Talk:39 Melakhot

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 29 November 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from 39 Melachot to Melakha. The result of the discussion was moved.

On 17 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Melakha to 39 Melakhot. The result of the discussion was moved.

We alreayd have all of this information in the article on Shabbat. This is a duplicate, with a confusing name that most Wikipedia users would never even think to search under. We should merge this with Shabbat. RK 13:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

keep and expand I think this should be used as a start to make an article about every melacha (cooking, sewing, etc..) and every concept assosiated with melachas of shabbos (pesik reasha, davar sha'aino mitcaven, melacah sh'ainino sericah legofo etc) Jon513 18:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's a maasive undertaking (i.e. rewriting masechet shabbat.) . But I'm in if you'll help. Reuvenk 02:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it also needs a renaming. Activites prohibited on Shabbat? --David.alex.lamb 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. How about "39 categories of activity prohibited on Shabbat." A bit longwinded, but clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reuvenk (talk • contribs) .

OK by me. Do you want to do the move? --David.alex.lamb 03:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move completed Reuvenk 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start making pages for each melacha. How should we name them? I think start each one as "melacha:" - melacha:cooking for example. i know that disamb call for "cooking (melacha)" or the like, but it is not really about cooking - it's about shabbos. what do you think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon513 (talk • contribs) .

Since we agreed to "keep and expand," we should added the info to this article - maybe make a subsection for each melacha. Let's discuss. Reuvenk 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense. If any malacha gets large, them we can discuss moving to its own article Jon513 21:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, see this rv.

I believe that it should say Torah, because the Rabbis of the Talmud use the verses Torah to extrapolate the laws - the Rabbis did not choose what the laws should be. For that matter, maybe I should add something regarding the Mishkan being the source of the 39 AV Melachot. I would edit this now, but it's getting close to shabbat, so I'll edit later. -Reuvenk 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be up to a Jewish person to decide whether "Torah" or "Talmud" is better -- so go for it, after Shabbat. But after that, I'm inclined to merge with the Shabbat article as suggested above. --David.alex.lamb 02:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced that Torah should be there (I talked it over with a few friends). I'm going to give others a chance to give their $.02, but then I'm changing it. Also, see the comment above ("Keep and expand") as to why we're not merging (at least not yet). Reuvenk 03:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll add a section about how we get to 39 (e.g. the 39 mentions of the word melacha) and also other reasons. Also, we should discuss the relationship to the mishkan. Reuvenk 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it kindling or is it transferring? Reuvenk 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very common error among Ashkenazim who do not vocalize the letter ayin: מבעיר = kindling, מעביר = transferring. --Keeves 12:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I am now changing the translation of this category from "transferring" back to "kindling". Note that the change to "transferring" was made by Reuvenk on 19 Feb. ... Actually, given that "kindling" is the common translation of "madlik", I'd like to use something else for "mav'ir". Both kindling and igniting suggest that only the inital flame is included, so I'm going to use "Making something burn", which sounds most literal to me. "Mav'ir" = "Making bo'er"; the problem is that something is burning, not that a fire is being made. --Keeves 12:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we need a template to remind people that Wikipedia is NOT a place to pasken Halacha. (I believe that the Hebrew wikipedia has a policy to this effect). Comments? Reuvenk 17:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a template on the Hebrew Wikipedia that's like what I'm describing. See he:תבנית:הלכה Reuvenk 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template to warn people from paskening halacha from wikipedia. I've put a copy below, but lets continue the discussion on the Template's talk page. Reuvenk 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section listing the 39 melachot begins with the following sentance: "The 39 activities are based on the Mishna Shabbat 7:2." OK, so I agree with that. So, why does the list here begin with plowing/choresh, if the mishna lists zoreh first. I know the Gemara says that thats only the case in Israel, and I know the Rambam lists the melachot in the order that its currently in. But if we're goint to say its based on mishna shabbat 7:2, then it should be zoreh, choresh etc (and not choresh, zoreh, etc.) I'm going to make the change, add a discussion on this in the artcile itself, and if we later want to move them back, then ok. Lets Discuss. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It currently uses just the words "See also." Also, if we subst the infoboxes, then we could add additional sources, as needed. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 13:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as the form of the infobox is not finalized (see: Template talk:Infobox Halacha) it would not be apropiate to use subset. As far as using a lot of infobox halacha template I think we should hold off for the moment, as I don't think it would look good to have most of the page boxes Jon513 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 17:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why follow the order in the Mishna, and not the order of the Rambam and (all? most?) later sources. It is an article on Melachot, and as such should be present logically. The Mishna does not seek to present a logic order, but to present an order from which other stuff can be derived. Jon513 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the delta of

15:38, 18 January.61.117.170 (Talk) (→Tying)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=39_categories_of_activity_prohibited_on_Shabbat&diff=101619140&oldid=99702094

since it looks to me like copyrighted text. Unless someone can make the case that we have permission to use, it should remain out or be summarized. If you're going to cut-and-paste a massive amount of text, I think it requires some statement about whether it can reasonably come from there. Attribution isn't enough. --Vonfraginoff 11:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you know that it is copyrighted or does it look copyrighted. I also suspected copyright violation because of the amount of text inserted at one time but I don't think that that is enough to remove it. All edits are assumed legal until proven otherwise. Jon513 13:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the "all edits are assumed legal" rule come from? Clearly, the person involved had an electronic copy of the Ribiat text available and cut-and-pasted it in. If they had taken the time to get permission from Feldheim or Ribiat, I'm sure they would have put a note in. Meanwhile, the anonymous editor hasn't chimed in, so it hardly seems necessary to write a polite note to Feldheim asking them if they've published a chapter of their book under the GFDL.

I think the rule you're referring to is WP:Assume good faith, which means in this case to assume ignorance of copyright law, not that they went and made contact with the publisher. I am happy to assume that the anonymous poster didn't intend to break Feldheim's copyright on purpose, but I'd be really' surprised if that isn't what's happened --Vonfraginoff 10:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There pictures that are curently posted should be removed and shown should be pictures of Jews doing these things, and then punished becasue it was done on the sabath day. this will make the article much more clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.53.14.251 (talk • contribs).

I am not sure if you are joking; it is hard to tell on the internet. If you think that the article would be improved by different pictures, please take them yourself read the image policy and upload them. If you need any help you can ask here, or ask me personally on my talk page. Jon513 10:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jon, he's joking! lol -- Y not? 12:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not joking -- nobody reading this article needs a picture of plowing or sewing or a stapler. If these pictures had a Jewish cultural context, they would be useful, but what's here just looks like desperation-for-pictures. DavidOaks (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stapling is not makeh b'patish -- rather it falls under the category of sewing, and this is cited by all contemporary halachic authorities, including Rabbi Eli Pick, Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen and Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention of the person who put in the picture is that a staple inside the stapler is in an unfinished state (it is attached to other staples and its prongs are straight). When the staple is used it is completed (make b'patish), and this would be forbidden even if the staple was not attaching two different objects.

But I agree with you that it is likely that a better picture can be found. Jon513 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia really need to put pictures of staplers and spinning wheels in here, as if we "ignorant" readers don't know what those words mean? It clearly reminds me of elementary school. Just imagine if every word in wikipedia had a photo beside it.Ykral (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes it more interesting86.168.6.101 (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rationale section somewhere that describes why this is still done? I mean, what happens if you, as an otherwise observant Jew, just refuse to acquiesce to these rules? Lexlex (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added concise definitions based on the brilliant sources given, the Babylonian & Jerusalem Talmud and the works of Rabbi Dovid Ribiat published by Feldheim.

I've tried to make them as exacting and short as possible thereby aiding the reader in the explanation of the concept presented. These have been researched for years and put in a teaching plan I authored on the subject and am now making public via this page. Any comments please discuss with me on my Talk page or here. Well done to all for making this such a good start page for this huge topic.

I concur with Jon513 about the need to expand this section as they are very in-depth and what is there at present is just the most basic outline that will not deeply inform the reader of the scope of each law. Black Stripe (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And hopefully someone can come up with a more... serious example of demolition than that bowling levity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.131.128 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Winnowing, what is the meaning behind "dominic" when referring to the Jerusalem Talmud? Is this a typo, or is there an alternate definition to this word that isn't apparent? Trumblej1986 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I come to this topic in relative ignorance, but then that is what an encyclopeda is for - learning. The article indicates there are 39 prohibited activities, but when you scroll down the table of contents, there are 40 subtopics listed. Someone with more knowledge then me on the topic (who really would not be hard to find!) should have a look as fromt he get go, there appears to be a conflict. As an aside, I came to find this article as the Big Brother 12 reality show which is about to begin (begins airing on Thursday July 8th), has a player, Andrew, who is an observant Jew and will be observing the Shabatt. The various Jewish articles may see some heavy visitation as Andrew's activities will be a topic of a lot of discussion on the show, in media about the show, and here on WP as it relates to Big Brother. Thanks. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salting isn't counted as a seperate listing in most systems and is included in "curing" with which it shares the same definition according to the Talmud. As such Salting/Curing is the same exact practice. Remember, all these are only definitions for wide ranging laws that are designed to remind one of G-d's rest from creative activity and are to be followed to fulfill the mitzvah of keeping the Sabbath, the cornerstone of Jewish religious observance. The definitions presented in this article are only 'headings' for in-depth topics and without study of the relevant laws it would be very difficult to properly keep the Sabbath according to Halacha/Jewish Law. However, keeping the definition clearely in mind will for sure aid one in the application of it's principles. Black Stripe (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple people think there's too much and long of philosophical debate in the article for a biographical incident relating to using telephones to call for help for Gentiles on the Sabbath. (Or treating them medically in general.) Since this article already touches on this in controversy, perhaps adding more of the philosophical debate features from that article to here would be appropriate. (Then we could link to it from the biography.) Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about: Transferring between domains there is a contradiction. First it says: "carrying an article four amos (about 1.7 m) may be forbidden in a public or semi-public domain...", then three paragraphs later, it says: "Carrying within a domain type is perfectly permitted. It's the transference between domain types that is considered a creative activity for the purposes of Sabbath observance." which is untrue - Carrying 4 amos within a public domain is also forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.205.129 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: This is a valid point, as the text was unclear. This has now been somewhat expanded at an attempt to clarify the issue. Although by no means exhaustive it does expand the text to illuminate the basic principle that was only obliquely touched upon. Black Stripe (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am removing the following text from this article. This is obviously not the correct article for analysis of Jewish-Christian polemics. There is a separate page for the discussion of Christian polemics against Jews, and Jewish responses to anti-Semitism, which yes, in the medieval era included a number of rabbis saying angry things about non-Jews (often due to Christians and Muslims who were killing them.) Taking non-representative sentences out of context here is only being done to slander Jews, and that's wrong. Please see the following textual discussion. RK (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shabbat rules have been criticized because they have sometimes been interpreted to mean that Jews should not violate the Sabbath in order to save non-Jews that are dying.^[1] Some critics point to the fact that the Talmud includes the maxim "[non-Jews] are neither to be lifted out of a well nor hauled down into it."^[2] Critics also cite the writings of Maimonides (1137–1204), an important Rabbinical commentator, who wrote "as for gentiles [non-Jews], the basic Talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright."^[3]

One widely debated^[1] verse from the Talmud reads "If any man saves alive a single soul in Israel, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved a whole world"^[4] (emphasis added). Many authorities interpret the words "in Israel" as limiting the verse to saving only Jews.^[1] The words "in Israel" appear in most versions of the Talmud, but not in others.^[1] A widely published^[1] commentary on this verse, by Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Eidels (1555–1631), reads: "This [verse] is intended to teach you that any man who saves one soul in Israel, and it is intentionally specified 'one soul in Israel', in the singular form, as this is the image of God, the Singular one of the world, and Jacob's [Israel's] form is His likeness ... but Kuttim [Samaritans] do not have the form of man, only the form of other creatures, and whoever brings about the loss of a soul among them does not lose the world, and whoever saves a soul among them neither adds nor diminishes anything in this world."^[5] Critics claim Eidels' commentary is significant because it is included in most published editions of the Talmud.^[1]

The topic continues to be debated in modern times, and the issue was brought before Israel's Chief Rabbi Untermann for judgment in 1966.^[6]

Although all Rabbinical authorities agree that it is acceptable to violate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew,^[7] some critics maintain that the reasons given by orthodox religious authorities to justify life-saving of non-Jews were not based on democratic ideals, but instead were to protect the Jewish religion (and the life-saver) from possible retaliation.^[1]

Ok, where to begin? For one, the great majority of Judaism does not teach this. Not Modern Orthodox Judaism, not Reform Judaism, and not Conservative Judaism, and certainly no form of ethnic, secular or humanist Judaism.

Someone was selectively quoting medieval texts, out of context, which makes Jews all look like bloodthirsty murderers. Yet historical scholarship on this subject shows differently. During the medieval era Jews were persecuted; during the milennnia long period of powerless-ness and victimization, some wrote that "we only need to save the lives of our own people, we're not obligated to save the lives of those who are mass murdering us." That is what historians and scientists refer to as "duh". That being said, what do the actual Jewish texts say? Almost the opposite of what was written here.

The Mishnah, in Sanhedrin 4:5, states: "Whoever destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] ... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire world".

In modern editions of Talmud Bavli, this appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is the same, except for the substitution of "life of a single Jew" [nefesh a`hat mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".

3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections. It reads "destroys a single life" [ma'abed nefesh a`hat] and "preserves a single life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat]. There is no specific mention of either "human being" or "Jew", though the former (any human life!) is clearly implied.

The original version is obvious from context, and agreed to by all historians of Judaism, both Jewish and non-Jewish. The citation is preceded by the words: "This is why Adam was created alone. It is to teach us that ...". A bit father down it reads: "When a man mints a number of coins from a single die, they are all identical; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, minted every human being from the die of the primal Adam, and not one of them is like any other".

It is literally impossible to interpret this in any other way: The text is about saving all human life, not just Jewish life. Readers, please be aware that the vast majority of websites which claims otherwise are Neo-Nazi websites. They aren't exactly academically reliable. The repeated reference to Adam, first human, makes clear that the topic is about human life in general.

Also, see this analysis:

http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/08/save-jewish-life-save-whole-world.html

And note what Professor Menachem Kellner says (Farteitcht un Farbessert (On “Correcting” Maimonides)), note 16:

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 [...] states “accordingly, only one man was created, to teach that one who destroys a single [Jewish] person is regarded by Scripture as if he had destroyed the entire world and one who saves a single [Jewish] person is regarded by Scripture as if he had saved the entire world.”

As Ephraim Elimelekh Urbach has shown, the word mi-yisra’el (“Jewish”) is a relatively late insertion into the text of the mishnah.

See E. E. Urbach, Mei-olamam shel hakhamim: Qovez mehqarim [World of the Sages] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1988), pp. 561-577.

Tarbiz, 75 (2006): 565-566.

In any case, even if someone here disagrees, this article is about activities that religious Jews refrain from performing on Shabbat, it's not about the details of medieval polemics between Christians and Jews. That belongs in a totally different article. And any such article must honestly cite the various Jewish sources, not just a couple of out of historical-context paragraphs.

Original Text:

לפיכך נברא אדם יחידי ללמדך שכל המאבד נפש אחת [מישראל] מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו איבד עולם מלא וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא ומפני שלום הבריות שלא יאמר אדם לחבירו אבא גדול מאביך ושלא יהו מינין אומרים הרבה רשויות בשמים ולהגיד גדולתו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד וכולן דומין זה לזה ומלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא טבע כל אדם בחותמו של אדם הראשון ואין אחד מהן דומה לחבירו לפיכך כל אחד ואחד חייב לומר בשבילי נברא העולם ושמא תאמרו מה לנו ולצרה הזאת והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה) והוא עד או ראה או ידע אם לא יגיד וגומר ושמא תאמרו מה לנו לחוב בדמו של זה והלא כבר נאמר (משלי יא) באבוד רשעים רנה: Translation:

Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul [of Israel], Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world. And for the sake of peace among people, that one should not say to his or her fellow, "My parent is greater than yours;" and that heretics should not say, "There are many powers in Heaven." Again, to declare the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be God, for one stamps out many coins with one die, and they are all alike, but the King, the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be God, stamped each person with the seal of Adam, and not one of them is like his or her fellow. Therefore each and every one is obliged to say, "For my sake the world was created." And lest you say, "What do we need with this trouble?" Has it not already been said, "He being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it..." (Leviticus 5:1). And should you say, "What need is there for us to be responsible for the blood of this one?" Surely it is said, "And when the wicked perish, there is joy" (Proverbs 11:10). [Moreshet translation]

This text has parallels in Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:22, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37a, Psikta Zutra Bereshit 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Activities prohibited on Shabbat. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119072338/http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq to http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rjca.org/Articles/melachot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the section 'definition' it is said that filtering water or deboning fish would fall under the category of 'winnowing'.

However, further down under the detailed definitions of the categories, filtering water and deboning fish are listed as examples of 'sorting' rather than 'winnowing'.

Is this something that should be corrected, or is it that these activities could be considered under either category (and are prohibited in either case)?

Thank you.

108.171.128.180 (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Shabbos goy into this article. The article by itself fails WP:N. This is not an official concept in Judaism, rather just a term for something some Jewish people do on Shabbat. The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly. One is from dailyhalacha.com, and another from chabad.com. I believe both articles would be much improved by the merger. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Requested additional input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the article was just closed at AFD as Keep. To immediately open a merge discussion seems a bit disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, multiple people in that discussion discussed merging. This is simply the natural follow up discussion. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still well referenced, not sure where you get only two references from, notable and not needed to be merged. My oppose still stands. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly." And I still stand by that statement. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC) + minor edit[reply]

You keep repeating that but it's simply not true, as a simple read of the article indicates. More importantly, the "Further reading" section contains other, excellent scholarly sources which can (and should) be used to expand the article. And finally, insisting that "the part that defines the concept" is the only "actual article" is an artificial and unreasonable restriction. The article is about a social role, and everything that goes with that; it is not about a dictionary definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was true when I wrote that statement, however the article has since been cleaned up, primarily by you and I thank you for that. Next, just because something is noted in the further reading section doesn't make it a reference unless that particular work is cited somewhere as a reference. I'm sure the concept has been written about, I just don't think that warrants Wikipedia writing about it. And lastly, by using the phrase "the part that defines the concept" I trimmed exactly one sentence off the end, and it's a fairly unencyclopedic one at that. I'm sure many people have helped their Jewish neighbors. Doesn't mean that they need to be listed here. Should we also maintain an article titled "Helping the elderly cross the street" with a list of all the famous people that have done that? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that I got information for the article from the Encyclopedia Judaica? Clearly it's a notable topic. If you can't see the difference between Shabbos Goy and "Helping the elderly cross the street" that is on you, not on the encyclopedia. Shabbos goy is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia. I am really not sure why you it seems like you have some sort of vendetta here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Specifically because that article is about a social role rather than a ritual law, it is not appropriate for this article, which is about ritual law. Ar2332 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos goy. Most editors commenting there were quite clear that a merge would be inappropriate, and others suggested merging only if the article was deleted. As Ar2332 points out, "that article is about a social role rather than a ritual law, it is not appropriate for this article, which is about ritual law." Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think that Shabbos goy is a nice, short article. No need to delete or merge it. I agree that this proposal, so short after the Afd discussion is a bit pointy. I would have been a lot happier with the nominating editor turning his energy to improving that article. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As mentioned above, there is no room in a technical article such as this one for a social concept, and the AfD has settled this by consensus. The situation is perfect now as is, with Shabbos goy listed under See also, which is the place to put similar topics that do not fit anywhere else in the prose. Havradim (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article seems to be almost exclusively about the 39 melachot. The Rabbinically prohibited activities of Shabbat are covered in a separate article. Therefore, I think "Activities prohibited on Shabbat" is an inappropriate name. I suggest moving the article to either "Melacha" or "Melacha on Shabbat". Thoughts? Ar2332 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the page was moved from 39 Melachot to Melakha. I think this should be reversed, for the following reasons:

• Per WP:PLURAL, the 39 melakhot are indeed a group or class of specific things.
• "Melakha" alone is misleading as it can imply that there is only one form of melakha, when in fact rabbinic sources are clear that there are 39 forms which are treated separately (e.g. receive separate punishments).
• The parallel Wikipedia articles in Hebrew, Yiddish, and most other languages are of the form "39 Melakhot".
• It is perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia page to begin with a number.
• After the previous move, the article now begins with the line "The Melakha (Hebrew: ל״ט אבות מלאכה, lamed tet avot melakhah, "39 forms of work") are thirty-nine categories of activity" which is incoherent and incorrect. I would suggest that editors not perform wholesale changes like replacing the title and part of the header if they do not understand the topic they are writing about. Ar2332 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]