Talk:Incense offering in rabbinic literature

The "Nard" mentioned in Song of Songs 1:12

I have omitted from the main article a reference to "nard" in Song of Songs 1:12, and where the Aramaic Targum there writes: "...and they worshipped the golden calf, making foul their actions, so that a bad name went forth unto them in the world. Whereas before [that episode] their [good] scent imbued the world, but afterwards, they stank like nard whose smell is very bad." I am at a loss as to what this "nard" might have been. Could it have been our regular spikenard, and does spikenard have a vey bad smell when laid to the hot coals? Any answers? Davidbena (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge or move

Hi. Are you aware of the Incense offering article? It seems to me that part of the material here should be merged there, though there may be enough material here for a separate sub-article.

In any case, the title here needs to change for sentence case and no need for the colon. Also, the article uses sources beyond "responsa" so that aspect seems incorrect. Maybe Incense offering in rabbinic literature? Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ProfGray, Shalom. I, personally, would be against merging the two articles, since this particular article approaches the subject matter differently and emphasizes the divergent rabbinic view-points on the ingredients used in compounding the Holy Incense. Besides, this current article is far more exhaustive than the other. As for the name, I am open to suggestions. "Responsa" is the plural form of responsum, which latter means: "a written reply by a rabbi or Talmudic scholar to an inquiry on some matter of Jewish law." According to this Google definition, the rabbinic input would still fit the description, since every source used was meant to explain or to teach where doubts had arisen. IMHO. Your suggestion, however, is also very good. "Incense offering in rabbinic literature."Davidbena (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Another consideration when deciding on the current title was to distinguish the Israelite cult from foreign cults, hence: Holy Incense, as opposed to incense that wouldn't be considered holy at all.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. What do you mean by, "this particular article approaches the subject matter differently" -- how is the approach here different?

Responsa is not a suitable title because so many sources are not responsa (in its common usage), they include Talmudic, midrashic, and Geonic texts, Mishneh Torah, Amar, and Macht, none of which are responsa. Indeed, are there any Sh"uT sources mentioned at all?

No adjective like "holy" or "Israelite" is needed for Incense offering so it wouldn't be needed here. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ, in that incense is used by many idolatrous nations, even today. I call your attention to the use of incense in Buddhist worship, as well as in rituals stretching from Nepal to Southeast Asia. There is a need to differentiate between the Jewish ritual in its peculiar and unique selection of incense, and those used by other nations. As for the title, I would agree here that "Holy Incense (in rabbinic literature)," might actually sound better. As for your initial question, this article treats on the many and varied distinctions given in our rabbinic sources, so as to educate the general public (especially Jewish public) about the incense used at the time of the Temple, based on those same conflicting views. As for Amar (a religious Yemenite Jewish professor at Bar-Ilan University), his work on this topic was and is meant to clarify the complex issue at hand, based on rabbinic sources, &c. I have been in e-mail consultation with Prof. Zohar Amar about this topic. As for Macht, I concur that his intent in writing may have been purely educational from his perspective, but many of whose views overlap with our rabbinic teachings.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Professor Gray, please feel free to move the page from "Holy Incense: in rabbinic responsa" to "Holy incense (in rabbinic literature)" - Davidbena (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

While it's good to be concerned about other religions, luckily there's Religious use of incense and Incense of India. So, there's no concern for confusion. In any case, it would be biased POV to imply that Jewish incense is "holy" but Hindu and Buddhist incense is not. Therefore, for consistent wording, let me propose that this article be a sub-article of Incense offering and renamed Incense offering in rabbinic literature. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My dear Professor Gray, it is incorrect to think that if someone writes a WP article using the words "holy grail," or "Holy Roman Empire," that he has infringed upon WP policy of WP:POV. It is the same here. The use of "holy" is not only accurate when referring to the incense used by Israel, it should not be construed as offensive or arrogant. The Incense described in this article is, as stated, very, very unique, and therefore I used the adjective "holy." Still, your suggestion is good: Incense offering in rabbinic literature. Davidbena (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the cordial conversation and your flexibility. As you can see, the move went through fine. Todah rabbah! FYI this edit at the main article [1] ProfGray (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)