![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Miami University/Religions of the Hebrew Bible (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Miami University/Religions of the Hebrew Bible (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)