# Talk:Mosaic of Rehob

So-called "references" are nothing but (well-funded) commentaries by the author of the article (cannot even speak of a "Wikipedia editor" in this case). Great resource, except if one wants to quote it - or if it's to be judged by Wikipedia rules, which I'm not a great fan of, but... there are limits to freelancing. I am sure the author has published this content in at least one paper; just quote that paper and it's all halakhically kosher. PS: the English is great, except for some transliteration errors, which makes it look like the work of a possibly Hebrew native-speaker with good enough practice in academic English. But why do we need to guess? Arminden (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Stupid of me - why didn't I look straight away at the History page? It's all done by our friend, @Davidbena:! Hi David. So, great work, just please, don't imagine anyone will read the huge number of sources indicated at "bibliography" to find out what bit of info is supported by which author. References are references, and should ideally be quickly reachable online, and bibliography at WP is mainly an apparatus that helps avoid giving all the data at each reference, when the sources are quoted several times with varying page numbers. As it is now, I have to take your word for every bit of fact OR interpretation contained in the article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Hi! I don't get it: you write that the inscription is from the 3rd-7th c. and link to an Israel Museum link, where all I can see is: 6th c.
Second, the lead defines the topic of the article as "Mosaic of Reḥob, also known as the Tel Rehov inscription and Baraita of the Boundaries".  I understand from this that all 3 names refer to the narthex inscription ONLY, not to all mosaic fragments from the synagogue, surviving from all its 3 phases. So 6th c., or if Vitto or anyone still has doubts, 6th-7th. Apart from the date of the halakhical text, this is essential as it defines what the article is all about. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all three names refer to the narthex inscription (mosaic) only, not to the plastered fragments also found in situ and which are basically a repeat of the mosaic. By the way, there are no mosaic fragments, as the mosaic was found completely intact.Davidbena (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the conflicting dates given for the mosaic, I will provide the source, as the date of the Mosaic is disputed by scholars. Yehuda Feliks, Professor of Botany at Bar-Ilan University, is he who disputes the age of the mosaic, and writes emphatically, in his book "The Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) Tractate Shevi'it -- Critical edition (1986), pp. 454–455, that the Jerusalem Talmud's redaction was no later than the end of the 3rd-century CE, and that the making of the Mosaic of Rehob was immediately thereafter, rather than hundreds of years later, as espoused by other scholars.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple sources giving different opinions as to the age of the mosaic. Each source is mentioned, but not to decide in favor of any particular source, I have simply mentioned the range of respective opinions, namely, 3rd-7th c. The mosaic today is housed at the Israel Museum, for which reason we have also linked to the museum. Actually, the three names refer only to the mosaic itself, not to its fragments. The mosaic was found in its entirety. Nothing was missing; everything intact. It was cut into sections and reassembled at the Israel Museum, where it is today.Davidbena (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This article contains an excessive amount of material cited directly to ancient primary sources such as Talmud and Mishna. These sources need to be replaced or augmented by modern secondary sources. If that's not possible, the material should be removed. Zerotalk 07:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox lists Yaakov Sussmann as an archaeologist, while his Wikipedia entry describes him as a philologist. Was he involved with the mosaic in an archaeological rather than philological capacity? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)