Category talk:Talmud rabbis of Syria Palaestina

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis to avoid confusion

Note: Many articles about the rabbis of the Talmud and Mishnah are derived from the archaic Jewish Encyclopedia, published between 1901-1906, over one hundred years ago (when the Middle East was still under the thumb of the Ottoman Turks) and which used the archaic expressions "Palestine" when referring to the Land of Israel, and to the Jews living in the areas of the historical Land of Israel as "Palestinians." This is a big mistake that requires constant attention and correction, especially when copying and editing articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia or from similarly archaic sources such as Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). At this time, no-one uses the term/s "Palestinian/s" (in relation to anything associated with Jews or the land they lived in and which they regarded as their homeland) nor by any type of conventional Jewish scholarship, particularly at the present time when the label "Palestinian" is almost entirely identified with the Palestinian Arabs who are mostly Muslims. Finally, kindly take note that the name Palestinian Talmud is also not used and it redirects to the conventional term Jerusalem Talmud used in Jewish scholarship. Thank you. IZAK 13:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not using "Palestine" or "Palestinian" for Talmud and rabbis

Makes sense, I'll try to remember. However, there was a period when everyone referred to the land of Israel as Palestine. Therefore, to say something like "in 1940 Shlomo Pines emigrated to Israel" would appear to be an anachronism. Don't we have to use the term "Palestine" during a certain period for historical accuracy? What is this period? From Roman conquest until 1948? Thanks. Dfass 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Dfass: Note: The term "Land of Israel" is an old one of Biblical origin, whereas the name "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews because it was coined by the Romans after they crushed the Jews of Judea-- and needless to say today it refers exclusively to the Arab Palestinians and never to Jews. Note also that the "Land of Israel" article is not the same as the "Israel" article because the latter refers to the modern post-1948 Jewish state. My main concern was about rabbis from the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, up until about a hundred years ago being called "Palestinians" on Wikipedia as a follow-through from the many articles that have been copied and pasted from the old Jewish Encyclopedia and which collectively create the wrong impression. Such are the hazards of relying on dated information, long-discarded terminology, and unsuitable writing and communication styles. Wikipedia as a modern encyclopedia should not be relying on archaic terms such as "Palestinian rabbis" that could potentially cause grave misunderstanding. I think that from the time of the British Mandate of Palestine, also shortened to "the British Mandate" and sometimes "Palestine," that Jews were associated with those terms from 1923 until 1948 when the modern State of Israel was declared. I hope that you have noted that I am most definitely NOT saying that whenever the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Palestine" that the single word "Israel" should be used -- obviously I do not mean that because when Israel is used alone on Wikipedia it refers to the MODERN State of Israel only. On the other hand, what I am saying is that when the word "Palestine" is used in archaic sources that predate modern Israel, and when writing about Judaic topics that relate to the Middle Ages, Talmudic, or Biblical times, then the better, more accurate, less controversial term for Wikipedia to use is "Land of Israel" which is historically what the Jewish people, and everyone else in academic life, have and do still call it. Hope I have clarified myself, and thanks for caring. IZAK 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I think I get the drift. I will pay attention to it in the future. (Don't be so down on the Jewish Encyclopedia though! It's an incredible work, written by some tremendous scholars. I think these articles significantly raise the quality of Wikipedia, whether their English is somewhat archaic or not. If you compare a JE-borrowed Wikipedia article to one written by "the masses," you can't but be struck by the difference in quality and scholarship. The typical Jewish Wikipedian (myself included) is not capable of producing articles of anything like that caliber. Most Wikipedians cannot even be bothered to cite the sources for the couple of factoids they manage to dredge up from their memory of 10th grade.) Thanks again for the clarification. Dfass 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dfass: I am not down on the old Jewish Encyclopedia at all, and I fully agree with you that it is a more than masterly work of scholarship. But is was written in the context of the culture of over a hundred years ago as a product of the nineteenth century! My specific concern at this stage was only about how the meaning and application of the word/s "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are getting "lost in the cut-and-paste process" because one hundred years ago, "Palestinian" was used as an academic adjective as for example, together with "rabbis" ("Palestinian rabbi/s") or the Talmud ("Palestinian Talmud"). Up until 1948 the words "Palestine" and "Palestinians" still had application/s to Jews because of the existaence of the British Mandate of Palestine until 1948 in the territories of historically Jewish Land of Israel. Since then, the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has shed any connection to Jews and the modern Jewish State of Israel which was set up in contradistinction to an Arab Palestine. Particularly since the rise of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), following the 1967 Six-Day War, the term and notion of "Palestine" and "Palestinians" has become thoroughly and exclusively connected with the Arab Palestinians to the point that no-one (not in politics, academics, the media, religion, etc) associates the name "Palestine" and "Palestinians" with the Jews or Judaism, so that it can safely be said that the notion of a "Palestinian Jew" is an archaic anachronistic discarded notion. So when cutting and pasting articles from the one hundred year old Jewish Encyclopedia, one should not fall into a "time warp trap" by blindly pasting articles from it without some sensible updates, and not to inadvertantly recreate and foster terminology for Jews and Jewish Israelis that neither they nor the world accepts or recognizes. One needs to be conscious that the term "Land of Israel" is a well-established name that has survived for a long time and is still the preferred term of choice when speaking in modern terms, so that Jews not be confused with Arabs and vice versa. By speaking of the Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, meaning rabbis (or any Jews) associated with a historic geographic area, one also avoids problems such as calling pre-1948 rabbis or people "Israelites" -- used only for people in the Biblical era or "Israelis" -- which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel. Thanks for your input. IZAK 07:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to Rename to Category:Talmud rabbis of the Southern Levant

Nominator's Rationale (with thanks to the contributions of others from the WP:CfD discussion whom I have shamelessly plagiarised).

1. Retain "of" (as opposed to "in") since it permits a wider scope; it denotes of/from/in simultaneously.
2. The category is defined by geography primarily. As such, it fits with its sister category Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia which is also well defined geographically. Both are sub-categories of the parent Category:Talmud rabbis. The term Land of Israel is ill-defined geographically. It's definition is based on passages of scripture which is not of much use to geographers who prefer to use latitude and longitude.
3. Pre-1948, the term Southern Levant avoids the possibility of rabbis (or any Jews) associated with the geographic area, being called "Israelites" (used only for people in the Biblical era) or "Israelis" (which refers to citizens of the modern State of Israel) . It also has the advantage of containing all the area in the term Land of Israel while not depending on scripture for its definition.
4. The term "Palestine" is considered offensive by many Jews.
5. The function of the parent category is to divide rabbis of the Talmudic era from rabbis of other eras. At this point, the categories are rightly concerned with theology, doctrine and teachers and so geographical distinction is of far lesser importance. So only this category needs to retain a proper geographic correctness.
6. The term "rabbis" should be kept because that is how they are designated in today's general and scholarly terminology. Also while more specific categories of rabbi exist (amaoraim, rishomin, achromin, geomin, etc), such specialist terms are probably of more use to categories by era etc. This category and its parent seem to be more general in nature so a more approachable name (to non Jews) would be indicated in this instance I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Smile. The name land of Israel is defined well enough, I think. And definitely more understandable and in use with sources than Southern Levant. In addition, the term Land of Israel is rightfully opposed to the area Babylonian, as in "the Talmudic sages of Israel and Babylonia". As to argument #4, that is not a reason to remove the present name, but rather shows that in the above discussion you oppose the change of the Rfc nominator. Debresser (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that LoI is well defined. Genesis defines it, Exodus defines it and Numbers defines it - Dimension. The problem, however, is that none of them agrees on the dimensions. Which flavour do you favour? Laurel Lodged (talk)

Hi Laurel: Your words reveal the error you are making because the term Land of Israel as used and defined and as relating to Talmudic literature does NOT include or refer to the notion of a so-called "Greater Israel" that is regarded as an abstract concept only, never having been real in the past or present, otherwise the rabbis of Babylonia would also be included since the widest possible borders "from the Nile to the Euphrates" have NEVER been actualized or lived in being that they are taken to mean a prophecy relating to some sort of "end of days" that at most have yet to be reached if at all. But in the times of the Talmud, the Land of Israel referred to small parts of Judea (it was mostly under Roman rule during that time in any case as a colony of Imperial Rome as Judaea (Roman province) so there was no "greater Israel" you can rest assured) and nothing more. So you can relax and not worry that the term will be "misunderstood" because it will not be. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in pointing out that a part of my concern in making the proposal was that then current name could be used for the purpose of advancing the idea of a "Greater Israel". You re-assurance that that is not the intent of the current name provides some comfort in that regard. However, it is still capable of being construed in that way, despite the intention. I was also struck by the information that the rabbis only occupied a small part of Judea: does that not solve the problem? What if the new name was Category:Talmud rabbis of Judea (which embrace both the ancient kingdom and the Roman province)? Would that meet with objections? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the two of you talking about? There were several Roman provinces that made up the Land of Israel. Certainly this is not just Judea; are you actually implying that the Gallilee was not just included? And certainly the greater part of the Land of Israel was included in Jewish rule at various times. Part of the problem is that a lot of people misunderstand which part of the Euphrates is meant, and don't know that the "river of Egypt" might not be the Nile.Mzk1 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true to say that there were many roman provinces in the Southern Levant. However, were Talmud rabbis in all of them? Were Talmud rabbis confined to just 1 or 2 Roman provinces? Were there Talmud rabbis in Samaria? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Samaria per se, but other provinces in the North. There is in fact a famous archeological excavation in Tzippori (Sepphoris), not too far from where I now sit. The last home of the Sanhedrin was in Tiberias. See the article on the Jerusalem TalmudMzk1 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree, for the simple reason that hardly anyone knows what this means. Since the Land of Israel is the term used by the Talmud itself, and is historically the Hebrew equivalent of "Palestine", it should be used. Regarding location, we should use the Talmud itself. I think "Suria" should be included, and, in general, I would go for inclusivity. However, I think the first part needs to be changed; this needs to be reworded to sound like normal English, perhaps Rabbis of the Talmud living in the Land of Israel; change the other categories to conform.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs) [1]
• disagree; too abstruse for the mass market. possible alternate suggestion: Talmud rabbis of the Holy Land? Doesn't have to specify whose Holy Land, but most people will grasp the meaning.... Gzuckier (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The Land of Israel is used by sources and is defined. (Just cause a term has many meanings do not preclude it use anywhere.) However #4 is a weak argument. The term "Palestinian" is used widley in Jewish sources when referring to the Talmud rabbis of yore, and it is not just in pre-'48 publications that this designation is found. Scholarly sources are replete with the term, and there is no good reason whatsoever why it should not be used here too. Chesdovi (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In western academia both phrases are used ("Land of Israel" and "Palestinian"), some scholars prefer the one and some scholars prefer the other, and no one makes a big deal out of it. In traditional Talmudic scholarship, on the other hand, "Land of Israel" is used exclusively (including within English-language publications), as it is within Talmudic literature itself. That would seem to settle the issue. Dovi (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken, Debresser and IZAk make a deal of it. They will not accept "palestinian" being used for Jewish subjects and force their view uopn other editors. Chesdovi (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The term "Land of Israel" is not exclusively used in Talmudic litriture when referring to sages from that land. I will add that it is neither the case in comtemporary English-language publications either, where the term "Palestinian" is also used more often than you may think. Chesdovi (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Woa, this is awesome, "Dovi" and "Chesdovi" are debating each other, editors should note they are different users. Note to Chesdovi: the term "Land of Israel" has won wide current usage and coverage in modern times and the English language, while the usage of the term "Palestinian" as referring to Jewish topics has been moving towards redundancy and, as you should know, it has also been moved in the direction of referring to Palestinian Arabs and not to Jews or to Israelis. IZAK (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
        • There is in fact widespread use of "Palestinian" in comtemporary Jewish sources and in non-Jewish sources in references to Jews, particularly to those living in the talmudic era. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality. Examples include usage in the Encyclopaedia Judaica and the The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition. Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because this suggestion is ludicrous. There is no such term as "Southern Levant" in Talmudic and Jewish scholarship, secular or religious, because in the relevant terminology these scholars are and were known in Hebrew as the Chachmei Eretz Yisrael = literally: "[the] wise [men i.e. rabbis] of [the] Land of Israel" who in turn created the Jerusalem Talmud as opposed to the Chachmei Bavel = literally: "[the] wise [men i.e. rabbis] of Babylonia" who authored the Babylonian Talmud, which is 100% correct. This "Levant" terminology is just a feeble attempt at modern-day "political correctness" that has nothing to do with this Talmudic subject. What next? Category:Talmud rabbis of the Northern Levant? Category:Talmud rabbis of the Eastern Levant? Category:Talmud rabbis of the Western Levant? Category:Talmud rabbis of the Central Levant? etc etc etc? What a bunch of silly jokes and utter violations of WP:NOR and WP:NEO and WP:NOTMADEUP that/they would be. The nominator should withdraw his suggestion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It is of negligible significance as to what these rabbis are known by in the original Hebrew here on English wiki. It only makes a difference on Hebrew wikipedia. We can only scour English RS to decide on what to call the historic region from where these rabbis are from. I have. There are thousands of RS that call them rabbis in the Land of Israel. There are also thousands which call them rabbis in Palestine. So that settles it. No “Southern Levant.” Chesdovi (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The title for the category should obviously be the one used in Talmudic literature itself, namely hakhmei Eretz Yisrael, the scholars of the Land of Israel. Dovi (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • hakhmei Eretz Yisrael is not the only description used in the Talmud when describing Palestinian Tannaim and Amoraim. Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The only names we should be using are the ones which are more common in English usage. Therefore we have Tefillin rather than Phylacritries, Yeshiva rather than Talmudic Academy, the Greek synagogue, not Shul or Beit Knesset. The Three Weeks, not Bein ha-Mitzrim, Tisha B'Av but also Tenth of Tevet, Jewish prayer services, not Tefilliah. But we do not just use Hebrew/Jewish terms just because it is a Jewish subject matter. We do not use Shinar or "Babel" of the Talmud, neither do we use Mesopotamia, but rather use Babylonia. And we do not call Israel Mar'ava. Why do we use Babylonia? We use “Babylon” because that is the term which has been used for centuries in the English language when referring to that period and region. The English language also uses Palestine for the Land of Israel in similar reference, hence the Palestinian Talmud, even though it was called Yerusalami in Hebrew. Both are acceptable. And Palestine is no less valid. If people have a problem with “Palestinian” they should acknowledge it is due to their own political POV’s. Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi, contrary to your views, there is no widespread consistent WP rule about "only" using one set of terms from Hebrew or English over another. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and some acceptable alternatives at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#When a topic pertains primarily to a certain subset of diaspora Jewry; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew)#When a topic pertains primarily to modern Israel and other variations in this type of topic. Often a lot of common sense and leeway are required otherwise one can easily arrive at absurd "conclusions" and very odd-sounding names and terms. IZAK (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • "One can easily arrive at absurd conclusions and very odd-sounding names and terms". You mean like Amoraim and Tannaim? Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Talmudic text refers to Britian as Eretz ha-Ei. Should we then rename Category:British rabbis to Category:Rabbis of the Land of Ei or Category:Rabbis of the Island? Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi: The term Land of Israel, i.e. "Eretz Yisrael" is not disputed and it's used almost daily in Judaism, and it has attained widespread modern usage, while no one in their right minds would refer to England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom as an unheard of "Eretz Ha-Ei" that's disputable and could only maybe be conjured up if one had access to an almost defunct concordance. Get real. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Correct. So please do not base you vote on Hebrew usage as you explained in your oppose vote. It's all quite rightly to do with "widespread modern (English) usage". Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)