Talk:Criticism of the Talmud

Controversy

Although Eisenmenger is frequently attacked, I have seen notable Jewish authors laud his writings as the most profound expressions of Judaism they had ever have seen.

There is also an in depth rebuttal to all the apologia in this article here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25873220/Judaism-Discovered

I don't have the time to rewrite the entire article, but I leave that link available for interested parties.

Hayim commentary

IP 62.25.109.197: I've researched David Bar-Hayim's views more, and you were correct to remove mention of him from the article. Thanks for finding that mistake. --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tosefta pre-dates Talmud

The pen-ultimate line mentions that "Although later Jewish religious texts explicitly prohibit stealing from non-Jews, as in Tosefta Baba Kamma". Tosefta pre-dates the Talmud. Chesdovi (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dogma wording?

I un-did a change that added some "dogma" text into the "out of context" sentence in lead. Perhaps it is good material, but it was not worded well, and I could not understand what it was saying. --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Eisenmenger "errors"?

Chesdovi: do you have a source for Eisenmenger "distortions and errors"? The sources Ive seen suggest that his translations were precise and accurate, but that he tended to be selective in his presentation, and often omitted (perhaps deliberately) balancing quotes (or quotes that would put the negative material in context). Perhaps you intended your material to go in the sections about Rohling or Pranaitis? Rohling and Pranaitis have been accused, so say the sources, of fabricating quotes from the Talmud. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What I added did not specifically say that the translations were inaccurate. I mentioned the "work" as a whole being called a fabrication riddled with intentional distortions and errors, read: "selective presentation, void of balancing quotes." Anyway, I have managed to find the following besides from the original source I had used which do indicate there was a problem with the translations themselves:

• "Supporting his theses by manipulating source material, often presented in erroneous and distorted translation, Eisenmenger denounced Judaism as morally inferior to Christianity, charging Jews with well poisoning and blood libel."
• "a notoriously hostile portrayal of Judaism based on quotations, often taken out of context or distorted, from rabbinic..."
• "Although the book was riddled with intentional distortions and errors, it succeeded in calling attention to legal inequities in the areas of theft, robbery, return of lost property, and deception."
• "turgid fabrications" (Prof. Fernando Cervantes)".
• "The incorrectness of many of Eisenmenger's translations is shown by Delitzsch in his "Rohling's Talmudjude."
• "He cited them in the original language, providing a translation alongside. The translations are erroneous in places and often intentionally distorted." (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972) Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that looks good. I just wanted to make sure there were sources. The Eisenmenger article might be the best place to include lots of detail about the various assessments of the quality of the translation. --Noleander (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms should be limited

Criticisms should be limited to what the Talmud actually states, rather than also including criticims which are based not on the actual text itself, but on various peoples understandings of the passages. How Judy Wenger wishes to intepret Niddah is up to her. Her conclusion is not apparent in the text itself which mentions nothing of man's relationship with God. It is a personal and streched implication to say that it does. Does it belong here? Chesdovi (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtually all of the criticisms involve some degree of subjective interpretation. If you feel there is a critic that is voicing an unfounded criticism, the best solution would be to find some balancing sources that explain why the critic is misguided, and incorporate that balancing material into the article. I think that there is already some balancing information for Wegner's criticism, but maybe it could be amplified and clarified. --Noleander (talk) 02:16, 10 Febrary 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Most of the crticisms are actually on the text itself: "If an adult cohabits with a girl under the age of three", "thank you for not being born a woman", "women are lightheaded", "a heathen who studies the Torah deserves death", "A sorcerer", "Boiled in excrement", "an ox belonging to a canaanite gores", when a non-Jew hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, "even the best of the gentiles should all be killed", "neither to be lifted out of a well nor hauled down into it", etc, etc. That Niddah is seen by some as showing women are a "separate and inferior entity" is okay to have because it reflects that the Talmudic laws relating to Niddah can be seen as treating women as inferior. But to say that since a man faces towrds the earth implies that "the male communicates directly with God and the cosmos" while a woman does not, goes much further than the literal and plain understanding of the text. Wegners original thoughts are not best placed here. Chesdovi (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of that text that she is criticizing ("why does the man lie face downwards and the woman face upwards towards the man...")? Is it in the Talmud or some other book? --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talmud. At face value the text is not an issue. Wenger has come up with her own interpretation, which is not a literal criticism. (It would be like her criticisng the Bible for saying that anmials are more significant in Gods eyes than man since they were created earlier. But the bible text does not state this.) If she wants to crticise the passage, let her say that the Talmud is too restrictive with regards to cohabition, as it only prescribes the stated setup. The Talmud here does not mention God, the Cosmos or women being subordinate to men. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add that the bit about death for non-Jewish Torah study is similar. Duke does not criticise the suggestion of death, but rather takes issue with the implication of that penalty, i.e. anti-gentile secrets are hidden in the Talmud. I agree this belongs here because it part of the wider critiscm of the Talmud; maybe should be merged to a different section. Chesdovi (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources clearly state that Duke, Dilling, Shahak, Pranaitis, Hoffman, and even a couple of the more ancient critics all make a big deal out of the death penalty itself (in addition to discussing the related suggestion of secrecy/concealing). The two topics are related, that's why the Death Penalty section is a sub-section under the "Concealed" section. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it needs to be emphasised then. Regarding Wengers OR: Crtisicm should be limited to where actual Talmudic phrases are criticsied for their plain meaning. But where issue is not taken with the simple meaning of the text at face value, but with interpretations not inferred openly by the text, these are not best placed here. Wegners thesis can possibly be placed at Jewish feminism or something. Chesdovi (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Wenger/feminist criticism: I'm not sure that rule about "simple meaning of the text at face value" would work, because two of the biggest & oldest criticisms are (a) Talmud is not of divine origin; and (b) Talmud is interpreted by some as superseding the Jewish Bible. Neither of those deal with plain interpretations particular passages. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is only where the critisicm is based upon textual passages, as in the case of Wegner. I already explanied above that critic of the law of niddah is acceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How about this: that material from Wenger could be re-worked into a broader paragraph about (I'm paraphrasing here) "the Talmud has been responsible for oppressive patriarchal attitudes, particularly relating to the role of women in the home/bedroom" and Wenger's material would just be one example of how feminists have interpreted passages from the Talmud as contributing to that oppression. --Noleander (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Here she is not attacking the role of women or oppressive tactics against them. She suggests that the passage insinuates women are not able to have a spiritual connection or relationship with God. (Patent nonsense if you ask me.) Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely criticism should be limited to the plain text itself, and not include such contrived interpretations about what the text may or may not mean. Apologists defend the text by claiming the plain meaning has been misinterpreted. But criticisms which are formed by interpreting the plain meaning of the text, and working ones own bias into the text is taking Talmudic criticism to another level, which should not be included here. We could just as well find an interpretation of this passage which purports men are viewed as subordinate. We should not include various understandings of what the text may or may not symbolise according to each and every scholar. Chesdovi (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we already discussed that point here but were unable to come to consensus. Maybe it is time to do an RFC to get more people involved? --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

More general criticisms as you mention are okay to include. The problem starts when actual textual passages are being analyised. Chesdovi (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

subsection titles

What are the best titles for the sections:

• Contents concealed from non-Jews

• Non-Jews prevented from studying Jewish law (was "Death penalty for study of the Talmud")
• Alterations and revisions

There is a tree-organization there: the section "Contents concealed from non-Jews" is about all concealing/prohibition, etc. But that there are two specific aspects of it that are very prominently discussed by the critics: (1) the death penalty; and (2) revisions/alterations to the Talmud text. So those latter two are subsections. The new subsection title "Non-Jews prevented from studying Jewish law" doesn't seem to accurately describe the topics that those critics are discussing, and in fact is very nearly the same as the higher level title "Contents concealed from non-Jews". --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Eisenmenger Entdecktes Judenthum cover.JPG

The image File:Eisenmenger Entdecktes Judenthum cover.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Material on Talmuds view of non-Jews?

Mash358: I see you've removed this material twice. What is your concern about the material? There is quite a bit of well-sourced material on the alleged discriminatory passages in the Talmud. Do you think it should be in its own article? Or a section in this article? Or do you think it is not related to the Talmud? --Noleander (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Betrothal by Intercourse

I have read on an Islamic website a defense of Islamic marriages that occur before the attainment of puberty. They justified themselves by pointing to the Talmud. According to these websites, Betrothal by Intercourse of a girl as young as three is listed in the Talmud. Are there any better sources for this? I do not see it mentioned here. Is it possible that there was a mistranslation or misrepresentation? I would hope to find a more impartial source before adding anything to this article.

Anymouse1 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such criticism of the Talmud, except for the allegations of child molestation that are already described in the Child Molestation section of this article. If you want to add new material, be sure to get reliable sources that conform to the WP:Reliable sources policy. Web sites that are antisemitic are generally not satisfactory as sources. Better is a scholarly book that is published by a reputable publisher. If you cannot find such a reliable source, that is a good indication that the material on the web site was fabricated. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

linking category antisemitic canards to this article

Note: there is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Talk:Criticism of the Talmud regarding this issue

because you can't just put an equality sign between "criticism of this book" and "antisemitic canard", that's pov pushing. Applying the same logic, we should normally place the category Category:Anti-Islam sentiment in this article. But it's not placed there, so it shouldn't be here as well. Nor any other religion be linked with such categories, criticism is criticism. Userpd (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories are added to articles that relate to or discuss a topic. Some criticisms of the Talmud have simply been antisemitic canards, not criticism; therefore the inclusion is appropriate. Inclusion in the category does not in any way imply that there is an "equality sign" between the two. The Talmud doesn't discuss Islam (it was redacted before Islam began), so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It does imply, according to the definition of anti-semitism. By your logic, the same should be done to the aforementioned article, or are you going to come up with something new here? Userpd (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't just assert your position, make an argument. What point are you trying to make about Islam? The Talmud doesn't discuss Islam (it was redacted before Islam began), so I'm not sure why you bring that up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So say that if only in this article is being discussed something, then that something can be included as category to this article. The same can't be applied to other articles (well, or of similar system), is this what you're implying? Userpd (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. This Talmud was written before Islam began. It doesn't mention anything about Islam. What connection are you trying to make between the two? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this clarifies anything, but when Userpd wrote the words "in this article" he pipe-linked them to Criticism of Islam, so I guess he was talking about that article not this one. It's an especially bad and confusing use of a piped link, but I suppose that's what he was referring to. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I still don't understand the relevance. Can you explain it, if you do? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's true you honestly can't get what I'm saying, then no problem I will try to clarify. I'm making a comparison between two things of the same system (religion). Something that can be applied here, should be applied there as well, be treated equally. Userpd (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese explained it. I don't know what's in that other article, have no idea if it is actually analogous to this one, and don't care. Please focus on this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest moving information about criticism of Talmud being anti-semitic, to an appropriate article and leaving a link here (like more information is there), but linking a category like this to this article is against neutrality. Userpd (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Userpd—I don't think there is a clear designation of material found in this article as being of the "antisemitic canard" variety and of the "non-antisemitic canard" variety. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that a number of allegations made against the Talmud are simply not true, or based on deliberate misreading, I think applying that category is entirely appropriate. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make them antisemitic.Griswaldo (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Both topic areas are vast. It is not unheard of for the general area of "Antisemitic canards" to draw on the general area of "Criticism of the Talmud" for material. The placing of this article, "Criticism of the Talmud", into the category of "Antisemitic canards" does not "put an equality sign between" the two. Such placement provides the reader with a link that can be sometimes useful. Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal of Title change

Having read the article, a more suitable title would be "Justifications for the Criticisms of the Talmud". This is because not one criticism goes without a justification, which distorts an article which seeks to highlight Criticisms of the Talmud. The article in an essay like fashion, mentions a criticism, then justifies it. Its not even sure whether this article is of any encyclopedic value. Discuss please. Thanks --94.195.194.144 (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting article vandalism

The entire large detailed and well referenced article Criticism of the Talmud was deleted and redirected by editor "Steven J. Anderson" for no reason other than what appears to be the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on a previous editor's personality; this type of vandalism is not acceptable and certainly not reasonable or rational. The "redirect" took one to the Talmud page where none of the many detailed critiques are held, effective deleting the entire article Criticism of the Talmud for no valid reason.

The purpose of the article Criticism of the Talmud is because it's a very large subject with very many critics and cannot be squeezed into the Talmud page as some minor blip of a subheading. This is also why there is a separate detailed Criticism of the Bible article, and also a separate detailed Criticism of the Qur'an article. I have reverted it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.marshall3 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 9 September 2011

You're new here and you don't know what vandalism is. To find out, please review WP:VANDAL. In short, no edit undertaken in good faith by an editor who is trying to improve the encyclopedia can be called vandalism. Calling edits vandalism that plainly aren't is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Both of these links are to Wikipedia policies, which means they're not just suggestions, they have to be followed. I suggest you think twice before violating this many policies before you have five edits.

As to the reason I reverted. I hate to have to keep beating up on Noleander, but there was an extensive arbitration request during which it was established that Noleander had seriously, persistently, prodigiously misused sources, characterizing them as saying things that they do not say. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that he made extensive use of print sources, mostly sources that individual Wikipedians do not have in their personal libraries. It took considerable detective work by a number of Wikipedians to track down these books, find the relevant quotations, quote from them on project pages and show how they had been misused. The results of the investigation were that Noleander's use of sources where Judaism is concerned simply cannot be taken on trust. It is not fair to those editors who are interested in building a verifiable, properly sourced encyclopedia to have to track down individually, each and every one of Noleander's sources to establish whether they have been misused or not, leaving questionable material in the article until that's been done. This article, as it existed before I made it a redirect, was almost completely Noleander's work and was sourced almost exclusively to print sources that Noleander put there. That simply doesn't fly. My reversion to a redirect met with consensus from all established Wikipedia editors, as evidenced by the fact that it remained until a few days ago when two brand new accounts, both making their first edits to articles, reverted. Both accounts, HT.42 and T.marshall3, have demonstrated a clear lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's editing policies. These criticisms of Noleander, the IP and T.marshall3 are not ad hominems, but clearly relevant facts to editing of this article. For all these reasons. I'm reverting back to a redirect.

To T.marshall3 and HT.43: If you're interested in rebuilding this article from scratch yourself, instead of restoring Noleander's discredited research, you're welcome to take a shot at it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If the redirect is reverted back to being the old, dubious article again, without consensus on this page, I'll protect it against editing and seriously consider blocking the editor who does it, for edit-warring. --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)