Talk:Talmud

Moser

The Solomon Dwek affair has led to occasional citation of the Talmudic law of the moser ( http://rejewvenate.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/dealing-with-dweck/ http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/07/of-mosers-and-monsters.html ) but the term is nowhere mentioned in Wikipedia. robotwisdom (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to discuss this. The concept of mesirah is only one of the thousands of Talmudic concepts and does not need treatment on this page. Also, the term can only be applied by a Jewish court, not by some random people on blogs; it is the height of speculation that this term should be applicable to a person without a formal charge. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then since it's being bandied about, do you agree it deserves its own article, linked from this one as a related topic? (Also eg from Rabin's assassination article.) robotwisdom (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It might be more appropriate to discuss it in the most relevant context, e.g. the informant article. But even then it is just one of the many related categories of people in Jewish law, such as am haaretz, chaver, etc. There are no Wikipedia articles on these concepts either, even though they have fairly far-reaching consequences, for instance with regards to credibility in a Jewish court or reliability with regards to tithes. JFW | T@lk 17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Salvation

Would people please comment here? I may overstate the case or oversimplify in saying that there is no idea of salvation in Judaism. My real point is that whatever Jews mean by salvation is so different from Christianity they are not well-served by being in one article. Perhaps Wikipedia could use a good article going into the long history of the concept of salvation in Judaism, but right now the current Salvation aricle is NOT "it" and I think the differences between Christianity and Judaism here are so great that it makes the intro an NPOV nightmare. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

incomplete history

Where is the information about the redactional history -- how long it took for example? If it's later in the article why isn't it in the history section? 4.249.3.139 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source? Sounds like you might be right. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Talmud was condemned on 15 May 1248 as "work of devil". Coagulans (talk 23:45 EEST, 28 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Another auto de fé took place in Venice, St Mark's Square, on 21 October 1553, on Shabbat. "A good fire" - according to the Papal Legate, had burned over 1000 copies of the Talmud. Coagulans (talk 00:46 EEST, 29 July 2010

Original Research, Sources, Citations and Changes

Much of this article is lacking sources. I also detect quite a bit of Original Research and particular POV's in some of the sections. Moreover, there is also a problem with material being either repeated or placed in sections where it is inappropriate. Finally, this article is tremendously long. I hope to help improve this article in the near future. In general, it seems that modern scholarship has moved beyond many of assertions made in this article. I am worried about making edits, however, since that modern scholarship is not accepted by many in the Orthodox camp, and, the traditional view is frequently unacceptable to academics. So changes have the potential of causing "edit wars". Any advice on how to avoid this ahead of time? Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD! The Orthodox interpretation and tradition should be mentioned, as it is part of the story. But the primary narrative should be scientific. Zero^talk 10:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As with so many of the Judaism articles, some of the more archaic-sounding passages are from the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia. However, as far as the history of composition of the Babylonian Talmud is concerned, the article already updates the story: it explains the traditional and Wissenschaft views, and goes on to say that, with the work of Halivni and Friedman, there is now a new perspective. The only instance I can see where the older view is stated without qualification is where it relates the cessation of work on the Yerushalmi to the abolition of the patriarchate in 425 CE: I gather that this is now questioned, but I do not know the source.

Maybe the detail about commentaries and study methods could be hived off into a separate article, and the part on polemics into another. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Actually, I put a "citation needed" by the yerushalmi section somewhat randomly. Many of the facts, whether "true" or not, throughout the entire article require additional verification. I will probably not make any significant changes until the end of next week of after purim.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Original Research is still a problem but I won't tag or delete material for now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you could kindly point out the instances of OR, we could perhaps start working on a solution. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I will point out where cits are needed. Don't get me wrong, it is well written article, but cits are needed on topics that are contested. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, {{unsourced-section}} may be helpful if entire sections are lacking references. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And probably a lot less work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More recent sources for Attacks section

It looks like much of the material in the Attacks section is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a decent tertiary source, but is 100 years old. Maccoby's book is a more recent secondary source (and it seems to be used for some material in that section, but is not really cited much). I'll hunt around to try to find some other, more recent, secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

100 year old sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia tend to be POV and the scholarship is a little dated? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism Wikiproject has generally agreed that those sources do not reflect modern scholarship. JFW | T@lk 16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources that may be useful, in addition to Maccoby: Judaism and other faiths, by Cohn-Serbok; The history of the Talmud from the time of its formation, about 200 B.C., up to the present time, by Rodkinson; The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity, by Silberstein (Ed.); Faithful renderings: Jewish-Christian difference and the politics of translation by Seidman; The Essential Talmud by Steinsaltz. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead must conform to verifiability

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. However this article lacks references throughout. See my problem? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So how about you tag unsourced content the remainder of the article, rather than reverting your tags in the lead? If you are indeed a retired academic with an interest in the subject you could perhaps add a few useful sources yourself! JFW | T@lk 22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because article ledes are summaries of article content, they are not required to have citations. In fact, most Featured Articles do not have them. If you have concerns with material in the body of an article, then that is what should be tagged. Material in the lede should only be of concern if it does not faithfully reproduce the article text. By the way, tagging every single thing that is unsourced is fairly disruptive; do you, or anyone else, really doubt that the Talmud is "a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One other point, if I may, Ret.Prof, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)#Citations, it is not uncommon to have the lead uncited if the statements in the lede are supported later in the article. If you think that there are any statements in the lede that are unsupported in body of the article, please list them here. Otherwise, per the MoS: "[t]he necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Therefore, a consensus needs to be formed to change the practice on this article, as it has been in the form relying on body citations for a long time now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I think you are really misunderstanding me.

1) Avi, I am a fan of your work.

2) I think this is a good article but what spoils it for me is the lack of references.

3) Yes, "tagging every single thing that is unsourced is fairly disruptive" However, if you check, I think you will see that is a false accusation.

4) "If you are indeed a retired academic with an interest in the subject you could perhaps add a few useful sources yourself!" That was a little harsh. I am retired professor, sensitive about making edits not accepted by many in the Orthodox camp. Also bing a Christian clergyman gave me cause for pause. My rewriting this article could have easily been taken the wrong way.

5) It is also important to note I have not deleted any original research.

I hope this clarification has helped. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ret.Prof, thank you for the kind words! I think I understand where you are coming from. Wikipedia articles have multiple citation styles. The most common is the inline footnote style using <ref></ref> tags. The second most common is the inline parenthetical citation style using RefHarvard or Note_Label tags. A more uncommon, but used, style is the general reference style (Wikipedia:Cite#General_reference). This article has primarily relied on that style until now, with the supporting references in the very detailed Talmud#References section. If you are specifically challenging the statements, you are, of course, entitled to do so, and an inline citation will need to be provided. However, if your concern is for conformance with wikipedia styles, and not about the verifiability of the specific sentences in question, then the current style is acceptable. Do you have concerns about specific sentences and their accuracy/verifiability? -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually none of the above. I always thought it was a good article and wanted to see the sources. Of interest are the oral interpretations or Torah Shebeal Peh said to have been transmitted by Joshua, the seventy Elders, the Prophets, and then to the Great Synagogue. Finally, it is said to have been transmitted successively to certain Rabbis until it was no longer possible to retain it orally because of the destruction of the Temple. How much was the basis for the Talmud. And how much grew up at the time of Jesus? or at the time of the the Church Fathers. For me the sources are half the "fun" of Wikipedia. Am I making any sense? It is time for an old fellow to go to bed. Thanks for your kind reply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from the Jewish traditional perspective in which I grew up, the Oral law was given to Moses at Sinai and was transmitted orally through the generations until the times of Judah haNasi, who determined that the upheavals the Jewish people were undergoing necessitated some minimal transfer of the tradition to written form. This became the Mishnah. The later Tannaim were contemporaries of Jesus, in that they lived through the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred around the year 70 CE, or contemporaneous with Jesus. The Talmud was developed over the next 400 or so years, which should make the early portion of its development, and especially the Jerusalem Talmud contemporaneous with early Christianity. There are plenty of sources in the article, just not in-line, so if you have access to a decent library, it should give you loads of leads to follow, and yes, that is much of the fun of wikipedia . Unfortunately, this article requires a bit more legwork since most of the sources are paper and not online. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the "Notes" ref group?

Does anyone object to eliminating the "group = Note"? It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose in this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll remove the "group=Note" since it is annoying. But if someone wants to keep it, that's okay: just provide a reason. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I added it at one point as I thought we may have to split types of references. I'll take it out. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

They should all be removed now. -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rodkinson

I totally agree with Myles that one cannot oppose something that does not yet exist. Therefore, where Rodkinson mentions "the Seleucidae, the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, and Hadrian, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Boethuseans, Jewish sects opposed to the Pharisees" presumably this is opposition against the oral law and its method. We cannot say that they were opposed to "The Talmud" per se, and I hope Noleander will take this point on board before attempting to reinsert the content. I will concede any opposition against the Mishnah (which is, after all, the central document to the Talmud), but no earlier. JFW | T@lk 10:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

While I completely agree with you both, Rodkinson does say that. From the context, he appears to be both including the Mishnah as part of the Talmud and considering attacks on the joint corpus prior to the Talmud's being committed to writing as an attack on the Talmud as well. In short, he refers the body of work of the still-oral Oral Law as the Talmud. Is there a way we can put that in the article without it being SYNTH? Perhaps "persecutors of the Talmud both during and after its formation" since he does write "when it began to take form, until the present day" -- Avi (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the proposed text of Avraham. Rodkinson is equating the Talmud with the Oral Law. Others may not make that equation. Additional clarifying text explaining both approaches would be helpful to readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But this article is about the Talmud, not the oral law. I think those proto-critics do not belong in the list and therefore cannot support Avraham's version currently. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just removing the information about the pre-Talmud attacks seems rather harsh: we would be depriving readers of important information (especially since the nature of the Oral-Law attacks is virtually identical to some Talmud attacks). Can you propose a wording that would let readers know about those pre-Talmud attacks, and at the same time make it clear that the attacks were not on the written Talmud? --Noleander (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(By the way: there is an article Debate over oral Torah that looks rather immature, and I'm not sure it is even relevant. But I thought I'd mention it). --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be separated very clearly. "The oral law and its exposition had its detractors before it was committed to writing - prime examples were X, Y and Z." The oral law wasn't called Talmud until it was committed to writing, it was called Torah she-be'al peh. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me, but I'd like to hear Avi's thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Jfdwolff completely about the history and what happened, but we have to be careful not to create a SYNTH violation. Rodkinson does not seperate the Oral Law from the Talmud, but lists the Tzedukim (Sadduccees) as detractors of the "Talmud in formation". I don't think that is inaccurate, just a more ambiguous way to say it, and, for better or for worse, verifiability, not truth, is our mantra here. Since I don't think it is wrong, although it surely is not optimal, I think the construction "both during and subsequent to its formation" allows for Rodkinson's statement to be accurate and not subject to synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should not be too hung up on what Rodkinson said, as his scholarship is in any case questionable and his translation of the Talmud is generally regarded as obsolete. The subject of the section in question is attacks upon "the Talmud". Rodkinson says that detractors of the Talmud include various categories. I see nothing wrong in quoting him only in relation to the categories we are interested in (namely those capable of opposing the Talmud in its completed written form): by omitting categories irrelevant for our purposes we are not misrepresenting Rodkinson, as we would be if his list purported to be exhaustive. There is already another section devoted to Karaites and others who oppose the Oral Law in principle, regardless of its embodiment in the Talmud.

As for the first items in the list, "the Seleucidae, the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, and Hadrian", I really don't know what to make of their inclusion. Antiochus Epiphanes was opposed to the existence of Judaism in principle (the other "Seleucidae" were largely neutral) and Hadrian was trying to suppress Judaism as a source of political revolt; but this can hardly be pinned down to the more specific question of whether Judaism needs an Oral Law or the Bible should be sufficient. Nero was if anything pro-Jewish. Domitian I'm not sure about, but again I doubt he was specifically attacking the Oral Law. The first Roman emperor to legislate on this sort of detail was Justinian in his novella on deuterosis, and even then it is not certain whether this means Mishnah or Targum. On reflection I consider the whole Rodkinson quote largely worthless, and that we should introduce the series of attacks from Donin onwards in some other way. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that too, namely, find someone other than Rodkinson and dispense with him entirely. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Soncino

The copy of the Soncino Translation of the Talmud Bavli found at http://www.halakhah.com/ lack any sort of copyright notice. Does anyone know what is the copyright status of that work is in the U.S.A.? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

citations needed

Someone just removed this from the Yeshu article:

The Tannaim and Amoraim who recorded the accounts in the Talmud and Tosefta use the term Yeshu as a designation in Sanhedrin 103a and Berakhot 17b in place of King Manasseh's real name. Sanhedrin 107b uses it for a Hasmonean era individual who in an earlier account (Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:2) is anonymous. In Gittin 56b, 57a it is used for one of three foreign enemies of Israel, the other two being from past and present with Yeshu representing a third not identified with any past or present event. No explicit explanation is given for the term. The earliest explicit explanation comes instead from the mediaeval Toldoth Yeshu narratives which explain it as an acronym for the curse formula yimmach shemo vezikhro meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated" used for enemies of the Jewish people.^{[citation needed]}

Can anyone here provide appropriate citations? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Soncino

The "freetalmud" website is owned by Ariel Sokolovsky (see [1]). The "halakha" website is owned by Tzvee Zahavy (see [2]). I know who I would trust not to mess with the text and whom I would not. Leave the link to "halakha"; there is no gain switching, and likely a potential loss. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, the "freetalmud" website has ads, the "halakha" website doesn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Prof Zahavy apparently extracted Halakhah.com from www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html as you can see by comparing the meta keywords in the html source of both pages. He removed the antisemitic commentaries while retaining the overall page design and layout. FreeTalmud.com is a mirror page of halakhah.com with no changes to Talmud text. It is better to include FreeTalmud.com as it is easier to remember / harder to misspell name that also better describes the contents of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.72 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it still has the problems listed above, and the advantage of links is that you just click on them, you don't have to remember how to spell anything. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You only list one problem which that FreeTalmud.com has ads while Halakhah.com doesn't . FreeTalmud currently has just one ad on front page on the whole site. Your other implied accusation is unjustified implied slander as Ariel Sokolovsky was never accused of falsifying Torah source texts , but simply of propagating ideas based on controversial interpretations of those texts. It's probably even against Wiki rules to make such accusation. The other thing you mention that since it is a link one doesn't have to remember how to spell it is partially correct, but still we don't simply expect people to go to Wiki each time they want to visit a particular link. Halakhah.com also seems to be hosted on a server with limited bandwidth allowance and has been giving a error message earlier today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.59 (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The site is working fine for me, and Wikipedia isn't here to teach people how to get to other websites. Don't change this again without consensus. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While halakhah.com is working now it did give the "bandwidhth exceeded" error earlier and was not accesible. Wikipedia exist to provide users easy access to information they seek to this end when there are multiple mirror sites with same source materials the one that has the most easy to remember name that better describes the content of the site is clearly preferable to the one that doesn't in this case http://www.freetalmud.com or http://talmud.mobi are preferable to Halakhah.com ( by the way like Halakhah.com http://talmud.mobi doesn't have any ads . ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.207 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The site is working for me also. Jayjg has given some good arguments why we should stick with halakhah.com. Are you associated with Freetalmud? JFW | T@lk 10:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Attacks vs crticism

91.64.72.159 (talk · contribs), now under the username Toromo1 (talk · contribs) changed the title of the "attacks" section to "criticism", and made two additions to the section. Firstly:

“

(It is awkward how this article all of a sudden has an own opinion on how critics of the talmud are unable to comprehend or better yet, grasp narratives of the ancient scripture. Isn't that up to the critics and readers to decide themselves after studying the sources?)

”

And secondly:

“

One of the most recognized Talmudic scholars in Israel - Ovadia Yosef in an interview with the Jerusalem Post states that non-jews only exist to serve the jews. He goes on comparing non-jews with working donkeys and slaves. The American Jewish Committee was quick in condemning the rabbi's remarks however due to this interview the question arose amongst jews and non-jews alike: On what did Yosef base his teachings and remarks? Many were quick to see a connection between his teachings and those in the Talmud.

”

The first addition is mere commentary that never should have been added to the article. The new editor seems to suggest that the article engages in original research, despite the numerous sources that support the content. The second addition is a random incident which is not directly related to the Talmud. Just because someone who is an authority in Talmud makes some politically incorrect statements does not necessarily say anything other than by guilt by association. I have asked the editor to discuss any further edits here. We need to keep in mind the undesirable effect of criticism sections. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The OY quote definatley does not belong here. Chesdovi (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, neither addition is appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to find people actually discussion Attacks vs Criticism, but I don't see anything except the remark to keep in mind the undesirable effect of using "Criticism". May I ask exactly what those undesirable consequences are, that apply to this article but not to others? It seems to me that using the term "Attacks" instead of "Criticism" has nothing to do with that. Rather is appears to be loaded language introducing bias (Words to watch), which is contrary to Neutral point of view. Therefore the former remark quoted here seems justified, although it should have been in the talk section here. AmeenNL (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You find an actual example of "criticism" that is not simply an antisemitically motivated attack on the foundations of Judaism, and we might contemplate its inclusion. JFW | T@lk 05:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed 'Antisemitic Attacks' to 'Criticism' for neutrality. I would suggest someone consider editing the content under this section as well, to get it more in line with similar articles concerning Criticism of the Bible or Criticism of the Quran. Some of the sentences should say 'scholars argue that such verses/whatever are taken out of context.' As it stands right now, much of it is Wikipedia's voice and does not appear neutral. Let me be clear, though: Neutral, not one-sided, for any side. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained, we are not looking at equivalence here. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I bring up similar articles because those articles conform to a NPOV. The title, and parts of the sections, at least the way they are currently worded, present a strong bias and do not conform to NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed." Currently, the title nor section follow this guideline. I'm not requesting the content be removed; I'm requesting that it conform to NPOV. One particular paragraph that is poorly worded is the second paragraph concerning The Disputation of Tortosa. "Thus, Jews viewed Christians as misguided and in error, but not among the "heathens" or "pagans" discussed in the Talmud." This particular sentence is written in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. I haven't read Macoby's work, but I do know that other scholars do not hold the same view on this, as I was raised Orthodox and quite a few scholars are of the belief that some references to heathens and so on either refer directly to Christians or can include Christians. Similar statements such as this should be worded so as to be clear that it is a scholarly opinion. As it reads now, it implies that this is a commonly held fact by most or all Jews. On a final note, notice that even within the section, the term 'criticism' is used. I look forward to hearing back from you and others about the issue. 65.0.149.160 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV to label all criticism of the Talmud as antisemitic. Certainly lots of it is, but if the section has even a single example of other criticism then the label does not belong. There is plenty of space within the section to attribute motives to critics (in the words of reliable sources). Incidentally there is a major subtopic missing, namely Jewish feminist criticism (also not antisemitic). Zero^talk 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The feminist critique is not just of the Talmud, but of rabbinic Judaism in general. JFW | T@lk 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair statement, but within Jewish Feminism the Talmud is heavily critiqued. Obviously that is because Rabbinic Judaism relies heavily on the Talmud. I'm not going to venture into writing it, but if someone wants to research it and prepare it for inclusion under 'Criticism', I don't think it'd be out of place as long as it didn't occupy too much space. 65.0.140.105 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Informal request for comments on Yeshu

I think editors who watch this page may have the knowledge to comment intelligently in a discussion ongoing on the Yeshu talk page. The question is whether Yeshu refers to Jesus (either the Jesus who lived two thousand years ago and was crucified, or the figure in books held sacred by Christians). Most Christian scholars, and most Conservative Talmud scholars, believe that the word at least refers to the Christian concept of Jesus (if not the historical figure). But I am not sure whether Orthodox Jews share this view. I know that rabbis in disputations with Christian authorities (e.g. Nahmanides) argued that Yeshu and related characters *ben Pandera") do not refer to Jesus. I believe that Orthodox Jews today, or at least many orthodox Jews today, continue to hold this view.

But for me, this is the key point: Orthodox Jews can accept as authoritative interpretations of the Talmud from the Middle Ages. The fact that a commentary or some other text was written in the Middle Ages does not necessarily mean that it does not represent the views of people today. I think this is an important issue for Jewish editors at Wikipedia.

At the Yeshu article, I raised this issue on the talk page and I have been challenged by another editor [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeshu&diff=439878294&oldid=439878026] who insists that I provide modern sources to support the view, that Rabbinic including medieval sources cannot be used to represent the views of Orthodox Jews today. This line of reasoning is being used to justify designating what I think are "significant" views as "fringe" or obsolete views.

Note: this same editor is using Ben Yehuda's dictionary as an authority on Hebrew in Rabbinic texts (from the Mishna to the Toledoth Yeshu) [3] (I believe that Ben Yehuda was just creating a new Hebrew word to correspond to "Jesus" and other modern European languages names for the person identified, in Latin, as "Jesu") - and not making an argument about how to interpret the Talmud.

I hope you will consider addressing this, and perhaps you know of other editors who have the expertise that they can address this in an intelligent and well-informed way. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Yeshu

We could really use some thoughtful and well-informed comments here. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)