Talk:Brit milah

Judaism B‑class Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

בְּרִית מִילָה is pronounced as Berit mila rather than brit mila.

The word בְּרִית in בְּרִית מִילָה is should be pronounced as bErit rather than brit, since the letter בְּ is with "shva na" (Hebrew vowel like e) rather than "shva nakh" which is not pronounced. It's a common mistake that now also documented on Wiki and misleads people that doesn't know well Hebrew. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shva might be a shva na But it is pronounced weakly or not at all due to yiddish influence. Carenymre (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broad City

User:bus stop removed my edit, I don't understand what is wrong with "drew attention to". Causing Bustle to write an article about the show's description of it sounds like drawing attention to me. How would you describe it? Ash Carol (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not support the assertion. Your assertion was that "Season 3 of Broad City drew attention to the practice in 2016." But nowhere in the source is support for that assertion. Please feel free to cut and paste to this Talk page material from that source which you feel supports the assertion that "Season 3 of Broad City drew attention to the practice in 2016." Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Testament?!

Why is there a section close to the top about the New Testament? Brit milah is a Jewish practice. There is no need for Christians to insert their takes on the subject in an article about Jewish practice. I understand that it is true that Christians have historically adopted or interpreted these customs, but the tone of the section implies that the practice is just as important and relevant to Christians as it is to Jews. I think it is out of place where it is. Similarities with Islam aren't mentioned until section 8; doesn't it make more sense to place the Relevance to Christians section alongside it? Edit: I'm supposed to sign, apparently? Hopefully I did it right this time. 66.44.8.229 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism?

I'm on the phone and also am inexperienced in Wikipedia editing. However the first part of the article seems to be biased against orthodox Judaism. Carenymre (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Dear all,

Agreed, this page has extreme bias or in wikipedia jargon NPOV issues. For interested editors, here is a source which may be beneficial in correcting this https://www.academia.edu/21731836/Circumspection_an_Inquiry_into_Brit_Milah

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

certainly the first paragraph is bizarre. If the article is about a religious rite, then what does "controlling male sexuality" have to do with it? That has nothing to do with this Jewish religious rite. If such an idea needs to be in the article, it would be in a separate section on "conspiracy theories" or "non-Jewish interpretations". Actually, most of the lede should be elsewhere. and some of it seems like original research (epispasm, eg). 142.163.194.161 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other articles and the main circumcision article on Wikipedia, this page does seem to have NPOV issues with language and focus, selective quotations and emphasis, etc... It seems to have gotten worse with edits over the past year and a half or so. 216.161.81.210 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

covenant of circumcision

Is this actually the most technically accurate translation of what the Hebrew term means?

"circumcision" means "cut around", compare for example to "incision" which does not, since it lacks the prefix "circum"

Does the term milah have anything in it specifying "around" ?

If it doesn't then wouldn't "covenant of incision" or "covenant of cut" be more accurate?

Actually wondering what the earliest usage was of this term. Doing a google books search I've been able to find results back to the 1510s or so before the Old English makes it unintelligible. WakandaQT (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]