text:
Helvetii

The Helvetii (Helvētiī, Gaulish: *Heluētī), anglicized as Helvetians, were a Celtic tribe or tribal confederation occupying most of the Swiss plateau at the time of their contact with the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC. According to Julius Caesar, the Helvetians were divided into four subgroups or pagi. Of these, Caesar names only the Verbigeni and the Tigurini, while Posidonius mentions the Tigurini and the Tougeni (Τωυγενοί). They feature prominently in the Commentaries on the Gallic War, with their failed migration attempt to southwestern Gaul (58 BC) serving as a catalyst for Caesar's conquest of Gaul.

The Helvetians were subjugated after 52 BC, and under Augustus, Celtic oppida, such as Vindonissa or Basilea, were re-purposed as garrisons. In AD 68, a Helvetian uprising was crushed by Aulus Caecina Alienus. The Swiss plateau was at first incorporated into the Roman province of Gallia Belgica (22 BC), later into Germania Superior (AD 83). The Helvetians, like the rest of Gaul, were largely Romanized by the 2nd century. In the later 3rd century, Roman control over the region waned, and the Swiss plateau was exposed to the invading Alemanni. The Alemanni and Burgundians established permanent settlements in the Swiss plateau in the 5th and 6th centuries, resulting in the early medieval territories of Alemannia (Swabia) and Upper Burgundy. The Helvetii were largely assimilated by their new rulers, contributing to the ethnogenesis of modern Swiss people.

Name
They are mentioned as Helvetii by Cicero (mid-1st c. BC), Caesar (mid-1st c. BC) and Tacitus (early 2nd c. AD),  as Helvetiorum by Livy (late 1st c. BC), as Helveti by Pliny (mid-1st c. AD), and as Elouḗtioi (Ἐλουήτιοι) by Ptolemy (2nd c. AD).

The Gaulish ethnic name Helvetii is generally interpreted as (h)elu-ētioi ('rich in land'), from elu- ('numerous', cf. OIr. il) attached to etu- ('grassland'; cf. OIr. iath). The presence of the initial h-, remnant of a previous p- (PIE *pelh1u- > Celt. helu- > elu-), attests of an archaic formation.

The earliest attestation of the name is found in a graffito on a vessel from Mantua, dated to c. 300 BC. The inscription in Etruscan letters reads eluveitie, which has been interpreted as the Etruscan form of the Celtic elu̯eti̯os ("the Helvetian"), presumably referring to a man of Helvetian descent living in Mantua.

Tribal organisation
Of the four Helvetian pagi or sub-tribes, Caesar names only the Verbigeni (Bell. Gall. 1.27) and the Tigurini (1.12), Posidonius the Tigurini and the Tougeni (Τωυγενοί). There has been substantial debate in Swiss historiography (beginning with Felix Stähelin 1927) on whether the Tougeni may or may not be identified with the Teutones mentioned by Titus Livius.

According to Caesar, the territory abandoned by the Helvetii had comprised 400 villages and 12 oppida (fortified settlements). His tally of the total population taken from captured Helvetian records written in Greek is 263,000 people, including fighting men, old men, women and children. However, the figures are generally dismissed as too high by modern scholars (see hereafter).

Like many other tribes, the Helvetii did not have kings at the time of their clash with Rome but instead seem to have been governed by a class of noblemen (Lat. equites). When Orgetorix, one of their most prominent and ambitious noblemen, was making plans to establish himself as their king, he faced execution at the stake if found guilty. Caesar does not explicitly name the tribal authorities prosecuting the case and gathering men to apprehend Orgetorix, but he refers to them by the Latin terms civitas ("state" or "tribe") and magistratus ("officials").

Earliest historical sources and settlement
In his Natural History (c. 77 AD), Pliny provides a foundation myth for the Celtic settlement of Cisalpine Gaul in which a Helvetian named Helico plays the role of culture hero. Helico had worked in Rome as a craftsman and then returned to his home north of the Alps with a dried fig, a grape, and some oil and wine, the desirability of which caused his countrymen to invade northern Italy.

The Greek historian Posidonius (c. 135–50 BC), whose work is preserved only in fragments by other writers, offers the earliest historical record of the Helvetii. Posidonius described the Helvetians of the late 2nd century BC as "rich in gold but peaceful," without giving clear indication to the location of their territory. His reference to gold washing in rivers has been taken as evidence for an early presence of the Helvetii in the Swiss plateau, with the Emme as being one of the gold-yielding rivers mentioned by Posidonius. This interpretation is now generally discarded, as Posidonius' narrative makes it more likely that the country some of the Helvetians left in order to join in the raids of the Teutones, Cimbri, and Ambrones was in fact southern Germany and not Switzerland.

That the Helvetians originally lived in southern Germany is confirmed by the Alexandrian geographer Claudius Ptolemaios (c. 90–168 AD), who tells us of an Ἐλουητίων ἔρημος (i.e. "Helvetic deserted lands") north of the Rhine. Tacitus knows that the Helvetians once settled in the swath between Rhine, Main, and the Hercynian forest. The abandonment of this northern territory is now usually placed in the late 2nd century BC, around the time of the first Germanic incursions into the Roman world, when the Tigurini and Toygenoi/Toutonoi are mentioned as participants in the great raids.

At the later Vicus Turicum, probably in the first 1st century BC or even much earlier, the Celts settled at the Lindenhof Oppidium. In 1890, so-called Potin lumps were found, whose largest weights 59.2 kg at the Prehistoric pile dwelling settlement Alpenquai in Zürich, Switzerland. The pieces consist of a large number of fused Celtic coins, which are mixed with charcoal remnants. Some of the 18,000 coins originate from the Eastern Gaul, others are of the Zürich type, that were assigned to the local Helvetii, which date to around 100 BC. The find is so far unique, and the scientific research assumes that the melting down of the lump was not completed, therefore the aim was to form cultic offerings. The site of the find was at that time at least 50 m from the lake shore, and probably 1 m to three meters deep in the water. There's also an island sanctuary of the Helvetii in connection with the settlement at the preceding Oppidi Uetliberg on the former Grosser Hafner island, as well as the settlement Kleiner Hafner at the Sechseläuten square on the effluence of the Limmat on Zürichsee lake shore.

First contact with the Romans
The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and Ambrones probably reached southern Germany around the year 111 BC, where they were joined by the Tigurini, and, probably the Teutoni-Toutonoi-Toygenoi. (The precise identity of the latter group is unclear).

The tribes began a joint invasion of Gaul, including the Roman Provincia Narbonensis, which led to the Tigurini's victory over a Roman army under L. Cassius Longinus near Agendicum in 107 BC, in which the consul was killed. According to Caesar, the captured Roman soldiers were ordered to pass under a yoke set up by the triumphant Gauls, a dishonour that called for both public as well as private vengeance. Caesar is the only narrative source for this episode, as the corresponding books of Livy's histories are preserved only in the Periochae, short summarising lists of contents, in which hostages given by the Romans, but no yoke, are mentioned.

In 105 BC, the allies defeated another Roman army near Arausio and went on to harry Spain, Gaul, Noricum, and northern Italy. They split up in two groups in 103 BC, with the Teutones and Ambrones marching on a western route through the Provincia and the Cimbri and Tigurini crossing the eastern Alps (probably by the Brenner Pass). While the Teutones and Ambrones were slaughtered in 102 BC by Gaius Marius near Aquae Sextiae, the Cimbri and the Tigurini wintered in the Padan plain. The following year, Marius virtually destroyed the Cimbri in the battle of Vercellae. The Tigurini, who had planned on following the Cimbri, turned back over the Alps with their booty and joined those of the Helvetians who had not participated in the raids.

Prelude
The Helvetii were the first Gallic tribe of the campaign to be confronted by Caesar. He narrates the events of the conflict in the opening sections of Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Due to the political nature of the Commentarii, Caesar's purpose in publicizing his own achievements may have distorted the significance of events and the motives of those who participated.

The nobleman Orgetorix is presented as the instigator of a new Helvetian migration, in which the entire tribe was to leave their territory and, according to Caesar, to establish a supremacy over all of Gaul. This exodus was planned over three years, in the course of which Orgetorix conspired with two noblemen from neighbouring tribes, Casticus of the Sequani and Dumnorix of the Aedui, that each should accomplish a coup d'état in his own country, after which the three new kings would collaborate. When word of his aspirations to make himself king reached the Helvetii, Orgetorix was summoned to stand trial, facing execution on the pyre should he be found guilty. For the time being, he averted a verdict by arriving at the hearing set for him with ten thousand followers and bondsmen; yet before the large force mustered by the authorities could apprehend him, he died under unexplained circumstances, the Helvetii believed by his own hand.

Nevertheless, the Helvetii did not give up their planned emigration, but burned their homes in 58 BC. They were joined by a number of tribal groups from neighbouring regions: the Raurici, the Latobrigi, the Tulingi and a group of Boii, who had besieged Noreia. They abandoned their homes completely with the intention of settling among the Santones (Saintonge). The easiest route would take them through the Rhône valley, and thus through the Roman Provincia Narbonensis.

Battle of the Saône
When they reached the boundaries of the Allobroges, the northernmost tribe of the Provincia, they found that Caesar had already dismantled the bridge of Geneva to stop their advance. The Helvetians sent "the most illustrious men of their state" to negotiate, promising a peaceful passage through the Provincia. Caesar stalled them by asking for some time for consideration, which he used to assemble reinforcements and to fortify the southern banks of the Rhône. When the embassy returned on the agreed-upon date, he was strong enough to bluntly reject their offer. The Helvetii now chose the more difficult northern route through the Sequani territory, which traversed the Jura Mountains via a very narrow pass at the site of the modern Fort l'Écluse, but bypassed the Provincia. After ravaging the lands of the Aedui tribe, who called upon Caesar to help them, they began the crossing of the Saône, which took them several days. As only a quarter of their forces were left on the eastern banks, Caesar attacked and routed them. According to Caesar, those killed had been the Tigurini, on whom he had now taken revenge in the name of the Republic and his family.

After the battle, the Romans quickly bridged the river, thereby prompting the Helvetii to once again send an embassy, this time led by Divico, another figure whom Caesar links to the ignominious defeat of 107 BC by calling him bello Cassio dux Helvetiorum (i.e. "leader of the Helvetii in the Cassian campaign"). What Divico had to offer was almost a surrender, namely to have the Helvetii settle wherever Caesar wished them to, although it was combined with the threat of an open battle if Caesar should refuse. Caesar demanded hostages to be given to him and reparations to the Aedui and Allobroges. Divico responded by saying that "they were accustomed to receive, not to give hostages; a fact the Roman people could testify to", this once again being an allusion to the giving of hostages by the defeated Romans at Agen.

Battle of Bibracte
In the cavalry battle that followed, the Helvetii prevailed over Caesar's Aedui allies under Dumnorix' command, and continued their journey, while Caesar's army was being detained by delays in his grain supplies, caused by the Aedui on the instigations of Dumnorix, who had married Orgetorix' daughter. A few days later, however, near the Aeduan oppidum Bibracte, Caesar caught up with the Helvetii and faced them in a major battle, which ended in the Helvetii's retreat and the capture of most of their baggage by the Romans.

Leaving the largest part of their supplies behind, the Helvetii covered around 60 km in four days, eventually reaching the lands of the Lingones (the modern Langres plateau). Caesar did not pursue them until three days after the battle, while still sending messengers to the Lingones warning them not to assist the Helvetii in any way. The Helvetii then offered their immediate surrender and agreed both to providing hostages and to giving up their weapons the next day. In the course of the night, 6000 of the Verbigeni fled from the camp out of fear of being massacred once they were defenceless. Caesar sent riders after them and ordered those who were brought back to be "counted as enemies", which probably meant being sold into slavery.

Return of the migrants
In order for them to defend the Rhine frontier against the Germans, he then allowed the Helvetii, Tulingi and Latobrigi to return to their territories and to rebuild their homes, instructing the Allobroges to supply them with a sufficient supply of grain. Caesar does not mention the Raurici, who seem to have built a new oppidum at Basel-Münsterhügel upon their return. The Aedui were granted their wish that the Boii who had accompanied the Helvetii would settle on their own territory as allies in the oppidum Gorgobina. The nature of Caesar's arrangement with the Helvetii and the other tribes is not further specified by the consul himself, but in his speech Pro Balbo of 56 BC, Cicero mentions the Helvetii as one among several tribes of foederati, i.e. allied nations who were neither citizens of the Republic nor her subjects, but obliged by treaty to support the Romans with a certain number of fighting men.

Caesar's report of the numbers
According to the victor, tablets with lists in Greek characters were found at the Helvetian camp, listing in detail all men able to bear arms with their names and giving a total number for the women, children and elderly who accompanied them. The numbers added up to a total of 263,000 Helvetii, 36,000 Tulingi, 14,000 Latobrigi, 23,000 Rauraci, and 32,000 Boii, all in all 368,000 heads, 92,000 of whom were warriors. A census of those who had returned to their homes listed 110,000 survivors, which meant that only about 30 percent of the emigrants had survived the war.

Caesar's report has been partly confirmed by excavations near Geneva and Bibracte. However, much of his account has not yet been corroborated by archaeology, whilst his narrative must in wide parts be considered as biased and, in some points, unlikely. For a start, only one out of the fifteen Celtic oppida in the Helvetii territory so far has yielded evidence for destruction by fire. Many other sites, for example the sanctuary at Mormont, do not exhibit any signs of damage for the period in question, and Celtic life continued seemingly undisturbed for the rest of the 1st century BC up to the beginning of the Roman era, with an accent rather on an increase in prosperity than on a "Helvetic twilight". With the honourable status as foederati taken into account, it is hard to believe that the Helvetii ever sustained casualties quite as heavy as those given by the Roman military leader.

In general, numbers written down by ancient military authors have to be taken as gross exaggerations. What Caesar claims to have been 368,000 people is estimated by other sources to be rather around 300,000 (Plutarch), or 200,000 (Appian); in the light of a critical analysis, even these numbers seem far too high. Furger-Gunti considers an army of more than 60,000 fighting men extremely unlikely in the view of the tactics described, and assumes the actual numbers to have been around 40,000 warriors out of a total of 160,000 emigrants. Delbrück suggests an even lower number of 100,000 people, out of which only 16,000 were fighters, which would make the Celtic force about half the size of the Roman body of c. 30,000 men. The real numbers will never be determined exactly. Caesar's specifications can at least be doubted by looking at the size of the baggage train that an exodus of 368,000 people would have required: Even for the reduced numbers that Furger-Gunti uses for his calculations, the baggage train would have stretched for at least 40 km, perhaps even as far as 100 km.

In spite of the now much more balanced numerical weight we have to assume for the two opposing armies, the battle seems far less glorious a victory than Caesar presented it to be. The main body of the Helvetii withdrew from the battle at nightfall, abandoning, as it seemed, most of their wagons, which they had drawn up into a wagon fort; they retreated northwards in a forced night march and reached the territory of the Lingones four days after the battle. What Caesar implies to have been a desperate flight without stopping could actually have been an ordered retreat of moderate speed, covering less than 40 km a day. Caesar himself does not appear as a triumphant victor in turn, being unable to pursue the Helvetii for three days, "both on account of the wounds of the soldiers and the burial of the slain". However, it is clear that Caesar's warning to the Lingones not to supply his enemies was quite enough to make the Helvetii leaders once again offer peace. On what terms this peace was made is debatable, but as said before, the conclusion of a foedus casts some doubt on the totality of the defeat.

Questions of motive
As Caesar's account is heavily influenced by his political agenda, it is difficult to determine the actual motive of the Helvetii movement of 58 BC. One might see the movement in the light of a Celtic retreat from areas which were later to become Germanic; it can be debated whether they ever had plans to settle in the Saintonge, as Caesar claims (Bell. Gall. 1,10.). It was certainly in the latter's personal interest to emphasise any kind of parallel between the traumatic experience of the Cimbrian and Teutonic incursions and the alleged threat that the Helvetii were to the Roman world. The Tigurini's part in the destruction of L. Cassius Longinus and his army was a welcome pretext to engage in an offensive war in Gaul whose proceeds permitted Caesar not only to fulfil his obligations to the numerous creditors he owed money to, but also to further strengthen his position within the late Republic. In this sense, even the character of Divico, who makes his appearance in the Commentarii half a century after his victory over L. Cassius Longinus, seems more like another hackneyed argument stressing Caesar's justification to attack, than like an actual historical figure. That the victor of Agen was still alive in 58 BC or, if yes, that he was physically still capable of undertaking such a journey at all, seems more than doubtful. Nevertheless, Divico became somewhat of a hero within the Swiss national feeling of the 19th century and in the course of the "Geistige Landesverteidigung" of the 20th century.

The Helvetii as Roman subjects
The Helvetii and Rauraci most likely lost their status as foederati only six years after the battle of Bibracte, when they supported Vercingetorix in 52 BC with 8,000 and 2,000 men, respectively. Sometime between 50 and 45 BC, the Romans founded the Colonia Iulia Equestris at the site of the Helvetian settlement Noviodunum (modern Nyon), and around 44 BC the Colonia Raurica on Rauracan territory. These colonies were probably established as a means of controlling the two most important military access routes between the Helvetian territory and the rest of Gaul, blocking the passage through the Rhône valley and Sundgau.

In the course of Augustus' reign, Roman dominance became more concrete. Some of the traditional Celtic oppida were now used as legionary garrisons, such as Vindonissa or Basilea (modern Basel); others were relocated, such as the hill-fort on the Bois de Châtel, whose inhabitants founded the new "capital" of the civitas at nearby Aventicum. First incorporated into the Roman province of Gallia Belgica, later into the Germania Superior and finally into the Diocletian province of Maxima Sequanorum, the former territories of the Helvetii and their inhabitants were as thoroughly romanised as the rest of Gaul.

The rising of 68/69 AD
What seems to have been the last action of the Helvetii as a tribal entity happened shortly after the death of emperor Nero in 68 AD. Like the other Gallic tribes, the Helvetii were organised as a civitas; they even retained their traditional grouping into four pagi and enjoyed a certain inner autonomy, including the defence of certain strongholds by their own troops. In the civil war which followed Nero's death, the civitas Helvetiorum supported Galba; unaware of his death, they refused to accept the authority of his rival, Vitellius. The Legio XXI Rapax, stationed in Vindonissa and favouring Vitellius, stole the pay of a Helvetian garrison, which prompted the Helvetians to intercept Vitellian messengers and detain a Roman detachment. Aulus Caecina Alienus, a former supporter of Galba who was now at the head of a Vitellian invasion of Italy, launched a massive punitive campaign, crushing the Helvetii under their commander Claudius Severus and routing the remnants of their forces at Mount Vocetius, killing and enslaving thousands. The capital Aventicum surrendered, and Julius Alpinus, head of what was now seen as a Helvetian uprising, was executed. In spite of the extensive damage and devastations the civitas had already sustained, according to Tacitus the Helvetii were saved from total annihilation owing to the pleas of one Claudius Cossus, a Helvetian envoy to Vitellius, and, as Tacitus puts it, "of well-known eloquence".

Legacy
Roman occupation in the aftermath of the Gallic Wars had pacified the Celtic-Germanic contact zone along the Rhine. The Suebi and Marcomanni who under Ariovistus had planned to invade Gaul were pushed back beyond the Black Forest, where they amalgamated into the future Alemanni. The Romans allowed Germanic tribes such as the Ubii, Triboci, Nemetes and Vangiones to settle in the deserted areas left of the Rhine. On the right bank of the Upper Rhine, which according to the testimony of Tacitus (Germania 28) had formerly also been occupied by the Helvetians, both the historical and archaeological records are sparse. Ptolemy (2.4.11) in the 2nd century uses the term Eremus Helvetiorum (also rendered Heremus Helvetiorum) "desolation of the Helvetians" to refer to this area (largely corresponding to modern Baden). The term was adopted by Aegidius Tschudi in the 16th century, and remains in use in modern historiography (German: Helvetier-Einöde). It has been proposed that the area inhabited by the Helvetians had extended beyond the Swiss plateau, far into what is now Baden-Württemberg, but had been displaced in the course of the Cimbrian War, some two generations prior to Caesar's invasion of Gaul.

The Swiss plateau was gradually romanized during the 1st to 3rd centuries. The principal Roman settlements were the cities of Iulia Equestris (Nyon), Aventicum (Avenches), Augusta Raurica (Augst) and Vindonissa (Windisch). Evidence has also been found of almost twenty Roman villages (vici) and hundreds of villas.

In the course of Romanization, the Celtic polytheism of the Helvetians was syncretized with Roman religion. The Celtic deities came to be worshiped under the names of their Roman counterparts, and Roman gods acquired the names of local gods, such as Mars Caturix,  Mercurius Cissonius and  Jupiter Poeninus. A major cultic center of Gallo-Roman religion, consisting of eight chapels or small temples, was found in Allmendingen near Thun. Deities worshipped at the site included Mars (presumably in lieu of Caturix) and Rosmerta as well as Mithras.

Although the Gaulish language had mostly been ousted by Latin by the 3rd century, many Celtic toponyms have survived in Switzerland. Of the ten largest present-day Swiss cities, at least six have Celtic placename etymologies, and most major Swiss rivers have either Celtic or pre-Celtic names.

The order and prosperity of the Pax Romana ended with the Crisis of the Third Century. In 260, when the Gallic Empire briefly seceded from Rome, emperor Gallienus withdrew the legions from the Rhine to fight the usurper Ingenuus, allowing the Alemanni to invade the Swiss plateau. There, cities, villages and most villae were raided or sacked by marauding bands. The numerous caches of coins recovered from the period between 250 and 280 attest to the severity of the crisis.

The Helvetii were re-discovered as the forebears of the Swiss in the early historiography of Switzerland, in the late 15th to early 16th century. Their name was adopted as the Latin equivalent of the designation Switzer, and the Swiss Confederacy was given the Latin name of Republica Helvetiorum. The name of the national personification of Switzerland, Helvetia, and the country's contemporary Neo-Latin name, Confoederatio Helvetica (abbreviated CH), are derived from this tradition.

In 2015, the star 51 Pegasi, the first main-sequence star found to have an exoplanet, was named Helvetios after the Helvetii as part of the IAU's NameExoWorlds contest.

Celtic oppida in Switzerland
The distribution of La Tène culture burials in Switzerland indicates that the Swiss plateau between Lausanne and Winterthur was relatively densely populated. Settlement centres existed in the Aare valley between Thun and Bern, and between Lake Zurich and the river Reuss. The Valais and the regions around Bellinzona and Lugano also seem to have been well-populated; however, those lay outside the Helvetian borders.

Almost all the Helvetic oppida were built in the vicinity of the larger rivers of the Swiss midlands. Not all of them existed at the same time. For most of them, we do not have any idea as to what their Gaulish names might have been, with one or two possible exceptions. Where a pre-Roman name is preserved, it is added in brackets. Those marked with an asterisk (*) were most likely occupied by neighbouring tribes (Raurici, Veragri, etc.) rather than the Helvetii.

 * Altenburg-Rheinau
 * Basel*
 * Bern-Engehalbinsel (possibly Brenodurum )
 * Bois de Châtel, Avenches
 * Eppenberg
 * Jensberg
 * Genève (Genava)*
 * Lausanne (Lousonna)
 * Martigny (Octodurus)*
 * Mont Chaibeuf*
 * Mont Terri*
 * Mont Vully
 * Sermuz
 * Uetliberg, Zürich
 * Windisch (Vindonissa)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Helvetii


text:
Heretics of Dune

Heretics of Dune is a 1984 science fiction novel by Frank Herbert, the fifth in his Dune series of six novels.

Set 1,500 years after the events of God Emperor of Dune (1981), the novel finds humanity on the path set for them by the tyrant Leto II Atreides to guarantee their survival. But a new threat arrives in the form of the Honored Matres, a brutal matriarchy from beyond the known universe whose only goals are conquest and destruction.

Heretics of Dune was ranked as the No. 13 hardcover fiction best seller of 1984 by The New York Times.

Plot summary
Fifteen hundred years after the 3,500-year reign of the God Emperor Leto II Atreides ended with his assassination, humanity is firmly on the Golden Path, Leto's plan to save humanity from destruction. By crushing the aspirations of humans for over three thousand years and dismantling the complex economic system dependent on the spice melange, Leto caused the Scattering, an explosion of humanity into the rest of the universe upon his death.

Sandworms have reappeared on Arrakis (now called Rakis), and have renewed the flow of the all-important spice to the galaxy. A new civilization has risen, with three dominant powers: the Ixians, whose no-ships are capable of piloting between the stars and are invisible to outside detection; the Bene Tleilax, who have learned to manufacture spice in their axlotl tanks and have created a new breed of Face Dancers; and the Bene Gesserit, a matriarchal order of subtle political manipulators who possess superhuman abilities. However, people from the Scattering are returning with their own peculiar powers. The most powerful of these forces are the Honored Matres, a violent society of women bred and trained for combat and the sexual control of men.

The Bene Gesserit leader, Mother Superior Taraza, brings Mentat and former Supreme Bashar Miles Teg out of retirement to oversee the protection of their latest Tleilaxu-provided Duncan Idaho ghola on the planet Gammu. She also sends Bene Gesserit Imprinter Lucilla to instruct Duncan, and eventually bind his loyalty to the Sisterhood with her sexual talents. At the same time, Teg's biological daughter, Reverend Mother Darwi Odrade, is put in command of the Bene Gesserit keep on Rakis. The Bene Gesserit discover Sheeana, a girl who can control the giant sandworms, and hope to gain control of her and the religion that will inevitably form around her. Soon the Bene Gesserit thwart an attack on Sheeana, and Odrade begins training her in the ways of the Sisterhood.

An assassination attempt is made on Duncan, Lucilla and Teg flee with him into the countryside. Teg awakens Duncan's original memories, but does so before Lucilla can imprint Duncan and thus tie him to the Sisterhood. Teg is captured by the Honored Matres while Lucilla and Duncan escape. Teg is tortured by a T-Probe, but under pressure discovers new abilities: drastically increased physical capabilities and an uncertain type of prescience, which he uses to easily escape. Duncan is subdued by a young Honored Matre named Murbella, who attempts to enslave him sexually. However, hidden Tleilaxu conditioning kicks in, and Duncan responds with an equal technique that overwhelms Murbella. The experience restores in him the entire memories of all of the hundreds of previous Duncan gholas.

Taraza meets with the Tleilaxu Master Waff and compels him to tell her what he knows about the Honored Matres. He also reveals that the Bene Tleilax have conditioned their own agenda into Duncan. Taraza gleans the Tleilaxu's secret religious beliefs from their conversation, and uses them to manipulate an alliance with the Bene Tleilax that better serves the Bene Gesserit. Odrade realizes that Taraza's plan is to destroy Rakis just as the Honored Matres invade, killing Taraza. Odrade becomes temporary leader of the Bene Gesserit and escapes with Sheeana into the desert on a worm.

Teg finds that his prescient powers allow him to "see" shielded no-ships, enabling him to locate Duncan and Lucilla. They flee to Rakis with a captive Murbella, intercepting Odrade and Sheeana and their giant worm. Teg leads his troops in a suicidal defense of Rakis designed to enrage the Honored Matres and goad them into using their planet-destroying Obliterators. They do so, incinerating Rakis and killing all sandworms, save the one with which Odrade and Sheeana have escaped. They intend to use it to create a new sandworm ecosystem on the secret Bene Gesserit planet Chapterhouse.

Publication history
Frank Herbert wrote much of the initial draft of Heretics of Dune in Hawaii, using a Compaq word processor. According to his son Brian, Herbert's time spent writing the draft would be "exceedingly arduous and much slower for him [Herbert] than usual, because of all the time he had to spend out of his study tending to the medical crises of my mother, Beverly Herbert."

Reception
Kirkus Reviews described this fifth installment of the Dune series as "another uneven entry, slow to start and hastily, rather abruptly concluded—but more exciting and adventurous than any since the original Dune, with a gratifying influx of new ideas."

Heretics of Dune was ranked as the No. 13 hardcover fiction best seller of 1984 by The New York Times.

title: Heretics of Dune


text:
Halakha

Halakha (הֲלָכָה, Sephardic: ), also transliterated as halacha, halakhah, and halocho (Ashkenazic: ), is the collective body of Jewish religious laws that are derived from the Written and Oral Torah. Halakha is based on biblical commandments (mitzvot), subsequent Talmudic and rabbinic laws, and the customs and traditions which were compiled in the many books such as the Shulchan Aruch. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish law", although a more literal translation might be "the way to behave" or "the way of walking". The word is derived from the root which means "to behave" (also "to go" or "to walk"). Halakha not only guides religious practices and beliefs; it also guides numerous aspects of day-to-day life.

Historically, widespread observance of the laws of the Torah is first in evidence beginning in the second century BCE. In the Jewish diaspora, halakha served many Jewish communities as an enforceable avenue of law – both civil and religious, since no differentiation of them exists in classical Judaism. Since the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) and Jewish emancipation, some have come to view the halakha as less binding in day-to-day life, because it relies on rabbinic interpretation, as opposed to the authoritative, canonical text which is recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Under contemporary Israeli law, certain areas of Israeli family and personal status law are under the authority of the rabbinic courts, so they are treated according to halakha. Some minor differences in halakha are found among Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Yemenite, Ethiopian and other Jewish communities which historically lived in isolation.

Etymology and terminology
The word halakha is derived from the Hebrew root halakh – "to walk" or "to go". Taken literally, therefore, halakha translates as "the way to walk", rather than "law". The word halakha refers to the corpus of rabbinic legal texts, or to the overall system of religious law. The term may also be related to Akkadian, a property tax, rendered in Aramaic as , designating one or several obligations. It may be descended from hypothetical reconstructed Proto-Semitic root *halak- meaning "to go", which also has descendants in Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, and Ugaritic.

Halakha is often contrasted with aggadah ("the telling"), the diverse corpus of rabbinic exegetical, narrative, philosophical, mystical, and other "non-legal" texts. At the same time, since writers of halakha may draw upon the aggadic and even mystical literature, a dynamic interchange occurs between the genres. Halakha also does not include the parts of the Torah not related to commandments.

Halakha constitutes the practical application of the 613 mitzvot ("commandments") in the Torah, as developed through discussion and debate in the classical rabbinic literature, especially the Mishnah and the Talmud (the "Oral Torah"), and as codified in the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch. Because halakha is developed and applied by various halakhic authorities rather than one sole "official voice", different individuals and communities may well have different answers to halakhic questions. With few exceptions, controversies are not settled through authoritative structures because during the Jewish diaspora, Jews lacked a single judicial hierarchy or appellate review process for halakha.

According to some scholars, the words halakha and sharia both mean literally "the path to follow". The fiqh literature parallels rabbinical law developed in the Talmud, with fatwas being analogous to rabbinic responsa.

Commandments (mitzvot)
According to the Talmud (Tractate Makot), 613 mitzvot are in the Torah, 248 positive ("thou shalt") mitzvot and 365 negative ("thou shalt not") mitzvot, supplemented by seven mitzvot legislated by the rabbis of antiquity. Currently, many of the 613 commandments cannot be performed until the building of the Temple in Jerusalem and the universal resettlement of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel by the Messiah. According to one count, only 369 can be kept, meaning that 40% of mitzvot are not possible to perform.

Rabbinic Judaism divides laws into categories:
 * The Law of Moses which are believed to have been revealed by God to the Israelites at biblical Mount Sinai. These laws are composed of the following:
 * The Written Torah, laws written in the Hebrew Bible.
 * The Oral Torah, laws believed to have been transmitted orally prior to their later compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.
 * Laws of human origin, including rabbinic decrees, interpretations, customs, etc.

This division between revealed and rabbinic commandments may influence the importance of a rule, its enforcement and the nature of its ongoing interpretation. Halakhic authorities may disagree on which laws fall into which categories or the circumstances (if any) under which prior rabbinic rulings can be re-examined by contemporary rabbis, but all Halakhic Jews hold that both categories exist and that the first category is immutable, with exceptions only for life-saving and similar emergency circumstances.

A second classical distinction is between the Written Law, laws written in the Hebrew Bible, and the Oral Law, laws which are believed to have been transmitted orally prior to their later compilation in texts such as the Mishnah, Talmud, and rabbinic codes.

Commandments are divided into positive and negative commands, which are treated differently in terms of divine and human punishment. Positive commandments require an action to be performed and are considered to bring the performer closer to God. Negative commandments (traditionally 365 in number) forbid a specific action, and violations create a distance from God.

A further division is made between chukim ("decrees" – laws without obvious explanation, such as shatnez, the law prohibiting wearing clothing made of mixtures of linen and wool), mishpatim ("judgements" – laws with obvious social implications) and eduyot ("testimonies" or "commemorations", such as the Shabbat and holidays). Through the ages, various rabbinical authorities have classified some of the 613 commandments in many ways.

A different approach divides the laws into a different set of categories:
 * Laws in relation to God (bein adam laMakom, lit. "between a person and the Place"), and
 * Laws about relations with other people (bein adam le-chavero, "between a person and his friend").

Sources and process
 Eras of Jewish law
 * Chazal (lit. "Our Sages, may their memory be blessed"): all Jewish sages of the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud eras (c. 250 BCE).
 * The Zugot ("pairs"), both the 200-year period (c. 170 BCE – 30 CE, "Era of the Pairs") during the Second Temple period in which the spiritual leadership was in the hands of five successions of "pairs" of religious teachers, and to each of these pairs themselves.
 * The Tannaim ("repeaters") were rabbis living primarily in Eretz Yisrael who codified the Oral Torah in the form of the Mishnah; 0–200 CE.
 * The Amoraim ("sayers") lived in both Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia. Their teachings and discussions were compiled into the two versions of the Gemara; 200–500.
 * The Savoraim ("reasoners") lived primarily in Sassanid Babylonia due to the suppression of Judaism in the Eastern Roman Empire under Theodosius II; 500–650.
 * The Geonim ("greats" or "geniuses") presided over the two major Babylonian Academies of Sura and Pumbedita; 650–1038.
 * The Rishonim ("firsts") are the rabbis of the late medieval period (c. 1038–1563), preceding the Shulchan Aruch.
 * The Acharonim ("lasts") are the rabbis from c. 1500 to the present.

The development of halakha in the period before the Maccabees, which has been described as the formative period in the history of its development, is shrouded in obscurity. Historian Yitzhak Baer argued that there was little pure academic legal activity at this period and that many of the laws originating at this time were produced by a means of neighbourly good conduct rules in a similar way as carried out by Greeks in the age of Solon. For example, the first chapter of Bava Kamma, contains a formulation of the law of torts worded in the first person.

The boundaries of Jewish law are determined through the Halakhic process, a religious-ethical system of legal reasoning. Rabbis generally base their opinions on the primary sources of halakha as well as on precedent set by previous rabbinic opinions. The major sources and genre of halakha consulted include:
 * The foundational Talmudic literature (especially the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud) with commentaries;
 * Talmudic hermeneutics: the science which defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures; also includes the rules from which the Halakhot are derived and which were established by the written law. These may be seen as the rules from which early Jewish law is derived.
 * Gemara – the Talmudic process of elucidating the halakha
 * The post-Talmudic codificatory literature, such as Maimonides's Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch with its commentaries (see below);
 * Regulations and other "legislative" enactments promulgated by rabbis and communal bodies:
 * Gezeirah ("declaration"): "preventative legislation" of the rabbis, intended to prevent violations of the commandments
 * Takkanah ("repair" or "regulation"): "positive legislation", practices instituted by the rabbis not based (directly) on the commandments
 * Minhag: Customs, community practices, and customary law, as well as the exemplary deeds of prominent (or local) rabbis;
 * The she'eloth u-teshuvoth (responsa, "questions and answers") literature.
 * Dina d'malchuta dina ("the law of the king is law"): an additional aspect of halakha, being the principle recognizing non-Jewish laws and non-Jewish legal jurisdiction as binding on Jewish citizens, provided that they are not contrary to a law in Judaism. This principle applies primarily in areas of commercial, civil and criminal law.

In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature (in the US judicial system) for Judaism, and had the power to administer binding law, including both received law and its own rabbinic decrees, on all Jews—rulings of the Sanhedrin became halakha; see Oral law. That court ceased to function in its full mode in 40 CE. Today, the authoritative application of Jewish law is left to the local rabbi, and the local rabbinical courts, with only local applicability. In branches of Judaism that follow halakha, lay individuals make numerous ad-hoc decisions but are regarded as not having authority to decide certain issues definitively.

Since the days of the Sanhedrin, however, no body or authority has been generally regarded as having the authority to create universally recognized precedents. As a result, halakha has developed in a somewhat different fashion from Anglo-American legal systems with a Supreme Court able to provide universally accepted precedents. Generally, Halakhic arguments are effectively, yet unofficially, peer-reviewed. When a rabbinic posek ("he who makes a statement", "decisor") proposes an additional interpretation of a law, that interpretation may be considered binding for the posek's questioner or immediate community. Depending on the stature of the posek and the quality of the decision, an interpretation may also be gradually accepted by other rabbis and members of other Jewish communities.

Under this system there is a tension between the relevance of earlier and later authorities in constraining Halakhic interpretation and innovation. On the one hand, there is a principle in halakha not to overrule a specific law from an earlier era, after it is accepted by the community as a law or vow, unless supported by another, relevant earlier precedent; see list below. On the other hand, another principle recognizes the responsibility and authority of later authorities, and especially the posek handling a then-current question. In addition, the halakha embodies a wide range of principles that permit judicial discretion and deviation (Ben-Menahem).

Notwithstanding the potential for innovation, rabbis and Jewish communities differ greatly on how they make changes in halakha. Notably, poskim frequently extend the application of a law to new situations, but do not consider such applications as constituting a "change" in halakha. For example, many Orthodox rulings concerning electricity are derived from rulings concerning fire, as closing an electrical circuit may cause a spark. In contrast, Conservative poskim consider that switching on electrical equipment is physically and chemically more like turning on a water tap (which is permissible by halakha) than lighting a fire (which is not permissible), and therefore permitted on Shabbat. The reformative Judaism in some cases explicitly interprets halakha to take into account its view of contemporary society. For instance, most Conservative rabbis extend the application of certain Jewish obligations and permissible activities to women (see below).

Within certain Jewish communities, formal organized bodies do exist. Within Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is no one committee or leader, but Modern US-based Orthodox rabbis generally agree with the views set by consensus by the leaders of the Rabbinical Council of America. Within Conservative Judaism, the Rabbinical Assembly has an official Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.

Note that takkanot (plural of takkanah) in general do not affect or restrict observance of Torah mitzvot. (Sometimes takkanah refers to either gezeirot or takkanot.) However, the Talmud states that in exceptional cases, the Sages had the authority to "uproot matters from the Torah". In Talmudic and classical Halakhic literature, this authority refers to the authority to prohibit some things that would otherwise be Biblically sanctioned (shev v'al ta'aseh, "thou shall stay seated and not do"). Rabbis may rule that a specific mitzvah from the Torah should not be performed, e. g., blowing the shofar on Shabbat, or taking the lulav and etrog on Shabbat. These examples of takkanot which may be executed out of caution lest some might otherwise carry the mentioned items between home and the synagogue, thus inadvertently violating a Sabbath melakha. Another rare and limited form of takkanah involved overriding Torah prohibitions. In some cases, the Sages allowed the temporary violation of a prohibition in order to maintain the Jewish system as a whole. This was part of the basis for Esther's relationship with Ahasuerus (Xeres). For general usage of takkanaot in Jewish history see the article Takkanah. For examples of this being used in Conservative Judaism, see Conservative halakha.

Historical analysis
The antiquity of the rules can be determined only by the dates of the authorities who quote them; in general, they cannot safely be declared older than the tanna ("repeater") to whom they are first ascribed. It is certain, however, that the seven middot ("measurements", and referring to [good] behavior) of Hillel and the thirteen of Ishmael are earlier than the time of Hillel himself, who was the first to transmit them.

The Talmud gives no information concerning the origin of the middot, although the Geonim ("Sages") regarded them as Sinaitic (Law given to Moses at Sinai).

The middot seem to have been first laid down as abstract rules by the teachers of Hillel, though they were not immediately recognized by all as valid and binding. Different schools interpreted and modified them, restricted or expanded them, in various ways. Rabbi Akiva and rabbi Ishmael and their scholars especially contributed to the development or establishment of these rules. "It must be borne in mind, however, that neither Hillel, Ishmael, nor [a contemporary of theirs named] Eliezer ben Jose sought to give a complete enumeration of the rules of interpretation current in his day, but that they omitted from their collections many rules which were then followed."

Akiva devoted his attention particularly to the grammatical and exegetical rules, while Ishmael developed the logical. The rules laid down by one school were frequently rejected by another because the principles that guided them in their respective formulations were essentially different. According to Akiva, the divine language of the Torah is distinguished from the speech of men by the fact that in the former no word or sound is superfluous.

Some scholars have observed a similarity between these rabbinic rules of interpretation and the hermeneutics of ancient Hellenistic culture. For example, Saul Lieberman argues that the names of rabbi Ishmael's middot (e. g., kal vahomer, a combination of the archaic form of the word for "straw" and the word for "clay" – "straw and clay", referring to the obvious [means of making a mud brick]) are Hebrew translations of Greek terms, although the methods of those middot are not Greek in origin.

Views today
Orthodox Judaism holds that halakha is the divine law as laid out in the Torah (five books of Moses), rabbinical laws, rabbinical decrees, and customs combined. The rabbis, who made many additions and interpretations of Jewish Law, did so only in accordance with regulations they believe were given for this purpose to Moses on Mount Sinai, see. See Orthodox Judaism, Beliefs about Jewish law and tradition.

Conservative Judaism holds that halakha is normative and binding, and is developed as a partnership between people and God based on Sinaitic Torah. While there are a wide variety of Conservative views, a common belief is that halakha is, and has always been, an evolving process subject to interpretation by rabbis in every time period. See Conservative Judaism, Beliefs.

Reconstructionist Judaism holds that halakha is normative and binding, while also believing that it is an evolving concept and that the traditional halakhic system is incapable of producing a code of conduct that is meaningful for, and acceptable to, the vast majority of contemporary Jews. Reconstructionist founder Mordecai Kaplan believed that "Jewish life [is] meaningless without Jewish law.", and one of the planks of the Society for the Jewish Renascence, of which Kaplan was one of the founders, stated: "We accept the halakha, which is rooted in the Talmud, as the norm of Jewish life, availing ourselves, at the same time, of the method implicit therein to interpret and develop the body of Jewish Law in accordance with the actual conditions and spiritual needs of modern life."

Reform Judaism holds that modern views of how the Torah and rabbinic law developed imply that the body of rabbinic Jewish law is no longer normative (seen as binding) on Jews today. Those in the "traditionalist" wing believe that the halakha represents a personal starting-point, holding that each Jew is obligated to interpret the Torah, Talmud and other Jewish works for themselves, and this interpretation will create separate commandments for each person. Those in the liberal and classical wings of Reform believe that in this day and era, most Jewish religious rituals are no longer necessary, and many hold that following most Jewish laws is actually counter-productive. They propose that Judaism has entered a phase of ethical monotheism, and that the laws of Judaism are only remnants of an earlier stage of religious evolution, and need not be followed. This is considered wrong, and even heretical, by Orthodox and Conservative Judaism.

Humanistic Jews value the Torah as a historical, political, and sociological text written by their ancestors. They do not believe "that every word of the Torah is true, or even morally correct, just because the Torah is old". The Torah is both disagreed with and questioned. Humanistic Jews believe that the entire Jewish experience, and not only the Torah, should be studied as a source for Jewish behavior and ethical values.

Some Jews believe that gentiles are bound by a subset of halakha called the Seven Laws of Noah, also referred to as the Noahide Laws. They are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to the "children of Noah" – that is, all of humanity.

Flexibility
Despite its internal rigidity, halakha has a degree of flexibility in finding solutions to modern problems that are not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. From the very beginnings of Rabbinic Judaism, halakhic inquiry allowed for a "sense of continuity between past and present, a self-evident trust that their pattern of life and belief now conformed to the sacred patterns and beliefs presented by scripture and tradition". According to an analysis by Jewish scholar Jeffrey Rubenstein of Michael Berger's book Rabbinic Authority, the authority that rabbis hold "derives not from the institutional or personal authority of the sages but from a communal decision to recognize that authority, much as a community recognizes a certain judicial system to resolve its disputes and interpret its laws." Given this covenantal relationship, rabbis are charged with connecting their contemporary community with the traditions and precedents of the past.

When presented with contemporary issues, rabbis go through a halakhic process to find an answer. The classical approach has permitted new rulings regarding modern technology. For example, some of these rulings guide Jewish observers about the proper use of electricity on the Sabbath and holidays. Often, as to the applicability of the law in any given situation, the proviso is to "consult your local rabbi or posek". This notion lends rabbis a certain degree of local authority; however, for more complex questions the issue is passed on to higher rabbis who will then issue a teshuva, which is a responsa that is binding. Indeed, rabbis will continuously issue different opinions and will constantly review each other's work so as to maintain the truest sense of halakha. Overall, this process allows rabbis to maintain connection of traditional Jewish law to modern life. Of course, the degree of flexibility depends on the sect of Judaism, with Reform being the most flexible, Conservative somewhat in the middle, and Orthodox being much more stringent and rigid. Modern critics, however, have charged that with the rise of movements that challenge the "divine" authority of halakha, traditional Jews have greater reluctance to change, not only the laws themselves but also other customs and habits, than traditional Rabbinical Judaism did prior to the advent of Reform in the 19th century.

Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Jews believe that halakha is a religious system whose core represents the revealed will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis have made many decisions and decrees regarding Jewish Law where the written Torah itself is nonspecific, they did so only in accordance with regulations received by Moses on Mount Sinai (see ). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple. They were then recorded in the Mishnah, and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history up until the present day. Orthodox Judaism believes that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted codes of Jewish law are known as Mishneh Torah and the Shulchan Aruch.

Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinions on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained, and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are more inclined to permit limited changes in customs and some reconsideration of precedent.

Despite the Orthodox views that halakha was given at Sinai, Orthodox thought (and especially modern Orthodox thought) encourages debate, allows for disagreement, and encourages rabbis to enact decisions based on contemporary needs. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein says in his introduction to his collection of responsa that a rabbi who studies the texts carefully is required to provide a halakhic decision. That decision is considered to be a true teaching, even if it is not the true teaching in according to the heavens. For instance, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik believes that the job of a halakhic decisor is to apply halakha − which exists in an ideal realm−to people's lived experiences. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the chief rabbi of Cluj (Klausenberg in German or קלויזנבורג in Yiddish) stated that the Oral Torah was an oral tradition by design, to allow for the creative application of halakha to each time period, and even enabling halakha to evolve. He writes:

"Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements."

Conservative Judaism
The view held by Conservative Judaism is that the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense. However, the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority. Therefore, halakha is still seen as binding. Conservative Jews use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are, in some cases, willing to change Jewish law in the present.

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by takkanah (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements or views of ethics. The CJLS has used this power on a number of occasions, most famously in the "driving teshuva", which says that if someone is unable to walk to any synagogue on the Sabbath, and their commitment to observance is so loose that not attending synagogue may lead them to drop it altogether, their rabbi may give them a dispensation to drive there and back; and more recently in its decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on mamzer status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of Kavod HaBriyot permits lifting rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on homosexual conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the Bible and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism also made a number of changes to the role of women in Judaism including counting women in a minyan, permitting women to chant from the Torah, and ordaining women as rabbis.

The Conservative approach to halakhic interpretation can be seen in the CJLS's acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz's responsum decreeing the biblical category of mamzer as "inoperative." The CJLS adopted the responsum's view that the "morality which we learn through the larger, unfolding narrative of our tradition" informs the application of Mosaic law. The responsum cited several examples of how the rabbinic sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law. The examples include the trial of the accused adulteress (sotah), the "law of breaking the neck of the heifer," and the application of the death penalty for the "rebellious child." Kaplan Spitz argues that the punishment of the mamzer has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction. Further he suggested that the rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral, and came to the conclusion that no court should agree to hear testimony on mamzerut.

Codes of Jewish law
The most important codifications of Jewish law include the following; for complementary discussion, see also History of responsa in Judaism.
 * The Mishnah, composed by Judah haNasi, in 200 CE, as a basic outline of the state of the Oral Law in his time. This was the framework upon which the Talmud was based; the Talmud's dialectic analysis of the content of the Mishna (gemara; completed c. 500) became the basis for all later halakhic decisions and subsequent codes.
 * Codifications by the Geonim of the halakhic material in the Talmud.
 * An early work, She'iltot ("Questions") by Ahai of Shabha (c. 752) discusses over 190 mitzvot – exploring and addressing various questions on these. The She'iltot was influential on both of the following, subsequent works.
 * The first legal codex proper, Halachot Pesukot ("Decided Laws"), by Yehudai ben Nahman (c. 760), rearranges the Talmud passages in a structure manageable to the layman. (It was written in vernacular Aramaic, and subsequently translated into Hebrew as Hilkhot Riu.)
 * Halakhot Gedolot ("Great Law Book"), by Simeon Kayyara, published two generations later (but possibly written c. 743 CE), contains extensive additional material, mainly from Responsa and Monographs of the Geonim, and is presented in a form that is closer to the original Talmud language and structure. (Probably since it was distributed, also, amongst the newly established Ashkenazi communities.)
 * The Hilchot HaRif was written by the Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (1013–1103); it has summations of the legal material found in the Talmud. Alfasi transcribed the Talmud's halakhic conclusions verbatim, without the surrounding deliberation; he also excluded all aggadic (non-legal, and homiletic) matter. The Hilchot soon superseded the geonic codes, as it contained all the decisions and the laws then relevant, and additionally, served as an accessible Talmudic commentary; it has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
 * The Mishneh Torah by Maimonides (1135–1204). This work encompasses the full range of Talmudic law; it is organized and reformulated in a logical system – in 14 books, 83 sections and 1000 chapters – with each halakha stated clearly. The Mishneh Torah is very influential to this day, and several later works reproduce passages verbatim. It also includes a section on Metaphysics and fundamental beliefs. (Some claim this section draws heavily on Aristotelian science and metaphysics; others suggest that it is within the tradition of Saadia Gaon.) It is the main source of practical halakha for many Yemenite Jews – mainly Baladi and Dor Daim – as well as for a growing community referred to as talmidei haRambam.
 * The work of the Rosh, Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel (1250?/1259?–1328), an abstract of the Talmud, concisely stating the final halakhic decision and quoting later authorities, notably Alfasi, Maimonides, and the Tosafists. This work superseded Rabbi Alfasi's and has been printed with almost every subsequent edition of the Talmud.
 * The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (The "SeMaG") of Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy (first half of the 13th century, Coucy, northern France). "SeMaG" is organised around the 365 negative and the 248 positive commandments, separately discussing each of them according to the Talmud (in light of the commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafot) and the other codes existent at the time. Sefer Mitzvot Katan ("SeMaK") by Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil is an abridgement of the SeMaG, including additional practical halakha, as well as aggadic and ethical material.
 * "The Mordechai" – by Mordecai ben Hillel (d. Nuremberg 1298) – serves both as a source of analysis, as well as of decided law. Mordechai considered about 350 halakhic authorities, and was widely influential, particularly amongst the Ashkenazi and Italian communities. Although organised around the Hilchot of the Rif, it is, in fact, an independent work. It has been printed with every edition of the Talmud since 1482.
 * The Arba'ah Turim (lit. "The Four Columns"; the Tur) by Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270–1343, Toledo, Spain). This work traces the halakha from the Torah text and the Talmud through the Rishonim, with the Hilchot of Alfasi as its starting point. Ben Asher followed Maimonides's precedent in arranging his work in a topical order, however, the Tur covers only those areas of Jewish law that were in force in the author's time. The code is divided into four main sections; almost all codes since this time have followed the Tur's arrangement of material.
 * Orach Chayim ("The Way of Life"): worship and ritual observance in the home and synagogue, through the course of the day, the weekly sabbath and the festival cycle.
 * Yoreh De'ah ("Teach Knowledge"): assorted ritual prohibitions, dietary laws and regulations concerning menstrual impurity.
 * Even Ha'ezer ("The Rock of the Helpmate"): marriage, divorce and other issues in family law.
 * Choshen Mishpat ("The Breastplate of Judgement"): The administration and adjudication of civil law.
 * The Beit Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575). The Beit Yosef is a huge commentary on the Tur in which Rabbi Karo traces the development of each law from the Talmud through later rabbinical literature (examining 32 authorities, beginning with the Talmud and ending with the works of Rabbi Israel Isserlein). The Shulchan Aruch (literally "set table") is, in turn, a condensation of the Beit Yosef – stating each ruling simply; this work follows the chapter divisions of the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch, together with its related commentaries, is considered by many to be the most authoritative compilation of halakha since the Talmud. In writing the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Karo based his rulings on three authorities – Maimonides, Asher ben Jehiel (Rosh), and Isaac Alfasi (Rif); he considered the Mordechai in inconclusive cases. Sephardic Jews, generally, refer to the Shulchan Aruch as the basis for their daily practice.
 * The works of Rabbi Moshe Isserles ("Rema"; Kraków, Poland, 1525 to 1572). Isserles noted that the Shulchan Aruch was based on the Sephardic tradition, and he created a series of glosses to be appended to the text of the Shulkhan Aruch for cases where Sephardi and Ashkenazi customs differed (based on the works of Yaakov Moelin, Israel Isserlein, and Israel Bruna). The glosses are called ha-Mapah ("the Tablecloth"). His comments are now incorporated into the body of all printed editions of the Shulchan Aruch, typeset in a different script; today, "Shulchan Aruch" refers to the combined work of Karo and Isserles. Isserles' Darkhei Moshe is similarly a commentary on the Tur and the Beit Yosef.
 * The Levush Malkhut ("Levush") of Rabbi Mordecai Yoffe (c. 1530–1612). A ten-volume work, five discussing halakha at a level "midway between the two extremes: the lengthy Beit Yosef of Karo on the one hand, and on the other Karo's Shulchan Aruch together with the Mappah of Isserles, which is too brief", that particularly stresses the customs and practices of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The Levush was exceptional among the codes, in that it treated certain Halakhot from a Kabbalistic standpoint.
 * The Shulchan Aruch HaRav of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (c. 1800) was an attempt to re-codify the law as it stood at that time – incorporating commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch, and subsequent responsa – and thus stating the decided halakha, as well as the underlying reasoning. The work was written partly so that laymen would be able to study Jewish law. Unfortunately, most of the work was lost in a fire prior to publication. It is the basis of practice for Chabad-Lubavitch and other Hasidic groups and is quoted as authoritative by many subsequent works, Hasidic and non-Hasidic alike.
 * Works structured directly on the Shulchan Aruch, providing analysis in light of Acharonic material and codes:
 * The Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Yisroel Meir ha-Kohen, (the "Chofetz Chaim", Poland, 1838–1933) is a commentary on the "Orach Chayim" section of the Shulchan Aruch, discussing the application of each halakha in light of all subsequent Acharonic decisions. It has become the authoritative halakhic guide for much of Orthodox Ashkenazic Jewry in the postwar period.
 * Aruch HaShulchan by Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829–1888) is a scholarly analysis of halakha through the perspective of the major Rishonim. The work follows the structure of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch; rules dealing with vows, agriculture, and ritual purity, are discussed in a second work known as Aruch HaShulchan he'Atid.
 * Kaf HaChaim on Orach Chayim and parts of Yoreh De'ah, by the Sephardi sage Yaakov Chaim Sofer (Baghdad and Jerusalem, 1870–1939) is similar in scope, authority and approach to the Mishnah Berurah. This work also surveys the views of many kabbalistic sages (particularly Isaac Luria), when these impact the Halakha.
 * Yalkut Yosef, by Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, is a voluminous, widely cited and contemporary work of halakha, based on the rulings of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013).
 * Layman-oriented works of halakha:
 * Thesouro dos Dinim ("Treasury of religious rules") by Menasseh Ben Israel (1604–1657) is a reconstituted version of the Shulkhan Arukh, written in Portuguese with the explicit purpose of helping conversos from Iberia reintergrate into halakhic Judaism.
 * The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (Hungary 1804–1886), a "digest", covering applicable Halakha from all four sections of Shulchan Aruch, and reflecting the very strict Hungarian customs of the 19th century. It became immensely popular after its publication due to its simplicity, and is still popular in Orthodox Judaism as a framework for study, if not always for practice. This work is not considered binding in the same way as the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch.
 * Chayei Adam and Chochmat Adam by Avraham Danzig (Poland, 1748–1820) are similar Ashkenazi works; the first covers Orach Chaim, the second in large Yoreh De'ah, as well as laws from Even Ha'ezer and Choshen Mishpat pertinent to everyday life.
 * The Ben Ish Chai by Yosef Chaim (Baghdad, 1832–1909) is a collection of the laws on everyday life – parallel in scope to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch – interspersed with mystical insights and customs, addressed to the masses and arranged by the weekly Torah portion. Its wide circulation and coverage has seen it become a standard reference work in Sephardi Halakha.
 * Contemporary "series":
 * Peninei Halakha by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed. 15 volumes thus far, covering a wide range of subjects, from Shabbat to organ donations, and in addition to clearly posing the practical law – reflecting the customs of various communities – also discusses the spiritual foundations of the Halakhot. It is widely studied in the Religious Zionist community.
 * Tzurba M’Rabanan by Rabbi Benzion Algazi. Six volumes covering 300 topics from all areas of the Shulchan Aruch, "from the Talmudic source through modern-day halachic application", similarly studied in the Religious Zionist community (and outside Israel, through Mizrachi in numerous Modern Orthodox communities; 15 bilingual translated volumes).
 * Nitei Gavriel by Rabbi Gavriel Zinner. 30 volumes on the entire spectrum of topics in halachah, known for addressing situations not commonly brought in other works, and for delineating the varying approaches amongst the Hasidic branches; for both reasons they are often reprinted.
 * Temimei Haderech ("A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice") by Rabbi Isaac Klein with contributions from the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly. This scholarly work is based on the previous traditional law codes, but written from a Conservative Jewish point of view, and not accepted among Orthodox Jews.

Full-text resources of major halakhic works

 * Mishneh Torah: Hebrew; English
 * Arba'ah Turim: Hebrew
 * Shulchan Aruch: Hebrew; English (incomplete)
 * Shulchan Aruch HaRav: Hebrew
 * Aruch HaShulchan: Hebrew
 * Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: Hebrew; English
 * Ben Ish Chai: Hebrew
 * Kaf HaChaim: Hebrew (search on site)
 * Mishnah Berurah: Hebrew; English
 * Chayei Adam: Hebrew
 * Chochmat Adam: Hebrew
 * Peninei Halakha: Hebrew; English
 * Yalkut Yosef: Hebrew
 * A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice: Hebrew

title: Halakha


text:
Talk:Halakha

Too many bulleted lists
All the bullet pointed lists to books most Wikipedia users have never heard of seem quite unnecessary. I'm not an expert on halacha, so I don't really know how this could be rewritten, but at the very least, I'd suggest that the list of the six orders of the Mishnah and the list of the order of the Tur be removed. --GHcool (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information that was not know to its readers. That is why people come here. So I find your argument to remove these lists, that most Wikipedia readers haven't heard of them, confusing, to say the least, as the same could be said for most of the information in almost any article on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How about if we make a new article called List of codes of Jewish law. I just feel like the average user wants an overview, not a bibliography.  --GHcool (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we are going to have arguments, what is a "code of Jewish law" and what is simply a "work of Jewish law". :) Debresser (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps the article could be called Bibliography of Jewish law.  --GHcool (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, an editor willing to put some effort into it could convert this semi-list into a narrative text. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia has an an article on the history of codification. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion has a more up-to-date and concise take on the subject. I can share a copy privately with someone who would like to work on that. Eperoton (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds alright with me. I don't feel comfortable spearheading that since I only have a novice understanding of halacha.  --GHcool (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Gentiles and Jewish law section
Does anybody think that the one-sentence "Gentiles and Jewish law" section is necessary and important to the article? I think it isn't. If nobody comes up with a compelling reason to keep it, I will remove the section within the next couple of days. --GHcool (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Editor2020 did it. ✅ --GHcool (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is important. The fact that halakha might pertain not only to Jews is not obvious and noteworthy. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So add a sentence somewhere in the body of the article. Don't make a section with a heading for one random fact.  --GHcool (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:GHcool, please do not hand out commands. It is only a sub-section, and it is not a "random" fact, as you call it, but a relevant fact.
 * I saw an editor removed this, without even participating in this discussion. Which was opened just recently. User:Editor2020, making edits while there is ongoing discussion, is something that you should avoid on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a command. It was a suggestion.  --GHcool (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. I can agree to adding it to some other relevant section, but removing it altogether (which is basically what you did, even though you added a See also link), is removing information which IMHO is very relevant (as I stated above). 23:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
 * I have reverted. You can do as you wish. Editor2020 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Halakha


text:
Talk:History of Israel

repeated sentence
at the end of the fifth paragraph of the section "netanyahu I; Barak," the sentence "since 2013 it has been a permanent member of the group" is repeated twice. Chairibum (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

History Of Israel, Its Not Palestine
The opening line: "The history of Israel covers an area of the Southern Levant also known as Canaan, Palestine or the Holy Land, which is the geographical location of the modern states of Israel and Palestine." - The early sentence reference to "Palestine" here is incorrect. It was NOT called Palestine when it was known as Canaan or The Holy Land. Also, Palestine is not recognized as a country, or a state.

"The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century BCE occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza."

"This country received the name of Palestine, from the Philistines, who dwelt on the sea coast: it was called Judea, from Judah: and is termed the Holy Land, being the country where Jesus Christ was born, preached his holy doctrines, confirmed them by miracles, and laid down his life for mankind."

"While the State of Israel was established on 15 May 1948 and admitted to the United Nations, a Palestinian State was not established. The remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank - including East Jerusalem- and Gaza Strip, were administered from 1948 till 1967 by Jordan and Egypt, respectively."

Sources:

https://hc.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/tour-of-the-museum/bible-in-america/bibles-for-a-young-republic/judea-palestine-or-the-holy-land/#:~:text=This%20country%20received%20the%20name,down%20his%20life%20for%20mankind.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine#:~:text=The%20word%20Palestine%20derives%20from,Tel%20Aviv%E2%80%93Yafo%20and%20Gaza.

https://unctad.org/topic/palestinian-people/The-question-of-Palestine#:~:text=While%20the%20State%20of%20Israel,by%20Jordan%20and%20Egypt%2C%20respectively.

Please fix this issue, in any way you see fit, and don't be pressured by political biases on a supposedly FACTUAL website.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024
change "The result of the 29 August 1967 Arab League summit was the Khartoum Resolution, which according to Abd al Azim Ramadan, left only one option -a war with Israel." to "The result of the 29 August 1967 Arab League summit was the Khartoum Resolution, which according to Abd al Azim Ramadan, left only one option – a war with Israel." Imginarypart (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024 (2)
change "Increased Soviet antisemitism and enthusiasm generated by the 1967 victory led to a wave of Soviet Jews applying to emigrate to Israel. ." to "Increased Soviet antisemitism and enthusiasm generated by the 1967 victory led to a wave of Soviet Jews applying to emigrate to Israel." Imginarypart (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request
Near the end of second lead paragraph it says "...., until Saladin’s Ayyubids finally expelled Christian rule late in the 12th century." Although Saladin conquered Jerusalem and most of the Christian kingdom, the Crusaders retreated to Acre and mantained their rule near the coast. It was only a century later that the remaining Crusader kingdom fell completely at the hands of the Mamluks. I think it would be more accurate if the sentence read "From the 11th century to the 13th century, the Land of Israel became the centre for intermittent religious wars between European Christian and Muslim armies as part of the Crusades, with the Kingdom of Jerusalem being almost entirely overrun by Saladin's Ayyubids late in the 12th century, although the remaining Crusader outposts would last for another century."

Further modifications are welcome. Thanks in advance.--2800:2503:121:F0F:1:0:3E80:E756 (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Prehistory: 1st paragraph must be rewritten
- The A. Ronen article ("The oldest human groups in the Levant") is out of date, publ. in 2006. It's the base of most of the paragraph.

- Terms are used chaotically, w/o understanding their meaning.

- Human remains have meanwhile been identified among Ubeidiye material. Arminden (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead: C19, 20
Pls don't remove historical facts. Qualifications can always be made after discussing them here, but the facts are clear. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I guess you are referring to the removal and edits of:
 * 1- "the Jews accepted the plan, while de Arabs rejected it."
 * This is an oversimplification that does not summarize the body and ignores Ben Gurion's publicly stated intention to take over all of Palestine.
 * 2- "civil war ensued, won by the Jews"
 * this sounds like a football match that does not align with how RS have portrayed the events, also too detailed for lede.
 * 3- "the Israeli Declaration of Independence sparked the 1948 War in which Israel repelled the invading armies of the neighbouring states. It resulted in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight"
 * the declaration was the immediate step before the war, but obviously the war would have ensued anyway due to the raging conflict. Also which historical fact says that the 15 May 1948 war resulted in the Palestinian expulsion, when it is a historical fact that this expulsion had started in late 1947? And how did Israel "repel" the invading forces if it had not been able to control the West Bank and Gaza? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Every recent BBC World Service programme summarised it exactly this way. BBC, not Israeli TV or Deutsche Welle. We're talking about the intro (lead); in the body one can add as many qualifying remarks and justifications as one wants - and the fellow editors go along with :) Arminden (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think citing what BBC World Service programme said or wrote is a good counterargument to any of the questions or arguments I made above. Still waiting for your responses to each point. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1- "the Jews accepted the plan, while de Arabs rejected it."
 * Fact. That Ben Gurion... etc. is your claim, in no way the historians' mainstream opinion. Taking over all of Palestine is BS, pls excuse my French. What X or Y hoped for during their wet dreams, or Ben Gurion wrote at some point in his journal - he wrote everything and its opposite at some point or another - is irrelevant. There was no way in 48 to realistically hope for more than they achieved, and they truly didn't. So you see, allegations here & there, not good for brief intros.
 * 2- "civil war ensued, won by the Jews ("Jewish forces" is better)."
 * Fact. The British crushed the 1936-39 Arab Revolt with such violence that the Arabs entered the civil war 8 years later still severely weakened - and lost in every respect. Wars can be won and lost, much like football matches. All the various details deserve mention, but not in the lead - but the result? An absolute must for the lead. You can't complain it's too brief, AND too detailed (one short sentence, too detailed?) all at the same time.
 * 3- "the Israeli Declaration of Independence sparked the 1948 War in which Israel repelled the invading armies of the neighbouring states. It resulted in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight"
 * Fact. The USA tried to persuade Ben Gurion to wait, being convinced that this way the war could be preempted. The US opinion, not mine or yours.
 * The neighbours DID invade the very next day. I'm happy if you add "the civil war and.... 48 led to the refugees etc.". Benny Morris has the numbers, it may well be that most refugees were the result of the 48 war, but I don't know it by heart and it doesn't matter much, I believe.
 * Israel DID repel the invading armies from all territories granted to it by the UN and for sure stopped the Egyptian advance toward Tel Aviv and the Trans-Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi push westwards of the Jordan Valley into Galilee. Not sure which side Latrun was placed in the UN partition plan, and similarly some sections along the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and the Hula Valley taken by Syria, but all else went the Israeli way. If you wish, we can rephrase to "managed to defend all the territories granted to the Jewish state by the UN partition plan."
 * Opposite to what you wrote here-above, the West Bank and Gaza were NOT on any Israeli target list in 48, with the exception of Gush Etzion and possibly a couple of other kibbutzim elsewhere.
 * I can bring piles of RS for each point, but please, let's drop this unnecessary effort. Life is much too short for such futile exercises.
 * Arminden (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To save time: this is what Encyclopaedia Britannica writes about the topic. Arminden (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have all the time to go over each point thoroughly. Oversimplified facts are half truths.
 * 1- Wanting to take over all of Palestine is documented by RS: "Zionists accepted this scheme [the UN partition plan] since they hoped to use their state as a base to conquer the whole country" . This is also heavily sourced at the UN partition plan WP article.
 * 2- "which Jews won" is an oversimplified statement that adds nothing of value.
 * 3- The Israeli declaration of independence did not specify Israel's borders, thus claims of repelling the Arab armies is misleading as the territories are not specified. Not to mention that it was the Jordanian army that repelled the Israelis at Latrun near Jerusalem an international area according to the plan. Again, misleading oversimplification.
 * 4- Still no counterargument provided to the factually inaccurate claim currently in the article that says the war led to the expulsions when in fact they had started in late 1947. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. I have already answered to most of it. You will always find counterarguments to everything, even the most logically obvious things, let alone to historiographical topics. Therefore please excuse me, I'll stop here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Points 1 and 2 were only recently inserted, and the onus is on you as the restorer to demonstrate consensus per WP:ONUS, so stopping this discussion from your side will mean that there is no consensus and that this content should be removed. I have added a POV tag until then. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Points 1 and 2 were only recently inserted, and the onus is on you as the restorer to demonstrate consensus per WP:ONUS, so stopping this discussion from your side will mean that there is no consensus and that this content should be removed. I have added a POV tag until then. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of Israel