Talk:Maimonides/Archive 1

message: Was Maimonides to try a rational explanation for the pork taboo? (From memory, he supposed it a way to avoid trichinosis.) -- Error 01:12, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Trichinosis was unknown in his days. He does give rational explanations for the dietary laws in his Moreh Nevuchim ("Guide for the Perplexed"). What do you mean by "pork taboo" anyway? <BR>JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pork taboo

message: The big hiatus in this article is Maimonides' influence on Jewish law. His philosophical opinions have less ramification of the life of Jews today than his work in Mishneh Torah, which was one of the first (and certainly the most comprehensive) of the codices of Jewish law! This deserves more attention than his (vital) work on philosophy. <BR>JFW | T@lk 09:22, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Maimonides and Jewish law

message: Leo Strauss "How to begin to study The Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963
:What is true of the Biblical similies is true also of the metaphorical Biblical terms.  According to the Talmudic sages, the outer of the similies is nothing while the inner is a pearl....Hence it is not without danger to the vulgar that one explains the similies or indicates the metaphoric character of expressions (I 33). For such biblical teachings as the assertions that God in angry, compassionate, or in other ways changeable, while not true, yet serve a political purpose or are necessary beliefs (III 28). (p.xxxvi)
Shlomo Pines "The Philosopic Sources of the Guide of the Perplexed", in "The Guide of the Perplexed" Volume One, Translated by Shlomo Pines, The University of Chicago Press, 1963
:"according to al-Farabi the ideal city, and according to Maimonides the Jewish community founded on the Torah, assume the task of perfecting the intellects of their members and of guiding them towards philosophical truth. Those born to be philosophers are given the possibility to know the real nature of things, while the others are not taught the naked truths, but the parables andmetaphors by means of which the prophets render this truth accessible to the less gifted. As already stated, this is the mimesis of which al-Farabi speaks. Maimonides sometimes applies to beliefs of this kind...the term true opinions (III 27 and 28).
(p.xcii)
:Yes, yes, true beliefs vs. necessary beliefs.  That's not the issue here.  Metaphors and parables about God being angry etc.  The issue here is your attempt to tie this to the 13 Principles. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Leo Strauss and Shlomo Pines 

message: Some sources mention 1138 as the year of his birth. Which one is correct? JFW | T@lk 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: definitively 1138!
What are you basing your answer on? JFW | T@lk 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 

message: Maybe someone here can help me: It says several times in the Torah that Jews shall never return to Egypt, yet Maimonides lived in Egypt. Am I misreading the Torah? Is it that Jews should never set up a permanent civilization in Egypt, but its ok for individuals to live there?Loomis51 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He appears to have held this against himself. Perhaps the Torah text refers to groups and not individuals. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I remember it being that he signed "who transgress three sins every day" and one of them is living in egypt and another two (not living in Israel maybe).  I see if I can find a source.  Jon513 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, here we are.  This answers the orginal poster's question.  Jon513 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There are indeed printed volumes that collect Maimonides' letters (responsa), many of them from Geniza texts in his very own handwriting. The full edition is that of Yehoshua Blau (4 vols.). To the best of my recollection Maimonides never signed with the "Egypt" line, and it is indeed a legend, but I will check that again. (I do have the volumes at home.) Dovi 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt

message: The second paragraph of "Maimonides and the Modern" section strikes me as extremely point of view.  It makes an important point, but the language should be made more neutral.--ben-ze'ev 13:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: According to jewish calenders it was 20th of December, not 13th. JNF 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the Hebrew wikipedia the date was 20 of tevet, according to my calculation the Georgian date is December 20. see online calender (uses PHP built in conversion). That is also what the hebrew wikipedia reports.  However the jump in 1582 from October 4 to October 15 is not taken into account in the program , so I doubt it is correct. Jon513 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: What do you mean Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture? The Muslim rulers before Almohades in Muslim Spain. The facts are all shown in the detailed history relating to Muslim Spain. --203.15.122.35 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a misunderstanding. The same phrase links to  this article, which says that The Golden age of Jewish culture in the Iberian Peninsula is also known as the Golden Age of Arab or Moorish Rule in Iberia. Apparently there's a consensus about the Golden Age starting at the same time as the Muslim rule or within its first two centuries (either 711–718 after the Muslim conquest of Iberia or 912 -the rule of Abd-ar-Rahman III), and there are different opinions concerning its end. Some say that the Golden Age ends with the invasion of the Almohades -i.e. Maimonides' time. I'll try to fix this. --Filius Rosadis 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the  Almohades, they were initially what we'd modernly call fundamentalists and they even engaged in religious persecutions, which drove Maimonides' family out of Córdoba. But, as their Wikipedia entry says, in the end they became less fanatical than the Almoravids, and Ya'qub al Mansur was a highly accomplished man, who wrote a good Arabic style and who protected the philosopher Averroes. This matches the fact that Rambam travelled to Fes, Morocco, ten years after the Almohad invasion (although many years before al Mansur came to power). --Filius Rosadis 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To talk of Arab or Moorish rule in Spain as a coherent period is grossly superficial, on a temporal, on a geographic and on a political plane: it might be better to talk distinctively about the Arabic invasion 710-756, the Andalus Caliphate 756-c1031, the Berber interregnum 1010-1086, the Almoravid kingdom 1086-1147, the Almohad period 1147-1238, then finally the Nasrid dynasty 1238-1492. However, this equally ignores the ebb and flow of the border with Christian Spain, and the policy of Mudéjar ("those permitted to stay") which continued throughout this period: one should also take into account in this context the Catalan influence over Acquitaine and the Narbonnais, lasting well into the thirteenth century. At the risk of irritating the Orthodox, one should consider the Leon Kaballists' Zohar as a continuation (however questionable) of Maimonides' thinking as part of this period, and there is even evidence in the story of Nicolas Flamel, the French alchemist, that there was yet further interest in Leon into publishing the Book of Abraham he acquired from a member of the Paris synagogue in the fifteenth century, which was in itself a major spur to proto-scientific thinking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If we must put an absolute end limit on things, the clearest break in the Golden Age cames in 1492 with Isabel the Catholic's exiling of all faiths not subject to Rome.Jel 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic rule in Spain is the end of the golden age of Jewish culture?

message: Kapach introduction to the Mishneh Torah contradict what is said here. According to him the Ravaad was opposing rather showing a different POV. etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.76.205 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mishneh Torah 

message: Why is there an "About Maimonides" section and then a "Chabad About Maimonides" section? Chabad isn't making a Book of Moses out of Maimonides. It doesn't need its own section. 203.214.128.115 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no just links getting out of control.  They have to be pruned.  if you want to do it you are more than welcome to read WP:EL and remove want needs to be removed. Jon513 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chabad acting like its own religion 

message: As at 10.4.2007, the owners of the synagogue were openly expressing themselves as more than willing to close to the general public to allow Jewish services. True, it isn't formally consecrated, but none the less it can be done. Their phone number is 957 202928.Jel 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cordoba synagogue isn't closed 

message: I had added the following sentence to the article and a similar sentence to the Ramban article:
"Maimonides (RaMBaM) should not be confused with Nahmanides (RaMBaN) (1194-1270), another rabbi, philosopher and physician who also lived in Spain."
User:Jfdwolff removed this sentence apprently believing it was unnessary.  I added this after confusing the two myself.  In a conversation with a friend, I had mistakedly heard Ramban instead of Rambam as the person who had formulated the 13 principles of faith.  After visiting wikipedia, I discovered that it was actually Rambam and Ranban is a different person.  I think this confusion maybe not so uncommon, and may merrit such a mention.  Maybe I didn't word the sentence above very well, but I think we should consider adding it back in.  Please discuss. Iampayam
:People confuse things. I appreciate their names and roles are similar, but even a cursory reading of the article will immediately show the differences. Maimonides was a rationalist, Nachmanides a Kabbalist etc etc. JFW | T@lk 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no reason reason to assume that the reader of the article may confuse the two, or even that the reader has heard of the ramban.  Jon513 17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess having it in the article would not be proper.  In a printed encyclopedia, the two entries would be next to each other so there is less of a chance for confusion.  What would be really nice is if the wiki put a link at the top saying "Did you mean Rambam?" or something like that when you search for Ramban.  I guess that is more of a software issue with wikimedia and not a content issue. Iampayam 03:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rambam vs. Ramban

message: Can we please add a link to [www.torahforme.com A Site with Free MP3 Classes in the Rambams 13 Principles and Oral Reading of the Mishne Torah (not yet completed)]?Samson Ben-Manoach 12:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No big deals. I only have one concern. I am not an expert so if it is not directly related to Maimonides than please don't insert it.  -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request/ Ext link addition

message: Way too many chabad links. Please remove some. Many are not needed like the askmoses ones. 124.168.28.217 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just go ahead and do it.  That's the Wiki spirit!  —Dfass 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many chabad links 

message: has now twice slapped some box on this article insisting that every word be cited with cite.php. There are references at the bottom, to which the majority of the content can be sourced. That it what all other encyclopedias do. Of course inline cites are better, but not the point that we have to stare at some light blue box all the time. I really don't think adding boxes in this way makes any difference to the article whatsoever. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the references are not clear, and it is very easy to sneak origional research into this article if there aren't any footnotes without anyone really noticing. I don't mean every word needs a citation; just every paragraph at a minimum, or everything that is to a different source. I saw that, which is why I added the citations or footnotes missing tag instead of the unreferenced tag. Most articles on wikipedia follow the footnotes style of referencing. I think until there are inline citations, the article needs to have some tag explaining to readers that citations and/or footnotes are missing.--Sefringle 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I just made a slight factual correction yesterday, but which has been deleted, so i´ll explain. 
the text says:
"He is widely respected in Spain and a statue of him was erected in Córdoba alongside his synagogue, which is no longer functioning as a Jewish house of worship but is open to the public."
My point is that the synagogue is not "his", since it was built two hundred years after his death and, unsurprisingly, has no dedication to the great scholar (http://www.uco.es/dptos/c-antiguedad/griego/publicaciones/docum1015.htm). 
It just happens, sadly, to be the only synagogue in Córdoba not destroyed, and presumably for that reason a few years ago a statue of Maimonides was placed in the vicinity.
That does not make it "his" synagogue. 
Please, the deleter of my correction, reinstate the correction I provided.Sebatianalfar 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "his" synagogue in córdoba 

message: Nothing mentioned that the Rambam opposed mysticism in general. In regards to accepting a book like the Bahir to be authentic he uses very harsh words. 
To quote: "When bad and foolish men were reading such passages, they considered them to be a support of their false pretensions and of their assertion that they could, by means of an arbitrary combination of letters, form a shem ("a name") which would act and operate miraculously when written or spoken in a certain particular way. Such fictions, originally invented by foolish men, were in the course of time committed to writing, and came into the hands of good but weak-minded and ignorant persons who were unable to discriminate between truth and falsehood, and made a secret of these shemot (names). When after the death of such persons those writings were discovered among their papers, it was believed that they contained truths; for, "The simple believeth every word" (Prov. xiv. 15)." 203.206.234.139 08:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (the quote is from Guide for the Perplexed: Part I: Chapter LXII). Jon513 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to mysticism 

message: Shalom.  Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings' paragraph in Jewish views on evolution, Maimonides is cited to claim if Science and Torah were misaligned ...  I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't mention any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here. BentzyCo (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a reference.  Jon513 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Thank you very much, indeed. BentzyCo (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knows ? - Citing [[Rambam]] 

message: The suffix 'ides' means son of. His full name ([f you want to stick to the Greek) is Moses Maimonides. He refers to himself as "Moses b. Maimon b. Joseph b. Isaac b. Obadiah of blessed memory" in the very first paragraph of his letter to the Jewish community of Yemen.  Phil burnstein (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rambam's full name is not Maimonides 

message: The article mentions maimonides' attitude about G-d's emotions (that G-d does not get angry) and claims that maimonides drew this idea from avicenna. with all due respect, unless maimonides specifically references avicenna, i dont think it is ethical to claim that. in mishna tora, </ref>1st chapter halacha 12,</ref> rambam makes a very clear and logical procession about how since G-d is a perfect unity all concepts of division and change (including emotions) do not apply. this idea is rooted in the words of the talmud when it says about many expressions "the torah talks in the language of man".bab. berachoth 31b and see more sources in gloss there That is the source the Rambam himself gives. Moreover, whomever wrote that avicenna was the source did not give a reference. Ezorlo (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in your citation of the Mishnah - however, in the context of "The Guide for the Perplexed" (3:32, Maimonides conveys comething to the effect of "HaShem is merciful to the extent that the order of nature (what HaShem created) exhibits merciful characteristics and angry to the extent that it is harsh toward things that do not take proper care of themselves.  This is, in fact, a concept that originates in the writings of Avicenna.  In summation, while you are correct that anthropomorphizing HaShem is not consistent with out view of HaShem, the Guide was written for men and sometimes used anthropomorphisms to convey concepts more readily.  Hope that helps. Jimharlow99 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  maimonides on G-d's emotions 

message: Jfdwolff has twice deleted this claiming that it's POV.  I fail to see how.  It's the Mechaber's own words!  Please explain in more detail than you have room for in an edit summary, exactly why this is POV, and why it's inappropriate for the article.  -- Zsero (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not hearing any explanation for why it should not be there, I'm restoring it.  If you think its length gives it undue weight, perhaps you can edit it down, without losing the essence. -- Zsero (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Considering who wrote it, it can hardly mean that!  But it does show the extreme reverence in which he was held centuries after his death, even by those who disagreed with his legal decisions. It's precisely the fact that it was the Mechaber who wrote this, about those who were not following his own decisions, that makes it significant and encyclopaedic.  If it's trimmed down to give it less weight, that can't be lost. -- Zsero (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:    I found the original text in Avkat Rochel, substituted my own translation for the rather florid one that had been given, and cut it down to that which makes the point.  I provided a link to the original text in the footnote, so anyone can check my translation. Are you OK with that? -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Well done, thank you! And an excellent job in tracing it down to Avkat Rochel, which is not commonly learnt! JFW | T@lk 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from R Yosef Caro 

message: What is the Jimmy Wales picture doing in this article's Judaism template? The template (edit, view) appears to be fine and renders okay in other articles (random example). (ARK (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, of course.  -- Zsero (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does a template get vandalised while its source remains untouched? (ARK (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source wasn't untouched — it was vandalised by the user whose contributions are linked above. -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay -- I've just checked the template's edit history and saw that the vandalism had occurred and had been reverted hours before I came across the vandalised box in the Maimonides article yet found the same box, at the same time, to render correctly in other articles relating to Judaism. This probably means that there are multiple instances of any template distributed across Wikipedia's servers, and that some of them may take a while until they reflect the latest edits. Is this a known issue? ARK (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Wales picture? 

message: At several universities including my own there is a program called the "Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship". I did not see this mentioned in the article and was curious to if it should be added? 
for info regarding:
http://www.maimonidesfellowships.com/home.aspx
12.164.197.120 (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's got nothing to do with him, so why would it be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article about him?  If we listed all the things that have been named after him over the past 800 years we'd have a long list. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maimonides Jewish Leaders Fellowship 

message: Fes, in the picture titled "Maimonides house in Fes" the is not consistent with the city name used in the rest of the article. It may be an alternate or archaic spelling.
"The Oath of Maimonides" is mentioned and should be inserted, if short enough, or linked to an article with the text. I found several versions, none I was certain were in the public domain. While not qualified to translate from the original, I note a significant gap in the information.
YD 72.151.125.140 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections / Additions 

message: In the opening paragraph, it says:
With the contemporary Muslim philosopher Averroes, he promoted and developed the philosophical tradition of Aristotle, which gave both men prominent and controversial influence in the West
...that's three men among which the reader must pick two to assign "both" to.  I'm guessing it's Aristotle and Maimonides, but I shouldn't have to guess.--NapoliRoma (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone clarify potentially confusing wording in lede? 

message: I removed :File:Maimonides-2.jpg. The image is unsourced, and we have no evidence it is even supposed to represent Maimonides. The article can by all means include 19th century artist's impressions of the subject, but such image need to be accurately identified, naming their author and date of publication, or else they are simply not encyclopedic. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: portrait

message: User:Tempered recently made extensive edits to the article providing only sporadic sources for the new information. Given the overly flattering tone of the new edits, it would be advisable that sources for new information be sought, lest the information appear as WP:Original.
# What is the source for this claim? "Although he frequently wrote of his longing for solitude in order to come closer to God and to extend his reflections, he gave over almost all his time to caring for others. [...] Even on the Sabbath he would receive members of the community. It is remarkable that despite all this he managed to fit in the composition of massive treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halachah (Rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages. His Rabbinic writings are still fundamental and unparalleled resources for religious Jews today."
#You will need a reliable source to support a claim of this nature: "Maimonides's Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics. It is exceptional for its logical construction, concise and clear expression and extraordinary learning, so that it became a standard against which other later codifications were often measured. It is still closely studied in Rabbinic yeshivot (academies)."
#Here a ref has been provided, but its language still suggests WP:Syn on the editor's part: "But Maimonides was also one of the most influential figures in medieval Jewish philosophy. His brilliant adaptation of Aristotelian thought to Biblical faith deeply impressed later Jewish thinkers, and had an unexpected immediate historical impact. Some more acculturated Jews in the century that followed his death, particularly in Spain, sought to apply Maimonide's Aristotelianism in ways that undercut traditionalist belief and observance, giving rise to a major intellectual controversy in Spanish and southern French Jewish circles. The intensity of debate spurred Catholic Church interventions against "heresy," in Rabbinic studies, and even a general confiscation of Rabbinic texts, and, in reaction, the defeat of the more radical interpretations of Maimonides and at least amongst Ashkenazi Jews, a tendency not so much to repudiate as simply to ignore the specifically philosophical writings and to stress instead the Rabbinic and halachic writings. However, even these writings often included philosophical chapters or discussions in support of halachic observance, and so Maimonidean thought continues to the present day to influence traditionally observant Jews."
A third editor's review would be exceedingly helpful here.—Biosketch (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I noticed this earlier and was also concerned but haven't had the time to respond. Unless we get reliable sources for these in the next few hours, I'm happy to see them deleted. They can always be restored of they can be sourced, but at the moment most looks like original research. It may be possible to attribute some of it to specific reliable sources rather than make general assertions. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the comments are drawn from standard biographies of Maimonides, and as for citations, the additional material provides citations of two substantial overviews of Maimonidean thought of recent date or current authoritative standing, namely, Sirat's A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages, and the relevant chapters in Frank and Leaman, eds., History of Jewish Philosophy.  The citations provide full documentation for all statements made in my edit regarding the acknowledged brilliance of Maimonides' philosophical writings (acknowledged even by his opponents at the time, and by all Jewish thinkers since then up to the present day), and for the specifics given in regard to the Maimunist controversy, refuting the claimed "syn" at Biosketch's item 3, above. E.g., Sirat discusses the acculturation of those in Spain who tried to use The Guide to the Perplexed to justify relaxed Jewish observance, etc.  In any case, my two cited sources are two more than are found in the entire section on his philosophy in the article, which is in fact very weak.  However, I will provide specific references to the queried edits now.  I frankly am amazed at the editorial comments here: they show a strange ignorance or perhaps merely a reluctance to accept what is found in all standard studies of Maimonides.  If the editors were knowledgeable in this subject, and wanted specific citations to reliable sources for it, they should have been easily able to provide them themselves from their own bookshelves instead of throwing around claims of "synthesis" or "original research"!Tempered (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't expect other editors to be experts. That's why the onus is on you to provide sources. Your edits are phrased in such a way that they could be construed as hagiography in the absence of sources. Try to convince your reader (and your fellow editors) please. JFW | T@lk 00:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I have now provided sources for all the passages queried.Tempered (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tempered has successfully made his point and the passages can stand. They are in accord with the standard RS on the matter, and thus are not OR. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tempered, I don't deny my profound ignorance on the topic; indeed, I concede and regret it. Regardless, however, you should cultivate the habit of citing sources for any material you add to Wikipedia, and in especial to articles that aspire to maintain a high standard of scholarship – a distinguished class to which I would like to think this Rambam article belongs.—Biosketch (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:Tempered]] potentially [[WP:Original]] 

message: The section dealing with the legal philosophy regarding charity is confusing to me. What is meant by "eight levels of charity"? Are each of the acts of charity mentioned ethically equivalent or are they ranked somehow? It would be helpful if someone could clarify this. FrancisDane (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an often cited viewpoint, based on Talmud sources. What is meant is priorities in giving, but presumably the higher priority forms of charity are also ethically superior. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charity 

message: Someone has been trying to add material to this article that disparages Maimonides and is sourced to Israel Shahak. Please follow the blue link. Shahak was not an historian. He was not a philosopher. He was not a theologian. He was a chemist. He was not in any academic field remotely related to study of the life or writings of Maimonides. His writings do not constitute a significant, scholarly point of view on Maimonides. Mentioning the gloss put on Maimonides' writings by a professor of chemistry who also had some stature as a human rights activist violates WP:UNDUE. It is neither terribly surprising nor terribly significant that a Medieval philosopher (of any religious affiliation) had Medieval views on race and ethnicity. Furthermore a quick perusal of Wikipedia's bio of Shahak shows that he had an obvious grudge against Israel and against Judaism to the point of having no compunction about fabricating a defamatory story about a Jew refusing aid to a Gentile on the Sabbath. As a result, his writings can be found on the websites of the likes of Radio Islam and David Duke. These writings clearly do not pass muster for inclusion here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Shahak's views on Maimonides are not worthy of inclusion in this article. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It's not just about Shahak's views, but there is also a quote by Maimonides. For reference, this is the edit in question. A GB search brought a number of primary sources where Maimonides wrote something similar and at least one other scholar has commented on it. See . Wiqi(55) 20:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Shahak is not a reliable source on any Jewish topic. As for Hannaford, in the particular citation he does not actually accuse Maimonides of racism. We should be extremely careful about imposing 21st century standards on 13th century thinkers. JFW | T@lk 12:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel Shahak as a source 

message: There is no mention on talk or article of this man's views regarding circumcision. Here appears to relate some of them. Could we incorporate his views based on these historical quotes? Ranze (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision

message: Maimonides was not only Sephardic, term that essentially refers to the descendants of Iberian Jews, but also Spanish Jew. Their cultural-ethnic is twofold, Jewish and Spanish, and it should recognize in article. --LTblb (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wikilinked Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Editor2020 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish jew 

message: He was born in 1138. User Antar is trying by vandalism to keep the wrong date her as well as in the spanish version.
Here the facts
Stroumsa,Maimonides in his world: portrait of a Mediterranean thinker, Princeton University Press, 2009, p.8
Sherwin B. Nuland, Maimonides, Random House LLC, 26 Aug 2008, p38
:Here the page in Nuland
http://books.google.be/books?id=PgK3qF5mXl4C&pg=PA28&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2x6r5PRlqFXilahMfhs5E-Mj0b-Q&w=685
:Here in Stroumsa
http://books.google.be/books?id=DhaunpbZYSYC&pg=PA8&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3Gxk88Rp7yE1CHf79xVhQh-gjwqQ&w=685
94.111.122.47 (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you refers this, but you have to understand that if only put this reference in edit summary i'ts easy that revert your edition. After put the correct references in talk page, discused with others editors to put your edition, but we have had two dates, because a lot of references says that was born 1135. I think that I haven't tried to vandalism your edition, I usually put a lock warning in case of vandalism. Regads :ca:Usuari:Anskar --83.39.108.113 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know it sounds special, but I did a thorough check and analysis and found that since more than 15? years all scientists agree that 1035 is wrong and accept 1038 . On the german version someone gave a very good explanation of it as did Nuland more briefly. In some languages such as French it has been corrected since a long time. Now finally alsoe here. Regards 94.111.112.127 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 

message: Okay, I deleted the mention of him being an "Arab" philosopher. Although many of his works were in Arabic he also wore a turban, I understand this but his works in Arabic were in Judeo-Arabic first off which was written in the Hebrew script not Arabic script, second of all in NONE of those have I ever heard him mention himself as "Arab" or a "Arab Jew" though again, it is understood that there are many Arabs or Jews who call themselves Arab Jew but Maimonides was not one of them.
The only encyclopedia to ever call Maimonides an "Arab". Where is the sources that say he was an Arab? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arab" Philosopher? 

message: First, Maimonides was neither Arab nor Musta'arbi. Second, "He may have been forced to convert to Islam" is not certain and therefore not enough to be considered as a Muslim; Definitely has no place in infobox. Infantom (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said he was Arab? He was ARABIZED, he wrote almost all his works in ARABIC (save for one Hebrew book, Mishneh Torah) and dressed like an Arab and lived his ENTIRE life in the Arab World. Stop trying to hide and negate this fact. Mustaarabi means "like Arabs" akin to the Spanish Mozarab. Nobody is saying he was an Arab or Muslim. 
And speaking of Arabs, an "Arab" is defined by either linguistic, cultural or ethnic means. Since Maimonides spoke and wrote in ARABIC as his native language, not SpANiSh, LADINO or HEBREW and since he followed a culture that was ARAB culture, that should probably tell you something. Not to mention that all of his influences were Arab and Persian polymaths.
PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Given the  Oxford dictionary definition of "Arbaized"- his "Arab character" is debatable and since no reliable source was given to support it either, there's no reason to mention that in the article (his influences by arab and non-arab figures are already mentioned).  Maimonides was Sepheradic and not Musta'arbi, which is merely geographical and linguistic definition for Jews living in the middle east. And you did claim he was "briefly  Muslim". As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant. His work concentrated on Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics, Jewish law, Jewish literature and Jewish theology, that indeed tells me something and that ain't Arab culture. Regards Infantom (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually no, his writings weren't on just Jewish philosophy, he also wrote medical works and they were ALL in ARABIC, not HEBREW or LADINO. Tell me, why is he being called "Spanish" then? I would like you name one book by him written in SPANISH? Oh right sorry, none exist and if they do, it doesn't compare to the amount of Arabic writings he wrote.
"As for Arab definition- Arab language or his dress are completely irrelevant."
By that statement, you have proven yourself to indeed be a biased and ignorant hypocrite, hiding the fact that he obviously lived a life influenced by Arab culture - and you, like many people out there, are trying to hide and negate this. So it actually is relevant, and tell me why his name is mentioned in talks about Arabic-language philosophers? 
And what validity is it calling him "Spanish" if he didn't even write books in Spanish or Ladino?
Now, if this was an article about Solomon ibn Gabirol, who obviously a Hebrew poet, who wrote in Hebrew, then start talking. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

text: PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

text: look at the entire section above this one that I started, clearly proves that I wasn't trying to call Maimonidess an Arab, even clearly I do believe that he qualifies as an Arab Jew but I won't do that  PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I could easily discuss and debunk your statements that have already became irrelevant for the article, but given your obnoxious attitude that violated several rules here (WP:NPA, WP:CIV) you are not worth it. But i'll comment on the minor part in your repulsive text that is related to the article, "Spanish" is mentioned for the geographic region he was born and raised in, and there's a wikilink to the Spanish and Portuguese Jews article indicates the Jewish community he was part of, not the "usage of Spanish language". You couldn't use "Arab Jew" either, as it is highly controversial and criticized term. Infantom (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab or Muslim 

message: This
 Location of his death is possibly Tiberias, where his son and his tomb are set
is a bit confusing. Maimonides' tomb is set in Tiberias, but I don't think his son can be said to be "set" anywhere. Is this a reference to his son's tomb, perchance? I'm just not clear what's being said here.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede Phrasing