Talk:Meforshim

Proposal to merge articles

Izak, please do not delete and redirect this page without discussion. In any case, you are incorrect when you claim that the word "meforshim" means "rabbinic literature" and that they are the same subject. That is incorrect. Rabbinic literature is a very general term for any works of rabbinic Judaism, written after the end of the Second Temple period. Practically any book written by a halakhic Jew fits into that broad category. The term meforshim is something much more specific: It refers to the subset of rabbinic literature that acts as a commentary on a specific book. RK 02:52, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

RK, Where did you get your "definitions" from, please? You are nit-picking here! Just read your own words: If its a "subset of rabbinic literature that acts as a commentary on a specific book" then it surely can belong with the Rabbinic literature article as its "subset" (your phrase). You have often redirected articles that are far more removed from each other than the gap between "Meforshim" and "Rabbinic literature". In your desire to follow some archaic formula to place "Rabbinic literature" in the ancient past you are clinging to this nebulous Hebrew word of "Meforshim" used almost exclusively by "yeshiva-bochurim" AFAIK (oh, and should we also have an article about Yeshiva bochurim now according to your "logic", to "differentiate" between Yeshiva and Rosh yeshiva? too) For your information, even the written WORKS of the rabbis of the last century, such Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Aron Kotler are considered by many present-day Talmud-ic scholars to be correctly and completely part of Rabbinic literature (not even a "subset"!)...and if you read that article you will see that is says as much. Thus this article should be MERGED with it, since you are so touchy about the re-direct. IZAK 07:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isaac, how can you question my definitions, when you turn around and agree with them? Also, it is not "nit picking" to request that we discuss a redirect for an article. It is a standard practice. Also, I am puzzled by your statement: "...In your desire to follow some archaic formula to place "Rabbinic literature" in the ancient past..." Izak, that is false. I never implied or said any such thing. Please don't attribute beliefs to me that I do not have. RK

Izak, you claimed that I am "clinging to this nebulous Hebrew word of Meforshim used almost exclusively by "yeshiva-bochurim". That is both incorrect and insulting. The ways I define the terms are used by non-Orthodox Jews, not only by those in Orthodox Yeshivas.RK

Izak writes "AFAIK (oh, and should we also have an article about Yeshiva bochurim now according to your "logic", to "differentiate" between Yeshiva and Rosh yeshiva? too)"

No, Izak, I do not propose such a thing. Don't be silly. RK

Izak writes that "even the written WORKS of the rabbis of the last century, such Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Aron Kotler are considered by many present-day Talmud-ic scholars to be correctly and completely part of Rabbinic literature".

I can only respond by saying "Huh?" I never said otherwise! You have filled this Talk page with attacks against things I do not believe. RK 21:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I did not blindly "delete" this article, I first MOVED ALL its contents into a seperate section on the Rabbinic literature article, and then redirected it. Nothing was lost and evrything was gained from a more complete article. IZAK 08:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please merge this. It is redundant. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged with Rabbinic literature--PinchasC 12:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well, please merge and turn this into a re-direct. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am Ok with the merger. I merely wanted some discussion. I don't understand why Izak is making up all sorts of beliefs that I don't have, and then attacking me for them. RK

Other mergers

For my two cents: I think that the article on Bible Commentaries which is horrible and distinctly christian should be expanded. No, I just found Biblical exegesis and these two should be merged. The article on Jewish Biblical exegesis should be seriously expanded, discussing the perushim and mefar'shim on tanach, their genre and their approach, but not merely listing the authors.

I think this article, as it stands, should be merged with Rabbinic literature, with the rabbinic literature article being extended to discuss the general genres of literature, biblical exegesis being somewhat different to talmud commentaries. I do not think there should be an article called meforshim, and I do not think the content of the present article should be separate from the Rabbinic literature article.

Basically the whole thing's a mess including:

• Jewish Biblical exegesis
• Rabbinic literature
• Bible Commentaries
• Biblical exegesis
• Exegesis

and this article, many of which need to be merged and expanded.

My two cents became 50. --jnothman 14:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jnothman. The articles on Bible Commentaries,Biblical exegesis, Exegesis, and Jewish Biblical exegesis should all be merged into one article. The article on Rabbinic literature, of course, should remain distinct. As such, there will be some overlap, but that's Ok. I have already moved the information from Biblical Commentaries to Biblical exegesis. I then NPOV'ed the Biblical Exegesis entry. RK 01:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Jewish Biblical exegesis now moved to Rabbinical literature, as that page consisted of "one line headings" and if it were ever written, it would in any case merely duplicate the "Rabbinical literature" article. IZAK 07:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)