Talk:Yadua the Babylonian

Palestinian and other issues with Chesdovi's edits

Chesdovi is propagandising the term "Palestinian" here again. Calling the word "rabbi" a "Palestinian honorific". It is a Jewish honorific, used throughout the ages and in all places. Agreed, in comparison with the term "rav", when used in the Talmud, it denotes rabbis of the "Jerusalem Talmud" rather than the "Babylonian Talmud", but that is irrelevant to the era of the Mishnah. And calling rabbi Meir a "Palestinian rabbi", when the standard phrase, used per long-standing consensus in articles about rabbis is something like "sage of the Land of Israel". Debresser (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert all your contentious edits first and then we can begin to discuss these issues. Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the same can be said about you, I suggest you follow my lead, and take part in the discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi's post at Talk:Palestine regarding this issue:

As an issue has arisen at Yadua the Babylonian, I wish to ask for views appertaining to the usage of “Palestinian honorific” to describe the title “Rabbi” as opposed to “Rav”. We have the following sources:

• “Rav is a Babylonian title, Rabbi a Palestinian title.” The Jewish quarterly review, Volume 31
• “He is, consequently, referred to by the Palestinian title 'Rabbi', as distinct from the title 'Rav' current among the Babylonian scholars” The Talmud with English translation and commentary
• “Although he is designated in this text Rabbi (Palestinian title)” Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part IV: the Eastern Diaspora
• “In the Talmudic era, the term "rab" was used chiefly of Babylonian teachers and "rabbi" of Palestinian teachers” Mercer dictionary of the Bible
• “Rab is Babylonian in distinction from the Palestinian, Rabbi. A higher dignity than Rabbi is intended by the title Rabban” Judaism: in the first centuries of the christian era. The Age of the Tannaim

Is using "Palestinian honorific" at Rabbi Yadun valid? Chesdovi (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said, all this is correct, but not relevant. The distinction between sages who lived in Israel and those who lived in Babylon is not relevant to the Mishnaic era, which was written exclusively in Eretz Israel. The distinction between "rabbi" and "rav" is used to determine the origin of Talmudic sages only. Another major point is that "rabbi" is not a Palestinian honorific, but a Jewish honorific used for sages who lived in Eretz Israel. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, but simply because the source doesn't say anything about Meir or Yadua. I missed that, or I would have removed it myself, since inclusion violates NOR--we can't make that connection ourselves. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The sourced note 4 states: "Even though he bears the title Rabbi (which is Palestinian), his place of origin indicates Babylonian provenance". Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, what removal are you talking about? I don't understand. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that the terms are treated in Honorifics in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second. Rav and Rabbi are not references to locations. You are "Rabbi" if you have the orginal Semicha, which was only given in Israel, and only up to a certain period. Am I wrong?Mzk1 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So I am not a rabbi? :) Debresser (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)