Talk:Kavod HaBriyot

message: Repeating comment on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism#Kavod HaBriyot article:
:Hello, IZAK and I are having one of our occassional disagreements where outside comment might be helpful, this time about the Kavod HaBriyot article. I recently started the article because the concept has gotten increased notability as a result of its use in a Conservative opinion on homosexuality. It was previously used by Daniel Sperber as a basis for an opinion on women's aliyot. Before then Orthodox rabbis used it for much more mundane topics like whether a deaf person can use a hearing aid on Shabbat. These rulings are based on a particular Bareitah and related discussion in Berachot 19b beginning with "Great is kevod habriyot, which can override a negative prohibition of the Torah." IZAK has rewritten the article (a) to claim that the concept as we know it today is really based on statements in Pirkei Avot and elsewhere, and (b) to present as fact his view that the Rabbis of the Gemorrah eventually rejected the Baraitah in toto, so that it has no legitimate application in Halachah, period. Whatever one makes of this, I presented sources that contemporary rabbis (on the mundane as well as the controversial topics) looked to Berachot 19b as their source, saw it as still having some life (although addressing at most Rabbinic rather than Torah prohibitions), and used it in contemporary opinions. Although I respect both his passionate attachment and his scholarship, IZAK's essay seems to me to be essentially Original research. What do others make of this? IZAK has put a lot of work into this, and I'd appreciate other's opinions before any more attempts to revert each other are made.  Obviously this is a controversial topic with multiple views, and I myself find some interpretations more dubious than others. Please comment on Talk:Kavod HaBriyot#Requesting Comments. Thanks. Hope you had a tzom kal and have a Happy New Year, --Shirahadasha 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were "obviously true" then many facts cited in our article on the Shulkhan Arukh would be non-existent. Why would the huge responsa literature exist after the Mishneh Torah, and especially after the Shulkhan Arukh, if Izak is totally correct?  Take care to distinguish Orthodox Judaism and classical Judaism, from "Shulkhan Arukh" Judaism.  Otherwise you will end up like the small Yemenite sects which ended Judaism after the Mishneh Torah. In their zeal to maintain halakhah, they may have freeze-dried it. Mark3 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Comments 

message: Putting this here (pending look at blog WP:RS policy. It's a Nishmat Yoatzot Q&A follow-up to a query (the original query is here) about whether the requirement that husbands and wives not pour wine for each other during Niddah applies to a Seder when others would readily find out about ones status. Nishmat answers by saying that the concept of Kavod HaBriyot might possibly apply. It says that this concept means that rabbinic prohibitions can sometimes be overridden in order to "avoid public embarassment." But it reasons that because the fact that married couples observe Niddah is common knowledge, there's nothing embarassing about it, so there is no need for Kavod HaBriyot to apply. This approach would seem to suggest the interesting idea that Kavod HaBriyot applies less today than it used to, on grounds that we moderns are a lot less embarassed by bodily functions than our ancestors were, so there's less need to do things to avoid it. A very interesting and different take on the whole subject. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection the material seems to meet WP:RS, Nishmat is a reliable source, and it answers the questions and peer-reviews/quality-controls the answers. I'll add it in over the weekend. --Shirahadasha 19:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Nishmat would be a reliable source on this topic, and that this would be an interesting topic to add here.  (I am not sure, however, that it means Kavod HaBriyot applies less today than it used.  Rather, it means that it depends on the context.) Mark3 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nishmat column 

message: I've removed several unsourced sections that have been tagged as original research since January 2007. I've also rewritten the section on Conservative Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced sections 

message: It's kvod ha-briyot (or k'vod- or kevod-) כְּבוֹד הַבְּריּוֹת (not kavod ha-briyot).  Remember kvodo male olam כְּבודו מלא עולם‏!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.215.227 (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "A shva will be transliterated as e if both of the following conditions apply:
    * It is a shva na at the beginning of a word
    * It is actually pronounced in Hebrew"
The phrase כבוד הבריות is pronounced without an [e] sound after the [k] in Israeli Hebrew and in traditional Ashkenazic pronunciation of Hebrew.  But in theory, according to some grammarians, it should be pronounced.  The Naming Conventions page's condition "actually pronounced" seems clearly not to refer to theoretical points.  Therefore the article should be Kvod HaBriyot.
24.186.215.227 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: But we have several sources where religious scholars who know both Hebrew and English very well have recently written articles in English that include a transliteration of the phrase. And they don't spell it "kvod" or "k'vod". Examples (all on the list of references) include Modern Orthodox rabbis Daniel Sperber and Aryeh Frimer, and Conservative rabbis Elliot Dorff and Joel Roth. We have to base things on what the reliable sources say. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sperber and Frimer both use "kevod", so I wouldn't object to changing the spelling to "kevod". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Any Hebrew dictionary, such as Even Shoshan or Alcalay, will tell you that the Construct State (smikhut) form of כָּבוֹד is כְּבוֹד with a shva.  Kvod, k'vod, and kevod are all correct in they correspond to the Hebrew כְּבוֹד (and kvod is closest to how it's pronounced in Hebrew, both Israeli and Ashkenazic).  The choice between kvod, k'vod, and kevod is a matter of Wikipedia policy.  Only kavod is wrong (in a construct phrase [smikhut] like k'vod habriyot, k'vod hamet, k'vod hatsibur, k'vod harav, k'vod hanasi, etc.).  A lot of rabbis don't pay much attention to transliteration/ romanization, having never learned any consistent system, and they spell Hebrew words in English any-old-way, just to get the idea across.24.186.215.227 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kavod HaBriyot. 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/20120205030318/http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=17372&intcategoryid=4 to http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=17372&intcategoryid=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified