Talk:Palestinian rabbis

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Palestine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

In Jewish sources that Talmud is called "Talmud Yerushalmi", the "Jerusalem Talmud". A quick look at Google shows that this term is about 4 times more in use than the term "Palestinian Talmud". Which is probably also the reason that "Palestinian Talmud" is a redirect to "Jerusalem Talmud" here on Wikipedia. So with all due respect for this term, which is a valid secondary name, it is better to use the term "Jerusalem Talmud" on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide some sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this page is specifically about Palestinian sages, I would have thought that the term is quite apt for use on this specific page. Anyhow, to call it Jerusalem Talmud is a tad misleading. During the period of it compilation, Jews were forbidden from residing in Jerusalem and most were based in the northern towns of Tiberias and Sepphoris from where the "Jerusalem" Talmud emerged. ([1], [2]) Other sages from other towns in Palestine also contributed, bar Jerusalem. So "Palestinian Talmud" seems to be the more encompassing and unambiguous name, particularly on this page. Chesdovi (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name to use for the rabbis and the name to use for the Talmud are different issues and there is no reason to adopt the same solution for both. Debresser is correct that the name Jerusalem Talmud is now more common in English (though by only a small margin in scholarly writing). Chesdovi is correct that the name Palestinian Talmud is more historically accurate. I can live with either. On the matter of the rabbis, though, no better name than the current one has been proposed as far as I know. Zero^talk 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This indeed would have been my reply to Chesdovi's suggestion. That these are two different issues, and in relation to the talmud, the name Jerusalem Talmud is to be preferred, for the reasons mentioned. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually go with accuracy + common, rather than just common, esp. on this page about Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy argument is mentioned in the article without a source. In addition, you actually propose that accuracy - common supersede common. Moreover, the term "Palestinian rabbis" is the best example of an inaccurate term, since none of these rabbis hold Palestinian nationality or are of the Palestinian ethnicity. So you'd better keep quit about inaccuracy. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AI Kook held Palestinian nationality. Chesdovi (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that were to be sourced (not here, spare us, please), then he would be the first real Palestinian rabbi. But all of this is irrelevant to the argument concerning the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 sources about the inaccuracy of the term JT provided here for Debresser's conveinience. If you - common and - common, you are left with accuracy. Chesdovi (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody calls it "Palestinian Talmud" except for anti zionists and people who seem to really like the name "palestine". Jerusalem Talmud is its official name in any language and in Hebrew (which is the language it's written in) the word "palestine" isn't even mentioned there (most Jews referred to "palestine" as "israel" even after the romans changed its name in 132 AD). As Debresser said, "Jerusalem Talmud" has x2 results in Google than "Palestinian Talmud". You want a proof? Go look for it in yourself, ism chism-- Someone35 (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Saul Lieberman and Lawrence Schiffman are two examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Someone35's comment isn't completely true. And it was 4 times on Google. Anyway, I think it is clear that "Jerusalem Talmud" is the better term. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both accurate; with multiple reliable sources to back up both claims. The two are not mutually exclusive!!! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing what to name to use for the actual page on the P/JT. As this page is about Palestinian rabbis, it makes sense on this page to call the Talmud they produced the "Palestinian" one. Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I just wanted to be clear on my reasoning in that there are reliable sources that clearly show that the terms are not mutually exclusive. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree, as do Zero and Someone35 for the very simple reason that Chesdovi's argument is a non-argument. The simple fact of two terms using the same word, in this case "Palestinian", is no reason to use the less known term against Wikipedia's naming rules. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Was that suppose to make sense? Please explain. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that Debresser is revealing his ignorance by calling the "Palestinian Talmud" the "less known term." He also reveals his selective understanding of other peoples comments: Zero clearly said either is acceptable. That makes 1 neutral user, 2 users "for" the term and 1 plus a 14 year old "against". Is this now settled? Chesdovi (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, your comments are full with bad demagogy. I have already shown that "Jerusalem Talmud" is the four times better known term, and the term used by Wikipedia. And I differ with you as to the interpretation of Zero0000's opinion on this issue. Saying that he can "live with either" does not negate that he agrees with my argument. So yes, this is settled: as use "Jerusalem". And please, do not respond further: the issue is settled, remember? Debresser (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about rabbis of

The word Palestine, in use for two millenia, does not historically figure ethnicity, but is toponymic. Nationality is itself ambiguous referring either to where you were born, or the natio (ethnic group into which you were born), the distinction between geopolitical reality and ethnic origin so many confuse. 'Greek Rabbis' like those from Salonica, weren't Greek ethnically. The esteemed Elio Toaff is Italianissimo, but ethnically Jewish. If we we write that he is an Italian Rabbi, no one will be thinking he's 'Italian' rather than 'Jewish'. He's both, the former culturally, linguistically and in terms of political nationality, the latter in terms of ethnic group to which he belongs. To treat the word Palestine here as exceptional is not advisable, and somewhat needlessly politically nervous. If you read the Toaff interview in full, on the one hand he uses 'Italians' to refer to his non-Jewish compatriots, the overwhelming majority, but he also uses the word to refer to himself. It's exemplary.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources (see Wikipedia:Article titles. The term Palestinian Rabbis exists in the literature, but many sources refer to them as the Rabbis of the Land of Israel, which is consistent with their self-identification, and with the Hebrew name of this geographical region (Eretz-Yisra'el). The term "Palestinian" is indeed somewhat overloaded since since today "Palestinian" is not only a name for people from a specific geographical region but also a name of a specific nationality, and most likely an upcoming state. While both names are used in reliable English-language sources, Rabbis of the Land of Israel is more recognizable to readers and less ambiguous, and that would be my choice. Marokwitz (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-religious preference should not override nor override traditional usage. 'Land of Israel' would denote the political reality of Israel to English speakers, and not the historical millenial world which is part and parcel of Western cultural and linguistic hertiage. This is a patent no-goer, and the alternative is far more overloaded with subliminal suggestion than 'Palestine' which doesn't even exist as a state, but is vivid as a word conjuring up the Bible. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This name is used by plenty of reliable sources (check for yourself), and is the standard name on Wikipedia as well (see Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel). If many if not most reliable sources use this name without being accused of subliminal suggestion, I can't see why this would be a "patent no-goer". "Ethno-religious preference" has nothing to do with it, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should follow them. Marokwitz (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The common English name for the region is Palestine, not Land of Israel. Wikipedia articles are based on the common English name of the subject. If you can demonstrate that the common English name for the subject of this article is Rabbis of the Land of Israel then by all means make that case. I find it difficult to believe that this is true, as the sources cited in the article call these rabbis Palestinian rabbis. You are right on one thing, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and should follow them. Here the reliable sources call these rabbis Palestinian rabbis. So to should Wikipedia. nableezy - 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki categories have no bearing, since anyone can slip their POV into them, and provide no guideline. The fact is 'Land of Israel' is Hebraic and Israeli usage. It means something completely different in English. If heard by English ears, it yields up meanings different from those Hebrew-speakers have. It would be taken to mean 'Israel, and would have no no religious connotations at all to native speakers of non-Jewish extraction. We've had this debate over Judea and Samaria. The result was to privilege, in line with the protocols, standard English over partisan and parochial and POV-loaded terms (POV because Land of Israel, and you can google up any number of sources on this, is a term with very specific political connotations in contemporary Israeli cultural, and religious-nationalist debates). Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Palestinian rabbis" also yields up meanings different from those intended, both to English speakers, to Hebrew speakers and to any non-Arabic speaker - namely it would widely be perceived to mean

Palestinian-arab

rabbis. To avoid such a misconception we must use a more informative and less loaded name.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but thinking that perhaps the real intention behind the suggestion of using the ambiguous and loaded term "Palestinian rabbis" might be completely different – namely, to strengthen the affinity of the

Jewish settlement to this region. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Come again!!!!!. You write:

Good god. That made my day. Well, off to bed, with a cuppa and a book of the usual good prose.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Rabbis in Palestine"? Palestine (not Israel) is the name of the geographic location, and is the geographic name used in the sources cited in the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's state the obvious. The 'Land of Israel' is a theological term referring to an entity whose geographical dimensions have never been exactly established by rabbinical law. In one reading of the phrase, it could mean Rabbis born in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, as well as Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, many of the rabbis included in this article were not natives of Palestine. Rather, the article scope is rabbis who worked in Palestine. Many of them had emigrated to Palestine from places like Spain and Babylonia (and some were exiled from Palestine to places like Spain, Egypt, and Syria). --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general note, the two editors most qualified to comment on this Reqmove – by which I mean User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser – probably won't be able to sooner than Saturday night in their respective time zones. For my part, I would support User:Orlady's proposal, which gracefully avoids the ambiguity of the word Palestinian – although Rabbis of Palestine strikes me as a better and more consistent formula than Rabbis in Palestine.—Biosketch (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a belated Shana Tova to all.

Fair enough. But I am rather obsessed by the idea of encyclopedic consistency. If Rabbis of Palestine, then Rabbis of Iraq, 'Rabbis of France, Rabbis of Germany, 'Rabbis of Poland. Since the objection to 'Palestine' rests on the ambiguity between political nationality and ethnic nationality which all 'nations' have, we should not make an exception of Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in article titles may not be much of an issue here, due to the absence of other articles like this one. The Category:Rabbis by country series does use the "French rabbis" format for category naming, but there don't seem to be many (if any) other articles about the rabbis of a particular nation. Additionally, those categories focus on the nationality of the rabbi, which doesn't necessarily apply to this article (see my comment above). --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look further at these categories Category:Polish rabbis, Category:Danish rabbis, Category:Dutch rabbis, Category:French rabbis, Category:Egyptian rabbis, Category:Syrian rabbis, Category:Iranian rabbis, Category:Iraqi rabbis, Category:Lebanese rabbis. There are several dozen and they all exhibit a uniform adherence to Cat-nationality-rabbi. Any issue one raises is best resolved by reference to general principles, since the end goal of any book, encyclopedia is a uniformity of taxonomy, not arbitrary exceptions to a rule observed throughout in other classifications.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category naming does not necessarily constrain article naming. Anyway, those categories are all used for biographical articles about individual rabbis of a certain nationality. The categories are not collectively about the rabbis or rabbinical tradition of a certain geographic location. I have found only one article page in that category hierarchy that is about all rabbis associated with a particular place, List of Polish rabbis, but it is a list of individuals (not an article about the collective situation). Anyway, the geography-associated "rabbis" categories that are most closely related to the temporal and geographic scope of this particular article use the "Rabbis in" and "Rabbis of" nomenclature; I refer to Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine, Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel, and Category:Rabbis in Safed. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category 'Palestinian rabbis' perfectly conformed to several dozen other templates. It refers to a territory that no English speaker would confound. 'The Land of Israel', to the contrary, in Jewish and rabbinical usage have various meanings and the range of possible ambiguity is considerable. We are being asked to replace a term that is specific, with one that embraces, technically, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, at least, while those who wish the change, I suspect, have no intention whatsoever of collapsing Category:Lebanese rabbis, for example, into the proposed new brand of 'Rabbis of the Land of Israel.'

If you wish to replace 'Palestine' with 'Land of Israel' (and please do not read up the wiki articles on these subjects which are lamentable) then a huge can of worms is opened up, which, to avoid going into great detail by citing the large rabbinical discussions on the concept we are asked to adopt, I'll summarize via a small excerpt from Gudrun Kramer's general overview.

'(Eretz Israel/Land of Israel . . . . The land that according to Jewish tradition Abra(ha)m and his children were promised through a covenant with God, that was later renewed with Moses ad is known in the Jewish tradition as "the borders of the patriarchs" and in the Christian tradition as terra promissionis, appears in the Hebrew Bible in various forms, some of them quite vague, if not outright contradictory. As much as they differ in detail, they include not just the territory of later Palestine, but also Lebanon as well as most of Syria. What the exegetes differ about is whether the Transjordanian lands south of Lake Tiberias ("

Eretz Israel (Land of Israel

). ... The broader conception of the "ideal borders" of Eretz Israel, in which the land east of the Jordan is included as part of the promise, appears to have arisen later, but was eventually to gain wide acceptance. We find it in Genesis 14:18.21, where the borders reach far beyond the land of the Canaanites. . Here we already find the famous "from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates", or even more succinctly, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" which plays such a prominent role in modern disputes over the aims of the Zionists and their alleged expansionist intentions.' Gudrun Krämer, A History of Palestine, Princeton UP 2008, pp.5-6

Does one need to spell out further the complex categorical, linguistic and referential confusions which would emerge were one to adopt this relatively unfamiliar (to modern anglophone ears) calque from Hebrew usage into an English encyclopedia? Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to one move proposal at a time. This is not a discussion of renaming the category hierarchy. The only item under discussion is this article. As I see it (please correct me if I'm wrong) the proposed names (and objections raised against them) are:

• Palestinian people
  , who are not Jewish.
• Palestinian-Jewish rabbis - Suggestion does not seem to have been received as a serious proposal. (Are there any non-Jewish rabbis?!?)
• Rabbis of the Land of Israel - Objections have been raised because of the myriad religio-political implications of "Land of Israel" (in contrast with "Palestine," which is a recognizable geographic name) and because of the potential for "Land of Israel" to be confounded with the modern Israel
  .
• Rabbis in Palestine - Objections raised because of lack of parallelism with the "Cat-nationality-rabbi" naming convention perceived to exist due to the existence of category names such as "French rabbis". Also the preposition "of" is somewhat preferred over "in," particularly as a way to identify people born in a particular country.
• Rabbis of Palestine - Objections raised because of lack of parallelism with the "Cat-nationality-rabbi" naming convention perceived to exist due to the existence of category names such as "French rabbis". Also, the use of a preposition chosen to indicate country of nativity is not appropriate here because this article is not about rabbis born in Palestine, but rather about rabbis who worked there.

Can people discuss these proposals without digressing into unrelated tangents? Please?

For what it's worth, I still like my suggestion of Rabbis in Palestine. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Rabbis of the Yishov in the region of Palestine or Rabbis of the Yishov in Palestine? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... That term wouldn't mean anything to me (that doesn't prove much...), but it might be good if it is applicable to the scope of the article. From this article and Yishuv, it appears that "Yishuv" is a relatively modern term, having come into use in the late 19th century and not necessarily applying to times earlier than perhaps the 17th century. The scope of this "Palestinian rabbis" article goes back more than a millennium before that. --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you to those who noticed that many editors could not contribute to this discussion because of the Jewish new year. The term "Palestinian rabbis" is unlucky. For the reasons mentioned above. That is, the possible confusion with the nationality and the ethnicity. This has been noticed a long time ago already by many editors. As to the argument that the same objection is not being made about other nationalities/ethnicities. First of all, these do not have articles like this one. And secondly, there is a lot less reason for confusion, since the territories occupied by Jews in Israel and Palestinians in the Palestine territories are a matter of hot political argument, which is not the case with almost all other countries.

Even though the term "Palestinian rabbis" is found in English literature, this is in many cases a (bad) translation of "rabbanei Eretz Yisrael", that is: rabbis of the Land of Israel. The same is true btw for Palestinian minhag which is a (bad) translation of "minhag d'Eretz Yisrael". As I have argued before, in this case, where there is reason for confusion and the matter is generally sensitive, my opinion is that for these reasons Wikipedia should use the more correct and neutral term "Land of Israel" even though this is at odds with WP:ENGLISH. I see objections to "Rabbis of/in Palestine", mainly but not exclusively because it still uses the word "Palestine", but still think it much preferable to the present misleading and awkward "Palestinian rabbis". Debresser (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish scholars writing in English are not making 'bad translations' when they write 'Palestinian rabbis'. They defer to standard English usage. What you are implying, if one can infer the general principle here, is that all English terms which have a corresponding Hebrew idiom should be rephrased so that natural English usage can be replaced by calques, something which would engender a huge range of neologisms. Thirdly the term 'Land of Israel' is neither 'neutral' nor intelligible in the sense you and others understand by it, to native non-Jewish speakers of English. It does not have the historic depth of 'Palestine', and assertions to the contrary defy both commonsense and academic usage.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historic depth? :) And as soon as we find out what that is, I'll

assert the opposite. I think that "Land of Israel" has a lot more historical depth than "Palestine", and is in any case less ambiguous. Anyway, how is "Rabbis of/in Palestine" to you? Debresser (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

'Historic depth'. I am speaking as a philologist with regard to Western languages, and esp. English. Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the only argument against the current name is because "the primary meaning of "Palestinian" relates to Palestinian people, who are not Jewish", there first needs to be an explanation as to why this is indeed an issue. It is common for Jews to be classified by their respective demonyms. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this question above. In addition, you do not have to understand everything. If you see that many editors oppose you, you have no consensus, and you can not proceed. In this respect, I'd like to note here, that you have started again changing articles and adding the word "Palestine" in places where such is inappropriate or at least under discussion (here). Do not make non-consensus edits! How many times do we have to tell you that? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following announcement in the official Gazette shows that the few sentences we have on the Mandate period are seriously deficient. We need to find a source that spells out the details; I have a few but I'm not satisfied. As far as I can figure out, there was an "Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi" and a "Sephardic Chief Rabbi", but there was also at least for a time a "Chief Rabbi of Palestine", which is what the announcement is about. Neither of these Chief Rabbis of Palestine are even mentioned in the article, indicating that we have some work to do. Bring some sources, please.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that under regulation 21 of the Regulations prescribing the system of election or appointment of the Rabbinical Council, Rabbinical Offices and Rabbis of Local Communities, made under rule 9(1) of the Jewish Community Rules and published in the Gazette No. 582 of 9th April, 1936, RABBI BEN-ZION MEIR HAY UZIEL has succeeded to the office of Chief Rabbi of Palestine with effect from the 27th June, 1939, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of the late CHIEF RABBI JACOB MEIR. By His Excellency's Command, J. S. MACPHERSON. Chief Secretary. 14th July, 1939. (Supplement No.2 to the The Palestine Gazette, No. 906 of 2, July 20, 1939. Page 527) Zero^talk 01:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I found the regulations published in 1936, mentioned in the above. It clarifies things thus: The position of "Chief Rabbi" was to be held by two rabbis, one Ashkenazi and one Sephardi. The persons appointed to the position were to be chosen by an Electoral Committee half selected by the Rabbinical Council and half by the Va'ad Leumi. I'm not sure of the situation before 1936. Note that some communities, like "Jaffa and Tel Aviv" also had a "Chief Rabbi" and this should not be confused with Chief Rabbi of Palestine. Zero^talk 01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mandatory period is missing, since the topic is clearly about Mishnah rabbis and not New Yishuv rabbis. The lead even says "These rabbis lived between 150 BCE and 400 CE and during the Talmudic and later Geonic period".GreyShark (dibra) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. although there was a lot of ado about this issue a few years ago. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]