Talk:Chaim Kanievsky

Question for the sake of asking a question
"It has been recognised by the haredi community since the passing of Rav Steinman in December 2017, that Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Gershon Edelstein are the leaders of the haredi community." - this makes no sense as a statement ... the Haredi community is hardly coherent enough to have one or even two leaders (e.g., Chabad and Belzer have a history of 'tensions' with Satmar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trachten (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Why should anyone who bans the internet be allowed an entry on an internet resource such as Wikipedia? 216.195.89.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:BIO about the subject's opinions. A person's opinions have no effect on his notability. -- -- -- 10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Kosher cannabis ruling
"In 2016, Kanievsky declared that medicinal cannabis was kosher for Passover."

Another editor objected to this cited inclusion. I ask them to justify that deletion, since though the subject has made thousands of rulings, this particular one received significant international media attention. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Based on this argument I could agree with the mention of this ruling alongside the other two rulings in the Statements and rulings section. I however want to see a third opinion, because notable as it may be, the halakhic and practical significance of this ruling is minor. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Rabbi's make tons of rulings everyday that dont get any publicity. If a particular ruling gets a large amount of coverage, and you have an RS to support it, there is no reason to exclude it. -  Galatz Talk  16:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is there even a "statements and ruling" section at all? It's not needed, and if we are going to have it, why are there only two items listed? Get rid of the whole section, and perhaps you can have a sentence like "he has ruled on a variety of issues, from sexual abuse, marijuana to what color shirts to wear, to how many times to blink per minute, etc." Sir Joseph (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a sentence would need its own source, which isn't available. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The section is ridiculous and should be removed. It looks like the two things mentioned, one of which is mundane beyond belief for a rabbi of his kind, are the things he's most famous for. As such, this is a breach of UNDUE and the whole section should be deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be absurd to remove the Rulings section; the man is a posek, his *entire* claim to fame is that he makes halakhic rulings. Take that away and all you have is "he's a great guy, he got married in 19XX, he served in the '48 war" and then a likely-NN list of his books (with improper inline ELs). He's a halakhic authority, and of his thousands of rulings several have gotten serious international media coverage, so we should include those since expert outside documentation is the whole point of WP:Notability. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And re "why only two items", my argument is that we should restore the third item, his kosher cannabis ruling, since it's been covered in over a dozen major international media sources (and I've cited three). Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that we need more than three cites, but for kicks here on Talk I added a bunch more just to demonstrate the width of coverage. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Further rulings
I did a general GoogleNews search on "chaim kanievsky rulings" to see which rulings of his have gotten the most press, and thus meet WP:Notability. I suggest adding the following:

"In 2012, Kanievsky ruled that is is forbidden to possess or use an iPhone, and that owners are not allowed to sell their phones, but should instead burn them.   In 2015, he instructed United Hatzalah paramedics that in the event of a terrorist attack, they should not treat the terrorists before the victims, even if the terrorist is more seriously injured, and could even leave the terrorist to die."

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No opposition here. As far as I am concerned, that does not change my opinion regarding the cannabis ruling, though. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Which opinion? Your prior Based on this argument I could agree with the mention of this ruling alongside the other two rulings in the Statements and rulings section. I however want to see a third opinion, because notable as it may be, the halakhic and practical significance of this ruling is minor. ? Regardless of personal takes on "significance", coverage by a dozen+ serious news media sources pretty clearly meets WP:Notability. "Significance" isn't a personal call, it's based on third-party coverage, which I've provided a body of. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that opinion. Which stands. You seem to ignore that I said "halakhic and practical significance". Add to that the opposition of other editors as well. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The other editors are all over the board with their opinions, it's not like they're unified opposed, particularly since we now have a larger and better-cited Rulings section. How is your opinion that the cannabis ruling lacks halakhic and practical significance not OR? I can in theory grant that halakhic isn't specifically addressed in that I'm not citing Yeshiva News or anything, but in terms practical are you arguing that these dozen news sources are somehow highlighting an issue for no valid reason? "Significance" isn't policy, WP:Notability is, and I'm not hearing any clear reply from you how those 12 sources don't demonstrate the Notability of the cannabis ruling. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included, because (a) it's been widely covered and (b) it's a subject of interest to the general readership.
 * Having said that, I feel a need to sort out a couple of technical points I'm seeing here:
 * WP:N does not apply to content, strictly speaking; it only applies to whether a subject deserves a page. See WP:NNC.
 * Accordingly, the question is more whether inclusion of this ruling meets content policies. Now, it could be argued that including any single ruling of Rav Kanievsky fails WP:DUEWEIGHT, given that he's made thousands of rulings. But if we limit the issue to rulings he's made that have been covered in RS, this probably passes the test. (That said, I'd prefer someone to add yet a couple of additional rulings to this page. Look at pages of some other poskim, like Rav Ovadia Yosef or Rav Moshe Feinstein and you see lots of rulings. Add a few more here, and then there won't be a problem with DUEWEIGHT.)
 * I'm not impressed with the 12 sources on this one ruling, per se. Taken in strict isolation, that one ruling would never have been enough to make Rav Kanievsky notable. (See WP:BLP1E.) But they do constitute sufficient coverage that I think a page on Rav Kanievsky excluding this ruling would be considered deficient.
 * That's my two cents, for what they're worth. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Include. Interesting. Relevant. Notable. What else does it need to be? Ravpapa (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should Chaim Kanievsky be included in Template:Cannabis in Israel and Category:Cannabis and Judaism?
Please see the discussion here. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaim Kanievsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725025053/http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Rabbi_Haim_Kaniewski to http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php?title=Rabbi_Haim_Kaniewski

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth
Where is the source of his date of birth? I have seen different DOB in different places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanFuzz (talk • contribs) 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources needed for particular topics
Sources and more information are needed for such things as:

The claim of R' Chaim having had ruach hakodesh

R' Chiam's book-writing schedule (that he did much of it during Jewish leap years)

His family life (such as the "games" he would play with his children.)

Thank you. Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt'l.jpg

Minister of the Torah
Rabbi Kanievsky was known as the "minister of the Torah" (שר התורה) and not as the "prince of the Torah" (נסיך התורה). דגן דיגן (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Learning schedule
There is little information on this page about Rabbi Kanievsky's daily and yearly learning schedule - the features about him that make him distinct from other rabbis, and actually describe how he lived his life. Instead, the page mostly contains biographical events and halachic rulings that touch on hot-button issues.

There are 5,368 pages of text in the Talmud Bavli alone. One doesn't learn Talmud by just translating the text; one has to study it in depth, connect it to other far away sections, ask questions, resolve contradictions, learn the commentaries and do the same things to them... The average person takes several decades to do this once. He would do it in one year, if not less - every year.

He did this also with Talmud Yerushalmi - which is far more difficult than Bavli - and which has over 2000 pages itself.

And Mishna (over 2000 mishnayos). And Nach (742 chapters). And Zohar (over 1500 pages). And Shulchan Aruch (over 1500 chapters). And Tosefta. And Midrash. And more. This would total to more than 10,000 pages of material a year, studied in-depth.

His daily schedule totaled over 20 hours (4 hours to sleep).

This fact is significant because:

1) it explains why he didn't hold any official position, and why people would visit him in his home while he was learning - he would study for hours every single day;

2) this level of scholarship among rabbis hasn't been seen in a long time, and is an anomaly among all people in general;

3) it explains why he was so highly revered as a halachic authority, and spiritual figure.

Without noting his schedule, these facts about him go without explanation in the article - putting aside the noteworthiness of the schedule itself. Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. I've already made some additions to the article based on what you've said.
 * The short answer to your question is that encyclopedias don't normally list a person's daily schedule (although a book-length biography might, but that's not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be).
 * A sightly longer answer is that people (at least those like Kanievsky, who are famous for their life's work and not just one achievement or incident) are not notable because of what they do on any given day, but because of the sum total of what they do in their lives.
 * Of course, being an acknowledged expert on something - like the Talmud Yerushalmi - is notable, as long as it's supported by reliable sources. The problem with the Yeshiva World article is not that it is not reliable for the facts of what he studied every year (or any other specific facts), but for how remarkable that feat is (a Jewish scholar studying particular texts every year is not necessarily in itself remarkable), because the article is openly celebrating his life and achievements. This is an appropriate thing for an article in Yeshiva World to do, but relying on it for a neutral encyclopedia article would be like estimating someone's importance from the eulogy at a funeral- although the statements of fact may be presumed truthful and made in good faith that doesn't mean the impression of the person's importance doesn't have a positive spin on it.
 * BUT: since you mentioned his expertise in the Jerusalem Talmud (which was not mentioned in the article) I searched for a source specifically mentioning that fact and found it on the website of the National Library of Israel (an excellent scholarly source for this subject matter) which says that he read through both Talmuds, the Shulchan Aruch, & the works of Rambam. So I've added: "He was notable even among Jewish scholars for annually reading the entire text of many sources of Jewish law, including not only the Babylonian Talmud but also the less commonly studied Jerusalem Talmud" to the first paragraph of the "Rabbinic Career" section and cited two sources: the National Library of Israel (to establish that this level of scholarship was notable even compared to other Torah scholars) & the Yeshiva World article (which you had originally used & I had removed), allowing me to quote their more extensive list in the footnote, where it is available to those who are doing the most thorough study, without distracting those who are only reading the main text with a long list.
 * Also, the National Library of Israel's statement that he was considered "the greatest of his generation" seemed appropriate for the introductory paragraph, so I've added it there.
 * Thanks again for your helpful suggestions.
 * UrielAcosta (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)