Talk:Talmud/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Editions

I came to this page trying to find some information on where to find a good edition of the two Talmuds, but the section is small, cryptic, and not put in a terribly good place. I would suggest adding into the reference section the ISBNs of some editions with the original Hebrew and Aramaic text in them. Let's face it, it is difficult to find texts in the original languages of dead languages if you aren't taking it in college. At the very least, could someone point me in the right direction even if it doesn't get added into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.70.220 (talk) 00:56, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Who says that they speak a dead language in Israel? Seriously, if you want to buy a Babylonian Talmud, try a Jewish bookstore on E-Bay. Understand that you are buying a set of about 100,000 folio sized pages in the standard edition, without translation. If you want translation too, you will be running at least 250,000 pages. You can find a smaller edition, without the later commentaries, on line at e-daf.com. E-daf also has oral lectures which translate the Talmud and some of the commentary of Rashi as well.

The Jerusalem Talmud will be harder tto find. Even though it is only 1/3 the size of the Babylonian Talmud, I am not familiar with a translation that is currrently in print. You might want to try the websites of some of the Jewish booksellers such as Goldman in New York or Rosenblum in Chicago. Phil burnstein (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many, many sites where you can order Talmud sets in the original languages. Examples are Nehora (www.judaicaplus.com) and www.mysefer.com. For translations, there are the Soncino, Schottenstein and Steinsaltz editions. Soncino has its own website (and the books exist both in parallel text and in English only; there is also a CD-ROM); the other two can be found in most Jewish religious bookshops. The Jerusalem Talmud is harder. For the original, try the same sites I have mentioned; for translation, try finding the Neusner translation on Amazon. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Fennessy (talk · contribs) tagged the section "external attacks" and its subsection "contemporary attacks" with {{POV}} tags. I have temporarily removed the tags and asked Fennessy to participate in a discussion on this talkpage before resorting to the placement of tags; without at least some communication on this talkpage there is no way of knowing with what statements this user disagrees. JFW | T@lk 12:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary attacks section especially is very biased; it only defends the Talmud against the notion that its racist without explaining why people might think it is racist.

The fact that one of the only two views given is from the Anti-Defamation League I found particularly unbalanced.

The section as it stands is unbalanched, the tag is necessary.Fennessy 03:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, you are not the first to come to this talkpage purely to belabour this point. You have not contributed a letter to the article. I suspect that you have no familiarity at all with the style, structure and content of the Talmud, but someone on a website that you like has told you that there is "racist" content in a book about 1500 years old. Guess what: read any religious work from that time and chances are that you will find similar content.

Antisemites have attacked the Talmud numerous times basically since its composition. May I kindly draw your attention to "Talmudic Judaism and Society" by S.R. Hirsch (Collected Writings VII page 209-244). Let me know when you've read this. JFW | T@lk 13:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you are very wrong on the assumptions that you have made about me, your just going to have to take my word that I'm not an anti-semite or a racist; I've done nothing here that would lead anyone reasonable to believe so(first Principle of Wikipedia etiquette: assume good faith, your an administrator, you should know this). But I thank you for the reference.

I may not have contributed here but I have elsewhere on wikipedia, so I hardly think thats a real issue.

Both the Quran and the bible wiki articles have criticism sections(or simular equivalents), why should this Jewish text be any differnt?

Even the naming of the section "external attacks" is POV.Fennessy 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for immediately distancing yourself from all other people who have previously made a fuss about this paragraph. If you can produce legitimate and notable critcisms of the Talmud that have not been motivated by Jew-hatred or by some other ideological paranoia, then please propose them here. If they are indeed legitimate then we'll probably agree quickly on their suitability for inclusion in this article.

I disagree with your assessment that "external attacks" is POV. Any significant criticism can be labeled an "attack"; there is nothing POV about this. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can produce legitimate and notable criticisms of the Talmud that have not been motivated by Jew-hatred...

let me remind you that motivations are immaterial, it is the evidence that counts. I highly doubt that the contributors to the Criticism of the Bible page are not harboring an extreme distaste for that religion, and the sources they site may echo that bias. Everyone has a personal bias, that is part of being an individual. It is only when that clouds the ability to make a valid, standing argument that it becomes a problem.

Critical method

I am attempting to rewrite the critical method section. As it stand it is a too simplistic Orthodox vs. Reform issue w/o focusing on the nuances of the issue. Wolf2191 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits are not all made with NPOV. Moreover, I'm not sure what was gained by your edits. Perhaps you should have discussed in more detail what your problems with the critical method section were before making significant changes. In any event, as you are probably prepared for, there will likely be some re-editing over the next few days.Guedalia D'Montenegro

I'm still working on editing. My problem was the very simplistic Orthodox-Reform Cons. way of splitting the question. I prefer that we focus on the very valid reasons why the some Orthdox were unhappy with it, as opposed to simplistically saying that it was all a "reaction" to reform? Please go slow on the re-edits so I have a chance to work it through. It's a very difficult topic. BestWolf2191 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We still need a clearer description of the difference Reform and the positive-historical schools. (I assume that the historical school will accept that a large portion of the Talmud is based on older tradition whereas Reform looks at everything as a radical evolution.)

I also think a clearer description of what the critical method does would be in order. My understanding is:

1. Establish correct text (emendations).

2. Date the text

3. Establish authorship

4. Examine historical\political\social events that may have affected the writing of the text

5. Try to discover a consistent "school of thought" that characterizes the writings of this author (most extreme example is Heschel's work in Heavenly Torah)

I'm not certain in which category the attempt to discover the "Mishna Rishona" (i.e identifying "strata" of text from different ages) goes.

The founder of Agudath Israel, Yitzchok Isaac Halevi wrote a six volume work Dorot Ha'Rishonim identifying certain sections of the Talmud as relating to historical events. He also worked on identifying a Yesod Mishna that goes back to the Anshei Knesset Ha'Gedaolah (Partially refutes by Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg vol 4 Seridei Aish).

Halivni really belongs to the 3rd category of contemporary scholarship. Wolf2191 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the "critical approach" section a while back to remove errors with regards to the characterization of the Orthodox stance on the matter. It was reverted with hopes of hammering out the language here with more editors, but nothing came of it. So I would like it stated for all to read here, and hopefully then address, that:

* Orthodox Judaism maintains that the oral law was revealed, in some form, together with the written law. As such, Orthodox Judaism has resisted any effort to apply historical methods that impute specific motives to the authors of the Talmud

That blanket statement second half is simply false (it's correct, but only for one stream of thought). Another side of the story is readily apparent within Orthodoxy when it comes to understanding the motivations of Talmudic law. Indeed, significant critical talmudic scholars in the academic world who take this approach, several of whom have been my teachers, identify as Orthodox and teach in said communities. During the presidency of Samuel Belkin, Yeshiva University published volumes of critical scholarship, with Belkin providing personal approbations. So from a socio-historical standpoint, this is an unfair simplification of history.

From a Talmudic standpoint, the view represented in the above quote is in fact a minority opinion within the Talmudic and commentatorial corpus, as noted by Prof. Jay Harris (Harry Austryn Wolfson Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard, and Dean of Undergrad Ed at present) in his book How Do We Know This?. Of course, it holds sway in some quarters, but it is not the lone voice by any means.

From a further historical standpoint, such a statement of historical rejectionism ignores the entire Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, and in particular Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg and David Tzvi Hoffman (especially with regard to his reconstruction of the "first mishna," but also simply in how he taught in Berlin, as is recorded by his students, such as Leo Jung in his autobiography).

As the Wikipedia pages listed do not focus on those authorities'/institutions' attitude towards critical talmudic scholarship (unsurprisingly), I am willing to provide further citations when I have time, which unfortunately may be in a couple weeks, due to work. But I feel it important to say that Wikipedia should not be a place where the public can find false stereotypes of Jewish movements that lack nuance and attention to history. We can surely do better. -- YCubed (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentaries

Neither the Meiri nor the Yad Ramah are Tosafot type or Tosafot-influenced commentaries. The Meiri quotes the tosafot sometimes but his commentary style is completely unique and unlike the dialectic of the tosafists. The Yad Ramah does not even quote the Tosafists. (The two commentaries are also very different from each other.) Ar2yeh 11:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)ar2yeh

Hi aryeh, it is nice to see some new faces around here. (btw: You don't have to type your name after your comments the ~~~~ does that for you). Just to be clear the paragraph I think you are referring to is:

"Over time, the approach of the Tosafists spread to other Jewish communities, particularly that of Spain. This led to the composition of many other commentaries in similar styles. Among these are the commentaries of Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Yad Ramah, and Meiri."

If you think it needs to be corrected I have no objections to you correcting it. Jon513 11:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and POV...

I was curious what I could find here relating to a criticism of the Talmud, especially in light of the refutation in the "external attacks" section. The "external attacks" section is hardly a criticism, but I am noticing that other religious texts tend to have a criticism page of their own, and little mention of criticism on the main topic pages as well. The Talmud does not have a separate criticism page, i.e. Criticism of the Talmud, like the Bible does. For those interested in adding a criticism section here and meeting opposition, perhaps it would be wise to just create the Criticism of the Talmud page?

What is there to criticise? Are there legitimate critical sources that are not simply thinly veiled antisemitic epistles? Let me know. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do we mean by "criticism"? "Biblical Criticism" generally refers to hypotheses about authorship. Is that what is meant here? Although there is general agreement that most Rabbis cited for Halachic rulings in the Talmud were historical persons, there are people who have suggested some transformation may have occurred passing through many hands. An example is David Weiss HaLivni who hypothesized that the Talmud was further redacted somewhat after its generally-thought completion date of ~450 CE. Is this the kind of thing you mean? Are you referring to disagreement with the ideas stated in the Talmud? Or are you referring to opinions on whether and to what extent the Talmud is to be regarded as religously authoratative? --Shirahadasha 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Looking at Criticism of the Qur'an it is clear that there cannot be a parallel for the talmud. The is no question regarding the history of the Talmud and there is no claim of divine origin. As the talmud was written by multiple authors it is well known that it is internally inconsistency and the subject is dealt with the multiple commentaries on the Talmud. Criticism of the the morality of the talmud (as there is Criticism of the morality of Qur'an) doesn't really make sense for either. How do you criticize the morality of a moral framework (use another moral framework no doubt!). In any event it would probably overlap with Criticism of Judaism. There can be a section on the talmud and science (as there is regarding the Qur'an) and if anyone wants to write it I think it would be great. I know that there are Jewish books about the Talmud and science - they may also be non-jewish works. Jon513 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, criticisms were made about specific phrases in the Talmud, and there is no elaboration as to what the phrases were exactly and whether or not they were accurate. Regardless of whether or not the attacks are baseless, they should still be addressed, especially to the point of demonstrating their fallibility. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion's fallacies have been addressed, doing a great service for history. Regardless of whether or not the Talmud is seen as immutable canon, if any author said that "Jesus was a bastard" or "Gentiles don't have souls" in either version of the Talmud, then it should be addressed. And if these words cannot be found in the Talmud, it should definitely be addressed, as to clear the air. Objectivity requires all sides to be addressed. Unless, of course, we are consciously avoiding being objective in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.54.100 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are therefore talking not about specific phrases but their possible motivations. All those antisemitic "commentaries" of the Talmud presume that when the rabbis discuss the legal status of a child raped before the age of 3, it is therefore OK to rape a child before 3. That is not a reasonable argument, that is stating a point (namely, that Jews are child rapists). Given that these are not valid points (there is no objective empirical evidence that Jews are child rapists), thankfully nobody wastes their time debunking them, because other examples are easily found for those wanting to cast aspersions.

This page, too, is a general resource on the Talmud. We cannot possibly afford to go into every single "criticism" (read: canard) for reasons of space, WP:WEIGHT, WP:HOWTO and all else. JFW | T@lk 12:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Never Gonna Happen, My Friend

Notice how criticism of the Quran is called "Criticism of the Quran" and contains, well, criticism of the Quaran? Compare this with criticism of the Talmud, which is called "Attacks on the Talmud" and contains no criticism. Wikipedia is a [expletive removed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.188.133 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, Wikipedia is bullsh*t, it's owned by Jews and it's chock full of anti-muslim and anti-arab propaganda, TOTAL CRAP! BOYCOTT PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.193.237 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Egad! Which of us Jews let this guy through the censor? --Eliyak T·C 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats harsh. Anyway, in our university (Imperial, medicine), we are banned from citing wikipedia, and if we do, marks are deducted. Now I'm understanding why. --78.86.117.164 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Helloo! You're dealing with a 1500 year old text that basically consists of long tedious legal discourse. There isn't a whole lot to criticise. You might equally suggest making a page for the Sassainan "Mādayān ī Hazār Dādestān", the “Book of a Thousand Decisions". If you can work out a properly documented article "Be Bold". As it is the Attacks section pretty much covers it. And avoid obscenities in the future.Wolf2191 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't owned by anyone, especially not Jews. As with a criticism article, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If you can write an article as meticulously sourced and neutral as Criticism of the Quran, go ahead, and we will give it the right treatment. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that the Karaite and Samaritan Jews don't believe in the Talmud, so it's not general criticism of Judaism. The Karaites have good reasons for not believing or honoring the Talmud. See the question in their FAQ "Why don't Karaites accept the Oral Law/ Talmud?" http://www.karaite-korner.org/karaite_faq.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.196.201 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You need not point out that Karaites don't accept the Talmud, because this is already discussed in the article. So much for the claim that critical appraisal of the Talmud has been blocked. (There's also a description of secular academic views, the most extreme of which constitutes a sort of 'higher criticism' of the Talmud.) That not all Jews accept the Talmud hasn't stopped antisemites from attacking it. Perhaps this is in part because Karaites are a small minority (<0.5% of Jews today). חנינא (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack? or Criticism. Court case? Charges?

Criticism is the word. Using the word "attack" is totally irrelevant when the material being questioned is a book/script. Attack also signifies force, which none of the sources here can back up and all comes down to opinions. Also, there is no way to prove whether the crtiticisms are favourable or not, as this comes down to which communities view the criticisms and once again represents POV. It seems whoever wrote this section wants the viewers to think the Talmud should be defended by carefully using words suck as "attack". There is no justification to use the word "attack" over an more appropriate word, "criticism" which fits the section far more precisely.

Also, "of these charges argue". Charges is mainly used in legal terms when subjects (humans or companies) are charged with a crime or misconduct. It has no relevance to a historical book, and the questions of the talmud are not charges, but criticisms. There are no sources to suggest whether the criticism should bear the term criticism, charges or attack, its all matter of opinion and bias. A news paper might employ tactics such as this to project a viewpoint, but such types of wordings are discouraged in wikipedia as they bear bias.

Attack: 1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands. 2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy. 3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly. 4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement. 5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation.

As far as the sources and the text, none of the above suit the criticisms made of the talmud other than the main word "Criticisms".

Criticism: 1. the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything. 2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding. 3. the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc. 4. a critical comment, article, or essay; critique. 5. any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism. 6. investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.

Criticism suits the critics of the talmud far better than the word "attack". Even the definition criticism bears the "studying of texts or documents", whereas "attack" is more suited to abuse, force and destruction. This is not a newspaper article by the way. The word external has no place neither. External from what? The World? The Universe? The room? The Jewish community?

Also stating the criticisms "do not indicate inherent racism on the part of the Talmud (and Judaism)" due to mistransalation is wrong. Many Jewish libraries which have the Talmud translated by Rabbi's etc. bear racist remarks towards Jesus, Goyims (Non-Jews) etc. Unless the Rabbi's are bad translators, then the aforementioned statement is false. Whether the passages are taken out of context is another story, but proving mistranslation is hypocritical when the translation is done by the Jewish community. This article is 1 step from bad, and number of people I have brought to look at this article carried the same view, that it was biased using non-encyclopedic words that carry unnecessary weight and bias. I would expect something like "EXTERNAL ATTACKS ON THE TALMUD" on the New York Post headline or The Sun, but not in a encyclopaedia."EXTERNAL ATTACKS ON THE TALMUD, lets send in United Nations" is the tone being given here. Also can someone point out a "well trasnlated" copy of babylonian talmud we can quote from to show examples of what is being critiscized? Anyway, this a sleek well written article that pushes away any other thought other than that the talmud is an important historical jewish book not to be questioned. Well done, would be a remark you would here from a newspaper editor.

Also, over and over in the archives, users of Wikipedia have shared their concern about the use of "Attack" and other misleading words. However, a few individuals here keep pushing away suggestions of changing the word "attack" to "criticism". Common sense and wikipedia guidelines suggest against this "pushing away" method when perfectly reasonable arguements and discussions are put up. --78.86.117.164 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If a book is condemned to public burning, I would say that the book is being "attacked", Wouldn't you? It isn't just the ideas in the book (because I assure you there is very little for criticism) There were several Papal Bulls condemning the Talmud to burning simply because It was the Jewish holy book and as the Jews were attacked and burnt so were their books and graves.Wolf2191 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "attack" is used here for two separate reasons. First, the earlier Christian opposition to the Talmud took the form of banning it, censoring it, and even at times burning it. Second, the modern criticism of the Talmud does not seem to be well-recognized in a scholarly sense, but rather consists largely of personal websites, which very often are patently ignoring context and/or mistranslating. Proper "criticism" involves direct confrontation of a text as it stands, not as the critic purports it to be. I think there probably is well-sourced and legitimate criticism of the Talmud, and it belongs in the article. I am not familiar with it, though. --Eliyak T·C 20:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, agreed on the burning and historical sense even prior to me writing the previous. I should have made it more clear, but I was rather referring to the contemporary criticisms. A textual criticism of the Talmud based on the contents is far from an attack, which is the case for the recent stuff. The "External" does not make any sense neither. The recent criticisms of the talmud should not bear the same umbrella as the historical "attacks" as they are totally different in nature. I suggest a title such as "Criticisms and Attacks" which is a far more accurate title that describes both what happened historically, and the more recent contemporary stuff. To describe dislike, racist/sexual allegations based on text and scripts from the talmud itself is far from an attack, and more of a critical view of the Talmud. Whether some of these critics choose to come on strong, or some in a more scholar sense is not related, it is still criticism. Once again, refer to the definition of criticism, and attack and you will see "attack" is once again inappropriate word to describe the recent critics. I understand ADL might view these groups as attackers', but ADL is the represantative of mainly the Semite/Indo-European Jewish community. Despite what ADL might voice, this article has to be NPOV, even away of that of ADL's point of view. ADL has a history of harsh and strong standpoints for anyone who might defame the Jewish history or community, which we have to watch out does not wash on to this article, as it is after all, a point of view (POV). Eliyak, I liked your reply, but you have to understand that the people alleging the Talmud stands for racism etc. are confronting the Talmud based on passages and contents, and are not "purpot"ing. Many of them are not "claiming" but stating what the Talmud teaches with a critical point of view. And Wolf, I know many Jews who do not consider the Talmud essential at all, it depends whether you want to follow the direct words of Rabbi's, or the Torah based on your own interpretation. Writing "attacks" suggests only attacks are made, when infact its mostly criticisms in the "contemporary" section. "Criticisms and Attacks" finely describes both historical and contemporary events.--78.86.117.164 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know many Jews who do not consider the Talmud essential at all"" So do I, they're known as Karaites. We can refer to Rabbinic Jews if youre into semantics.

As far as the general question. I really am not aware of any contemporary "criticism" that deserves to be called as such. The majority is simply short half-quotes taken out of context, apologetics aside. I will try to detail some other ideas when I have time.Wolf2191 02:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The section as it is currently written is basically a history of Christian Polemic against the Talmud. Perhaps then, we could call this section "Christian Polemics against the Talmud."Guedalia D'Montenegro 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, without getting involved in further debate, I would like to refer User:78.86.117.164 to the following passage from Hermann Strack's forward to the Fourth edition of his Introduction to the Talmud & Midrash:

Even at the Present moment, certain ignorant agitators (most of them are at the same time malevolent) seek to make the Christian-German people beleive that the Jews "are solicitous, with every possible means at their hands, to keep the Talmud a secret book," for fear lest its contents should become known...The Talmud contains no report or utterance which, assuming of course, that it is to be found there, any Christian scholar, who is at home in the language and subject matter, is not able to find...Among the entire body of Jews there is not a single piece of literature or an oral tradition which is inaccessible to learned Christians. The Jews make no efforts whatsoever to conceal anything from the Christians, not could they if they wished. The Talmud, the Shulhan Aruk, and other Jewish literary works are secret books only for those - Jews and Christians- who have not acquired the neccessary studies for a reading of the original texts nor know anything about the translations that are in existence. For such people, Ceaser's Bellum Gallicum will be equally a secret book...

Sadly, these words, written in 1908, are still relevant today.Guedalia D'Montenegro 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I have read the Talmud, well most of it a few times. Although it has parts which modern society might understand, it also consists of parts which we would now denounce in this day and age. I did not, and many people do not suggest Talmud is hidden, it certainly aint, otherwise it wouldn't grab the response from so many people across the world. The affront made by the goyim remarks in the Talmud are not at all exclusive to christians. The basic question here is, what are the critics of the Talmud expressing? If the Talmud is said to have racist remarks towards goyims, it is a genuine criticism and not an attack. They are criticisms, regardless of whether the passages have to be decoded to make sense or read in an entirety. Equally, the Bible or the Quaran are criticized for remarks which may only be understood properly by the bearing religion. A Hindu, Muslim, Christian or a Jew might find certain passages in their holy books innocent and understandable in the right perception and context, but to another, possibly from outside the community, it might come across as extreme, demeaning or racist, but this does not render their remarks as attacks, but genuine criticisms the texts produce in those readers. To say that a particular mode of understanding, virtual translation, perception or methodology is needed to find the Talmud innocent of the alleged disparagements does not represent the impact such oral traditions might have upon normal viewers and certainly do not render out criticisms. The critical remarks made of the Talmud are global and not exclusive to Christians. However, I do agree a large number do tend be voiced by the Christian community, perhaps due to the Rabbinic remarks about Jesus taken at facevalue. However, the criticisms are not attacks and the fact that Talmudist's are trying to make people understand the reasons behind the disparagements of the Talmud in itself proves criticisms do exist, otherwise there would be no remarks made on trying to make people understand the controversial areas of the Talmud. Books such as "Jesus in the Talmud" by Peter Schafer, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Israel Shahak recognize there are criticisms to be made towards the Talmud, particular those shared by the aforementioned critics. Even Abraham Cohen, although defensively, but in entirety acknowledges there are external criticisms from the Jewish community towards the Talmud. What we have to ask our selves, are the Criticisms made by general readers or just Christians? Are they expressing and displaying their critics of the Talmud or are they attacking the Talmud? Attack is only used when the push is out to destroy the subject, so far, there are no modern attempts to destroy the Talmud, except to make people aware of some passages that are viewed as controversial by some, which is correctly represented by using the word Criticism. I whole heartedly hope Montenegro and Wolf will assist in researching more into the area and also changing "external attacks" to "Criticisms and Attacks". --78.86.117.164 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the right word is "accusations", as that includes both criticisms and attacks. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack section

I find that a lot of people refer me to the following on this issue. This is a quote not my own writting. I am sure that some of it could be valuable for clarifying exactly what is being talked about in this section as well as show why Christians get upset.

Statements from the Talmud

The Talmud is considered one of the most important books of the Jewish religion. It wields a great influence on Jews, surpassed only by that of the Torah, the work that contains the principal books of the Old Testament. The Talmud contains the doctrines, laws, and commentaries on Judaism made by the most expressive rabbis throughout History.

The following are some of the statements contained in the Talmud:

・. The souls of Jews have the privilege of being part of God himself. The souls of the other peoples of the earth come from the devil and are similar to those of animals ....

・. As they await the coming of the Messiah, Jews live in a state of continuous war with the other peoples. When the victory is definitive, the peoples will accept the Jewish faith, but it is only the Christians who will not participate in this grace. On the contrary, they will be completely annihilated, because they descend from the devil ....

・. Only the Jews are men; the other peoples are no more than types of animals. The dog is worth more than the non-Jews. The non-Jews are not only dogs, but asses. The souls of the non-Jews come from the impure spirit and the souls of Israel come from the spirit of God.

・. The non-Jews were only created to serve the Jews day and night, without deviating from their service.

・0. It is prohibited for the Jew to praise the learning or virtue of a Christian.

・1. It is not just to use mercy toward enemies ....

・4. The Jews can be hypocritical with the non-Jew ....

・6. God granted all power over the goods and the blood of other peoples to the Jews.

・7. A non-Jew who robs a Jew, even should it be an alms, should be killed. On the contrary, it is permitted for Jews to do evil to non-Jews. To despoil a pagan [that is, a non-Jew] is allowed ....

・9. You can deceive an outsider and practice usury against him ....

・1. Whoever loves a Christian would hate his own creator ....

・3. Annihilate the best of the non-Jews. Take the life of the most honest of the idolaters.

・4. If a pagan falls into a pit, we should cover the pit with a stone and try to prevent any measure that he might employ to get out. When we see him fall into a river or in danger of death, we should not save him. Maimonides counsels giving death wounds to every non-Jew when this lies within our powers. It is just to exterminate every heretic [that is, non-Jew] with your own hand; whoever sheds the blood of the impious offers a sacrifice to God ....

典hose who deny the teaching of Israel, particularly the followers of the Nazarene, should be killed and it is always a good work to execute them; if this is not possible, we should try to cause their deaths. But whoever kills a soul of Israel will be judged as if he had killed the entire world ....・(apud H. Delassus, La conjuration antichr騁ienne, vol. 3, pp. 1125-1128) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of articles are not the place to discuss the topic of the article, but rather to discuss the article itself. I would suggest you find a forum to express your views. Starting conversations without the goal of improving the article is known as trolling. Jon513 10:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article, as we are trying to decide whether to call this sort of thing "criticisms" or "attacks". The passage quoted comes in the "attack" category, as it consists neither of verbatim quotes nor of the results of mainstream Christian scholarship, but is the sort of distorted paraphrase that gets cut and pasted from polemicist to polemicist and website to website. (For example, many of these websites cite a totally fictional book called "Libbre David", and it just replicates and replicates.) That is not to say that there cannot be legitimate criticism of the Talmud. Similarly, there is a legitimate place for "Criticisms of Judaism", but the blood libel and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are attacks and not criticisms. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the attack section we see a quote from the ADL but was there ever a response to this statement. Christians have had to come up from and explain wording in our liturgy and in the letters of Paul that talk about Jews. Certainly it can not be said that it is unfair to apply the same standard to any other text or tradition. Modern day ethics have come a long way from the blind racial hatred of the past that used to masqarade as ethnic pride. The question that should be applied here is wheather or not these kinds of statements really exist in the Talmud, for if so can someone find a source and if so can someone find a legitimate critisism of the text that is factual. In such a case, this would be a critisism and is very POV to label it an attack just because you do not want someone to challange your religous beliefs. Another important question, if in fact the Talmud does contain these kinds of statements, is what role do these kinds of statements play in the actual religous life of Jews. I would bet none but what do I know. The words of a Matallica song got them in court because people said they cause some kids to go and shoot at black people. Have these statements, if in fact they exist and I think they do, ever cause Jews to commit acts of violence, other crimes or at the very least descrimination against non Jews. I have never felt decriminated against by my Jewish friends but maybe I am just a really likable guy. What does official orthodox Judaism teach about this kind of language in the Talmud or in the Bible where I know for a fact it occurs.

I hope I have made the point that there is a lot to be desired in the attack section, from the name to point of view so a little more factual information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.47.40.84 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You ask "do these statements really exist in the Talmud". The answer is that, in a majority of cases, it is possible to identify what passage is being paraphrased, but usually the meaning is something much more restricted. (For example, there are passages saying that, in particular Biblical verses, the word "adam", person, refers only to Jews; but this only means that, as the law in question only applies to Jews, then "within the meaning of the Act" the word "person" means a Jew; not that non-Jews are actually subhuman.) And this is not opportunistic modern apologetics, but is clear from the original context. If you want a detailed reply giving the passages verbatim and explaining what they mean, go to the links in the article to "Gil Student" and "Talmud Exposé". Once all the rubbish is cleared away, there are two or three really nasty rulings left, which in practice are always circumvented.

The main point, though, is that authors like Delassus and Pranaitis are not reputable sources, or even representative of the mainstream Christian attitudes of the time. They form part of that peculiar intellectual underworld that in all ages has existed in parallel to normative scholarship, and that is represented today by all the conspiracist websites. Quoting them in a section on criticisms would be like quoting from medieval astrology textbooks in an article on the planet Mars. There may well be legitimate criticisms of the Talmud in other sources, such as some of the founders of Reform Judaism in the nineteenth century; but these criticisms generally focus on excessive legalism, twisted thinking and unhistoric content rather than on alleged racism and supremacism. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"(For example, there are passages saying that, in particular Biblical verses, the word "adam", person, refers only to Jews; but this only means that, as the law in question only applies to Jews, then "within the meaning of the Act" the word "person" means a Jew; not that non-Jews are actually subhuman.)" Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, I honestly cannot tell what you mean with this statement. Could you please clarify? Thank you. Fuzzbudget (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no trouble understanding it. There is a talmudic statement which says "Adam (person) means only Jews" which was taken out of context to mean that non-Jews are sub-human. What the statement really meant (and readily apparent by reading the whole section) was that one particular use of of the word "adam" in one particular verse only applies to Jews. Jon513 (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. An example would be a modern British statute taxing income from "land". In the context, that obviously only means "land in the United Kingdom". That does not mean that British people believe that no other countries contain any land at all. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

People laugh when "anti-semites" say that Jews control this and that, yet whenever somebody criticizes Jews, you people rush to their defense without asking questions. First you claim there is no reason to criticize the Talmud, and now when somebody posted just about every reason to criticize it, you talk a bunch of fluff and refuse to allow these scriptures to be posted. Hell, the "attack" section claims that there are no racist or anti-Christian verses in the Talmud, but here they are despite the ADL's lies! I'm convinced that if the Jews claimed to own the earth, sky, and sea you would bow to their demands and attack all those who dare question such claims as "anti-semites." Anon 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.201.117 (talk)

Please mind your words. You seem to be trolling.

There is one thing hand-picking bits of the Talmud that offend you, but that doesn't mean that there is suitable content to fill a "criticism" section. Where are the sources that criticise the Talmud? Are any of them not also criticisms of the entire Jewish belief system or of the Jewish people?

Much of the writings of the Church Fathers offend me mightily. Does that mean that the article on Augustine and Chrysostom should contain a section "Jfdwolff's criticisms"? Now move on please. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll play along. How about this? Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..." It even has a verse number attached to it. This scripture clearly states that a Jew is allowed to cheat a non-Jew. Can't that be used under criticism , the fact that Jews are allowed to cheat non-Jews according to a holy text that many Jews accept? I'm amazed many of you completely gloss over this fact. Like below, Mr. Burnstein stated that a singular quote should be presented before discussing anything. The Talmud is about 74 volumes long, and it costs at least $1200 to purchase a set. If he's learned in the Talmud, he should lend us a hand here! Anyway, I've made my case. I don't believe it will have much impact, but I do believe somebody will find an excuse to cover up the Jewish racism inside the Talmud. You will accuse me of trolling, using POV, or accuse me of fabrication, or any other straw man argument you can think of. 03:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.201.117 (talk)

Ok, the Talmud says stuff you don't like. What you seem to be unable to do is provide us with a source that criticises this. Just because you are appalled by certain statements (many of which have not actually made it into practical Jewish law) doesn't mean anything. As I have said before, there's some pretty hair-raising stuff in contemporarry documents. Clearly this was before the era of political correctness. Get used to it. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

: The Tslmud is many times longer than the Bible. To say that "The Talmud Says..." without giving some idea of where it says ... is useless. I will be happy to discuss any quote from the Talmud, if you tell me where I can find it. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the Talmud is a ragbag of remarks made off-the-cuff by individual rabbis: it's not a "scripture" with verses, or even a body of statute law, but more like a record of Parliamentary debates. We can't judge these statements until we know the context in which they were made. Suppose you found a letter in French, to a Catholic priest, saying "I have found a wallet belonging to a German. Is it wrong to return it?" you would be bewildered and think the author pretty strange. But if you then found the letter was written in 1943 and concerned an officer of the local Gestapo, the question would suddenly acquire a serious meaning: "Should I keep it so as not to help the German occupation? Or does common honesty oblige me to return it, however awful I think the owner is?". It is only in a context like that that such a question would ever be raised. So with this. The quote taken on its own sounds pretty awful. But how are we to know that it was not written in a context like the one I have described? As it happens, there are also anecdotes in the Talmud about someone returning property to a Gentile over and above the call of duty, and the Gentile saying "Blessed be the God of the Jews"; so in the case of a non-hostile Gentile this is actually an obligation.

As for the bit about "cheating", that is a mistranslation, and should be "overcharging". The issue is a technical one. In some legal systems, e.g. the English, there is no such thing as overcharging: any price the two parties agree on is fine. In others, e.g. the Roman, there is a concept of an objectively fair price, and if you exceed it by more than a given percentage the sale can be set aside. So all that is being said here is that the general law, as between Jew and Gentile or between Gentile and Gentile, is like the English system, whereas between Jew and Jew it is like the Roman system because one owes a special degree of consideration "within the family". There is no question of actually cheating anyone. In fact the Talmud says that it is actually worse to cheat a non-Jew than a Jew, because of the added element of "hillul ha-Shem" (profanation of the Divine Name, in other words bringing religion into disrepute).

All this is explained in detail in the Gil Student and David Maddison sites that the article links to; and these also explain in detail what the accusations are and what texts they are based on. That is no reason to reproduce it all in the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The paragraph in External Attacks->Middle Ages beginning with "The charge against the Talmud..." is copied directly from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Talmud" which is a copyrighted text.--128.252.78.82 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it is public domain.

This website contains the complete contents of the 12-volume Jewish Encyclopedia, which was originally published between 1901-1906. The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. This online version contains the unedited contents of the original encyclopedia.

See http://jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles

I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Role of the Talmud in Judaism

The previous text said that the Talmud is studied only as part of rabbinical trainin and isn't generally read by Jews. This was certainly true a century ago and may have been true even a generation ago, but there's been something of a revolution in Talmud study among Orthodox Jews in the last few decades. Translations of the Talmud, cheap study editions with accessible commentaries, organized Talmud study programs like Daf Yomi, year-in-Israel study programs, and the general rise in day school education and Yeshiva study all make it much more likely that Orthodox laity today will study the Talmud than was the case a generation ago. The rise of Conservative day school education has increased exposure to the Talmud there as well. Educational trends in Israel, where a religious education without Talmud study would simply be unthinkable, are also relevant. It might be useful to document and source some of these circumstances. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this trend is described in the article (toward the end of the Orthodox section in the "Role of the Talmud" portion.) If you would like to add a source that would be helpful. In general, this entry has had its ups and downs. In it's current state it doesn't quite have the reliability, organization and simple readability that this important entry should. That being said, I think this article suffers from too much content rather than too little. If you are going to add text about daf yomi and talmud education among the laity that seems fine - but I personally hope that it is kept brief.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible in intro

Removed paragraph intro positing a theory of the relationship between the Talmud and the Hebrew Bible in Judaism. This is a complex subject and the theory posited -- that the Hebrew Bible is the supreme authority in Judaism and the Talmud is an attempt to interpret it -- would by no means be universally agreed to. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Attacks" vs "criticism"

Koalorka (talk · contribs) changed the headers of the "Attacks" section to "criticism". The argument offered was that "[t]his is POV and a deflection from obectivity, implying that this text is flawless and criticism is aroused by some irrational delinquents."

The problem with the argument is that the section deals specifically not with disputes on the Talmud's accuracy but what the Talmud says about life and about non-Jews in particular. These sections, when taken in context and practical application, are really not as hair-raising as the "critics" make it sound. Most sources agree that these "criticisms" are made with the deliberate intent of making Jews adhering to the Talmud look bad. I think the sections are therefore appropriately named, and no change should be made without further discussion here. JFW | T@lk 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you're implying that the Talmud's content is perfect and is only questioned by those trying to smear the Jews out of some irrational hatred. That is simply not fair, it certainly contains some controversial statements, like most sacred texts in the Abrahamic family of religions, and is no more docile than Islam. Your claim that it is a matter of interpretation is the most widely used justification for controversy. Unless of course we are to maintain that the book is superior to the others, because that's what the article is doing right now.... Koalorka (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article suggest that the Talmud is superior to anything - you are making a misrepresentation. The section called "attacks" deals specifically with the troublesome phenomenon of people cherry-picking somewhat disturbing quotes (which can be found in all major classical religious works) and using them to bash Jewish people. Those attacks are simply not borne out by the facts. Nowhere does any Jewish court sanction intercourse with toddlers. Yet this is what the attackers claim, based on a distorted perception of a purely legal argument.

There is definitely room for an additional section on "criticism", by which I mean academic criticism. Is the present-day Talmud the same as the one that was redacted by Ravina and Rav Ashi and subsequently organised by the Rabbeinu Savorai? Or have there been cumulative errors in the transcription? What is the legal power of textual emendations, such as those made by Sirkis, Emden and the Vilna Gaon? Is the Munich Manuscript the most accurate, and is it reliable enough to displace other sources? You are warmly invited to contribute a paragraph on this matter, under the header "textual criticism". JFW | T@lk 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

JFW, I think that you make an excellent point in the distinction between "criticism" and "attack". Koalorka, can you offer a different distinction, or do you feel that "attack" is never appropriate? Jon513 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of legitimate theological criticism of the Talmud, not just academic textual criticism. A classic example is Classical Reform Judaism 's critique of Oral Law and the entire Talmudic process. At its inception in the 19th Century, Reform Judaism made an argument that the Talmud represented a kind of medieval scholastization of "true" ("prophetic") Judaism which represented a distortion or corruption that needed to be reformed away. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Attacks v. Criticism: Would you classify the statement "All Jews have horns. They sacrifice Christian children and drink their blood as part of the passover seder" under the heading Criticism of Judaism or Anti-Semitic Canards. One obvious difference between a criticism and an attack is that an attack involves statements that all reputable scholarship considers false. No reputable scholar believes Jews have horns or kill Christian children or drink their blood. Because they are universally recognized as false, such statements are recognized as not actual criticisms of Judaism, but attacks on it. Does any reputable scholarship believe that any of the statements in the current "attack" section are true? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that baseless accusations have been thrown about to slander the Jewish faith, and of course they can't be taken seriously. But why vindicate them here of all places. I say remove all the irrational fear-mongering half-truths from the "Attacks" section and just maintain whatever is left as "criticism". Koalorka (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No one's "vindicating" baseless accusations here. The point is that they occurred (and sometimes led to burnings etc.), and that that is an important part of the history of the Talmud. If there is legitimate criticism (e.g. excessive casuistry), bring on any quotes you can find and we'll open a new section for them. That said, I agree that the section could be considerably shortened: at present the article looks like an argumentative apologia. It would be enough to say, for example "There are references to characters called "Yeshu", "Ben Stada" and "Ben Pandera", which have sometimes been interpreted as references to Jesus: scholars differ on whether these stories were indeed intended as anti-Christian polemics, or totally unconnected with Jesus, or originally unrelated to Jesus but later reinterpreted as references to him. Similarly some nineteenth century scholars believed that various attacks on "Balaam son of Beor" are coded references to Jesus, and this accusation is still sometimes made, though mainstream scholarship no longer supports this identification." --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, of course the criticisms are all out of context! How on Earth can you take, "The best of the gentiles must be killed," as something negative? You are all just racist, anti-semites who want to cook Jews in ovens and gas them to death in concentration camps like Hitler did! Anon 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.201.117 (talk)

Who are the referenced "Guys?" Anyhow, the malicious fake "quote" about "the best of the gentiles" is an old fraud introduced here to disturb the civility.חנינא (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary accusations

The section, 'Contemporary accusations', seems to me a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. It would benefit by the addition of citations, especially as the assertions might be controversial in some quarters. Alpheus (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be abrideged as well. The apocryphal books and the Zohar's antiquity isn't relevant here. The point in and of itself is important so I hope someone can find a source.Wolf2191 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundant phrasing?

From Talmud: "The Talmud ... is one of the central books in the Jewish religion, second only to the Torah and Hebrew Bible'."
From Hebrew Bible: "The term closely corresponds to contents of the Jewish Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament..."
From Tanakh: "The name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew notariqon or acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Tanakh's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching," also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")..."
Thus, unless I'm missing something, saying "the Torah and Hebrew Bible" would be roughly analagous to saying "California and the United States" - in both cases mentioning the former term is superfluous, as the the latter term includes it.
Am I missing something here? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "Torah" has several senses depending on content. In one sense (Torah refers to the first five books of the hebrew bible) you are correct, in another (Torah refers to the entire corpus of jewish knowledge) you are not. There are many other senses. In the quoted sentence, the author is using the phrase "hebrew bible" to refer to that part of tanakh which is subordinate to the first five books. Phil Burnstein (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Link To Soncino Translation

Professsor Mordochai ben Tziyyon has constructed twoAdobe "PDF" files containing the text of the complete Babylonian Talmud in Hebrew (36.8MB) and in English (54.3MB), and have uploaded them to "MediaFire". The addresses are

   Hebrew file - http://www.mediafire.com/?du43jzl22yr

   English file - http://www.mediafire.com/?yndytwytymh  Sophiee1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiee1 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 

Under "Full Text Resources" when I clicked on the external link "Complete Soncino English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud" I got a table of contents, but choosing any item in the list opened a page (http://da-tracking.com/geo_tracking_redirect.html?a=CD4582&program_id=310 a URL belonging to Direct Agents, an "interactive advertising" agency) which reads "We're Sorry! This offer is not available in your area. You will be redirected shortly." The redirect landed me on a webpage of VistaPrint, a company selling print and graphic design services. I live in Canada. If the Talmud translation website is USA-only, the link should be marked accordingly. 24.36.74.15 (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't doing that any more. 24.36.74.15 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is still not working. Under "Full Text Resources" when I clicked on the external link "Complete Soncino English Translation of the Babylonian Talmud" I got a table of contents, but choosing any item in the list opened a page that said: "BOXSTr.com ALERT! THIS FILE CAN NOT BE FOUND ON OUR SERVERS!". The reference to this resource needs to work and be real, or be removed. Pete eriksen (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I vanished the link, but left a note in the source. Phil Burnstein (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical development

YCubed (talk · contribs) suggests that there is a school in Orthodoxy that somehow believes that the Mishna and Gemara have not developed over time. Apart from the POV wording ("they resist any effort to apply the historical method to the Talmud and avoid imputing motives to the authors of the Talmud") I am also concerned that he then poses the existence of a different school that somehow believes that we can study the Oral Law using the historical method. I have the following problems:

• Attributing a historical development to the Oral Law is one thing, allowing study with "historical methods" is another. We have no examples of Maimonides/Nachmanides doing any such thing.
• Rather than depicting the "traditional" Orthodox school as a bunch of Neanderthals, please demonstrate where this school differs from Maimonides and Nachmanides.
• The story from Menachot 29b is most certainly allegorical. Using it as a tool to whack the traditionalists smacks of revisionism.

Let's see where this one goes. JFW | T@lk 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! It's good to see there are folks watching over this page. Allow me to clarify some things. (Also, I apologize for the length!)

• I did not suggest any of the wording you decry about Orthodox Judaism. ALL of what you call "POV wording" is holdover from the previous version of the page. Check the page history! You will see that I was attempting to fix this very problem. I think you are absolutely right and that it should be revised and nuanced, as it reflects an extreme (but present) minority in Jewish thought. I just didn't have the time to work on it, and didn't want to step on too many toes with my first edit, so left it as is, and simply presented the alternate view (as I wrote in my explanation, I cited sources to support "multiple views"). So if you want to clean up the first bullet, please do. But put back the rest of my edit, which you seem to agree with for the most part (I address your concerns there next).
• Re: your criticism on the revision history page (regarding Hoffmann being a user of academic historical methods in examining the Mishna) that the "Mishna does not equal Oral Law", is only sort of correct, as it is an integral part of the Oral tradition. As the wiki mishna page states (in its first sentence!):

  "The Mishnah or Mishna (משנה, "repetition", from the verb shanah שנה, or "to study and review") is a major work of Rabbinic Judaism, and the first major redaction into written form of Jewish oral traditions, called the Oral Torah."

So you can see why I might be extremely confused as to why this isn't a good example of Orthodox rabbis using critical historical methods to dissect the Oral Law and its developments - the Mishna certainly counts, as it is the core of the Talmud and the beginning of the written Oral Law. And for those interested, Hoffmann also treated the Talmud this way, as every academic work which mentions him at the Berlin Seminary notes (e.g. Prof. Marc Shapiro's Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy). Would you prefer links for Orthodox support of this position to R. Jeremy Wieder's lectures in academic Talmud at Yeshiva University (YUTorah). I wasn't sure if that was something that could be referenced. (Also, he has his PhD from NYU in the historical constitution of the Tractate Eduyot, with a critical edition of it in the back, which I suspect is modern/historical/critical enough.)

• Re: Maimonides and Nachmanides - I did not write that the more historically minded are imitating them (as you seem to think I do), but rather following in their "footsteps", and referenced Prof. Jay Harris' book where this is made apparent, with all the examples you could want of Maimonides and Nachmanides, each in very different ways, seeing the Oral Law (and various particular laws) as historically constituted, and occasionally discussing this development with some sort of methodology. However, upon reflection, I believe your criticism is warranted, as there is much in their work to say the opposite - that those who believe the entire law to be revealed at Sinai are following in their footsteps too! (Of course, neither Maimonides nor Nachmanides believed this, and hence my use of them - please see Prof. Harris' book, as it is the best catalog of all their statements subjected to analysis that I have found.) So we should drop their names from the paragraph. But the rest should stay!

• Your claim that "the Menachot 29b story is certainly allegorical" and therefore cannot be used as a proof against those who deny the historical development of the Talmud is problematic on two fronts.

(1) Historically, it has been! Just like such Talmudic pronouncements which point out that certain sets of laws "hang by a thread" and are mostly rabbinic in origin, this sort of aggadic statement has always been at the heart of Orthodox disputes over seeing the Oral Law as a historical development, with lesser connection to Sinai, or as a whole corpus given at revelation. You seem not to agree that there are elements within Orthodoxy that affirm the latter, but a quick google search for "Oral Law" and "Sinai" might change your mind. Plenty disagree, perhaps even the majority (I count myself as one of them), but to leave out this more fundamentalist group is to rewrite reality.
(2) Allegory makes the point stronger. Why on earth should this story have to be historically valid for its polemical point to be? (What is the point of allegory?) It should be noted that the fundamentalist view will, recognizing the challenge of this story to their perception, cite Rashi on the page, who says the reason Moses did not understand R. Akiba was because he had not yet received the Torah. Hence, another proof that this story is seen as a valid point of contention regarding the nature of the Oral Law. This is not revisionism, this is historical fact, and the allegory is central.

• You also note on the revision history page that Hoffmann/Hildesheimer believed in an Oral Tradition at Sinai. True, but irrelevant to whether they used modern academic methods to dissect the Oral Law, seeing it primarily as a historical creation, which they did. You are welcome to note this factor in the revision of my edit. Many scholars also believe Israelite oral traditions date back pretty far - see James Kugel's final chapter in In Potiphar's House, and the wiki Oral Torah page.

So basically, I agree with most of what you said, with a few important exceptions :). Thanks for helping work towards a more accurate, less biased page. As you are the more experienced Wikipedian, and I see you agree with my intentions, if not my wording, I leave it to you to formulate a page you feel best fits wikipedia's guidelines and the facts on the ground (I only bothered here because I saw such an egregious simplification of the Orthodox standpoint on the Oral Law, as you have noted - I will now disappear from Wikipedia). Thanks for taking the time to work on this! YCubed (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will need to respond to your message after Havdala tomorrow, but please don't disappear off Wikipedia. I'm sure we can reach agreement here, especially in view of the fact that we have sources at our disposal to guide us. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, I totally agree that D.Z. Hoffman used theories of historical development in his works on the Mishnah (and this needs to be mentioned). There is, however, more of a problem with impugning motivations (see e.g. S.R. Hirsch in his criticism of Graetz). I must also stress that the Talmud itself engages in textual and historical criticism on a continuous basis by examining and contrasting earlier sources. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me, that the problem here is one of socio-denominational terminology. Orthodox Judaism is an imprecise term. There is a stream in Orthodoxy (and not a small or fringe one at that) which holds that the Oral law was given at Sinai. Sources for this belief are numerous - the talmud itself frequently refers to certain laws as "halacha l'moshe miSinai" to refer to ancient traditions not explicitly referred to in the Bible. I think that replacing the term "Orthodox" with traditional may be useful. The term Orthodoxy is not well defined - Orthodoxy is not monolithic. Many academic scholars are also Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews do not have a uniform view of the origins of the oral law. Nevertheless, it is neccessary to present the "traditional" view (that the Oral law is from Sinai) in order to understand why the academic views are significant and why they engendered so much controversy begining in the 19th century through today. The fact that certain types of textual criticism were known to exist throughout the centuries is kind of beside the point. Something significant did occur in the 19th century. New methodologies were employed and these were rejected by traditionalists because of the fear that such methods were dangerous to traditional Jewish learning. This fear went hand in hand with the Reform/Orthodox debate and continues to do so today. While I agree that we should be nuanced in our description - I think the point of confusion here is simply the denominational term "Orthodox" and not the point which was made in the article. The article need not present the every possible view of the origins of the oral law, but it should present the major points of contention. Perhaps a simpler editorial change could effect the neccessary nuanced view without pumping the article with a lot of detailed and confusing information. Just an idea.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guedalia, I think you are right, and that most of the confusion here results from mixing denominational and academic views, and trying to match them up, a somewhat dubious enterprise. I agree that superior wording would be (very roughly) along the lines of

"Traditional views vary in how much of the Oral Law they attribute to the Sinaitic Revelation, handed down to Moses as explanation with the written Law, and how much developed through interpretation throughout Jewish history. The two poles of the spectrum - that of total transmission at Sinai, and of complete later historical development - are represented by minority groups, with most of the denominational and academic spectrum falling out in between." (This is off-the-cuff, and I am unsure if this is a fair denominational description - do feel free to mess with my wording)

To explain my edit - no one disagrees that there are Orthodox views which maintain that the Oral Law was given in part at Sinai (e.g. halakha l'moshe mi-sinai). The problem with this article, which my edit attempted to remedy, was that it claimed, in very generalized and arguably biased language, that Orthodox Judaism maintains that the entire Oral Law was given at Sinai (this language remains in the first bullet point, as I did not want to overhaul the article on my first edit, and step on anyone's toes). With my edit, I tried to put this "total transmission" view in its historical place as a "fringe" view, not substantiated by most of the Talmud and most Jewish authorities. If you agree with this, then all we have to do is fix the wording. YCubed (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is the use of anachronisms. There was no field called "historical study" or "textual criticism" in the times of Maimonides and Nahmanides. They were lust learning Torah, using Talmudic methods. JFW | T@lk 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As above, I agree with the removal of these authorities from the section on other grounds, but it bears emphasis again that I stated that academic practitioners followed in their footsteps - and did not claim whatsoever that Maimonides and Nachmanides were HaLivni and Lieberman. But many of their questions, and some of their answers to them (as catalogued at one point in Prof. Jay Harris's book which I cited), were of a similar, albeit more primitive at times, nature.

Additionally, most classificatory fields we use are anachronisms, coined after the fact and then used to describe a phenomenon (e.g. "science fiction" as a term did not exist when Jules Verne wrote some of the seminal works of the field!), so saying one cannot use such terms as "nascent historical study" or "early form of textual criticism" to describe an earlier writer's work - in this case, that of Nachmanides and Maimonides - is to deny the terms all validity. This is what they were invented to do. As a matter of fact, Amos Funkenstein, in his widely cited Perceptions of Jewish History disputes Y.H. Yerushalmi (specifically, his dictotomy between 'academic' history and 'traditional' memory in Zakhor) and claims that midrash is a form of historical inquiry, because it asks the same questions, merely using different methods to answer them. So don't be so quick to dismiss the use of such terms in describing "traditional" study. We should use the terms when we feel they are accurate, regardless of period. YCubed (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So you haven't left! Good. In that case I have the following question: which stream of orthodoxy completely dismisses the use of any textual criticism. Name and rank, please. Then, I would like to know which authorities oppose "historical criticism" (apart from Hirsch, whom I already mentioned). Clearly we are dealing with divergent phenomena. I don't oppose for a minute the assertion that textual criticism has been part of Jewish scholarship; I do however feel that over the years it has become less acceptable to apply "historical" criticism. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Contemporary accusations"

Alexander Gieg (talk · contribs) went through this section tagging every weasel word and unsourced statement with {{who}}, {{fact}} and so on. Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to take an interest in this article anymore, and I have therefore removed all speculation. If there are good sources available beyond the ADL and Gil Student pages... JFW | T@lk 13:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your actions. Jon513 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. The list of unsourced statements was huge. In any case, the whole thing can become a pretty interesting section or article if/once properly sourced. I'm pasting it below so that it doesn't get lost in history limbo. Anyone knowledgeable enough to transform this into something more meaningful is most welcome at improving it, as unfortunately I'm not such a person. -- alexgieg (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've slashed the whole thing. This is the purpose of the diff:

diff

. JFW | T@lk 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I beg to differ. Care to elaborate? -- alexgieg (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving things to talk is fine when it concerns small amounts of text. For large swathes of unsourced speculation, a diff saves space and chaos. Feel free to put it back if you disagree. The main points from the removed content are already made in the quotes: that internet anti-Talmud sources regurgitate Medieval accusations, and that they tend to be based on distortions of the Talmud's actual text. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

About putting the text back, I don't mind either way, I just found your reasoning for your "slash" kind of, well, lacking.

Anyway, back to the section itself (and unrelated to our discussion above), your mention about the citations left reminded me of a remark I wanted to make earlier but I forgot. I see a problem in the section (either the verbose previous version of the new "two quotes only" one) in that it doesn't take into account specifically contemporaneous anti-Talmud accusations. For example, I remember reading somewhere a criticism by pro-lifers to the fact Israel is one of the most active countries in embryonic stem-cell research. They were blaming this on the fact Talmud teaches human life starts 40 days after conception, not at conception itself, thus leading to Judaism itself having no problem with embryonic research, and this in turn reflecting strongly in the way Jewish politicians vote on the subject in USA and elsewhere, i.e., usually opposed to the way Christian politicians deal with the matter. Now, whether Talmud actually teaches this or not, whether this influences Jewish politicians or not, etc. (I wouldn't know the answer to either question), this is nevertheless a clear cut case of a criticism that's purely modern because it's only possible in modernity. So, someone more knowledgeable on Talmud (surely not my case) would do good on improving the section to mention this accusation and maybe others that I'm not aware of.

Is someone up to the task? :-) -- alexgieg (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that framing that information in the context of a "criticism" is a good idea. In general, I don't like presenting any criticism of any moral framework as being "immoral" as another moral framework is required to make that judgment. I think it is best to present conflicts of moral viewpoints in articles relating to that subject, in this case abortion or stem cells research, where both sides can be presented equally without one being "on the defense". Jon513 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult position if we consider that a huge aspect of a lot of religions and religious texts is their moral code, and thus it's the first thing a lot of people notice about it when dealing with its followers and, consequently, also the first thing they'll go around criticizing. This is even more the case when we take the word "moral" at its etymological meaning: uses and customs. -- alexgieg (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Now the entire section on criticisms of the Talmud is Jewish sources explaining the criticisms. This tidies things up nicely. Next, let's move on, let's go make the entire section on criticisms of abortion by pro-choicers! 122.147.2.66 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Criticism of Abortion" section in the Abortion article. The section there called "Abortion debate" documents the current and heated philosophical and political divide in opinion relating to abortion. Such a public controversy over the Talmud just doesn't exist, even if there are people find fault with it.

Anyhow, no one has demonstrated in any version of this article or its talkpage that "criticism" (i.e. polemical evaluation) of the Talmud can be distinguished from anti-Semitism generally. Religious bias and polemics on the one hand have encouraged defensiveness and apologetics on the other. חנינא (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Jewish cabal controls Wikipedia. Whah whah whah. Intellectual criticism (as opposed to ad hominem, appeal to pathos "Jews control media" kind of junk) probably exists but will be hard to source. One could talk about the textual criticism of the Vilna Gaon, for instance. JFW | T@lk 15:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism as in source criticism, text criticism etc is a red herring: it's just a different meaning of the word. We are talking about criticism as in arguing against something. Surely someone could dig up intelligent criticism from nineteenth century Reform sources such as Abraham Geiger. Also there must be criticism from the Christian side (e.g. for legalism and casuistry) that does not fall into the anti-Semitic camp.

Incidentally, on abortion, I believe that in the Middle Ages Christians too (e.g. Aquinas) believed that the soul did not enter the embryo till "quickening". So far as there's a Jewish-Christian divide, it's not a human rights thing, just that the Jewish view reflects a more old-fashioned embryology. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, indeed, let's have some real criticism as opposed to antisemitism cloaked as anti-Talmudicism. JFW | T@lk 16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

AD and BC instead of CE and BCE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been a discussion on wikipedia for years, and this is not the place to discuss this issue

---

It seems that the use of CE and BCE are a result of purely political motives. Since wikipedia is for the masses, I would say that 95% of readers will understand AD and BC while only 15-20% will understand CE and BCE notation. Any thoughts? I will be happy to discuss this issue with anyone. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.6 (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Changing dating schema is considered improper, and it has been discussed tens, if not hundreds of times. This is especially true with regards to articles with non-Christian religious significance. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer periods under eras. Any changes to the article in this regard will be considered disruption and will be handled in accordance with existing policy and guideline. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the concise explanation. I have not read the extant and voluminous discussions regarding changes to the dating schema and therefore did not know the official protocol. However, since I couldn't possibly read through the "tens, if not hundreds" of previous arguments on this subject, I would like to ask you one question and in so doing reveal what I see as a double standard, and correct me if I am wrong: Why is that every single date on the wikipedia page for Jesus includes BOTH the AD/BC notation AND the CE/BCE notation? Shouldn't we do the same for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.6 (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. For a topic that is entirely within the scope of Judaism, the terms Anno Domini and Before Christ are meaningless, as normative Judaism does not regard Jesus as Christ and Domini. Conversely, it would be odd to force the BCE/CE format onto the Jesus article. I thought that was reasonably commonsense and doesn't really offend. JFW | T@lk 06:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I see what you're saying about not including the Anno Domini in an article entirely in the scope of Judaism, but just because a topic doesn't deal with Christianity, doesn't mean it's exempt from the dating schema based on it. ex: the AD/BC format is even used in the Origin and development of the Qur'an article and countless others. Additionally, by using the Gregorian calendar in the first place, you are undoubtedly referencing its historical connotations. It seems that the reasons for using the CE/BCE dating scheme and ONLY the CE/BCE scheme are entirely political. If we were writing in Hebrew for people who spoke it, then we might be able to forgo the debate entirely by just using the הלוח העברי. But since we are writing to a western audience, we should include both dating formats. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.6 (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CE/BCE has been a scholarly convention for a long time, especially in books and articles dealing with Judaism. It is too easy to dismiss it as "political correctness": neutrality is valuable, even if it can sometimes be taken too far. Would you also say that, in all Judaism articles, Jesus must be called "Christ" and the Tanakh must be called the "Old Testament"?

Another good reason for using CE/BCE is that, when we are dealing with centuries rather than years, phrases such as "sixth century AD" are actually nonsensical: they translate as "sixth century in the year of Our Lord": technically, AD should only be used with an actual year number. On the other hand "sixth century of the Common Era" makes complete sense. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is utterly pointless to conduct a discussion here that has been conducted ad nauseam elsewhere. It is not limited to Talmud as it affects 1000s of other articles on the project. For further discussion I suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. JFW | T@lk 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The vanishing link

A bunch of links at the bottom are not showing up. Why? Phil Burnstein (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.57.60.200s

An anonymous ip editor diff added a long essay arguing that the oral law is a fiction and other related ideas. As the talk pages are to talk about the article itself, not the subject of the article, I have removed it. If anyone would like to respond to the poster comments I recommend finding a forum more conducive to that discussion - Wikipedia is not the place. Jon513 (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

genius of the Vilna Gaon

Removed the POV statement "by genius alone". I also added the page number, in lieu of changing everything to a proper citation. The entire paragraph about the Vilna Gaon is pretty poor, drawing only from Studies in Judaism. Full text here: http://books.google.com/books?id=hGVbAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=studies+in+judaism&ei=HZZlSYuoLYHcygTAvLSNCA#PPA92,M1 The author states plainly in the introduction that most of the essays are theological in nature. That certainly does not disqualify its inclusion, but it is less than an ideal source for a historical statement. Further, the actual words of Schechter contradict the "by genius alone" statement. He states elsewhere that the Vilna Gaon's works cannot be done "by genius alone".

And now for the important part, Schechter's section on textual criticism and the Gaon (p.92). He does not cite anything to back up the claims of the Gaon's changes being confirmed later, he merely passes along an anecdote. The purpose of the anecdote in turn is to explain the Gaon's scholarly prowess. Schechter quotes a theological statement of the Talmud stating that a true sage has greater power than a prophet.

In short, the "genius alone" statement is POV (Orthodox, or at least traditional Jewish) and doesn't find any support in the source it quotes.

So why am I not removing the whole paragraph? I think the statement that the Gaon did good textual criticism is fascinating, and if someone can find a source better than Schechter's anecdote it would be worth keeping for sure. I'm leaving it for the time being and encourage anyone who can to try to back up the statement.

UPDATE: I'm also removing the "Cairo genizah" bit. The Schecter source says "great libraries," not the genizah. Carneadiiz (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For the source you're looking for, how about http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/184637/Elijah-ben-Solomon or http://books.google.com/books?id=n5uCdiW_qCgC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=gaon+textual+criticism&source=bl&ots=0A2sMLbeq4&sig=FpkGHGNQAcdbjPjndc1gshbRceo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result. Also, I can confirm that I've heard several Jewish studies professors of different colleges say in lecture that a significant percentage (a bit less than half, I recall, but don't hold me to that) of the Gaon's emendations have proved to be correct, which is regarded as a monumental achievement, especially for his day. Obviously, this is original research and cannot source the comment. But it does mean another source ought to be forthcoming for this assertion, and is worth pursuing. Perhaps it is a footnote in some of Etkes's work. --YCubed (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "by genius alone" is POV and hard to understand, but the idea that his made these changes without support from other manuscripts is definitely noteworthy. Jon513 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gaon was the first person known to have a truely photographic memory. Many talmudic scholars conider him to be a Rishon ie on the level of Rashi, Ramban, or the Tur. No moden talmudic scholar would dare to contradict him, unless thay had sources on his level to back them up. Phil_burnstein (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

how is this not anti-christian?

Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." how is this taken out of context? in what context is this not an anti christian thing to say? were they talking about Jesus's mother, Mary? Statesboropow (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This only holds true if you assume that Balaam is a code for Jesus - which most scholars agree it isn't. Goalie1998 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is, that makes it anti-Jesus and not anti-Christian. Furthermore, have you ever read the writings of the Church Fathers, and the delightful things they had to say about Jews? If you want to discuss the Talmud's perspective on Christianity, why not use a reliable, secondary source rather than your own interpretations? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

anything anti-jesus would be anti-christian as there would be no such thing as a christian without christ. duh. and i am sure there are some very horrible things written about jews as well. but this is a jewish holy book that says vile, disgusting things about christian, gentiles and little gentile girls and nobody ever takes them to task about it and asks them to renounce its teachings. Statesboropow (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I invite you to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Contemporary_accusations, and if you can, find a reliable source that backs up your point, and we will try to work it into the article. Goalie1998 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Statesboropow: when were the despicable utterances by the Church Fathers officially repealed by the church? You are not the first to come here with these comments. As Goalie1998 says, please support your accusations with reliable sources so we can address them. Or rather, please focus on the writing of the encyclopedia article. You don't seem to be interested in that. JFW | T@lk 23:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i am sorry, but i am just a little shocked that the Talmud could say such vile things. i know there are equally vile things in the Holy Bible. Statesboropow (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps express your dismay elsewhere, so we can carry on writing an encyclopedia? You seem hungry. JFW | T@lk 01:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Statesboropow doesn't seem to understand what the Talmud is -- and should perhaps read the Wikipedia entry on the same. In particular the Gemara, which is legal discourse and argument (think of reading Supreme Court discussions as a parallel). Sanhedrin 106a relates back to Numbers 31:16 and is indeed about Balaam. Sophiee1

Very Telling. 'nuff said. -- Avi (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on the Talmud

There is an section in the article called attacks on the Talmud which seems fairly off-topic but which nevertheless might at some point prove to be a good candidate for an article splitting. These attacks on the Talmud are a fairly recurrent pattern in both religious and secular anti-semitism. Therefore, they would make a very good addition to the current category of articles on anti-semitism. ADM (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Unless these sections grow very large (which they shouldn't) they should be presented in the context of the main article. I think forking them also means that they will attract POV nonsense. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Goyyim

Hi all. Since this is an article on Talmud, i was wondering why there is no mention of "goyyim". What does it mean? And what does "tob shebe goyyim harog" mean. Is it written in the Talmud somewhere? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.16.239.28 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Talmud is not just about subjects that you care about; the article covers the rest. The quote in question is one of the numerous examples of hyperbole found in the Talmud, and a good examples why literal translations, such as the one you probably rely on, tend to lead to complete misunderstanding of its content and aims. JFW | T@lk 16:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the quote is from the Yerushalmi Kiddushim 66 (as a number of websites already seems to have discovered, in exactly the same erroneous spelling as you are employing). JFW | T@lk 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's discussed in detail in Maccoby's "Judaism on Trial". It's what one rabbi said after having had to hide in a cave from the Romans for many years. Some versions of the text say "Mitzrim" (Egyptians) instead of "goyyim", and refer to those who died at the crossing of the Red Sea. Others add the words "in time of war" to the end of the quote; and many commentators say that this is the meaning whether those words are there or not.

In general, when the Talmud says that someone is "worthy of death", it is not a legal ruling but a blowing off of steam, rather like English "should be shot". Actual discussions of the death penalty use very different language. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Scholarship - Desiderata

• Distinguish between textual (strata) and historical (context, influences) criticism
• If dealing with religious denominations, explain faultlines within and without regarding each form of criticism (Positive Historical vs. Orthodoxy; within Orthodoxy, Hildesheimer/Hoffmann/Weinberg vs. Hirsch) - do note that textual criticism was far less controversial than historical; this is more tricky with reference to contemporary scholars, as the lines are very fluid and delve into the personal beliefs of individual scholars and whether they are representative of their given denominations today
• Integrate information on new historical school of Talmudic criticism based in the Iranian context of the Bavli (Yaakov Elman and his students - Iranica, specifically Zoroastrianism, and its impact on the contents of the Babylonian Talmud; see also the writings and PhD of Shai Secunda)
• Delineate precursors to modern methods in prior traditional commentators (some work in this area has been done by Marc Shapiro and Jay Harris, among others)

Any other ideas?
YCubed (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Babylonia

The use of "Babylonia" in this article is anachronistic. According to the Wikipedia links in the article Babylonia refers to an empire that disappeared roughly a thousand years before Talmud was compiled -- and even then it was more properly part of the Assyrian Empire. It would be more accurate to say the Babylonian Talmud was witten in Mesopotamia or the Persian Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.206.246 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct, but nobody calls the Talmud Bavli "Mesopotamian Talmud". By the same token, the Yerushalmi was written in the Galilee and has nothing to do with Jerusalem. JFW | T@lk 18:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the wikipedia article cited because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Not only is the Babylonian Talmud traditionally designated as such (Talmud Bavli), but its own text refers to the region as Babylonia (Bavel) and to the people of the region (including its Jews) as Babylonians (Bavliyin). חנינא (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)