Talk:39 Melakhot

message: I think we should start making pages for each melacha.  How should we name them? I think start each one as "melacha:" - melacha:cooking for example.  i know that disamb call for "cooking (melacha)" or the like, but it is not really about cooking - it's about shabbos.  what do you think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) .
::Since we agreed to "keep and expand," we should added the info to this article - maybe make a subsection for each melacha. Let's discuss. Reuvenk 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that makes sense.  If any malacha gets large, them we can discuss moving to its own article Jon513 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to list each Melacha

message: First, see this rv.
I believe that it should say Torah, because the Rabbis of the Talmud use the verses Torah to extrapolate the laws - the Rabbis did not choose what the laws should be. For that matter, maybe I should add something regarding the Mishkan being the source of the 39 AV Melachot. I would edit this now, but it's getting close to shabbat, so I'll edit later. -Reuvenk 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be up to a Jewish person to decide whether "Torah" or "Talmud" is better -- so go for it, after Shabbat.  But after that, I'm inclined to merge with the Shabbat article as suggested above. --David.alex.lamb 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced that Torah should be there (I talked it over with a few friends). I'm going to give others a chance to give their $.02, but then I'm changing it. Also, see the comment above ("Keep and expand") as to why we're not merging (at least not yet). Reuvenk 03:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll add a section about how we get to 39 (e.g. the 39 mentions of the word melacha) and also other reasons. Also, we should discuss the relationship to the mishkan. Reuvenk 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torah or Talmud 

message: Is it kindling or is it transferring? Reuvenk 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very common error among Ashkenazim who do not vocalize the letter ayin: מבעיר = kindling, מעביר = transferring. --Keeves 12:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the above, I am now changing the translation of this category from "transferring" back to "kindling". Note that the change to "transferring" was made by Reuvenk on 19 Feb. ... Actually, given that "kindling" is the common translation of "madlik", I'd like to use something else for "mav'ir". Both kindling and igniting suggest that only the inital flame is included, so I'm going to use "Making something burn", which sounds most literal to me. "Mav'ir" = "Making bo'er"; the problem is that something is burning, not that a fire is being made. --Keeves 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melacha #37: מבעיר 

message: The section listing the 39 melachot begins with the following sentance: "The 39 activities are based on the Mishna Shabbat 7:2." OK, so I agree with that. So, why does the list here begin with plowing/choresh, if the mishna lists zoreh first. I know the Gemara says that thats only the case in Israel, and I know the Rambam lists the melachot in the order that its currently in. But if we're goint to say its based on mishna shabbat 7:2, then it should be zoreh, choresh etc (and not choresh, zoreh, etc.) I'm going to make the change, add a discussion on this in the artcile itself, and if we later want to move them back, then ok. Lets Discuss. -Reuvenk[T][C] 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Planting and Plowing 

message: It currently uses just the words "See also." Also, if we subst the infoboxes, then we could add additional sources, as needed. -Reuvenk[T][C] 13:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as the form of the infobox is not finalized (see: Template talk:Infobox Halacha) it would not be apropiate to use subset.  As far as using a lot of infobox halacha template I think we should hold off for the moment, as I don't think it would look good to have most of the page boxes Jon513 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. -Reuvenk[T][C] 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we be using [[Template:Infobox Halacha]] 

message: Why follow the order in the Mishna, and not the order of the Rambam and (all? most?) later sources.  It is an article on Melachot, and as such should be present logically.  The Mishna does not seek to present a logic order, but to present an order from which other stuff can be derived. Jon513 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  order 

message: There pictures that are curently posted should be removed and shown should be pictures of Jews doing these things, and then punished becasue it was done on the sabath day. this will make the article much more clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.14.251 (talk • contribs).
:I am not sure if you are joking; it is hard to tell on the internet.  If you think that the article would be improved by different pictures, please take them yourself read the image policy and upload them.  If you need any help you can ask here, or ask me personally on my talk page.  Jon513 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Jon, he's joking! lol -- Y not? 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not joking -- nobody reading this article needs a picture of plowing or sewing or a stapler. If these pictures had a Jewish cultural context, they would be useful, but what's here just looks like desperation-for-pictures. DavidOaks (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Does wikipedia really need to put pictures of staplers and spinning wheels in here, as if we "ignorant" readers don't know what those words mean?  It clearly reminds me of elementary school.  Just imagine if every word in wikipedia had a photo beside it.Ykral (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos look silly

message: Is there a rationale section somewhere that describes why this is still done? I mean, what happens if you, as an otherwise observant Jew, just refuse to acquiesce to these rules? Lexlex (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale

message: I've added concise definitions based on the brilliant sources given, the Babylonian & Jerusalem Talmud and the works of Rabbi Dovid Ribiat published by Feldheim. 
I've tried to make them as exacting and short as possible thereby aiding the reader in the explanation of the concept presented. These have been researched for years and put in a teaching plan I authored on the subject and am now making public via this page. Any comments please discuss with me on my Talk page or here. Well done to all for making this such a good start page for this huge topic.
I concur with Jon513 about the need to expand this section as they are very in-depth and what is there at present is just the most basic outline that will not deeply inform the reader of the scope of each law. Black Stripe (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Definitions

message: And hopefully someone can come up with a more... serious example of demolition than that bowling levity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.131.128 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowling 

message: I come to this topic in relative ignorance, but then that is what an encyclopeda is for - learning.  The article indicates there are 39 prohibited activities, but when you scroll down the table of contents, there are 40 subtopics listed.  Someone with more knowledge then me on the topic (who really would not be hard to find!) should have a look as fromt he get go, there appears to be a conflict.  As an aside, I came to find this article as the Big Brother 12 reality show which is about to begin (begins airing on Thursday July 8th), has a player, Andrew, who is an observant Jew and will be observing the Shabatt.  The various Jewish articles may see some heavy visitation as Andrew's activities will be a topic of a lot of discussion on the show, in media about the show, and here on WP as it relates to Big Brother.  Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Says there are 39 activities, but 40 are listed 

message: Salting isn't counted as a seperate listing in most systems and is included in "curing" with which it shares the same definition according to the Talmud. As such Salting/Curing is the same exact practice. Remember, all these are only definitions for wide ranging laws that are designed to remind one of G-d's rest from creative activity and are to be followed to fulfill the mitzvah of keeping the Sabbath, the cornerstone of Jewish religious observance. The definitions presented in this article are only 'headings' for in-depth topics and without study of the relevant laws it would be very difficult to properly keep the Sabbath according to Halacha/Jewish Law. However, keeping the definition clearely in mind will for sure aid one in the application of it's principles. Black Stripe (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 39 not 40

message: A couple people think there's too much and long of philosophical debate in the article for a biographical incident relating to using telephones to call for help for Gentiles on the Sabbath. (Or treating them medically in general.) Since this article already touches on this in controversy, perhaps adding more of the philosophical debate features from that article to here would be appropriate. (Then we could link to it from the biography.) Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Israel_Shahak#Alleged_telephone_incident]] debate

message: In the section about:  Transferring between domains there is a contradiction. First it says: "carrying an article four amos (about 1.7 m) may be forbidden in a public or semi-public domain...",  then three paragraphs later, it says: "Carrying within a domain type is perfectly permitted. It's the transference between domain types that is considered a creative activity for the purposes of Sabbath observance." which is untrue - Carrying 4 amos within a public domain is also forbidden.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.205.129 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   Transferring between domains 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119072338/http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq to http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq
*Added  tag to http://www.rjca.org/Articles/melachot.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the section 'definition' it is said that filtering water or deboning fish would fall under the category of 'winnowing'.
However, further down under the detailed definitions of the categories, filtering water and deboning fish are listed as examples of 'sorting' rather than 'winnowing'.
Is this something that should be corrected, or is it that these activities could be considered under either category (and are prohibited in either case)?
Thank you.
108.171.128.180 (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed? 

message: I propose merging Shabbos goy into this article. The article by itself fails WP:N. This is not an official concept in Judaism, rather just a term for something some Jewish people do on Shabbat. The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly. One is from dailyhalacha.com, and another from chabad.com. I believe both articles would be much improved by the merger. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Requested additional input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, multiple people in that discussion discussed merging. This is simply the natural follow up discussion. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is still well referenced, not sure where you get only two references from, notable and not needed to be merged. My oppose still stands. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly." And I still stand by that statement. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep repeating that but it's simply not true, as a simple read of the article indicates. More importantly, the "Further reading" section contains other, excellent scholarly sources which can (and should) be used to expand the article. And finally, insisting that "the part that defines the concept" is the only "actual article" is an artificial and unreasonable restriction. The article is about a social role, and everything that goes with that; it is not about a dictionary definition. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was true when I wrote that statement, however the article has since been cleaned up, primarily by you and I thank you for that. Next, just because something is noted in the further reading section doesn't make it a reference unless that particular work is cited somewhere as a reference. I'm sure the concept has been written about, I just don't think that warrants Wikipedia writing about it. And lastly, by using the phrase "the part that defines the concept" I trimmed exactly one sentence off the end, and it's a fairly unencyclopedic one at that. I'm sure many people have helped their Jewish neighbors. Doesn't mean that they need to be listed here. Should we also maintain an article titled "Helping the elderly cross the street" with a list of all the famous people that have done that? --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that I got information for the article from the Encyclopedia Judaica? Clearly it's a notable topic. If you can't see the difference between Shabbos Goy and "Helping the elderly cross the street" that is on you, not on the encyclopedia. Shabbos goy is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia. I am really not sure why you it seems like you have some sort of vendetta here. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger discussion

message: :::Note: Requested additional input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, multiple people in that discussion discussed merging. This is simply the natural follow up discussion. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is still well referenced, not sure where you get only two references from, notable and not needed to be merged. My oppose still stands. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly." And I still stand by that statement. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep repeating that but it's simply not true, as a simple read of the article indicates. More importantly, the "Further reading" section contains other, excellent scholarly sources which can (and should) be used to expand the article. And finally, insisting that "the part that defines the concept" is the only "actual article" is an artificial and unreasonable restriction. The article is about a social role, and everything that goes with that; it is not about a dictionary definition. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was true when I wrote that statement, however the article has since been cleaned up, primarily by you and I thank you for that. Next, just because something is noted in the further reading section doesn't make it a reference unless that particular work is cited somewhere as a reference. I'm sure the concept has been written about, I just don't think that warrants Wikipedia writing about it. And lastly, by using the phrase "the part that defines the concept" I trimmed exactly one sentence off the end, and it's a fairly unencyclopedic one at that. I'm sure many people have helped their Jewish neighbors. Doesn't mean that they need to be listed here. Should we also maintain an article titled "Helping the elderly cross the street" with a list of all the famous people that have done that? --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that I got information for the article from the Encyclopedia Judaica? Clearly it's a notable topic. If you can't see the difference between Shabbos Goy and "Helping the elderly cross the street" that is on you, not on the encyclopedia. Shabbos goy is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia. I am really not sure why you it seems like you have some sort of vendetta here. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The content of this article seems to be almost exclusively about the 39 melachot. The Rabbinically prohibited activities of Shabbat are covered in a separate article. Therefore, I think "Activities prohibited on Shabbat" is an inappropriate name. I suggest moving the article to either "Melacha" or "Melacha on Shabbat". Thoughts? Ar2332 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested move request. (non-admin closure)  Colonestarrice (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 39 Melachot →  – In Hebrew, "Melakha" is singular and "Melachot" is plural - per WP:PLURAL the singular is generally preferred, although this might fall under the "groups of specific things" clause to use a plural.  Regardless, the numeral usage seems incorrect, though I can't find the exact rule it is violating.  There is no common term or exact translation in English other than the transliteration so I don't see a WP:USEENGLISH alternative to propose. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 November 2021 

message: I just noticed that the page was moved from 39 Melachot to Melakha. I think this should be reversed, for the following reasons:
* Per WP:PLURAL, the 39 melakhot are indeed a group or class of specific things.
* "Melakha" alone is misleading as it can imply that there is only one form of melakha, when in fact rabbinic sources are clear that there are 39 forms which are treated separately (e.g. receive separate punishments).
* The parallel Wikipedia articles in Hebrew, Yiddish, and most other languages are of the form "39 Melakhot".
* It is perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia page to begin with a number.
* After the previous move, the article now begins with the line "The Melakha (Hebrew: ל״ט אבות מלאכה, lamed tet avot melakhah, "39 forms of work") are thirty-nine categories of activity" which is incoherent and incorrect. I would suggest that editors not perform wholesale changes like replacing the title and part of the header if they do not understand the topic they are writing about. Ar2332 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting move back

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. On WP:PLURAL grounds. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Melakha →  – Seconded. What the heck is this move? The resulting sentence makes no sense whatsoever. This is a mistake. While we could say "Melakha is prohibited work on the Sabbath, of which there are 39 types (39 Melakhot)" and be grammatically correct, the previous name was better. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Extraordinary Writ Yes! Thank you, I hadn't noticed. It should be spelled "Melakhot" according to WP:HE. I'll add an efn with variant spellings. This is a convention to distinguish ח and כ, which are pronounced identically by almost all modern speakers. In this case there is no word מלחות/מלאחות to confuse it with but the correct spelling still helps readers reverse-engineer the original word. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 May 2022