Translation talk:Mikraot Gedolot

Talmudic Citations

Well, this is a new project, so just to get the ball rolling, I assume this is not just about the classic individual commentators (such as Rashi etc) but that explanations of the Talmudic exegis of each verse are also welcome. Is this correct? Do people think this a good idea? I think it is, but it must be kept brief and in a fairly summary-style form. Frikle 04:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with works like Torah Shelemah, Torah Temimah, etc? Or with the "citations" function in the Bar-Ilan responsa project, which points to all the places Chazal (Talmud, Midrash) cite a pasuk? Direct citations (or translations of them) these would probably be more appropriate to Wikisource than summaries.

Summaries or anthologies of sources, on the other hand, as somewhat original creations, are borderline Wikibooks. That doesn't mean they cannot be here, but it would probably involve some discussion.

The classic editions of Mikraot Gedolot do not include collections of passages from Chazal. Once again, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be here, but we should think in advance exactly how and to what extent we want to stretch the definition of "Mikraot Gedolot." In the near future, I hope to write a historical survey of the Mikraot Gedolot, for better perspective on this.

In any case, I personally would like to find a good way to include such citations. Thanks for "getting the ball rolling" and let's keep talking about how to do this. Dovi 10:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the above works. Are they public domain though? I just thought it might merit discussion as to whether this should be at Wikisource or Wikibooks (like the Mishna project). I think creating a public domain reference that is anthologised like they're doing in the Mishna project has some advantages and should be considered an option.Frikle 03:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My immediate thought is that there is room for more than one project. The Mikraot Gedolot is mostly about primary source texts and translations of them, at it is already going strong in Hebrew Wikisource, with a bit in English too. Summaries and explanations of the type you suggest are perfect complements to it. The question is exactly how they should complement each other. Supplementary material? Parallel projects? Dovi 05:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to answer this earlier: Torah Temimah, which includes only talmudic citations, is public domain. Torah Shelemah which includes citations from the entire gamut of rabbinic literature is not. Dovi 06:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the Talmudic "Citations," especially when not literal translations of actual Talmudic passages but brief summaries of them, belong in a Mikra'ot Gedolot, or on Wikisource, which is devoted to published books in their original form. -- Nahum 05:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi! In general, you are right, but it may not always be the case. The problem is that there are valuable text-projects which may contain elements both of Wikisource and Wikibooks. These should not be forced to "fall between the cracks" just because they don't exactly match either project. The larger issue is discussed at Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks. You are invited to contribute to the discussion and formulation of the policy!Dovi 01:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Information about Mikraot Gedolot

OK, I wrote a Mikraot Gedolot stub English article, and a parallel article in Hebrew. The Hebrew version currently has much more information.

This is to help give all of us perspective on what the Mikraot Gedolot is, and what kinds of things it can (or should) include. Dovi 12:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Text

IMHO we shoud not write our own translation of the text, but rather follow accepted, traditional translations such as the JPS used for the Tanakh article. Otherwise, we'd have endless confusion. Nahum 03:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. It's unfortunate that most of the decent translations are copyrighted.Dovi 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

More on Talmudic Citations

I was thinking about this again recently. It seems to me there is a place for this, but not within Mikraot Gedolot, for the simple reason that such citations are not part of the historical, published Mikraot Gedolot, so it is hard to justify including them. This is a separate genre.

However, there is an entire, seperate genre of published works that deal with talmudic/midrashic references or even full citations. Namely, Toledot Aharon, Torah Temimah, Torah Shelemah, Hatorah Haketuvah Vemesurah, and I'm sure there's plenty more I'm not aware of. All of these are similar works that repeat each other's bibliographical references and citations to a large degree. They all deal with the same source texts! And all of them would could find their ultimate expression in a hypertext environment like Wikisource. Plus the genre itself has full expression in previously published texts, some of the important ones without copyright. What do people think about opening a frameword for an expanded hypertext edition of the Torah Temimah?Dovi 20:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)