This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hillel the Elder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This solves the argument: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=_START_+Hillel%2C_START_+Rabbi+Hillel%2C_START_+Hillel+the+Elder&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.170.255 ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article currently gives variations of Hillel's name and honorifics, and says that he is called all these things "but never 'Rabbi' Hillel." I beg to differ.
The cited ref for this statement -- Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13 -- was written 60 years ago. I distinctly recall Hillel being called "Rabbi Hillel" during the 1960s in casual conversations. A search at Google shows 124,000 web pages on which he is called "Rabbi Hillel." (I conducted the search in quotes, to get exact matches only.)
While the term "Rabbi Hillel" may be deprecated for any number of reasons by any number of people supporting any number of historical or theocratic agendas, the truth of the matter is that he IS called "Rabbi Hillel" by some writers and speakers, some of the time, so the word "never" is simply wrong.
I don't want Wikipedia to promote base falsehoods, so i went into the article and changed the words "but never" to "and occasionally (but spuriously)." I moved the cited ref forward in the sentence to refer only to the favoured honorifics, and did not permit it to refer to the manufactured controversy concerning how ignorantly, how often, how rarely, how recently, or by whom he is given the spurious honorific of "Rabbi."
I think Hillel, my 73rd grandfather, who liked the truth more than dogma, would have approved.
-- cat yronwode, not logged in yet, still having my morning coffee 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh ho! You sent a warning to my talk page. You are quite the wiki-lawyer, i see. I will continue to discuss here. Please do not try to privatize discussions by carrying them away from this talk page. Thanks.
Our only choices are that something (never) happens or it (sometimes) happens or it (always) happens. In this case, Wikipedia falsely stated (with or without a legitimate citation) that something (never) happens. I knew it to be a false claim. I cited proof. No claim was made by me that it (always) happens, only that it (sometimes) happens. This was done by disproving, with citations from books and web pages, including by a rabbi, that it (never) happens. Yet you call for "both opinions" (never) and (sometimes) to be mentioned, even though one is logically and demonstrably false (if indeed the cited author wrote it, which neither of us know for sure).
Why would Wikipedia editors seek to make a demonstrably false statement stand side-by-side with a demonstrably true statement on equal terms?
You do realize the statement that he is "never" called 'Rabbi' Hillel is false, do you not?
Well, in case you are still on the fence, here is another book that refers (repeatedly) to "Rabbi Hillel."
Now, look, to be honest, i see by your user and talk pages that you are a Hassidic Rabbi and that you have a reputation for fighting a lot on Wikipedia. Your reputation is that of a person whose edits about Judaism and Israel have caused dissent. In fact, i come from a family of rabbis and lawyers myself, but mine is a Reform family (from the earliest days of Reform, in Fürth, in the mid 19th century) and i too have gotten into content-combats in Wikipedia over the past 10 years. We represent different threads of Judaism. Yet Hillel is my ancestor and i only came here to improve the article by removing a falsehood.
You and i could go on and on and around and around about this, but why bother? You took out the reference to him "never" being called Rabbi Hillel and that is fine. Your deletion will make Wikipedia less easy to find if someone searches for the term "Rabbi Hillel," but you probably don't care much about that. Neither do i.
Let those who search for "Rabbi Hillel" find the works of others, such as Dr. Bronner. So be it.
I like this compromise you implemented. I am satisfied with it. We have reached consensus.
-- cat yronwode, not logged in, 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 05:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to 'Dweller' I am aware of this discussion. The quote from Nahum Glatzer's book Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism is from his Introduction. Here is that Introduction, from the beginning to the quote:
"A study of Hillel the Elder is essential for an understand of the first pre-Christian century and the period preceding the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, an era of decisive importance in Jewish history. The study is based on talmudic and midrasnhic sources (some legendary) and on background information found in the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea sectarian writings.
"We apply the term "classical" to the period of Hillel (who is never called "Rabbi") because it was then, and not in biblical times, that a central line, as point of departure—and return—for all forms of Judaism yet to come was established."
So from this context, the implication is that Hillel is "never" called Rabbi in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. In other words (this is me now), any use of the term "Rabbi" to apply to Hillel is anachronistic. I believe the term Rabbi was not used before the first century, and this is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on Rabbi. According to it, Rabban Gamaliel the elder (son or grandson of Hillel) was the first to be given the title Rabbi, or a rather a variation of it. If my memory is correct, in Avot, the first one to be called Rabbi is Yehudah HaNasi, and there it is an honorific name ("My master") and not actually a title. The Wikipedia article specifically mentions that Hillel was *not* given the title Rabban. As to the question of Glatzer's reliability, I think he was really a solid scholar. See his bio: https://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archives-speccoll/findingguides/archives/faculty/glatzer.html#d0e91 Yes, his book on Hillel is now 60 years old. But the sources he is talking about are over 1500 years old. So the question is whether he was a master of those sources, and more than that, whether anyone can cite a reference to "Rabbi" Hillel in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. Nobody has, and until somebody can, I think this claim of Glatzer should be taken as authoritative, and kept in the article. I'll do a revision in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Berkson ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of the NPR origin of this discussion, and Google search concerns sound to me more like a tempest in a tea cup. Thanks to William Berkson's effort in publishing the Glatzer's quote here (many thanks for that effort, really) the matter seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. What the original citation should have said is simply this, in my view:
And following this sentence would be the reference that is now missing in the article: "Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13"
This sentence with the ref could be added to the lead, in my view, but it does not have to be added there, as long as it appears somewhere. That is my suggestion to ending the current 'tempest.' If someone wants to write a subsection on "Hillel's changing perception among modern Jews" or something like that, this person can write this section in a sandbox, and the interested editors would comment there. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
William Berkson ( talk) 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry cat yronwode, I don't know Wiki editing etiquette.
Let me discuss the problem with "Rabbi" Hillel a little more. I agree that a separate later section on this, as now, is best. But I think this needs more work. I'll hold off any further editing until after getting feedback. I should say by way of context that I am the author of the commentary, Pirke Avot: Timeless Wisdom for Modern Life (Jewish Publication Society 2010). Avot contains many of the most famous quotes from Hillel, and I discuss them in the commentary.
Here's the problem that the current version of the article doesn't capture. Calling Hillel "Rabbi" is really an error, and probably a 20th century one. It is not just that you don't find it in before, say 700 CE, but that you don't find it before say 1940—if the current article is right. It is to me a marker of lack of in-depth study of the sources, or an American attempt to "popularize" to Christians or Jews without direct knowledge of the sources. This wrong usage is complicated by the fact that Jesus is also called addressed as "Rabbi" in the New Testament, and this is also an anachronism and an error. This is a touchy issue, but as it is not directly relevant to discussing Hillel, it can can be ignored. I mention it because I do think that is a reason why people have wanted to call HIllel "Rabbi." I would guess that the first usage of this is 20th century American, and Christian. But I don't have the evidence. Incidentally, I'm having a hard time believing that Buber ever referred to "Rabbi" Hillel. A translator, maybe, but not Martin (nor his Grandfather the scholar). I'd need to see that reference before I'd believe it.
I just located the best source I have found yet to show that "Rabbi" Hillel is an error. It is in the Encyclopedia Judaica article "Titles". Here is the quote:
"The only sages upon whom the title *rabban* was conferred were the heads of the Central Academy, or Sanhedrin after Hillel... The term *rabbi* was granted to all Palestinian scholars from the late first century onward who had received *semikhah*, ('ordination')."
The author of the article is "Titles" is Daniel Sperber, Professor at Bar Ilan University and recipient of the Israel Prize—Israel's highest honor—for his work in Jewish Studies: /info/en/?search=Daniel_Sperber
Another reference dating the title Rabbi to this time: "The title 'Rabbi,' ... dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward." The is from The Jewish Encyclopedia article "Rabbi": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi Indeed this corresponds with the titles of the sages in the Avot in the Mishnah; there the first sages to be named with the title "Rabbi" are the five (outstanding) students of Yochanan ben Zakkai. These all survived the fall of the Temple. Avot was edited by Yehudah Hanasi, who was himself a direct descendent of Hillel and Nasi (prince), head of the Jewish community. Thus he was most likely of anybody to know the correct story. He also was an extremely good editor, as you can tell by comparing the Mishnah Tractate Avot, which he was primary editor of, with the alternative version Avot de Rabbi Natan. I can't document this, but it looks like the title Rabbi was created by Yochanan ben Zakkai as part of the creation of new institutions to ensure the survival of the Jewish community after the fall of the Temple in the year 70—or else by the students of his students, who wanted to call their teachers, like Rabbi Eliezer, who were not "Rabban," by a similar honorific title.
My general point is that calling Hillel "Rabbi" is such a howler historically that the Wikipedia should be a means of correcting it, IMHO. I'm certainly open to suggestions on the best way to do this.
p.s. The book Hillel the Elder by Nahum Glatzer is to me hands down the best source in English on Hillel. It is a very short book which is not only the best on Hillel, but also probably the best introduction to Classical Judaism, period. So I'd like to see it have an earlier reference, maybe the first, in the article.
Can the page be changed to Hillel, without “the elder”? I’ve never heard of the elder. Is there a younger? This is confusing Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The phrase וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי literaly means "and if I am not for myself who is for me?".
User:Lisa`removed the commonly used word "only" from "And being only for myself, what am I?" and
19.175.192.72 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
reinstated it.}
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 18:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Lisa: In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1121108530&oldid=1120885055 I added the original text and translation [a] [1] to a citation originally given as an external link.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1124100227&oldid=1121565598,
Lisa changed the |trans-quote=
to a translation different from that in the text. That edit also added quotation marks around I
.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=next&oldid=1124100227, I reverted the change with the comment Do not paraphrase quotations in citations
.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&curid=313892&diff=1125022169&oldid=1124176915, Lisa reinstated the change with the comment did revision 1124176915 by Chatul (talk) I'm not paraphrasing. I'm correcting incorrect translations.
I contend that to include in a citation a translation different from the one in the text is WP:OR and misleading. If an editor believes that the translation in the text is incorrect then the appropriate action is to cite a different translation from an RS or to suggest an alternate translation in the body of the article. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
is for the text as printed, with redactions noted, and, in addition, the translator put brackets around only to indicate that it was not in the original text. I believe that it is time to go to arbitration.--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)|quote=
, as opposed to the body of the article, falsely attributes it to the editor or translator, flasely attributes the translation to the editor or translator. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes
References
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:[He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?]
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)
Jews use the Hebrew calendar (AM Anno Mundi) to record their birthday and death day. It is always mentioned on their gravestone. All Jews should have these years mentioned on their wiki. Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
So how to get the addition of AM for jews birth and death dates introduced as a wiki policy? Can someone write a bot to edit all of wikipedia?
This is a fascinating discussion. Remember this would only be for jews and jewish events. i am not trying to kosherize wikip. No hidden agenda here. Do i believe the messiah was born 2023 years ago? Dont a few other cultures also maintain a different year numbering?? If it happens for the hebrew calendar, should it happen for others? Why not? As a jew (not chassidic), i am fascinated to see the AM years mentioned (it makes calculabting the time span between the destruction of the 2 temples easy!!) On balance, i think it is respectful to the faith and demonstrates that wikipedia caters for everyone, not just WASPs.
Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
And BTW, he's coming very soon, so we'll be resetting to 0 ;) !! Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, one needs to go an read the original entry on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is still the best researched and most comprehensive existing encyclopedia entry on him.
On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopaedia [ entry] on him does not have Hebrew dates at all. The dates it gives for his activity are just (c. 50 bce–early first century ce). Mind you, this is the Jewish Encyclopedia!!! So, this whole matter still needs to be researched better. And, the possible addition of some approximate Hebrew dates in the end, does not add any significant historical knowledge to Wikipedia, in my view. But, we'll see... Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Several places in the article cite the Wikipedia
Pirkei Avoth article instead of the text of Pirkei Avoth. I'm not sure whether to replace them with discrete {{
cite book|section=|section-url=|page=|script-quote=|trans-quote=}}
templates or to add it to
#Sources and use {{
sfn}}. The latter has the disadvantage that it doesn't support quotation or section parameters, so I'm inclined to the former.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I was correcting the citation
Hillel the Elder. Dr. Joshua Kulp (ed.). Pirkey Avoth פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת [Ethics of the Fathers]. Translated by Charles Taylor. Retrieved November 9, 2022.
{{ cite book}}
:|website=
ignored ( help)
to correct the flagged |website=Sefaria
and found myself in a quandary. My first thought was |series=Sefaria
, but Sefaria is an organization rather than a series. My second thought was |publisher=Sefaria
, but Sefaria is offering a scanned copy of a work originally published in hardcopy. Does anybody have the original details, e.g., date, ISBN, publisher? In the meantime, what is the most reasonable fix for the error message? Should it have a |via=
Sefaria
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|publisher=
Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center
and |via=
Sefaria
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Pirḳe Avot, CUP Archive, 1939, p. 20.is to Google Books rather than to the text. Should I replace it with a citation of the text at Sefaria? Should I change the translation to make it consistent with the other citation? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hillel the Elder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This solves the argument: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=_START_+Hillel%2C_START_+Rabbi+Hillel%2C_START_+Hillel+the+Elder&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.170.255 ( talk) 06:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article currently gives variations of Hillel's name and honorifics, and says that he is called all these things "but never 'Rabbi' Hillel." I beg to differ.
The cited ref for this statement -- Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13 -- was written 60 years ago. I distinctly recall Hillel being called "Rabbi Hillel" during the 1960s in casual conversations. A search at Google shows 124,000 web pages on which he is called "Rabbi Hillel." (I conducted the search in quotes, to get exact matches only.)
While the term "Rabbi Hillel" may be deprecated for any number of reasons by any number of people supporting any number of historical or theocratic agendas, the truth of the matter is that he IS called "Rabbi Hillel" by some writers and speakers, some of the time, so the word "never" is simply wrong.
I don't want Wikipedia to promote base falsehoods, so i went into the article and changed the words "but never" to "and occasionally (but spuriously)." I moved the cited ref forward in the sentence to refer only to the favoured honorifics, and did not permit it to refer to the manufactured controversy concerning how ignorantly, how often, how rarely, how recently, or by whom he is given the spurious honorific of "Rabbi."
I think Hillel, my 73rd grandfather, who liked the truth more than dogma, would have approved.
-- cat yronwode, not logged in yet, still having my morning coffee 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh ho! You sent a warning to my talk page. You are quite the wiki-lawyer, i see. I will continue to discuss here. Please do not try to privatize discussions by carrying them away from this talk page. Thanks.
Our only choices are that something (never) happens or it (sometimes) happens or it (always) happens. In this case, Wikipedia falsely stated (with or without a legitimate citation) that something (never) happens. I knew it to be a false claim. I cited proof. No claim was made by me that it (always) happens, only that it (sometimes) happens. This was done by disproving, with citations from books and web pages, including by a rabbi, that it (never) happens. Yet you call for "both opinions" (never) and (sometimes) to be mentioned, even though one is logically and demonstrably false (if indeed the cited author wrote it, which neither of us know for sure).
Why would Wikipedia editors seek to make a demonstrably false statement stand side-by-side with a demonstrably true statement on equal terms?
You do realize the statement that he is "never" called 'Rabbi' Hillel is false, do you not?
Well, in case you are still on the fence, here is another book that refers (repeatedly) to "Rabbi Hillel."
Now, look, to be honest, i see by your user and talk pages that you are a Hassidic Rabbi and that you have a reputation for fighting a lot on Wikipedia. Your reputation is that of a person whose edits about Judaism and Israel have caused dissent. In fact, i come from a family of rabbis and lawyers myself, but mine is a Reform family (from the earliest days of Reform, in Fürth, in the mid 19th century) and i too have gotten into content-combats in Wikipedia over the past 10 years. We represent different threads of Judaism. Yet Hillel is my ancestor and i only came here to improve the article by removing a falsehood.
You and i could go on and on and around and around about this, but why bother? You took out the reference to him "never" being called Rabbi Hillel and that is fine. Your deletion will make Wikipedia less easy to find if someone searches for the term "Rabbi Hillel," but you probably don't care much about that. Neither do i.
Let those who search for "Rabbi Hillel" find the works of others, such as Dr. Bronner. So be it.
I like this compromise you implemented. I am satisfied with it. We have reached consensus.
-- cat yronwode, not logged in, 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 05:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks to 'Dweller' I am aware of this discussion. The quote from Nahum Glatzer's book Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism is from his Introduction. Here is that Introduction, from the beginning to the quote:
"A study of Hillel the Elder is essential for an understand of the first pre-Christian century and the period preceding the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, an era of decisive importance in Jewish history. The study is based on talmudic and midrasnhic sources (some legendary) and on background information found in the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea sectarian writings.
"We apply the term "classical" to the period of Hillel (who is never called "Rabbi") because it was then, and not in biblical times, that a central line, as point of departure—and return—for all forms of Judaism yet to come was established."
So from this context, the implication is that Hillel is "never" called Rabbi in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. In other words (this is me now), any use of the term "Rabbi" to apply to Hillel is anachronistic. I believe the term Rabbi was not used before the first century, and this is confirmed in the Wikipedia article on Rabbi. According to it, Rabban Gamaliel the elder (son or grandson of Hillel) was the first to be given the title Rabbi, or a rather a variation of it. If my memory is correct, in Avot, the first one to be called Rabbi is Yehudah HaNasi, and there it is an honorific name ("My master") and not actually a title. The Wikipedia article specifically mentions that Hillel was *not* given the title Rabban. As to the question of Glatzer's reliability, I think he was really a solid scholar. See his bio: https://lts.brandeis.edu/research/archives-speccoll/findingguides/archives/faculty/glatzer.html#d0e91 Yes, his book on Hillel is now 60 years old. But the sources he is talking about are over 1500 years old. So the question is whether he was a master of those sources, and more than that, whether anyone can cite a reference to "Rabbi" Hillel in the Talmud, Midrash, Apocrypha, or Dead Sea writings. Nobody has, and until somebody can, I think this claim of Glatzer should be taken as authoritative, and kept in the article. I'll do a revision in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Berkson ( talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of the NPR origin of this discussion, and Google search concerns sound to me more like a tempest in a tea cup. Thanks to William Berkson's effort in publishing the Glatzer's quote here (many thanks for that effort, really) the matter seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. What the original citation should have said is simply this, in my view:
And following this sentence would be the reference that is now missing in the article: "Nahum N. Glatzer, Hillel the Elder: The Emergence of Classical Judaism (Schocken 1956), p. 13"
This sentence with the ref could be added to the lead, in my view, but it does not have to be added there, as long as it appears somewhere. That is my suggestion to ending the current 'tempest.' If someone wants to write a subsection on "Hillel's changing perception among modern Jews" or something like that, this person can write this section in a sandbox, and the interested editors would comment there. Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 17:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
William Berkson ( talk) 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Sorry cat yronwode, I don't know Wiki editing etiquette.
Let me discuss the problem with "Rabbi" Hillel a little more. I agree that a separate later section on this, as now, is best. But I think this needs more work. I'll hold off any further editing until after getting feedback. I should say by way of context that I am the author of the commentary, Pirke Avot: Timeless Wisdom for Modern Life (Jewish Publication Society 2010). Avot contains many of the most famous quotes from Hillel, and I discuss them in the commentary.
Here's the problem that the current version of the article doesn't capture. Calling Hillel "Rabbi" is really an error, and probably a 20th century one. It is not just that you don't find it in before, say 700 CE, but that you don't find it before say 1940—if the current article is right. It is to me a marker of lack of in-depth study of the sources, or an American attempt to "popularize" to Christians or Jews without direct knowledge of the sources. This wrong usage is complicated by the fact that Jesus is also called addressed as "Rabbi" in the New Testament, and this is also an anachronism and an error. This is a touchy issue, but as it is not directly relevant to discussing Hillel, it can can be ignored. I mention it because I do think that is a reason why people have wanted to call HIllel "Rabbi." I would guess that the first usage of this is 20th century American, and Christian. But I don't have the evidence. Incidentally, I'm having a hard time believing that Buber ever referred to "Rabbi" Hillel. A translator, maybe, but not Martin (nor his Grandfather the scholar). I'd need to see that reference before I'd believe it.
I just located the best source I have found yet to show that "Rabbi" Hillel is an error. It is in the Encyclopedia Judaica article "Titles". Here is the quote:
"The only sages upon whom the title *rabban* was conferred were the heads of the Central Academy, or Sanhedrin after Hillel... The term *rabbi* was granted to all Palestinian scholars from the late first century onward who had received *semikhah*, ('ordination')."
The author of the article is "Titles" is Daniel Sperber, Professor at Bar Ilan University and recipient of the Israel Prize—Israel's highest honor—for his work in Jewish Studies: /info/en/?search=Daniel_Sperber
Another reference dating the title Rabbi to this time: "The title 'Rabbi,' ... dates from the time of the disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai downward." The is from The Jewish Encyclopedia article "Rabbi": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12494-rabbi Indeed this corresponds with the titles of the sages in the Avot in the Mishnah; there the first sages to be named with the title "Rabbi" are the five (outstanding) students of Yochanan ben Zakkai. These all survived the fall of the Temple. Avot was edited by Yehudah Hanasi, who was himself a direct descendent of Hillel and Nasi (prince), head of the Jewish community. Thus he was most likely of anybody to know the correct story. He also was an extremely good editor, as you can tell by comparing the Mishnah Tractate Avot, which he was primary editor of, with the alternative version Avot de Rabbi Natan. I can't document this, but it looks like the title Rabbi was created by Yochanan ben Zakkai as part of the creation of new institutions to ensure the survival of the Jewish community after the fall of the Temple in the year 70—or else by the students of his students, who wanted to call their teachers, like Rabbi Eliezer, who were not "Rabban," by a similar honorific title.
My general point is that calling Hillel "Rabbi" is such a howler historically that the Wikipedia should be a means of correcting it, IMHO. I'm certainly open to suggestions on the best way to do this.
p.s. The book Hillel the Elder by Nahum Glatzer is to me hands down the best source in English on Hillel. It is a very short book which is not only the best on Hillel, but also probably the best introduction to Classical Judaism, period. So I'd like to see it have an earlier reference, maybe the first, in the article.
Can the page be changed to Hillel, without “the elder”? I’ve never heard of the elder. Is there a younger? This is confusing Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The phrase וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי literaly means "and if I am not for myself who is for me?".
User:Lisa`removed the commonly used word "only" from "And being only for myself, what am I?" and
19.175.192.72 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS)
reinstated it.}
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 18:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Lisa: In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1121108530&oldid=1120885055 I added the original text and translation [a] [1] to a citation originally given as an external link.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=1124100227&oldid=1121565598,
Lisa changed the |trans-quote=
to a translation different from that in the text. That edit also added quotation marks around I
.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&diff=next&oldid=1124100227, I reverted the change with the comment Do not paraphrase quotations in citations
.
In
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hillel_the_Elder&curid=313892&diff=1125022169&oldid=1124176915, Lisa reinstated the change with the comment did revision 1124176915 by Chatul (talk) I'm not paraphrasing. I'm correcting incorrect translations.
I contend that to include in a citation a translation different from the one in the text is WP:OR and misleading. If an editor believes that the translation in the text is incorrect then the appropriate action is to cite a different translation from an RS or to suggest an alternate translation in the body of the article. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
|quote=
is for the text as printed, with redactions noted, and, in addition, the translator put brackets around only to indicate that it was not in the original text. I believe that it is time to go to arbitration.--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)|quote=
, as opposed to the body of the article, falsely attributes it to the editor or translator, flasely attributes the translation to the editor or translator. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 22:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes
References
הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:[He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?]
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)
Jews use the Hebrew calendar (AM Anno Mundi) to record their birthday and death day. It is always mentioned on their gravestone. All Jews should have these years mentioned on their wiki. Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
So how to get the addition of AM for jews birth and death dates introduced as a wiki policy? Can someone write a bot to edit all of wikipedia?
This is a fascinating discussion. Remember this would only be for jews and jewish events. i am not trying to kosherize wikip. No hidden agenda here. Do i believe the messiah was born 2023 years ago? Dont a few other cultures also maintain a different year numbering?? If it happens for the hebrew calendar, should it happen for others? Why not? As a jew (not chassidic), i am fascinated to see the AM years mentioned (it makes calculabting the time span between the destruction of the 2 temples easy!!) On balance, i think it is respectful to the faith and demonstrates that wikipedia caters for everyone, not just WASPs.
Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
And BTW, he's coming very soon, so we'll be resetting to 0 ;) !! Riskit 4 a biskit ( talk) 21:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, one needs to go an read the original entry on him in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which is still the best researched and most comprehensive existing encyclopedia entry on him.
On the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopaedia [ entry] on him does not have Hebrew dates at all. The dates it gives for his activity are just (c. 50 bce–early first century ce). Mind you, this is the Jewish Encyclopedia!!! So, this whole matter still needs to be researched better. And, the possible addition of some approximate Hebrew dates in the end, does not add any significant historical knowledge to Wikipedia, in my view. But, we'll see... Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Several places in the article cite the Wikipedia
Pirkei Avoth article instead of the text of Pirkei Avoth. I'm not sure whether to replace them with discrete {{
cite book|section=|section-url=|page=|script-quote=|trans-quote=}}
templates or to add it to
#Sources and use {{
sfn}}. The latter has the disadvantage that it doesn't support quotation or section parameters, so I'm inclined to the former.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I was correcting the citation
Hillel the Elder. Dr. Joshua Kulp (ed.). Pirkey Avoth פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת [Ethics of the Fathers]. Translated by Charles Taylor. Retrieved November 9, 2022.
{{ cite book}}
:|website=
ignored ( help)
to correct the flagged |website=Sefaria
and found myself in a quandary. My first thought was |series=Sefaria
, but Sefaria is an organization rather than a series. My second thought was |publisher=Sefaria
, but Sefaria is offering a scanned copy of a work originally published in hardcopy. Does anybody have the original details, e.g., date, ISBN, publisher? In the meantime, what is the most reasonable fix for the error message? Should it have a |via=
Sefaria
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 16:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
|publisher=
Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center
and |via=
Sefaria
? --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk) 01:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Pirḳe Avot, CUP Archive, 1939, p. 20.is to Google Books rather than to the text. Should I replace it with a citation of the text at Sefaria? Should I change the translation to make it consistent with the other citation? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)