Talk:Isaac Chelo

Translated from Hebrew wikipedia --Midrashah (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What is actually known about Chelo?

As far as I can tell, most of the biographical details regarding Chelo derive from the narrative in Carmoly's book. Since the Itinerary in there is now considered a forgery, it is unclear which of the biographical details can be trusted. We shouldn't just copy things from sources that are unaware of the suspicions.

I was not able to find a source that defends Carmoly against the forgery charge. There are of course many sources that just cite the Itinerary in the belief that it is true, but they don't really count in the debate. What we need, and should cite if it exists, is a source that acknowledges the charge of forgery but argues that it is unfounded. Zero^talk 13:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another issue: Shapira says he was from Larissa in Thessaly, but Carmoly says Laresa in Aragon (is there such a place?). Probably Scholem's long article solves these puzzles, but I don't have access to it. Zero^talk 14:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any other mention of a "Laresa" in Aragon. I even consulted the Diccionario geográfico-estadístico-historico de España y sus posesiones de ultramar, by Pascual Madoz, an amazing catalogue of historical place names in Spain that has over 10,000 pages of fine type. The only possibility is that it is a variant/mis-spelling of Larrosa. Can anyone else find something on "Laresa"? Zero^talk 11:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Scholem judges Laresa to be an erroneous form of Lerida, which was indeed in Aragon. Zero^talk 04:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ehrlich

To editor פלטיהו: Is there a copy of Ehrlich's work available online? What you inserted does not agree with what Ehrlich later wrote in this article. Here Ehrlich agrees with Scholem's dismissal of the Kabbalistic content and only supports the geographic content. That is different from what you wrote. Zero^talk 06:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

My bad, you're right, Ehrlich in the original paper only refuted one historical point made by Scholem, and not the Kabbalistic information, which he chose not to discuss. Most of the original paper was dedicated to refuting Michael Ish-Shalom regarding the historical and geographical information included in the work. Ehrlich's older paper isn't available online as far as I'm aware. I have a scanned copy of it. פלטיהו (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)