Talk:Tumah and taharah

Title

This is a much needed article. However, I propose moving it to Tum'ah. If there's no objection, I'll do the move in a few days. --Eliyak T·C 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I got redirected here from "ritual impurity" but religions other than Judaism also have concepts of ritual impurity, e.g. menstrual taboos. I think you were a bit over zealous in this redirect.Jsonitsac 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jsonitsac. I was looking for something on ritual impurity as a basis for clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church when I wound up here. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

IT'S NAT A TUMAH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.230.207 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the benefit of foreign language here??

Another article where it isn't immediately obvious why it doesn't follow en.Wikipedia naming convention. The Hebrew terms tumah/tame and taharah/tahor refer to ritual "cleanliness and uncleanliness", and are perfectly as understandable in English (or French, Spanish etc) so why not just have an article ritual purity (Judaism)? Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Google Book hits:

• tumah alone gets 13,300
• unclean + Israel gets 121,000
• tumah + Leviticus 2,790
• unclean + Leviticus 39,100
• tumah + Judaism 3,300
• unclean + Judaism 31,100

could go on but illustrates the point, this article fails WP:EN+WP:IRS and needs to be moved to something in English. But what? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Per Ritual washing in Judaism, suggest Ritual purity in Judaism. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be the best name in English. Debresser (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Debresser. And already on the public-facing side of the relevant template. There's a problem with Google Book hits, the long tail. But a tighter result from Google Scholar.

Google Scholar "ritual purity" + Judaism OR Israel 4,090 compared to picking up "tumah" at 703. "Taharah" misleads as it mainly means "Sunni Islamic purity code (taharah)" In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus^(talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

---

tumah and taharah → Ritual purity in Judaism - for three reasons: (i)Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English), (ii) WP:IRS per Google Scholar] hits etc., (iii) disambiguation from same term taharah in Arabic. NB: Requested move for taharah to Ritual purity in Islam proposed separately, on similar 3 reasons, but to be weighed on own merits. Also (iv) consistency with Ritual washing in Judaism article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, as I stated above. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see a favorable connection between the term ritual and the contents of this article. That term connotes limited, cult-like types of action, whereas the laws of Tumah and Taharah in Judaism are intended for nation-wide use by all children of Israel -old and young, male and female.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NB taharah now redirects to ritual purity in Islam. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is appropriately named now–including as it does the correct applicable terms for uncleanliness and cleanliness. These are related though opposite concepts. I feel that the term "ritual" detracts from the the concepts in the terms "tumah" and "taharah". Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

So what *is* the preferred English?

Following the lack of consensus, partly due to objections to the word "ritual" - despite the fact that "ritual" is used for other Wikipedia articles on "ritual" cleanness/uncleanness or purity in Ancient Near East religions / Judaism / Christianity / Islam / etc. - we are still left with an article which thinks it is wiktionary, giving a lot of Hebrew terms for texts which use "make clean" "be clean" "cleanness" etc. without doing much more than restate the English with random sowing of foreign language terminology counter WP:EN and WP:RS/WP:PSTS. This in largely badly written (with all respect to non-native speaker participation in en.wikipedia) and obscure sentences. And despite the Hebrew dictionary approach of the article some of the texts cited are actually in Aramaic, which is a related but different set of foreign language terms anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Under purification

Hey everyone! I'm a student at Miami University and I thought that this would fit well under purification:

In an academic article by Christine Hayes, she argues that ritual impurity is the reason for the Gentile expulsion and alienation that occurs in Ezra-Nehemiah. <ref>Hayes, C. (1999). Intermarriage and impurity in ancient Jewish sources. Harvard Theological Review, 92(01), 11.</ref> However, in another academic article, Olyan presents the argument that Ezra/Nehemiah's attempt of the restoration of Israel to it's original state was expressed through the expulsion and alienation of foreign peoples that was caused by both ritual and moral impurities.. The Judean people believed that Israel contained the holy seed, and through contamination of the holy seed (with unholy seed) the bloodline would be polluted. Olyan argues that there were different actions that were categorized by the Judean people as ritual impurity and moral impurity. Moral impurity can simply be removed, as in physical removal or separation between groups. This is originally what caused the expulsion of the Gentile people. They simply needed to be removed from the Judean environment and then the environment would be considered pure once again. However, ritual impurity is much more serious. Olyan argues that ritual impurity infects and pollutes covenants, thus a religious ritual must be performed to rid the infection from the people group. In Ezra and Nehemiah, an argument is shaped through both moral and ritual impurity that leads to the expulsion and alienation of the Gentiles. <ref>Olyan, S. M. (2004). Purity ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a tool to reconstitute the community. Journal for the Study of Judaism, 35(1), 1-16.</ref> Grahamcrackered (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Grahamcrackered, this could be a good place to discuss their work. But aren't you mistaken about Hayes? And why is this placed under the heading, Causes of impurity, which seems quite unrelated? If you shift to moral impurity, would make sense to mention Klawans, too. Your paraphrase is currently framed to emphasis Ezra-Nehemiah (e.g., look at the stress position of sentences and the paragraph). For this article, you could reframe the same content but emphasize their points about purity/impurity, probably best to use E-N as an example or as evidence for their view of purity. Be sure to add the course banner at the top of this Talk page. ProfGray (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed this section. First of all, because we should not go too deeply into the arguments of academics bickering about their theories. Secondly, because WTF, "contamination of the holy seed", "rid the infection from the people"?! Where do these ideas come from? Debresser (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Debresser. As you can see above, I was also concerned about that section. However, I'd ask you to please explain your objections. On your first point: What Wikipedia principle or policy states that articles should not delve too deeply into academic theories? This strikes me as incorrect, especially when the theories are found in reliable sources (and, in this case, quite notable in the academic literature). Second, what Wikipedia guidance suggests that as an editor you should reject scholarship because you Don't Like It? I think it's fine to bring in reliable sources that differ with Olyan, but isn't your personal WTF rather irrelevant for deciding what goes into the encyclopedia? Thanks for your response, I think this will help students learn more about collaborative editing on Wikipedia. ProfGray (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ProfGray. Regarding my first point, please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

My second point is more based on the inherent assumption that theories that sound far-fetched should not receive prominence. This would be related to and inspired by WP:UNDUE. Olyan's theory, in the way it is brought here, including ascribing what I would perceive as expressions of extreme xenophobia to the ancient Israelites, triggers such a suspicion.

I don't think you can disagree with my first point, which make the discussion of my second point redundant. Nevertheless, to help you achieve one of your stated goals, learn about collaborative editing, I would like to make one suggestion, that could help solve two problems. If you'd use another academic source, describing Olyan's theory, then possibly 1. that fact alone could prove the notability of his theory, and 2. the language would likely be less extreme. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. While I appreciate your citing WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, Debresser, that policy is about genre -- i.e., Wikipedia should read like an encyclopedia, not a textbook, so no problem sets or Q&A style, etc. But that policy says nothing about content and nothing against going in-depth with scholarly argumentation. Indeed, there are many Wikipedia articles about scholarly theories and many that contain both general info and scholarship.

I greatly appreciate your suggesting a compromise or way for you to feel more comfortable with Olyan. Let me respond hopefully in the same spirit. 1. Klawans and Hayes are two other scholars who have addressed the impurity discourse of Ezra-Nehemiah; their work is highly regarded. We've read several others as well... Olyan is not the most radical in his findings or language. 2. Olyan himself is a leading Biblical scholar in the U.S., holding a distinguished chair at an Ivy League school, with peer-reviewed books by the very top academic publishers. The article cited by Grahamcrackered is published in a top tier academic journal JSJ (Brill in Leiden, fyi). 3. Olyan did not use the word "infect," but Olyan does say intermarriages "defile" and "pollute" so I think Grahamcrackered's paraphrase is understandable. 4. I'd be glad to email you copies of Olyan article or other scholars on E-N impurity. Meanwhile, it's be helpful if you would restore Grahamcrackered's paragraph and propose specific revisions within it. It's fine to add balance or context with other scholars, but that's not a reason to delete Olyan's notable position, based as it is on topnotch scholarship. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to disagree with you on almost everything you say.

1. From the general context of WP:NOT it is clear that WP:NOTTEXTBOOK most certainly concerns the question of what kind of content is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, and not the question of what style to write articles on Wikipedia in.
2. According to WP:CONSENSUS and more specifically WP:BRD, it would be incorrect to restore this paragraph while its content is under discussion. Rather, as soon as there is consensus regarding how the paragraph should read, that rewritten paragraph can be added.
3. On a general note, please consider that the scholarly contributions in the field of, let's say, the shoe-size of Napoleon may be very notable for those who study shoe-size in French history, but the notability guidelines of Wikipedia concern notability for the general public.
4. You misunderstood my request for other scholars. I did not mean to ask for the opinions of other scholars who discuss the same subject as Olyan. I meant to ask for other scholars who discuss Olyan's findings and conclusions. They, likely, would use more moderate and balanced expressions.
5. In general, we should be careful not to represent the most extreme of theories as standard. This is part of WP:UNDUE. If two other scholars have more moderate theories, and they are just as notable, then it would be a misrepresentation of the subject to bring here only Olyan's more extreme opinion. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this field, and therefore can not assess in how far Olyan's opinions are mainstream , but this is something that should be considered when asking ourselves, which opinions to include in a Wikipedia article. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Olyan's view is mainstream, not extreme, Debresser. He is a distinguished scholar, published by the top academic presses, and he is commenting on Klawans, whose book won awards by the American Academy for Jewish Research and the American Academy of Religion, and on Hayes, a distinguished scholar at Yale, who book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award. If you want to cite Biblical scholars with comparable records and different views, that'd be terrific.

• Furthermore, Olyan's 2004 article already has 23 academic citations, which is excellent. See this G-Scholar search
• Your #2 is misdirected, I'm afraid. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." See WP:N
• Maybe we should discuss WP:NOTTEXTBOOK on its Talk page. It says, "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" a textbook. That doesn't limit the discussion of Biblical analysis by academics. It then says, "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." Again, nothing limiting scholarly claims or analysis.

Olyan, Hayes, and Klawans are reliable sources. If you object, please bring this up at WP:RSN and ping me. We can put their words in quotes, if you don't like their terminology. But their research merits inclusion in WP. Please do us the courtesy of actually reading Olyan's article and proposing a revised paraphrase. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Ping to our course ambassador User:SuperHamster and WEF advisor User: Ryan (Wiki Ed), to ensure that my responses here are civil and consistent with WP policies. ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ProfGray, please stop waiving Olyan's credentials in my face, because nobody is contesting them.

Olyan uses rather strong expressions, and I think we should not quote them verbatim. I am not claiming his theories are not mainstream, but his points of view surely can be conveyed in less offending form.

My #2 is not misguided, since it is not based on the notability guidelines, but on WP:BRD, as I stated clearly.

I had another careful look at WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and even though I agree writing an article in textbook style is also a bad idea, I clearly understand from the whole of that paragraph and its context, that it is first of all a content guideline. Please note that the section is called "Encyclopedic content".

I will not do you the courtesy to read any article, per this. You want to add a text, you write it in a way that is acceptable.

Please also review WP:REHASH.

Debresser (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. From what I can tell, you are objecting to a reliable source because you personally find it "extreme," "strong", and "offending" (your terms). Debresser, you don't want the scholar's words quoted verbatim and you don't want the editor's (Grahamcrackered) paraphrase. Is there a Wikipedia policy that requires articles to tone down academic language so as to not offend editors?

(Pardon my mistake: my point about notability was directed to your #3, not #2.)

You are familiar with Wikipedia many guidelines, which is admirable. But kindly be more precise. Ours isn't "tendentious" editing because, contrary to the essay you linked, I'm not asking you to find a source -- we already cited a reliable source for the statement. You don't have to read the reliable source. But if you don't read it, on what reasonable basis can you assert that a paraphrase ("infect") is unacceptable? Especially if you won't accept a direct quote ("defile") from that source? Thanks for discussing your concerns, ProfGray (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not that I am objecting to or disagreeing with Olyan, because I am simply not familiar with him and his theories. I am objecting to a certain text on Wikipedia, which may or may not accurately reflect Olyan's opinions. Based on WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing I suggest to rewrite that text in a way that makes it shorter and along the way less offensive, yes. Texts may be offensive, and they often are, but at the same time the WP:NPOV policy (a policy is more than a guideline) allows, and requests, editors to write in a non-offensive way. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If you don't mind, Debresser, please clarify where NPOV policy asks editors to write in non-offensive ways. I'd like to look at that and think for myself whether it applies. In addition, let's look directly at Olyan's text. Is there anything here that you find offensive?

"Neh 13:28-30, a text from the Nehemiah memoir, bears witness to a second way in which Ezra-Nehemiah associates foreigners with defilement. In this passage, it is priestly intermarriage with aliens that pollutes rather than alien actions.14 The priesthood itself and the priestly and Levitical covenants, implies the text, have been defiled by intermarriage with alien women: “Remember them, my God, on account of the pollution of the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites”.15 The passage goes on to state that Nehemiah puri􏰝ed the priesthood “from all things alien”, though it does not explain how this was accomplished.16 Presumably, purification was secured through the divorce of the priests from their foreign wives and the expulsion of the wives and their children from the sanctuary and community, in the manner narrated elsewhere in Ezra-Nehemiah.17 Such an action would result in the exclusion from the priesthood of all males in the priestly line with any alien ancestry. /new para/ The notion that intermarriage with alien women pollutes the priestly lineage is novel and striking, buttressing the text’s general argument against intermarriage from yet another angle. …" (emphasis added)

In footnotes, he discusses his rather nuanced disagreement with Hayes and Klawans, Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this text here. I have no problem with Olyan's text. It was, as now becomes clear, the way it was summarized, which made it sound a worse than the original. I understand Grahamcrackered is a student of yours? Perhaps he could write a new, improved draft.

Using non-offensive wording is not in WP:NPOV, although using impartial wording is (WP:IMPARTIAL). It is the idea of WP:IMPARTIAL that I had in mind. Also note that I have seen many editors edit in a way that avoids offensive wording, including that other editors changed the wording if they didn't. Also compare Political correctness. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you responsiveness. Yes, Grahamcrackered is a student. In fact, today in class we went over our conversation above. Students thought you and I both sounded too snarky at times (e.g., my italics), and they were a bit innocently put out by your WTF. But I thought the whole exchange was quite civil (compared to much of Wikipedia) and stayed on topic, with each of us trying to rely on WP guidelines. Of course, it'd be difficult for a newbie student to debate with an editor w your experience, so I don't feel guilty stepping in.

Certainly impartiality is crucial and, in principle, I agree that offensiveness should be avoided where not detracting from the meaning. In this case, I was concerned that you were taking offense with the basic point made by Biblical criticism scholars. Still, a main goal for the course is for students to learn to read, talk, and write in a neutral voice. Dank u wel, ProfGray (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of a presence on this talk page, Debresser and ProfGray. I have revised my paragraph so it is not so strongly worded, and furthermore corrected my mistakes on Hayes' and Olyan's argument. Grahamcrackered (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied as well. And I'll take one of the above comments to heart. Now, another point or two. 1. Try using citation templates in the references, like {{Cite journal}}. 2. I think the paragraph is too long and too detailed. I'd cut it off after the second or fourth sentence. 3. I'd try to stress that Olyan and Hayes view the cause and effect in precisely the opposite way (if I understand correctly), e.g. by adding the word "opposite", like "Olyan presents the opposite argument". Debresser (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What's with the transcriptions in the first sentence, "Hebrew: טומאה‬, pronounced [tˤumʔa]) and ṭaharah (Hebrew: טהרה‬) pronounced [tˤaharɔ]"? If this is supposed to be Biblical Hebrew, the vowels are wrong, and if it's supposed to be modern Israeli Hebrew, the consonant [tˤ] is wrong, and if it's supposed to be Ashkenazi pronunciation the vowels in one word are right and in the other are wrong. --Linguistatlunch (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Dunno. Go ahead and fix this. I would go with Modern Hebrew pronunciation - Ashkenazi is too parochial, and Biblical Hebrew is too unfamiliar. Ar2332 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a rule indeed goes with the modern Hebrew pronunciation. In terms related to Torah learning we often add the pronunciation generally used in yeshivot ("yeshives") as well. In general, please have a look at WP:HEBREW. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

notability

There are a LOT of footnotes referring to the Bible as a source. Is using scripture as references for scripture considered a secondary source for Wikipedia purposes? It makes me question the notability of "tumah and taharah" in the first place. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-biblical footnotes also, which are sufficient to establish notability. Ar2332 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@NewkirkPlaza:, I agree with Ar2332 that this topic is resourced adequately. Perhaps the problem as you may see it has more to do with the Hebrew title of this page, whose meaning, in an English encyclopedia, is largely unclear to its English-speaking audience. Here, the article discusses the Jewish legal laws touching "Impurity and Acts of Purification," for which entire treatises have been composed throughout a period spanning some 2,000 years, the most notable of these authors being Yitzhak Alfasi, Maimonides, Joseph Karo, Jacob ben Asher, and a host of other rabbis - both new and old. This topic is no different from having an article on Wikipedia that discusses any particular custom known to Bhuddists, Muslims, Catholics, Taoists, etc., etc. There is a place for all knowledge, so long as it can be shown through verifiable and reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the subject, and the language of the title was not throwing me off; I was just distracted by the outsize proportion of non-secondary references. For example, the references in the sub-sections on Ritual Impurity and Moral Impurity are entirely sourced from the Bible itself. For Wikipedia purposes, you can't start a section with "The Torah, particularly the book of Leviticus, lists various activities..." and then have every item on that list be referenced directly from Leviticus; a book can't be used to refer to itself, as it's a violation of the secondary-source rule. If, after culling those references, there are still enough secondary references that justify this article, then certainly it can stand on its own. To the same point, if enough sources (and, as you point, there are enough out there) refer to the aforementioned "activities," then those should be the sources in the footnotes, not the Torah itself. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If your objection is to the phrasing of a single third-level subsection of the article, I'm not sure why your intended solution is to delete the entire article. Ar2332 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@NewkirkPlaza:, as far as secondary sources are concerned, that presents no problem. All of the authors mentioned by me above have spoken about these very things. It's a matter of finding the time and patience to search them out and to add them here.Davidbena (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena:, that would be excellent, and yet 15 months later it still hasn't happened. The burden is on the contributors to provide secondary sources, not on random readers, is it not? And @Ar2332:, I never said anything about deleting the article; I'm saying that the reference list is embarrassingly self-referential and makes the subject appear to be not notable for Wikipedia purposes. At least 35 references out of 58 refer directly to the Tanakh or the Talmud, so this isn't about "the phrasing of a single third-level subsection." Either this subject can stand on its own or not, and right now a casual reader will assume that the subject stands 40% on its own. NewkirkPlaza (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting. Saying "there are sources" and then taking 21 months to provide said sources is basically asking people to edit out the poorly-sourced information. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES NewkirkPlaza (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

English: Jewish purity laws

I read the above: a whole lot of Talmudic hot air, i.e.: BS. Everyone in his right mind uses the English terms when communicating in English, and they are perfectly good. Idiotic exceptionalism and hair-splitting pushed to such limits would mean that nothing can be translated till the Messiah brings us back to a pre-Tower of Babylon state. Encyclopaedias were the tool of Enlightenment; this here takes us to pre-Enlightenment, defeating the purpose. Yeshiveh Heblish is not English. There's enough room for a special Wikipedia for that specific jargon, but this here is enWiki.

Constructively: one can add here all the other purity laws, relating to menstruation - or toothbrushing, for all I care. Once an useful "Jewish purity laws" art. is put together, one can split from it - or not - whatever one likes.

The same yeshiveh attitude is reflected in the total lack of inf. on archaeological, related historical, and non-Jewish sources. Intellectual ghetto is what it is. I've now made a start. Haskala all over again. Anyone interested to pick that up? Arminden (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Still nothing worth the Wiki space taken by the article. Honestly (and with a slightly calmer tone than 10 months ago): Is enWiki serving here as an intro course for yeshiva beginners, or as a general-use encyclopedia for English-speakers? Arminden (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, Debresser, ProfGray, NewkirkPlaza, Davidbena, hi.

I am pinging you as the main contributors to this talk-page. The decision of 2011 was a joke, and both opponents to using English for the title have stopped editing, so it's time to reassess.

ProfGray, you've added here on the talk-page some interesting aspects on priests & their foreign wives, which are missing from the article. Would you care to add them? Or maybe someone else?

Much in the art. is unourced. Anyone? Arminden (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We need a "Jewish purity laws" article (for now, Jewish purity laws redirects here!). If there is more to the topic than tumah and taharah (but is there?), then we can use the usual means: merge, or keep this as main article linked to spinoff secondary ones, use red links for notable but missing terms, redirects, etc. This would also avoid the word "ritual", to which some were opposed.

All in all: I wish I could find here first an overview of the concept of purity/impurity in Judaism, with its evolution set in relation to other cultures (hygiene, cultic concepts) - the work of Yonatan Adler would be helpful! It does away with the religious misconceptions about "eternal laws & practices" -, based on archaeological and written sources, AND a short overview of current practices. The yeshiva-speciic love of detail and hair-splitting is not what English Wikipedia needs! Arminden (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Your last paragraph makes a salient point -- that there's much analysis of archaeological and written sources to incorporate into the article, non-Jewish sources, and comparison to other cultures. It could also consider other Jewish cultures or historical periods, e.g., Qumran and the 2nd Temple period. I've added a topic below that lists many potential sources for this article.

You express concern about the level of detail ("hair-splitting" "intro course for yeshiva") and you sound frustrated by that. I hear you, but that isn't a reason to keep adequately sourced content out of Wikipedia. It is a good reason to get the material better organized, both in terms of summary style (WP:Summary) and parent-child article structure. So, let's not delete the detailed content, but rather reorganize it as needed, and as more content (and summaries) are added.

Primary sources can suffice for some of the content in this article, though it'd be better to have supplement those with secondary sources. There are also statements that could be adequately sourced but currently lack a source.

Hebrew name for article? Personally, I like it when Wikipedia is able to acknowledge cultures by using their own terms, to the extent they fit within WP policy. This is done for a many cultures. The (English) Category:Jewish ritual purity law has many article titles from Hebrew rabbinic terms. Given the translation nuances -- e.g., that the terms cover both ritual and moral impurity -- and that tumah/tahara are one of a few fundamental distinctions in rabbinic law, I'd keep the current title. Thanks for pinging me and for your energy for this article. ProfGray (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks.

This is a general-interest online encyclopedia, first and foremost for the wider English-speaking public. Your arguments are perfectly valid in a strictly academic context, but not here i.m.h.o.

"Jewish ritual purity law" is good English, fairly common, and readily comprehensible. It easily covers both ritual and moral (im)purity. That said, it has all the advantages of the Hebrew terms, plus a few more, and none of the downsides. "Tumah and taharah" remains a redirect, and we can add plenty more, like the "tumah/tahara" you used. Should be a slam-dunk conclusion.

That Judaism and Islam topics use for their titles and content an excessive amount of Hebrew rabbinic or Arabic Muslim terms, respectively, is a terrible nuisance in my eyes. Those terms definitely have to be presented with full details (in their own script, with phonetic, semantic and etymological explanations), but not in stead of the English terms where they do exist, and not primarily. Translation is an art, and it must be mastered. Babylon isn't the solution, even if we call it multiculturalism. This is fundamentally an ideological issue. Wiki is here primarily to help, only secondarily to educate, and we might not agree on what education should try to achieve as a first goal. Few people have the interest, time and patience to go into academic-level study on Wiki, including foreign-language terminology, but most of those clicking on a link would like to find a good, concise and educated definition in their own language. Voila, here is my main point.

Aso, given the vast expanse of Wiki interests, the user might very well land here from a page on archaeology or comparative religion, and want to know more about the history, evolution and meaning of Jewish purity laws and practice, rather than about the Rabbinic interpretations which are part of accepted law (halakha) today. Judaism topics tend to be written by practitioners of Jewish religion, who come from a yeshiva background, and hardly even touch on such essential topics, which don't seem to be at all part of their concern. It's a strictly inward-looking, closed-universe approach and a terribly inadequate one for a general-interest online encyclopedia. The very concept of encyclopedia is by definition one of openness and universalism, and terminology must reflect that.

That was my pericope for today (and every day, really). I apologise for my verbosity, but even so it never seems to suffice. Arminden (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Where did you get the notion that Wikipedia is a "general-interest" encyclopedia?

The first core principle of WP is "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." See: WP:5P. It's easy to browse WP and see numerous specialized articles that go far beyond a general-interest publication. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello ProfGray. With all due respect: my first source is reality. Ask around.

Second, yes, specialised topics that don't interest anyone but specialists will get specialised treatment. Certainly not the case here. But even in those cases, I'd argue that an easisly understandable intro defining the topic in a way most can comprehend is more than recommendable.

If you prefer quotations from accessible sources, here is one from the website of Loyola Marymount University's library, "recognized by the Princeton Review as one of the top college libraries for 2025":

Quote

"The core aim of the Wikimedia Foundation is to get a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet ... We are really interested in all the issues of the digital divide, poverty worldwide, empowering people everywhere to have the information that they need to make good decisions." - Jimmy Wales.

Wikipedia: A Tertiary Source

Tertiary Sources

A tertiary source is one that synthesizes content from primary and secondary sources to provide an overview of a topic. Generally, tertiary resources package information in an easy-to-understand or convienient format. Examples of tertiary sources include:

• encyclopedias
• almanacs
• textbooks
• bibliographies
• chronologies

Tertiary sources are not usually accepted as appropriate sources for college level work. However, these types of sources are an excellent starting point for research or if one needs a quick and general overview of a topic.

Ref: "About Wikipedia", William H. Hannon Library, last updated: Jul 10, 2024.

I've done the highlighting. Anyway, it's basically futile, as no one has ever contradicted me on the notion that Wiki is the most egalitarian, open-to-everyone encyclopedia, which obliges editors to try to stay as far from any ivory tower as they possibly can. And communicating in an easily comprehensible language is by necessity the first step. This in no way means dumbing down and reducing one's vocabulary; quite the opposite. But using the language at hand is a requirement.

I wish you a nice day, Arminden (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Back to earth: I have landed here while editing archaeological sites in Israel & the Palestinian territories, which often are of wide public interest and where ancient ritual baths and stone vessels are the prime markers for a Jewish settlement, on top of being a constant presence and attraction at major archaeological parks and in museums. I tried linking to what every popular science article as well as academic archaeology paper only calls Jewish purity laws, and boom! there it comes: yeshiveh Heblish at its best, "Tumah and taharah". I'm as willing to learn foreign-language terms as the next person, but please, English comes first on English Wiki! That goes in every direction - Hebrew must come first on Hebrew Wiki, and not just to please late Mr E. Ben Yehuda down in Shaol, and so on with EVERY language. Salvatore from "The Name of the Rose" is an incredible creation by Eco, but not an example to follow, nor is any other type of Ghettospeak or academic Babylonian. Respect for language & language hygiene starts at learning as many languages as one can - and keeping them apart. And I'm saying it as a multilingual person with a high personal involvement in these matters. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Objective Sourcing

Recently @Asken3473 made a change to delete a reference to the talmud, which was supporting a claim about what the rabbis decreed. The edit summary was "no objective source"

Even if secondary is preferred, there is no bar on using primary sources especially for verifiability. In an article that discusses religious doctrine, citing the text seems particularly appropriate. Furthermore, saying no objective source suggests that there is literally nothing discussing this that a search of online scholarship would reveal. Perhaps that will turn out to be the case, but the edit summary doesn't say that.

I'm not accustomed to editing in this space (or this article) so I've reverted but wanted to bring it to the talk page as part of WP:BRD Oblivy (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oblivy, thank you for being rational - and civil. This ad-hoc account (Asken, 1 [one] edit) looks like a farce or intentional nuisance, as does its edit summary. Keep up the good work. Arminden (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Academic sources for this article

There are plenty of academic and tertiary sources that could be used to verify and expand this article. Here are some academic sources:

• Balberg, Mira. Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature. Univ of California Press, 2014.

• Baumgarten, Joseph M. 1994. “Zab Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (2): 273–78.

• Goldstein, Elizabeth W. Impurity and gender in the Hebrew Bible. Lexington books, 2015.

• Kazen, Thomas. Issues of impurity in early Judaism. Vol. 4. BoD-Books on Demand, 2021.

• Kazen, Thomas. Jesus and purity Halakhah: was Jesus indifferent to impurity?. Vol. 2. BoD-Books on Demand, 2021.

• Libson, Ayelet Hoffmann. "In the Shadow of Doubt: Expertise, Knowledge, and Systematization in Rabbinic Purity Laws." AJS review 44, no. 1 (2020): 99-118.

• Maccoby, Hyam. Ritual and morality: the ritual purity system and its place in Judaism. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

• Miller, Stuart S. At the intersection of texts and material finds: Stepped pools, stone vessels, and ritual purity among the Jews of Roman Galilee. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019.

• Neusner, Jacob, ed. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, (22 vols.), Brill. ISBN: 9789999996877 -- N.B. Currently under "Further Reading"

• Neusner, Jacob. "Tractate Tohorot." In The Halakhah, Volume 1 Part 5, pp. 195-251. Brill, 2000.

• Neusner, Jacob. "The Integrity Of The Rabbinic Law Of Purity (Mishnah Teharot)." In A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne, pp. 159-172. Brill, 2009.

• Neusner, Jacob. "History and Purity in First-Century Judaism." In The Halakhah: Historical and Religious Perspectives, pp. 158-175. Brill, 2002.

• Neusner, Jacob. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism: The Haskell Lectures, 1972-1973. With a Critique and a Commentary by M. Douglas. Vol. 1. Brill, 2023.

• Werrett, Ian C. Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 72. Brill, 2007.

• Adler, Yonatan. "Jewish Ritual Immersion in the Longue Durée." 'Atiqot/עתיקות (2023): 159-182.‎

• Feder, Yitzhaq. Purity and pollution in the Hebrew Bible: from embodied experience to moral metaphor. Cambridge University Press, 2021.

• Poirier, John C. "Purity beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era." Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 2 (2003): 247-265.

• Prouser, Joseph H. "Gufei Halachot: On" Body Worlds" and the Public Display of Human Remains." G'vanim 6, no. 1 (2010).

• Secunda, Shai. The Talmud's red fence: menstrual impurity and difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian context. Oxford University Press, USA, 2020.

• Harper, G Geoffrey. 2022. “Endangered or Dangerous?: YHWH’s Presence and Impurity in Levitical Perspective.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (4): 480–94.

• Oppenheimer, Aharon. "Tithes and Ritual Purity." In The ‘Am Ha-aretz, pp. 23-66. Brill, 1977.

• Brody, Abraham A. "On the ideas of “unclean” and “holy”." Ethnos 21, no. 1-2 (1956): 33-35.

• Magness, Jodi. Stone and dung, oil and spit: Jewish daily life in the time of Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2011.

• Regev, Eyal. "Pure individualism: The idea of non-priestly purity in ancient Judaism." Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 31, no. 2 (2000): 176-202.

Let me know if you are seeking a copy of a particular article. ProfGray (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That's great, Professor, thanks for offering us the bibliography for the next seminary paper. It's just a shame that's not how Wikipedia works :)

Nobody here will read all that, nobody will ask for articles (my best guess). When edits are made, they must pe based right away on a reference. Once it's all written, retroengineering it, i.e. finding a source for each statement that accurately supports it and adding it with all required detail retroactively, is something I'd only wish on Putin & Co. Arminden (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)