This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a section called "Tzaddik" in which the connection with "tzaddikim" is not explained. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the correct English term for this subject in RS - both in regards to priests in Ancient Israel and modern Judaism? It evidently won't be "defilement to the dead"? So what is it? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. However there appears to be support for a better name. Once one is decided on, either move the article or renominate. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead → priestly defilement by contact with dead bodies – no he.wikipedia source for this one but the "to the dead" gives away translation, and possibly Google Translate. Same editor again, difficult to locate the correct English term in WP:RS, but at least a better temporary placeholder than the current ungrammatical and non WP:EN title.... Think this is almost the last one. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on In Ictu's poor presentation (cherry picking?) of sources supporting his attempted move of B'rov am hadrat melech (see the move request on the discussion page), I recommend that his presentation of sources here be taken with a grain of salt until someone else has had the time to check the sources independently with Google Book Search. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 17:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This title is just nonsense the way it is. Surely it needs to be moved somewhere. Prohibition of kohen contact with the dead, or perhaps Commandment against priestly contact with the dead ? Kauffner ( talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Debressor removed some of my recent edits on basis of "this seems to be a factual disagreement" and what I've written "unlikely to be true". where is the disagreement on the four tefach requirement? what is not true about what I've written? to say, lets quote yoreh deah 371:5
It is ossur (for a kohen) to come within four amot of a dead (person) or a kever, when does this apply? when the kever is not quarantined with partitions high 10 tefachim. But, if it is quarantined with partitions (that are) high ten tefachim..there is no need to distance from it (the dead person or kever) only four tefachim.
— shulchan aruch yoreh deah
-- HappyEyes90 ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
At least from going out of the ohel house (where information desk is located), it really does look to be too narrow to fit those measurements of 53+ in. but its hard to tell, s/o should go out there and get exact measurement for the kohanim at the narrowest point from tombstone to tombstone along that pathway
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenkelP42 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of factuality, the fact that the Chabad Ohel might fall afoul of Halacha needs to be suggested *elsewhere* before quoting it here. You can perhaps use http://www.hebrewbooks.org/48424 p 230 onwards; but the picture still constitutes original research. Cockneyite ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The whole section should probably be removed. The references are to generic halachot, and it seems that someone is prosecuting a personal polemic on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Debresser:, shalom. Depending on which article, I do not normally have any problems or difficulties with English transliterations of Hebrew words, whether a Hebrew word like טפחים (which means "handbreadths") is spelled "tefachim" or "ṭefaḥim". Both are correct, as far as English is concerned. We ought to remember too that the subject matter here is not something that pertains strictly to the Ashkenazi Jewish community, or to the Yemenite and Sephardic community, but to all Jewish communities. That said, I have noticed a trend in academic writings where they make use of the newer phonetic system for transliteration used in Semitic languages, that of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), where they make use of š for ש, and ḥ for ח, and ṭ for ט, and ṣ for צ, and which same letters have their equivalents in Arabic writings. Of course, these letters are used for more technical writings. The advantage of using this system is that the phonetic sounds of the letters are universally recognized for what they are, and do not lend to confusion in pronunciation. In this article, however, either way is fine. Davidbena ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a bit awkward to use "challenged" in this context. It is not good English under any interpretation; I surmise this was written by a non-native speaker who assumed that when X faces challenging condition in Y, then Y must be "challenging" X. Not so; these are in fact different senses of the word. Moreover, the present phrasing suggests that airlines are deliberately defying or provoking conflict with Jewish law. It is doubtful that this is the case. Airlines permit late boarding of corpses because needs must and the bereaved deserve a little compassion (even in the eyes of the Lord, who we are asked to imagine to be more worried about the prospect of an unsuspecting Kohen boarding the same aerial conveyance). It would be a bit different in the case of El Al, which one imagines to be run by good folk quite alive to the myriad challenges faced by Kohens and their overriding concern for their own non-defilement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:517B:E2B9:C6C4:DBB7 ( talk) 14:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a section called "Tzaddik" in which the connection with "tzaddikim" is not explained. Debresser ( talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the correct English term for this subject in RS - both in regards to priests in Ancient Israel and modern Judaism? It evidently won't be "defilement to the dead"? So what is it? In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. However there appears to be support for a better name. Once one is decided on, either move the article or renominate. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead → priestly defilement by contact with dead bodies – no he.wikipedia source for this one but the "to the dead" gives away translation, and possibly Google Translate. Same editor again, difficult to locate the correct English term in WP:RS, but at least a better temporary placeholder than the current ungrammatical and non WP:EN title.... Think this is almost the last one. In ictu oculi ( talk) 02:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Based on In Ictu's poor presentation (cherry picking?) of sources supporting his attempted move of B'rov am hadrat melech (see the move request on the discussion page), I recommend that his presentation of sources here be taken with a grain of salt until someone else has had the time to check the sources independently with Google Book Search. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 17:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
This title is just nonsense the way it is. Surely it needs to be moved somewhere. Prohibition of kohen contact with the dead, or perhaps Commandment against priestly contact with the dead ? Kauffner ( talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Debressor removed some of my recent edits on basis of "this seems to be a factual disagreement" and what I've written "unlikely to be true". where is the disagreement on the four tefach requirement? what is not true about what I've written? to say, lets quote yoreh deah 371:5
It is ossur (for a kohen) to come within four amot of a dead (person) or a kever, when does this apply? when the kever is not quarantined with partitions high 10 tefachim. But, if it is quarantined with partitions (that are) high ten tefachim..there is no need to distance from it (the dead person or kever) only four tefachim.
— shulchan aruch yoreh deah
-- HappyEyes90 ( talk) 02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
At least from going out of the ohel house (where information desk is located), it really does look to be too narrow to fit those measurements of 53+ in. but its hard to tell, s/o should go out there and get exact measurement for the kohanim at the narrowest point from tombstone to tombstone along that pathway
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenkelP42 ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of factuality, the fact that the Chabad Ohel might fall afoul of Halacha needs to be suggested *elsewhere* before quoting it here. You can perhaps use http://www.hebrewbooks.org/48424 p 230 onwards; but the picture still constitutes original research. Cockneyite ( talk) 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The whole section should probably be removed. The references are to generic halachot, and it seems that someone is prosecuting a personal polemic on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Debresser:, shalom. Depending on which article, I do not normally have any problems or difficulties with English transliterations of Hebrew words, whether a Hebrew word like טפחים (which means "handbreadths") is spelled "tefachim" or "ṭefaḥim". Both are correct, as far as English is concerned. We ought to remember too that the subject matter here is not something that pertains strictly to the Ashkenazi Jewish community, or to the Yemenite and Sephardic community, but to all Jewish communities. That said, I have noticed a trend in academic writings where they make use of the newer phonetic system for transliteration used in Semitic languages, that of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), where they make use of š for ש, and ḥ for ח, and ṭ for ט, and ṣ for צ, and which same letters have their equivalents in Arabic writings. Of course, these letters are used for more technical writings. The advantage of using this system is that the phonetic sounds of the letters are universally recognized for what they are, and do not lend to confusion in pronunciation. In this article, however, either way is fine. Davidbena ( talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a bit awkward to use "challenged" in this context. It is not good English under any interpretation; I surmise this was written by a non-native speaker who assumed that when X faces challenging condition in Y, then Y must be "challenging" X. Not so; these are in fact different senses of the word. Moreover, the present phrasing suggests that airlines are deliberately defying or provoking conflict with Jewish law. It is doubtful that this is the case. Airlines permit late boarding of corpses because needs must and the bereaved deserve a little compassion (even in the eyes of the Lord, who we are asked to imagine to be more worried about the prospect of an unsuspecting Kohen boarding the same aerial conveyance). It would be a bit different in the case of El Al, which one imagines to be run by good folk quite alive to the myriad challenges faced by Kohens and their overriding concern for their own non-defilement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:517B:E2B9:C6C4:DBB7 ( talk) 14:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)