Talk:Hillel the Elder

"but never 'Rabbi' Hillel"???

This solves the argument: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=_START_+Hillel%2C_START_+Rabbi+Hillel%2C_START_+Hillel+the+Elder&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.170.255 (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article currently gives variations of Hillel's name and honorifics, and says that he is called all these things "but never 'Rabbi' Hillel." I beg to differ.

The cited ref for this statement -- Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13 -- was written 60 years ago. I distinctly recall Hillel being called "Rabbi Hillel" during the 1960s in casual conversations. A search at Google shows 124,000 web pages on which he is called "Rabbi Hillel." (I conducted the search in quotes, to get exact matches only.)

While the term "Rabbi Hillel" may be deprecated for any number of reasons by any number of people supporting any number of historical or theocratic agendas, the truth of the matter is that he IS called "Rabbi Hillel" by some writers and speakers, some of the time, so the word "never" is simply wrong.

I don't want Wikipedia to promote base falsehoods, so i went into the article and changed the words "but never" to "and occasionally (but spuriously)." I moved the cited ref forward in the sentence to refer only to the favoured honorifics, and did not permit it to refer to the manufactured controversy concerning how ignorantly, how often, how rarely, how recently, or by whom he is given the spurious honorific of "Rabbi."

I think Hillel, my 73rd grandfather, who liked the truth more than dogma, would have approved.

-- cat yronwode, not logged in yet, still having my morning coffee 75.101.104.17 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I will revert (according to BRD) because there is no source given for either the "occasionally" or the "spuriously." The latter one is also completely unencyclopedic (it is just an editor's comment, as is, apparently), and cannot stay. That you heard him being called that does not in any way invalidate Glatzer's historical determinations, and if you can not provide any other academic reliable source more recent than Glatzer to support your own opinion and taste, than it will not stay either. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:warshy. In addition, perhaps somebody could check if perhaps Glatzer meant only in the Talmud? Also, if perhaps some 60s rabbi deviated form Jewish tradition, then that may have been the exception to the rule, and is not necessarily notable. Till this day, no rabbi I know would say "Rabbi Hillel". I think Buber used "Rabbi Hillel the shoemaker" in one of the first sentences of his foreword to translations of the Medrash, and I found that quite insulting. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then, i see by the use of the word "insulting" that i have run into some dogma here. That is a shame. "Spuriously" means just that: He was not a Rabbi according to the modern sense of that term. It is a spurious appellation. Would you prefer the word "inaccurately"? I will agree to that, but it too is non-essential. All that really matters is that the word "never" is false and must therefore be removed. I can demonstrate that, cite it, and stand by the word "occasionally," as you shall see.

The truth is that the cited ref, if it indeed says he is "never" called "Rabbi Hillel" is simply wrong. But that may be an error of interpretation of the cited ref. The real issue is that the Wikipedia article made a false claim. Note that this Wikipedia article did not state that he is "never called 'Rabbi' Hillel academically." It says "NEVER." Never as in "not ever." But there are 124,00 web pages where he is called "Rabbi Hillel." User Debresser him- or herself says that no less a person than Martin Buber called him "Rabbi Hillel." I myself can call him Rabbi Hillel. Watch me now:

"Rabbi Hilllel." Rabbi Hillel." "Rabbi Hillel."

But wait. There's more:

http://www.jewfaq.org/sages.htm Judaism 101 from Jewfaq.org ("The information in this site is written predominantly from the Orthodox viewpoint"). In the section "Sages and Scholars," sub-section "Hillel and Shammai" you will find: "Rabbi Hillel was born to a wealthy family in Babylonia, but came to Jerusalem without the financial support of his family and supported himself as a woodcutter. "

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hillel/ My Jewish Learning ("MyJewishLearning.com is the leading transdenominational website of Jewish information and education"). This page is titled "Hillel, The preeminent rabbi of first century Palestine." and it is written "By Rabbi Louis Jacobs"

http://rabbihillel.com/ -- Yes, there is a web domain called Rabbi Hillel dot com. Indeed there is. When you click the link to shop for "Rabbi Hillel Books" you are taken to a page with the headline "Rabbi Hillel - The Greatest Jewish Rabbi."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129706379 This is an NPR (National Public Radio) transcript of a radio broadcast called "Modern Lessons From Hillel" (8:18 long), originally aired on the news show "All Things Considered" with co-hosts Melissa Block and Robert Siegel on September 7, 2010. Robert Siegel speaks: "Well, I mentioned something that a great Jewish sage, Rabbi Hillel, said not long before the time of Jesus. A man asked Rabbi Hillel to teach him the entire Torah, the five books of Moses, while standing on one foot...."

Oh, but maybe you don't like web sites. You prefer books. All right, already. I will get you books. Here ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=2ltwiijpny4C&pg=PA36&dq=%22Rabbi+Hillel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqqIjayavNAhVI5GMKHasgATMQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22Rabbi%20Hillel%22&f=false -- "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Talmud" By Aaron Parry (Penguin Books). The page shown at the above URL reads: "Rabbi Hillel lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod..."

https://books.google.com/books?id=VGDtzZ-jVqAC&pg=PA33&dq=%22Rabbi+Hillel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqqIjayavNAhVI5GMKHasgATMQ6AEIVjAJ#v=onepage&q=%22Rabbi%20Hillel%22&f=false -- "The Jewish Story Finder: A Guide to 668 Tales Listing Subjects and Sources" By Sharon Barcan Elswit (McFarland) -- the same famous story of the man who stands on one foot is told, including this passage, "The man then goes to the great Rabbi Hillel. He tells Hillel that he does not have much time ... Rabbi Hillel replies..."

There, now your "never" cannot stand. He IS called "Rabbi Hillel."

Thus, the word "never" is not true.

Since Wikipedia prints what is true, it should not print this untruth.

I have reinstated the change, cited both printed books (since Wikipedia deprecates web citations in favour of print citations), and simply noted that he is "occasionally" called 'Rabbi' Hillel.

catherine yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed both your information and the information you disagree with, till such time as this issue is resolved on the talkpage. Please notice that till such time, further edits of the article regarding this issue, are likely to be considered disruptive and may lead to community sanctions. This applies to all editors, regardless of their position on this issue.

In the case of contradictory sources, Wikipedia allows for, and actually demands, that both opinions be mentioned, with attribution to their respective reliable sources (see WP:RS for what are considered such on Wikipedia). We can not choose between sources and filter out information we disagree with (see WP:CENSOR for that).

In this case I repeat my request for somebody with access to the Glatzer source, to see what he says precisely (a scan of the page or quote would be appreciated), since I suspect that could resolve the issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh ho! You sent a warning to my talk page. You are quite the wiki-lawyer, i see. I will continue to discuss here. Please do not try to privatize discussions by carrying them away from this talk page. Thanks.

Our only choices are that something (never) happens or it (sometimes) happens or it (always) happens. In this case, Wikipedia falsely stated (with or without a legitimate citation) that something (never) happens. I knew it to be a false claim. I cited proof. No claim was made by me that it (always) happens, only that it (sometimes) happens. This was done by disproving, with citations from books and web pages, including by a rabbi, that it (never) happens. Yet you call for "both opinions" (never) and (sometimes) to be mentioned, even though one is logically and demonstrably false (if indeed the cited author wrote it, which neither of us know for sure).

Why would Wikipedia editors seek to make a demonstrably false statement stand side-by-side with a demonstrably true statement on equal terms?

You do realize the statement that he is "never" called 'Rabbi' Hillel is false, do you not?

Well, in case you are still on the fence, here is another book that refers (repeatedly) to "Rabbi Hillel."

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kL_SVspbIkoJ:https://www.drbronner.com/resources/images/read-the-moral-abcs/Moral_ABC_book.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us "The Moral ABC [Parts] I & II" by Dr. Emmanuel Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a holocaust survivor who immigrated to America. There are dozens of references to "Rabbi Hillel" in this book, so rather than risk the tedium of repetition, i shall present only two examples: Page 23: "Rabbi Hillel taught Jesus to unite the whole human race in our Eternal Father’s great, All-One-God-Faith." Page 39: "To stay free: Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds teach Rabbi Hillel’s Moral ABC."

Now, look, to be honest, i see by your user and talk pages that you are a Hassidic Rabbi and that you have a reputation for fighting a lot on Wikipedia. Your reputation is that of a person whose edits about Judaism and Israel have caused dissent. In fact, i come from a family of rabbis and lawyers myself, but mine is a Reform family (from the earliest days of Reform, in Fürth, in the mid 19th century) and i too have gotten into content-combats in Wikipedia over the past 10 years. We represent different threads of Judaism. Yet Hillel is my ancestor and i only came here to improve the article by removing a falsehood.

You and i could go on and on and around and around about this, but why bother? You took out the reference to him "never" being called Rabbi Hillel and that is fine. Your deletion will make Wikipedia less easy to find if someone searches for the term "Rabbi Hillel," but you probably don't care much about that. Neither do i.

Let those who search for "Rabbi Hillel" find the works of others, such as Dr. Bronner. So be it.

I like this compromise you implemented. I am satisfied with it. We have reached consensus.

-- cat yronwode, not logged in, 75.101.104.17 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong about quite a lot of things here.

1. We have not reached consensus, because I am not a party to this issue.
2. I removed the statement you find problematic only to allow for everybody (you and User:warshy) to cool down so that a discussion could start here. It was not meant as a solution. I will restore the previous version, as the consensus version, if no discussion will follow here.
3. My personal background, or my alleged reputation are not relevant to this discussion, and per the adagio "comment on content, not on editor", I'd like to ask you to strike those parts of your previous post, or at least refrain from commenting in a similar vein in the future.
4. Your claim that by posting a warning on your talkpage I somehow made a faux pas, is incorrect. Talkpages are precisely where warning to editors should be posted, and sometimes even must be posted.
5. As I have stated above, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are clear on the subject that in the case of contradictory sources, both opinions deserve a mention (if only they are not fringe), with appropriate attribution. I would urge you to search for a compromise in that direction. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In terms of WP policy Debresser is right, of course, and I agree with everything he says, as he knows this stuff much more than I do. He is right also in requesting to know what Glatzer says exactly before doing anything else. And, after that, there is a matter of checking the sources/references you suggest to see if they pass muster as WP Reliable Sources. I will proceed checking your references slowly as the times allows. Until such time as there is some consensus for PROPOSED changes that are duly discussed and agreed upon, the current version of the article should not be changed again. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 13:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an historical issue, and the odds that Hillel would have been called Rabbi in his own time are slim, since he really marks the beginning of the Oral Law in the history of Judaism, the inception of a relatively early Second Temple period process that would develop into the establishment of the Mishnah. But he might have been called that later somewhere in the Talmud, if there are any historical academic reliable sources that indicate that. And he might have been called that also in later periods, even before Buber or the more contemporary websites suggested by the IP editor. So a note to that effect, with the appropriate and agreed upon reliable sources would be fine with me, no problem. Debresser, I would also appreciate and explanation as to the reason for the "insult" above regarding Buber calling him that. You may disagree, but I would see no reason for "insult" since Hillel's place of honor in what would later develop into Rabbinic Judaism, I would think, should be something undisputed? But I maybe wrong about this contemporary religious question, and I would appreciate being instructed about it. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I shall cease from mentioning anyone's personal background unless this matter gets escalated to the status of an edit war, which i doubt will occur. As warshy also picked up on, it was Debresser's use of the word "insult" which set my alarm bells ringing. As i see it, to be insulted on behalf of a dead person when encountering words written by another dead person speaks to a sense of unreasonable "owning," a privileged emotionality and all-around specialness far beyond what we enjoy as Wikipedia editors.

It was to counter what i saw as Debresser's sense of entitled umbrage that i noted that i too have a horse in this race. As a descendant of Hillel, and as a Jew, i do NOT feel insulted that Martin Buber, JewFaq.org, Rabbi Louis Jacobs, Robert Siegel, Aaron Parry, Sharon Barcan Elswit, Dr. Emmanuel Bronner, and others have referred to Hillel the Elder in print as "Rabbi Hillel."

But i agree to let that lay.

The issue is simply one of historicity. During his lifetime, Hillel would not have been called "The Elder." He also would not have been called Rabbi. However, for the past millennium he has been called "The Elder," and for the past 50 to 60 years (counting Dr. Bronner as among the earliest users of the term), he has repeatedly been called "Rabbi Hillel."

Feel free to check the "reputability" of the sources i cited, according to your interpretation of Wikipedia standards. I happen to know that at least National Public Radio, Penguin Publishing, and MacFarland Publishing are well-known RS citations. And it only takes ONE instance to negate the disputed "never."

I might also note that the time period during which the term "Rabbi Hillel" has become popular (1960 - 2016) is identical with the time period in which we have seen the rise of books that sincerely (without irony and without insulting intentions) contain references to Jesus as "Rabbi Jesus." Many of these documents have been written by Jews. For instance, the same "Moral ABC" book by Dr. Bronner in which Hillel is called "Rabbi Hillel" contains references to "Rabbi Jesus." I see a parallel there, and certainly i could find many other examples of the "Rabbi Jesus" usage by Jewish authors, if requested. (I do not think it is necessary that i do so, but i will, if requested -- however, that would be a topic for the "Rabbi" page, not this page.)

In short, what these two parallel trends indicate is that Jewish authors writing about Judaism, during the past 50 years (at least) are broadening the use of the word "Rabbi" and applying it retrospectively to pre-Exilic Jewish teachers. They are using the word in its generic sense to indicate a respected religious teacher, not as an honorific, not as a certification of competence in Talmudic teaching, and not even as a historical term in any sense.

Whether they are "right" or "wrong" in doing so will only devolve to a matter of dogma and opinion. In fact, they ARE doing so. In fact, they HAVE done so. Thus the statement that they "never" do so is false, whether or not Glatzer made that claim in the 1950s or not.

I repeat: You do realize the statement that he is "never" called 'Rabbi' Hillel is false, do you not?

Again, rather than go into this much detail in the article on Hillel the Elder, where it would represent an actual forking of the topic, i herewith express myself once more to be well satisfied that the erroneous "never" was removed, and i believe we should simply leave it at that.

catherine yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have repeatedly asked that question. It is, however irrelevant. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. One explanation could be that Glatzer refers to rabbinic literature only, for example. Which is why I asked if somebody could please check what he says. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can locate the Glatzer book, and if we determine that he said something to the effect that Hillel "was never called 'Rabbi' Hillel in an academic context" or "was never called 'Rabbi' Hillel in rabbinic literature," then we will enter round two, after we determine to our mutual satisfaction which of the sources, if any, are academic or rabbinic.

However, until then, we may not guess if Glatzer was referring to an academic context, to a popular context, to a rabbinic religious context, to a chronologically delimited historical context, or to any other context. Given that we only have that one word -- "never" -- and that we do not even know at this point if Glatzer actually used that word or, if he used it, whether he applied it to one or more stated subsidiary contexts as outlined above, or stated it categorically and with a sense of universality, our only choice is to eliminate both the word and the reference. No offense is intended to Mr. Glatzer, and it is unfortunate that his book has proven difficult to locate.

By the way, i concur with your earlier statement, "In the case of contradictory sources, Wikipedia allows for, and actually demands, that both opinions be mentioned, with attribution to their respective reliable sources." In an attempt to eliminate the problem of the falsity of the supposed Glatzer claim without eliminating Glatzer as a source, i did, admittedly, with my insertion of the word "occasionally," set myself up as a "contradictory source" to Glatzer. This was not my actual intention, and when it was pointed out to me, i immediately withdrew that wording.

At this point, we are only dealing with the word "never," which is either in need of a modifying term from Glatzer that can then be defended (your speculations of "academic" and "rabbinic" are not the only choices) or, if intended universally and unconditionally by Glatzer, must either be struck -- as it has been -- or placed into a new post-Glatzerian historical context in which (depending on the conditional terms that Glatzer may or may not have averred) must then be supported with RS examples. After that, if we agree, for instance, that "rabbinic" was Glatzer's modifier to "never," we get to open up the contending fact that in popular Jewish religious literature since the mid 20th century, including that written by the "transdenominational" Rabbi Louis Jacobs, Hillel has indeed been called "Rabbi Hillel."

Perhaps in the next round of discussion about this weighty matter, we can all make our presentations while standing on one foot.

catherine yronwode, drinking coffee, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to 'Dweller' I am aware of this discussion. The quote from Nahum Glatzer's book Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism is from his Introduction. Here is that Introduction, from the beginning to the quote:

"A study of Hillel the Elder is essential for an understand of the first pre-Christian century and the period preceding the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, an era of decisive importance in Jewish history. The study is based on talmudic and midrasnhic sources (some legendary) and on background information found in the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea sectarian writings.

"We apply the term "classical" to the period of Hillel (who is never called "Rabbi") because it was then, and not in biblical times, that a central line, as point of departure—and return—for all forms of Judaism yet to come was established."

So from this context, the implication is that Hillel is "never" called Rabbi in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. In other words (this is me now), any use of the term "Rabbi" to apply to Hillel is anachronistic. I believe the term Rabbi was not used before the first century, and this is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on Rabbi. According to it, Rabban Gamaliel the elder (son or grandson of Hillel) was the first to be given the title Rabbi, or a rather a variation of it. If my memory is correct, in Avot, the first one to be called Rabbi is Yehudah HaNasi, and there it is an honorific name ("My master") and not actually a title. The Wikipedia article specifically mentions that Hillel was *not* given the title Rabban. As to the question of Glatzer's reliability, I think he was really a solid scholar. See his bio: https://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archives-speccoll/findingguides/archives/faculty/glatzer.html#d0e91 Yes, his book on Hillel is now 60 years old. But the sources he is talking about are over 1500 years old. So the question is whether he was a master of those sources, and more than that, whether anyone can cite a reference to "Rabbi" Hillel in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. Nobody has, and until somebody can, I think this claim of Glatzer should be taken as authoritative, and kept in the article. I'll do a revision in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Berkson (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, William Berkson! I agree that Glatzer is a reliable scholar, and i thank you very much for supplying the quotation.

Obviously (and as we suspected, in our varied ways) Glatzer was making a HISTORICAL statement with reference to the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, and Dead Sea scrolls. Good. This is our starting point.

First, that fact is not important in the lead of the article.

Second, i do believe that this interesting information -- and the countering historical trends of the 20th century, in which the appellation "Rabbi Hillel" first appears -- is worthy of a brief subsection. This would enable modern Wikipedia readers to find Wikipedia as a primary source when searching on the term "Rabbi Hillel," as they are evidently doing, especially if they are following through after listening to National Public Radio, or reading the various web sites and books i previously cited.

In a number of those citations, Hillel is not ever referred to as "The Elder," and is only termed "Rabbi Hillel." Rather than criticizing those sources as non-rabbinic or non-academic or a-historical, i think it is our best choice, as editors, to make room for the Google searches on the term "Rabbi Hillel" by terming them "popular" sources and placing the Glatzer information on historical terminology first, then following with the counter examples.

This cannot be part of the lead. It is its own small topic.

William Berkson, please do not make a revision without consensus, or it will be reverted for further discussion.

cat yronwode 75.101.104.17 (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of the NPR origin of this discussion, and Google search concerns sound to me more like a tempest in a tea cup. Thanks to William Berkson's effort in publishing the Glatzer's quote here (many thanks for that effort, really) the matter seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. What the original citation should have said is simply this, in my view:

In the Talmud he is not given the title Rabbi.

And following this sentence would be the reference that is now missing in the article: "Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13"

This sentence with the ref could be added to the lead, in my view, but it does not have to be added there, as long as it appears somewhere. That is my suggestion to ending the current 'tempest.' If someone wants to write a subsection on "Hillel's changing perception among modern Jews" or something like that, this person can write this section in a sandbox, and the interested editors would comment there. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As I was talking William Berkson was already doing, as he said he would. Except for typo corrections still needed I agree with his edit and this should end the discussion in my view. Thanks again, William Berkson. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

His explanation is also more complete and better than mine, since he inserted the key term "anachronistic" which was missing here in this discussion since the beginning. As he explained, the term/title only started to be used after Hillel's time. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have moved William Berkson's excellent contribution from the lead to another section and added the modern references from three RS sources (NPR, MacFarland, Penguin). Please look this over and see what you think.

I did this in order to retain the Google-searchable term "Rabbi Hillel" so that this page -- with the explanation -- will be findable.

cat yronwode, not logged in 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a separate section called "Hillel in Contemporary Culture" or something like that. And in this case, I also think that the original note/explanation should still be in the lead where it was, as the new section would re-explain the anarchronism of contemporary culture, as it does. But I am tired and I give up; I won't change it anymore. The younger generation is to hectic for my own tastes... Be well., warshy ^(¥¥) 19:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As a member of the hectic "younger generation" (i am 69 years old), i thank you.

I like the idea of an entire stand-alone "'Rabbi' Hillel in Contemporary Culture" sub-section. We can make a chronologically-ordered bullet-pointed list of all the songs, plays, films, television shows, novels, and advertising campaigns that mention "Rabbi" Hillel.

Five minutes later! Who knows what the diligent scholar of popular culture may uncover? Look! I found "Rabbi Hillel" in a scholarly book about 20th century television shows!

https://books.google.com/books?id=DJZdteZ2H1oC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=Rabbi+Hillel%27s+popularity+as+disseminator+of+wisdom+extended&source=bl&ots=nhU9lzCrP6&sig=keo8TWpCjaqsA8OQLb-UZ9IuoQM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtMvpmbDNAhUUHWMKHdGYDqkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Rabbi%20Hillel's%20popularity%20as%20disseminator%20of%20wisdom%20extended&f=false "The Chosen Image: Television's Portrayal of Jewish Themes and Characters" By Jonathan Pearl and Judith Pearl (MacFarland, 2005). In the section "Jewish Wisdom and Languages," the authors mention "episodes of [the 1960s series] 'Have Gun, Will Travel' [in which] Paladin, the program's erudite gunslinger [...] employs an adage from the sage Hillel" -- and they continue by noting that "Rabbi Hillel's popularity as disseminator of wisdom extended to a 1973 episode of 'Medical Center,' where series star Dr. Gannon appears to be an admirer of him as well"

Wowsa! I shall create the sub-section. This is fun. Hope you like it.

cat yronwode, all "young at heart," but not logged in, 75.101.104.17 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

William Berkson (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry cat yronwode, I don't know Wiki editing etiquette.

Let me discuss the problem with "Rabbi" Hillel a little more. I agree that a separate later section on this, as now, is best. But I think this needs more work. I'll hold off any further editing until after getting feedback. I should say by way of context that I am the author of the commentary, Pirke Avot: Timeless Wisdom for Modern Life (Jewish Publication Society 2010). Avot contains many of the most famous quotes from Hillel, and I discuss them in the commentary.

Here's the problem that the current version of the article doesn't capture. Calling Hillel "Rabbi" is really an error, and probably a 20th century one. It is not just that you don't find it in before, say 700 CE, but that you don't find it before say 1940—if the current article is right. It is to me a marker of lack of in-depth study of the sources, or an American attempt to "popularize" to Christians or Jews without direct knowledge of the sources. This wrong usage is complicated by the fact that Jesus is also called addressed as "Rabbi" in the New Testament, and this is also an anachronism and an error. This is a touchy issue, but as it is not directly relevant to discussing Hillel, it can can be ignored. I mention it because I do think that is a reason why people have wanted to call HIllel "Rabbi." I would guess that the first usage of this is 20th century American, and Christian. But I don't have the evidence. Incidentally, I'm having a hard time believing that Buber ever referred to "Rabbi" Hillel. A translator, maybe, but not Martin (nor his Grandfather the scholar). I'd need to see that reference before I'd believe it.

I just located the best source I have found yet to show that "Rabbi" Hillel is an error. It is in the Encyclopedia Judaica article "Titles". Here is the quote:

"The only sages upon whom the title *rabban* was conferred were the heads of the Central Academy, or Sanhedrin after Hillel... The term *rabbi* was granted to all Palestinian scholars from the late first century onward who had received *semikhah*, ('ordination')."

The author of the article is "Titles" is Daniel Sperber, Professor at Bar Ilan University and recipient of the Israel Prize—Israel's highest honor—for his work in Jewish Studies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sperber

Another reference dating the title Rabbi to this time: "The title 'Rabbi,' ... dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward." The is from The Jewish Encyclopedia article "Rabbi": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi Indeed this corresponds with the titles of the sages in the Avot in the Mishnah; there the first sages to be named with the title "Rabbi" are the five (outstanding) students of Yochanan ben Zakkai. These all survived the fall of the Temple. Avot was edited by Yehudah Hanasi, who was himself a direct descendent of Hillel and Nasi (prince), head of the Jewish community. Thus he was most likely of anybody to know the correct story. He also was an extremely good editor, as you can tell by comparing the Mishnah Tractate Avot, which he was primary editor of, with the alternative version Avot de Rabbi Natan. I can't document this, but it looks like the title Rabbi was created by Yochanan ben Zakkai as part of the creation of new institutions to ensure the survival of the Jewish community after the fall of the Temple in the year 70—or else by the students of his students, who wanted to call their teachers, like Rabbi Eliezer, who were not "Rabban," by a similar honorific title.

My general point is that calling Hillel "Rabbi" is such a howler historically that the Wikipedia should be a means of correcting it, IMHO. I'm certainly open to suggestions on the best way to do this.

p.s. The book Hillel the Elder by Nahum Glatzer is to me hands down the best source in English on Hillel. It is a very short book which is not only the best on Hillel, but also probably the best introduction to Classical Judaism, period. So I'd like to see it have an earlier reference, maybe the first, in the article.

William Berkson, Thank you for all the historical insights above, I think you are right on the mark. I actually think there are many good academic reliable sources that argue exactly what you are saying. I also agree with all your suggestions for the article. Thanks, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Can the page be changed to Hillel, without “the elder”? I’ve never heard of the elder. Is there a younger? This is confusing Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Translation dispute

The phrase וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי literaly means "and if I am not for myself who is for me?". User:Lisa`removed the commonly used word "only" from "And being only for myself, what am I?" and 19.175.192.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reinstated it.} Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lisa: Lisa's edit is correct, but doesn't match the translation in the cited text. I've expanded the citation to include the original Hebrew text and the translation in the cited source. IMHO a looser translation in the text is fine as long as the citation includes the translation in the cited text.

I agree with Lisa that the word only should be omitted, or there sshould be a disclaimer that while it is common, it is not accurate. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR in citation

@Lisa: In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1121108530&oldid=1120885055 I added the original text and translation to a citation originally given as an external link.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1124100227&oldid=1121565598, Lisa changed the |trans-quote= to a translation different from that in the text. That edit also added quotation marks around I.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=next&oldid=1124100227, I reverted the change with the comment Do not paraphrase quotations in citations.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hillel_the_Elder&curid=313892&diff=1125022169&oldid=1124176915, Lisa reinstated the change with the comment did revision 1124176915 by Chatul (talk) I'm not paraphrasing. I'm correcting incorrect translations.

I contend that to include in a citation a translation different from the one in the text is WP:OR and misleading. If an editor believes that the translation in the text is incorrect then the appropriate action is to cite a different translation from an RS or to suggest an alternate translation in the body of the article. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument. However, the translation by Taylor is one of very many different translations, none of which is more authoritative than the other. So I'm going to revert your edit again, because the text literally does not include the word "only", and including it is an interpretation, rather than a translation. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be relevant if the translation was in the body of the article. However, |quote= is for the text as printed, with redactions noted, and, in addition, the translator put brackets around only to indicate that it was not in the original text. I believe that it is time to go to arbitration.--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Users are permitted to provide literal translation and it is not considered OR. However, when there are several free translations available, it is usually better to use one of them. It doesn't take a very advanced understanding of an ancient language to find "non-literal" elements in any published translation, but very often the professional translator was reflecting an idiom, an unusual meaning, a parallel text, an emendation, etc, of which the amateur is unaware. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The question is not whether a free translation is permissible, but where it is permissible. Placing it in the |quote=, as opposed to the body of the article, falsely attributes it to the editor or translator, flasely attributes the translation to the editor or translator. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Use of Hebrew years for Jews

Jews use the Hebrew calendar (AM Anno Mundi) to record their birthday and death day. It is always mentioned on their gravestone. All Jews should have these years mentioned on their wiki. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Some, very few actually among the non-Orthodox, use it while alive for their birthdays. Most use it on their graves, but that is a religious ritual. Wikipedia is NOT a religious encyclopedia. And, what they have on their graves is written in Hebrew letters, not in Arabic numerals. We are not going to start adding Hebrew dates (in Hebrew characters) to every page of a possible Jewish character here. Forget about that. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a multi denominational encyclopaedia, not exclusively Christian. Respect all religions’ dating protocols.

And don’t worry about the effort to add these dates: focus on the what, not the how.

Of course we won’t have AM years in hebrew (well only on the hebrew translation of Wikipedia) Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of Jewish publications and calendar programs in English that give AM dates in Arabic numerals rather than Hebrew letters, usually without the gloss AM. I believe that most American Jews are less familiar with numbers in Hebrew letters than they are with Roman numerals. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2w023 (UTC)

And, do you really believe these dates are important for historical knowledge? They may be important for religious reasons or purposes, but for general historical knowledge, I believe they are completely irrelevant. That is because I don't for a moment believe that the world was created by God some 5,700 years ago, in the literal manner it is described in Bereshit. I come to Wikipedia for knowledge in general, not for religious knowledge in particular. If I were to seek some specific religious knowledge I'd probably go somewhere else. And I will also fight new editors that come here with the purpose of turning WP into a kosher source for religious knowledge. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't try to put word in my mouth. I truly believe that in articles on Jewish topics it is appropriate to include dates in the Hebrew calendar, just as I believe that in articles on Islamic topics it is appropriate to include dates in the Islamic calendar. I also believe that it is appropriate to give those dates in Arabic numerals. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on what you state above that you "truly believe," are you going to go ahead and start to add Hebrew dates to all Wikipedia articles that deal with Jews or Judaism, as this new "biskit" editor is advocating? I'll be watching, as I also keep watching with some amusement the religious looneyness going on here. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 01:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Please adhere to WP:CIV and stop trying to attribute to me things that I never wrote.

I have no intent of making mass edits, nor did I suggest it. In fact, should there be a policy of using subject-friendly dates in wiki articles, I would prefer an incremental approach. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if you felt I was trying to be uncivil to you. That was not my intention, I was just really asking a question. But I'll stop. I don't think there is any WP policy that prevents an editor from using what you call "subject-friendly dates." If such a date can add meaningful content to an article (such as the present one for example), it can be added. What I was referring to is the idea of adding that as a standard in the English WP, as was being suggested. These dates can be found in some articles in the Hebrew WP (such as the parallel to this one there), but to my knowledge this is not even there a standard procedure. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

So how to get the addition of AM for jews birth and death dates introduced as a wiki policy? Can someone write a bot to edit all of wikipedia?

This is a fascinating discussion. Remember this would only be for jews and jewish events. i am not trying to kosherize wikip. No hidden agenda here. Do i believe the messiah was born 2023 years ago? Dont a few other cultures also maintain a different year numbering?? If it happens for the hebrew calendar, should it happen for others? Why not? As a jew (not chassidic), i am fascinated to see the AM years mentioned (it makes calculabting the time span between the destruction of the 2 temples easy!!) On balance, i think it is respectful to the faith and demonstrates that wikipedia caters for everyone, not just WASPs.

Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

And BTW, he's coming very soon, so we'll be resetting to 0 ;) !! Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The assumed dates for his birht and death

First of all, one needs to go an read the original entry on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is still the best researched and most comprehensive existing encyclopedia entry on him.

On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopaedia [entry] on him does not have Hebrew dates at all. The dates it gives for his activity are just (c. 50 bce–early first century ce). Mind you, this is the Jewish Encyclopedia!!! So, this whole matter still needs to be researched better. And, the possible addition of some approximate Hebrew dates in the end, does not add any significant historical knowledge to Wikipedia, in my view. But, we'll see... Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

WP is not RS

Several places in the article cite the Wikipedia Pirkei Avoth article instead of the text of Pirkei Avoth. I'm not sure whether to replace them with discrete {{cite book|section=|section-url=|page=|script-quote=|trans-quote=}} templates or to add it to #Sources and use {{sfn}}. The latter has the disadvantage that it doesn't support quotation or section parameters, so I'm inclined to the former. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)