Talk:Korban

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Korban is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] Explanation required

A little explanation in the first paragraph would be a kindness. We gather that a korban is some kind of sacrifice. Wetman 06:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did a minor rewrite of the first sentence or two for clarity. 66.108.4.183 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion Allen Roth

Beautiful, IZAK. This is really impressive work, and that over the period of just a day! JFW | T@lk 06:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just added a number of classical rabbinic points of view on this issue, and few modern day Orthodox POVs. Izak did good work, but many of our articles on Judaism pick only one classical rabbinic POV, and present it as the only classical rabbinic POV. We had this problem in the article on the 613 mitzvot. It thus seemed to appropriate to add discussions of this topic from the Babylonian Talmud and various classical midrashim, and to mention the views of Abraham Isaac Kook. Also, I have references available on Orthodox discussions in reinstituing sacrifices in the 1800s (a project that, obviously, never materialized.) RK 14:05, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Majority view

I wrote in this article:

The majority view of classical rabbis that the Torah's commandments will still be applicable and in force during the messianic era. However, a significant minority of rabbis held that most of the commandments will be nullified in the messianic era, thus holding that sacrifices will not be reinstated. Examples of such rabbinic views include...

Upon re-reading my sources, I am no longer certain that this is or was the majority view. In fact, it is not currently a point of practical halakha, being something that can only be decided in the messianic era. Nonetheless, what do you guys think? Did/Do most religious Jews believe that many most of the sacrifices will not need to be brought in a rebuilt Temple? RK 03:01, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's a confusing topic. Initially offerings will be brought in the messianic era, but its not clear if that will continue indefinitely. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views

Removed for talk. Is the following paragrapg appropriate for this article? IZAK 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Christians believe that Jesus was not only a messiah, but that he became a human sacrifice to atone for all of mankind's sins. Christians often cite the rebukes of the prophets against the Children of Israel. Judaism rejects this claim, believing instead that the prophets' criticisms were meant to correct the negative behavior of those Israelites who were sinning, and not as a rejection of the sacrificial system or the Jewish religion.

Sacrifices are a concept that exist in a variety of religions, but korbonot is a Hebrew term and the article describes them as used in the Jewish religion. Christian views of sacrifice would seem more appropriate to one of the articles on Christianity, just as a paragraph on the sacrifice fly is more appropriate to an article on Baseball.--Shirahadasha 02:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyrs as Korbanot

The Martyrs as Korbanot section is currently completely unsourced and has the appearance of Original Research It currently connects a few biblical verses through a commentary that so far as can be verified seems to be of the author's own devising. There needs to be sources connecting the concept of martyrdom (including the holocaust etc.) with the system of Korbanot practicised in the Temple -- either Jewish thinkers with this view, or academic scholars who say that Jewish thinkers had this view. Currently the only source that is not a biblical verse is a commentary of Rashi's on the Akadah (sacrifice of Issac), but the idea that this view of Rashi's applies to martyrdom in general rather than solely the Issac story in particular is, so far as a neutral observer could tell from the sources supplied, completely the author's own original theory. Statements about Jewish views of the Holocaust need a post-holocaust source. Will need to be deleted unless sourced. --Shirahadasha 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the article is woefully poor on its own terms: Where is a straightforward explanation of what a korban is? No discussion of what should be found in the very opening: An animal sacrifice, and also, the types of korbanos: Hatas, Olah, etc. (excuse my transliteration). These all should be part of the article. Also--a brief description in the context of ancient Near East history and Canaanite religion. 66.108.4.183 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Deleted. --Shirahadasha 18:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grain offerings as korbanot

Apparently someone is removing the portion of the text that mentions that korbanot were animals. The word korban has never, to my knowledge been used to refer to offerings of "grain, etc." as stated in the (now rewritten) article. Please cite any reference to offerings of this kind in the Tanakh or elsewhere. 66.108.4.183 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Talmud Sheqalim 3b has minchah hayachid krivah kalil -- an individual Kohen's minchah (grain-offering) is offered (entirely [on the Alter]." (krivah is the verb form of the noun korban). Essentially anything offered (krivah) in the Temple -- grain offerings, wine libations, first fruits, water libation, etc. -- is a korban. To give a sense of how ubiquitous this usage is in Judaism, to this day a women's siddur is traditionally known as a "korban minchah" siddur. Artscroll sells one and calls it this. See [1]. --Shirahadasha 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As an FYI,.the description of the offerings of the heads of the 12 tribes at the dedication of the Temple (the Torah reading for Hannukah) specifically uses the word korban to refer, not merely to grain, but to offerings of vessels and implements. The word korban can be used for any offering to the Temple or Tabernacle for religious purposes. Lawrence Shiffman's From Text to Tradition, a History of Judaism in Second Temple and Rabbinic Times: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism reports that in this period rich individuals and communities in the Babylonian and Greek diaspora would donate wall-hangings and furniture to the Temple with their names on it -- much as people donate to religious institutions today. These were Karbonot. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korbanot article introduction dispute

User:66.108.4.1083 appears to take the view that Korbanot article introduction should refer only to an archaic "cult" by ancient "Hebrews." However, various beliefs and practices regarding korbanot continue to be an inherent part of the Orthodox Jewish religion. Most of the Talmud, the core curriculum of contemporary rabbinics, is basically about how to perform them. Legal principles derived from adjudicating their performance continue to drive Jewish law, and a great deal of theological dispute covers them. They continue to influence contemporary religion and politics. See for example the The Third Temple and Temple Mount articles, and the coverage on contemporary views and issues in this article. We can doubtless come up with compromise language, but it would be incorrect to limit scope to an ancient "Hebrew cult". Classical Judaism recognizes them as part of Judaism, and looks primarily to the Talmud, not the Bible, for a description of their scope and the procedures by which they were performed. By analogy, it would incorrect for me as a Jew to change an article on Jesus' ressurrection or some such thing to refer to an "ancient" or archaic belief, since this is a belief, while ancient, continues to have enormous contemporary influence in Christianity, and its contemporary impact similarly needs to be part of any encyclopedia article. Best Wishes, --Shirahadasha 13:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many inaccuracies and misstatements: (1) The article, in order to be accurate, ought to make it clear that korbanot primarily refers to an animal sacrifice. Technically, korban may also refer to offerings of grain, etc., but anyone conversant with the Bible and Talmud would know that the word korban, particularly to a the general reader coming here for summary capsulated knowledge, must be informed that the word denotes animal sacrifices. The article does in fact state that there were other types of offerings than animals, but it ought to make clear that the primary sacrifices in the Hebrew cultic ritual were in fact animals, as the original draft mentioned: rams, goats, sheep, birds, doves, etc. (2) Although entire Tractates of the Talmud (e.g. Hulin) deal with the laws regarding korbanot, it is downright absurd to claim that “Most of the Talmud is about how to perform them.” Most of the Talmud (Babylonian and Jerusalem/Palestinian) concern torts, contracts, marriage and divorce, and other areas of what we call today Civil Law. The core curriculum of contemporary rabbinics? Korbanot commands no more than a cursory part of any rabbinical curriculum today, whether orthodox, reform, or reconstructionist. (3) Furthermore, Judaism as such did not exist at the time of the Holy Temple(s); that is why the word “Hebrew” is used in this context. Judaism as a faith did not appear until the end of the Second Commonwealth at the earliest. Prior to that, the correct usage is “Hebrew,” “Israelite,” etc. Solomon was a Hebrew or Israelite king; he is not generally referred to as “Jewish.” But this would lead into an extended discussion of the development of the Hebrew faith from monolatry (Abraham, and the Yahwist and Elohist sources), to a mature monotheism (Early Prophets), to a universal ethical monotheism (Latter Prophets), to Rabbinic Judaism (the Mishna and Talmud). I don't have any theological ax to grind; I ask just that all the evidence--textual, archaeological, epigraphical, anthropological, historical, etc.--be examined fairly and with an open mind, without preconceptions, theological or otherwise. P.S. My mother had a korban minhah prayer book. 66.108.4.183 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Nash's Companion Allen Roth

As to your points (1) and (2), the issue may be one of definition and emphasis. For example, I think of 3 of the domestic law tractates, nedarim, nazir, and sotah, as being intimately connected to related korbanot (and so on with large sections of Moed etc.) and I also think of korbanot as including bikkurim, shekalim, etc. Similarly principles derived from analysis of korbanot have been applied throughout halakha. As to your points from (3), all represent disputes between traditional religious and contemporary academic POVs. Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV has some specific things to say about disputes between religious thinkers and contemporary academic historians and I intend to adhere to the policy. The policy requires both traditional religious and critical-scholarship perspectives to be presented without preference between them, so claims that scholarly (or religious) terminology or claims are "correct" will be edited out. A complicating factor here is that academics and religious folks each have their own set of dense jargon and technical terms for these things, but I see no choice but to introduce both in separate places. I believe the article will have to rely on attribution heavily, beginning virtually every section and sometimes individual sentences with "According to...". In my view, the scope of the subject has to be broad enough to take into account both views, and (comparatively) recent views like Abraham Isaac Kook's view that only non-animal korbanot will offered in a restored Third Temple are relevant to the contemporary religious meaning of korbanot, which may have evolved somewhat from what it might have meant at some time in the past. Nonetheless, my POV is that this is an article that needs to include contemporary religious meaning. --Shirahadasha 06:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

66.108.4.183, please register and obtain a userid to continue these discussions. Once you register and log in each time, you can use four tildes to sign your name. I see you are entering what appears to be a userid without actually signing in. Believe it or not, there is actually a Wikipedia policy against doing this, please avoid it. See WP:Username and WP:SIG. Best Wishes, --Shirahadasha 07:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I have stepped on someone's ideological toes. I doubt that I will spend any more time on what I perceive will be a losing battle on behalf of clarity and historical consensus, and against obscurantism and dogma. At this point, all I will write is that the interpretation of WK's policies offered by this contributor would apparently require the article on Darwin to state something like, "Many disagree with the views of Darwin, and believe that the world was created by a supernatural Being of one kind or another, many claimisng much more recently than 5 billion years ago, etc etc." Over 150 years after The Origin of Species, there are actually States in my country (the United States) where the teaching of scientific consensus is constrained in various ways. While I do not believe in censorship, an accomodation must be made in civil society, if it is to be an informed society, on recognition of the progress of knowledge and science. It seems that we, as an informed culture, have not progressed as much as we would like to think, since the Roman Church went after Galileo for having the temerity to suggest that the Earth moved, and that there were 'imperfections' on the surface of the Sun. Apparently, even the use of the word 'cult' to describe the sacrificing of animals for religious purposes is deemed to be objectionable to some. What more can one say? 66.108.4.183 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For better or for worse, Wikipedia has chosen a philosophy of presenting all major points of view and declining to adapt a specific one for narration purposes. For an example on handling the Evolution-Creationism debate, see e.g. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions. Wikipedia takes the view that people can an informed choice between perspectives themselves. In our case, the topic of the article, korbanot, is about a form of religious ritual whose practice is a tenet of a significant living religion. For this reason, religious perspectives are significantly more relevant and deserve greater weight than in the example I cited. You're more than welcome to add a section with modern critical-scholarship views etc. However, the introduction should consist of consensus material, facts which don't convey a particular POV. And it's perfectly possible to do this in the case of Korbanot, since a large body of important and informative facts are essentially non-controversial and common to all perspectives. In addition, the narrative parts need to have Fairness of tone, including a "sensitive" tone, which means words that a general audience might readily perceive as derogatory shouldn't be used. In the leading American legal case on the subject of animal sacrifices (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (91-948), 508 U.S. 520 (1993)) the Supreme Court never once used the word "cult", and I think with good reason. I believe the terminology they did use provides good guidance for how to neutrally and sensitively refer to these types of rituals. Another alternative is to use (and define) transliterated Hebrew words. Similarly, the Y-word is problematic to a religious audience. You're welcome to introduce it in the critical-perspectives section. The most sensitive way to handle the situation might be to have its use come in through quotes, which would provide whatever information is appropriate in a way that makes clear the POV isn't Wikipedia's. I'm not wedded to the term "Jew" myself. I think a compromise is possible which would provide a sensitive and neutral but accurate and informative introduction. Best wishes, --Shirahadasha 02:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rashi's View on World To Come

I have removed the statement that

"*Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah 3a, 4b, states that today we should observe the commandments, while Rashi comments that this is so because we will not observe them in the world to come."

as a support to the view that there would be no more commandments or karbanos in the messianic era. An incorrect assumption is made that Rashi believes that "the world to come" or "Olam habah" is the same as the Messianic era. On the contrary, unlike the Rambam (Maimonidies), Rashi considers Olam Habah to be when a person dies and is without his body, therefore unable to perform commandments. LemonLion 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)LemonLion

[edit] Human Sacrifice section

Removed following material to Talk page pending review of sources and discussion. This appears to present the views of a single individual, Richard Elliot Friedman, cites biblical passages as sources, and claims that a 1915 German article is believed by the "majority of scholars" without citing a source or informing what the criteria for entering the denominator may be. Most of the material also appears to be irrelevant. This is an article on Judaism, not an article on the Hebrew Bible. Material on non-Jewish practices that are argued to have references or allusions somewhere in someone's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, together with disputes about those references, appears to be inconsistent with the article's scope. --Shirahadasha 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

After realizing that this section has been lifted largely verbatim from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia with supplements from Peake's Commentary on the Bible and Richard Elliott Friedman, agree this section is adequately sourced and should go back in. However, it should be carefully presented as a POV rather than fact. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia in particular was run by a group of folks from the classical Reform movement who were particularly keen to distance themselves from and portray traditional religious practices in a way no longer done in the Reform movement and which is almost embarassing from the point of view of our contemporary society, which has generally softened its attitude to traditional peoples and their customs in the last century from what we today might regard as highly ethnocentric, even imperialist attitudes. It should be noted that a number of traditional Jewish commentators, particularly Nachmanides, had the idea that human sacrifice existed prior to its abolition by the Torah and that Jews backslid into it, and that this is part of the sins for which, in the classical tradition, Jews were warned by the prophets and then punished with calamiites including the end of the Kingdom of Israel, the exile of the Ten lost tribes, the destruction of Solomon's Temple, and the Babylonian Captivity. --Shirahadasha 23:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human sacrifice

- Though there is no mitzvah commanding it, and several times it is explicitly prohibited, traces of human sacrifices abound in the Biblical records[1]. The command to Abraham concerning what is now termed the near sacrifice of Isaac, and the subsequent development of the story, indicate that the substitution of animal for human victims was traced to patriarchal example[2]. According to textual scholars, in the original form of the narrative, Isaac was sacrificed; later mentions of Isaac are attributed to a different source (and many such mentions duplicate some of the narratives about Jacob and about Abraham), and scholars attribute the substitution of an animal to the later redactor[3]. - - The first born naturally belonged to the deity; although a mitzvah orders that first born male humans be ransomed, this mitzvah has a late date[4], and it is clear that originally the first born would have been immolated[5]. In the Law the very intensity of the protest against passing the children through the fire to Moloch reveals the extent of the practise in Israel[6]. Jeremiah bitterly laments the disgrace[7], Ezekiel presents it as a frequent occurence[8], a Psalm confesses the sacrifice of children to demons[9], and Deutero-Isaiah alludes to the continued presence of such iniquity[10][11]. Several modern scholars believe that rather than a Canaanite deity, Moloch was a term describing the sacrifice itself, and that sacrifices to Moloch could really be molk sacrifices to Yahweh[12]. - - The fate of Jephthah's daughter[13] presents the clearest instance of such immolations[14], and the sacrifice of a son is specifically recorded by the bible in the cases of Mesha[15], Ahaz[16], and Manasseh of Judah[17]. Less explicit, but still indicative of human sacrifice, is the case of the sons of Saul offered by David to the men of Gibeon, and of the ban to which enemy towns were often put[18]

  1. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, final clause verbatim; Peake's commentary on the Bible
  2. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, sacrifice
  3. ^ Richard Elliott Friedman, Who wrote the Bible?
  4. ^ ibid; Jewish Encyclopedia, Book of Numbers
  5. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, sacrifice
  6. ^ ibid, verbatim
  7. ^ Jeremiah 3:24-25
  8. ^ Ezekiel 20:30-31
  9. ^ Psalms 106:37-38
  10. ^ Isaiah 57:5
  11. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia
  12. ^ scholars have become more divided on the issue recently, due to additional archaeological discoveries. The Moloch-describes-the-sacrifice theory, originally advocated by Eissfeldt (Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen, 1935), still retains a majority, albeit slight
  13. ^ Judges 11:30-31, 11:34-40
  14. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia, verbatim
  15. ^ 2 Kings 3:27
  16. ^ 2 Kings 16:3
  17. ^ 2 Kings 21:6
  18. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia

[edit] Talk:Korban/Comments

Someone added Talk:Korban/Comments on 20 December 2006. Thanks, IZAK 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bahasa Melayu and Islam

To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the Muslims in South East Asia use the word korban to mean sacrifice. The important muslim holiday Eid ul-Adha is sometimes called Hari Korban in Malaysia and means Sacrifice Day. Can we find some way to make this factoid relevant to the article? Perhaps some mention in the introduction to the article where the term korban gets used in other languages and religious traditions? Ryan Albrey (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that the words are etymologically related, I don't think it would be unreasonable to add an "In Islam" section. However, the intention of the article is to stick to matters directly involving korban used in the Hebrew Bible rather than "sacrifice" in some more general sense. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)