Talk:Talmud/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent Changes

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)

Caption Correction

I changed the caption to say that the picture has an almost full set of the Talmud, as Tractate Pesachim is missing. Does anyone have a better picture? - MYG

Mishna

I attempted to sort out the last passage in this section, especially regarding how it builds on the preceding "Origins of the Talmud" section and how it relates logically to the following section, which it now introduces. I removed the reference to the Tosefa since the Tosefta is briefly defined later in this article where appropriate (the "Beraita" section). --חנינא

Role of the Talmud in Judaism

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)

I don't believe this is a good reason to delete valid content. It's the job of an encyclopedia to summarize complicated topics by extracting out broad-view perspectives and ignoring detail. It can be done. The fact that a summary doesn't cover all of a topic's complexity or doesn't have a lot of detail isn't grounds for deleting it. Otherwise Wikipedia articles could never get started -- virtually every article starts with insufficient detail -- and Wikipedia couldn't exist. --Shirahadasha 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I am not worried about this article being too short. It is much too long already. There is no reason within this article to go into detail about every denomination and every movement within Jewish History and their relationship to the Talmud. I have edited out much of the extranious denominational information within this section. Hopefully these edits will meet with your approval. I would like to emphasize that the purpose of this section (if it is needed at all) is to describe the use and study of Talmud within these denomninations and not the denominations themselves. Always remember NPOV! Guedalia D'Montenegro 06:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Jerusalem Talmud says it is written in Hebrew, this article Aramaic. Not sure myself which is correct. Masterhomer 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC) The Jeruslam Talmud is in Aramaic, and a more difficult form than the Babylonian Talmud. I'll edit the JT now. -- Avi 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a more difficult form, only a different form. Obviously, it would be more difficult for those more unfamiliar with it. HKT^Talk 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JT is written in a much briefer and conciser form than BT, which makes understanding it much more difficult, regardless of how well one is familiar with the language. This is probably mostly due to the policy of JT's compiler(s) and not the dialect in which it was written.

THE TALMUD & JESUS CHRIST

You may find some details here [1]

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)

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)

the article Yeshu deals with this topic exclusively, please direct your comments there. Jon513 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"pilpul" section

The section "pilpul" needs to be removed. It is just wrong from start to finish. Maimonides already uses the word pilpul in a letter to R. Pinchas of Alexandria during his lifetime--and he does not use it at all in a derogatory manner. The schools of pilpul in Spain associated with the Canfanton family were prior to the Spanish expulsion not in the sixteenth century. The method was based on Aristotle's organon and was put forward as a method for understanding everything in Talmud, Rashi, and Rambam. The pilpul that the current article refers is the second wave of pilpul. Ar2yeh 04:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)ar2yeh

If the pilpul refered to is "the second wave of pilpul," then how is the section "wrong from start to finish?" Instead of being removed, the section could be qualified as "second wave pilpul," or the earlier history of pilpul--specifically as it relates to the study of the Talmud itself--could be added. -- חנינא

Origins of the Talmud section

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)

Shirahadashah thanks for your welcome. The edit you are referring to was not done by me. My edit was that I removed the line which said that Mishnah was an exhaustive record of jewish law, because it obviously isn't. References: Y. N. Epstein, Mevo-ot le-Sifrut haTalmudim, Hanoch Albeck, Mavo la-talmudim, Yaakov Elman, "Order, Sequence, and Selection: The Mishnah’s Anthological Choices,” in David Stern, ed. The Anthology in Jewish Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 53-80. Equally or perhaps more importantly is my other comment, that the whole section entitled pilpul is just plain wrong. References for my comments there: A. S. Rosenthal in the Salo Baron Memorial Volume; Daniel Boyarin "Mehkarim be-parshanut ha-Talmud shel megurashei sefarad: chaluka de-rabanan" Sefunot 17, 166-184.Ar2yeh 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I see the edit involved was by User:62.0.106.7, not you. --Shirahadasha 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Critical Method

A couple of points

1)While the theory that rashi was engaged in the critical method is interesting, it does not belong in the article as a NPOV statement. Obviously those who disagree with the method would not say that rashi was engaged in it.

2)The presentation of the "Historical Method" as a centrist sensible middle ground that is completely compatible with Orthodoxy is an unsourced POV. The only sourced view is that of Hirsch who wrote numerous articles decrying the method as incompatible with Orthodoxy.

3)The statement that Malbim, Chajes and Rappaport engaged in the historical method is unsourced. While Rappaport did give Frankel his lukewarm personal support, there is no evidence that he himself utilized the method in tamud study. He did write biographies, however this article is about talmud study.

I invite a response from those who may disagree. Otherwise the article will be edited to reflect these points. 68.198.236.57 11:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion to this section. As to your points - 1) I beleive that the fact that Rashi engaged in some textual emendation is not in particular dispute. The problem with the way it is presented currently is that it attempts to classify the wissenschaft des judentums zeitgeist of the reform and haskala, and its development of new ways of talmudic analysis, as somehow not revolutionary and part of a long history of talmud criticism. Such a point confuses this section - which basically is here to describe the nineteenth century development of critical study - and not to describe the entire history of textual emendation of the talmud. I beleive that the recent comments about rashi - could be reduced to one sentance belonging more properly to where rashi's commentary is already mentioned. (2)I do not get the impression from the section that the "historical method and its proponents were universally accepted as compatible with all orthodox segments - in fact the article does mention Moses Schreiber (Chasam Sofer) and S.R. Hirsch as being severely against any textual changes to the talmud. Still, many of the proponents of this new method were unquestionably "orthodox" . Incidentally, the Hirsch view is not sourced...as nearly everything in this article is unsourced. (3)No it wasn't sourced. But this shall be rectified on my next trip to the library - hopefully soon.Guedalia D'Montenegro 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we agree on the first point. As for the second, you say that many proponents were Orthodox. Source please? R' Hirsch is easily sourced as writing numerous articles saying that the method was not compatible with Orthodoxy, for example, the letter published by Hirsch in his "Jeschuren" by Gottlieb Fischer, rabbi of Stuhlweissenburg, published in 1860. As far as point three, now the Hirsch view is sourced, I await sources for Malbim et al engaging in the "historical method".

P.S. I notice that you speak about "textual changes" to the Talmud as being the point of contention. That is incorrect, there are many Haredi publishig houses nowadays that are doing textual changes, as Rashi himself did (as you note). The difference is that Orthodoxy refuses to approach Talmud study in any way but as revealed at sinia. It therefore doesn't see specific texts and authors as being motivated by or being influenced by outside sources. If this is what you meant in your first comment, I apologize. 68.198.236.57 20:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that we have a slight misunderstanding. I am not referring at all to these scholar's and rabbi's beleifs regarding the origin of the oral law. I am only concerned with their talmudic learning and methods of study. In that the Malbim, Chajes, Rappaport utilized historical study and on occasion lower criticism (based on textual varients etc..) They show that some orthodox scholars did (and do) engage in critical study of the talmud. Their views regarding the divine origin of Oral law - and what exactly that means - is not neccesarily a concern of this particular section. Although, perhaps there should be a section about this? In the present paragraph - there is much room for change - but I think the ultimate point of this section is that in the nineteenth century new historical/critical/academic (whatever term you perfer) methods of talmud study were developed...mainly as a result of the wissenschaft/Haskala movement. Some opposed the new methods (right wing orthodoxy - like hirsch and sofer) but there was no consensus within orthodoxy and some orthodox utilized the new style of learning.

Still working on specific sources for you - but see generally Jacob Shachter's introduction to Chajes' "The Students guide to the Talmud". Regarding Hirsch - He cannot be said to have had the only "orthodox" view on the matter. Just to reiterate though - I was not referring to the malbim, chajes or rappaports views on the origin of divine law (nor of frankel's for that matter) simply their methods and use of modern scholarship in talmud study. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It is interesting to me that you call Hirsch a "right wing Rabbi". Hirsch was the main proponent of Torah im derech eretz, a philosophy that is not considered "right wing". In fact, he was opposed by the yeshiva world and even many German rabbis (such as Bamburger) as left wing! No matter, to the point at hand; my point about the origin of the oral law is very germane. What is the "historical method" in its most important elements (higher criticism and internal criticism) ? It is the study of the Talmud as a "historical" document, reflecting the social conditions and specific influences of the time it was written. It is studying the Talmud, not from within the Talmud, but from without. This is contrary to the belief in divine origins, and is why it was opposed even by Hirsch, one of the few orthodox rabbi of the time open to secular knowledge. My point was that it is by definition not limited to "textual changes", but all content, such as Geigers "Geschuchte der juden". Again, saying that Orthodox rabbis of the 1800s engaged in it needs a source. I await the sources. Mentsch 03:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get too far away from the main point here - but a lil about hirsch. It is true that Hirsch was a complicatged personality, in some ways he was even a reformer - for example his attempt to do away with kol nidre in Nikolsburg. Bu as regards talmud study, critical and scientific methods, Hirsch was completely in the right wing orthodox camp. Finally, with the Wurzberger Rav, Seiligman Baer Bamberger - it was his Austritt philiosophy that was in debate. Bamberger criticized Hirsch for overstepping his bounds (in bambergers opinion) by interfereing in other communtiies internal workings and basically criticizing the entire austritt concept. I would say that Bamberger would easily have considered Hirsch to be on the "Right wing" of Orthodoxy.

I plan on writing more on the use of critical methods within orthodoxy later. But for now perhaps we need to break out this section as being more significant and worthy of more space withing th article. Perhaps, more should be written regarding dogmatic issues. To the academic, it matters not what one beleives is the origin of Oral law...academic study of talmud is not concerned with that question as much as it is interested in understanding the talmud text and context in the most scientific manner possible utilizing internal and external sources. Orthodoxy does not claim that the words of the talmud and mishna, and the opinions of the rabbis recorded therein, are divine. Rather that interpretive halakha was given along with the torah. Inasmuch as revelation is unprovable - so to the origins of oral law are unpovable - they are a matter of faith- therefore the question as to origins is irrelevant to critical talmud study. Although, the dogmatic questions are certainly important during this and later time periods - leading to diverse opinions regarding halakha - this article is about the talmud, not halakha or jewish denominations. We should try and always focus on the talmud. There are other articles more appropriate for the larger discussion of dogma. I am not averse to including more info here - just concerned that we dont confuse the matter. Finally, Frankel and others certainly thought of themselves as orthodox...i.e. not in the reform camp. The identification of a distinct conservative movement would come later. You seem to want to make a distinction between orthodoxy and critical talmudists. I don't think that this would be accurate. Sources coming...Guedalia D'Montenegro 06:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

R' Hirsch would be turning over in his grave by the use of the word "reformer" in any way concerning himself. His opposition to "kol nidreh" is well founded throughout the generations in many many many responsa, even rishonim, as contrary to Halacha. You justify calling him "right-wing" by saying that specifically concerning the critical method he was right wing! That is circular logic that defeats the very purpose of your point, which was that Hirsch was right wing and therefore opposed to the critical method. It actually bolsters my point- even though Hirsch was not right wing in general, he still opposed the critical method! Also, you are factually incorrect concerning the dispute between Hirsch and Bamberger. R' Hirsch, in a letter about the dispute, clearly said that R'Bamberger's opposition was based on his view of Hirsch as too left wing and open to secular knowledge (I don't have the collected writings with me, but I think it's at the end of volume VI ). As to the main point; I believe that quoting you will best illustrate my point:

"Inasmuch as revelation is unprovable - so to the origins of oral law are unpovable - they are a matter of faith- therefore the question as to origins is irrelevant to critical talmud study."

I believe that this quotation serves to show exactly what I meant- that the critical method is more than textual changes, it touches on the very heart of talmud study- Can it be approached as stemming from historical realities, or must it be accepted as stemming from an oral tradition going back to Sinia. My point stands- the historical method was opposed by Orthodoxy from the beginning. Just because Frankel did not consider himself "reform" does not mean he was de facto Orthodox. As you write, the identification came later that he was the progenitor of conservatism. Saying that he was orthodox would be analogous to saying (lehavdil) that the baal shem tov was a non-hassidc jew! True he started out as one, but he was the progenitor of a different style that afterwards became known as hasidism. Anyway, I await the sources. P.S. I do not claim that no orthodox jew engages in the critical method today. Only that at the time of its inception it was not accepted by orthodoxy, and only with the rise of "Modern Orthodoxy" was it used by any orthodox. Mentsch 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the introduction to Chajes' "The Students guide to the Talmud." Guedalia D'Montenegro 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources: Regarding Malbim see David Berger, Malbim's Secular Knowledge and his Relationship to the Spirit of the Haskalah, in Yavneh Review 5 (1966), showing how Malbim utilized secular knowledge and linguistic methods in his biblical interpretations to combat biblical criticism. See also, Noah Rosenblum, HaMalbim ve'HaFilosofia HaModernit (Heb.), On Malbim's knowledge and use of modern philosophy, New York, 1985.

Regarding Chajes, see Bruria Hutner David, The Dual Role of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes: Traditionalist and Maskil, Columbia University Phd. dissertation, 1971. Showing in great detail Chajes as a "traditionalist amidst the Maskilim and at the same time as maskil among the tradionalists." See also, Meir Hershkowitz, MaHRaTZ CHAJES: Toledot Rebbi Zvi Hirsch Chayot u'Mishnato (Heb.), Mossad HaRav Kook, 1972.

Other sources worth looking at at are: Edward Breuer, Between Haskalah and Orthodoxy: The Writings of R. Jacob Zvi Meklenburg in Hebrew Union College Annual, 66 (1995), 259-287; David Ellenson and Richard Jacobs, Scholarship and Faith: David Hoffman and His Relationship to Wissenschaft Des Judentums, in Modern Judaism 8,1 (1988).

These sources show the attitudes toward and use of modern historical, philosophical, linguistic and critical methods by the Malbim, Chajes, Mecklenburg, Hoffman and others. If you wish to remove reference to Malbim, becasue his activity was mainly in Biblical commentary and linguistics rather than talmud, I would not object. That being said - There was an orthodox wing which utilized historical and critical methods even in the first generation of the Haskalah. Orthodox reaction to Haskalah methods was not uniform. Therefore, I maintain that this section on Critical methods should include reference to this orthodox segment as well as to the more right wing condemnation of historical-critical method. I beleive that the section as it is now written is fairly accurate, I can see how the inclusion of Malbim may be objectionable as he can only be included in reference to more general haskalah issues. Still, this does not significantly affect the section. I hope that this is agreeable. Guedalia D'Montenegro 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these interesting sources. I have spent quite a while reading Bruria David's thesis, and it actually presupposes the opposite- that Chajes was torn between diametrically opposing philosophies that are not compatible, that of orthodoxy and that of the maskilim. She sees his occasional contained use of the critical method as representative of dual-allegianced and conflicting tendencies. Here is a quote from the thesis (page 346)"Thus it would seem that Chajes was never able to resolve the conflict between his genuine piety and his modern scholarship. The "critical scholar" and the "halakhist" within Chajes each vied for the upper hand" Also interesting to note in the thesis, is that she explicitly rejects the idea that Chajes was a pioneer of "Wissenschaft Des Judentums". I quote the thesis page 362- "In view of the forgoing, it is clear that Chajes cannot be counted as one of the pioneers of the Wissenschaft des Judentums school. His historical studies are not noted for their comprehensiveness nor for their careful collection of data. He merely showed an unusual interest in history, which was expressed in his attempts to identify Talmudic references etc." Taking this into account, it doesn't seem correct to present Chajes, or I believe any orthodox scholar, as an unreserved proponent of the critical method. Perhaps with the qualifier that they did so where the method did not contradict traditional jewish scholarship, or did not contradict traditional belief in oral law. A seperate point is that I believe the section should be split up into two, one being "textual emendations", another being "critical method". As it stands now, rashi is presented as using the critical method in his commentary. This implies and assumes that the method was founded either before rashi or by Rashi himself! Let me know your opinion. Mentsch 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to principles

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).

Hirsch

This shouldn't be an argument here. I dont think Hirsch is a reformer - quite the opposite. My point, which you seem to have missed is that how we label someone (esspecially like Hirsch) must be contextual. No matter how Torah Im Derekh Eretz can be classified, or his views on Austritt, or his attempt to abolish Kol Nidre - none of this has any affect on the fact that when it comes to his views regarding critical talmud study, Hirsch is firmly in the right wing camp. Period. I dont think this can be argued. This is an article regarding talmud not Hirsch. Guedalia D'Montenegro 14:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems my point was not understood. You say that "Hirsch concerning this issue, was firmly in the right wing camp. Period. I don't think this can be argued." Of course it can't be argued that he opposed the critical method, which is after all my point. What can be argued with is that this was at all a "right wing" camp, and not the normal Orthodox reaction! This is my point- we cannot discount Hirsch's objection to the method as stemming from general right wing views. If anything it bolsters the point that even those in orthodoxy who were open to secular knowledge still opposed the critical method. Mentsch 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should consider moving this part of the discussion to the S.R. Hirsch talkpage or to the Wissenschaft des Judentums talkpage.—חנינא

What about the racial incitement in the Talmud, why is the article so biased?

why are there dozens of lines full of quotations from the extreme right-wing ADL, and no mention whatsoever of all those statements in the Talmud that come out as offering little respect, if any to non-jews' belongings or even to their lives? Totaromson 04:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no racial component there. Where did you get that info? Did you read the Talmud yourself? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

most of the believed "racist" comments from the Talmud are taken extrememly out of context. the Talmud teaches respect for all people, Jewish or Gentile. Goalie1998 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening comment above confuses the ADL with the JDL. —חנינא

Indeed. The ADL is actually quite left-wing. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 14:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did read a rather large part of the Talmud myself. It is extremly important to me, the base of all my opinions and way of life. And, yeah, it's racist. I'm sorry but facts are facts. [Shahar Frydman] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.219.97.1 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

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" language abounds. 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)

Judaism is not racist but the Talmud is. Talmud is just a translation of a translation of an ignoramus. Unfortunately all the jews who convert to christianity and islam due so because they are ignorant about the Talmud origins and base their decision solely on the Talmud. What I find particularly interesting is how this article only cites criticism from non-jews and uses the nutty ADL as a source. We all know that the ADL is full of nothing but right wing lies and propaganda; and yet they are used as a source on jewish related matters. Why isn't there any JEWISH criticism of Talmud here; because I can write entire books on that?

Again, I think you confuse the ADL with the JDL. —חנינא

No he obviously does not confuse them and is probably just a provocateur. Benjil 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gentile quotations

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)

Talmud#Charges of racism and Talmud#Refutation of anti-Semitic allegations concerning the Talmud. Jon513 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

removed come-and-hear.com

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)

Failed GA

For only two citations. Wiki-newbie 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide the relevant quotes here? Perhaps something could be done. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interpertations on Talmud Opposing NK

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^[2]), 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^[3]) and also a belief that this debate (Ketubot 110b-111a) applied only to the Babylonian Exile, lifted later [539BC] by Koresh^[4] (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)

What's the rabbinic source of this interpretation? Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Try Talk:Neturei Karta is this bothers you. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Clumsy Sentence?

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)

Aramaic texts

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)

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)

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)

I agree with JFW. --Redaktor 07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

suggestion

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)