Talk:Talmud

"Various collections of quotes from the Talmud circulate on the Internet and elsewhere, purporting to show that the Talmud promotes immoral practices and regards non-Jews as lesser beings. Some of these quotes are genuine (the Talmud dates from the Dark Ages), some have been taken out of context in a way that changes their meaning and many are outright fakes."

Does this paragraph belong in the intro section? The "Dark Ages" is not a term typically used by scholars of the Middle Ages, and is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of these types of quotes. 134.190.201.25 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems like, there have been a lot of these scare things about the Talmud going around recently, so I thought that it would be a good idea to mention that in the lead where people who won't bother to read any further than that can see it - "the Dark Ages" seemed like it would be a snappier way of putting it for that audience than "between 70 and 500 AD" and convey the general idea that it doesn't mean that Jews now would support some of the gruesome things that the Talmud says any more than Christians now would support some of the gruesome things that Christian authors said in the same era. Wombat140 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Late antiquity or Early Middle Ages better describes the estimated compilation date of the 5th to 7th century, with Sasanian culture having an influence on the Talmud's text. ^[1][2] The term Dark Ages, coined and popularized by Italian writers, has had explicit anti-religious and anti-clerical meanings since the 18th century. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Possibly, "late antiquity" would mean even less to confused people coming here from an alarmist posting on Facebook than "between 70 and 500 AD", but "early Middle Ages" sounds as if it'd do just as well as "Dark Ages", and I've edited it - I think that's the best that can be done in a short passage in a lead paragraph at indicating that it's not totally unexpected to find some ideas that would be shocking to modern readers in a text compiled in 500 freaking AD and including some passages that were written in Roman times. Wombat140 (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first mention of "Jerusalem Talmud" would be best listed as "Palestinian Talmud" to avoid the politicisation of the entry. In academia it is historically called the Palestinian Talmud. Let's get politics out of Wiki, eh? Academictheology (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently uses Jerusalem Talmud. I would recommend using the WP:RM process there for consistency within Wikipedia, then updating here. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done both are accurate and neither are politicised. This edit is not necessary and if anything, more of an attempt to see something political that isn’t there. (And thus politicise the issue) Shabbat shalom😉 and happy editing if you’re still editing today. Slomo666 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "Palestinian Talmud" is politicizing the entry.

The word in Hebrew is (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד יְרוּשַׁלְמִי, romanized: Talmud Yerushalmi), which in English means "Jerusalem Talmud" JerryJJJJJJ (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

"Various collections of quotes from the Talmud circulate on the Internet and elsewhere, purporting to show that the Talmud promotes immoral practices and regards non-Jews as lesser beings. Some of these quotes are genuine (the Talmud dates from the early Middle Ages), some have been taken out of context in a way that changes their meaning, and many are outright fakes."

someone merely asserted "some", "some" and "many" at the end of the text, this should be written in a different way and seems opinionated ~2025-35753-51 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you got a better idea? Wombat140 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The Islamic conquest and colonisation of Christendom and the holy land ( IE ) the land of Israel. Not the " Arab " invasion. ~2025-38246-96 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The criticism section is casually intermingling antisemitic cranks like Pranaitis and Eisenmenger as "critics" of the Talmud when they are really ranting and raving, with historical personages of a more reputable color. We should separate the section - a section for meaningful critical engagement with Talmud, and a separate, shorter section for the antisemitic strain of "critics" who couldn't even really read the Talmud let alone critique it. After all, it's difficult to engage with even if you are an earnest and thoughtful student of the material, let alone a fraud and a quack like Pranaitis. The current version of the article does acknowledge this, but, I think a more significant division of the section would be better. Andre🚐 00:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In this article, and some related articles, "redaction" is used without explanation, or with a misleading link to Redaction. A more appropriate link would be Redaction (editorial synthesis), or simply to use words whose contemporary meaning isn't so far diverged from this word. Collate, assemble, collected, all would be clearer. Kmmockery (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)