Talk:Biblical and Talmudic units of measurement

Cleanup
This article has no introduction, and needs one. It also needs citations at the bottom. Xaa 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've kicked things off with a stab at an Introduction. In the course of writing this, of course, I noticed that the Bezah and Zayit are missing! --Dweller 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the current intro is good and it will likely survive the merge untouched. Hippychick 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)

Hebrew article translation
The Hebrew article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים is very good and should probably replace this section. It includes Talmudic measurements as well, gives examples of uses of the units in Jewish law, and has a nice introduction. I'll try to translate it myself if I have time, but I hope someone else gets to it first.
 * I've posted up what I have so far at User:Nadav1/Torah weights and measures. Please comment! nadav 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC
 * Rather than write a completely new article, why not just edit this one? Hippychick 23:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern weight of the Talent
The author states that 1 talent weights between 46.7 and 56.7 kg of silver or gold. Knowing that 1 Talent is 3,000 Shekels, and that 1 Shekel is about 11.5 g, one would expect a Talent to weight 34 kg.
 * Measure 	U.S./British 	Metric
 * Talent = 60 minas 	75 pounds 	35 kilograms
 * Mina = 50 shekels 	1.25 pounds 	.6 kilograms
 * Shekel = 2 bekas 	.4 ounces 	11.3 grams
 * Pim = .66 shekel 	.33 ounces 	9.4 grams
 * Beka = 10 gerahs 	.2 ounces 	5.7 grams
 * Gerah 	.02 ounces 	.6 grams
 * There were both sacred and profane divisions just like with cubits
 * 60 Mina to a talent, 60 sheckles to a Mina might include a tithe or the vig or interest.(the old six for five)
 * 50 Mina to a talent, 50 sheckles to a Mina would not include the tribute.
 * Not including tribute you pay 2500 sheckles as a base, with tribute 3600 sheckles
 * If a talent is 75 pounds of gold its 1/16th of a cubic foot
 * Assuming the size is 108 cu in, its side is 4.75" +/- roughly 1 hand plus 1 finger.
 * copper and silver could be measured with the same measure silver weighs 653 lb a cubic foot
 * copper weighs 542 lb a cubic foot.12.187.94.209 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Category
These measurements aren't obsolete, and I think that either this article should be removed from the group, or the category itself should be renamed.
 * Agreed.nadav 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page move
I propose moving this page to Torah weights and measures, since the units are still used and discussed for many situations in Jewish life. If no one objects, I'll do this soon. nadav (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't your suggested title doesn't cinvey the same meaning as the current title--Java7837 19:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think adding a simple sentence to this article saying that these units of measurement are still used within Jewish life would make more sense then moving the article. I'll edit it to reflect your comment.  Feel free to change my wording or correct my content.Hippychick 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)

Page merge
A similar page exists at Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement. Perhaps they should be merged (or at least cross-referenced)? Chessbot 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. They're strikingly similar. Aep (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at how to do it in the best way. The referencing is inadequate in both, the present article being based mostly on the Jewish Encyclopedia--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in pursuing this further? It looks very necessary to me. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging I'm going to take a crack at merging Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement to this article. It is definitely necessary and it's long overdue.  Hippychick 23:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)

Article merged: See old talk-page here Hippychick 00:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)

Value of a Cubit

 * כג וַיַּעַשׂ אֶת-הַיָּם, מוּצָק:  עֶשֶׂר בָּאַמָּה מִשְּׂפָתוֹ עַד-שְׂפָתוֹ עָגֹל סָבִיב, וְחָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה קוֹמָתוֹ, וקוה (וְקָו) שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּאַמָּה, יָסֹב אֹתוֹ סָבִיב

This verse in 1 Kings 7:23 initially appears to imply that Pi = 3. However when the cubit is measured at a cubit and a hand breadth it's still incorrect, in this instance it's a circle. So there's added 2 hand breadths, using this calculation proper Pi is approached. Pi = (30 cubit)/((10cubit)-(2 handbreadth)). The reason you do this is the chaldron has thickness and the brim is the inner brim. Understanding exactly what is in Ezekial as measuring is unclear to me, is it a similar situation? If so, does this imply what's been stated in this article, that definition is just randomly variant. Or is it specifically altered by the context of the measurement? CheskiChips (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this in a separate post below. The passage says that the walls were like a cup, like a lily. A lily has sloped walls. You938 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Olives and Eggs
the relation between an olive and an egg is subject to argument. One opinion is two olives per egg, the other opinion is 3 olives per egg. Pollira (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Omer
In the article is said:
 * "The Omer, which the Torah mentions as being equal to one tenth of an Ephah,[14] is an awkward fit into this system (it constitutes 1.8 Kabs and 0.3 Se'ah), and it is evident that it wasn't originally present, but is instead a result of decimalisation,..."

This is not correct !

That what you name 'Omer' is written 'Ghomer' in THE OLD TESTAMENT, Exodus 16,36.
 * Not correct. The first letter is a chet, transliterated as "ch".  Fix your typo. 4.249.63.247 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The original verse is: וְהָעֹמֶר, עֲשִׂרִית הָאֵיפָה הוּא.


 * So the first letter would definitely be an Ayin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.89.8 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So it is rarely 'a result of decimalisation' ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.154.56 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is the POV comment about when it was incorporated. Author needs to read the article on Documentary Hypothesis and see that while it is still taught in Britain, it has suffered from its students who have attacked it on a number of grounds.  Friedman's book is based solely on authorities and does not correlate with archaeology since 1990.

4.249.63.247 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Cubit measure from the Bronze Sea dimensions (1Ki 7:23-26)
Using the established 22 liter measure for a bath, the measurements of the Bronze Sea (1Kings 7:23-26) yield the measurement of a cubit.

I've detailed this on the following webpage: http://www.yihyeh.com/the-bronze-sea.html

Since the walls were sloped like the "rim of a cup, like a lily blossom" the volume can be treated like a frustum of a cone for a more than reasonable approximation. A line of 30 cubits can be stretched around the Sea base. The rim-to-rim diameter (at top) was 10 cubits.

Since the Sea held 2000 baths (a known volume) and the measurements given in the passage yield just over 375¼ cubits³ a measurement of 19.269516" can be extrapolated. You938 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bronze Sea measures its diameter to a rim curved out like a palm by the decorations along its edge. 19.2" was an English cubit based on 24 fingers of .8". Biblical measures follow the Imperial system for length in inches, area in square inches and volume in multiples of the cubic inch and ounce. 12.187.94.12 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ell vs. cubit
This section treats ells and cubits as if they are two different things. Ell and cubit are both English words used to translate the Hebrew ammah. The English word cubit is derived from the Latin cubitum. Since this unit of measure fell out of general use in England at a fairly early date, it ceased to evolve and is used today mainly in the study of classical antiquity, archaeology (Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.) Biblical metrology, and perhaps for some religious observances. The ell, on the hand, (derived from an old German root meaning the same thing as cubit) was used well into the 19th century. In 1588 the English ell was standardized at 45 inches (apparently based on a double ell). By the 19th century, England also had three supplementary ells, the Scottish ell (37 inches), Flemish ell (27 inches) and French ell (54 inches). I think it might be a good idea to just stick with one or the other, either 'cubit' or 'ell', but not both (unless the other one is put in parentheses to indicate it is a synonym). Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ancient body measures were standardized for international trade in Egypt's province of Canaan, and for use in contracts, architectural proportions and manufacture in the bronze age. Body measures divided by finger, hand (100 mm), span, foot (300 mm), cubit 500 mm), great cubit(600 mm), ell(1 meter) in Mesopotamia and finger, palm (75mm), span, foot (300 mm), cubit (450 mm), royal cubit (525), ell (600 mm) in ancient Egypt served as the basis for units of area and volume, weight, mass, time and space. Body measure systems were coordinated with agricultural measures foot, remen, yard, pace, fathom, rod, cord, chain, perch, stadion, mile, degree by the Hyksos period. (The Bible and Torah often use English names deemed equivalent to the earlier models.) The ell is important to cloth measure by the 18th dynasty. In 1593 The English furlong which had been the same 185 m as the Greek stadion and Roman stadium as one eighth of a Greek mia chilios or one thousand and Roman Milliare or thousand and English myle all being 600 stadia to a degree of 111 km or 75 Roman milliare was changed to one eighth of a mile of 5280 feet such that there were twice as many seconds in a century as inches in the circumference of the Earths Great Circle at the Equator as measured by the seconds pendulum used by Galileoas a standard of measure throughout his career and incorporated as a standard of measure at the time of his death half a century later. In Europe Greek hand based systems are used east of the Rhine and Roman palm based units west of the Rhine.12.187.94.12 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be cubit. — Llywelyn II   20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is "ell" used at all in the article? It seems that nearly every translation uses "cubit" and every academic paper discussing the ANE, archaeology in the area, or biblical studies uses "cubit" when referencing the ancient measure. Who uses "ell", and why is it used in this article? It just seems to confuse the topic for no reason and is inconsistently used. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The days' epoch
I know there are no real scholarly, secular or religious, disagreements on the convention of saying that the biblical and talmudic day begins at dusk. But, where are the actual talmudic/biblical points of reference? --Xact (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Terrible article
First, we're not using the name for the ammah (hint: it's "cubit").

Second, we have no even semiaccurate values on a page about measurements because we're entirely sourced to a 1906 tertiary source based on 19th century scholarship. This is not rocket science. Someone please use the Jewish Encyclopedia to note the historical uncertainty but then rebuild the article using modern sources, starting with Oxford.

Third, "Bible" and "Talmud" are not the names of a culture, which is what all of our other units of measurement pages are dabbed by. This needs to be moved to Hebrew units of measurement, Ancient Hebrew units of measurement, or (at minimum) the terser Biblical units of measurement. Any modern Talmudic or Jewish use derives from that and is entirely secondary. Further, if there is any modern use of these units apart from their reconstructed historic values, those need to be given and cited. — Llywelyn II   20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

tefach defined
Interesting article that would seem to well-define, if not exactly define, the length of the tefach.
 * An astonishing common denominator among storage jars in Israel

Why use opnions when there is something so definitive - what is actually found in physical evidence. Shenme (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction?
Beit rova is 10.2x10.2 amot not 10.5x10.5 2600:1011:B068:C906:6097:BE1B:B08C:3D31 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

....what?
Reference 10 just says "content". what does that even mean!? --Bumpf said this! ooh clicky clicky! [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 00:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)