Talk:Elisha ben Abuyah

Saddam
How could a book in 2007 influence Saddam's regime, when he died in 2006?

Spelling
There seem to be quite a few roughly equally acceptable spellings of this name. I believe I have created the appropriate redirects, though I may have missed something. Someone may have good reason to say some form of the name is more "canonical". If so, feel free to move this, but please fix the many redirects accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if someone who knows his or her way around the Talmud could expand the names of the cited Talmudic works, that would be nice. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my best on this, but:
 * Is the tractate "Abot" actually Pirkei Avoth?
 * Yes. And Ab. R. N. is actually Avoth d'Rabbi Nathan. Jayjg (talk)  19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Is "Yeb." Yevamot?
 * It is Yevamot. Jayjg (talk)
 * And what is "'Er."? Eruvin?
 * Yes. Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Is "Meïr" (following the Jewish Encyclopedia better rendered "Meier"?
 * I would say "Meir"; that's how it's usually spelled in English. As for the name of the article, I think it should be "Elisha ben Abuyah", which is the most common usage.  Using the Google test, "Elisha ben Abuyah" gets 1140 hits, "Elisha Ben Avuyah" gets 400 hits, "Alisha ben Avuyah" gets 3 hits, and "Alisha ben Abuyah" gets 2 hits, one of them this article.  I recommend a quick move. Jayjg (talk)  19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, can someone check my work on this count?
 * On what count? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * On the books of the Talmud, and names of rabbis, that I did attempt to decipher. I think I got the bulk of them, but this is not exactly my area of expertise. I backed into this by way of Gordin's play. -- Jmabel | Talk

-- Jmabel | Talk 00:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured that. Jayjg (talk) 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are a few stray annotations like "Jer." and "Yer." that I assume relate to the Jerusalem Talmud, but I'm not sure what to best do with them, and there are a few abbreviations in the Jewish Encyclopedia bibliography that I don't recognize. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:25, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jer. is Jeremiah, Yer. is Jerusalem Talmud. I've fixed those, and a couple more I found. Jayjg (talk)  05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sources?
User:HKT added the following June 8, 2005: "However, the Jewish Encyclopedia's claim fails to account for the activity of sages who would regularly travel between Palestine and Babylonia to collect and transmit scholarly teachings. Furthermore, it should be noted that most scholars date the concept of Metatron to no later than the third century BCE."

As written, this is perilously close to original research. (It may well be entirely correct: my issue is about lack of citation in commenting on a well-cited claim.) "&hellip;most scholars&hellip;"? If this is the case it should be easy enough to cite at least one. Similarly, is there any citation for these "&hellip;sages who would regularly travel&hellip;"? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

(1.) James Charlesworth (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research) and H. Odeberg date some portions of Enoch 3 to no later than the first and second century CE). These portions discuss Metatron. (Thanks for pointing this out; I had written the wrong century and I mistakenly wrote BCE!) Perhaps the "most scholars" phrase should be changed, but I haven't noticed significant dispute with the above findings. (2.) As far as travelling sages, the Talmud is rife with examples of such sages at various points in history. Examples include: R. Dimi, R. Avin, Ulla, and Rabbi Natan. Would you like me to provide specific citations? HKT 19:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Charlesworth & Odeberg citations probably belong in the references section of the article, and/or used as footnotes. I'd cite them specifically, rather than the vague "most scholars" (which, BTW, was the phrase that grabbed my attention in a negative way). No, I don't really need citation on the travelling sages, I never would have mentioned it if it weren't for the other one. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:03, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mind-reading
The following was recently added to the lead paragraph (which is not where it belongs, even if we decide it belongs in the article). I have cut it: there is no citation & certainly know way to know what his father "meant in his heart". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[start cut material]
 * He was the son of Avuya. During the day of Elisha's Brit Mila (Circumsision), Avuya invited to the festival great Rabbi's, sages and leaders of the community. During the celecration he proclaimed that his son would live for Torah, but he meant in his heart only for pride.

[end cut material]

Metatron
Acc. to Solomon Judah Leib Rappaport Metatron is actually a hybrid of the greek words Meta and Tron (my greek is sub-0 so it could be I'm transliterating this wrong.) referring to Chanoch who changed (meta) and passed on (tran) from this world. If so the term Metatron may have been new but the concept old. It's mentioned in Igrot Shir, if this is good enough to be brought in to the article.

Add. the Talmud Hagigah records an elaborate story that smoke came up from Aher's grave and they prayed until it went away. If I find it I will add it. Jane Jensen brings an interesting explanation of the Pardes story in her Dante's equation. Wish I could remember it (vague idea of the dying- meaning so enamoured that he decided to stay there) and wish I knew where she got it from. Pardes might have a relation to the word Paradise- Gan beimg an orchard. What is an epiphany?Wolf2191 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An epiphany can have several meanings, but in this case it probably refers to a sudden realisation or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something. As the article says, Elisha asks "We have been taught to believe that no one sits in heaven, . . . or are there perhaps two supreme powers?" His epiphany may have been the false understanding that there are two deities.


 * There are some great stories about Elisha that I've been meaning to add to this article when I get a chance. I am always impressed by the fact that he continued to teach Rabbi Meir even after he became a heretic, and on one occasion warned Meir when they had walked as far as permitted on Shabbat.


 * My reference is Bialik and Ravnitzky's Sefer Ha-Aggadah, which assembles stories from various sources. The story about Elisha's grave may have come from Hagigah Bavli 15a, Yerushalmi 2:1, 77a-b; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:8 §1; Ruth Rabbah 6:4; or Kiddushin Bavli 39b.

Became a heretic
Notice that he became a Christian. In the parable associated with Pardes, the travelers are warned that when they see the white rock, not to say "water, water". Using the methods of Pardes on the parable, 'water' is Torah. Jesus identified himself as the 'Rock'. 'Water' was repeated twice, meaning there is a heavenly and and earthly water.

So the travelers were warned that when they saw the white rock in the scriptures they should not call it Torah in heaven or on earth. Since 'Torah' is the word of God, and Jesus is the Word incarnate, they were warned not to see Jesus in the OT scriptures.

Using Pardes methods the stone that Jacob used as a pillow, the stone that covered Rachel's well, etc., all become shadows of Christ.--BobCJones 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The nature of Elisha's heresy is not known, so he may or may not have become a Christian.


 * Please note that the purpose of an article's Talk page is for editors to discuss changes to the article, and not as a platforms for their personal about the article's subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph has him becoming a gnostic, Christian and a victim of the inquisition which are all consistent with the correlation. Should various interpretations of the parable be included in this article, another article, or the reader left to try to interpret it for himself?--BobCJones 11:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia's policy concerning "original research", "any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." (Emphasis in original) If a reliable source interprets Elisha's story as you wrote above, it may be included. If that is your own interpretation, Wikipedia policy says it can't be included. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

name of the (Greek) Epicurean school
The attempt to attach this to the article is WP:OR since there is absolutely no link between the source for the story and the school--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarificationLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation not correct
"for example, Rabban Gamaliel with Sadducees; Eruvin 77b" I can't find either Rabban Gamaliel nor any Sadducee in Eruvin 77b. --84.114.151.85 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

clarification: "a victim of the inquisitor Akiva"
I see this phrase is taken from the source that is given, but neither the source nor the Wikipedia article for Akiva seem to elucidate or support what this means. Rabbi Akiva was definitely unlike a Spanish Inquisitor, so it is a very odd, head-scratching quotation. Can anything be done to clarify the meaning? 68.225.113.135 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. That sentence was written more than 100 years ago by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, who was describing the way Peretz Smolenskin and Isaac Hirsch Weiss portrayed Elisha. (The sentence is about the multiple, and sometimes contradictory, pictures we have of Elisha.) Any effort to clarify what Ginzberg meant would probably be considered original research. You might want to search the article for references to Akiva to get a better understanding of Elisha's relationship with him. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation dispute
The following is copied from User talk:Ar2332:

I don't think you understand the problem. The article quotes from the English-language Jewish Encyclopedia. There is no reason on earth to change it, unless you found that it was misquoted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jewish Encyclopedia (JE) is one source, but Sefaria's translation (published elsewhere as Steinsaltz/Koren) is another source. I don't either one has a presumption of being more accurate than the other (and many other translations exist which translate similar to Sefaria not JE, lending credence to Sefaria's translation). And a glance at the original Hebrew, or even a comparison of the JE translation to the Sefaria translation, makes clear that JE is not a translation but a paraphrase. I'm sure JE had its reasons to paraphrase (for example, to save paper), but I don't see how they apply in the context of Wikipedia. If you prefer JE's phrase "destroyed the plants" to "chopped down the saplings", I can accept that. But the ellipses are necessary for it to be an accurate translation. Ar2332 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically referring to the paragraph in the section titled "The Four Who Entered The Paredes" that starts with "Ginzberg comments that". Beginning in the second sentence of that paragraph, where it says the Jerusalem Talmud "makes no mention", every word from "makes no mention" through the end of the paragraph is a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia article about Elisha. There is no reason why you should change it, even if you think Ginsberg was wrong or that his translation stinks. We don't change quotations of other people's words. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Elisha a Sadducee
The sentence beginning "Also, one of the reasons given for Elisha's apostasy is characteristic of a Sadducee perspective..." implies that he already was a Sadducee, not that he became one. Shouldn't that be in a separate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unhandyandy (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)