Talk:Ritual washing in Judaism

message: Should tevilah (immersion) of new vessels for eating be included here? --jnothman 13:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I'm not sure. :-) Jayjg (talk) 17:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tevilah

message: *JFW: The article deals with more than "washing of hands" if you will care to read it. "Ablution" is fine for those who speak and understand good English. If you like though, and you really want to create a fairly LENGTHY new article devoted to a special section of it, then I think that Ritual washing of hands in Judaism would be perfectly fine instead of the Hebrew name you suggest in this case for the subject of Netilat Yadayim; you could then also create a "REDIRECT" from Netilat Yadayim to "Ritual washing of hands in Judaism" to cover all bases.  IZAK 07:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: *I have two questions:
1- Do Jews have to do Mikvah after a sexual intercourse or secretion of semen?
2- Do Jews have to wash their behinds with water after defication?
If the answer is yes to any of the questions please mention it in the article.
Thank you very much.
1- no except nocturnal emissions and this is not widely practiced
2- no
*This is not in the scope of the article.  Please see Mikveh.
Note on question -- some Hassidic groups, including Chabad-Lubavitch, practice immersion in a mikvah every day. This essentially covers the base of immersion following intercourse/seminal emissions without having to address such a delicate topic directly. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikveh question

message: I don't object strongly to a merger. It seems to me that there could legitimately be an article on the cup separately from the article on washing with it, just as the article on Mikvah is separate from how to use it. I do believe, however, that material on how to wash shouldn't be scattered between the two articles, and if it should be concentrated in one article it should go in this article. I suggest a similar approach to the relationship between this article and mikvah, letting the mikvah article focus on what a mikvah is and what makes it kosher, and refer to this article for material on when and how to do tevilah. --Shirahadasha 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are seperate things that should not be mixed. There is handwashing and the mikvah (and the 9 Kav for someone who has had an emission). I say de-merge. JFW | T@lk 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with [[Negelvasser]] 

message: The re-write contains a substantial amount of useful contenr, but it erased content on the practice within Judaism -- the article's subject -- and substituted material from sources that are not necesssarily reliable sources on Judaism. I'll need to clean this up to re-add the halakha on ritual washing and to clarify which views stated represent beliefs of various denominations of Judaism, and which represent commentary about or criticism of Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. This is an article about "ritual washing" (in itself a somewhat misleading term, but I can't think of a better one at the moment) in Judaism, not about Christian interpretation of biblical texts related to ritual washing. (Having recently seen some Christian textbooks about Judaism, it's pretty clear to me that Christian interpretation of Jewish practices that persist to this day are often at odds with contemporary Jewish practice.) Important details are omitted, some fairly speculative facts are included, and the article is misleading to anyone who wants to learn about washing as a ritual act within Judaism. I'm not sure a bias is intended, though. --Leifern 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree as well. I added back some material about actual modern practice, but it's clear the article was written with little knowledge of actual ritual washing. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed tag 

message: This article is unnecessarily confusing i propose splitting this article into its components 
Mikva & hand washing 
or perhaps 
splitting it 3 ways with a article on 
* ritual washing
* joining washing in mikva to basic mikva page
* Hand Washing
Waky02 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about someone taking all the christian interpretations of why nobody needs to wash their hands out of the article and splitting the article into three sections: introduction, why washing is important, netilat yadayim and mikvah?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.76.96 (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting up this article 

message: I have been watching developments at surrounding that particular passage in Ritual washing in Judaism for a long time now. I have one question and one suggestion. Lice are indeed mentioned there, if memory serves me, but that is far from the general statement that the same would be true if one were to touch any tamei animal, like insects, or cats and dogs. Do you have some clearer source for that? In addition, I'd suggest to replace "tamei (ritually impure) objects" by "certain objects", because the word tamei is usually used in connection with animals, meaning those species that are not allowed for consumption. Of course it is true that any object, e.g. shoes, that conveys tumah is also tamei, but not in the same sense. To avoid confusion, I'd remove the word tamei from this sentence at all. Alternatively, one could say "objects that convey tumah". Debresser (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did so. And  added the word "ritually unclean" to "animals and insects", because I doubt the same would be true for clean animals. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing hands after touching tamei objects 

message: My focus in editing is grammar, punctuation, formatting, etc., and I am in no way a subject matter expert on this topic. However, I have noticed alternative terms being used throughout this article for "mikveh", such as mikva and mikweh. I wanted to confirm that these alternative forms are merely different spellings rather than having different meanings altogether before I go ahead and standardize on "mikveh". Transitive Sam (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They all mean the same, indeed. The "official" spelling here on Wikipedia is "mikveh". The "a" is often used instead of the "e", but that is a mistake. This mistake has become widely used, and even native speakers of the language might make this mistake. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of Terminology 

message: Recent edits completely removed the Zav from this article. I agree that the paragraph which was previously called "Zav/Zavah" didn't mention the Zav at all, but there is such a thing as a Zav, which is related to the Zavah, and it would be correct to mention it somehow. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Zav is mentioned in section 1 #Hebrew Bible. Perhaps the section on Zavah should be moved there as well. -- -- -- 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zav