Talk:Tzimtzum

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kabbalah (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[free will#In Jewish thought|free will]] The anchor (#In Jewish thought) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Hi IZAK, Nice edits to the article. Just one thing: The phrase "in the Kabbalah of Judaism" appears to be meaningless - which other religion has a Kabbalah? Therefore I intend to revert to earlier opening phrase. Fintor 07:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC) talk[reply]

He probably meant to exclude all the junk which is flying around the web these days. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am all in favour - because, after all, what else could "tzimtzum" be refering to? Fintor 16:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wording inconsistency

Probably it is done so to conform the NPOV policy, but there is a wording inconsistency in the article: I the first part, "God" is written out in full, while in the second part, it is abbreviated as "G-d". It might be a good idea to make the wording consistent, but we must make sure, that it neiter breaks the NPOV policy nor is unsuitable for the religious people. I suggest revising the wording to be "Lord", an acceptable alternative that doesn't result in an iconsistent wording across the article. --NetRolller 3D 13:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inaccurate. When dealing with translations of Hebrew religious texts, "Lord" is a translation either of the four-letter name or a word that actually means lord, such as "baal". Further, when the word "God" (big 'g') is used, it is a translation of one of the many Hebrew words that refer specifically to the Israelite deity. Further, the alternative "Lord" is generally modified to "L-rd" by pious Jews for the same reason "God" is modified to "G-d". Essentially, the reasoning is to prevent the desecration of any of His names. My understanding is that if a pious Jew were to edit this page using the version "God", and another person were to print it out and the print-out were destroyed, whether intentionally or accidentally, the Jew would be partially responsible for desecration of the divine name. Whether this is or is not something that should be considered when editing a Wikipedia article is beyond my knowledge of Wikipedia. Josterhage (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's bullshit as it's not a name at all, but a word. And baqhal means owner or husband. -lysdexia 02:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.164.45 (talk)

The first section and any other sections that show favor for religious standards of teaching over free knowledge need to go. This is Wikipedia, non-religious, non-partisan, non-biased. Among other things, all the uses in this article of "G-d" need to be replace with "God" (the use of "G-d" is a religious preference, and has no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.214.176 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

Shorten per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]