Talk:Birkat haMinim

Nazi ideas on Wikipedia
Accurate reportage is important to avoid slanderous bias. Two copies out of millions of copies of the Amidah throughout history can not be called "sometimes". 81.103.121.144 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that puts you well over the limit. You cannot go round calling other editors on Wikipedia Nazis because you see something that disagrees with your own ideas?
 * Are there "millions" of 9th century copies? How do you know, what is your source? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No there are millions of copies of the Amidah throughout history. And only two 9th century passages have ever been found which include the malediction against Notzrim. I did not call you a Nazi, I meant that to pump up this tiny issue which certainly makes Jews unpopular in the eyes of Christians is certainly like Nazi propaganda. Is that what you are doing with all your recent edits?81.103.121.144 (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What I am doing is adding academic references to articles where anonymous IPs have being adding their own opinion. It is not "Nazi" to recognise sources like the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary etc, nor in this case an Israeli scholar. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, to return to the talk page just to bold "millions of copies of the Amidah throughout history" is not an answer to WP:source. To be honest I'd expect those 2 to be only 2 of 20, or 2 of 30 from the 9th Century. But the thing is we don't know, it could be 2 of 2 or 2 of 200. This is why edits should be accompanied by WP:sources. 81.103.121.144, so far the only source you've been using for any of your edits is the medieval tract Toledoth Yeshu. Do you have any sources outside this for any of your edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference for the two 9th century siddurim where Christians are mentioned in the Birkas HaMinim is authored by van der Horst, who is definitely not a Nazi. He may be an "Islamophobe" or whatnot, but he certainly does not have much against the Jews as far as I can tell. That said, I am confused as to why In ictu oculi's glaring unsourced statements (viz. "Some argue...") are allowed to remain while the Anon's sourced clarification [of sorts] has been deleted. Please explain your actions. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

comparison with Catholic Good Friday Prayer for the Jews removed

 * Re above, what can I say, junk DNA in stub article creation, was copied from somewhere and then missed in sourcing, I have no idea of the source for "Some have argued that the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews are liturgically similar to the Jewish prayers Birkat haMinim or the Aleinu or the Hagaddah." and have removed it. Possibly the source was comparison in The Jewish quarterly review 1973 where discussion of the RC Good Friday prayer is contrasted with the B h-M. Or Kessler An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations ..but can't find quickly in either section, and easier to delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. But also - I am still not entirely clear on why it is relevant to add the application to Christians bit when it would seem that it appears extremely infrequently. I'm sure one could find a siddur or two that have "DEATH TO MOHAMMED" or "I WISH THERE WERE UNICORNS" in them. Also, somewhat related: I was under the impression that the Birkas haMinim was added in reference to the Sadducees. Am I way off here? Myrkkyhammas (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Myrkkyhammas, it'd be relevant to add the application to Christians because it is WP:sourced. And also a major theme of most if not all of the modern studies: Birkat haMinim: Jews and Christians in conflict in the ancient world Yaakov Y. Teppler, Susan Weingarten - 2007 "Yaakov Y. Teppler studies the identity of those Minim and lays a firm foundation for understanding the processes of separation between Judaism and Christianity in this stormy and fascinating period." Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, A.D. 70 to 135 James D. G. Dunn - 1992, An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations Edward Kessler - 2010, Hellenism, Judaism, Christianity: essays on their interaction - Pieter Willem van der Horst - 1998 etc. It was David Flusser's view (1992) that the Birkas haMinim was added in reference to the Sadducees, per The image of the Judaeo-Christians in ancient Jewish and Christian literature p15 ed. Doris Lambers-Petry; Peter J. Tomson, chapter 'The War Against Rome' - 2003 "... who unearthed the conceptual background of the birkat ha-minim. In his analysis, the material of the berakha basically dates from temple times, when it was directed against such 'separatists' (perushim or porshim) as Sadducees who ..." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I see you keep adding more information. Also I was unaware of how young the article was (and that you started it!) My apologies if I came across as confrontational. Good work on the article. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, perfectly reasonable response given that these Jewish/Christian contact/context/conflict subjects are prone to all sorts of weirdness/OR/NPOV. I only stumbled on this topic in passing while trying to salvage the Notzrim article. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Update and overhaul.
There is a massive amount of scholarship on this, and while In ictu oculi did a solid job in setting up and writing much of the present article, as it stands the article still just gives us an inkling of the story. Given the delicacy of the topic, the challenged nature of so many points of view on key issues, any brief survey is bound to be biased by a selectivity among these multifarious sources that leaves readers missing so many nuances that are by now part of the historiography. I'm working on a summary of some 50 odd works that handle these cruxes, in a sandbox, and, as my review proceeds, will shift the results in here. I have begun with the bibliography so other editors can read further into the background, and of course would appreciate any help along the way as I overhaul the topic.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Some general principles.
One can challenge anything. But in a densely footnoted article, where multiuple scholarly sourcing lies behind every other sentence, challenges should not be arbitrary, but grounded in comparable sources.

I reverted this because the language used reflected numerous sources consulted (much more than I cite here for the appropriate wording ('core, standing, statutory' etc. One can see this is absolutely normal descriptive language here, here, here, Encyclopaedia Judaica 2007 vol.13,p.132 (Around this core of statutory prayers); Geoffrey Wigoder (ed) The Encyclopedia of Judaism,  Macmillan, 1989 p.560 )'Amidah, and other statutory prayers . . To this statutory core, a variety of non - obligatory prayers were added in the form of poetry and prose').

We have means of readily verifying these matters, and edits that lack an edit summary motivating changes are not helpful.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete
This article does not mention the correct form modern use which is number 10 or 12 in the Amidah:
 * Prayer against slanderers (added later at Yavneh)
 * V'la-mal-shi-nim al t'hi tik-vah, v'chol ha-mi-nim v'chol ha-zei-dim k're-ga yo-vei-du, v'chol o-y'vei a-m'cha m'hei-rah yi-ka-rei-tu, u’malchut ha-rish-a m'hei-rah t'a-keir ut-sha-beir ut-ma-geir, v'tach-ni-a bim-hei rah v'ya-mei-nu. Ba-ruch a-tah A-do-nai, sho-veir o-y'vim u-mach-ni-a zei-dim.
 * And for slanderers let there be no hope, and let all wickedness perish as in a moment; let all Your enemies be speedily cut off, and the dominion of arrogance uproot and crush, cast down and humble speedily in our days. Blessed art thou, O L-rd, who breaks the enemies and humbles the arrogant.

This addition to the Shemoneh Ezreh brings the count of blessings to 19 instead of the 18, as indicated by its name. The prayer against slanderers was added at Yavneh placing it during the time of the beyt midrash at Babylon, (See Barachoth 33a). 90.200.205.167 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, at least as far as para 4 of the lead, rather than opinionize on the basis on one of numerous primary texts. We don't know if the Yavne story reflects the historical truth or not. Scholars differ.Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)