Talk:Chumash (Judaism)

message: does not belong on this page. It's irrelevant (and too long, btw).—msh210℠ 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Torah portion}} 

message: Here's one, if you want it: :Image:Chumash 01.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Since Chumash is just another name for the Torah, shouldn't it be merged, with perhaps a small section dealing with the alternate name? Serendipodous 07:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It should not be merged with Torah. The difference between Torah and Chumash is like the difference between "literature" and "a book". The term "Chumash" or "Humash" refers to specific type of copy of the Torah (one that is bound like a book, and which contains Hebrew letters which have not been specially typed); whereas Torah can refer specifically to the Five Books of Moses ("published" as a scroll with specially written Hebrew characters or published in the form of a Chumash) or generally to the entire body of Jewish law which derives from it (as in the phrase Dvar Torah). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Torah?

message: Per this diff and this diff:
:It appears that there is an attempt to imply that "Chumash" is derived from the Greek "Pentateuch", rather than the reverse. Also, I object to the latter diff for the following reasons:
::#This is an article on the term "Chumash", not on the term "Pentateuch". There is a wikilink to "Pentateuch" where readers can learn everything they want to know about the term "Pentateuch". There is no need to include that information in this article.
::#It is unnecessary to qualify "Torah" with "written", since the unqualified use of the word "Torah" -- except in set phrases such as "D'var Torah", "Torah study", "Study of Torah", etc. -- refers specifically to the scroll containing the Five Books of Moses. 
:← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  I was only trying to reconcile the objectives of the different editors, by pointing out that "Pentateuch" and "Chumash" correspond in meaning, as a sidelight on "Chumash".  I was certainly not saying that "Chumash" is a retroversion of "Pentateuch".  I tend to avoid using "Torah" with this meaning, because of its ambiguity.  Even apart from the question of Oral Torah, which is important, the root meaning is simply "teaching": "Torah" for Pentateuch is short for "Torat Moshe", but one can also speak of "Torat nevi'im" etc. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew from Greek nonsense

message: I'm not sure if the article should be taken to mean that or if Chumash can refer to the first five books in other contexts. I know the meaning of Torah can vary depending on who is using it so I wondered. 105.226.83.65 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole question is based on a confusion. Rashi was a French Jewish commentator who lived in the 11th century CE. A Chumash-Rashi contains only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) with Rashi's commentary. "Onkelos" is an Aramaic translation that was regarded as official. The name is probably a misunderstanding of "Aquila"; but Aquila's translation was in Greek. The New Testament does not enter into either Onkelos or Rashi at any point; and NT quotes from the OT usually come from the Septuagint, which was an older Greek translation. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The first five books in codex or modern book form only?