Talk:Talmud/Archive 6

message: There has been quite a bit of activity recently (December 7) on these pages.  Large portions of the article were changed quite radically without any discussion.  And, worse, most of the recent edits have exhibited innapropriate style for an encyclopedia article and are not written according to wikipedia conventions (like NPOV for example.)  It helps to discuss things before making such extensive changes. Obviously, there will be some reverts, corrections and edits now in response.Guedalia D'Montenegro 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: I think that this section, as it is currently written (and recently restored) is not usefull.  Specifically, the Talmud was and is so central to Judaism that nearly all of Jewish history can be described by refering to how Jews reacted to the Talmud.  I propose to remove this entire section. Remember that this is an article about the Talmud and not Reform, Conservative or Orthodox Judaism.  It is very difficult to talk about the Role of Talmud in Judaism without going through most of Jewish History, Geonim vs. Karaites, Sabbateans, Frankists and Hassidism, A wide spectrum of Orthodox views, Reform, still transforming Conservative views, etc.  I think that the Role of the Talmud in Judaism could be reduced to a few sentances about its affect on the Halakha.  But we must remember that this is an encyclopedic entry on the Talmud and not Halakha, or the History of Jewish movements.  I'll wait for more comments before further altering this section.Guedalia D'Montenegro 12:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Shirahadasha.  If Guedalia D'Montenegro feels the article to be too short, then the correct response is to research and add detail, not to delete.  --Eliyahu S Talk 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of the Talmud in Judaism 

message: You may find some details here 
:This page is for discussing improving the article, not a forum for you to discuss Jewish Christian relations. Jon513 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism is included as an aspect of improving an article. If that link above is correct, a whole lot of work remains to be done regarding criticism of the Talmud. However, since the 1200's, because of Christian outrage, a great deal of the comments in the Talmud dealing with Christianity or Jesus, have been removed. Jtpaladin 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the article Yeshu deals with this topic exclusively, please direct your comments there.   Jon513 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE TALMUD & JESUS CHRIST 

message: Ar2yeh User:62.0.106.7, aknowledging theat your recent edits are sincere and well-intentioned, I reverted them because they represent a particular point of view, and Wikipedia's Neutral point of View policy prohibits asserting disputed claims as fact using a narrator style such as you did in (for example) this paragraph:
:When Moses, the first Jewish Rabbi, recieved the Torah at Sinai, he was given the written Torah (Torah Bechtav), and the Oral Torah (Torah Baalpeh). The written Torah was not intended to be self-sufficient to explain either the mysteries of the universe nor the instructions for Jewish life alone; it's companion guide, the oral Torah, expounded on the written stories and explained Jewish law within a social foundation. The teachings of the oral Torah were then passed down from rabbi to student from generation to generation. 
This is of course a core tenet of Orthodox Judaism and can be found in any Orthodox commentary on the subject, but it must be presented and attributed as such, just as academic/critical views must be presented and attributed as the views of the respective academic historical scholars. I certainly agree that traditional Judaism's own views of its own core sacred texts' religious origin and meaning should be presented, and prominently. It may well be appropriate to begin with giving different views of the origin explicitly rather than the present somewhat vague and noncommital introduction, but perhaps this should be discussed among the editors. Best. --Shirahadasha 14:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I see the edit involved was by User:62.0.106.7, not you. --Shirahadasha 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the Talmud section 

message: Re-reading the above opinions I think we have some meta-issues to be dealt with. The main issue causing the above debate is 'what do we mean by the historical- critical method.  Mentsch beleives (if I understand him) that such the historical-critical method is related to the issue of the origins of the oral law.   And further, that such methods are by definition not in keeping with Orthodox dogma.  
I would argue that so called modern methods of talmud study are not neccesarily related to dogmatic issues.  I feel that this section should describe the methods of talmud study which were pioneered in the nineteenth century.  Specifically, the increased use of history and historical context, modern linguistic analysis, textual and literary criticism and other methods which were developed and applied to talmud in the nineteenth century.  This was a significant development of nineteenth century Judaism.  Yes, the methods were controversial - and had dogmatic issues associated with their use.  But does the use of these methods automatically reflect on the dogma of their practicioners?  Can we not say that many scholars used these methods, albeit to varying degrees and for varying purposes, and some declined to use them at all.  For example, Reformers such as Geiger used these methods to bolster his position for change in practice.  Frankels studies seem to indicate his view in the human origin of the Oral law. And those like Chajes - were aimed at furthering the traditionalist cause, and finallly - some rejected the use of these methods as being, or leading to, heresy.  I think this is said as much in the article as currently written. Am I wrong?  Please comment. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to principles

message: I think the anti-gentile quotations of the Talmud should be added to this page, or to another page and maybe deconstructed, explained or at least given some context to. Some people look at this page after seeing media or hearing stories that the Talmud is an evil, racist work-- and those people should get the other side of the story. --Pewpewlazers 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talmud#Charges of racism and Talmud#Refutation of anti-Semitic allegations concerning the Talmud. Jon513 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Every few weeks someone comes along and makes this charge. The term "racism" is of late 19th century coinage and cannot be applied retroactively. Look at any work of literature well into the 20th century and so-called "racist" stereotypes and language abound. Why should we be singling out the Talmud, other than to imply that Judaism is "inherently" racist (which is another charge easily refuted)? JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-gentile quotations 

message: Because material is copyrighted and it's incomplete. Oh yeah, and the site is run by a nutbar.—Wasabe3543
:This is well known to be a crypto-antisemitic site aiming to show that the Talmud is somehow anti-something. It is all the product of a hopeless fallacy, and unfortunately a continuation of the governmental decrees that saw the Talmud burnt in the 13th century. JFW | T@lk 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed come-and-hear.com 

message: For only two citations. Wiki-newbie 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide the relevant quotes here? Perhaps something could be done. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: a while back i added this segment to the Neturei Karta article but it was not well recieved and was eventually deleted by a couple editors. i'd appreciate some opinions on this text:
;Interpertations on Talmud Opposing NK
The Tracte of Ketubot ("Marriege Contracts") is part of Nashim, the third order of the Mishnah containing the laws related to women and family life. 	 
 		 
Other interpretations of the page (i.e., Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot Pg. 111a), include both that the people may come back to the land but the items of the Holy Temple must remain in Babylonia until a message from God is given (Jeremia 27, 21-22) and also a belief that this debate (Ketubot 110b-111a) applied only to the Babylonian Exile, lifted later [539BC] by Koresh (Cyrus the Great), ruler of the Persian empire who captured the area, and not to all exiles in general. 	 
Another aspect of this short debate [originating from a question about the type of currency to be used in the case of seperation in a country different than the one where the marriege took place] would be that Rabbi Yehuda, was arguing with other Rabbis about them stating that Israel is more sacred than any other place, a statement first made in Pg. 110b. This short debate quickly turns to the topic of the sanctity of burial in Israel. Rabbi Yehuda repeats his views including the case of post mortem, and he's rebuttaled by Rabbi Aba Salla Rabba who gives Jacob (also known as Israel) as an opposing example to illustrate that Rabbi Yehuda is wrong.
-- thanks for your thoughts. Jaakobou 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the rabbinic source of this interpretation? Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Try Talk:Neturei Karta is this bothers you. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no need for rabbinic source on the text if you can read it... i'll try the talk page. Jaakobou 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpertations on Talmud Opposing NK

message: I may just be being thick but the sentence under the "Talmud Bavli" section- "Through natural increase, migration and trade population had increased." seems awful clumsy. I would re-write but I'm not entirely clear on what is being said. Maybe..."Through natural growth, migration and trade population had increased? Maybe another editor that has worked on this article can fix.Cireshoe 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clumsy Sentence?

message: People are trying to include this article into :Category:Aramaic texts. I don't think this is appropriate. "Talmud" is inclusive of the Mishnah and the Gemara, as well as some Mesechtot Ketanot which are Beraithic. Most of the Mishnah and the MKs are in rabbinic Hebrew, as are all the Beraithic sources debated in the Gemara. The Talmud is therefore not exclusively in Aramaic and should not be labeled as such. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the category is for someone who want to look at various Aramaic text and understand the history and development of the language.  I do no see why a book has to be exclusively Aramaic to bee in the category.  Perhaps adding a note to :Category:Aramaic texts to say that books that contain major part in Aramaic are included would be best.  The Book of Daniel contains much lower percentage of Aramaic than the Talmud, but is also one of the earliest sources for Aramaic writing.  Not including it would be counterproductive.  Jon513 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Gemara is mostly in Aramaic, but to extend that to the Talmud as a whole is simply erroneous. JFW | T@lk 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with JFW. --Redaktor 07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Talmudim are significant for the study of the Aramaic language.  As such, they are important Aramaic texts.  Linking this article to the category Aramaic Texts appears to be appropriate.  In any event, this discussion should be moved to the talk pages of :Category:Aramaic texts in order to flesh out what the purpose and scope of the "Aramaic Texts" cateogry is - or should be.Guedalia D'Montenegro 14:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understanding that the purpose of categories is to help users navigate articles, I suspect a person who wanted to look up notable classical Aramaic texts would be interested in the Talmud even though the Mishna is in Hebrew and the Gemara has a substantial amount of Hebrew. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that JFW has a good point that the Gemara is and aramaic text, and the Talmud contains a aramaic text (ie the gemara).  Therefore it makes sense that only gemara is in the category.  Just like only Daniel is, but not the whole bible. Jon513 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramaic texts

message: The link to manuscripts of Talmud eventually leads to a page which is Hebrew only.  The Bavarian State Library manuscript is here
http://mdz1.bib-bvb.de/~talmud/
I just used it relative to some notes I have been keeping and the index to each page is in Latin font.  Although it is the German spelling of the tractates, it isn't all that hard to understand.  (have to admit I do read German so maybe I'm biased, try it and comment.)
4.249.198.187 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion