V'dibarta Bam

1:23 PM

Welcome to Mi Yodeya, Hermann. Unfortunately, while this answers the question, it goes against our format. I hope you enjoy our community regardless and enjoy our other questions tagged [yekke] — Noach MiFrankfurt 17 hours ago

How so?

Eagle

2:01 PM

Stupid question(but if you don't know,you don't know).. Can books still be added to the Talmud?

Argon

@DoubleAA If it makes you feel better, the "original" resh was probably a uvular roll, not an alveolar one.

And ט was probably glottalized, not pharyngealized like today.

Double AA

@Argon I know but that gets into late spirintization of bgdfpt

While people often conflate original and proper, it could be that, as a matter of halakha, just as the tiberian text of torah was determined to be binding (not unlike how the babylonian talmud was) so too is the pronunciation described in it.

Maybe not too, but I'm just pointing out that halakha as a system isn't bound to accepting the earliest historical evidence per se.

Argon

@DoubleAA If that is the case, not many people seem to care much. I have never, ever seen anyone even attempt to daven Tiberian.

I also doubt there is anyone alive who can do it properly. There are massive papers that exist just on describing minutiae like vowel length.

Double AA

@Argon Those papers just demonstrate how hard it would be to learn such a thing.

Argon

Note also, in the Tiberian system, there were two types of resh, alveolar roll and uvular (trill or fricative).

Double AA

2:09 PM

The fact that people don't do it could be because it's hard and they have other things to work on that are more halakhically important

Argon

@DoubleAA But it is not so hard to at least attempt. Seven vowels is a start. Also, one can learn how the consonants were pronounced. Yet, I've never seen it.

Frankly, I've never tried it either, because I'd sound a bit out of place in Shul.

Double AA

@Argon Indeed it probably would :)

Argon

2:25 PM

@Eagle No, people just make their own books separate from the Talmud.

Eagle

3:03 PM

@Argon Thank you,I have been wondering about that.But when did they stop adding to the talmud?

Isaac Moses

3:56 PM

Talmud

The Talmud (/ˈtɑːlmʊd, -məd, ˈtæl-/; Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד talmūd "instruction, learning", from a root LMD "teach, study") is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism. It is also traditionally referred to as Shas (ש״ס), a Hebrew abbreviation of shisha sedarim, the "six orders", a reference to the six orders of the Mishnah. The term "Talmud" normally refers to the collection of writings named specifically the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), although there is also an earlier collection known as the Jerusalem Talmud, or Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi). When referring to post-biblical periods, namely...

Monica Cellio

6:56 PM

@MichaBerger that's a very good point, and would make a fine answer IMO. — Monica Cellio ♦ 25 mins ago

@MonicaCellio: As ou know, I have been scared off spending too much effort writing an answer unless I can be sure enough it's on topic by all of this forum's formal rules for topicality that it won't simply disappear within an hour of my writing. Commenting reaches the questioner with what I think would be a useful answer without running the same risk of wasting my time. — Micha Berger 9 mins ago

^^^ That makes me very sad. What do we, collectively, need to do to reduce the chances of quality contributors feeling that way?

3

Double AA

7:18 PM

@MonicaCellio Clear guidelines for what is on topic / acceptable are important.

The fewer judgement calls, the better.

(Frankly, in principle answers in comments should be deleted as that's not the purpose of comments. eg. meta.stackexchange.com/q/216377/166155 This should be done with care though.)

Monica Cellio

7:35 PM

@DoubleAA agreed. Of course there will always be judgement calls, but the more we can clarify our rules (and follow them), the better for all concerned. In cases where there isn't clear consensus, such as that question, I'd rather have a good answer than not get it for fear of deletion. I want us to find the balance between "that ended up being closed after all but it's a good answer so we keep it" and "you shouldn't have answered that in the first place so don't be surprised it got deleted".

Kinnard Hockenhull

7:48 PM

Hi, I'm new to chat but not new to stackexchange and I'm wondering what the appropriate place to discuss something is

Double AA

8:00 PM

@KinnardHockenhull Probably depends what that thing is :) but this is probably a good place to start. you might be directed to meta if this isn't the best place to continue

alternatively if it's something private that you need to speak to the mods only about, we can arrange that if you let me (or another mod) know

Kinnard Hockenhull

@DoubleAA That's interesting, I thought I was in the metachat

Double AA

@KinnardHockenhull there's only one chat

ttbomk

Kinnard Hockenhull

@DoubleAA ttbomk?

Double AA

'to the best of my knowledge'

TTBOMK

Adverb: TTBOMK ‎(not comparable)

(Internet) Initialism of to the best of my knowledge, indicating uncertainty in spite of having some knowledge on the subject

Monica Cellio

@KinnardHockenhull hi and welcome! Chat is generally a good place to chat. What can we help you with?

Kinnard Hockenhull

8:04 PM

I'm wondering about a question I asked which was closed as off-topic: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/75736/why-no-mizrachi-chief-rabbi

It's seems poignantly on topic to me

and I'd be surprised(shocked) if the consensus of the community here was that it was off-topic

My viewpoint was is expressed here:

@DoubleAA @ IsaacMoses @ mevaqesh Prior to any edits the question was about rabbis and jewish (and halakhik) leaders and how the offices they occupy came to exist. The fact that these roles are to whatever extent created and substantiated by the State of Israel does not make the question off-topic. They play a de facto, impactful role on jewish practice and on jewish life as well as on jewish history. Independent of the quality of the question, I think the designation as off-topic is inaccurate and unfair. — Kinnard Hockenhull yesterday

Double AA

Personally I tend to agree with Isaac's comment there judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/75736/…

And my first two comments there judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/75736/… judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/75736/… compound his concerns.

Monica Cellio

@KinnardHockenhull the question was put on hold after the first version, which wasn't clearly a halacha question and probably sounded to the closers like a question about the Israeli government. I think the current version of the question is a much better fit, and it has two reopen votes. That said, see the comment from Isaac that DoubleAA just linked.

Scimonster

@KinnardHockenhull I think it might be worth first asking if there is any halachic basis for having a chief rabbi, period, and then if there is, that can be a basis for asking why there is no Mizrachi chief rabbi.

Kinnard Hockenhull

@Scimonster As far as I can tell that's exactly what the question does as is.

Monica Cellio

What you said in this comment about the role of "chief rabbi" (in any location that has it) being institutional and not just about Israel seems relevant.

Kinnard Hockenhull

8:12 PM

@MonicaCellio Is the site limited to questions about halakha not questions about Judaism?

Scimonster

@KinnardHockenhull It kind of combines the two, and asks several things in one post.

Monica Cellio

@KinnardHockenhull no no. It's just that questions about Israel that aren't about Judaism aren't on-topic, and that's how the question initially looked to some.

Would this rewording be acceptable?

> In some countries the Jewish community has someone who is designated as a Chief Rabbi. What, if any, is the halachic basis for having such a position? If there is one, what does halacha have to say about having more than one Chief Rabbi in a location?

Then you could use the Ashkenazi/Sefardi/not Mizrachi case in Israel as an example, but the question would be more general.

There's a chief rabbi in the UK, for instance. I don't know if there's more than one.

Kinnard Hockenhull

@MonicaCellio I see, I feel it is clear that it is on-topic in its current state and @Scimonster while it requests background information on the role of chief rabbi I'm wondering how that led to there not being a "mizrachi" chief rabbi. I'm perfectly happy leaving the delineation between sephardi and mizrachi up to the answerer.

@MonicaCellio for me that would be a different question, while I'd be curious to know the answer, in this particularly case I'd like to know about these particular communities.

I'm also (meta)wondering if it's ok to close(or leave closed) a problematic question for a reason other than its problem: my question is closed as being off-topic, when the people who voted to close it as off-topic agree that is is, as edited, on-topic

Scimonster

@KinnardHockenhull It's a big pain for the community to switch the close reason. You would need 5 people to vote to reopen and then 5 people to vote to close for a different reason. A mod could do it, but i don't really see a big benefit.

Double AA

@KinnardHockenhull If you prefer I open it and then reclose it as too broad or unclear I don't mind. Seems like needless bureaucracy to me.

Kinnard Hockenhull

8:24 PM

I see

@DoubleAA what about the question in it's current form do you find to be unclear?

@DoubleAA I think the information about why a question is closed is important signaling about what is and is not a good question around here. I think anyone who came to the site and found this question closed as off-topic would be perplexed as to what the "topic" of the site is.

Double AA

@KinnardHockenhull I suppose too broad is best here. As I see it there is a halakha question (which is clearly on topic, though poorly motivated) and a separate history question in one post, the latter of which I think is still of questionable topicality. If you ever do establish halachic basis for establishing a chief rabbi, then we can examine how that basis deals with multiple communities. Otherwise it's just an israeli political quirk of little interest to judaism.

@KinnardHockenhull That's true. Cost benefit analysis I guess.

Kinnard Hockenhull

@DoubleAA You think it has little impact on Judaism?

Double AA

@KinnardHockenhull Certainly. Why does it matter to Judaism how many rabbis the Israeli government appoints as figureheads?

The various chief rabbis who have been important poskim are not important poskim because of the israeli rabbinate. it's because they know a lot of torah.

Kinnard Hockenhull

I am actually wondering what halakhik basis there was, if any, someone who knows could respond saying that there wasn't any. I'm under the impression that there are important halakhik distinctions between sephardim and ashkenazim, is this not the case? is this not the case with mizrachim vis a vis sephardim? and what role did this play in the creation of these roles?

Scimonster

@KinnardHockenhull See the last paragraph of the lead of the Wikipedia article on Sefardim you linked in the question.

> More broadly, the term Sephardim has today also come to refer to traditionally Eastern Jewish communities of West Asia and beyond who, although not having genealogical roots in the Jewish communities of Iberia, have adopted a Sephardic style of liturgy and Sephardic law and customs imparted to them by the Iberian Jewish exiles over the course of the last few centuries.

Kinnard Hockenhull

8:34 PM

@DoubleAA That's like saying questions about the Hashmoneans are off-topic because their rule was illegitimate (only state sanctioned, not divinely sanctioned)

Scimonster

@KinnardHockenhull Not all questions about Hashmoneans are on-topic.

Monica Cellio

@DoubleAA I didn't actually know that chief rabbis are appointed by governments instead of provided by communities, for what that's worth.

(I don't claim to know anything about this. That's just one person's casual impression.)

Scimonster

@MonicaCellio There's an election every 10 years (i think) here in Israel for the Chief Rabbi position. Each city also has their own chief rabbi which i think does come more from the community.

Monica Cellio

@Scimonster TIL. Thanks.

Kinnard Hockenhull

@Scimonster sure, I could see some questions about the Hashmoneans being off-topic, but a rabbinate is a poignantly Jewish thing I'm not asking about what election machines they use in Israel

I have to admit, I'm pretty sad/upset about this outcome and I doubt very much that it reflects the consensus in the community

Isaac Moses

11:37 PM

The establishment of a rabbinate, whether performed by the State of Israel, the Queen of England, or a confederation of local shuls is an expression of Judaism (whatever else it may be an expression of as well), of obvious relevance to Jewish practice due at least to the formal influence it experts thereon, particularly interesting to practitioners of Judaism, and particularly explainable by them. Questions about such an establishment are therefore IMO on-topic.

I still think the question could use some improvements, along the lines suggested in my comment, though some have already been applied.

The combination of sub-questions it currently has is sub-ideal, IMO.

And asking about "Sefaradic" and "Mizrahi", leaving answerers to choose definitions for the terms, makes that part of the question practically unintelligible. I added WP links in an attempt to provide bases for definition, but that might not have been enough, given ambiguities expressed in this entries.

Double AA

11:53 PM

@IsaacMoses did you mean "of experts" or "it exerts"?

@IsaacMoses How about by napoleon? judaism.stackexchange.com/q/5686/759 (that was a long time ago)

Isaac Moses

@DoubleAA latter. Thanks

Transcript for