Talk:Talmud

Archives of past Talk pages:

• Archive 1 (Nov 2001 - Oct 2004)
• Archive 2 (Nov 2004 - Feb 2006)
• Archive 3 (Feb 2006 - March 2006)
• Archive 4 (March 2006)

This Page

Having read the posts by some contributors, I have been left quite distressed. There seems to be little regard for the truth and the so called talmud quotes, designed to shock people into hating Jews are dangerous and misleading. I have found this website [1], and specifically this [2], and think it might be useful with descerning the reality of them. Dave 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Any relevant arguments? "Useful" websites?! how exactly? let me quote rather the very last conclusion of that website:

"There is no such statement in the Bible or anywhere else. A Jew may not cheat a non-Jew exactly as he may not cheat a Jew see ibid. 348:2. E.S." (end quote).[3]

Now, seriously how possibly could he be relevant to any real straight and honest discussion. I mean, You've read the discussion above. Haven't you? Furthermore, the very same book he quotes (i.e. "Shulkhan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 348:2, look it up in a major library), rules the exact opposite from his questionable assertion. That, I wonder the most, how "useful" could that guy be? zadil 19:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're making a fool out of yourself, Zadil. Choshen Mishpat 348:2, in full translation: "One who steals even a nominal amount violates the Torah prohibition of 'don't steal', and is liable to repay the [entire sum]. [This applies] regarding stealing from Jews or non-Jews, adults or children." If you are concerned about the Rema, which I expect you would be, please be advised that there is a dispute whether it is forbidden according to Jewish law (and the Rema seems to favour the Mordechai here, who is stringent), and certainly does not encourage such behaviour. Your tactic is becoming a bit boring, and it certainly has nothing to do with Talmud, the supposed subject of this talk page. Please take your nonsense somewhere else, such as a blog or something. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Rama rules that a gentile may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction, provided he does not notice (and therefore God's name is not profaned). Than he adds that "Others" disagree and say that a Jew may only passively benefit from a Gentile's mistake, but may not actively and intentionally mislead him. Now:

1. by the famous Shach's principle [4], the "Others'" opinion is unimportant to that law, so that the Rama simply permits to intentionally deceive the Gentile.
2. When you wrote that the Rama seems to rule as the Mordechai, it was a complete fabrication, I hope you apologize.
3. The all basis for this law, is the Talmud we discussed here, when it considered the described deceit of the Gentile by the Amoraim as an example to follow, to which the Rama sadly seems to agree.
4. Was I boring again? If the answer is yes, I apologize. zadil 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will not apologise for not having the Shach on hand. You are clearly sitting next to a well-stocked bookcase full of your cherished seforim finding material to embarass Jews. Again the Rema does not in any way encourage misleading non-Jews, and I'm somewhat surprised you seem to overlook the obvious principle of dina de-malchuta. JFW | T@lk 07:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Rama rules that a gentile may be actively and intentionally misled and deceived during a commercial transaction, provided he does not notice..." Actually, several commentaries explain the Rema's ruling in light of the Maharshal, who clarifies that one must at least warn the non-Jew that the non-Jew is responsible for ensuring that the transaction is executed properly. As such, the Rema's ruling would not apply in a case of a non-Jew who is incapable of protecting his assets adequately - otherwise trickery would amount to outright theft. Rather, this ruling would only apply where the non-Jewish merchant is negligent despite being informed that the onus of oversight rests with him.

"When you wrote that the Rama seems to rule as the Mordechai, it was a complete fabrication..." Actually, the Rema cites the Mordechai's view as significant, though familiarity with the Rema's style indicates that the Rema disagrees with the Mordechai. Calling this a "complete fabrication" is nothing but hyperbolic theatrics.

"The all basis for this law, is the Talmud we discussed." Yeah, aside from several other gemaras. But you seem to be missing the point that you are focusing on one disputed law derived from an interpretation of the Talmud; numerous commentators did not extract the same understanding as the Rema.

"... an example to follow..." You keep trying to imply that tricking non-Jews is "encouraged" as some sort of a virtue. Leaving aside the issue of permissibility for now, you fail to grasp the distinction between permissible behavior and particularly encouraged behavior. HKT 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Apart from the very obvious that the Rama and Maharshal clearly disagree, you seem to confuse between rich imagination and exact quotes. The Maharshal simply adds that the Jew must recite to the Gentile "See, that I am relying upon you". Haven't the fraud become more ugly with such "honesty"?
2. Again, The Mordecahi's view is quoted for the sole reason to prove it as insignificant and irrelevant to that law. Again, I refer you to the Shach I linked to above.
3. It's not just "an example to follow". It's in fact prohibited to correct the Gentile's mistake and pay him the full amount. See Yeshuot Malco (Yore De'a 41).zadil 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm wondering why this 85 kb talk page hasn't been archived. The length is getting to be pretty tedious. HKT 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have archived about half of it, it is still 40 something kilobytes long so it may need a little more. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When someone archived the above discussions in good faith this was interpreted as vandalism/suppression and reverted. I support archiving as long as there is a link on this page that shows where previous discussions are kept. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving appears to be rather inconsistent. The archival labels don't even match the supposed dates they cover. The last archival is dated March but was done well into April.

Let's not use archival as another method of truth suppression. 71.132.199.57 (talk · contribs).

Hey, who are you anyway? That was one nice bit of assuming bad faith. You have been no party in these discussions apart from your comment below, and I'm really wondering why you are suddenly bothered about when the archiving took place. Page size and not date intervals determine archiving anyway. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues in original article

The section "Charges of Racism" contains two pro-Talmudic quotes. One is from the ADL, and the other is from Rabbi Gil Student, a fellow wikipedian. This section suffers from a biased POV. The Talmudists here have a great opportunity to show that they are not racist by showing a balanced view: one quote from a pro-Talmudic source and one from an anti-Talmudic source. However, if this is not done (and maintaned), we will all see for ourselves who is biased and not willing to publish an NPOV.

Remember, some in this world hate the truth. So when someone tries to share the truth with them, all they hear is hate. 71.132.199.57 (talk · contribs)

So the world is divided between Talmudists and non-Talmudists, right? Equivalence is not actually one of the tenets of WP:NPOV; balance is what we are looking for. You have not said what the "truth" is that you are referring to. Is it your truth, my truth or everybody's truth? Who determines that it is indeed the truth? After all, in this postmodern world, even truth is not objective anymore, just like you and I are by no means objective.

You are free to recommend a more neutral phrasing for the contended paragraph on this talkpage. Individual quotes, we have decided, are insufficient to "prove" that the Talmud is racist, because usually these quotes are meaningless outside their context and their classical interpretation. The best source is an academic resource that rationally examines the extent of "racist material" in the Talmud; as it is a kaleidoscopic work, there are many statements that are actually very positive about Gentiles and even idol-worshippers. A cursory glance at Tosafot will show that the Talmud frequently [appears to] contradict[s] itself. If you selectively pick the most negative quotes, you end up with the kind of POV you are so worried about. Hence my suggestion to pick a source that is not dedicated to "exposing the racism in the Talmud". Zadil has been incapable of producing such a source, despite the fact that someone in academe must have devoted some megabytes to this. After all, why take a neutral and reliable source when hyperbole and suble misrepresentation will do? JFW | T@lk 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the goal of postmodernism was to kill truth. It died a slow and painful death in the 70's and 80's. So now we've accepted that sex is not sex and drugs is not drugs if you don't inhale. The sky is green and the grass is blue because that's what someone wants to believe. Postmodernism is the antithesis of truth. It's not that I don't trust you. It's that I trust the evidence (close-up shot on Gil Grissom). 71.132.199.57 (talk · contribs)

Clearly the truth is different according to people who are looking at the same evidence. What exactly is it that you want and which truth should we represent? JFW | T@lk 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, the truth is not what is different. Truth does not change. We obviously have different philosophies here. Probably neither you or I nor this wiki page will arrive at the truth, due to (1.) lack of all the evidence (2.) lack of understanding (3.) personal bias. That being said, since this topic is controversial, I suggest an equal footing for each side, as in a debate. In order to be neutral, show both sides and let the reader decide. For example, in the racism section, there is no anti-Talmudic quote to balance (in a fair debate) the two pro-Talmudic quotes. Also, no contemporary individual is even mentioned by name, so the reader is not given prompted with any resources to study the other side of the debate. (You could add a quote from Michael Hoffman or Ted Pike here).

There is another deficiency in the External Links section. Actually, this doesn't flow very well. The last entry, "Refutation of Anti-Semitic allegations..." should have a section preceeding it with the allegations. In order to have a NPOV, we should present point, counterpoint, etc.

Gil Student is a wikipedian? (1.) What is username? (2.) How do you know this? If you're correct, I'd be interested in dropping a note on his talk page about the joke on this talk page. Wikipedia sure is generous with its mainspace. HKT 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My bad...Gil Student has a listing in wikipedia, though I don't know whether he posts here.71.132.199.57 (talk · contribs)

Sixth-Century Printing?

The claim "The Talmud was first printed in Italy during the sixth century," seems dubious. Printing wasn't known in Europe until the fifteenth century. Perhaps the sentence should say "sixteenth century" rather than "sixth century." Ortcutt 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is impossible to be printed in the sixth century (with rashi and tosephot no less!). I have changed it to sixteenth as it seems the most reasonable intention of the author, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of the statement. Jon513 18:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Racism in The Talmud and Reliable Sources

Or, as the ADL (quoted at length in the article) urges us "making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice."

Sure, it's an advice we must not ignore. I hope you'll let me illustrate such an effort by applying to reliable sources and seeking the advice of unexceptionable authorities in the Talmud.

It is regarding the life-saving of the Gentile that we find this quote from the Talmud:

• "Only for our own, who keep the Sabbath, may we waive it, but we must not waive the Sabbath for you who do not keep it." (Abodah Zarah 26a)

Now, it was a very good practice to seek the advice of an authority and reliable sources, but rather then quoting the full enjoyable deep analyses of the rabbis, let me please quote just their conclusions - when urging you strongly, if I may, to refer to and seek the full analyses in the following references.

The Mishnah Berurah, on the basis of this sugya, regrets:

• "Know that the doctors in our time, even the most religious, are not careful about this (i.e. the prohibition to treat the Gentile on Shabbat) at all, for every Sabbath they travel beyond the borders of the Sabbath domain to heal the Gentile, and they write [prescriptions], and grind substances [to prepare medicines], and they violate the Sabbath willfully and completely, G-d save us." (330:8)

The revered rabbi Chaim Kanievsky follows him in Shoneh Halakhoth (330:1) without any tiny objection, and rules the one must not desecrate the sabbath to save the Gentile's life.

In Yaskil Avdi, as an official rabbi - member of the "Supreme Rabbinical Court" - rabbi Ovadia Hadaya, after discussing that sugya, teaches:

• "So, that the law is very explicit, that there exist no permission whatsoever to violate the Shabbat by any Biblically-forbidden labour, even when there may be hostility - as explained above - because he can say to him that Sabbat one does not violate Sabbat unless to save the life of one observing it (i.e. a Jew), so, that we must not fear for hostility when we made this explanation clear." (part 6, page 297b, siman 9)

Even the "permissive" rabbi Ovadia Yosef who find some s to save the Gentile's life if the sole intention of the Jew is to escape punishment from authorities, concludes:

• "And whatever he can do to evade it (i.e. the treatment of the Gentile) in a manner that he can apologise by explaining that he's busy by treating another sick who is Jewish, he is obligated to do so." (Yabia Omer, part 8, Orah Hayim, 8:8)

I think that we can summarise the above by the following title: "The ADL Quote and Its Inexpectable Backlash". In fact, It's by itself a very good reason to remove altogether the ADL quote from this article. Isn't it? zadil 17:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So, Zadil, why on earth was I resuscitating a severely unstable non-Jewish patient with cirrhosis on a Saturday morning? And why did an important UK halakhic authority authorise this? Your quotes are so selective it is impossible to talk rationally with you. JFW | T@lk 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This response explains everything. What Zadil is trying to imply with his quotes is that Jews must follow them word for word (after all, they are in the Talmud) even without context. This basic misunderstanding of Jewish practices and thirst to 'muddy' the name of Jews with 'inhumane' rituals and obscure beliefs is not going to add anything to the article, precisely because it comes from someone who has little understanding of the subject. Dave 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, these quote discussions are getting old and have little to do with the Talmud article. Nevertheless, I thought I'd give my 2 cents here. The quote from Avodah Zarah seems to be taken out of context. If you click on the full page (yes it's from the anti-Semitic Come and Hear but even so, the page is enough to understand the context), the daf is talking about the prohibition of a Jewish midwife assisting in the labour of an idolater. The issue at hand isn't saving the life of a Gentile on Shabbat but rather the prohibition of taking an part in raising a child for idolatry. According to some sources in the daf, this is permitted on a weekday to prevent ill feeling. The quote about breaking Shabbat only for those who keep it is offered as a hypothetical excuse that is supposed to prevent ill feeling without any action needed. Although there is much potential for a discussion about the halakha of saving a Gentile's life on Shabbat, looking at the text I really don't think this is at all implied in the quote presented. The Talmud discusses saving a Gentile's life on Shabbat but in this case, the quote is out of context. Frikle 00:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Talmud take for granted the FACT that we are not desecrating the Shabbat to save the Gentile's life? Anyway, the Talmud (Yuma 83a, 85a) Implies very clearly that we must not save his life on Shabbat. zadil 02:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Zadil, I have reported these comments on WP:ANI, because you are deliberately disregarding material well known to you.

You have not addressed my point above: why was I trying to save the life of a non-Jew on Shabbat?

The answer to your incitement is that the Talmud a priori only allows breaking the Shabbat for those who will in the future observe the Shabbat (Mechilta on Ki Tissa has numerous opinions, but the Talmud in Yoma cites this particular one). For non-Jews, who are not commanded to observe the Shabbat, this exception is therefore not made. The poskim (Chatam Sofer, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein) have allowed Shabbat desecration in situations where this would lead to animosity, basing themselves on the principle of mishum eivah. The vast majority of Orthodox Jewish doctors rely on these rulings, especially outside Israel where most of their patients are non-Jews. You can cite sources all you like, but the facts are different. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1. the subject here is discrimination and racism. When there are so many influential rabbis even today who dare to discriminate against Gentiles when it comes to his life-saving, and all this because he's - G-d forbid - not Jewish, the criticism on these rabbis is very legitimate, to say the least!
2. Intentional deception is very disturbing and it's not welcome here in Wikipedia. Is it? Apart from the most influential rabbis I quoted above, one can quote the unexceptionable most leading authority in Halacha today rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv: "...but, it's most certain that one must not desecrate the Shabbat to save the Gentile's life, because a Jew is obligated to save the life only of another Jew as it's written..." (Kovetz Teshuvot, part 3, Orah Hayim: 69). The same halacha can be found in "Kaf HaHayim" (328:21, 328:91) and many others.
3. Speaking about "vast majority" (a deception by itself), one must point out the obvious, that in fact there is no possibly one single rabbi who would "permit" to save the life of this poor Gentile in case no other Gentile is paying attention or watching the Jew...for then there was no fear for animosity, and as the revered "Minchat Yitzhak" prohibits such a desecration in the most harsh terms in part 10 (34:14), and as it's the same concluded in "Torat Hayoledet" (the son-in-law of rabbi Elyashiv) and so many others. In fact, all of them! zadil 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DNFTT. JFW | T@lk 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Acharei Acharonim

User:Shykee added that after war world one all rabbi are Acharei Acharonim. This is very debatable. Furthermore, the use of the word "informally" in his addition is identical to the word unverifiable. I do not believe that there are any sources for such a distinction in the acharonim. Jon513 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "'very'" debatable ? It seems from User:Jon513's comment that s/he is familiar with the term "Acharei Acharonim" and acknowledges that it is used. If it is used then it has a place in the article. The word "informally" was actually used to pacify those who would say that the term is not set in stone. Indeed it is not, it is merely colloquial or idiomatic and the article will be re-edited to reflect that.. Shykee 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

When I said very debatable, I meant to say "with all due respect, I have never heard of this, and I know personally many Rabbis who have explicitly argued with acharonim, saying that they too are acharonim and can argue with them, if such an idea does exist I doubt very much that it is mainstream." I have never heard the phrase "acharei acharonim" and I don't know if it is in use, though I accept the possibility that someone may use this phrase. The whole idea of eras in halakha (tannaim, amoraim, savoraim, etc) is that a later generation cannot argue with an earlier one. If you say this is "informal" and "merely colloquial" then this is really not saying anything at all. You can also informally organize rabbis by the century they were born in but that would not really reflect anything significant.Jon513 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, the article did imply that the "Acharei Acharonim" would be considered a different era in terms of the right to argue and this was wrong. The term is used however, and what it does imply is simply the idea that 20th century scholars are a different era in terms of their analytical style and the focus of their writings. Shykee 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)shykee

I still disagree, but I don't care enough to argue about it. I guess that is the real problem with wikipedia. Jon513 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Conservative and "Secular

]I think the breakdown of modern scholars into Orthodox Conservative and Secular is uncalled for, somewhat bizarre, and the listings are incorrect. It's hard for me to understand why Menahem Kahana, Ephraim Urbach, E.S. Rosental etc. are secular. They all keep halakha and identify(ied) themselves as Orthodox. If you mean in the sense that their orentation towards the text is "secular" read "academic" then ARyeh Cohen, Charlotte Fonrobert etc. should be included. But what is the purpose of this list anyway?

Shilonite wrote: I agree. The article should distinguish between "yeshiva" ("religious") and "academic" talmudic study.

Talmiday Chachamim like Rabbis Shaul Lieberman, Simcha Asaf and Chanokh Albeck would surely be opposed to being described as anything other than Orthodox, although their talmudic method was "unorthodox".

Recent change

The use of the word "Attacks", portrays an exaggerated view up on the situation which really is a collection of substantiated critical views towards the talmud. All of the content within the heading show, only, critical views of the text within the Talmud, therefore "Critiscism" is more of an apppropriate word to use.

Lets try to keep Wikiepedia free from bias and free from superfluous opinionated exaggerations.

I changed the section title "External attacks..." back to its original form to better parallel the content of the section. HKT^Talk 03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting Orthodox POVs in the name of stricter Orthodoxy

Many times some people ignorant of Orthodox scholarship on the Talmud have damaged this article. They seem to be tying to protect what they imagine is the Orthodox point of view.

• They keep making false claims with no documentation or referneces. For example, their edit of the article implies that historical study of the Talmud began only in the modern era, and by Conservative rabbis. This claim is incorrect and unsourced.

• Orthodox Jewish scholars themselves agree that a history of historical analysis of the Talmud has existed within Orthodoxy itself, with approval of Orthodox rabbonim. The articles cited give such examples. (And you don't have to take anyone's word for it; get the books and see for yourself.) Yet "Talmud Defender" simply removes any trace of this and adds in unreferenced claims. He uses reverts to prevent work from being done on this article.

• "Talmud Defender" makes implied criticisms on all Orthodox Jews who accept historical analysis of the Talmud by falsely painting them as non-Orthodox. That claim is both incorrect and unsourced. It is also a violation of Wikipedia protocal as it also constitutes a personal attack. (For those of you who do not know, accusing an Orthodox rabbi of being non-Orthodox is a grave personal insult in the Orthodox Jewish community.)

• "Talmud Defender" uses scare quotes to imply that academic historical study isn't historical at all, which is a violation of long standing Wikipedia editing standards.

These problematic statements have been inserted into this very article many times before. Genuine mainstream academic and Orthodox quotes have been censored from this article many times before, even though they are properly referenced. We do not allow this behavior on any other articles, and we should not allow it to keep happening here. RK 21:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't always agree with RK, but if these additions are well-sourced they should stay. The issue of non-traditional methods of Talmud study is touchy and controverial, but it has been done from the Modern Orthodox side of the fence and it does have precedent, although I understand it is inconsistent with a Haredi perspective. However it is reasonable to point out that there is some controversy about this within Orthodoxy. I'd suggest (1) making a distinction between academic and Yeshiva-style study and POVs, much as there is a distinction between religious/exegetical and academic POVs regarding the Bible, and (2) Discussing the disagreement within Orthodoxy about the propriety of the approach. The historical approach is a minorty and somewhat controversial practice within Orthodoxy and can accurately be discribed as such. --Shirahadasha 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh not, "Talmud Defender" has censored every single one of these sourced statements yet again. Again has inserted his own unsourced claims. Please note that one of his claims is an outright lie: He claims that non-Orthodox Jews invented historical scholarship of the Torah. In point of fact, I am only adding classical rabbinic and Orthodox sources, but "Talmud Defender" simply deletes everything. RK

Rashi explicitly engages in what today is called higher historical criticism. (Rashi himself had no name for it, as far as I know.) For instance, on Shevuot 3b Rashi sees that the Talmud contains texts that show evidence of a later editor. Rashi writes "A mistaken student wrote this in the margin of the Talmud, and copyists {subsequently} put it into the Gemara." Rashi isn't "Conservative" or "Reform".

Orthodox Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer (great-grandson of the Kaf ha-Hayyim) is similarly clear that the text of the gemara has had changes and additions, and contains statements not of the same origin as the original. See his Yehi Yosef (Jerusalem, 1991) p.132 "This passage does not bear the signature of the editor of the Talmud!"

The Gaonic respona literature addresses this issue as wqell. Teshuvot Geonim Kadmonim, section 78, deals with mistaken biblical readings in the Talmud. (Although there are many quotes in the Talmud that are assumed to come directly from the Tanakh, a direct comparison of the quotes with any standard Torah or Tanakh shows that many of these "quotes" are incorrect, changed and altered) This Gaonic respona states:

...But you must examine carefully in every case when you feel uncertainty [as to the credibility of the text] - what is its source? Whether a scibral error? Or the superficiality of a second rate student who was not well versed?....after the manner of many mistakes found among those superficial second-rate students, and certainly among those rural memorizers who were not familiar with the biblical text. And since they erred in the first place....[they compunded the error.]

Teshuvot Geonim Kadmonim, Ed. Cassel, Berlin 1858, Photographic reprint Tel Aviv 1964, 23b.

Orthodox scholar Daniel Sperber writes in "Legitimacy, of Necessity, of Scientific Disciplines" on this very issue, noting many classical and Orthodox sources who engaged in the historical (also called "scientific") study of the Talmud, and wonders why so many Orthodox Jews are not taught about this. (Sperber has a very good point; since most Orthodox Jews are not taught about this part of the rabbinic tradition, when they do see it for the first time they imagine it is "Reform" or "non-Jewish", while in fact it always has been a traditional point of view.

While "Talmud Defender" claims to be defending Orthodoxy, he really is attacking Rashi, Rabbi Yaakov Hayim Sofer, and every other Orthodox rabbi quoted in the text and in this discussion page. He shows no evidence of having done any reading on the topic, and seems bent on deligitimizing all Orthodox Jews who disagree with him. We don't want to have to bring him to formal mediation, but if he continues to remove all Orthodox POVs (except his own ironically non-Orthodox view), if he continues to remove all sourced quotes, what else can we do? To allow cited facts showing a widespread POV to be repeatedly deleted is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

--- Above written by User:RK ----

As an FYI my Schottenstein addition shows numerous proposed emendations by later commentators who claimed the text they had received had become corrupted or was inaccurate. In some cases these emendations ended up being incorporated into what became the Vilna Shas, in some cases not. Artscroll's version of the Talmud has a very traditional commentary, but it's quite open about the text having been subject to question in various places throughout history. --Shirahadasha 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is why I am so confused about all this being labeled as "non-orthodox". Talmud Defender's claims that this stems only from modern day Conservatives makes no sense. What you find in Mesorah Publication's Schottenstein edition of the Talmud is also found in Adin Steinsaltz's commentary as well. Both are written by Orthodox Jews, and both are used in the Orthodox Jewish community. RK

What is ironic is that Talmud Defender may be under the impression that Conservative rabbis use such textual analysis as a reason to change halakha. Yet as far as I can tell, they don't do that at all. Since even Artscoll, Steinsaltz and Rashi agree on this, I can't see any reason to keep Talmud Defender's version of the text. RK

Attack on RK by Talmud Defender

RK is trolling when he writes that he is trying to introduce the Orthodox viewpoint, in fact most of his entries are not relevant and seem to be coming from his own mind. He is clearly biased by his religous beliefs and will stop at nothing to push them here. After the last edits by him, I went through some of his history and it all shows the same bias against anybody that is religous. Why he hates religous people, I don't know, but I am sure that this is not the place for him to deal with it.

We now have to take disciplinary action against "Talmud Defender" for false accusations of lying and academic dishonesty. I have the actual books and articles on this subject, all from Orthodox writers, with me as I type this. "Talmud Defenders" hateful claims that these books and articles do not exist are a clear attempt to continue his vandalism of the article.

I find it especially disturbing that offering multiple citations from Orthodox rabbis prompts "Talmud Defender" to claim that I "hate religious people". There is more than a small chance that he may (literally) be suffering from psychosis. Agreeing with Orthodox Jews is not hating religious people, and denying the existence of real books and articles that anyone can get in the library is either a childish prank, or a clinical sign of mental disturbace.

Imagine going into the articles on "General relativity" and deleting citations from real physicists, and then justifying this by claiming that the authors of this article "hate scientists, and that all the science articles cited "seem to be coming from his own mind". We would never allow such vandalism, and would recognize such behaviour right away as trolling or mental disturbance. The same must be true in all Wikipedia articles. RK 02:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)