigenous Norther and Eastern European ancestry. The Y chromosome were overwhealmingly Israelite with some Central Asian markers (presumably the Khazars) but mtDNA was almost exclusively European. Being that Jewishness is inherited maternally, but Ashkenazi mtDNA is native European, Ashkenazi Jewish matriarchs were converts to Judaism, or the current Ashkenazi population would not be Jewish.

  The current literature by Behar, et. al suggests the mtDNA is of Levantine, not European origin. See below. 128.91.27.93 03:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sephardim were found to be a mostly Israelite, with some Iberian admixture. This only holds true for self-identified Sephardim that have maintained the faith from the expulsion in 1492. Most people who identified as descendants of Sephardi Crypto-Jews (Texan, New Mexicans, Northern Mexican, and other Hispanics see Crypto-Judaism) showed to have some Sephardi ancestry but their overwhealming ancestry was the same of surrounding locals (local surrounding population could be either white, mestizo or mulatto).
• Yemenite Jews were found to be a mixture of local Arab and Israelite.
• Berber Jews were found to be mostly Berber.
• Ethiopian Jews were indistinguishable from non-Jewish Ethiopians, and had little if any Israelite admixture.
• Kurdish Jews were mostly Israelite with somee Kurdish admixture.
• Persian Jews were Israelite with some Iranian admixture.
• Indian Jews were mostly Indian with some maternal Israelite ancestry.
• Non-Jewish Palestinians were found to be Israelite with significant admixture from various sources.

I will look the rest up, but that's all i remember for now. Al-Andalus 04:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

Thanks again for providing me with this information. Please post again if you discover anything new.

I have been very interested in this subject, and I have done a lot of work on the corresponding article on Ashkenazi Jewry. The first thing I want to say here is that this kind of genetic research is extremely limited in the conclusions that it can draw. It is based on haplotype analysis of only two segments of the genome: The Y Chromosome (men only) and the mitochondrial genome (men and women, inherited through maternal lineage).

I am often amazed at the "pop science" conclusions people draw from this kind of research. First of all, haplotype analysis is still in its infancy. The number of individuals actually studied is still tiny, and many of the genetic markers that are needed are probably yet to be identified. Furthermore, haplotype analysis is only useful if other populations have also been studied in relation to the subject population, and in many cases they have not been.

Another thing about haplotype analysis is that in the case of such Jewish ethnic studies, there are no random samples. If you want to study the Finns (a genetically very homogenous people) you can go out and draw blood from people who live in Finland and speak Finnish. But with Jewish ethnic studies, the researchers themselves choose their own sample, deciding how to classify their subjects. Yikes. Talk about subjectivity. Where is there even any pretension that there is statistical validity. --Metzenberg 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent papers by Behar in Am J of Human Genetics seems to show that Ashkenazi mtDNA was likely Levantine in origin (Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Syria) although it shows significant founder effect. Most of the current Ashkenazi population is descended from less than 10 women (incredible, and accounts for large number of genetic problems). Another interesting fact is that the Talmud used is the Babylonian one; it might be plausible that a small number of men and a tiny group of women left Babylon between 400-700 CE and founded the Ashkenazi community somewhere in the Rhineland (France/Germany). Rashi and Rabbi Gershom are the first major Ashkenazi rabbinical scholars (c. 900-1000 CE). There were huge Ashkenazi population booms between 1800-1933 -- much like what can be seen in Kiryas Joel today (with women having 10-12 kids each!). The Holocaust unfortunately decreased the overall Ashkenazi population by 1/3. 128.91.27.93 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster, too many people mistake so-called "genetic genealogy" for infallible science. You can't identify the origins of a people based on genetics studies alone, especially when those genetics studies are so flawed that it amounts to quackery. You have to also examine anthropological, cultural and archeological elements. I have read an interesting study on the subject that advance the theory that Sephardic Jews are most likely of a mixed Berber/Iberian extraction because many elements in Sephardic culture point to some ancient Berber customs. Furthermore there is a attested Jewish presence in North Africa even before the "Jewish Diaspora" and I don't think it has been actually proven that there was massive emigration of Jews from Palestine that would account for the massive presence of Jews in Spain and North Africa(people don't travel like that en masse without leaving any trace!). Plus, I don't get that obsession among some Jews to prove that every single one of them is the direct descendant of Abraham. It's not a shame to be Berber, Spaniard, German, Slav or Persian. You are not some superior, mythic race, you are PEOPLE like everyone else. Get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.194.96 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sephardim in Charleston, SC (and SC in general)

Do you (or anyone else) have information about or sources on the history of the Sephardic community in South Carolina? (Anon user)

Sephardic Jews and other Jews were indeed based mostly in and around Charleston, SC and along South Carolina's coasts until about 1800, and some people say/claim/believe that they were heavily involved in African slavery and the slave-trade in the early years of the USA (South Carolina being the state/territory at the center of the African slave-trade in early North America, eventually having more Africans than "Whites" living/working in the state!). From 1492 (when the Jews were largely expelled from Spain and the Iberian Peninsula: see Alhambra_decree and History of the Jews in Spain; many of them came to the USA) until about 1800, South Carolina (and especially the once bustling and VERY important North American city of Charleston) seemed to serve as the "center" of the Jewish presence on the North American continent and in the young USA. After 1800 the Jewish population locus was obviously shifted Northward, to NYC/Long Island/Northern New Jersey and other urban-areas in the North, and the once huge Jewish presence in Charleston and SC was largely forgotten and/or covered-up (but notice subtle clues such as the very early founding date of the College of Charleston, along with others). Either way, reliable/trustworthy/accurate records from this far back (1492-1800) are extremely spotty and unreliable, but there is NO QUESTION that Charleston and SC served as the unofficial center of the Jews in both North and South America until about 1800. Poke around the Internet a bit and you'll find some reliable info about the Jews in SC and especially Charleston, but be VERY careful what you trust; a good and reliable link can be found in the article entitled A "portion of the People". --205.188.116.132 08:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Very, very interesting. Someone should post info about Sephardim in the U.S. Aroundthewayboy 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Carolina slang way to say okay ... kopasedic. Not even sure how to spell it. I am just trying to spell it the way it sounds when people say it in the US South. A corruption of the Hebrew kol b'seder as spoken by South Carolina's sephardim. Does anyone know of a literary reference, or a lexicographic one? --Metzenberg 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Scalpal Ringworm" and the "Mass Radiation" of Some Sephardic Jews in Israel

For the person who removed the link someone else had added before, you could check Haaretz: "Running rings around the victims." for a less biased view. In any case, this story is about Mizrahi not Sephardi Jews. Thanks, --Asterion ^{talk to me} 19:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that clears up where this theory is coming from. -- joerg, 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More info can be found here; even though it's from the infamous Jew Watch website, it wasn't actually written by that site's anti-Semitic founder and thus may hold SOME useful info. --205.188.116.132 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

More pertinent links, perhaps from a more "reliable" source (Barry Chamish): Ringworms AND 100,000 RADIATIONS - A REVIEW (Aug. 17th, 2004) [this looks like the original source of the above Jew Watch article] --205.188.116.132 08:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oldest surviving Jewish residence in USA belonged to a Sephardic Jew

According to the history page of Gomez Mill House. This individual fled with his family from Spain and ultimately to the Hudson River Valley in New York state. As a newbie, I'm not sure if this should be appropriate for the site.

looks good to me. Aroundthewayboy 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)