Talk:613 commandments

Relationship to halakha

Today I added to the intro the sentence:

It is part of the larger Jewish law or halakha.

...trying to add context since the article Halakha says:

It includes the 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic law and the customs and traditions compiled in the Shulchan Aruch

@Debresser: you reverted this addition with the edit summary "Not a good idea." I'm curious about the reason? I usually like to make it clear in the intro of articles if they are part of something larger; not sure if you're objecting to the claim or to where I put it or how I phrased it or something else? -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to explain what precisely made me press the revert button, on what seems a reasonable edit, although I clearly feel something is wrong with it. I will try and explain what I mean, but I will also post on WT:JUDAISM to receive input from other editors, to see if perhaps they can put a finger on the issue, or perhaps to the contrary will disagree with me.

I think the point is that the mitzvot stand at the basis of part of the halakha, but have been much elaborated upon, both by interpretation as well as by addition. Add to that the fact that not all mitzvot can be implemented nowadays, and strictly speaking that would mean that currently they are not part of the halakha, which term applies to applicable observances. In short, I think that for a lead section, it would be incorrect to make the general statement as you phrased it, and it would be better to avoid the issue in the lead. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's even a little bit of a problem with that edit. Halakha is bigger than the 613 mitzvot, but they are a part of it—even the basis of it—and just because one can't perform a mitzva right now doesn't mean it's not part of the halakha. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I put that sentence back in for now, though I'm open to revision if there are more opinions. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with you that there is support for this sentence. You added it, and one editor removed it. You opened a discussion, that same editor continues to disagree while one other editor agrees with you. No further discussion. That is not consensus.

Secondly, I decided to remove that whole paragraph. For two simple reasons. 1. The lead should summarize the article. Nowhere in the article is the Law of Moses mentioned. 2. The Law of Moses is not the 613 commandments. Add to that, that I still think the statement as you added it is not correct, or at least not clear enough as to the connection between the commandments and the halakha. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk???????????????¿Alllday.💤🐘🖕 2607:FB91:17CD:47B2:AC39:C1B2:6B07:9877 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Sefer Ha-Hinuch

Assuming a professionally-published mainstream academic source was cited for it, including the version of the 613 commandments from Sefer Ha-Hinuch wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea... if done right.

Were we to include versions besides Maimonides's, I think it would be best to do one list, noting variations. This potentially goes against WP:SYNTH but it's just neater than listing 613 entries potentially several times, especially when some of the lists are derived from others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am the guy [GoodJBoy] who tried to put the mitzvos of the Sefer Ha-Hinuch into this article. I did this for a few reasons: 1. First and foremost, there is no online English translation of the Sefer Ha-Hinuch Mitzvos. This would be THE only spot on the net with an English translation. 2. When it comes to learning the mitzvos, the two most respected authorities are Rambam and the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. The lists are similar but not the same. There are important differences. 3. The Rambam's list is organized by subject. The Sefer Ha-Hinuch is organized by their sources in the weekly Parsha. This means, as people read the weekly parsha, they can look into the Sefer Ha-Hinuch and see which mitzvos are sourced in that parsha and learn about them. In this way, as the entire Chumash is read each year, a person can travel through all the mitzvos in order as they appear in the parsha each year as well with the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. 4. The title of the article is "613 Commandments". It is not the "Rambam's 613 Commandments". If you are going to have an article about the 613 Commandments, even if it is a long article, it should contain the differing respected classic opinions on what the actual 613 mitzvos are. Hands down, the two most respected and classic listings are Rambam and the Sefer Ha-Hinuch.

The English listing posted was typed up and edited by myself (since there is no existing English list online) from the Feldheim version. I am not a regular contributor onto Wikipedia so I am not versed in how to properly format or cite things. My apologies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodJBoy (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I see there is a separate article on the Sefer Ha-Hinuch. I am trying to get the editors to accept publishing a listing of the Mitzvos on that page. If that is successful, rather than publish the Sefer Ha-Hinuch Mitzvos here, we can simply reference a link to the other article and keep this length of this article at a more normal length. Perhaps this should be the case for Rambam's listing of the mitzvos as well. It is probably better to cite the listing in other articles otherwise this article can grow gigantic. If you are going to post Rambam's list here, why not the B'Hag and Sefer HaHinuch and everyone else's list? I think the best approach is to post the content of the actual mitzva listings in the articles specific to each list and have this article cite those listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodJBoy (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You could rescue the list from the historical versions of this page, place them on a subpage of your user page, and work to format them, while waiting to see if it is appropriate to add them in somewhere. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

My View On The Number

613=6+1+3=10, swap the order of two numbers 1 and 0, we have "01", it means "no the One" for mockery purpose. Someone said the 613=611 + 2 (received directly from God), my view also works on this number, 611+2=6+4+2=12=1+2=3 (sacred number of Satan), the 4 number came from 11 number if we "join" them, not "add" them as tradition view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.181.153 (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Continuing discussion from User talk:SheriffIsInTown#613:

@Sir Joseph: Everything on Wikipedia needs sourcing to reliable sources so keeping this in mind, last half of the section Dissent and difficulties and complete Works enumerating the commandments section is currently source-less and should be removed. Your logic of list of books not needing sources is a baloney and not enshrined in any policy. Please add the sources instead of just keep denying a simple policy matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you tag what you feel needs sourcing. And it's not baloney that a list needs sourcing, it's common sense that if I have a list that is wikilinked. We don't need to overlink. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's a list of books discussing the topic, you don't need a ref for that, these are the refs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Everything which I removed initially needs sourcing so what's the point of tagging it. I told you that it needs sourcing and WP:BURDEN is on you to provide those sources. As I said we are not keeping that content without sources, either you provide sources if you want to keep it or I will remove it. I am not going to keep it tagged, once you tag and forget about it then it can stay tagged for years and no one adds the sources so you add sources or it is a goner. And yes, list of books alongside the statements needs sourcing to other third party sources. You cannot just add a book into a list and then make a statement regarding what it is about and do not support it with a source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in this topic if I may ask? And again, I challenged you on the deletion, and now we discuss. Tagging is the polite and proper thing to do. When I go through some of the articles, if I see a tag, I can research it. If it's deleted I can't. And a list of books is a bibliography, it doesn't need a source or ref, it is the ref or source on the topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Leave my interest on the side, I am all for keeping information authentic and true. Let 's say that I am interested in learning about Judaism and I came across this page, I want to make sure that what I am reading is authentic and true and only way to confirm is to support it with the sources that might not make it authentic and true in real life but would make it authentic and true in Wikipedia world. There are no polite or meaner ways here. I challenged some information and removed it, you want to restore it and keep it, the burden is on you to provide the sources so you can keep the information otherwise for me or for anyone else, there is no way to know if that information is true and authentic. Please check out the Bibliography section on this featured article, this is the way to add bibliography, at the end of the article with proper formatting without any additional statements and I can allow that on this article as well if you want to list them like that. Everything else except the name of the book and author will need to be removed because that is some body's original research, let's take the opening statement of that section for an example There is no single definitive list that explicates the 613 commandments. Lists differ, for example, in how they interpret passages in the Torah that may be read as dealing with several cases under a single law or several separate laws. Other "commandments" in the Torah are restricted as one-time acts, and would not be considered as "mitzvot" binding on other persons. - Who says all of this? Where is the source? (There is none because this is all written by a layman Wikipedia editor like me and you.) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Lists of books, and in general Further reading, Bibliography or External links sections are not sourced. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As I described above, this is not just the list, there is a lot of original research text in that section. Furthermore, the bibliography section is usually at the end of the article and formatted in a certain way and if it is very verified that a specific book is not relevant to the topic then it cannot be listed even in the bibliography section. So, if you move the list to a bibliography section at the end of the article then I am fine for you not sourcing it but if they are added the way they are added now then you must source each and every item or they get removed from the article as it is against the policy to keep unsourced content on Wikipedia and I will make sure that the policy wins over original research and bigotry! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:BATTLEFIELD. Language like "policy wins over bigotry" is insulting and indicative of the wrong attitude.

That having said, did you tag the parts you find problematic? That will help editors to find sources. You might even try to find some sources yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this removed content needs sources, now you know that, please do not restore without adding sources. I do not want this content on Wikipedia unless you add supporting sources. WP:BURDEN is on you to add sources, not on me! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it for now and tagged it to give you an opportunity to source it but know that I will not keep it tagged forever as I am seeking its removal unless editors comply with WP:BURDEN and source it! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't like your tone. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If everything had to be sourced, there would be a lot less information on Wikipedia. And who says the source is good? Readers should be warned to take unsourced information with a pinch of salt. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling

Does the proper spelling of Template:Lang-he really contain a quotation mark? Hairy Dude (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In Hebrew yes. The "quotation mark" is not a quotation mark, but an indication of an acronym. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it looked out of place, because it sticks up above the x-height. At some point it was actually a straight quotation mark ("). But checking it closely, it is in fact U+5F4 HEBREW PUNCTUATION GERSHAYIM. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Add do’s/dont’s/temple indicators to the listings

Can the 2 tables be modified? Have to go back to the editor who posted the lists?

Can the lists be displayed in a table with columns and search/sort/filter capability? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)