Talk:Pinchas Kehati

Influence of Symcha Petrushka on Kehati
An edit of the article in November 2006, later removed in December 2006 indicated an allegation of plagiarism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pinchas_Kehati&diff=91245337&oldid=91233904

the edit contains the following reference to scholars...
 * "It has long been alleged in scholarly circles that..."
 * "Kehati's commentary was subject to much scrutiny and suspicion by certain scholars of note."
 * "These men cross-compared..."
 * "The scholars concluded..."

Can anyone supply the information about the scholars who did this work? I see "MegalehEmet", the person who supplied and then removed the edit, has some unflattering information to say about a number of other Rabbis on wikipedia. However in this case I happen to have information about Kehati's use of the Symcha Petrushka commentary and would be interested in facts that are behind the statements that were made above. --Gil (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rabbinical status
He is referred to as "rabbi" in both the Hebrew and Engish editions of his Mishnah series. Highway18 08:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point in fact: he did not indicate this title in his original publications in the 1950s -- the edition he himself published. This is clearly visible in the image on the article page. At first I thought that it may have been his style at the time. As noted in this article and elsewhere, he was a bank teller by trade. However he does give credit to the co-author -- clearly indicated (and in bolder text) "in partnership with Rabbi Zvi A. Yehuda". Perhaps Kahati received ordination late in life, or perhaps due to the popularization of the commentary the subsequent publishers assumed this posthumous title and no one felt the need to challenge this assumption. --Gil (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the following peice on Pinchas Kehati, Rabbi Uri Dasberg of Machon Zomet asserts that he was not an ordained Rabbi: ''This week's subject was not a Chassidic rabbi, in fact not an ordained rabbi at all, and he was not a formal public leader. Rather, he was a Bnei Akiva counselor and a bank clerk.''

Some people use the term rabbi out of respect for someone who teaches Torah, and I suggest that a publisher might add the title so to make sure more books are sold in a market that expects this, but it is not always an indication of a formal ordination. I'm not aware of Wikipedia's rules on this looser use of a formal title within an article. The wiki-article on Rabbi is itself unclear. Compare the sections Becoming a rabbi versus The ordination question. It appears that the debate about the title is a non-starter here; there are two camps about the use of the term "rabbi" without formal ordination. Seemingly Kehati did not have ordination, and apparently never signed his name with that title. But he clearly would be attributed as one who spread the teaching of Torah. You might say he was "ordained by the publisher", and this happened after his death. --Gil (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See this article, though, which states:
 * .בבגרותו למד בביהמ"ד לרבנים בוורשה, קיבל מהם היתר הוראה וסמיכה לרבנות, אך מעולם לא עשה בה שימוש

Fintor (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Haredi communities
My impression was that this work is not used in ultra-Haredi communities. Perhaps text should read "his works are still accepted in some Haredi communities." Can someone who is knowledgeable on this please comment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jms2000 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Misnayos Mvoaaros
Someone please check my translation and transliteration of משניות מבוארות (I tried to use ashkenazi pronunciation to be consistent with article's original author, though I think it makes more sense to use modern Hebrew pronunciation since this is an Israeli work) Jms2000 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mishnah As Holocaust Remembrance
The article is a little unclear on whether Kehati published his commentary as a direct response to Holocaust survivors who wanted to learn Mishnah in memorial for lost relatives and friends. Did Kehati's commentary happen to fill this niche or was his work directly inspired by the needs of Shoah survivors? Also, the relationship between Kehati's work and post-Holocaust learning lacks any citation in the article. A quick google in Hebrew and English did not turn up any clear sources. If anyone knows more about this topic and could fill in the sourcing and content gaps, it would be greatly appreciated. --Jglick65 (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The source for this context was based on a conversation I had with my father, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda, who was his collaborator for the first two orders of the mishna commentary. He told me that teaching mishna became more popular in the 1950s, in part because it was a symbolic memorial and in part because it was a way to introduce text study to working people. Because of this, Kehati was able to get a grant from Bnei Akiva to help fund his publication efforts. So I'd say there is a connection that provides context as to how learning mishna became popular at the time, but it's not accurate to say that the commentary was a direct response to Holocaust survivors per se. There are no corroborating sources online since neither Kehati nor Yehuda published an introduction that described this context. The commentary only became popular after Kehati died (and his son's in-law republished the works). They probably did not know about this or if they did, probably felt it was not worth mentioning. I thought it was valuable to add this information to add more color to the historical context that gave support to this commentary. --Gil (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)