Talk:Tallit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

164.83.229.20, why did you take out the qualification about some Ashkenazi groups wearing talitot from 13?MOE37x3 18:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I know, the toga was a distinctively roman piece of clothing, so I changed the paragraph that said it was of Greek origin. If I'm wrong, please correct me. --222.13.236.80 12:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew[edit]

The two Hebrew words in parentheses, given with different transliterations, are in fact the same word, vowel points and all.Benami 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixz0r3d! Tomertalk 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Section[edit]

The material given here is interesting, but no sources are cited. The author who has contributed here writes a bit too informally and in too personal a style for an encyclopedia, with sentences like, "There is much confusion among the masses." Would someone care to rewrite? Could the author provide some sources, beyond biblical references. --Metzenberg 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts[edit]

I replaced the former photo of a rabbi with a tallit. I thought it was confusing, since it was a Sukkot photo with the four species as well, but explaining sukkot and what he has in his hands is really beyond the scope here. In it's place, I added the photo of men wearing tallitot at the wall.

I must say, all the discussion of pronunciation is a bit too technical. Is it really part of the scope of this article? In practice, I find that the Ashkenazi Hebrew (or Yiddish) still gets used a lot, sometimes in almost an ironic or funny way. People say "tallises" in the worst Yinglish even though they know better, the way they say "yontiff" or "shabbus". Would anybody have a problem with making this more informal?

At the top of the article, the photo on the left looks strange. There's no head; is it a mannequin? It might be nicer to have a normal photo, a portrait of somebody wearing a tallit. Thanks.

Reform Judaism[edit]

Section doesn't seem to have anything to do with the status of the tallit (by either gender) in Reform Judaism. Section seems to be solely about the Women of the Wall (presented in a non-NPOV way) What does this specific group have to do with the general subject Tallit, or Tallit within Reform Judaism. If the section is relevant it's not current -- the Israeli Supreme Court issued a ruling.

--as I do attend a Reform Temple, I can say that the men do wear Tallitot today, they may not always have in the movement today tradition is making a fervent comeback withing messianic Judaism, from JEWISH LIVING URJ PRESS --Teacherbrock (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine or Feminine Word?[edit]

Tallitot appears feminine, and Tallaisim appears masculine. What is the noun's gender?

--Jndrline 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word talléth was feminine with -oth in plural in Mediaeval Sephardi Hebrew and masculine with -im in plural in Mediaeval Ashkenazi Hebrew. In modern Israeli Hebrew, the word is generally considered feminine, but in the two expressions tallit gadol and tallit katan, the masculine endings of Mediaeval Ashkenaz are kept. In modern Sephardi Hebrew, usage varies between the traditional tallét gedolá and tallét ketanná and the standard Israeli tallít gadól and tallít katán. -- Olve 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Such a complete and well-rounded answer. I suspected that they retained their gender according to whichever pronunciation was being used, but I had never heard of such a thing, so I assumed it might have had something to do with a Yiddish-ism.
My question actually came up with the examples you gave of a tallis katan - someone said tallitot katanot, and it completely threw me. I had never heard any adjectives applied to the object, and so I had never thought to ask the question until this person put it in plural. I figured the answer might prove one of the ethnic pronounciations more "correct" over the other; I'm glad it doesn't. Good to know. Thanks again.
--Jndrline

the diferance between wool and cotton[edit]

is there a halachik diferance between wool and cotton? if someone can put it up (with all opinions) it would be great

1st, remember to sign all comments with 4~. 2nd, the difference is that, by halachoh, only wool and linen garments need to have Tzitzis. See The Alter Rebbe's siddur. Thats why, to be mehader the mitzvoh, you should wear wool or linen tzitzis and tallis. Shaul avrom 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any other sources for this? (I don’t have that siddur and cannot access it from this part of Norway.) It is clearly not the general understanding of the miṣvá... -- Olve 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is not so cut and dry. According to Sephardic custom as recorded by the Beis Yosef in SHulchan Aruch only wool and linen require titzis d'raisa, and others require them drabbanan. The rhema in his comments to this mentions that all garments require tzitizis draita. That's the normal Ashkenazi view, with acharonim coming down both ways. The Baal HaTanya, author of Shulchan Aruch HaRav and the Siddur mentioned above, rules leniently as mentioned. So does the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. General practice among most ashkenazim is to rule stringently. (The debate is whether it is draisa or d'rabbanan not whether there is a requirement.) Mishnah Berurah rules stringently. (Meaning he rules it a draisa, which is stringent because if you are in a market place wrapped in only a tallis that requires tzitzis draisa, and you see the tzitzis are torn, you have to immediately throw it off and run home naked. If it were a drabanan you could keap it on till you got home.)To put something up with ALL opinions would overpower the article. We are 600 years into the age of the Acharonim. Basejumper 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow! Isn't it good women don't wear a tallis. Otherwise they might have to undress in public and run naked through the marketplace yelling gevalddddd.--Gilabrand 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a draisa commandment is pretty heavy in Judaism. WIth your example however, women also have a draisa commandment to cover themselves up in public, whereas for men most of it is drabbanan, so even if they had a commandment to wear tzitzis on a four cornered garment, it would work out that they should keap it on because running naked for them is violating several commandments "DOn't place a stumbling block," "You shall be holy," and "Let no unchaste thing be seen among you," not to mention others. I mentioned the running naked because that situation is discussed in Brachos; but truthfully, you'd also have the option of ripping the corner of your garment so it would be rounded, though a rounded rip would be difficult without a scissor or knife's help. Basejumper 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph about women and circumcision[edit]

The following paragraph was added by an anonymous editor: 

The core of the issue is what the tallit and tzitzit symbolize. Tzitzit were commanded
to be tied to the corners of the four-cornered garment worn by men. The four-cornered
garment is the tallit. The tzitzit were to be a reminder of The Almighty's covenant with
His people (remember, the covenant is with the circumcised, and the circumcised extend it
to their wives and children). With the covenant comes protection. During the Birkat
HaKohanim (Blessing from the Priests of The Temple, or in modern times a rabbi), it is
customary for the husband/father to extend his tallit, and thus the covenant and protection
to his wife and children, symbolizing his accountability for how he teaches his family.
This accountability is because of the events in Bereishit (Genesis) chapter three. One
mitzvah (commandment) is for men and women to abstain from wearing what pertains to the
opposite gender. There is no scriptural reference of a woman wearing a four-cornered
garment, or a woman undergoing B'rit Milah.

I don't understand this paragraph: how can women undergo b'rit milah in the traditionally accepted sense of that term, for instance? Any clarification would be welcome. For now, though, I have removed this paragraph from the article so that we can work on it here, if we so desire. I believe this is the best way of keeping the article encyclopedic and relatively controversy-free. --Makaristos 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halakhoth for creation of taleth[edit]

If someone who knows the halakhoth, that would make an excellent addition to this article... Tomertalk 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burial section applies to all??[edit]

This section states that traditionally all Jews are buried in tallitot. Traditionally, isn't it just Jewish men who are buried in a tallit? Are some women buried in them now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deutne (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it is still only men. If anybody knows of a practise otherwise, please speak out. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer Shawl redirect[edit]

Why does "prayer shawl" redirect to this page? While a tallit is a prayer shawl of course, not all prayer shawls are tallits.

My ladies knitting group makes prayer shawls as gifts, and not one of us, nor the gift receivers are of the Jewish faith. (no prejudice intended or inferred please, merely an observation)

Catholics, Greek Orthodox and others use prayer shawls.

So, why the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristara (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Methodists use them too. It is not just a Jewish thing. Tarheelz123 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various prayers[edit]

I was surprised to read that sephardi Jews wear a tallit during mincha or ma'ariv. As far as I know, a tallit is worn during shacharit and

  1. by the shaliach tzibur during mincha and ma'ariv, not only with Sephardi Jews but by Ashkenazi Jews as well;
  2. by mekubalim when they pray mincha in tefillin (like Rabeinu Tam or Shimusha Rabba);
  3. during ma'ariv on Yom Kippur by all.

Debresser (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Talis bag[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge from Talis bag. --Makaristos (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Talis bag is not notable enough for a separate page. Chesdovi (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. --Makaristos (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Tallit as talisman?[edit]

According to this source, tallits are considered as talismans by some jews. Is this correct? Does anyone have access to further/better sources? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of a tallit being considered a talisman. The reasoning brought in that source seems dubious, and in any case is invalid for most countries, where the word "talisman" doesn't exist. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and origin[edit]

This section states, without any references to back it up, that "The tallit is similar to the Roman pallium worn today by senior Roman Catholic priests, the Roman toga and the Arab keffiyeh. The tallit or other similar garment is suitable for the climate in West Asia: typically the days are hot and the tallit can be draped around the body and head to provide cover from the sun or just bunched up on the shoulders for later evening use; the evenings can be dramatically cool and the tallit could be draped around the neck and shoulders like a scarf to provide warmth."

Unless this can be referenced, which I doubt, then in my opinion the first sentence is simply an observation implying a relationship which does not exist between the tallit and these disparate other sheet-like garments; and the second sentence is irrelevant conjecture since the tallit is not, and never has been, worn in the situations described for warmth or cover from the sun. I suggest removing the two sentences. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as stating that a tallit was never meant to provide warmth. I think it was. I think that in ancient times, people used to go with this type of garment all the time, just like other peoples, as the editor you quoted said. I think that is one of the reasons why God decided that precisely a tallit should have tzitzit, so that people may wear the tzitzit all the time, since a tallit used to be a regular garment.
I would be very happy to see this idea or theory of mine sourced. Anybody can help? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I have made a small edit, since the tallit is clearly similar (as an observation) to the Roman pallium, but not to the ecclesiastical one, so I have removed the latter reference, and added a link to the page on the Roman pallium.--Mlevitt1 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding providing warmth, the fact is that in the middle east where the practice obviously originated in biblical times it can be extremely hot or extremely cold, but this has no influence on whether the tallit katan is worn: it is worn all day every day, whether it is pleasant or overheats one! And as to the tallit gadol, this is only worn in the synagogue for morning service; it is simply an item of religious clothing. Lastly, as I clarified in an amendment to the tallit katan section, G-d did not decide a tallit should have tzitzit, but that (quoting Numbers 15:38-39) the Children of Israel were to "make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments." The tallit as a particular garment came later.--Mlevitt1 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case, I'm now thinking that "etymology and origin" is a strange mixed section to have when there is also a section "History" where the bits we are discussing would sit easier. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong regarding warmth. It is a fact that traditional Bedouin people for example wear warm coats. The insulation provided by the natural cloth actually keeps the warmth out, it is said, and possibly prevents losing fluids. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the Bedouin wear warm coats, but these coats are not tallitot, and they don't wear them in the height of summer or for religious purposes. Similarly, the tallit simply is not a coat and is not worn in response to the temperature or the need to stay warm or cold. The original quote under "etymology and origin" refers to the tallit, which developed in post-biblical times and is not itself referred to in the bible, not to the original biblical clothes to which the tzitzit were attached. The tallit can either be the tallit katan or the tallit gadol. The tallit katan is worn all day, usually under the clothes, and is therefore like an undergarment. Occasionally it is worn over the clothes (usually because the person finds it too hot against his skin and feels he does not have the option to discard it) when it is like a waistcoat or American vest. The quote cannot refer to this tallit because it cannot be "draped around the body and head to provide cover from the sun or just bunched up on the shoulders for later evening use." The tallit gadol is clearly what is being referred to, yet it is rarely worn outside (except where prayers are being held outside) and is only worn for certain prayers, mostly in the morning. It is simply never in use in the heat of the day or in the evening. So, without disputing what you say about Bedouin, or that the tallit gadol may have evolved from an item of clothing for warmth (although I have seen nothing more than conjecture that it has), all this is simply irrelevant because neither type of tallit is in reality worn in the way in which the quote describes (draped around the body and head to provide cover from the sun or just bunched up on the shoulders for later evening use). My inclination is therefore to amend the text, and actually to move it to the History section and rename this section "Etymology." But that will have to wait a couple of days, so any further comments are awaited with interest. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me think this through Debresser! I have transferred the conjecture about similar clothing from "etymology and origin" to history, and clarified it: I think it is clear (and I have added a reference to support this) that the comparison of similar clothings is to what biblical Jews were attaching their tzitzis to, namely their four-cornered garments which they and others in the region already wore. Your points are valid about this. Whether or not the mere attachment of the tzitzis to such common clothes gave them the name tallit is a moot point, although the use of the word tallit seems to come in later, once the original garments were not everyday ones anymore, and a new garment had to be designed, with four corners, to ensure that the Jews kept on wearing tzitzit. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we caqn agree on that, but you can't say in the article the point is moot. That is original research. Unless you can source that statement, of course. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going in circles when you mention original research; my whole reason for amending this is that the original text, which you have restored, is original research and unfounded conjecture. "The tallit is similar to the Roman pallium, the Roman toga and the Arab keffiyeh" is a mere observation, yet its presence implies a connection; unless there is a referenced connection between these garments it is no more relevant than saying "an apple is similar to a pear". And talking about the tallit's practical use against heat or cold is similarly irrelevant when it is simply not used in this way; though clearly the "original tallit" of biblical times can be compared in this way: on this you seem to agree. Where the word "moot" crept in (and I accept your point) is that the "original tallit" was not a tallit, and was not called a tallit. I would like to be able to reference when the word was first used, but I cannot as yet find a positive reference. The negative reference is that the bible does not use the word tallit. Although you reverted my whole amendment, I am assuming from your comment that it was this issue that bothered you, and will amend it in light of your comment. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Even after your edit, there were a few sentences which constitute original research (see WP:OR), and I removed them. I left most of your text, which is indeed an improvement on the previous text, and much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words. I am happy that together we got to something more accurate and less prone to lead the reader to infer things which are not proven. You are right that I still managed to include some unreferenced material whose loss I now see does not affect the clarity. I guess what I would like to show, and which is obvious to anyone who knows about Jews or Judaism, but is perhaps something which is taken for granted to the extent that it is hard to find it written in so many words, is that the modern forms of tallit developed simply as a vehicle to enable the commandment to attach tzitzit to ones four-cornered garments (observant Jews constantly seeking ways to fulfil mitvot that wouldn't otherwise be relevant), and any similarity to a warming middle-eastern garment is an accident of the fact that the latter also have four corners. But for now I am very happy that this is more or less clear by inference! Thanks again. --Mlevitt1 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tallit worn by Women at Western Wall and related controversy[edit]

Women of the Wall have been working for the right to wear tallit at the Western Wall for over 25 years. This is not a new topic, but is one that has been underway for literally decades. It is making international news---check the New York Times, and is covered in virtually all Jewish news outlets. When someone can be arrested for wearing the item of clothing talked about here, it deserves mention. There is also no question about the sides in the argument. Rabbi of the Western Wall is clear he doesn't want women to wear tallit, while Reform and Conservative Jews, as well as some Orthodox women (see the "original women of the wall" ) believe it should be allowed. If you want to show that there are different points of view about women wearing tallit at the Wall, feel free to find different wording that I have, but let's be clear that this is an on-going and not easily resolved issue, and that there are different perspectives on it. But don't remove it just because it's a topic you don't like. VanEman (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IT's irrelevant if I like it or not, the article already mentions the view on women and tallis, and you already inserted your own POV. This is not your chance to put in Anat Hoffman every chance you get. This is an encyclopedia. We don't really care about one person, she is not notable and neither is the female rabbi. Look at the rest of the article. Do we have other POV about men wearing a tallis? You have been warned several time already by Debresser and you need to stop inserting POV. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tallit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tallit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tallit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section[edit]

I see that this has already been somewhat discussed above. But to include a link to the Women of the Wall article in the "See also" section is not something completely off-the-wall (no pun intended) here, since in the very first sentence of the lead of that article it is stated that:

"...in a fashion that includes singing, reading aloud from the Torah and wearing religious garments (tallit, tefillin and kippah)."

Alternatively, a link could also be put in the "women" section of the article that is right above the "See also" section, at the bottom of the article. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While tallit may be one of the things Women of the Wall would like, that doesn't make this a particularly significant topic for this article, nor even for Women of the Wall. Women of the Wall want the right to hold non-Orthodox services at the Wall; wearing a tallit is just one small facet of that. The issue of women wearing a tallit etc. is a much broader issue, and Women of the Wall are just one group. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we have to get into a whole debate on how important the tallit issue is for Women of the Wall, and I am really not interested is such a debate. I tried to add a link as a Note in the specifc "Women" section of the article, and I hope this compromise should finish the debate here for now? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works. Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jayjg. Be well! warshy (¥¥) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia[edit]

@Arminden:, shalom. I noticed where you were taken aback by the way some of our Wikipedia pages are written in such a way as to place a transliterated foreign word before its actual English meaning. My humble view on this matter is that it depends on what the article actually treats about. In Sefer Torah it seems relatively alright to place the English meaning before its Hebrew transliteration, but I must say that this is not always the case. Take, for example, other foreign words used now in English: Hamantash, or Shofar, or Za'atar, or Genmaicha, or Onsen, or Wampum, or Sushi, or Minyan, or Perestroika, among an endless host of other foreign loan-words whose names are known as such by most English speakers. Tallit may, in fact, fall into this same category. Of course, an explanation is almost always given in ordinary English which explains the meanings of these foreign words.Davidbena (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the edit to the article before I saw this discussion, and reverted it. I explained my reason in the edit summary, and it is identical with what Davidbena says here. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Debresser.-- Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tallit&oldid=1194433519"