Talk:Hillel the Elder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Golden Rule

BTW, from the article: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest (is commentary, the explanation); go and study it. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a. See the ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden rule") Well, that's partly true. Hillel's rule seems that it would more accurately be described as the Silver Rule, which is the converse of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says "*Do* unto others as you want them to do to you", the Silver Rule says "*Don't* do unto others as you wouldn't want them to do to you" -- one is prescriptive, the other is restrictive. However, I'm not confident enough to make a change to the article in this regard on my own -- I would rather discuss it here first. --HanClinto 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I've heard both forms attributed as "the golden rule". IMHO, one of the things that makes the golden rule so "golden" is it's universal applicability and countless sources. (See the wikipedia page on Ethic of reciprocity for some of the rather varied and diverse places it can be found in form or another). I don't think there is any specific standard for the golden rule, but rather the ethic underlying it, and many ways of expressing that ethic, all of which can be referred to as the golden rule. --Bachrach44 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The positive assertion of the golden rule, which post-dates the Hillel quote is more appropriately considered the silver rule. I agree that there is a great difference. The passivistic Hillel approach admonishes wrong-doing while the more Christian approach commends intervention. The positivistic approach compels action, the negative or neutral Hillel approach prohibits action. They both require one to avoid wrong-doing, but the postivistic command then goes further to compel "good deeds". This can be interpreted either as a good thing in that it promotes the "good samaritan" approach to loving thy neighbor or as a bad thing if your idea of what is good differs from thy neighbor. No western country has adopted a "good samaritan" law precicely because we do not feel that intervention should be compelled. The negative approach considers that and accomodates it. That is why, in my opinion, it rings more true than the later "golden rule."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.211.8 (talk) 20:07, 2006 October 13 (UTC)

---

DHC comments. It has not been made sufficiently clear what is the difference between the original version of the Rule and Hillels version. The original rule calls for almost saintly behavour between people living in close proximity. Whilst there are doubts as to the practically of this, the fact that it is not at all easy to love somebody from a great distance means that in this for the rule applies to ones neighbor rather than to ones fellow citizen.

However when one looks at Hillel's version or corrolory, namely not to do harm, the application can be a lot more wide-spread and still be very practical. Thus by avoiding the use of petreoleum combustion and CO2 emmissions one is helping the whole world, not just oneself or the surrounding community. This is not a possible effect if only the positive version of the rule were being followed. Thus Hillel's version is both more practical and also far more general. It applies to business ethics in a macroeconomic setting and (for example) would stop a person from holding land out of use for purposes of speculation, because in so doing he causes the competition to use the rest of the land to raise land prices and the its rent (ground-rent). Thus by the universal adoption Hillel's version of the rule there would be less poverty and unemployment.

The original version of the rule implies the need for giving charity. This when attempted on a national scale results in socialism and the welfare state. There are srtrong religious overtones to both of these views, which deserve attention in another artical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.190.197 (talk) 17:36, 2006 October 29 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Seven Rules of Hillel (of Biblical literary interpretation) be at least mentioned in the article? I have a link to a website where they can be found. The Seven Rules of Hillel TurtleofXanth 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Years of Nasi

According to History of the Re-established Sanhedrin Hillel served as Nasi from 30 BCE to 10 BCE, not 20 BCE to 20 CE. Anomalocaris 00:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

golden rule

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow" What word is here translated as "fellow"? Is it the same word that is also often translated "neighbor," as in "love your neighbor"? 67.170.55.241 04:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The word translated as "fellow" is haver. This means "friend", or "comrade". In Tannaitic times, a haver was a meticulously pious person, who was particularly careful with issues of purity and impurity, and tithing.

The word translated as "neighbor" in "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is rei'ah, which also indicates a fellowship of sorts. In both cases, Jewish law applies this solely to fellow Jews. LisaLiel (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, thanks for your answer. Not what I expected, but that just means it's a better answer. Leadwind (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tomb

I know it's odd to make a citation request in a photo's caption, but there doesn't seem to be mention of Hillel's tomb anywhere in the article. Where is the tomb? If the tomb location is known, when was it discovered? If it was always known and can be verified, how was this done? Is there any debate over the authenticity of the tomb? The image is unsourced, and the uploader claimed to be the creator of the image, so we really don't have much background info here.

Thanks for this comment. I've added a source. See google results for several more sources about Hillel being buried in Meron. [1]. I'm not aware of disputes over this location. Amoruso 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

These sources have no historical basis. They are based on the divination of Yitzchak Luria in the 16th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.134.185 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Golden Rule 2

This section is oddly worded: It implies that Hillel wrote Pirkei Avot, which he most DEFINITELY did not! Please reword the first sentence of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.68.129.127 (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Three things. First of all, please don't insert comments at the beginning of a section like that. If you're worried about them being seen, create a new section, like I've just done.

Second of all, please sign your posts.

Third of all, the section is not at all oddly worded. There are groupings in Pirkei Avot, and the section refers to the maxim of Hillel that introduces the things that he said. It's not poorly worded; you just misunderstood it. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

The question was raised on March 9, 2009 whether this article infringes on [2]. The matter is under investigation. Input would be very welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Investigation closes early with a finding of public domain. Template added to the article accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper's article

This Israeli site: [JP] talks about this Jew.Agre22 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Hillel's Rule

I have tried to change this rule, which in the article says "Which is not hateful, do not do unto your fellow." I have studied this phrase, and it translates from hebrew, which I am fluent in, to "love thy neighbor as thyself." This is not vandalism, but rather the truth, and I would appreciate it if I was allowed to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomim10 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not translate to that. And clearly you aren't that fluent in Hebrew, or you'd realize that the original statement is in Aramaic. I don't know where you got the idea that מה דעלך סני לחברך אל תעביד is the same as ואהבת לרעך כמוך, but you're sadly mistaken. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the Torah wasn't in Aramaic. Someone needs to change that. Naomim10

What's your point? The quote is something that Hillel said. Not something from the Torah. Hillel was from Babylon, and Aramaic was his mother tongue. If you look elsewhere in the Gemara, you'll see that most of the statements we have from Hillel are in Aramaic. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 23:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

When I Am "Only" For Myself

People should stop changing the translation of Hillel's maxim to include the word "only". The text of the maxim is:

Eem eyn ani li, mi li? If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

U-ch'she'ani l'atzmi, ma ani? And when I am for myself, what am I?

V'eem lo achshav, eymatai? And if not now, when?

I understand that many people have interpreted the second line of these three as modifying the first, so as to say that despite the need to act on ones own behalf, one should not only think of oneself. And while that may be good advice, it is most certainly not the plain meaning of Hillel's statement. Rather, it is as logical as Hillel tends to be. It is a continuation of the first line. One must act on ones own behalf, because who else will? Which then begs the question: what am "I"? What is my nature, so that I can determine whether an action truly is in my own best interest?

When reading a statement that is difficult to understand on its face, it is often tempting to rewrite the statement to make it easier to understand. But a lot more is gained by leaving the statement alone and spending the time and energy to try and understand it. LisaLiel (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a general styling question regarding this quote. Presently it says (I added the bold).

       "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'?" And "If not now, when?"

The word 'And' DOES appear in the actual source. As such this should be a continuous quote (remove the extra quotation marks before and after the word "And"). Past revisions of this page DO in fact, show it done this way. So rather than start an edit-war, is there any specific reason to leave it as is?? Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that was a typo. I'll change it. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You guys are typing silliness, there is no source given, the Mishna is not a source, it was written in 200 ce Hebrew, quoting BC Hebrew, this is 21 Century English.

I disagree with all of the above statements. We are not here to pretend to be amateur Hebrew translators case closed. If you do not have an English source omitting the 'only'; only must go in, Also the source should be written in the consensus view of the mainline Jewish translations from Yiddish and Arabic translations, or even because this is not a Jewish encyclopedia, a philo-Semitiic Christian source, pooling from the consensus translations prior to the 18 Century at the latest; NOT!!!!!! directly from the Hebrew. WE have 1800 years of translations and commentaries, most of which use only. Despite activist editors, this is not up for consensus, if no PUBLISHED AND ACCEPTED ENGLISH source has omitted the only; then the only is there!!!!!! If one exists which I did find by a wonderful, Jewish loving Christian text from 1877 which omits the 'only'. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers: Comprising Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir; Charles Taylor Harvard University Press; 1877; p. 37; from the Harvard Divinity School.

More importantly, I question your Hebraic skills to begin with, when translating poetry, you firstly are using Modern Hebrew, which comes after the scientific revolution, and differs drastically from any language of 2000 years ago. But, even using Modern Hebrew and "Scholarly" Hebrew (which discounts all the Jewish attribution to the language, and turns the language into dry stone) as the metric LeAtzmie in certain contexts DOES mean alone, a synonym for only, ani holech leatzmi has been used in poetry to communicate I walk alone for example.

If people like you translated at the conference of King James, the Bible as we know it would be 1/3rd the size and barely readable. You modern arrogants do the same thing to hevel, make it futile, when it has been transmitted by Jews originally as vanity, because it is not in the Hebrew as you put it, though you are wrong. Also it would have very little connection to how the Bible was intended to be read, i.e. how it was passed down through the ages. It was decades and decades before the Islamic societies let any English language Koran translation happen, even now there are many in the Islamic world who feel it shatters their culture to translate the Koran into English. How much more so an older language, and done by Wikipedia editors(!!!!) without a single Judaist source, from that specific short poem, NOT A HEBREW ENGLISH DICTIONARY!!!

The consensus view on this can only be the average of all the century old translations, or the consensus of the Jewish and non-Jews with a scientific degree in Jewish not Hebraist (linguistic), culture. It can not be be a consensus of arrogant translators who have not published a single book on the Sayings of the Fathers. Hillel IS an important man. Johann Reuchlin made this exact case to the early Protestants, before getting imprisoned for his beliefs, about the poetic nature of Hebrew. Again how much more so WHEN IT IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN IN A POETIC STRUCTURE, rather than the drier Hebrew of the rest of the Mishna.

Sources that use only that can be linked on the internet: (my Talmud teacher which I study for a hobby used only, and he had the whole thing memorized in Hebrew-Aramit, most Temples use only).

 "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I care for myself only, What am I.  And if not now, when?"

From Pirkei Aboth, by Joseph I. Gorfinkle PhD; published by Bloch Judaic History collection in 1912 based on the Spanish translations of centuries past, directly from a European Yiddish translation, page 36. [[3]]

or free E-Book here, [[4]]

 "If I am not for myself, who is for me? and if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" 

published for the Anglo-speaking world of Jews in 1906, public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. [[5]]

 "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" 

from the translations done by Baal HaTanya originally in Yiddish. [[6]] From, Avot with Commentary By Yosef Marcus Published and copyrighted by Kehot Publication Society (someone dedicated to studying Judaism).

 "If I am not for myself, who is for me ? And if I am for myself alone, what then am I ? And if not now, then when?"

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 version, published in 1911 [[7]].

Sources without "only": The only one without only,

 "If I am not for myself who is for me; and being for my own self what am I? If not now when?" 

he omits the 'and' before 'vim lo ahshav', good and published translation without 'only' none the less.[[8]] Sayings of the Jewish Fathers: Comprising Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Critical and Illustrative Notes and Specimen Pages of the the Cambridge University; Taken from a Manuscript of the Mishnah "Jerushalmith" from which the Text of Aboth is Extracted; By Charles Taylor [Cambridge] University Press, Published in 1877 - 221 pages - page 37. Kirk loganewski (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dates

If we don't know the exact range of dates when Hillel lived, we should at least say something more helpful than "in the time of King Herod", which could refer to any of several kings of that name. --Jim Henry 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) First section of this article attributes Hillel's lifespan as beginning in 32 BCE and ending in 7CE. The same section later credits him with a lifespan of 120 yrs. 2014 (Bill8272) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill8272 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Lisa and Debresser

Lisa and Debresser are ultra-combative editors. Debresser can be seen as such on his edits of the page Misnaged and others. Lisa has threatened people with "hitting them with a carp", in an argument. They both represent one element of Judaism to the exclusion of all others, they represent a singular Hasidic sect. Their editing is tinged with bigotry, and improper English. Lisa has a history of deleting anything written in favor of Christianity even if benign. and does it in a combative way. The comparative religion reference to the Koran on this page was on the page for I believe over a year. It has been removed by them in ignorance as if it was just added.

Debresser sent a message to me asking me to go to the talk page to hide his combative edit warring. I had already gone to the talk page weeks before that see paragraphs above. I had provided multiple sources and links to them, Lisa had not responded just went on to edit war against other editors (not me) who had changed it to the proper sourced material.

Also Debresser is nicer to full on bigots. Which can be seen by his quickness to compromise with actual anti-Semites for the page Ashkenazi Jews (I define those as anti-Semites because they had accused Jews of getting paid to edit, and called all of Jewish history a stupid "meme"), however criticism from those with more knowledge than them in Jewish history (likely fellow Jews) illicits no compromise whatsoever, just combativeness.

I then added a source to a compromise translation from the E. Britannica, in their normal games debresser always does, you can note that he left the source because these 2 have none, yet changed the translation to be different than the source. There have been at least 10 editors who have shown consensus to my view I stopped count at 10 in the history of the page, every one of them marginalized and ignored by "Lisa". Again I believe they both have psychological problems to be so bigoted against including comparative religions views in this case one which had not been deleted in over a year then removed by those 2 without going to the talk page last week, now they have become attached to removing the identical quote used both by Hillel and by the Koran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk loganewski (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Kirk loganewski (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Kirk loganewski (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

More sources using the correct translation against the edit warring and the fake consesus of Debresser and Lisa, from Conservative, Reformed, Modern Orthodox, Orthodox and UltraOrthodox (like Lisa and Debresser) sources. [9][10][11][12][13] , THEY DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE SOURCE TO USE, YET EDIT WAR AND I HAVE GIVEN 10 SOURCES SO FAR. ALSO AT LEAST 10 EDITORS HAVE TRIED TO PUT THE CORRECT TRANSLATION AND EACH TIME THEY EDIT WARRED AND IGNORED THEM, WHILE THOSE EDITORS DID NOT HAVE THE TIME OR PATIENCE TO DEAL WITH THESE 2. ALL SOURCES USE THE CORRECT TRANSLATION, THE TRICK THEY USED LAST WEEK WAS PIGGY BACK ON THE SOURCE I HAD USED THEN CHANGED THE TRANSLATION TO NOT COINCIDE WITH THE SOURCE. Kirk loganewski (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Kirk loganewski (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

King David...Hillel...Jesus

According to Barbara Thiering, Joseph (44BC-23AD) was the father of Jesus, and his father was Heli (70BC-17AD: also known as Jacob, the son of Matthat or Matthan; the "elder brother" in the story of the Prodigal Son, and an important ally of Herod the Great), whose father was Hillel the Elder. It is through Hillel that Jesus was directly descended from King David's son Nathan and had a legitimate claim to the kingship of the Jews, which he passed down to his son and grandson (according to the Bible) and perhaps further generations. It's strange that Hillel's royal descent from David isn't mentioned in this article, considering that it is documented in the New Testament, in Lk 3:23-38. The "David, son of Jesse" was King David, and the series continues back in time to Adam. Unfree (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

People who actually know the Greek Text know that Luke's genealogy traced thorough Mary not Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hillel the Elder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

DHC comments. It has not been made sufficiently clear what is the difference between the original version of the Rule and Hillels version. The original rule calls for almost saintly behavour between people living in close proximity. Whilst there are doubts as to the practically of this, the fact that it is not at all easy to love somebody from a great distance means that in this for the rule applies to ones neighbor rather than to ones fellow citizen. However when one looks at Hillel's version or corrolory, namely not to do harm, the application can be a lot more wide-spread and still be very practical. Thus by avoiding the use of petreoleum combustion and CO2 emmissions one is helping the whole world, not just oneself or the surrounding community. This is not a possible effect if only the positive version of the rule were being followed. Thus Hillel's version is both more practical and also far more general. It applies to business ethics in a macroeconomic setting and (for example) would stop a person from holding land out of use for purposes of speculation, because in so doing he causes the competition to use the rest of the land to raise land prices and the its rent (ground-rent). Thus by the universal adoption Hillel's version of the rule there would be less poverty and unemployment. The original version of the rule implies the need for giving charity. This when attempted on a national scale results in socialism and the welfare state. There are srtrong religious overtones to both of these views, which deserve attention in another article. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillel_the_Elder" The economic consequences of Hillel's corrolory to the Rule are a means of appreciating the differences between the original and Hillel's version. The original rule applies to a local community and it is therefore a micro-economic form of social behavour. However the Corrolory of Hillel is not limited to the surrounding community because (for example) by burning fuel and damaging the ozone layer and increasing the hot-house gasses effect etc., the action affects a far greater nubmer of people. Therefore Hillel's version of the Rule is a macro-economic instruction about behavour and as such is drastically changed. This is not the first example of where Hillel chose to change our "unchangable" Torah, the introduction of the Prosbul is the other case in point.

Last edited at 13:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

@יניב הורון: Tosefta and Talmud are primary sources for the subject thus they should be removed alongside the content they are supporting! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Not if text is attributed to the Talmud and Tosefta. I mean, where do you expect ancient Hillel to appear? The New York Times?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Not just that. There is nothing wrong with primary sources. Not to mention that these are secondary sources for the statement that is being sourced. Debresser (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

historicity

what are the evidences of its historicity? the Babylonian Talmud only written 200 years later or are there sources? Tuxzos22 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)