Talk:Talmud

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2025

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)

about a paragraph

"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)

Islamic conquest.

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)

Merge proposal: Talmud and Gemara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Gemara into Talmud because "Talmud" and "Gemara" are synonymous. "Gemara" is a synonym for "Talmud" that became common due to Christian censorship of the word "Talmud" in early modern Europe. Compare the corresponding Hebrew Wikipedia entry, where "Gemera" redirects to entry "Talmud Bavli" (תלמוד בבלי). English Wikipedia has no separate entry for Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrinmakos (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

"Gemara" has both a wide meaning, as a synonym for "Talmud", and a narrow meaning, as a component of the Talmud. Countless sources can be found for each possibility. This variation should be discussed somewhere in our articles, but we should not adopt one of the possibilities as "the" truth. I don't really have an opinion on how the articles should be partitioned as several possibilities would work. Zero^talk 00:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this merger in theory, but I haven't looked closely at the actual content included on the pages. How much overlap is there already? GordonGlottal (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I support. Talmud would be the main, not much on Gemara so would be easy copy in. Pogenplain (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Talmud refers to the combination of Gemara and Mishnah. Gemara is seperate commentary on Mishnah, while both are included in Talmud. They are two seperate terms. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per VidanaliK they are two separate terms. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose If the existing content of both were all in a single article, I would suggest splitting it.--agr (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. They are not synonyms. Andre🚐 06:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

'OPPOSE "Talmud" is NOT synonymous with "Gemara"

I would prefer to see seperate articles regarding the Babeloynian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. JerryJJJJJJ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism

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)

"Redaction"

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)

Slavita correction

Please correct the name of the town from SlavIta to SlavUta. Thanks Bronisko (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Apparently Slavita (סלאוויטא) is the Yiddish name for the place. Zero^talk 14:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

So? You can call it Abracadabra in Khazarian. Does not change the true name. Bronisko (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable source cited, zero evidence of Christian scholars studying the Talmud to "illuminate their own scriptures"

The source for this claim leads to a defunct page which used to be a 2006 article from a pro-Israel, pro-jewish website which can clearly not provide any reliable objective information.

After some digging you can find these pages saying Christians scholars read the Talmud to "illuminate their owns scriptures": -https://israelbiblecenter.com/interviews/jews-and-jesus/rabbinic-sources-and-the-new-testament -https://en-hum.huji.ac.il/fresh-perspectives-talmudic-scholarship -https://israelbiblecenter.com/interviews/jews-and-jesus/rabbinic-sources-and-the-new-testament -https://www.ancientjewreview.com/read/2026/4/29/a-retrospective-from-joel-kaminsky -https://www.logos.com/grow/what-is-the-talmud-and-is-it-beneficial-for-christians/ ... Nich ALL of these are either written by jews or by pro-Israel (moderns state of). As a matter of fact, Christian scholars studied the Talmud to discredit and denounce it, earliest among being Nicholas Donin who was actually a convert. Ultimately, the Paris Trial was held in 1240 (https://ddd.uab.cat/record/215917).

Moreover, if you believe using the ADL and other jewish shills as providers of objective information is acceptable then you must be mentally ill. Raduugp (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)