Talk:Mishnah Berurah

Name

WP:COMMONNAME says to prefer the most commonly used name. Mishnah Berurah returns 56,400 entries; Mishnah Verurah returns 2,850. Furthermore, the article used the Bet for nearly ten years; changes should not be made hastily. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. WTF is going on here? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, vehemently.

"Mishna(h) B(e)rura(h)" is easily the more common spelling in English, and the more common pronunciation in Hebrew. In addition to Google search results, check the English titles of several translated editions of the Mishna Berura, as well as the preferred transcription of the Library of Congress, etc.

I wasn't aware that any source uses the grammatically correct pronunciation.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr. HaSirpad is correct. It is funny that the Litvishe world, claiming to be better versed in Hewbrew grammar than the Chassidim, should call the name of their main posek in a grammatically incorrect way "Mishnah Brurah". However, this article must be renamed without further ado. Debresser (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

They are better than Hasidim in everything except fantasy creations, party throwing and costumes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say, the opposite is closer to the truth. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Other examples:

תורה תמימה = Torah Temimah not *Torah Semimah; תקפו כהן = Takfo Kohen not *Tekafo Chohen; ערוך השלחן = Aruch Hashulchan not *Aroch Hashulchan, even במדבר = Bamidbar not *Bemidbar; and so on. All are incorrect but the almost exclusively used common names. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the name must be reverted. However: I'm not even sure that "V" is grammatically necessary here. If the two-word phrase were in miqra and the first word had a conjunctive ta'am, the second word would need to start with a "V". If the first word had a disjunctive ta'am, the second word would need to start with a "B". In any other context I suspect that "B" is at least equally correct to "V". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Combinations like Misheh Torah, Mishna Brura etc. are conjunctively connected, even without ta'amim, and the "V" is grammatically correct. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Without ta'amim, you're probably right, but in a two-word verse with ta'amim, the first word would receive a tipcha and the first letter of the second word would receive a dagesh. It must also be noted that many transliterations (such as the one used by the Jewish Encyclopedia), use "b" for the bet rafeh as well (for example, chaber instead of chaver). -- -- -- 10:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

With ta'amim two-word combinations in a verse are usually connected with a ta'am mechaber (a connecting ta'am), and there would be no dagesh at the beginning of the second word. Also, we can not be held responsible for incorrect transliterations (as of the Jewish Encyclopedia you mentioned), and should not use them, unless they would be common spelling. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding ta'amim, the title of an article is not a "two-word combinations in a verse" but a "two-worded verse", in which case, the first word automatically receives a tipcha, regardless of context. See for example Shulchan Aruch Harav 494:8 [1] regarding the ta'am elyon in the 10 Commandments. Of course, all this has no relevance regarding Wikipedia naming conventions. So long, -- -- -- 22:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. The source you bring is regarding a two-worded verse, and I obviously agree. The question is if a title would be a two-worded verse. Based on pratical usage (Mishnah Brurah, Lekutei Torah, and not Mishna Vruruah and Lekutei Sorah), I'd say you're probably right. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser I'm not sure why this conversation is necessary. shouldn't the title be what the book is called by the public not what the grammatically correct way should be. 2600:1700:9128:6510:30A1:F8A4:C10B:6AC2 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We were discussion the theoretical merits of the proposal. Debresser (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Source for title

Would it be possible to add the exact verse referenced as the origin of the title Maslen (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, am not aware of any such reference. I think whoever put in that paragraph might have confused Mishnah Berurah with Mishneh Torah. I think that paragraph should be removed, or at least tagged with citation needed and/or dubious. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. -- -- -- 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a reference to the name באר היטב. Properly fixing this would require explaining באר היטב as well. Ar2332 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. But that (explaining באר היטב) wouldn't belong on this page. -- -- -- 00:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple authors / posthumuous authorship?

I've heard individuals mention that portions of the Mishna Berura may have been written or edited posthumously, but haven't seen any sources for this. If anyone knows any additional information, could that be added to the article? Maslen (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible since I think all 6 volumes were published by the Chofetz Chaim himself during his lifetime, although I may be mistaken. However, I do remember hearing or reading somewhere that the Chofetz Chaim's son writes somewhere that his father enlisted his help in preparing the Mishnah Berurah, and that he is the one who actually wrote several simanim of the Mishnah Berurah, on his father's behalf, using his father's methods. This, as you pointed out, should be added to the article, if someone can find an exact source to cite. -- -- -- 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)