Talk:Talmud/Archive 2

message: JFW removed the link but I think this warrants a bit more discussion. Despite it being an anti-Jewish website, unfortunately THIS particular website also happens to be an important resource, as I'm not aware of any other site of the net that has parts of the Talmud online (yes there's Rodkinson but I think his version is spurious and anyway, the tractates are quite different in the two resources). Wikipedia pages have links to POV websites all the time, including very biased or deplorable ones. I think that it should be put back in, while it's the only site with a large proportion of Soncino in English online. Counterarguments shall be much appreciated. Frikle 11:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wellllll, they sell copyrighted material (Soncino's translation is not yet public domain) on a CD-ROM. That, and Carol A. Valentine's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on the rest of the internet make the site a rather distasteful addition to Wikipedia. And: have you checked the "Come-and-Hear" translation has not been doctored to reflect their views? JFW | T@lk 16:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been doctored at least to the extent that certain passages are highlighted; I have no confidence that it has not been doctored in other ways. Jayjg 17:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, that site is a laugh, it says that although Jews don't sacrifice Christian children they do sacrifice their own children, bwahahaha Kuratowski's Ghost 22:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Come and Hear

message: I deleted the word "hateful" from the description of the people who made the attacks on the Talmud because this is non-verifiable and not an undisputed fact but seemingly an evaluation. If the issue in question is not making them seem legitimate, their names should be wikified articles if they exist and, depending on what the concensus of those articles is, a description like "extremist" might potentially be appropriate. Frikle 08:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a direct quote, so you can't change the wording. I'll make it clearer. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hateful?

message: why not give the quotes "proving" racism, rather than the defense alone - ikh bin a curious yid --Taejo 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Judaism is not a race.  This page isn't here for antisemitic conspiracy theorists to get their rocks off.  Imagine if non-Christian people went to every Christian Wikipedia and alleged all of these terrible things about the Bible and Christian authorities
Goodness, just read any Western work from the 17th century (or even the early 20th century) and see how they talked about Africans and American Indians. For some reason antisemites have a rather interesting double standard about racism; while claiming to be heirs to Western philosophy they crucially ignore the fact that until the 1950s blacks had to sit in the back of the bus in the white-dominated Southern states. Jews were almost in the majority amognst the Freedom Riders. Pot, meet kettle. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  racism 

message: The refutation links are themselves evasive and most of their arguments are little more than straw men, in the form of hardcore anti-semitic allegations against the talmud. This however does nothing to refute the other rational arguments against the POV of this article. Even in what they do refute they say things like "that section never even existed!" therefore they are lying anti-semites, when really, it very well could have existed, unbeknownst.  Refuting ambiguous and seemingly partial accusations with ambiguous seemingly partial retorts doesn't amount to anything other than the ambiguity of that being debated.  Censorship is another problem with this, since it has been seen with others apart from Jews, like literature in nationalist Poland for instance, which was full of anti-german disdain, yet those perspective's never managed to pass through too the abridged German edition.
:What part of this article exactly are you referring to? This is rather vague. JFW | T@lk 11:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  one sided article 

message: Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew naming conventions  

message: I restored the section on non-Orthodox Talmud scholars.  This is important in its own right, but also useful as some Conservative Jewish Talmud scholars are often read and cited in the Modern Orthodox community, as well as within the Conservative and Reform communities.  The Talmudic works of David Weiss Halivni and Saul Lieberman are the most prominent in this regards; I've read many articles from Modern Orthodox Jewish authors that cite the views of these authors alongside Orthodox authorities. Jacob Neusner's tremendous (and tremendously repetitious) body of work and analytical prowess has also earned him respect in some Orthodox circles, even while Orthodox Jews reject non-Orthodox interpretations of halakha. The point about Neusner in particular is discussed in "Piety and Power" by David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993.
For the moment I have removed Dr. Dvora Weisberg from the list of Reform Talmud scholars, for two reasons.  (A) I am not sure that she is Reform; she got her ordination at the Conservative movement's Jewish Theological Seminary, and (B) Her own website doesn't list any works she has published.  How can someone be a well known Talmud scholar of the 20th century if they haven't made any contributions to the Jewish community at large? RK 23:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of prominent 20th century Talmud scholars 

message: I don't understand why Charges Of Authenticity is being removed as a POV. I happen to feel that the arguments are wrong to but any idea should have some ideas presented on the opposing side and these were the most common I could find. Bringing up questions deosn't detract from the idea it just makes the idea more robust.
:Some sources and we can talk. JFW | T@lk 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charges Of Authenticity 

message: (The Jerusalem Talmud; however, the name is a misnomer, as it was not written in Jerusalem. As such it is also known more accurately as the Palestinian Talmud or The Talmud of the Land of Israel.)
From what I heard, it is named the Jerusalem Talmud, because the Bies Din of Jerusalem moved and started a new Yeshiva there... you know the story. I just can't remember the source, if anyone has good memory please. 220.233.48.200 13:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At that time the Amoraei Eretz Yisrael all lived in the Galil. I have never heard about the J'lem beis din story. JFW | T@lk 13:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and ask Rabbi Pinchas Feldman as he has very good and clear memory, along with his children. 220.233.48.200 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem Talmud 

message: The description of Karaism as a "great reaction" may be an overstatement.  How many Karaites were there and what was their impact?  I know that there are some halachic rulings reltaing to Shabbat observance that can be called reactions to Karaism, but, in general terms, how important was this movement historically?  I know that it has limited impact now.  My opinion: either explain why it's of "great" importance, or remove this characterization.
On the other hand, I would be interested to hear more about Karaites in this context.  What were the philosophical and political bases for their rejection of the Talmud?  What impact did Islam have?  Who founded the movement, where, when and how?
In essence, I think that Karaism is a reaction to the Talmud.  This is it's main principle and reason for being.  Why not clarify that?  Also, talk a bit about Jewish - Karaite relations over the years.
Thanks.
Adam Holland 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has immense historical significance. If Saadia Gaon and Maimonides have gone on record extensively debunking the karaistic stance there must be something to it. Apparently in some areas the proportions of Karaites and non-Karaites approached 50:50. JFW | T@lk 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karaites: the article needs clarification and additional info