Talk:Talmud/Archive 8

Moser
The Solomon Dwek affair has led to occasional citation of the Talmudic law of the moser ( http://rejewvenate.wordpress.com/2009/07/26/dealing-with-dweck/ http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/07/of-mosers-and-monsters.html ) but the term is nowhere mentioned in Wikipedia. robotwisdom (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably the wrong place to discuss this. The concept of mesirah is only one of the thousands of Talmudic concepts and does not need treatment on this page. Also, the term can only be applied by a Jewish court, not by some random people on blogs; it is the height of speculation that this term should be applicable to a person without a formal charge. JFW | T@lk  23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then since it's being bandied about, do you agree it deserves its own article, linked from this one as a related topic? (Also eg from Rabin's assassination article.) robotwisdom (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. It might be more appropriate to discuss it in the most relevant context, e.g. the informant article. But even then it is just one of the many related categories of people in Jewish law, such as am haaretz, chaver, etc. There are no Wikipedia articles on these concepts either, even though they have fairly far-reaching consequences, for instance with regards to credibility in a Jewish court or reliability with regards to tithes. JFW | T@lk  17:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Salvation
Would people please comment here? I may overstate the case or oversimplify in saying that there is no idea of salvation in Judaism. My real point is that whatever Jews mean by salvation is so different from Christianity they are not well-served by being in one article. Perhaps Wikipedia could use a good article going into the long history of the concept of salvation in Judaism, but right now the current Salvation aricle is NOT "it" and I think the differences between Christianity and Judaism here are so great that it makes the intro an NPOV nightmare. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

incomplete history
Where is the information about the redactional history -- how long it took for example? If it's later in the article why isn't it in the history section? 4.249.3.139 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you got a source? Sounds like you might be right. JFW | T@lk  20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Talmud was condemned on 15 May 1248 as "work of devil". Coagulans (talk 23:45 EEST, 28 July 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another auto de fé took place in Venice, St Mark's Square, on 21 October 1553, on Shabbat. "A good fire" - according to the Papal Legate, had burned over 1000 copies of the Talmud. Coagulans (talk 00:46 EEST, 29 July 2010

Original Research, Sources, Citations and Changes
Much of this article is lacking sources. I also detect quite a bit of Original Research and particular POV's in some of the sections. Moreover, there is also a problem with material being either repeated or placed in sections where it is inappropriate. Finally, this article is tremendously long. I hope to help improve this article in the near future. In general, it seems that modern scholarship has moved beyond many of assertions made in this article. I am worried about making edits, however, since that modern scholarship is not accepted by many in the Orthodox camp, and, the traditional view is frequently unacceptable to academics. So changes have the potential of causing "edit wars". Any advice on how to avoid this ahead of time? Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD! The Orthodox interpretation and tradition should be mentioned, as it is part of the story.  But the primary narrative should be scientific. Zerotalk 10:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As with so many of the Judaism articles, some of the more archaic-sounding passages are from the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia. However, as far as the history of composition of the Babylonian Talmud is concerned, the article already updates the story: it explains the traditional and Wissenschaft views, and goes on to say that, with the work of Halivni and Friedman, there is now a new perspective.  The only instance I can see where the older view is stated without qualification is where it relates the cessation of work on the Yerushalmi to the abolition of the patriarchate in 425 CE: I gather that this is now questioned, but I do not know the source.
 * Maybe the detail about commentaries and study methods could be hived off into a separate article, and the part on polemics into another. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Actually, I put a "citation needed" by the yerushalmi section somewhat randomly. Many of the facts, whether "true" or not, throughout the entire article require additional verification.  I will probably not make any significant changes until the end of next week of after purim.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Original Research is still a problem but I won't tag or delete material for now. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could kindly point out the instances of OR, we could perhaps start working on a solution. JFW | T@lk  22:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I will point out where cits are needed. Don't get me wrong, it is well written article, but cits are needed on topics that are contested. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, unsourced-section may be helpful if entire sections are lacking references. JFW | T@lk  09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And probably a lot less work! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More recent sources for Attacks section
It looks like much of the material in the Attacks section is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a decent tertiary source, but is 100 years old. Maccoby's book is a more recent secondary source (and it seems to be used for some material in that section, but is not really cited much). I'll hunt around to try to find some other, more recent, secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. JFW | T@lk  09:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 100 year old sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia tend to be POV and the scholarship is a little dated? - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Judaism Wikiproject has generally agreed that those sources do not reflect modern scholarship. JFW | T@lk  16:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources that may be useful, in addition to Maccoby: Judaism and other faiths, by Cohn-Serbok;   The history of the Talmud from the time of its formation, about 200 B.C., up to the present time, by Rodkinson;  The Other in Jewish thought and history: constructions of Jewish culture and identity, by Silberstein (Ed.);  Faithful renderings: Jewish-Christian difference and the politics of translation by Seidman; The Essential Talmud by Steinsaltz. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead must conform to verifiability
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. However this article lacks references throughout. See my problem? - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So how about you tag unsourced content the remainder of the article, rather than reverting your tags in the lead? If you are indeed a retired academic with an interest in the subject you could perhaps add a few useful sources yourself! JFW | T@lk  22:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because article ledes are summaries of article content, they are not required to have citations. In fact, most Featured Articles do not have them. If you have concerns with material in the body of an article, then that is what should be tagged. Material in the lede should only be of concern if it does not faithfully reproduce the article text. By the way, tagging every single thing that is unsourced is fairly disruptive; do you, or anyone else, really doubt that the Talmud is "a central text of mainstream Judaism, in the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history"? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One other point, if I may, Ret.Prof, per Manual of Style (lead section), it is not uncommon to have the lead uncited if the statements in the lede are supported later in the article. If you think that there are any statements in the lede that are unsupported in body of the article, please list them here. Otherwise, per the MoS: "[t]he necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Therefore, a consensus needs to be formed to change the practice on this article, as it has been in the form relying on body citations for a long time now. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys, I think you are really misunderstanding me.
 * 1) Avi, I am a fan of your work.
 * 2) I think this is a good article but what spoils it for me is the lack of references.
 * 3) Yes, "tagging every single thing that is unsourced is fairly disruptive" However, if you check, I think you will see that is a false accusation.
 * 4) "If you are indeed a retired academic with an interest in the subject you could perhaps add a few useful sources yourself!" That was a little harsh.  I am retired professor, sensitive about making edits not accepted by many in the Orthodox camp. Also bing a Christian clergyman gave me cause for pause. My rewriting this article could have easily been taken the wrong way.
 * 5) It is also important to note I have not deleted any original research.

I hope this clarification has helped. All the best - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ret.Prof, thank you for the kind words! I think I understand where you are coming from. Wikipedia articles have multiple citation styles. The most common is the inline footnote style using  tags. The second most common is the inline parenthetical citation style using RefHarvard or Note_Label tags. A more uncommon, but used, style is the general reference style (Cite). This article has primarily relied on that style until now, with the supporting references in the very detailed Talmud section. If you are specifically challenging the statements, you are, of course, entitled to do so, and an inline citation will need to be provided. However, if your concern is for conformance with wikipedia styles, and not about the verifiability of the specific sentences in question, then the current style is acceptable. Do you have concerns about specific sentences and their accuracy/verifiability? -- Avi (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually none of the above. I always thought it was a good article and wanted to see the sources. Of interest are the oral interpretations or Torah Shebeal Peh said to have been transmitted by Joshua, the seventy Elders, the Prophets, and then to the Great Synagogue. Finally, it is said to have been transmitted successively to certain Rabbis until it was no longer possible to retain it orally because of the destruction of the Temple. How much was the basis for the Talmud. And how much grew up at the time of Jesus? or at the time of the the Church Fathers. For me the sources are half the "fun" of Wikipedia. Am I making any sense? It is time for an old fellow to go to bed. Thanks for your kind reply. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from the Jewish traditional perspective in which I grew up, the Oral law was given to Moses at Sinai and was transmitted orally through the generations until the times of Judah haNasi, who determined that the upheavals the Jewish people were undergoing necessitated some minimal transfer of the tradition to written form. This became the Mishnah. The later Tannaim were contemporaries of Jesus, in that they lived through the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred around the year 70 CE, or contemporaneous with Jesus. The Talmud was developed over the next 400 or so years, which should make the early portion of its development, and especially the Jerusalem Talmud contemporaneous with early Christianity. There are plenty of sources in the article, just not in-line, so if you have access to a decent library, it should give you loads of leads to follow, and yes, that is much of the fun of wikipedia. Unfortunately, this article requires a bit more legwork since most of the sources are paper and not online. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What's up with the "Notes" ref group?
Does anyone object to eliminating the "group = Note"? It doesn't seem to be serving any purpose in this article. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I'll remove the "group=Note" since it is annoying. But if someone wants to keep it, that's okay: just provide a reason.  --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it at one point as I thought we may have to split types of references. I'll take it out. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They should all be removed now. -- Avi (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Rodkinson
I totally agree with Myles that one cannot oppose something that does not yet exist. Therefore, where Rodkinson mentions "the Seleucidae, the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, and Hadrian, the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the Boethuseans, Jewish sects opposed to the Pharisees" presumably this is opposition against the oral law and its method. We cannot say that they were opposed to "The Talmud" per se, and I hope Noleander will take this point on board before attempting to reinsert the content. I will concede any opposition against the Mishnah (which is, after all, the central document to the Talmud), but no earlier. JFW | T@lk  10:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I completely agree with you both, Rodkinson does say that. From the context, he appears to be both including the Mishnah as part of the Talmud and considering attacks on the joint corpus prior to the Talmud's being committed to writing as an attack on the Talmud as well. In short, he refers the body of work of the still-oral Oral Law as the Talmud. Is there a way we can put that in the article without it being SYNTH? Perhaps "persecutors of the Talmud both during and after its formation" since he does write "when it began to take form, until the present day" -- Avi (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the proposed text of Avraham.  Rodkinson is equating the Talmud with the Oral Law.  Others may not make that equation.  Additional clarifying text explaining both approaches would be helpful to readers.  --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But this article is about the Talmud, not the oral law. I think those proto-critics do not belong in the list and therefore cannot support Avraham's version currently. JFW | T@lk  00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just removing the information about the pre-Talmud attacks seems rather harsh: we would be depriving readers of important information (especially since the nature of the Oral-Law attacks is virtually identical to some Talmud attacks).  Can you propose a wording that would let readers know about those pre-Talmud attacks, and at the same time make it clear that the attacks were not on the written Talmud?  --Noleander (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (By the way: there is an article Debate over oral Torah that looks rather immature, and I'm not sure it is even relevant. But I thought I'd mention it). --Noleander (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they should be separated very clearly. "The oral law and its exposition had its detractors before it was committed to writing - prime examples were X, Y and Z." The oral law wasn't called Talmud until it was committed to writing, it was called Torah she-be'al peh. JFW | T@lk  00:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me, but I'd like to hear Avi's thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Jfdwolff completely about the history and what happened, but we have to be careful not to create a SYNTH violation. Rodkinson does not seperate the Oral Law from the Talmud, but lists the Tzedukim (Sadduccees) as detractors of the "Talmud in formation". I don't think that is inaccurate, just a more ambiguous way to say it, and, for better or for worse, verifiability, not truth, is our mantra here. Since I don't think it is wrong, although it surely is not optimal, I think the construction "both during and subsequent to its formation" allows for Rodkinson's statement to be accurate and not subject to synthesis. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should not be too hung up on what Rodkinson said, as his scholarship is in any case questionable and his translation of the Talmud is generally regarded as obsolete. The subject of the section in question is attacks upon "the Talmud".  Rodkinson says that detractors of the Talmud include various categories.  I see nothing wrong in quoting him only in relation to the categories we are interested in (namely those capable of opposing the Talmud in its completed written form): by omitting categories irrelevant for our purposes we are not misrepresenting Rodkinson, as we would be if his list purported to be exhaustive.  There is already another section devoted to Karaites and others who oppose the Oral Law in principle, regardless of its embodiment in the Talmud.
 * As for the first items in the list, "the Seleucidae, the Roman emperors Nero, Domitian, and Hadrian", I really don't know what to make of their inclusion. Antiochus Epiphanes was opposed to the existence of Judaism in principle (the other "Seleucidae" were largely neutral) and Hadrian was trying to suppress Judaism as a source of political revolt; but this can hardly be pinned down to the more specific question of whether Judaism needs an Oral Law or the Bible should be sufficient.  Nero was if anything pro-Jewish.  Domitian I'm not sure about, but again I doubt he was specifically attacking the Oral Law.  The first Roman emperor to legislate on this sort of detail was Justinian in his novella on deuterosis, and even then it is not certain whether this means Mishnah or Targum. On reflection I consider the whole Rodkinson quote largely worthless, and that we should introduce the series of attacks from Donin onwards in some other way.  --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that too, namely, find someone other than Rodkinson and dispense with him entirely. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Soncino
The copy of the Soncino Translation of the Talmud Bavli found at http://www.halakhah.com/ lack any sort of copyright notice. Does anyone know what is the copyright status of that work is in the U.S.A.? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

citations needed
Someone just removed this from the Yeshu article:
 * The Tannaim and Amoraim who recorded the accounts in the Talmud and Tosefta use the term Yeshu as a designation in Sanhedrin 103a and Berakhot 17b in place of King Manasseh's real name. Sanhedrin 107b uses it for a Hasmonean era individual who in an earlier account (Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:2) is anonymous. In Gittin 56b, 57a it is used for one of three foreign enemies of Israel, the other two being from past and present with Yeshu representing a third not identified with any past or present event. No explicit explanation is given for the term. The earliest explicit explanation comes instead from the mediaeval Toldoth Yeshu narratives which explain it as an acronym for the curse formula yimmach shemo vezikhro meaning "may his name and memory be obliterated" used for enemies of the Jewish people.

Can anyone here provide appropriate citations? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Soncino
The "freetalmud" website is owned by Ariel Sokolovsky (see ). The "halakha" website is owned by Tzvee Zahavy (see ). I know who I would trust not to mess with the text and whom I would not. Leave the link to "halakha"; there is no gain switching, and likely a potential loss. -- Avi (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the "freetalmud" website has ads, the "halakha" website doesn't. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Prof Zahavy apparently extracted Halakhah.com from www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html as you can see by comparing the meta keywords in the html source of both pages. He removed the antisemitic commentaries while retaining the overall page design and layout. FreeTalmud.com is a mirror page of halakhah.com with no changes to Talmud text. It is better to include FreeTalmud.com as it is easier to remember / harder to misspell name that also better describes the contents of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.72 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it still has the problems listed above, and the advantage of links is that you just click on them, you don't have to remember how to spell anything. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You only list one problem which that FreeTalmud.com has ads while Halakhah.com doesn't. FreeTalmud currently has just one ad on front page on the whole site. Your other implied accusation is unjustified implied slander as Ariel Sokolovsky was never accused of falsifying Torah source texts, but simply of propagating ideas based on controversial interpretations of those texts. It's probably even against Wiki rules to make such accusation. The other thing you mention that since it is a link one doesn't have to remember how to spell it is partially correct, but still we don't simply expect people to go to Wiki each time they want to visit a particular link. Halakhah.com also seems to be hosted on a server with limited bandwidth allowance and has been giving a error message earlier today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.36.59 (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The site is working fine for me, and Wikipedia isn't here to teach people how to get to other websites. Don't change this again without consensus. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While halakhah.com is working now it did give the "bandwidhth exceeded" error earlier and was not accesible. Wikipedia exist to provide users easy access to information they seek to this end when there are multiple mirror sites with same source materials the one that has the most easy to remember name that better describes the content of the site is clearly preferable to the one that doesn't in this case http://www.freetalmud.com or http://talmud.mobi are preferable to Halakhah.com ( by the way like Halakhah.com  http://talmud.mobi doesn't have any ads . )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.44.207 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The site is working for me also. Jayjg has given some good arguments why we should stick with halakhah.com. Are you associated with Freetalmud? JFW &#124; T@lk  10:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Attacks vs crticism
, now under the username changed the title of the "attacks" section to "criticism", and made two additions to the section. Firstly:

(It is awkward how this article all of a sudden has an own opinion on how critics of the talmud are unable to comprehend or better yet, grasp narratives of the ancient scripture. Isn't that up to the critics and readers to decide themselves after studying the sources?)

And secondly:

One of the most recognized Talmudic scholars in Israel - Ovadia Yosef in an interview with the Jerusalem Post states that non-jews only exist to serve the jews. He goes on comparing non-jews with working donkeys and slaves. The American Jewish Committee was quick in condemning the rabbi's remarks however due to this interview the question arose amongst jews and non-jews alike: On what did Yosef base his teachings and remarks? Many were quick to see a connection between his teachings and those in the Talmud.

The first addition is mere commentary that never should have been added to the article. The new editor seems to suggest that the article engages in original research, despite the numerous sources that support the content. The second addition is a random incident which is not directly related to the Talmud. Just because someone who is an authority in Talmud makes some politically incorrect statements does not necessarily say anything other than by guilt by association. I have asked the editor to discuss any further edits here. We need to keep in mind the undesirable effect of criticism sections. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The OY quote definatley does not belong here. Chesdovi (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, neither addition is appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping to find people actually discussion Attacks vs Criticism, but I don't see anything except the remark to keep in mind the undesirable effect of using "Criticism". May I ask exactly what those undesirable consequences are, that apply to this article but not to others? It seems to me that using the term "Attacks" instead of "Criticism" has nothing to do with that. Rather is appears to be loaded language introducing bias (Words to watch), which is contrary to Neutral point of view. Therefore the former remark quoted here seems justified, although it should have been in the talk section here. AmeenNL (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You find an actual example of "criticism" that is not simply an antisemitically motivated attack on the foundations of Judaism, and we might contemplate its inclusion. JFW &#124; T@lk  05:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed 'Antisemitic Attacks' to 'Criticism' for neutrality. I would suggest someone consider editing the content under this section as well, to get it more in line with similar articles concerning Criticism of the Bible or Criticism of the Quran. Some of the sentences should say 'scholars argue that such verses/whatever are taken out of context.' As it stands right now, much of it is Wikipedia's voice and does not appear neutral. Let me be clear, though: Neutral, not one-sided, for any side. 65.0.151.65 (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I have explained, we are not looking at equivalence here. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I bring up similar articles because those articles conform to a NPOV. The title, and parts of the sections, at least the way they are currently worded, present a strong bias and do not conform to NPOV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed." Currently, the title nor section follow this guideline. I'm not requesting the content be removed; I'm requesting that it conform to NPOV. One particular paragraph that is poorly worded is the second paragraph concerning The Disputation of Tortosa. "Thus, Jews viewed Christians as misguided and in error, but not among the "heathens" or "pagans" discussed in the Talmud." This particular sentence is written in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. I haven't read Macoby's work, but I do know that other scholars do not hold the same view on this, as I was raised Orthodox and quite a few scholars are of the belief that some references to heathens and so on either refer directly to Christians or can include Christians. Similar statements such as this should be worded so as to be clear that it is a scholarly opinion. As it reads now, it implies that this is a commonly held fact by most or all Jews. On a final note, notice that even within the section, the term 'criticism' is used. I look forward to hearing back from you and others about the issue. 65.0.149.160 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV to label all criticism of the Talmud as antisemitic. Certainly lots of it is, but if the section has even a single example of other criticism then the label does not belong. There is plenty of space within the section to attribute motives to critics (in the words of reliable sources). Incidentally there is a major subtopic missing, namely Jewish feminist criticism (also not antisemitic). Zerotalk 23:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The feminist critique is not just of the Talmud, but of rabbinic Judaism in general. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a fair statement, but within Jewish Feminism the Talmud is heavily critiqued. Obviously that is because Rabbinic Judaism relies heavily on the Talmud. I'm not going to venture into writing it, but if someone wants to research it and prepare it for inclusion under 'Criticism', I don't think it'd be out of place as long as it didn't occupy too much space. 65.0.140.105 (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Informal request for comments on Yeshu
I think editors who watch this page may have the knowledge to comment intelligently in a discussion ongoing on the Yeshu talk page. The question is whether Yeshu refers to Jesus (either the Jesus who lived two thousand years ago and was crucified, or the figure in books held sacred by Christians). Most Christian scholars, and most Conservative Talmud scholars, believe that the word at least refers to the Christian concept of Jesus (if not the historical figure). But I am not sure whether Orthodox Jews share this view. I know that rabbis in disputations with Christian authorities (e.g. Nahmanides) argued that Yeshu and related characters *ben Pandera") do not refer to Jesus. I believe that Orthodox Jews today, or at least many orthodox Jews today, continue to hold this view.

But for me, this is the key point: Orthodox Jews can accept as authoritative interpretations of the Talmud from the Middle Ages. The fact that a commentary or some other text was written in the Middle Ages does not necessarily mean that it does not represent the views of people today. I think this is an important issue for Jewish editors at Wikipedia.

At the Yeshu article, I raised this issue on the talk page and I have been challenged by another editor [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeshu&diff=439878294&oldid=439878026] who insists that I provide modern sources to support the view, that Rabbinic including medieval sources cannot be used to represent the views of Orthodox Jews today. This line of reasoning is being used to justify designating what I think are "significant" views as "fringe" or obsolete views.

Note: this same editor is using Ben Yehuda's dictionary as an authority on Hebrew in Rabbinic texts (from the Mishna to the Toledoth Yeshu) (I believe that Ben Yehuda was just creating a new Hebrew word to correspond to "Jesus" and other modern European languages names for the person identified, in Latin, as "Jesu") - and not making an argument about how to interpret the Talmud.

I hope you will consider addressing this, and perhaps you know of other editors who have the expertise that they can address this in an intelligent and well-informed way. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC at Yeshu
We could really use some thoughtful and well-informed comments here. Thanks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Babylonian Talmud complete Soncino English Translation
The Soncino English Translation is at the Internet Archive. At least two mesechtot are missing from the collection. They are Bechorot and Hullin.

http://www.archive.org/details/TheBabylonianTalmudcompleteSoncinoEnglishTranslation

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

CE or AD Consensus
Hello.

To prevent an edit war, there needs to be a consensus on the use of either CE or AD in this article Four edits have been made so far. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * has made only two edits, both to change era notations on this article. Apparently he was unaware of WP:ERA. I've now notified him of it. No further discussion is necessary here. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be that the person who has repeatedly changed CE to AD has finally created an account. No discussion is required, as WP:ERA is in force. JFW &#124; T@lk  18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I have the feeling this has already been discussed ad nauseam
and yet the offending paragraph remains:


 * "Many of these criticisms, particularly those by antisemitic critics, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text. Sometimes the misrepresentation is deliberate, and other times simply due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing narratives in the Talmud. Some quotations provided by antisemitic critics deliberately omit passages in order to generate quotes that appear to be offensive or insulting."

The pro-Jewish bias here is self-evident. It is my belief that Jewish-interest articles are not exempt from Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, a rule I see frequently ignored in articles potentially damaging to the reputation of Jews.

First of all, by leading the section on Criticism of the Talmud with blanket accusations of anti-semitism, the author has revealed his intention to invalidate any (possibly valid) criticism.

Second of all, that condescending insult "due to an inability to grasp the subtle and sometimes confusing narratives in the Talmud" is unabashedly someone's opinion (and clearly not cited or citeable), and even worse it feeds into the "Goyim are stupid" tripe that I assumed most Jews were trying to repudiate.

I know the Talmud holds emotional value for some people, but the editors of this article are clearly not being fair or objective, and are trying to misrepresent & slander any opposing views on this subject. Jews and Jewish interests are no less subject to criticism and debate than any other subject. I don't need to convince anyone that I'm not an anti-semite; burden of proof is upon the accuser. Now, let's act like grown-ups and make some much, much needed revisions to this article.

P.S. I don't want any responses from user Jayjg, judging from your constant battling on countless Jewish-interest articles it seems you cannot be trusted to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.205 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, everyone has a POV of some sort or other, so if we proceeded on the basis of your idea that only "objective" people should comment, then nobody would be allowed to comment! Jayjg has the same right to comment that every other Wikipedia editor does. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you have inferred a "Goyim are stupid" motif in this passage, which makes no mention of ethnicity or faith, and to accuse editors of "trying to misrepresent & slander any opposing views on this subject" is a personal attack. I request that you assume good faith and I repeat to you your own words: the burden of proof is upon the accuser.
 * I apologize; just for context, the paragraph above the one I quoted states that critics of the talmud come from virtually all backgrounds and religions with the notable exception of Judaism. Therefore, to claim that these critics are just not capable of understanding the Talmud is to insult the intelligence of (apparently) all non-Jewish sources. However, regardless of what subtext I see in this condescending remark, it is (like I said before) uncited and unciteable and cannot be claimed to be anything more than someone's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.205 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Talmud is a record of an ancient discussion, with multiple opinions, and, for all we know, the authors might have come from many backgrounds themselves! It is like the rulings of courts in the United States or a set of legal briefs, in a way. So, it's not surprising that some Talmudic opinions might have some disagreeable responses. Critics are capable of understanding the Talmud, but they often fail to look comprehensively, or to make a full investigation of the relevant material. That's understandable - in today's world, a lot of people don't have the time to go looking for all the opinions and whatever sources they're based on. The Talmud ought to be made into a wiki in its own right. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that most "criticism" of the Talmud over the years has been motivated by antisemitism. That's something you can't change. How about about you offer changes that will be acceptable to all camps? It would be useful, in particular, to have some sources available.
 * I have removed your tags in the meantime. You seem to know Wikipedia and some of its editors reasonably well (and no, you cannot stop Jayjg from offering his views here), so you should also know about the value of consensus. Assume good faith, be nice, avoid personal attacks, and get some sources. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to include a section titled, "Controversial statements made in the Talmud," instead of labeling said controversy "attacks," "accusations," or of course, "anti-semitism." Here the reader will be able to review the offending passages and judge for his or herself whether they warrant criticism; this is only fair. In regards to the historical roots of Talmud criticism, you just proved me right again by making a blanket accusation of anti-semitism, when in reality much of this allegedly irrational, racial hatred is in fact based upon philosophical disagreement with the teachings present in this particular document. Even if these people were merely unable to grasp the intricate, magnificent subtlety of the Talmud, its historical status as the basis of some anti-semitic philosophy is worthy of inclusion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.205 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Controversial statements... According to whom? I did not actually accuse you of antisemitism, but I am simply observing that on balance, most "criticism" of the Talmud has been made with antisemitic motivations. A quick glance on Google will tell that almost every website listing "controversial statements in the Talmud" is also very interested in somehow demonstrating immoral behaviour by Jews, followed by sweeping characterisations about Jews in general. If that is not antisemitism, then I don't know what is.
 * The Talmud is a book of legal analysis, as well as a repository of Biblical interpretations (the two are closely linked), custom, folklore and history. Books of law will very often discuss stuff that is uncomfortable. In addition, in fairness it should be interpreted in light of the times it was written in. Have you ever seen what the works of the Church Fathers write about their contemporaries. Not always pleasant.
 * Once again, the onus is on you to provide a high-quality secondary source that discusses the subject you want covered. In the absence of such a source, the discussion is over. JFW &#124; T@lk  06:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind the fact that much of the Talmud is a record of controversies; of course, in a series of books (it's much too large to be only one book!), there's bound to be controversial material in a record of controversies. That being said, it would be nice for Jews and neutral scholars to offer a critical look at the Talmuds. It would be interesting to see what opinions might emerge from a philo-Semitic or even neutral POV, rather than an antisemitic one. &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a significant critical literature on the Talmud, but it depends a lot on what you call "critical". Are you talking about textual criticism, or "this is stuff we don't like much"-kind of criticism. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayjg for proving that you truly are watching over every article pertaining to the Jewish agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.205 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  12:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are referring to a "Jewish agenda", of course, makes you very suspect. JFW &#124; T@lk  06:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone has an agenda. The only ones who deny it are Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.236.205 (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop making remarks that objectify and stereotype ethnocultural groups. Jayjg (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have made a groundless accusation that the Criticism of the Talmud paragraph leads with "blanket accusations of anti-semitism", and slandered editors with "trying to misrepresent & slander any opposing views on this subject". You have singled out an editor as disruptive and having a 'Jewish agenda', and disgracefully claimed that Jfdwolff made "blanket accusations of anti-semitism". You are repeatedly attacking editors and have not contributed a single source, or any reliable material that you wish to be included in the article.

Merger proposal
I propose that Gemara be merged into Talmud. I think that the content in the Gemara article can easily be explained in the context of Talmud, and this will avoid the current duplication and overlap. ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't merge altogether. Most of the substantive content should go in the "Talmud" article.  But the Gemara article can be left as a sort of dictionary entry explaining what the word means and how it differs from Mishnah; and in another sense, from sevara. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to a merger, as long as we make it very clear that the Mishna has its own, more detailed article, and this article focuses on both with an emphasis on the Gemara. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. Mishna is a separate, germinal body of work that forms the basis for Talmud; Gemara, by contrast, is the primary Talmudic constituent (as well as a generic term) and should probably be addressed here.' Ankh '. Morpork  14:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How many people participated in the making of the Talmud? I.E. how many people have their opinions on record in the Talmud?
I wonder if anyone knows or has bothered to make a list of opinion-givers/rabbis / authorities cited in the Talmud. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think those lists exist (e.g. in the Encyclopedia Talmudit) but I cannot say so with certainty. Why do you think it is important? JFW &#124; T@lk  23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Those lists do exist. I do not know if they might be found in Encyclopedia Talmudit, but there is a two volume Encyclopedia Letoledot Tanaim Amoraim Savoraim U-Geonim, that lists the Rabbis mentioned in the Talmud, and the editors (those who we know of) of the talmud (called Savoraim), and gives information about these Rabbis, especially from the Talmud itself, but also from other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.84.222 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a list in the preface to Maimonides' commentary to the Mishnah. In modern times, there is a list of the main ones in Aryeh Carmell's Aiding Talmud Study.  I'm not sure if there's one in Adin Steinsaltz's introduction. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the Talmud (Babylonian and Jerusalem)
A lot of times, Wikipedians, when citing the "Talmud", refer to the tractate without specifying the author of the opinion being asserted, and they fail to note the context of the opinion in question. Many of the opinions' sources are noted in the Talmud - they are "R. So-and-so son of Such-and-such" and "R. the other guy" and so on and so forth - and so their names should be noted. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be nice to note which Talmud was being referred to - was it the Jerusalem Talmud or the Babylonian Talmud? &mdash;  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Talmud" without modifier is usually the Babylonian Talmud, which is much more comprehensive and authoritative than the Jerusalem Talmud. That said, it is good practice to say that it's the BT.
 * As to providing authors of opinions, this is only useful if there are multiple opinions in a debate that continue to be relevant in the topic under discussion. In the vast majority of cases, the Talmud concludes which opinion is followed in practice. In some cases, the decision is made by later authorities such as Alfasi, Maimonides, the Rosh or rarely Joseph Karo. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Better sources for "criticism"
I we have to believe Werner Cohn (link), ISBN 0-67432-507-9 devotes a chapter to the concept of hostile Talmud interpretation. I don't have a copy, but surely this is worth looking into? JFW &#124; T@lk  13:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the first chapter of this book? ' Ankh '. Morpork  13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. JFW &#124; T@lk  17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

'Citation needed' tag for the opinion, DELETED!
In the criticism section, it's written: "Many of these criticisms, particularly those by antisemitic critics, are based on quotations that are taken out of context, and thus misrepresent the meaning of the Talmud's text."

This is without any citation, and I tagged it several times, but it has been deleted!

BTW as it is disputed, it should be referred to its believers (Some scholars(who?) believe that...)
 * Disputed by which RS?' Ankh '. Morpork  14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The text you quoted has two references. I don't see the problem with it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * - you are alluding to the existence of criticism of the Talmud (antisemitically and not antisemitically motivated) that does not suffer from misrepresentation of the sources. I am prepared to entertain the existence of such criticism, but the onus is on you to provide sources as to its existence.
 * I see you have edited Islam-related topics, and I can imagine that you are worried that many criticisms of Islam are based on misreading (deliberate or accidental) of the Qur'an. Do you see the parallel? JFW &#124; T@lk  12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * False analogy. I have removed the section. 70.40.178.59 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It stays, at least until you are able to form consensus that it should go. Your personal views seem to be interfering with your editing. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * reverted. You are unbiased in this matter. NPOV must be maintained. 70.40.181.137 (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock, look at contributions and knowledge of Wikipedia terminology. Also, if someone is "unbiased" in the matter, you shouldn't revert them. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So the anonymous editor, who is obviously Alieseraj, keeps on blanking the same section without consensus, despite numerous explanations from other editors. The page is locked for a few days. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Justinian I
has now twice inserted a long quote from Justinian I. In an exchange on our mutual talk pages the editor states that these quotes from the Corpus Juris Civilis are highly representative and were highly influential. I am prepared to entertain the notion, but the addition made no attempts to support this with a secondary source. Without this, the addition is of no value to the reader. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The quote beautifully stands on its own.

Secondary sources are POV.

I only put 2 paragraphs, that is hardly long. The ones pertaining to the Talmud and punishment only. I do not need to prove its importance, an Emperor in 529 AD is important enough. A successor to the ones who renamed Israel Palestine, ceremonially salted the earth of Jerusalem, censored any Greek texts of the name Jew or Hebrew, etc. etc. and all that other good stuff makes him important. The fact that the same Emperor is the author of the Codex Civilis may bear mentioning (just a little), but Justinian criticizing the Gemarah stands on its own. Why is any further explanation necessary he says he will kill you for owning a talmud that's not criticism? It's at least as important as any other criticism and I provided a source, a great one, and another one to you directly. And today provided 1 more below. the quote is an important part of criticism, as it happens just as the finishing touches on the Byzantine version of the Babylonian Talmud are being passed around to Jews.

I included THE ENTIRE novella below.Maryester (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First that the Novellas of the C.J. are important can not be argued! Secondly, many but not nearly enough, Catholic Preists have used the Pastor Parkes translations as a tool in ending antisemitic racism.

the 1849 - Codex Justinianus. Edited by, P. Krueger and T. Mommsen for German readers.

Berlin, 1886. Third edition published by Appud Weidmannos published 1896, Novella 146, about the Hebrews.

Translated into German in 1849 from Latin, translated from German by Oxford U. Press, translated again by R. Parkes and others in the early 20 Century into English.

R. Parkes: There is another edition I own which is longer. and just the original 529 AD law: Fordham.edu:

Maryester (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

HERE IS THIS SPECIFIC LAW ABOUT HEBREW SCRIPTURES AS THE ANCIENT TO MEDIEVAL ROMAN EMPIRES READ IT:

The first part should be understood as the law under Julian who was considered very pro-Jewish and removed many anti-Jewish laws that existed in Rome, so the pre-Justinian law is first quoted in the Novella, THEN ITS REPEAL:

<QUOTE>A Permission granted to the Hebrews to read the Sacred Scriptures according to Tradition, in Greek, Latin or any other Language, and an Order to expel from their community those who do not believe in the judgment, the Resurrection, and the Creation of Angels.</QUOTE>

Now comes the first purely Christian extensive law, by Justinian, which is to revoke the linguistic rights graneted under Julian as follows:

"Preface.

Necessity dictates that when the Hebrews listen to their sacred texts they should not confine themselves to the meaning of the letter, but should also devote their attention to those sacred prophecies which are hidden from them, and which announce the mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And though, by surrendering themselves to senseless interpretations, they still err from the true doctrine, yet, learning that they disagree among themselves, we have not permitted this disagreement to continue without a ruling on our part. From their own complaints which have been brought to us, we have understood that some only speak Hebrew, and wish to use it for the sacred books, and others think that a Greek translation should be added, and that they have been disputing about this for a long time. Being apprised of the matter at issue, we give judgment in favour of those who wish to use Greek also for the reading of the sacred scriptures, or any other tongue which in any district allows the hearers better to understand the text.

Ch. I.

We therefore sanction that, wherever there is a Hebrew congregation, those who wish it may, in their synagogues, read the sacred books to those who are present in Greek, or even Latin, or any other tongue. For the language changes in different places, and the reading changes with it, so that all present may understand, and live and act according to what they hear. Thus there shall be no opportunity for their interpreters, who make use only of the Hebrew, to corrupt it in any way they like, since the ignorance of the public conceals their depravity. We make this proviso that those who use Greek shall use the text of the seventy interpreters, which is the most accurate translation, and the one most highly approved, since it happened that the translators, divided into two groups, and working in different places, all produced exactly the same text.

i. Moreover who can fail to admire those men, who, writing long before the saving revelation of our mighty Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, yet as though they saw its coming with their eyes completed the translation of the sacred books as if the prophetic grace was illuminating them. This therefore they shall primarily use, but that we may not seem to be forbidding all other texts we allow the use of that of Aquila, though he was not of their people, and his translation differs not slightly from that of the Septuagint."

Now the part I added to the Wiki article, Justinian referred to what we call today 'the Talmud' as just the Mishnah:

"ii. But the Mishnah, or as they call it the second tradition, we prohibit entirely. For it is not part of the sacred books, nor is it handed down by divine inspiration through the prophets, but the handiwork of man, speaking only of earthly things, and having nothing of the divine in it. But let them read the holy words themselves, rejecting the commentaries, and not concealing what is said in the sacred writings, and disregarding the vain writings which do not form a part of them, which have been devised by them themselves for the destruction of the simple. By these instructions we ensure that no one shall be penalised or prohibited who reads the Greek or any other language. And their elders, Archiphericitae and presbyters, and those called magistrates, shall not by any machinations or anathemas have power to refuse this right, unless by chance they wish to suffer corporal punishment and the confiscation of their goods, before they yield to our will and to the commands which are better and clearer to God which we enjoin.

"Ch.II."

Now the first penalty (death):

"If any among them seek to introduce impious vanities, denying the resurrection or the judgment, or the work of God, or that angels are part of creation, we require them everywhere to be expelled forthwith; that no backslider raise his impious voice to contradict the evident purpose of God. Those who utter such sentiments shall be put to death, and thereby the Jewish people shall be purged of the errors which they introduced.

Ch. III.

We pray that when they hear the reading of the books in one or the other language, they may guard themselves against the depravity of the interpreters, and, not clinging to the literal words, come to the point of the matter, and perceive their diviner meaning, so that they may start afresh to learn the better way, and may cease to stray vainly, and to err in that which is most essential, we mean hope in God. For this reason we have opened the door for the reading of the scriptures in every language, that all may henceforth receive its teaching, and become fitter for learning better things. For it is acknowledged that he, who is nourished upon the sacred scriptures and has little need of direction, is much readier to discern the truth, and to choose the better path, than he who understands nothing of them, but clings to the name of his faith alone, and is held by it as by a sacred anchor, and believes that what can be called heresy in its purest form is divine teaching.

Epilogue."

Now the more common penalty an excuse to take away Jewish property:

'This is our sacred will and pleasure, and your Excellency and your present colleague and your staff shall see that it is carried out, and shall not allow the Hebrews to contravene it. Those who resist it or try to put any obstruction in its way, shall first suffer corporal punishment, and then be compelled to live in exile, forfeiting also their property, that they flaunt not their impudence against God and the empire. You shall also circulate our law to the provincial governors, that they learning its contents may enforce it in their several cities, knowing that it is to be strictly carried out under pain of our displeasure."

I strongly believe what I wrote is valid non-POV and sourced better than most sources on Wikipedia. I only wrote on his talk that law's influence not on the page itself. on the page i just explained that historically it is the most important law system of Western Europe, probably of all time, in terms of affect on the Talmud and likely all around (however that is not mentioned on the page though true).Maryester (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opening gambit, "Secondary sources are POV" shows exactly why we are in disagreement. Without such a secondary source, ideally a completely neutral, academic one, there is no way of knowing whether your claims about the "most important law system in Western Europe" have any merits. Please try to understand this simple point; it's not hard. JFW &#124; T@lk  06:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The difficulty with this is that the word used is "deuterosis", which means "doubling". This does not necessarily mean "Mishnah": in Patristic literature it sometimes has this meaning and sometimes means "Targum".  In the context, which is obviously about public Torah reading, what I think Justinian is saying is that it is fine to read out a literal translation, but not fanciful Midrashic expansions of the kind sometimes found in the Targumim (not Onkelos, but pseudo-Jonathan and the like).  I don't think he was addressing people's private reading.  This is consistent with the fact that Jewish law mandates that the Torah should be read with its Targum but this is not now done in any European or Near Eastern country. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by user 121.222.50.86
This edits are not just made up but for racist reasons but are constituting  a clear case of vandalism.Tritomex (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that they are just vandalism or even racism. They are poisoning the well by suggesting that the Talmud positively advocates a number of heinous things including intercourse with small children. This is a classic tactics of antisemites, whose prime aim is to make Jews and Judaism look barbaric and prehistoric. With a minimum amount of effort these quotes can be put into context, but that would not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Only a high-quality secondary source (as pointed out above) can deal with this issue. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor from the 70.40 range is a sockpuppet of Aliseraj and that's why the article is now locked. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

History -- Munich MS
The text bought by Tyndale House was a facsimile, not the original MS The link leads to the wrong Tyndale House, a US evangelical publisher.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=17&cntnt01returnid=229

24.7.237.175 (talk) David Harley 11/28//2012  —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

inaccurate count
There are not 63 tractates in Talmud. There are 63 tractates in Mishnah. Not all those tractates have Gemara in Talmud; some have no Gemara in either Talmud. Please find a site in a language you read that lists the tractates of Mishnah and shows which ones do not have Gemara, then correct your text. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Talmud = Mishnah + Gemara. You are correct if you indend to say that not all 63 tractates have Gemara. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

inaccurate count
There are not 63 tractates in Talmud. There are 63 tractates in Mishnah. Not all those tractates have Gemara in Talmud; some have no Gemara in either Talmud. Please find a site in a language you read that lists the tractates of Mishnah and shows which ones do not have Gemara, then correct your text. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope. Talmud = Mishnah + Gemara. You are correct if you indend to say that not all 63 tractates have Gemara. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

re: proposed merge-in of gemara
i respectfully 'oppose'' the merger. gemara is a sub-topic & deserves its own article; not to mention that the main article is already quite long & any satisfactory merge would make it considerably longer.

it does not make wikipedia "better" or easier to use, to "glom-everything-together". if it did, we could put the whole encyclopedia on one page, in an article entitled "(about) everything". :p

it also does not "improve" wikipedia to reduce the information availlable; which is almost always the eventual net result of merges, particularly merges of long/large/extensive articles.

AND merging tends to discourage or at least reduce the addition of new information to the merged-in topic(s).

as the merge proposal was made in may 2012, & since nobody else seems to have even commented on it, much less attempted a joining, i'm going to come back in may 2013 & remove the merge propsal tag from gemara, if there are no new developments by then...

btw; has anyone created tagging for "previous merge proposals" simillar to the tagging for "previous deletion nominations"? given the large number of "stale" merge tags floating around, it might be a good idea to put some effort into cleaning them up & creating annotations for previous merge suggestions -per article.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone with very little knowledge of Judaism or Rabbinical law, I'll admit to being surprised at the suggestion that Gemara should be merged here. It appears to my admittedly limited understanding that this is a major section of a major text which warrants a stand-alone article. Gemara is no less worthy of a separate article than the article on, say the Biblical book Deuteronomy, which could be argued could be merged into Leviticus as largely a repetition and elucidation of the earlier book. More so, in fact, since the sheer breadth of the Gemara is enough to suggest that a substantial article is viable on the subject. As such, I would oppose the merger. (I would also support LX's comments of "opposed merger" templates or similar). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Btk13's recent edit
Hi. I'm not sure quite what you intended. If you wanted "Gemara" to appear in the navigation box on Rabbinic Literature, you can do that or I can; just let me know. But what you did here didn't accomplish that.

If that's not what you meant, let me know here. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Second set of edits. Btk13, with all due respect, you need to be a little more careful both about facts and about the rules here:
 * Fact. Talmud and Gemara are not the same thing, though the terms are often used interchangeably. The Talmud includes both the Gemara and the Mishnah. If you look at the contents of the two articles, you will see that the one focuses just on the Gemara, and the other on the Talmud (both Bavli and Yerushalmi) as a whole.
 * Rule. You don't suggest merging articles in the main body text of the article. You suggest it by templating the article with a  template, then discussing the proposal on the Talk page.  To do things the way you just did them is considered disruptive, and is the absolutely, positively best way not to get the changes you want.
 * Rule. Once someone reverts an edit of yours--especially when they are nice and asked what you meant, as I did above--you don't just do it again. You come to the talk page and discuss.
 * Style rule. Since the Metivta edition includes a modern Hebrew commentary, there is a decent chance that it is actually known as Metivta, not Mesivta. If you know the publisher uses the Ashkenazic pronunciation, provide some evidence here on the talk page.
 * Thank you for your kind cooperation.StevenJ81 (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gil Student and Internet antitalmudism
removed a new addition as well as previously established content discussing the work of Rabbi Gil Student on internet-based antitalmudism (it's not criticism, is it?) There is little doubt that Student is one of the few to address the problem head-on, and he should be regarded as an authority on the subject.

I do however agree that mentioning his website directly is a little overdone, and we should stick to the consensus version that discusses his findings. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What the section needs badly is a third-party source. It looks like preaching at the moment. The ADL has no expertise in Talmud and its document is a useless polemic.  Student's page has a higher standard, but Student is an activist and doesn't deny it.  Sections of such low quality would not survive for long in most of Wikipedia. Zerotalk 01:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally hear what you're saying, but I think there is sufficient notability and verifiability to make it stand until a decent secondary source comes along. What we cannot do is pretend that online anti-Talmudism doesn't exist and leave the concept un-discussed. JFW &#124; T@lk  17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC coverage
The BBC has a nice pluralistic article on the Talmud on its website (link). It might be suitable as a secondary source, e.g. with regards to Talmud study by women. JFW &#124; T@lk  17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Soncino
Hi.

Since the copyright to the Soncino Press edition of the Talmud was restored in 1994, how can www.halakhah.com and the internet3 archive distribute it without the copyright notice? Samuel Stevens 68.63.1.220 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Prominence in South Korea?
I've read in lots of places the Talmud is held in high esteem and is mandatory reading in primary schools in South Korea. Should we mention this and other non-Jewish studies of Talmud on this article? --Daviddwd (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am highly suspicious of this story. It sounds like a journalistic beat-up to me.  Look at the "Talmud translated into Korean" in the image here.  Surely the author knows that this little book couldn't possibly hold more than a tiny fraction of the Talmud. Most likely it is a small collection of Talmudic stories, retold for children. Calling this "studying Talmud" is preposterous. Zerotalk 07:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Talmud say "to meet oneself means to meet God"?
 Please discuss this entry at one central place: talk:doppelgänger. 

I am trying to work on the doppelgänger article. I have already readded the statement:
 * "The book of Talmud states, to meet ones self is to meet God".

This addition came from me watching the movie plus one +1 (film). The actors state:
 * "Maybe we don't have less to worry about then we think"
 * "What do you mean"
 * "If the universe is really infinite - it means mathematically there must be replicas of our solar system, out there"
 * "You've gotta be kidding me."
 * "Look just because they exist [doubles of ourselves] doesn't mean they are out to get us"
 * "She's right..."
 * "Yeah, and how do you figure?"
 * "From the book of Talmud, to meet ones self is to meet God."

I did a Google search:
 * Talmud, to meet ones self is to meet God

...and found a reference to an old August 2011 quote from an old version of the doppelgänger Wikipedia article:
 * "In some myths, the doppelgänger is a version of the Ankou, a personification of death; in a tradition of the Talmud, to meet oneself means to meet God."

I added back "tradition of the Talmud, to meet oneself means to meet God." with fact tag to the Doppelgänger article.

Can anyone help me reference this reference in the Talmud which can be added to +1 (film) and Doppelgänger? Of course, I will look more myself too.

 Please discuss this entry at one central place: talk:doppelgänger. 

Wikia6969 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

a mistake in the article
The introduction states that the Talmud "contains the teachings and opinions of thousands of pre-Christian Era rabbis". As the article itself says, the talmud is dated to c. 500 CE, therefore it contains also many teachings and opinions of post-Christian era rabbis. 109.160.173.223 (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it is just a mistake. Zerotalk 09:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably got that way by garbling: the earlier version, or the source, must have said something like "dating from before the Christian era", meaning that the range starts from then. A very few of the rabbis quoted (particularly in Pirkei Avot) are indeed pre-Christian, such as Shim'on ha-Tsaddik, Shemaiah and Avtalyon; but the overwhelming preponderance are in the first five Christian centuries. I have edited the article to clarify this. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Babylon is not geopolitically obsolete. Please remember that the Arabs supported you in face of Romans and Christians
Hence the Babylonian Talmud. And in Libya/Algeria Jews were cherished, like in Babylonia post the Christianity to spring out from the Roman Empire. Are you going to disregard Aramaic and Arabic? What about Akkadian? What tongue is the Torah? Iraq! Shinar had a city called Uruk. Bavel and Uruk are in Iraq. Do you want to make mention of the Uruk of Shinar and Iraq or what.

47.17.239.155 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What. Ogress 23:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All very true, but perfectly irrelevant. The fact is that after the Arab conquest the area of southern Mesopotamia was referred to as "'Iraq 'Arabi" or similar: only Jews continued referring to it as "Babylonia". The question is one of geographical description, and not of any relationship to the Babylonian empire of ancient times. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Christian canards
I see that someone is attempting to incorporate into this article some of the tired old canards about the Talmud's alleged "anti-Christian" and "anti-Jesus" references -- the ones usually parroted on white supremacist portals by people who have never read a word of the Talmud, let alone studied it. To that newbie editor -- and to anyone else with similar designs -- please stop. Feel free to initiate contact on my talk page, and I will be happy to explain to you in detail exactly why said Talmudic passages do not say what you think they say. This talk page is not the proper venue for that sort of discussion; but suffice to say, briefly, that there is no consensus as to whether Jesus is even mentioned in the Talmud, let alone derogatorily. Most of the supposed "blasphemies" of Jesus and Mary, for example, do not refer to them at all. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

hasn't edited since being reverted here. Wouldn't worry all that much,. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So I see; he didn't respond to my note on his talk page either. But I always worry when anyone tries to add this sort of antisemitic crap, particularly when accompanied by a "this is the truth" edit summary.  The fact that he went to the trouble of opening an account suggested some measure of determination over and above the usual IP trolling, but perhaps I over-reacted.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  23:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

DocterJoeE is factually wrong. The references say terrible, blasphemous things about Our Lord and the Blessed Mother. Where is the anti-defamation league now? Factual evidence does not change just because David Duke presents it. If Ghandi presented it, we would all jump and believe it. Look up some things and research the Talmud, there are very offensive and evil things said in it about Jesus and Mary. The article should include these things. It does not go into enough depth as to the level of pure hatred and blasphemy that the Talmud contains directed against God Himself. To make the article better, someone should add it.74.90.110.7 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We add material based on verifiable, reliable sources; your claims are tendentious and blatantly antisemitic. Also, Gandhi (you spelled his name wrong) said a lot of terrible things about a lot of groups and no, we don't "just believe it" because Gandhi said something racist or misogynistic. Ogress 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. (Sorry I didn't see this sooner.) 74.90.110.7, if you are interested in learning something -- as opposed to remaining ignorant and repeating canards -- I will be happy to demonstrate to you exactly why the Talmud does not say what you think it says; but that should be on my talk page, or yours. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not debunking mythology.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ogress, thank you for the entertainment. I came by this page to discern the specifics of "Babylonian" male bovine excrement from others...and you pointed to your magical sky daddy while calling opinion verifiable, reliable sources! Thank you for showing this old goat that there's still comedy and mirth in the world. "Canard": but, but, but, that's not what *I know*; "tendentious" - anything a goyim says. Beer volcanoes and stripper factories sound a lot more millennial, don'tcha think? R'Amen, says Screwtape ;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.222.127 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edits - COI
I'm Chief Data Officer at Sefaria, so I have a nice strong COI on this one.

In February of 2017, two translations of the Talmud - the Steinsaltz Hebrew, and the Koren-Steinsaltz English - were placed into the commons with CC-BY-NC licenses, and made available on Sefaria. The William Davidson Foundation paid in order to release these texts into the commons. This kind of transaction - that a copyright holder is paid in order to release their material with a CC license - is unusual.

The first 22 volumes of the English are currently available on Sefaria, and the rest is expected throughout 2017 - https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Talmud

There's plenty of press about this. JTA Times of Israel Tablet Jewish Week Jewish Standard

And the announcements from Koren and Sefaria

Is this worth incorporating?

LevEliezer (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a resource worth mentioning in the "translations" section and also worth mention in the external links section. I'll leave this to someone who knows the topic better than I do. Zerotalk 11:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so too, one can say with a smidgen of hyperbole that this is a very big deal. I'll word something up in the translation section and add to EL. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Talmud. 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/20100805220714/http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf to http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805220714/http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf to http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

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) 01:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Talmud. 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/20061212182252/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/ to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100805220714/http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf to http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212182252/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/ to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/

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) 19:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pope Leo X
I believe there must be mention of Pope Leo X and his strong patronage of Hebrew studies and of the printing of a new unedited edition of the Talmud. He even had a printing press built at the Vatican for that purpose. It was said that his favor to the Jewish community in Rome was so strong that the Jews thought that this could be the sign of the coming of the Messiah.

Sources
 * http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9753-leo-x-giovanni-de-medici
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=FnDoBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=pope+leo+x+talmud&source=bl&ots=kWjJLhcsDg&sig=kuhS7ug0aKE4tiIjaCWNzhPZDH4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifvIy2jODUAhUB5oMKHc7FAb0Q6AEIOjAE#v=onepage&q=pope%20leo%20x%20talmud&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.181.5 (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

✅ with this edit. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Rodkinson argument
The text of this article regarding the Rodkinson translation contents has been contradictory, apparently from editor disagreement, going back to at least June 2015. Can anyone bring it back into harmony? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Talmud. 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 tag to http://www.moreshetsepharad.org/GEMARA.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002041052/http://www.dhengah.org/torah/chhashas.pdf to http://www.dhengah.org/torah/chhashas.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126110223/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/bavly/selectbavly.asp to http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/bavly/selectbavly.asp
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130416125610/http://www.yadharavherzog.org/program/manuscript-request-form-babli to http://www.yadharavherzog.org/program/manuscript-request-form-babli

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) 10:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cite Talmud

 * 1) I wrote Template:Cite Talmud a little while ago and forgot to tell anyone about it. I plan to use it on a number of articles, including this one. However, before it gets widely implemented, I wanted to check with others who might use this template to see if you would suggest changes to the parameters or other changes. Please discuss at Template talk:Cite Talmud, not here. Daask (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

or
 * 1) I was hoping that you'd include a diagram with identifiers, similar to https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24367959 with its "Anatomy of a Talmudic page CLICKABLE"

A bit of logical reasoning and less scripture (just for a brief moment)
Although it is not very likely that trying to show arguments to an anti-Semite (and I am not Jewish) is unnecessary, I come here to try to give a clue about the final conclusion of all this discussion. Although I do not have the necessary sources to post here, I know of several sacred books of Judaism that many laws only have validity in the land of Israel, there are laws that only have validity when the Third Temple was erected in the Messianic Era and lastly a non-Jew is not invited or encouraged to live in the Land of Israel, in case a non-Jew decides to live in the Land of Israel (I say when Israel is again a nation of the twelve tribes) he must accept to live according to the laws universal rabbis derived from Creation and better known as Noah's Seven Universal Laws. So imagine that you have a neighbor next to your house, this neighbor never told you to go visit him, because he lives in a house that fulfills 613 sacred principles of life, and you in your house live 7 sacred principles of life. Your neighbor is keeping a nation that needs to exist to keep the Torah, so he needs to work hard every day and be careful not to invite people who can get in the way of this work. But you willingly want to visit your neighbor. At the doorway of his house, he warns him that he will not be held responsible for the damage you do to his house. So you are the one who has taken the consequences. I think that reasoning will help. Now I propose a reverse logic: imagine that all the laws that are the subject of this discussion are not applicable outside the Land of Israel. So now imagine a Jew going out of Israel and going into the land of a non-Jew and stealing, murdering or damaging something there (Gd deliver me). Now after reading what I said, search the scriptures to prove or deny these reasonings. I'm sure the conclusion you draw will be better than assuming that the scriptures need holiness (of the reader, be it a non-Jew or a Jew) to be understood first of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Bnei Noah (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Translations into English, wider audience
There is much duplication of information between the sections named "Editions for a wider audience​" and "Translations​." By moving "Translations" to follow "Language" (prior to "Printing" which is wehre information about historical editions is contained) this would facilitate deduping. Pi314m (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Vilna Shas Migration
The section on this page dedicated to the Vilna Shas contains a lot of information not as relevant to the Talmud as it is to the Vilna Edition of the Shas. The Vilna Edition Shas page is quite empty and would benefit if some of the content on this page was moved there (particularly the content about pagination, structure, and history). The Vilna Edition Shas Page is also a high-importance rated article. Relspas (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with moving detailed content to that page if only for WP:WEIGHT reasons. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the Criticism section
The section on criticism is just atrocious. It is almost *entirely* taken up with a historic litany of Christian attacks on the Talmud, especially antisemitic ones. As such, the article gives the impression that all criticism of the Talmud is just ignorant antisemitism and can be ignored and dismissed. While the article mentions that there *are* other sources of Talmudic criticism, they are not in any way discussed. For instance, nothing at all on actual criticisms from atheists. And especially nothing from Jews. There is a long history of Jewish dissent from Talmudic thought, from such sources as the Sadducees, the Karaites, and the Samaritans, but you would never know it from this article. It all comes off as an extremely biased presentation, biased in favor of Rabbinic Judaism. Especially egregious is the sentence that claims that dismisses criticism of the Talmud as being based on the critics not understanding it because it's far too subtle for their feeble minds.

A criticism section is supposed to accurately and fairly represent the views of those who dissent, not defend against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.126.72 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if you could propose reliable sources that could be cited for this material. Zerotalk 07:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Travel Edition dimensions
A convenience tool (an inches ruler) says that the physical size of a closed volume is 5.25" in width and 7.25" in height. Nuts240 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

63
WP's article on the Mishnah says "The Mishnah consists of... tractates... 63 in total". Yet this Talmud article says, "The term 'Talmud' may refer to either the Gemara alone, or the Mishnah and Gemara together. The entire Talmud consists of 63 tractates". Saying "the entire Talmud" immediately after the previous sentence suggests that the Mishnah and Gemara both consist of tractates and if you add them up they total 63. Unless I'm misunderstanding, which I very well may be, that would mean that the Gemara has no content, that is, that it consists of zero tractates. So if there is a problem with the "63 tractates", perhaps someone could correct the article or give an explanation for others who may be confused by this. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The prior paragraph states "The Talmud has two components; the Mishnah (משנה‎, c. 200), a written compendium of Rabbinic Judaism's Oral Torah; and the Gemara (גמרא‎, c. 500), an elucidation of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Hebrew Bible." So the Talmud includes the Mishna and the Gemarah which is the "answer" to the Mishna. It's like asking 65 questions and then getting the answer. So you can say there are 65 questions, and you can also say there are 65 Q&As. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Shas can stand for Shishim S'Pharim (sixty books), but there's some double counting involved, sushc as B"B,B"M and B"B counting as one, when in fact BaBa Basra

is, in Soncino measuring, the largest - it and M'Shabbos are the only that need two physical volumes even in the large(r) size(s) editions. So that's 63 becoming 61, but I'll leave this as-is at least for now. Nuts240 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * To clear up several misunderstandings here -- 63 is the total number of Mishna or Talmud tractates. When describing the Talmud as "consisting of 63 tractates" we mean that there are 63 tracts of the Mishna, some of which have Gemara on them. Only ~35 tractates have Gemara, so you can only use "63" to describe the total number of Mishna tractates or the total number of Mishna tractates and the Gemara on them, not the Gemara itself. In terms of Babas/Neziqin -- you're including the Bavli, which is irrelevant to the count. The combined mishna Neziqin is the same length as Kelim; we only split it up because of the Bavli. Anyway shas historically stands for shisha sedarim. And even if you count Neziqin as 1 you have 61 total. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Structure of Talmud incomprehensible
Can we see a diagram of the page structure for each Talmud? That indicates the components 2.96.193.19 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You mean both? Dig, and ye shall cite. kencf0618 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to Hebrew Page
The link to the Hebrew page is to the general page on the Talmud. Link also to the Babylonian Talmud which has a separate Hebrew page: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93_%D7%91%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%99 77.137.14.115 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

length of talmud article
Durrrrr 72.238.166.11 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You are an antisense and this screed has no value, see ya 47.41.132.46 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Talmudic period" & "Mishnaic period": define!
The term "Talmudic period" redirects here, and it occurs in many articles, by itself or as part of the syntagm "Mishnaic and Talmudic periods", but unlike "Mishnaic period", which redirects to Tannaim where the timeframe is (although indirectly) indicated and sourced (c. 10-220 CE), the term "Talmudic period" isn't even mentioned on this page. The 2 distinct Talmuds plus the fact that they were compiled in different places from older oral traditions, make it paramount that an explicit definition including a timeframe is indicated, as "figuring it out" is not an option: The Jerusalem Talmud article speaks of it being compiled during the late 4th c. to the first half of the 5th c. and that it predates the Babylonian Talmud by about a century, while this article dates the Babylonian Talmud to the 3rd to 6th centuries. This creates fluid dates and an apparent contradiction - C5 is indeed 1 c. before C6, but C4-5 is not 1 c. before C3-6. Which is to be expected, linking together Wiki articles is not RS, is OR, and not to be done. So: It's not by chance that these are older and largely discarded terms used in early Israeli historiography and now replaced by "Roman period" and "Byzantine period", although those are also vague: the former starts with Pompey in 63 BCE, the latter ends in the 630s, but what the Middle Roman period is is hard to come by, and the start of the Byzantine period fluctuates from the 320s to the 380s, depending on school & author. Arminden (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) When does the Mishnaic period start and finish?
 * 2) When does the Talmudic period start and finish?

"Talmudic period" & "Mishnaic period": define!
The term "Talmudic period" redirects here, and it occurs in many articles, by itself or as part of the syntagm "Mishnaic and Talmudic periods", but unlike "Mishnaic period", which redirects to Tannaim where the timeframe is (although indirectly) indicated and sourced (c. 10-220 CE), the term "Talmudic period" isn't even mentioned on this page. The 2 distinct Talmuds plus the fact that they were compiled in different places from older oral traditions, make it paramount that an explicit definition including a timeframe is indicated, as "figuring it out" is not an option: The Jerusalem Talmud article speaks of it being compiled during the late 4th c. to the first half of the 5th c. and that it predates the Babylonian Talmud by about a century, while this article dates the Babylonian Talmud to the 3rd to 6th centuries. This creates fluid dates and an apparent contradiction - C5 is indeed 1 c. before C6, but C4-5 is not 1 c. before C3-6. Which is to be expected, linking together Wiki articles is not RS, is OR, and not to be done. So: It's not by chance that these are older and largely discarded terms used in early Israeli historiography and now replaced by "Roman period" and "Byzantine period", although those are also vague: the former starts with Pompey in 63 BCE, the latter ends in the 630s, but what the Middle Roman period is is hard to come by, and the start of the Byzantine period fluctuates from the 320s to the 380s, depending on school & author. Arminden (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) When does the Mishnaic period start and finish?
 * 2) When does the Talmudic period start and finish?


 * The two redirects were created by and  - maybe you can contribute? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Late revenge on Wiki for lost ME disputations? :)))
The article is about the Talmud. Tal-mud. And then: Seriously? Is the Inquisition catching up with unfinished business - on Wikipedia? Or is this an attempt at subliminal humour? Wiki prohibits IQ jokes, so I'll hold back, and also requires me to presume good faith, which I can't, it's either or, both together is waaay to far out. Arminden (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "before the birth of Christ"
 * Before Christ (BC)
 * Anno domini (AD)


 * , hi. That's a good start, but look closer, there's more. And get ready for the reverts :) Arminden (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the "opinions of thousands of rabbis (dating from before the birth of Christ". WHAT?!
 * Quick, before they wake up! :))) Arminden (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you woke up: what I mean is, there were no rabbis in the BCE centuries. Don't take my word for it, go & check. The same people who relate to "the birth of Christ" probably wrote this too. Arminden (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)