Talk:Yadua the Babylonian

Palestinian and other issues with Chesdovi's edits

edit

Chesdovi is propagandising the term "Palestinian" here again. Calling the word "rabbi" a "Palestinian honorific". It is a Jewish honorific, used throughout the ages and in all places. Agreed, in comparison with the term "rav", when used in the Talmud, it denotes rabbis of the "Jerusalem Talmud" rather than the "Babylonian Talmud", but that is irrelevant to the era of the Mishnah. And calling rabbi Meir a "Palestinian rabbi", when the standard phrase, used per long-standing consensus in articles about rabbis is something like "sage of the Land of Israel". Debresser (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Revert all your contentious edits first and then we can begin to discuss these issues. Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Since the same can be said about you, I suggest you follow my lead, and take part in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Chesdovi's post at Talk:Palestine regarding this issue:

As an issue has arisen at Yadua the Babylonian, I wish to ask for views appertaining to the usage of “Palestinian honorific” to describe the title “Rabbi” as opposed to “Rav”. We have the following sources:

Is using "Palestinian honorific" at Rabbi Yadun valid? Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I said, all this is correct, but not relevant. The distinction between sages who lived in Israel and those who lived in Babylon is not relevant to the Mishnaic era, which was written exclusively in Eretz Israel. The distinction between "rabbi" and "rav" is used to determine the origin of Talmudic sages only. Another major point is that "rabbi" is not a Palestinian honorific, but a Jewish honorific used for sages who lived in Eretz Israel. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the removal, but simply because the source doesn't say anything about Meir or Yadua. I missed that, or I would have removed it myself, since inclusion violates NOR--we can't make that connection ourselves. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
The sourced note 4 states: "Even though he bears the title Rabbi (which is Palestinian), his place of origin indicates Babylonian provenance". Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Nuujinn, what removal are you talking about? I don't understand. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Note that the terms are treated in Honorifics in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wait a second. Rav and Rabbi are not references to locations. You are "Rabbi" if you have the orginal Semicha, which was only given in Israel, and only up to a certain period. Am I wrong?Mzk1 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So I am not a rabbi? :) Debresser (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply