Talk:Talmud/Archive 5

message: The claim "The Talmud was first printed in Italy during the sixth century," seems dubious.  Printing wasn't known in Europe until the fifteenth century.  Perhaps the sentence should say "sixteenth century" rather than "sixth century." Ortcutt 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is impossible to be printed in the sixth century (with rashi and tosephot no less!).  I have changed it to sixteenth as it seems the most reasonable intention of the author, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of the statement.  Jon513 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sixth-Century Printing?

message: User:Shykee added that after war world one all rabbi are Acharei Acharonim.  This is very debatable. Furthermore, the use of the word "informally" in his addition is identical to the word unverifiable.  I do not believe that there are any sources for such a distinction in the acharonim. Jon513 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "'very'" debatable ? It seems from User:Jon513's comment that s/he is familiar with the term "Acharei Acharonim" and acknowledges that it is used. If it is used then it has a place in the article. The word "informally" was actually used to pacify those who would say that the term is not set in stone. Indeed it is not, it is merely colloquial or idiomatic and the article will be re-edited to reflect that.. Shykee 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I said very debatable, I meant to say "with all due respect, I have never heard of this, and I know personally many Rabbis who have explicitly argued with acharonim, saying that they too are acharonim and can argue with them, if such an idea does exist I doubt very much that it is mainstream."  I have never heard the phrase "acharei acharonim" and I don't know if it is in use, though I accept the possibility that someone may use this phrase.  The whole idea of eras in halakha (tannaim, amoraim, savoraim, etc) is that a later generation cannot argue with an earlier one.  If you say this is "informal" and "merely colloquial" then this is really not saying anything at all.  You can also informally organize rabbis by the century they were born in but that would not really reflect anything significant.Jon513 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct, the article did imply that the "Acharei Acharonim" would be considered a different era in terms of the right to argue and this was wrong. The term is used however, and what it does imply is simply the idea that 20th century scholars are a different era in terms of their analytical style and the focus of their writings. Shykee 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree, but I don't care enough to argue about it.  I guess that is the real problem with wikipedia. Jon513 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not have to be a big debate. I do not believe it to be an extremely important point and would gladly agree to not mentioning it if you would provide any reason not too, aside from personally never hearing about it. Shykee 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acharei Acharonim 

message: The use of the word "Attacks", portrays an exaggerated view up on the situation which really is a collection of substantiated critical views towards the talmud. All of the content within the heading show, only, critical views of the text within the Talmud, therefore "Critiscism" is more of an apppropriate word to use.
Lets try to keep Wikiepedia free from bias and free from superfluous opinionated exaggerations.
I changed the section title "External attacks..." back to its original form to better parallel the content of the section. HKTTalk 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change 

message: RK is trolling when he writes that he is trying to introduce the Orthodox viewpoint, in fact most of his entries are not relevant and seem to be coming from his own mind. He is clearly biased by his religous beliefs and will stop at nothing to push them here. After the last edits by him, I went through some of his history and it all shows the same bias against anybody that is religous. Why he hates religous people, I don't know, but I am sure that this is not the place for him to deal with it.
The preceding unsigned message was posted at 23:29, 5 July 2006 by TalmudDefender
:This is an attack on RK, not a justification for your edits. Please read WP:NPA and WP:OR before making any further edits. --Leifern 11:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack on RK by Talmud Defender

message: I am dealing with a newcomer to Wikipedia, who may be a troll, or as his posts seem to imply, someone with an emotional disturbance.  I have been making edits on the Talmud article for years, and I take great care to research this subject in depth.  In recent days I have made great care to cite articles from Modern Orthodox scholarly publications, and offer a variety of quotes from experts on the Talmud from many historical eras.  Every single piece of information is cited and sourced in accord with our policies. RK
In response User:TalmudDefender has been a one-man revert machine.  He deletes every single reference, with no justification.  He makes insults and personal attacks.  He then writes absolutely false statements, and inserts them into the article (e.g. his false claim that historical study of the Talmud never existed until the modern era, and was invented by Conservative rabbis.)  TalmudDefender's false claims are not only egregious, but they are also totally unsourced.
In the last few hours the situation has become much worse. "Talmud Defender" is now making false accusations of lying and academic dishonesty.  I have the actual books and articles on this subject, all from Orthodox writers, with me as I type this. Yet get this - "TalmudDefender" now claims that these books and articles do not exist!  
Talmud Defender then veers into the bizarre; after deleting every citation from Orthodox Talmud scholars, he writes that I "hate religious people".  That really shook me up.  My own rav was Orthodox, and I study this topic mostly from Orthodox rabbinical sources.  There is a chance that he may be suffering from an emotional disorder.  Agreeing with Orthodox Jews is not hating religious people!  Denying the existence of real books and articles that anyone can get in the library is either a childish prank, or a sign of emotional disturbance. (Books and articles exist, even if someone has a temper tantrum and denies their existence.)
Imagine someone going into General relativity and deleting citations from real physicists, and then justifying this by claiming that the authors of this article "hate scientists."  Then this person claims that real, verifiable science articles cited "seem to be coming from his own mind", and are also deleted.   We wouldn't allow it there, and we shouldn't allow it here.
This isn't a dispute between how to present different POVs.  He refuses to bring forth any citations for his own POV, he accuses me of making up citations (even though I can photocopy these texts and mail them to you!)  He ruthlessly deletes every cited source, and then claims that quoting academic sources means that you hate religious people.  This is clearly crank or troll behavior, not a difference of views. RK 03:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for mediation

message: This section presents several problems. What is meant by Modern.  The classification of Orthodox, Conservative and TDB(what is TDB?) is completely useless.  This list should (if there is any use for a list at all) be re-categorized. Rabbis who are not known as talmud scholars but rather halachists should be removed.  Rabbis who have written commentaries on Talmud (perushim on Shas) should be listed with their works, and those rabbis on the list who are simply halachists or otherwise should be removed.  This is an article on the Talmud not halacha or rabbis.
I suggest a renaming the section "Contemporary Scholarship" and listing current (i.e. living) scholars with some of their works or works in progress.  If categorization is neccessary. perhaps text critical, historical, traditional or other categories could be used.
I hope that someone will comment on this.  But I really feel that the list of 'modern scholars' is innapropriate and should be removed.  I don't think that most of them are actually what I would define as talmud scholars.  It seems to me to be a cheap way to link whomever one likes in with the Talmud.  Why not list Shlomo Carlebach (the singing Rabbi) because he was a student of Aaron Kutler and the son of Naftoli Carlebach, perhaps the Lubavitcher Rebbe should be listed, he learned talmud didnt he??? my point is that a list of Talmud scholars is useless (even if we could agree on what a Talmud scholar is).  "Modern" must be defined.  People should be listed only if the contributor can state in a sentance or two what their contribution to Talmud scholarship has been.  --Guedalia D'Montenegro 04:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of scholars is funadmentally inappropriate. According to policy, "Wikipedia is not a directory. . . Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). . ." See WP:NOT.--חנינא 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Scholars