Jump to content

Talk:Maimonides/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Where did he die?

The opening section says he died in Egypt and then that he died in Tiberias. if it is not known, fair enough, but it can't say both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scampben (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Maimonides died in Egypt and was buried in Tiberias, just as it is stated explicitly in Gedaliah ibn Yahya's "Shalshelet Ha-Kabbalah." See: Gedaliah ibn Yahya ben Joseph, Shalshelet Ha-Kabbalah Jerusalem 1962, p. ק; but in PDF p. 109 (Hebrew).I have since corrected the page in the main article and have added citations - Davidbena (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is This Objective ?

"It is remarkable that he managed to write extended treatises, including not only medical and other scientific studies but some of the most systematically thought-through and influential treatises on halakha (rabbinic law) and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages.[37]"

Why is it remarkable? Why this kind of fluff? It is what it is. This kind of writing tone is not encyclopedic. It is adulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.100.152 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

ha Nesher ha Gadol

"the great eagle" Now ime not an Hebrew scholar by any stretch but whatever. Duzznt Nesher mean vulture? R∴W∴Bro∴ Froggo Zijgeb 19:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maimonides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Circumcision

@Alexbrn: You've reverted my good faith edit saying it's an "original source" (how is that a problem??) and OR. How is quoting the author portrayed by the article OR?? And you say the citation is false, that Guide for the Perplexed wasn't published by Chicago University Press. What do you mean?? Here it is on CUPs own website! You don't seem to be acting in good faith. — Guarapiranga (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

it's a primary source, to which you have added your own intepretation, which is prohibited by policy. A translation may well have been published by Chicago UP, but the quotation and reference you used point to an archived copy of some apparently self-published web site of unknown provenance. If you want to establish weight for Maimonides's views, find secondary sources. Your continued attempts to personalize matters is noted. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What "interpretation"?? It is literally what he wrote! And the wording I used is literally transcluded from the Brit milah page!!
You want a secondary source? Here it is:[1] — Guarapiranga (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your addition of stuff like "... explains that the main purpose of circumcision ..." is your original interpretation. We need secondary sources to lend weight, and then relay their views (not those of Wikipedia editors). Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Again I ask: WHAT "interpretation"?? Of the English language? Maimonides literally says in that passage that:

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.

And again, since you're so adamant about a secondary source on this very explicit quote, I refer you to Glick (2005): Maimonides not only acknowledges the painfulness of the operation but even calls it the "real purpose." Whether or not he was correct about impaired sexual capacity as the principal reason for circumcision, he recognized this as the principal result.[1] — Guarapiranga (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Glick, Leonard B. (2005-06-30). Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198039259.
We can relay the view is RS, but unverified views by Wikipedia editors are a no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean bogus?? — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Was it the link you didn't like (which is plentifully used on this page)?? Ok, fixed (you could've done that, if you really thought it was a necessary improvement). — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Islamic influence..

I think it is important to mention in the 'Influence' section the importance of the works of Averroes on Maimonides works.. specifically in the reconciliation between the works of Greek philosophy and that of biblical theology. A similar influence can be traced from Averroes to the works of Thomas Aquinas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.235.195 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they're not going to mention it. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about his intellectual environment. They act as if this guy owed nothing to Islamic civilization when in fact he owes EVERYTHING to it. This guy would never have existed if not for Muslim knowledge at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.65.173.131 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "they". This article has many issues which even a non-expert can see, but there is a shortage of experts capable and willing to improve it. There is no conspiracy to suppress discussion of Averroes. Just a very short list of people who can talk intelligently about Averroes. Ar2332 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Depiction in infobox

Pipsally, so what's your point? This is a classic depiction of what Maimonides might have looked like, a depiction very famous accross the Jewish world. It wasn't made in Medieval times, just like all the paintings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were made thousands of years after they lived, and yet those images are included in many articles in Wikipedia. The same goes for fictional depictions of Judean kings, such as the Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum. There is no policy forbiding imaginative depictions of historical figures, specially if they lived hundreds of years ago when there was no photography available (duh). Leave the image alone or replace it for a better one.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

This sort of image adds absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia. It’s completely speculative. If it was a description written in the text of what he ‘might have looked like’ it would be cut as unsourced OR. There’s no reason that an image should be given a free pass. Duh.Pipsally (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

::Well, I beg to differ. It does add something to an encyclopedia to have an infobox image, even if it's an artistic one. Better than not having any image at all. That particular image of the Rambam is very iconic among Jews. It appears on every book about him. Also all the articles on Judean kings (for example) have infobox images based on the Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, which are also completely speculative. There's no Wikipedia policy against this kind of images, assuming we are talking about people who lived before photography was invented. So you have no legs to stand on. If you want, ask an administrator in the meantime about this.--SoaringLL (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Any image is not automatically better than none. There's no evidence that it's "iconic amongst Jews" and that's not relevant anyway. As to Judean kings please read WP:OTHER. IMO they shouldn't be there either. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not administrators.Pipsally (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The evidence required would be scholarly articles like this. William Avery (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
That's barely more than an opinion piece, but summaries nearly why it's completely imaginary.Pipsally (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

::::::There is no Wikipedia policy against showing imaginary or artistic depictions of famous people from the past. SoaringLL (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

10th Principle of Faith does not mention Foreknowledge

The tenth principle of faith is summarized as "God's foreknowledge of human actions." The tenth doesn't seem to include foreknowledge to me at all. "I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions (Psalms 33:15)." That, to me, says God reads minds, and implies that God knows people well enough to know what they're going to do. I'm not arguing whether or not God knows the future, just that this principle does not say anything that could be construed as asserting such. Comments?--Mrcolj (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. MikeR613 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Maimonides Islam

According to this reliable source, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/211609, the consensus of historians is that Maimonides did not convert to Islam. That dubious report came from an unverified claim by his muslim opponents. Even his Jewish opponents did not propagate such a claim155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? Did the article claim he did? Debresser (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
This is what article said: "Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping. This forced conversion was ruled legally invalid under Islamic law when brought up by a rival in Egypt."155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
there look’s to be decent coverage of at the claim by his opponents. That in itself is notable. We could do better with the “some say” phrasing, but the rest looks fine.Pipsally (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a useful discussion of the various perspectives here p. 54 forward - https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/091911113_Bou%C5%A1ek.pdf. It's abundantly clear that there is significant scholarly debate about this conversion (alleged or otherwise) - certainly enough to merit mentioning it explicitly in the article.
I certainly don't think that Arutz Sheva is sufficiently neutral on this to use as a justification for removing all discussion. Moreover , reading the passage it's a certain case of WP:CITOGENESIS - the writer has been using this very article as a source - consequently we can't use it as a source for changes.
Compare:
Wikipedia 27 April 2016
The loss of this protected status threatened the Jewish and Christian communities with conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[20] The historical records of abuses against Jews in the immediate post-1148 period are subject to different interpretations.[21] Many Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them subject to public scrutiny.[22][23]
Maimonides's family, along with most other Jews, chose exile. Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.[24] This forced conversion was ruled legally invalid under Islamic law when brought up by a rival in Egypt.[21] For the next ten years, Maimonides moved about in southern Spain, eventually settling in Fes in Morocco. During this time, he composed his acclaimed commentary on the Mishnah in the years 1166–1168.[25]
Arutz Sheva 2 May 2016
The known facts are these: Under the Almohad Islamic conquest of Cordoba, Spain, in 1148, the Jewish community was faced with a stark choice: Conversion to Islam, exile, or death. Most Jews of the time, including Maimonides' family, chose exile, and in fact he spent the next ten years on the run in southern Spain, eventually settling in the city of Fes in Morocco. One report, however – which is now impossible to refute or confirm – has it that the Rambam feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.
Even according to this story, it must be noted, an Islamic court ruled in his case that a forced conversion of this type was religiously invalid.
Pipsally (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The article by Daniel BOUŠEK is very interesting. Based on it I agree that we mention something. Instead of "Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.", which is not bad in itself, perhaps we could provide more details and more accuracy and say: "The question whether Maimonides himself was among those who had to convert to Islam in order to save his life prior to fleeing the area, has been the subject of scholarly debate." Debresser (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
That sounds fine.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m happy with that, seems like an improvement.Pipsally (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

On further thought does this sound better: "The question whether Maimonides himself was among those who feigned conversion to Islam in order to save his life prior to fleeing the area, has been the subject of scholarly debate."155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is "feigned" something that can be sourced? Does it matter? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe it can be sourced if pressed to look for it. I vaguely remember something along those lines being discussed in those sources. I don't believe it matters, because wp:Skyisblue.155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it needs a source. I’ve edited to Debressers version for now. Also restored a presumably accidental deletion of source and the following sentence.Pipsally (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"famous"?

What is Maimonides' "famous" commentary on the Mishnah? Not named in the article. Name it. Otherwise it looks as if the phrase is simply copied from some source. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have a name. Unless you count 'Commentary on the Mishnah' as a name rather than a description. And yes, it is very famous; it's probably the second most famous commentary on the Mishnah of all time, after that of R Ovadiah of Bertinoro. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah/Rishonim%20on%20Mishnah/Rambam Indeed, פירוש על המשנה ("Commentary on the Mishnah") is its standard name. That alone tells you something about its importance. MikeR613 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Missing" 13 Principles of Faith

The statement in the article that the 13 Principles of Faith are missing ("The omission of these principles listed within his later works, the Mishneh Torah and The Guide for the Perplexed, is controversial; though more for the Orthodox sect than many other sects including Reform and Conservative Judaism. This famous omission") I find pretty confusing. They seem to be referred to pretty clearly in his Hilchot Teshuva Chapter 3 Halachot 6-8: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Repentance.3.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en. Just go down the list, basically in order, there they are. I see there are some "reliable sources" talking about this "omission", but maybe someone should note that actually they are right there in plain sight? I do note that the wikipedia article on just the Thirteen Principles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith#Maimonides'_13_principles_of_faith) is much more equivocal in its wording. I think this article should be fixed to do the same. MikeR613 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess they are not mentioned in Guide for the Perplexed at least - though this isn't very "perplexing", as the Guide doesn't purport to be a complete summary of laws like the Mishneh Torah. - As I said, I don't know what to do with this phrase, because it's hard to know what to replace it with. I'd remove it, but it needs some reference to the scholarly discussion. I guess whatever it says in the other article. There is certainly no reason for what amounts to a value judgment: "though more for the Orthodox sect than many other sects..." I'm Orthodox but I don't find it controversial because I don't think it's missing! MikeR613 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I also corrected a mistake in the beginning of the section, which said that "Jewish tradition states that in his commentary on the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides formulates his "13 principles of faith" [italics mine]. Anyone can read his commentary on the Mishnah there (https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Sanhedrin.10.1.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en and onward) and see his words, so "Jewish tradition" is not needed here. MikeR613 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This was reverted, and I un-reverted it. I don't understand the reasoning for including this phrase; please explain. It seems like just a mistake. MikeR613 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems you know a bit about this subject, do what you feel to be necessary.155.246.151.38 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Copied over from there. Also corrected some wording nearby. I don't want to add my own comment from above, that would be "original research" and anyhow I expect it's discussed in the links. MikeR613 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that change has been reverted as well. That should be explained, or un-reverted. MikeR613 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the Mishneh Torah is a work of Halakha. If the Rambam does not clearly say in the Mishneh Torah that "one must believe such and such", that means he does not hold that this is something that one must believe. All he says in those three halakhot is that by not believing these things one forfeits ones portion in the World to Come. That is not the same thing. So I would agree with the opinion that the principles are not listed as such in the Mishneh Torah. Perhaps adding the words "as such" will clarify this issue better, and I will now boldly add them. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly the same thing: you are mistaken. It is absurd that there should be a punishment for something that is not forbidden! "Shall the Judge of the whole world not do justice?" That is a rationale - but indeed it is quite normal for the Rambam to prescribe a punishment in Mishnah Torah, and it is then taken for granted that the thing described is forbidden. For instance, instead of saying that something is forbidden, if it also carries malkut the Rambam frequently just says that thing is לוקה and nothing more. Same with s'kilah or any one of the punishments. There are literally hundreds of examples; just search for the word לוקה or חייב סקילה etc. to find more than you need. MikeR613 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I should have added, even according to your assumption, you will be hard-pressed to find what you claim in his Peirush on the Mishnah either! He is commenting on the lines in the Mishnah, All Israel has a share in the world to come... And these are those who do not have a share in the world to come... Exactly the same topic as in the Mishnah Torah. I am not sure if in his Peirush there he says anything about "what you are required to believe" either. He simply describes what a person will need to believe to have a share in the world to come. MikeR613 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Not having a part in the World to Come is not a punishment for a transgression. It is withholding something good that all Jews will receive, from those who did not share with the Jewish people certain basic tenets of the Jewish belief. In any case, I already agreed that he is alluding to the same principles, but you have to agree that they are not listed clearly as such. Ergo, the claim in the article is correct as it stands. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems at first glance that Debresser is correct. Section should remain for now.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"Not having a part in the World to Come is not a punishment for a transgression." This is just a mistake; כרת is a punishment among a list of other punishments in the Torah, prescribed for some sins and not others. Here are the words of the Rambam in that same section:
'The reward of the just is, that they will acquire the sweetness thereof, to be in such goodness; and the punishment of the wicked is, that they will not share in such life, but will suffer excision and eternal death. ... This is the meaning of excision described in the Torah, saying: "That soul shall utterly be cut off" (Num. 15.31), which was traditionally deducted to mean, "utterly cut of," both in this world and in the World to Come.' [bolded mine] https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Repentance.8.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
And as I already pointed out, anything you say here applies equally to the Peirush Hamishnah that we are discussing. You are assuming something about over there, without actually quoting it, and contrasting that with a misreading here. But he says the exact same thing in both places: These are the ones who lose the world to come. MikeR613 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The main point that Debresser is bringing is that although the Rambam believes those 13 principles are obligatory, he nevertheless did not explicitly list them out as "The 13 principles" in the Mishneh Torah.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Just read over Hilchos Teshuva, did not find Rambam say "here are 13 principles of faith" or something similar to that matter. That is the crux of the issue. In fact, I remember hearing something about the Rambam getting flak from his contemporaries for listing 13 principles of faith.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Remember that the quote we are trying to justify is, "The omission of a list of these principles as such within his later works, the Mishneh Torah and The Guide for the Perplexed, has lead some to suggest that either he retracted his earlier position, or that these principles are descriptive rather than prescriptive." How is either of those claims supported by the fact that he didn't give them a special name? He retracted nothing about them and there is nothing "descriptive" about his later words. The only change was that he included them in a larger list which includes other sins which do not involve belief. But those thirteen are all in there. It seems to me that you're getting distracted by the name, which is a side point, not the crux. His contemporaries who disagreed, disagreed because they felt that some of the list didn't belong, neither in the Peirush Hamishnah nor in the Mishnah Torah. MikeR613 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Westmoreland20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

On poisons and death section

This section is not informative and it's missing sources. I removed it and copied the contents below for discussion: It was always known that some plants or substances kill. Citing that from Maimonides adds nothing particular about his contribution to the knowledge of poisons and death.

On poisons and death

In a separate work recently[when?] translated from Arabic, Maimonides warns against lethal drugs which he calls poisons. According to this work these poisons will cause the most severe apathies, and the decay of the human being's vigor right up to death.[1] Nahum Neharkaspi (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maimonides, On Poisons and the Protection against Lethal Drugs – PART OF THE MEDICAL WORKS OF MOSES MAIMONIDES Brigham Young University Press – Provo, Utah (USA) 2009 ISBN 978-0-8425-2730-9; which specific drugs are called poisons by him would still need to be culled off from the book.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maimonides/Archive_2&oldid=1258159847"