Talk:Elisha ben Abuyah

message: User:HKT added the following June 8, 2005: "However, the Jewish Encyclopedia's claim fails to account for the activity of sages who would regularly travel between Palestine and Babylonia to collect and transmit scholarly teachings. Furthermore, it should be noted that most scholars date the concept of Metatron to no later than the third century BCE." 
As written, this is perilously close to original research. (It may well be entirely correct: my issue is about lack of citation in commenting on a well-cited claim.)  "…most scholars…"? If this is the case it should be easy enough to cite at least one. Similarly, is there any citation for these "…sages who would regularly travel…"? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
(1.) James Charlesworth (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research) and H. Odeberg date some portions of Enoch 3 to no later than the first and second century CE). These portions discuss Metatron. (Thanks for pointing this out; I had written the wrong century and I mistakenly wrote BCE!) Perhaps the "most scholars" phrase should be changed, but I haven't noticed significant dispute with the above findings. (2.) As far as travelling sages, the Talmud is rife with examples of such sages at various points in history. Examples include: R. Dimi, R. Avin, Ulla, and Rabbi Natan. Would you like me to provide specific citations? HKT 19:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: The attempt to attach this to the article is WP:OR since there is absolutely no link between the source for the story and the school--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarificationLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of the (Greek) Epicurean school 

message: "for example, Rabban Gamaliel with Sadducees; Eruvin 77b"
I can't find either Rabban Gamaliel nor any Sadducee in Eruvin 77b.
--84.114.151.85 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation not correct 

message: I see this phrase is taken from the source that is given, but neither the source nor the Wikipedia article for Akiva seem to elucidate or support what this means. Rabbi Akiva was definitely unlike a Spanish Inquisitor, so it is a very odd, head-scratching quotation. Can anything be done to clarify the meaning? 68.225.113.135 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not. That sentence was written more than 100 years ago by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, who was describing the way Peretz Smolenskin and Isaac Hirsch Weiss portrayed Elisha. (The sentence is about the multiple, and sometimes contradictory, pictures we have of Elisha.) Any effort to clarify what Ginzberg meant would probably be considered original research. You might want to search the article for references to Akiva to get a better understanding of Elisha's relationship with him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification: "a victim of the inquisitor Akiva" 

message: The following is copied from User talk:Ar2332:
I don't think you understand the problem. The article quotes from the English-language Jewish Encyclopedia. There is no reason on earth to change it, unless you found that it was misquoted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) is one source, but Sefaria's translation (published elsewhere as Steinsaltz/Koren) is another source. I don't either one has a presumption of being more accurate than the other (and many other translations exist which translate similar to Sefaria not JE, lending credence to Sefaria's translation). And a glance at the original Hebrew, or even a comparison of the JE translation to the Sefaria translation, makes clear that JE is not a translation but a paraphrase. I'm sure JE had its reasons to paraphrase (for example, to save paper), but I don't see how they apply in the context of Wikipedia. If you prefer JE's phrase "destroyed the plants" to "chopped down the saplings", I can accept that. But the ellipses are necessary for it to be an accurate translation. Ar2332 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm specifically referring to the paragraph in the section titled "The Four Who Entered The Paredes" that starts with "Ginzberg comments that". Beginning in the second sentence of that paragraph, where it says the Jerusalem Talmud "makes no mention", every word from "makes no mention" through the end of the paragraph is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia article about Elisha. There is no reason why you should change it, even if you think Ginsberg was wrong or that his translation stinks. We don't change quotations of other people's words. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation dispute  

message: The sentence beginning "Also, one of the reasons given for Elisha's apostasy is characteristic of a Sadducee perspective..." implies that he already was a Sadducee, not that he became one.  Shouldn't that be in a separate section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhandyandy (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elisha a Sadducee