Talk:Chumash (Judaism)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Judaism High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article title

Should this be Chumash? I mean, I've never seen it spelled humash. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that Chumash is the name of an tribe. Maybe we should make Chumash be a disambiguation page and make the articles Chumash (tribe) and Chumash (Pentateuch)

Please do not change this page. Both ways are correct. Humash is the correct Anglicization. This is also the case for Hakham; Halizah; Hazzan and others. See Category:Hebrew words which has both types "Ch" and "H" altho "Ch" has more entries for now. IZAK 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that WP has a California tilt. Every county, city, town, and truck stop in California has a Wiki page, and the Chumash tribe is mentioned in most of them. Having [[Chumash]] direct other than the tribe is just a mess. We could have a page titled "Chumash (Pentateuch)" or "Chumash (Torah)" or something like that if we didn't have the name "Humash", but the "H" spellings are more common these days (eg Hanukkah).

I did a "what links here" on Chumash and fixed all articles that appeared to have Jewish topics. If Humash was meant in some California community page, I didn't check that.Barticus88 00:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES YES YES it should be Chumash. Of course it should be. 'Humash' is totally archaic. Barticus88 obviously does not know what he is talking about. In the Jewish world, we all write 'ch' nowadays, and practically never write 'h' or 'kh' any more. Only non-Jewish academics and klezmer bands write that way. It is totally ridiculous to transliterate a ches/chof as 'h' (or 'kh'). Reuvenk, you have my vote. --Rabbeinu 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is several months old, so it's kind of pointless to address these users. I agree with you that the article should be Chumash (perhaps Chumash (Judaism) since the Native American tribe is much more notable) - but only because it is the more common spelling of the word today. The part about how we all write 'ch' nowadays is simply not true - as a cursory example, see the Guide to Transliteration Style of the Torah U-Madda Journal. That's not to say that you have to accept it, but just know that it's out there and not relegated to klezmer bands. --DLand ^TALK 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chumash (Judaism) as the new title for this article. If nobody else objects, let's get on with it. --Rabbeinu 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - I doubt anyone will have a problem. Remember to put a disambiguation note at Chumash (I prefer Template:Otheruses4).--DLand ^TALK 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please assist with linkfixes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Chumash_%28Judaism%29 . A weird problem there: many of the articles which are listed there as linking to Humash do not contain that word/link anywhere at all, at least not according to Firefox's search function. I've changed a whole bunch of links, will go on tomorrow (lichtzeit now). --Rabbeinu 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem is a result of {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} which still contained "Humash". It still says "Ḥumash", but now the link is to Chumash (Judaism) instead of to the redirect. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight problem with the page renamed as Chumash (tribe) - with over 10,000 people it is way bigger than just a tribe. I am going to rename the page Chumash people to be correct. Goldenrowley 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Torah portion}} does not belong on this page. It's irrelevant (and too long, btw).—msh210℠ 19:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi msh: (1) Humash is the Hebrew name for the Pentateuch. The Humash refers to a "Hebrew Pentateuch". A Humash is almost always divided not only by verses and chapters (which is of non-Jewish origins) but by the 54 Parshas (parshiyot) which is the tradition of Judaism. The Humash thus contains each week's Torah reading of the weekly Parsha (Torah portion) read as part of the services on Shabbat, and the Monday and Thursday Torah readings. (2) The template {{Torah portion}} is at the bottom of the Humash article's page, so essentially it's part of the "See also" section which is a legitimate way of connecting related and connected topics on an article. (3) If a reader finds the {{Torah portion}} to be "too intrusive" then any reader is free to click "Hide" on the top right section of the template's heading which shrinks it to an unobtrusive one liner. Finally, (4) the {{Torah portion}} is presently diligently updated weekly by User:Dauster early each Sunday so that any readers may learn more about the weekly Parsha. User:Dauster summarizes each week's Parsha and adds some interesting graphics which surely adds life and color to a page that may gain the attention of readers who don't know much about this subject and may want to learn more. Please refer all further comments and discussions to one centralized location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Template: Torah portion Thank you. IZAK 07:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Here's one, if you want it: Image:Chumash 01.jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Torah?

Since Chumash is just another name for the Torah, shouldn't it be merged, with perhaps a small section dealing with the alternate name? Serendi ^pod ous 07:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. "Torah" also has a wider meaning as "Jewish law" as a subject of study ("written Torah" and "oral Torah"). "Chumash" is a particular way of presenting the written Torah in book form. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It should not be merged with Torah. The difference between Torah and Chumash is like the difference between "literature" and "a book". The term "Chumash" or "Humash" refers to specific type of copy of the Torah (one that is bound like a book, and which contains Hebrew letters which have not been specially typed); whereas Torah can refer specifically to the Five Books of Moses ("published" as a scroll with specially written Hebrew characters or published in the form of a Chumash) or generally to the entire body of Jewish law which derives from it (as in the phrase Dvar Torah). ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew from Greek nonsense

Per this diff and this diff:

It appears that there is an attempt to imply that "Chumash" is derived from the Greek "Pentateuch", rather than the reverse. Also, I object to the latter diff for the following reasons:

This is an article on the term "Chumash", not on the term "Pentateuch". There is a wikilink to "Pentateuch" where readers can learn everything they want to know about the term "Pentateuch". There is no need to include that information in this article.
It is unnecessary to qualify "Torah" with "written", since the unqualified use of the word "Torah" -- except in set phrases such as "D'var Torah", "Torah study", "Study of Torah", etc. -- refers specifically to the scroll containing the Five Books of Moses.

← Michael Safyan^(talk) 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I was only trying to reconcile the objectives of the different editors, by pointing out that "Pentateuch" and "Chumash" correspond in meaning, as a sidelight on "Chumash". I was certainly not saying that "Chumash" is a retroversion of "Pentateuch". I tend to avoid using "Torah" with this meaning, because of its ambiguity. Even apart from the question of Oral Torah, which is important, the root meaning is simply "teaching": "Torah" for Pentateuch is short for "Torat Moshe", but one can also speak of "Torat nevi'im" etc. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first five books in codex or modern book form only?

I'm not sure if the article should be taken to mean that or if Chumash can refer to the first five books in other contexts. I know the meaning of Torah can vary depending on who is using it so I wondered. 105.226.83.65 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If I may ask a question? Is the : A ḥumash-Rashi also contains the Targum of Onkelos and the commentary of Rashi, and may or may not have a vernacular translation of the text.

So is the above, in regards to Rashi's comments including the Onkelos, is this Titus the Emperor that sponsored the writing of the torah by the apostle Paul who studied under Gamaliel, and who lived and worked with Priscilla and Aquilla the nephew of the Emperor? Is that the one included in the Rashi commentary? Is there a better commentary that has all of the commentaries in one book set for the Chumash? If so which is that? I am unfamiliar with all the different versions and am trying to choose which one to get and am unsure as there are so many different sects, and divisions and as many opinions.

SO which is considered the primary one above or including all others, or do you think it best to get one with just hebrew english only and a separate book for all the commentaries? What is considered Kosher? What do you all say? Are there links to the best ones, online to see the differences?

Is there differences, in ones from pharisaical origin as opposed to the sadducee origins of the ones from the aaronic lines? Which do they use, versus the ones like pharisees like Paul is the Rashi one, with Onkelos the Uncle as in Titus sponsoring it the official one for those believers?

If so and Rashi had the full original copies or access to translations to the copies from such did Rashi include a commentary for the New Testament portion of the books scrolls sponsored by Onkelos, the Uncle, as in the Emperor Titus, the Uncle of Aquilla/wife Priscilla, the Jewish convert who sponsored Apostle Paul who studied under Gamaliel the Pharisee and scholar, and he wrote copies as a pharisee of his originals and all of the New Testament writings is there any surviving source translated today with, or where the Rabbi's have given their commentary on it all, in full the New Testament letters epistles to the Jewish synagogues in Asia minor , is there such a modern translation in Hebrew/English with Rabbinical commentary ? I would like to see a FULL CHUMASH for the whole set of books and epistles and the Rabbi's comments with their view on the use of Old Testament quotes by all the Jewish apostles and how it was revealed that Jesus is YHVH the hand nailed in grace to the tree, YHVH being made curse to bear our sin as a sacrifice fulfilling the promise of numbers that the bridegroom can redeem the bride if HE takes the penalty of obligation on himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.119.44 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole question is based on a confusion. Rashi was a French Jewish commentator who lived in the 11th century CE. A Chumash-Rashi contains only the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) with Rashi's commentary. "Onkelos" is an Aramaic translation that was regarded as official. The name is probably a misunderstanding of "Aquila"; but Aquila's translation was in Greek. The New Testament does not enter into either Onkelos or Rashi at any point; and NT quotes from the OT usually come from the Septuagint, which was an older Greek translation. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]