Jump to content

Talk:Shmita: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Noting merge in
Toroid (talk | contribs)
123 edits
Criticism of Translation of Motza'ei
Line 163: Line 163:


The first footnote refers to Easton's Dictionary, to its article on Sabbatical Year, though the citation did not mention what dictionary article it was following. Easton is way out of date now as a Bible Dictionary. I don't know who wrote the Easton article or if old Easton wrote all the articles in his dictionary? I think you will find that reliable commentaries on Leviticus 25:5-6 interpret that the passage allows owners to eat the spontaneous produce of the Sabbatical year. Thus I deleted the footnote part that followed Easton on an owner prohibition. Having looked at a number of commentaries and the text itself, I see a prohibition of a land owner from doing a formal harvest, not from simple small gathering of food to feed himself and his family. ([[User:PeacePeace|PeacePeace]] ([[User talk:PeacePeace|talk]]) 05:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC))
The first footnote refers to Easton's Dictionary, to its article on Sabbatical Year, though the citation did not mention what dictionary article it was following. Easton is way out of date now as a Bible Dictionary. I don't know who wrote the Easton article or if old Easton wrote all the articles in his dictionary? I think you will find that reliable commentaries on Leviticus 25:5-6 interpret that the passage allows owners to eat the spontaneous produce of the Sabbatical year. Thus I deleted the footnote part that followed Easton on an owner prohibition. Having looked at a number of commentaries and the text itself, I see a prohibition of a land owner from doing a formal harvest, not from simple small gathering of food to feed himself and his family. ([[User:PeacePeace|PeacePeace]] ([[User talk:PeacePeace|talk]]) 05:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC))
==Seder Olam and the Sabbaticals Associated With the Two Destructions of Jerusalem==
This section reads like an advert for the opinion of an American Evangelical, Rodger C. Young, with no idiomatic knowledge of Hebrew and no relevant higher scholarly degree. It specifically cites an article that Young wrote fourteen years ago. The whole argument revolves about the correct translation of Motza'ei Shmita . He argues that this is correctly understood as the latter part of the Sabbatical year. The problem with this is that Motza'ei in the related phrase [[Motza'ei Shabbat]] is an integral part of Jewish vocabulary. Motza'ei Shabbat always refers unambiguously to the part of Saturday evening after the close of Shabbat. There are specific prayers for this period and these prayers have been continuously recited in Jewish households since time immemorial. To interpret Motza'ei Shabbat as the later part of Shabbat is inconceivable, and it is equally inconceivable to interpret Motza'ei Shmita as the later part of a Sabbatical year. The way Benedict Zuckerman interpreted this phrase is correct and this section is just plain wrong.[[User:Toroid|Toroid]] ([[User talk:Toroid|talk]]) 03:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:16, 26 January 2020

Tag About Article Requiring Consensus

I tagged the current article for consensus because of the argument going on about the when the last Shmita occurred in the biblical references section. The controversy could be discussed in a neutral fashion. At the moment it appears as though two editors having an argument on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.186.237 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to suppose that there will be consensus on Bible interpretation. Better to just list the POV's. (EnochBethany (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Cancellation of debts

From the article:

The Sabbatical year is still enforced in Israel and the seven year cycle has not been lost. The time of the occurence of the Jubilee Year though, has been 'lost'. Observance of the Sabbatical year is of high accord and one who doesn't, may not allowed to be a witness in a Jewish court.

I find this difficult to believe, because cancellation of debts is a practice incompatible with modern finance, and the population of the present State of Israel is too large to survive without continuous land cultivation (don't know how much food they import, but still). It's possible that a heavily modified version of the custom is practiced, though. Could someone give evidence/citations?

Zack 18:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zack: You are correct, there are "ways around it" and I have made the corrections within the article that this is a matter relating to Torah observance/s within Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 10:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The cancellation of debt only applies to outstanding loans. Jon513 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it said that in the 6th year before the Sabbatical year there will be THREE times the produce grown, which will be more than enough grain for the Sabbatical year? I have also heard that there is backed up by empirical evidence today. I've done some brief searches with no results. If anyone can find the source please add it!

Hi! I've provided a source and a section on the current status of the Biblical promise of bounty. The source notes that while many Haredi Jews still believe in this promise and tell anecdotal stories of its fulfillment in modern times, they also caution against demanding or relying on miracles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the New York Times articles on the religious/political controversies in Israel the current (2007-8) shmita is generating should remove all doubt that Shmita really exists as a current and notable phenomenon. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

The Biblical practice of bonded servitude until the Shmita year e.g. as punishment for crime is not currently practiced in contemporary Judaism.

What Biblical practice is being referred to here? The bonded servitude is limited by 6 years from the sentence, but is not related to the the Shmita year. --Skinnyj83 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to suppose that the indentured servitude has no relation to the Sabbatical Year? (EnochBethany (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Because a thief could be sentenced to a six-year bond at any time, not just at the beginning of the shmita cycle. Therefore his sentence would not expire in the shmita year. -- 76.15.128.226 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name and structure of article

As the above discussion notes, this article concerns a contemporary Jewish practice which has evolved substantially since Biblical days. Why not, as with other contemporary Jewish practices, focus on the contemporary practice and then explain its biblical roots and the history of how it changed during the days of the Mishna and Talmud, and since. It would be like an article on Dietary Laws (Bible) that mentions as an afterthought that Jews still follow them. This article is as misleading as such an article would be. It fails to take into account that many of the rules Modern Jews follow are based on Oral Law and rabbinical decrees, not the Bible itself. I propose renaming to Shemita with Sabbatical Year redirecting to it, and restructuring the article to describe the contemporary Jewish practice, giving the biblical roots of the practice and explaining how it was affected by subsequent rabbinic rulings and historical events. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be WP:BOLD and make the changes. No content has been lost, it's just been reorganized. The intro and other relevant sections are now in the present rather than the past tense, and are geared to the contrmporary rather than the Biblical practice. A small amount of additional content has been added explaining the reasoning behind the approach taken in modern Israel. Material on the Talmudic device of Prosbul )for loan remittance) has been added. The Biblical criticism material questioning whether the practice was actually carried out as described in Biblical times has been moved to a separate section. The way rabbinical authorities handled Shmita at the dawn of Zionism a century ago represents a classic and very notable example of how Jewish law develops in ways that both remain faithful to and nonetheless alleviate the dificulties of a problematic Biblical injuction. The underlying thought process may be relevant to various contemporary Jewish-law discussions as Orthodox Judaism tackles contemporary social issues. This is important to have on Wikipedia which is, after all, for a contemporary rather than a Biblical audience. I believe the article approach is a change for the better. --Shirahadasha 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical criticism perspectives

The section currently (after rewriting to attribute to the current source) has the following:

According to the 1897 Easton's Bible Dictionary, debts were to be suspended for the year rather than remitted entirely. This practice was, presumably, instituted to prevent the resources of the debtor, already stretched thin due to the land lying fallow, being exhausted by the discharging of debts.

I'm wondering if this language is presenting an independent theory about pre-Rabbinic Biblical society, or is simply retelling the previous discussion about the introduction of Prosbul. The reason I'm suspicious that the latter may be the case is that the presumed reason Easton's gives for the change is the same reason as the one the Talmud gives for why Hillel introduced it. If Easton's information is simply a rehashing of Talmudic sources and it is not providing an independent modern critical perspective, I'd suggest either removing the material or noting that Easton's agrees with the traditional Jewish perspective on this issue. --Shirahadasha 18:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How common is it to find "an independent modern critical perspective," as opposed to a modern politically-correct perspective? (EnochBethany (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Looked up the Sabbatical Year entry in Easton's and the entry does not contain most of the information in this section. This section is therefore unsourced and will need to be removed per WP:V unless sources are provided. Thank you. --Shirahadasha 18:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, moved the following recently added content here:

[2 Chronicles] Yet, although there is mention in the bible that the temple was destroyed it does say afterwards the land layed in remission for threescore and ten years. Suggesting that as order was restored the practice of sabbatical resumed.

The reason for this is that Wikipedia generally cannot accept an editor's personal interpretation of the Bible. Statements about history based on inferences from Biblical passages need to be be sourced and attributed. This is particularly relevant for the "Biblical Criticism perspectives" section, which is intended to present the views of modern academic scholars who tend to take a very non-literal view of the Bible. Accordingly, material added to this section should be actual biblical criticism material, sourced and attributed to some modern academic scholar.--Shirahadasha 18:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23rd century

Any validity to the unsourced thousand year sabbatical mentioned in 23rd century? Came here looking for more details, but see little to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.175.232 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard this theory. I'm sure there are folks in the ages who may have come up with various theories I've never heard of. But it's not in any way a basic Jewish belief. I added unsourced tags to the section in the 23rd century article. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have never heard of the septimillennial theory, one version of it would be thatonthe POV that the earth was created c. 4000 BC, we are now c 2000 AD, thus about to enter the millennium??? (EnochBethany (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hakhel

I'm wondering why this observance is written up in this article, and not in an article of its own, since it occurs after the Shmita year ends, during Sukkot. Perhaps we should start a new article called Hakhel, and put mentions of it in this and the Sukkot article? Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to such an article. Be bold! --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

It might be worthwhile to discuss a potential origin of this practice, namely that of allowing land to recover so that it might be used indefinitely. I know little about farming, but I understand that if land is used to cultivate the same type of produce year after year than it becomes deficient in a variety of nutrients. Allowing the land to farrow would give microorganisms in the topsoil a chance to regenerate these nutrients. It seems reasonable to me that persons writing this law may have been aware of the usefulness of allowing land to run to seed every once in a while.

Does this idea make sense to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chansebout (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons for shmitta, and should be part of the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification

This article started off in 2004 with

This article incorporates text from Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897), a publication now in the public domain. Sabbatical year - every seventh year, during which the land, according to the law of Moses, had to remain uncultivated (Lev. 25:2-7; comp. Ex. 23:10, 11, 12; Lev. 26:34, 35). Whatever grew of itself during that year was not for the owner of the land, but for the poor and the stranger and the beasts of the field. All debts, except those of foreigners, were to be remitted (Deut. 15:1-11). There is little notice of the observance of this year in Biblical history. It appears to have been much neglected (2 Chr. 36:20, 21). From Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897)

And its certainly grown since then. But there's still a reliance on primary sources, rather than WP:PSTS. It also is lacking any academic sources on the underlying topic - fallow years and crop rotation in Ancient Israel. I've added 2, very briefly, more is needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heter mechira

"Some Haredi farmers do not avail themselves of this leniency and seek other pursuits during the Shmita year." What is the source for this? Is it only Haredi farmers who hold by this chumra, or are there any Modern Orthodox, Dati Leumi, and/or Chardal who are strict in this regard as well?

--Adamgold33 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bible - Christian Scripture

Is there any mention of the Sabbatical Year in Christian Scripture (New Testament) or in the Apocrypha? And if so, should it be added to the Bible section? Perhaps, but perhaps not. If no, then why not? Because that would not have been considered authoritative by the Jews who observed the Shmita? If yes, then why? --Adamgold33 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a key word search on the Protestant New Testament and could find no mention of the sabbatical year.--Nowa (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any such thing as "the Protestant New Testament." (EnochBethany (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Verbs & Tense Shift in Opening Paragraph & Elsewhere

"During shmita, the land is left to lie fallow and all agricultural activity, including plowing, planting, pruning and harvesting, is forbidden by halakha (Jewish religious law). Other cultivation techniques (such as watering, fertilizing, weeding, spraying, trimming and mowing) may be performed as a preventative measure only, not to improve the growth of trees or plants. Additionally, any fruits which grow of their own accord are deemed hefker (ownerless) and may be picked by anyone. A variety of laws also apply to the sale, consumption and disposal of shmita produce. All debts, except those of foreigners, were to be remitted."

The article says "IS . . . IS . . . MAY BE . . . MAY BE . . . APPLY . . . WERE TO BE." Should this read "ARE TO BE"?
"According to the laws of shmita, land owned by Jews in the Land of Israel is left unfarmed." The verb used is a simple present tense IS. Does this sentence mean ALL the land owned by ALL Jews? There are no secular Jews who ignore the 7th Year Sabbath? I mean there are Jews practicing Sodomy & parading about it in the street. There is prostitution in Israel. Is it correct that absolutely every Jew who is a farmer leaves his land unfarmed on the 7th year??? Is this a law of Israel? Or should the verb be changed to from IS to OUGHT TO BE or MUST BE if this law is to be followed?

(EnochBethany (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Except Those of Foreigners

That is an interesting claim to be investigated. Are there not statements in the Torah regarding gentiles who move into Israel that there is one law for them and for the descendants of Jacob? Does this statement refer to gentiles living in foreign countries? (EnochBethany (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No. The statement you allude to refers to converts, not to foreigners who settle in Israel but remain gentile. -- 76.15.128.226 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shmita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Edits checked - BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shmita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shmita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Tense?

The intro paragraph launches out & maintains the present tense. But suddenly the last sentence changes to past tense:

"All debts, except those of foreigners, were to be remitted.[2]" Please clarify the last sentence. Is the implication that while the preceding is modern Israeli practice, the remission of debts on the Sabbatical year is not modern, but only a practice commanded in the Torah (whether or not it ever was actually obeyed)? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure that Easton's Dictionary is an altogether reliable source for this topic

The first footnote refers to Easton's Dictionary, to its article on Sabbatical Year, though the citation did not mention what dictionary article it was following. Easton is way out of date now as a Bible Dictionary. I don't know who wrote the Easton article or if old Easton wrote all the articles in his dictionary? I think you will find that reliable commentaries on Leviticus 25:5-6 interpret that the passage allows owners to eat the spontaneous produce of the Sabbatical year. Thus I deleted the footnote part that followed Easton on an owner prohibition. Having looked at a number of commentaries and the text itself, I see a prohibition of a land owner from doing a formal harvest, not from simple small gathering of food to feed himself and his family. (PeacePeace (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Seder Olam and the Sabbaticals Associated With the Two Destructions of Jerusalem

This section reads like an advert for the opinion of an American Evangelical, Rodger C. Young, with no idiomatic knowledge of Hebrew and no relevant higher scholarly degree. It specifically cites an article that Young wrote fourteen years ago. The whole argument revolves about the correct translation of Motza'ei Shmita . He argues that this is correctly understood as the latter part of the Sabbatical year. The problem with this is that Motza'ei in the related phrase Motza'ei Shabbat is an integral part of Jewish vocabulary. Motza'ei Shabbat always refers unambiguously to the part of Saturday evening after the close of Shabbat. There are specific prayers for this period and these prayers have been continuously recited in Jewish households since time immemorial. To interpret Motza'ei Shabbat as the later part of Shabbat is inconceivable, and it is equally inconceivable to interpret Motza'ei Shmita as the later part of a Sabbatical year. The way Benedict Zuckerman interpreted this phrase is correct and this section is just plain wrong.Toroid (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shmita&oldid=937611374"