text:
Talk:Mishnah

removed sentence
I removed the sentence claiming that the Talmud, unlike the Mishna, deals only with issues contemporary with its writings. Actually, the Babylonian Talmud (but not the Jerusalem Talmud) covers all the tractates of the Mishna dealing with sacrifices, and the Babylonian Talmud is considered the authoritative one. Danny

 * I wrote the section on commentaries today, without checking if there was any overlap with the rest of the article. Some smoothing out is probably inevitable. I also managed to miss out Pinhas Kehati; I'll write him up later... JFW | T@lk  21:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Historical study
I rewrote some of this section by User:RK. Unless I missed it, shouldn't we also quote Zacharias Fraenkel and the Darkei ha-Mishna? I do object against the long list of references, as many of them are not directly quoted in the text. The article would be served by a small set of references (5-7), and (for example) mention of Danby's Oxford translation, as well as ArtScroll's Yad Avraham. JFW | T@lk  17:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The only reason I shoved in a huge list of references was that I suspected that this topic might grow lengthy, and be spun-off into a separate article. RK

I doubt this will happen. Would you awfully mind trimming some references, e.g. stick to the main publications of the main people you've quoted? I will see if I can get a good reference for Danby's translation. Yad Avraham comes in numerous volumes, and cannot be easily referenced. JFW | T@lk  19:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Herbert Danby actually has a Wikipedia page written up about him! Would you be so kind as to comment how we should categorise Zacharias Fraenkel? I think he belongs under the second category of historical Mishna schools. I also deleted all your references to Talmud historical study; however fascinating, this belongs under Talmud and not in the Mishna article. Please try to narrow down the remaining references a little bit more... JFW | T@lk  19:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * All your edits and revisions are fine by me. I am unsure of where Zacharias Fraenkel fits into all of this. Most of his work is available only in German. He did accept the idea that the Mishnah, as we have it today, has undergone later editorial accretions and smoothing. From the little I have read of his views on this issue, I would suspect that his views were similar to that of Lee Levine, David C. Kraemer and Robert Goldenberg. RK

I don't want to edit, in case I don't understand author's intent -- but I think there should be some editing to clarify when "Rabbi" is used to mean Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.171.50 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2005 (UTC)

The Structured Mishnah
I privately wrote and asked what text "The Stuctured Mishnah" is based on. The website says the Kaufmann manuscript, but the person who did the work and set up the website says he actually transcribed the Albeck edition (letter for letter apparently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.150.112 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2004 (UTC)

added sentence
I added a sentence noting that the Oral Law is a companion to the Written Law, rather than derived from it, as the article notes that there is little basis in the scripture for the Mishna. GaelicWizard 01:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In the standard sense, it is not derived from it, but the Talmud spends a great deal of time showing how it could be. The Talmud (Chulin, 28:a) quotes Deu 12:21 as an example where the Written Law refers to the Oral Law. -- Chacham 20:32, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew naming conventions
Urgent: see Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Incredible
I know that this is an English website, but you might have thought that some mention would be made of the single most important academic work published on the Mishnah, J.N.Epstein's monumental Mavo Le-Nosah Ha-Mishna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.74.99.84 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * By "academic," you might mean Merriam-Webster's definition 3b: "Having no practical or useful significance." If so, that would explain why Epstein's work is not mentioned.
 * Also, "nosach" might confuse people, since the standard here on Wikipedia seems to be "nusach" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nusach). We certainly don't want to be responsible for adding yet more confusion to a world that is so rife with confusion already. Toddcs (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Epstein was a very great and important scholar, and I'm pleased to see that he is now mentioned on the page.
 * With regard to "nusach", you're correct on the standard pronunciation, but "nosach" is arguably more correct. It's typical of Hebrew words on this pattern with a popular Aramaic parallel to lose their vowel definition, so "nosach" becomes "nusach" under the influence of "nuscha". Alternatively, segolates may undergo this in accents where the vowel shifted in the plural. So "kodesh" in most accents is pluralized "kodashim" but in Yemenite and Old Italian "kudashim" which sometimes creates "kudash." Better known is "oketz" which can be pluralized "ukatzin" (for some reason this one caught on more widely) and is backformed "ukatz." Possibly this is the explanation of Modern Hebrew "chumash" which was historically "chomesh" but pluralized "chumashim" by Yemenites/Italians. But it'd probably be difficult to reconstruct "nusach" because it's relatively young and of obscure etymology. The Akademia lists both pronunciations. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

pinhas kehati
As far as I'm aware, Pinhas Kehati was never an ordained Rabbi. While I can't meet the Wiki standards on verifiability, and am unwilling to jump into my first edit with something i can't show, I'm also certain that the title Rabbi has been a later addition. I believe that Kehati was a worker at Bank Mizrahi in Israel (which doesn't, of course, exclude him from having being ordained), and not a Rabbi as this page claims. I'm happy to make the edit, but want to test it out in the talk page first - any objections / suggestions? Ronch 07:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In Talmudic Hebrew, "Rabbi" is also a term used by slaves when addressing their master. Perhaps Pinhas Kehati is called "Rabbi" in this article because he is known to have owned slaves. Toddcs (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the current version of this page and its cite, Kehati was ordained by the Tahkemoni Rabbinical Seminary of Warsaw. However, wiki policy MOS:CREDENTIAL generally advises us not to use honorifics.
 * It is true that in older Hebrew "rav" ("rabbi" only as possessive) was used in the general sense of "authority", but not typically to refer the a master of slaves, where ba'al, adon, mar would be expected. In one famous example, kiri. Although I imagine it is used that way on occasion. Kehati did not own slaves (???) and I would advise this editor to be careful because such comments may be struck or incur sanction if directed at living people. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction is misleading
The introduction should explain what the Mishnah is. Then go on to talk about Rabbi Judah haNasi's compilation of the Mishnah named the Mishnah. 203.158.57.190 17:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not understand what you are saying, could you elaborate? Jon513 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

signed in Israel
I think it's important to note right in the introduction that the misnah was ratified in the land of israel and not in the disapora. Could the main editors of the article please add this ? Amoruso 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Good links
There are a number of good links from http://www.emet.blog-city.com/the_value_of_learning_mishna.htm that ought to be incorporated into this article, imho. (I added one, anyone else want to?) -- Sholom 04:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC) I added a section on omissions in the Mishna. I'm afraid my writing is not up to scratch so it may need some editing. Margolies also has an intriguing theory that there were originally seven orders of the Mishna. Wolf2191 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC) "and is considered the first work of Rabbinic Judaism" I'm not sure about this. Hoffman claims that the Medrashei halochoh precede the Mishna and Rebbe actually used them to compile the Mishna. One should really add R' Y. Y. Weinberg, the Seridei Eish to the historical references.He has several extensive articles in Kol Kitvei and SE 4 on the subject. He was the last Orthodox Rabbi to discuss this issue (besides for R' Margolies). I'm not aware that the Maharshal wrote a commentary on the Mishna. (Maharshal is on Talmud.)Wolf2191 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My citation for hoffman is the book mentioned below. I don't know why someone put in citation neededWolf2191 15:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Names of Wikipedia articles on tractates
Not that I actually intend to do this by myself, but I suggest in principle that all the names of Wikipedia articles on tractates of the Mishnah and Talmud, as listed in Template:Mishnah, should be renamed. Instead of:
 * Berakhot,
 * and sometimes Sanhedrin (Talmud),

all of them should use clear, identical terminology that relates to both the mishnah and talmud:
 * Tractate Berakhot,
 * Tractate Sanhedrin,
 * etc, with redirects when useful.

This would parallel the titles as found on he.wikipedia, מסכת ברכות, מסכת סנהדרין, etc. Dovi 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Others have apparently done something similar already (eg Sanhedrin (tractate)).--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in attributing Maimonidies understanding of why the oral law had to be written
Maimonidies writes that as generations pass, each generation goes down a level and as such they reached a time - the disciples of Hillel and Shamai when they could no longer attain the understanding of the depths of the oral law by heart - which led to machlokot (disputes) and ultimately forced the sages to write down the oral law. the understanding that is written is really Rav Shriray Ga'on, not Rambam's. It should be noted that the source for this is discussion is the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin which quotes a Tosefta in Sanhedrin. Samson Ben-Manoach 01:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph - it is incorrect that the talmud was compiled "with" the Mishna
As is evidenced by the discussions in the Talmud Baba Metsia - where we see an encouragement to learn Mishna, not "only Talmud" a clear indication (as the commentators over there point out) that the original Talmud did not incorporate the Mishna, but rather expanded upon it, assuming everyone knew it (or owned a separate written copy). Samson Ben-Manoach 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Mo'ed may be inaccurate
if i am not mistaken, Mo'ed is a set time, not a festival. that is why this "seder" includes a tractate about sad times e.g. ta'anit. Samson Ben-Manoach 01:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit "relationship with Bible" paragraph
I think it is incorrect to say: Over the next four centuries this material underwent analysis and debate, known as Gemara ("completion") The Talmud (Tractate Berachot 5a and other places) clearly indicates that the oral tradition from the time of Moshe had both Mishna and Gemara. it is only the Gemara of those generations that is recorded, but the talmud indicates that Hillels disciples studied the "gemara" and logical debates that were later rehashed by Abayey and Rava. It is also, I think, incorrect to say that the word Gemara means "finished" (although it does mean that in Hebrew) in Talmud language (aramaic) we find that it means "to say over by tradition" like the word "gamar" which in the Talmud means he had on tradition or "agmirey" which means he taught him, or "Gemiri" which means we have a tradition dating back to Moshe as Rashi explains in numerous places. Samson Ben-Manoach 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit "relationship with Bible" paragraph
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Mishna is "case driven" and that the Mishna seeks the best way to give over the most details with the least amount of words. (as the Talmud stresses in the beginning of Talmud Pesachim)? Where does the author get this notion that the Mishna doesn't make mention of the Bible because it was given together with it? Shouldn't that require a source? Samson Ben-Manoach 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

edit Competing oral laws and acceptance
Shouldn't there be mention of the fact that Rabbi Judah Hanassi worked together with his desciples and his court? Isn't it worth mentioning that he gathered all the great Rabbis of his time and they all partook of the compilation (Igeret Rav Shriray Gaon and other Rishonim in explaining how he was able te give an opinion the power of "rov" the majority opinion, they explain- because Rabi had a Majority opinion colluding with him. it is also evidenced by the Talmud's calling it "Rabi u'beit dino, Rabi and his court)? Samson Ben-Manoach 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Karaite edit
isn't it that the Kara'ites opposed the oral law period. they went with there own interpretation and didn't want to accept the tradition or the Rabbis authority. it had nothing to do with the writting of the Mishna. They were around centuries prior to the writting of the Mishna, during much of the Second Temple - as is evidenced by Mishnayot in Yoma, and is clearly written in Pirkey DRabi E iezer (where they are dated back to the begining of the second temple and the time of the men of the Great Assembly and Ezra )and in Maimonidies writtings?! If no one opposes, i would opt to remove this section from this article. Samson Ben-Manoach 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Recording
"The resulting work was not written down until c. 800-900 CE," where did the author get that date from? Rashi and Rambam have a difference of opinion when it was written, but who says such a late date? Samson Ben-Manoach 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * To all of your suggestion I would recommend being bold. Please cite your sources.  Edits that doesn't cite sources are worth much less than sourced edits.  Had the author of the the state "The resulting work was not written down until c. 800-900 CE" cited his source the statement could be changed to "according to whoever..." but sadly we can't.  Jon513 11:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The earliest Mishnah manuscripts are from around those dates. However, that means nothing about the Mishnah being composed as a text by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi far earlier. It's just that the text was memorized (word for word), rather than actually written down. Such memorization was the function of the tanna who is often mentioned in the gemara as sitting in the beit hamidrash. Dovi 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maimonidies clearly states that the Mishna was "written" in the days of Rabi
Maimonidies in his intro to the Mishne Torah writes that "everyone wrote" the Mishna that Rabi compiled. I quote: רבינו הקדוש (ו)הוא קיבץ כל השמועות וכל הדינים וכל הביאורים והפירושים ששמעו ממשה רבינו ושלמדו בית דין שבכל דור ודור בכל התורה כולה וחיבר מהכל ספר המשנה. ושננו לחכמים ברבים ונגלה לכל ישראל וכתבוהו כולם. This is also clearly indicated by the Talmud in the end of Tractate Berachot when it classifies Rabis actions as "eis la'asos l'Hashem". it is also so understood by the Shulchan Aruch and commentators. They make reference to it in the discussion of when may one write the oral law, the whole discussion in Halacha revolves around the assumption that Rabi started something new (by writting the Mishna) in these halachot and the only question is how far did he mean for us to take it. Samson Ben-Manoach 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is the Rambam's opinion. Dovi 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

editing
A week has past, and no objections were posted so i am taking the recommendations to be "bold" and making the changes. Samson Ben-Manoach 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate sentence as per my post need a link though
I removed the sentence that claims that the Talmud was initially with the Mishna "built-in", as per my earlier post. I think it would be worthwhile to make a link to Talmud though, and don't know how to do that. Samson Ben-Manoach 05:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate sentence
The Talmud in Avodah Zara and Chulin clearly states that there were additions to the mishna post-Rabi. his Grandson Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'ah's opinion, for example was added to the Mishna. Rashi in Baba Metzia clearly writes that afer Rabbi "lo hosifu ki im m'at they didn't add but a little - clearly indicating that some additions were made post rabi. it is also innacurate to say that the mishna wasn't written by rabi - as i mentioned previoussly. Samson Ben-Manoach 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The parts of the article about Gemara are innacurate and don't belong here
1 the definition of Gemara is inconsistnent in the article 2 the definition of Gemara doesn't belong here, it belongs in the page on talmud 3 the information is not in line with Rabbinic Tradition, all the while claiming to represent it. it is in conflict with talmud Berachot 5a and Maimonidies intro to Mishna and R. Yosef Kairo's work Klaley Hagemara and much more, i don't see reason to record, the author is the one who has to bring a source for what he is writting that Over the next four centuries this material underwent analysis and debate, known as Gemara ("completion") The author gives the feeling that the Gemara was an invention of those generations - the sources i quoted earlier clearly say that "gemara" existed in Moses' time. there are other proofs from the Talmud and more but i think them unnecessary. first i would want to see a source that says otherwise. if no one has an objection i will remove the sentences. Samson Ben-Manoach 06:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph claiming the mishna hadn't needed a source in the Bible is not in line with rabinic tradition
'''Notably, the Mishnah does not cite a written scriptural basis for its laws; since it is said that the Oral Law was given simultaneously with the Written Law, the Oral Law codified in the Mishnah does not derive directly from the Written Law of the Torah. This is in contrast with the Midrash halakha, works in which the sources of the traditionally received laws are identified in the Tanakh, often by linking a verse to a halakha. These Midrashim often predate the Mishnah.''' This is a nice invetion. it has nothing to do with Rabbinic tradition though. Rav Shriray Ga'on, Rashi's desciple in Machzor Vitri, Maimonidies, Rashi in Tanach and many other Rabbinic source take for granted the contrary. EVERYTHING in the mishna has basis in the Bible - it is just that the Mishna was formulated to be case driven - not source driven. in this way - the most information could be packed into a mishna. The authors of the Mishna saw no point in writting the sources. see rav Kampanktun (11th century) famous essay on the ways of the Talmud, and Maimonidies intro, Maimonidies letter to Rav Pinchas hadayan, and Yad Malachi in the beginning, sefer keritut and halichot olam - all of these works are basic to the understanding of rabinic tradition and the compilation of the mishna and they all disagree with what is written in the article - explaining as aforementioned - that the mishna is simply case driven. a source that realy spells it out is the Netsiv in his intro to Emek Hash'eyla. Rashi throughout the Talmud clearly indicates this as well. it is sad that such a paracraph is part of the article. Samson Ben-Manoach 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

sentence in conflict with Talmud
These Midrashim often predate the Mishnah

WHAT IS THE SOURCE? This is again in conflict with talmud berachot 5a and more ! Maimonidies seems to say the exact opposite in his intro to sefer hamitzvot. Samson Ben-Manoach 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

innacurate sentence
after the destruction of the city and the Second Temple, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and his students founded a new religious center in Yavne. The talmud in gitin clearly refers to yavneh (before the destruction of the temple) as "yavneh v'chachame'ha" Yaveneh and its' wise men - at that time Vespasian had surrounded Jerusalem to destroy it, clearly indicating that it had already been a center for study before the destruction. see also Talmud Rosh Hashana asara galuyot galta sanhedrin Samson Ben-Manoach 06:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

innacurate sentence
A number of important laws are not elaborated upon in the Mishnah. These include the laws of tzitzit, tefillin (phylactories), mezuzah (Sta"m), the holiday of Hannukah, and the laws of gerim (converts). These were later discussed in the minor tractates.

This needs proof. the Shach in shulchan aruch (Codex) laws of Stam, writes that these were tana'ic quotes of the same period as the Mishna, they weren't compiled into "tractates" until a later date, but they were discussed at the same time. Samson Ben-Manoach 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the Rosh says from the times of the Gaonim and the Maskilim concur. The Gra says like you. (I will attempt to search for exact source.) The point of margoles on the seventh orders is also relevant here.BestWolf2191 05:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: why not remove the whole first paragraph?
The article would be far more comprehendable to the layman and would also flow better. Any opinions? Samson Ben-Manoach 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles
I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification:

 * I was thinking of trying to stimulate development of a series of articles on Gemara concepts and doctrines, maybe to help children or newcomers to Gemara with explanations of some fundamental concepts that recur throughout the Gemara. Some examples might be articles on Yiush, Chazakah, Ta'aninun (as in "Ta'aninun L'Yoresh"), Eidim Zomemin (forgive my awful transliterations), Migu, etc., etc. Maybe we could even create a category or subcategory for it. I created Breira in this vein. As I don't have the experience or expertise in Wikipedia to know what to do to best develop this idea, I figured I'd come to you for your opinions on: (1) whether it's a good idea; and (2) How to best go about implementing it. Thanks Sh76us (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Someone has gone through systematically altering "Mishnah" to "Mishna". This is indeed a frequent modern spelling, and is standard in other languages such as French (German has "Mischna"). However, I think it should be resisted for the following reasons:
 * 1) "Mishnah" is the title of the article; if the spelling is to be changed the article should be moved;
 * 2) Silent final h is standard in English ("ah", "loofah" etc.) and is invariably used in Biblical names and usually used in other Hebrew words ("Sarah", "Torah", "Isaiah", "Judah")
 * 3) It is a useful way of distinguishing Hebrew words ending with he from words ending with aleph (such as "Gemara").

Of course, in links and bibliographies, we should be careful to use the same spelling as in the actual website or book, rather than trying to standardize. I haven't the time to check all these. However I have changed all the references in the main narrative part of the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the title should be changed to Mishna. There is absolutely no point on maintaining in the English transcription any distinction between silent aleph and silent he. --Redaktor (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. It's a useful guide to the Hebrew spelling, and it is embedded in the conventions of the English language.  ("Sarah" and "Sara" both exist as names, but the Biblical matriarch is always "Sarah".)  Do you always write "Tora"? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Shass Pollak in the see also
Laudak (talk · contribs) insists on having Shass Pollak in the see also section. While shass can refer to misnah or talmud, Shass Pollak memorized talmud. In any event the connection is tenuous, if the 'see also' is going to contain people related to the misnah there are many others such as Pinchas Kehati, or Judah haNasi. Jon513 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read Shass Pollak carefully. It speaks of mishnah. Shass Pollak is not the same as Pinchas Kehati: it is category of people. Not to say that Pinchas Kehati is mentioned in the mishnah article. I see this fact an interesting detail which while does not belong to the body of the article, unlike Pinhas Kehati, but it still warrants to be mentioned in passing. Wikipedia is about interlinking information, not about compartmentalizing. Laudak (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if there was ever a category of people who could recognise a word by putting a pin through the pages of a printed MISHNAH. But there wasn't.  You might as well link to Maharsha, on the ground that Maharsha wrote a commentary on the Talmud, and the Talmud includes the Mishnah, and there would be no end to it.  If we allowed everything on the basis of "A is related to B, B is related to C, therefore A is related to C" there would be links to every other article on Wikipedia. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

need background info from a mishnah expert
It has been suggested this passage http://www.ou.org/pdf/luach/2003/luach0103.pdf about bulmos describes hypoglycemia (my principal interest in it). My understanding of it is that a religious prohibition on eating may be broken in order to rescue someone from a dangerous condition called bulmos, a condition which can come on abruptly, can cause dimming of the vision, and carries some risk of harm if not treated by food. In some ways this is a pretty good description of dangerous hypoglycemia, but the best rescue would have been bread or fruit (carbohydrates) rather than meat (protein). So here are my questions: Thanks to anyone who can help. alteripse (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are my understanding and description of this passage accurate?
 * Can the passage be concisely described as "providing an exemption from a religious rule for a medical condition"?
 * About when was this likely first written down--- about 200 C.E.?
 * Is the word bulmos derived or cognate to the Greek boulemia ("ox hunger", now medically used as bulimia)?
 * Is the food referred to specifically meat in the sense of animal flesh, or broad enough to include bread and fruit?
 * If one were to briefly allude to this in a medical article analogously to "In Genesis, chapter 25, Esau's hunger is described as so severe that he felt faint to the point of death, so severe that it made him trade his birthright for a meal", how would one reference this specific passage or part of the mishnah?

 * Well done for finding that. The text would best be cited as Mishnah, Yoma 8:6 (because unattributed statements in this 200 CE text are regarded as having been orally transmitted for centuries, possibly from 1300 years earlier). From the Hebrew spelling one would almost automatically deduce it to be a Greek loanword.
 * I will have a look in the primary sources and see if it links up with Esau's hunger too. If my memory serves, bulmos is specifically treated with meat. JFW | T@lk  17:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have simply asked you directly, shouldn't I? So is bulmos described in more detail in other ancient Hebrew sources? If meat is the specific treatment it makes it harder to assume the condition is hypoglycemia. alteripse (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the Mishna?
I believe the first paragraph is unitelegible. With all the parenthesis and other sub-clauses it still does not say what the Mishna is. It says:

"The Mishnah or Mishna, dealing with civil ==Structure== The Mishnah consists of six orders, each containing 7-12 tractates, 63 in total. Each masechet is divided into chapters and then paragraphs or verses. The Mishnah is also called Shas"

Ok, but, what is it?Alessio.aguirre (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Never mind, someone seems to have fixed it. Thanks! Alessio.aguirre (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

External Resourses
I had awhile back added a online resource for the Mishnah. Unlike the Machrom Memre site the text is public domain. It is also a non-unicode site which uses a extended ascii type-set for the text and provides, in my opinion, nice Hebrew font to display it (I have always had problems with Hebrew unicode displaying properly on my machines.

This contribution was removed by Sirmylesnagopaleentheda for the following reasons: "No need for this link 1. downloading Hebrew font is awkward 2. we have enough already 3. it is from a Seventh Day Adventist site!"

I found reason number three to be offensive and possibly bigoted. As I stated when I undid his edit "The reasons given for removal are bogus, and quite frankly bigoted. So what if its from a SDA site?"

So we are now in what some may consider an edit war as we continue to undo the others edit.

I believe that the user betrayed the main motivation for his edit - that the website hosting the text is Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that a website doesn't need to be from a Jewish source to supply information on Jewish topics, just like a non-Christian source can very well provide Christian resources, a non-Muslim source can very well provide Muslim resources, etc - and to deny a resource due to the religion of the peoples hosting the resource to be inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 13:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 * All right, let it stay. I just didn't see the need for so many resources for the same text, but if you find this one more convenient so be it.  I certainly don't think all non-Jewish resources inadmissible, though I suppose if I were researching canon law I would be more inclined to regard either an official Catholic or a mainstream university resource as reliable. Do you know what edition of the Mishnah this resource uses? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge Mishnah
The Cambridge Digital Library has recently mounted a complete facsimile of its copy online at http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-00470-00001

Should this be added as an external link?

According to our description it is one of only three complete manuscript copies of the Mishnah. --EifionJones (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mishnah does NOT mean 'repetition'
but study by repetition/revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Date of Second Temple Destruction as noted in the Article
Hi, User:Danny lost. I noticed where you reverted my correction of the date 70 CE and where I had written in its place 68 CE. I'll let your revert stand, although in Jewish belief and theology the date of 70 CE for the Second Temple's destruction is erroneous. Although the dating of the Second Temple's destruction is not mentioned by Sherira Gaon in his famous "Iggeres," the date of 68 CE is in fact mentioned by Rabbi Saadia Gaon (in his commentary on Daniel chapter 9), and by Maimonides (in his Questions & Responsa), who bring down the equivalent dates in anno mundi and/or the Seleucid Era counting, besides being a yearly tradition amongst all religious Jews to count the destruction of the Second Temple every Ninth of Av Fast day from 68 CE. I thought that it would be appropriate, in an article which treats on Jewish oral traditions and customs, to remain faithful to the Jewish belief and custom here, in spite of the fact that the date is disputed between Christians and Jews. - Davidbena (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. Still I don't think the traditional dates should be in the article instead of scholars' dates. They can be mentioned if they play some crucial role in the dating of very early Oral Torah bits or the like, but not when an academic consensus on shifted dates is in place. trespassers william (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the discrepancy between the so-called "academic" date of the Second Temple's destruction and the traditional Jewish/rabbinic date of the same is discussed in Chronology of the Bible, for those interested in seeing it.-Davidbena (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph conatains info that is not cited at all in article
My requests for citation were promptly removed with reason that citation requests were not apropriate for lead section which are meant to be 'short'.

The guidlines state: "There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#Rule_of_thumb

And also: "Each word, phrase, and sentence in a lead should be covered by equivalent content in the body of the article, preferably in the same order they appear in the article. The content in the body of the article will usually be longer and more detailed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section

Info has been given in the lead section with absolutely no citation, and no further citation later in the article which is against guidlines. And now Im finding I'm not allowed to ask for a citation in the lead? What are my options at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Naples Italy...15th century"? If Americans just stopped doing this 'London England' 'Paris France' thing it would be better all round. There is no need for it, and as we see it leads into confusing anachronism: London existed before England, (and after!). Paris existed before 'France'. There was no 'Italy' in the glory days of Venice... but I suppose I ask too much. BD. 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.18.105 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 * As a European, you have my agreement and sympathies. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mishnah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212182252/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/ to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/talmud/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604031051/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/eng/music.html to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/eng/music.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ashkenazi-centric
Maybe we can be revolutionary and put a picture of a Kazakh Jew or a Sephardi or Mizrahi Jew (instead of the... Ashkenazi Jewish-made painting. *sniffles tiredly*)? thank you 67.84.40.77 (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mishnah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010104544/http://www.uscj.org/LearningandTeaching/DailyStudyMaterials/MishnahYomit/default.aspx to http://www.uscj.org/LearningandTeaching/DailyStudyMaterials/MishnahYomit/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501085431/http://www.masterdaf.com/ to http://www.masterdaf.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Mishna = "second law"? (DAB entry)
Second law, a disambiguation page, includes a link to here, but I am not sure it is warranted. Feel free to remove it (if it is not), or to include a more direct reference in the article (if it is). Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a rare term, but correct. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Language
This article says "Most of the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew, while some parts are Aramaic," but nowhere does it indicate which parts of the Mishnah were composed in Aramaic. (The article on the Talmud indicates that, with the exception of quotations, the entire Gemara was composed in Aramaic, but nowhere in Wikipedia can I find any information to indicate which part(s) of the Mishnah were also composed Aramaic.) It seems to me that the article would be improved by the addition of this information. allixpeeke (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure such a list exists. Moreover, I am not sure what parts are meant. Debresser (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mishnah is mostly or all Hebrew. Baraita has some Aramaic. However much of the source material for the Mishnah undoubtedly was composed in Aramaic, Judah ha-Nasi translated it Hebrew and there is evidence of the translation in some of the text.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC) strike sock
 * @Geshem Bracha It would be interesting to see a source regarding the last part of your comment. And then add the information to the article. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

use of redact
in the intro:
 * The Mishnah was redacted by Judah ha-Nasi at the beginning of the third century CE

Although this makes sense with the classic meaning of the word redaction:
 * editing in which multiple sources of texts are combined (redacted) and altered slightly to make a single document

We can see from paragraph 2 of Sanitization (classified information) that is has a "sanitization sense" rather than an "editing sense" (ie "that passage has been redacted" meaning it was blacked-out, not coalesced) so I'm wondering if to prevent confusion from that meaning (which might be becoming more prevalent in modern times) we might find some clearer synonym to substitute in the intro? WakandaQT (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Image of the oldest surviving mishna
Can someone find a picture? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I think the best answer to this question is the Rehov Inscription or, if you mean specifically on paper, some Geniza fragment or other. There are only 3 "complete" medieval manuscripts of the mishna, Kaufmann A50, de Rossi 138, and Add MS 470.1, but the first two are composited from multiple scribes and third is usually considered the least useful. I'm not sure what images are available under the right licenses for wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Mishna + gemora = Talmud
Would it be fair to add that the Mishna, together with Gemara = Talmud?? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mishnah


text:
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms is a compendium of terminology used by the United States Department of Defense (DOD). The print version consists of 574 pages of terms and 140 pages of acronyms.

It sets forth standard US military and associated terminology to encompass the joint activity of the Armed Forces of the United States in both US joint and allied joint operations, as well as to encompass the Department of Defense (DOD) as a whole. These military and associated terms, together with their definitions, constitute approved DOD terminology for general use by all components of the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense, by DOD Directive 5025.12, 23 August 1989, Standardization of Military and Associated Terminology, has directed its use throughout the Department of Defense to ensure standardization of military and associated terminology.

This publication supplements standard English-language dictionaries with standard terminology for military and associated use. However, it is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the joint force commander (JFC) from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall mission.

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


text:
User:Miki~enwiki

Mihel Mäemets

Facts: Born 18.01.1982 in Tallinn Nickname Miki Currently living in Finland

So, I was born in Tallinn, Estonia. Lived there for about 10 years. After that, I've been living in Finland I am a high-school graduate, I'll guess I'll go to study something sometimes..

Something i do: Chariman and founding menber of Persikka Interactive, a young Finnish digital media company. Coordinator of kestit-lan partyes. They are held 4 times a year in the vicitiny of Helsinki. Founding member of Kestit lan-association.

So, thats about it.

title: User:Miki~enwiki


text:
Talk:Type theory

Talk:Type theory/Archive 1

Question
Question - does type theory have anything to do with category theory in mathematics?

 * Not really. A type is a set of related things, together with a specification of the operations you can do to those things. A category is a set of related things, together with the maps (or arrows, or homomorphisms) between those things. AxelBoldt
 * Type theory with product types is related to Cartesian closed catagories and topos. Types are the objects, and the arrows are functions between types.  See "Introduction to higher order categorical logic" by J. Lambek and P. J. Scott.

But, aren't those "operations" on types very similar to "maps" between things in categories? For instance executing "push" on a stack must not change the fundamental nature of the stack, hence is not the operation "push" a mapping (or homomorphism) between stacks?

 * Ok, I suppose you are right, for some types. So if we take the type "stack", we could manufacture a category out of it as follows: objects are the stacks, two stacks being considered different if they contain different things, and the morphisms between two stacks are all the sequences of push/pop operations that can get you from the first stack to the second stack.

 * However, this works only for type operations that take one stack and return one stack. For instance, the "stack" ADT typically has an empty? boolean operation, and a top operation which returns the top element of the stack. Those two can't be modeled in category theory. AxelBoldt

Meyer ("Object oriented software construction 2nd ed") differentiates strictly between "commands" and "queries" on an ADT. Commands change the state; queries observe but do not change the state. It would seem that an ADT plus all of its command-operations would form a category (since however a command changes the state, it cannot change the class of the object, unless we somehow also allow class-changing morphisms, which then however muddies the very concept of a "class" of objects). I feel there must also be a formalism for "queries" but it eludes me at the moment.

 * You also have a problem with operations that take two things and produce a new one, let's say the "add" operation for the ADT "integer". It's not clear how that should be modeled as a morphism either. AxelBoldt

Is the set of all integers a category in category theory? It intuitively seems like it would/could be. How does category theory deal with the class of all integers?

 * The set of integers is not a category (you could treat it as an additive category with a single object, but that is artificial). Typically, the integers are treated as one object in the category of rings.

Also, I think you can view the "create a new object from two objects" differently by switching to prefix notation instead of infix notation, e.g. to add integers 1 and 7, this is viewed as the command-operation "add" on object of type integer with state (value) "1" with an argument of "7", which changes its internal state to contain the value 8. This would then not be creating a new object, but rather changing the state of the first object. In fact, that's exactly how I implement my vector/matrix classes in C++. Would all this fit within the framework of category theory?

 * Ok, but then you need a copy operation, or else you can never non-desctructively add two integers. I don't see how that could be modeled in category theory. AxelBoldt

(NOTE: see new reference added on main Type theory page)

 * My $0.02: Category theory and type theory are quite distinct, although not disjoint. You can imagine a type system based on category theory as an underlying formalism, but the practice of practical type system design owes much more to constructive logic and proof systems than to category theory.  Anyway I've updated the type theory page with an intro.  In the indeterminate future we should seriously consider breaking the type theory page into two pages, one for computer science applications and one for the mathematical foundations. user:K.lee

There is a notion of "categorical type theory". For example, see "Crole: Categories for types". Categorical type theory is basically trying to describe the type theory concepts in the category theory framework. --- It's not just that values are given types but also the contexts in which they are used. For example, the if-then primitive of many programming languages has an associated (but usually implicit) type which indicates that it requires a Boolean value.
 * This is a detail peculiar to languages that have phrases that do not represent values. What you call "contexts" can usually be desugared into function values of appropriate type.  Hence the semantics of if/then/else in ML are equivalent to a function of type bool -> (unit -> 't) -> (unit -> 't) -> 't.  Anyway, I think that it's best to add this sort of information later in the article rather than earlier---it's hard enough to explain functional type systems clearly to a layperson, without getting into imperative languages.  (The article as a whole does need a lot of work, BTW, and I can never find time to do it.  If you want to add information about imperative languages and types of contexts, go for it.) k.lee

Also, sets are not always a suitable model for types. For example, when a type system allows recursive types, they cannot be modelled (in the standard way, at least) as well-founded sets. Consider the type of infinite lists of integers: List ::= Cons Int List Considered as a set we would have List = Int * List which is non-well-founded.
 * Malcohol 14:14 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * AFAIK a recursive type is usually defined as the least set denoted by the closure of the unfolding(s) of the type definition, in much the same way that Church numerals are defined as the least set containing zero and closed under the successor function. A recursive infinite type (i.e., one that has no finite instances) is a little more complicated, but with the right formal acrobatics you can still define it as a set.  I don't see why it matters whether this set is well-founded or not.  The values belonging to a type need not be finite or even countable.
 * Of course, there could still be exotic type systems in which sets do not serve as an appropriate semantic foundation, but this article doesn't have to account for every bizarro type system out there, not in the first few paragraphs anyway. k.lee
 * Well, try giving a simple set-based meaning to types whose inductive definitions contain negative occurences of the induction type variable. David.Monniaux 06:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Type theory vs Set theory

 * with classifying entities into "sets" called types.

I added quotes around "sets" in that sentence. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and type theory are two different ways of solving the paradoxes of naive set theory, as far as I know. That's why types are not, in general, "sets" in the mathematical sense. David.Monniaux 06:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Major historical developments

 * Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead
 * Lambda calculus type systems
 * Polymorphic type inference (ML programming language; Hindley-Milner polymorphism)
 * subtyping
 * Object-oriented static typing (grew out of abstract data type and subtyping)
 * F-bounded polymorphism and efforts to combine generic w/ oo polymorphism
 * Set-constraint-based type systems
 * module systems
 * ... (much more)

Practical impact of type theory

 * Type-aided security mechanisms (e.g., TAL, Java bytecode verification) + Proof-Carrying Code

Connections to constructive logic

 * The Curry-Howard isomorphism between logical proof systems and type systems
 * Ref: Wadler's "Programs are proofs"
 * Intuitionistic Type Theory

Related topics

 * The interplay between types and algorithms
 * A formal definition of abstract data types - precondition, postcondition, invariants

Major Rewrite in Feb. 2013
I did a major rewrite in Feb. 2013. The old page was ... not useful.

I gave _a_ definition for type theory. I tried to give its relation to its origins and similar concepts (term rewriting system, combinatory logic).

I moved the history (which was the majority of the old article) to a separate page. I moved the description of the "ST" system to its own page. (Not sure why it was here - I had not heard of it elsewhere.)

I gave a concise description of features of most type systems, although there are many many type theories with difference properties. I gave a list of the better-known features that exist in various type theories.

I compared and contrasted type theory vs. set theory as a mathematical foundation.

I listed some type theories. I improved the list of applications of type theory.

I kept sections on "Category theory" and applications in "linguistics" and "social sciences", because I didn't know anything about those subjects. I removed a section on Polymorphic types; it seemed to apply to a "type system" more than a "type theory". (There is polymorphism in type theory, but it's different and rare and I don't understand it well enough to write on it.)

On the "talk page", I removed comments on the evolution towards separate "type theory" and "type system" pages, because I think it is clear that two pages are necessary and they refer to things with two different goals - mathematical foundations vs. features of a programming language. On the "talk page", I moved comments about ST and the History to their respective talk pages.

For full disclosure: I am working with the group working on Homotopy Type Theory. I did add links to the that topic on this page. But Martin-Lof and Coquand are also working on HoTT, so it is a significant area in the field.

Michael Nahas (mdnahas) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnahas (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Nice work, so far! Cheers, —Ruud 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Intro Paragraphs
Michael Hardy did a change to the first paragraph that I didn't like and I rolled it back. (18:10, 21 September 2013) But on reconsideration, I think he had a good point but I think the fix requires a more extensive change.

First, I do think we need to keep both meanings of "type theory" on this page. There is the general usage and then there is the (older) usage to Russell's fix to Frege's logic.

But keeping that, Hardy's fix was about using "type theory" to refer to the field of study or to specific formal systems. I think he's right that we want to use it for the formal systems. So how about this for an intro:

'In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is a formal system where every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type. Some type theories can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics.'

It doesn't capture the "generally" of the previous one, but it's easier to read and captures Hardy's intention (I think). Mdnahas (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

 * At some points in its history, this article said:
 * "[ . . . ]type theory generally refers to a class of formal systems..."
 * That's not a good way to phrase it for several reasons.
 * It fails to make it clear whether it's being used as a mass noun or a countable noun. If one says "Category theory is a subject that blah blah blah blah", then it's clear it's being used as a mass noun admitting no singular or plural.  If one says "A category theory is a blah blah blah", then it's clear that it's being used as a countable noun admitting singular and plural forms, so that one might later write "Two other category theories were introduced later...", etc.  Thus it is better to write
 * "[ . . . ]a type theory is any of a class of formal systems..."
 * thereby being clear that it's being used as a countable noun.
 * "refers to" is usually not a good thing to say. "A giraffe refers to an animal with a long neck" is nonsense unless the giraffe speaks.  "The word giraffe refers to an animal with a long neck" might make sense if it's the _word_, rather than the animal itself, that's referring to something.  And it might make sense to write about the word rather than about the animal itself if one wanted to make clear that although in some fields the word "giraffe" means the unit of money used in Slobovia, nonetheless in the present article it refers to something else.  But when that's not necessary, then writing about the thing the word refers to is simpler than writing about the word rather than about the thing.  One should not add complications that serve no purpose.  Thus it is better to write "A giraffe is an animal with a long neck".
 * I also changed the link to "formal systems" into a link to "formal system", formatting it as formal systems . That way the read sees the plural, "formal systems", as a clickable link, and when one clicks on it one goes to the article titled "formal system" (without the final "s").  That is appropriate because the plural, with the final "s", is a redirect page pointing to the article whose title is singular.  Generally Wikipedia articles are supposed to be singular except when there's a specific reason for them to be plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all. What do you think of my proposed new first paragraph:

'In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is a formal system where every "term" has a "type" and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type. Some type theories can serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics.'

Mike Mdnahas (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Type itself deserves its own page
The notion of type as its own object of study is extremely important -- we cannot understand type theory without first understanding the different notions of what a type is, and then, how it can be applied as a concept to form the fundamental basis of several formal systems.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has its own article and discussion around "What Is A Type?": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/. I think this is worth its own page and that material should be shifted around to support this extremely fundamental concept. Atasato (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I rolled back changes made to the intro paragraph by DesolateReality. They added a link to the "computational logic" page, which does not contain a definition of computational logic. They did add that some type theories can work as "a programming language and a calculus for category theory ." The "programming language" is possibly worth including. For the "calculus for category theory", I don't think that's worth including in the intro paragraph. It might be worth adding a section to the page if DesolateReality can do that.

Mdnahas (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

List of types
Skimming through this article, the only actual type I saw mentioned was nat. I think it would a good addition to the article to add a sentence/paragraph/section listing the most well known types. Joel Brennan (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds nice. I'd also love to see some basic set-theory examples done in type theory. E.g., I remember my teacher writing "the set of letters" on the blackboard and then creating subsets of "letters drawn with straight lines", which contained A, E, F, H ... and "letters drawn with curves", which contained C, O, S, ...  She then talked about elements in the intersection: B, D, G, ...   It was a great example for subsets and intersection. We should also do union. (And point out that set theory lets you union anything, no matter how unrelated, like letters and animals. Mdnahas (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite in Oct. 2020
I extended the sections basic concepts summarizing and linking in the most central lemmata from Barendregt's framework and moved in the section decision problems from type systems and added a section about "interpretations of type theory", so that the main hooks should now be present. As "type theory" in general is broader, the disadvantage is, that the lemma now leans a bit more towards typed lambda calculus, but it already did so before. -- Cobalt pen (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite in Dec. 2021
The previous changes to this webpage made it very technical and unintelligible to most readers. (The first definition was "a term is opposed to a type", which is not English or, at least, not modern English!) This page needs to be accessible to people who are not graduate students in math / computer science. I added an "introduction" section that is very simple. It includes "Knuth lies", that is, simplifications that help the reader to understand the basics of the ideas, even if they may learn later that the details are more complicated.

The introduction talks about (1) basics of terms, types and computation, (2) Barendregt's "pure type system" (a.k.a. lambda calculus or the "functional core"), and (3) some common types. I think it has all the basic ideas needed. The text could use some cleanup, especially to make the math/symbols correct.

I organized and cleaned up the rest.

I added a "technical details" section for all the graduate-student language.

TODO:
 * It needs a lot more citations.
 * We should combine and clean up "external links" and "further reading".

Mdnahas (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I am extremely glad that you care about this and put the effort in, because I shared your troubles with this page. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Wikipedia is not a textbook. We should definitely aim for a middle-ground encyclopedic style which is also good to learn from, by laying things out sensibly and making good use of linking. 185.214.220.196 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

42nd Conference...
The reference " Cohen, Cyril; Coquand, Thierry; Huber, Simon; Mörtberg, Anders (2016). "Cubical Type Theory: a constructive interpretation of the univalence axiom" (PDF). 42nd Conference on Very Important Topic. arXiv:1611.02108. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.CVIT.2016.23 (inactive 2022-03-05)." is misleading: the " 42nd Conference on Very Important Topic" and the doi "doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.CVIT.2016.23" do not exist, they are just "place holder" for this document's template (Lipics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.10 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 * We might be able to fix the humorous citation (to a conference some 20 years in the future) with a specific reference to the preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02108.pdf, but striking the placeholder, and replacing "42nd conference ..." with
 * Cyril Cohen, Thierry Coquand, Simon Huber, Anders Mörtberg. Cubical Type Theory: a constructive interpretation of the univalence axiom. 21st International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs, May 2015, Tallinn, Estonia. pp.262, ff10.4230/LIPIcs.TYPES.2015.5ff. ffhal-01378906v2f.
 * The Types home https://sites.google.com/view/thetypesconferences/home documents the existence of the conferences, which almost occur on a yearly basis, but which since have been interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent home, COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a pan-European intergovernmental framework. The specific meeting cited,
 * 2015 Types meeting in Tallinn, Estonia, 18 - 21 May is part of
 * LIPICS Vol. 69, 21st International Conference on Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2015), May 18-21, 2015 - Tallinn, Estonia. Tarmo Uustalu (Ed.).
 * The background notes explain the delay in publication as a way for the authors to include some feedback from their peers. Thus the mismatch between the date of the conference and LIPICS volume with the article, which still might not completely match the arXiv preprint. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Descriptions of the ‘if’ Construct
In the article, 'if' has the following description:

 * if a b c : (Π a : bool . B → C → if a B C)

This appears to me inaccurate. If the definition above is considered correct, then `if a b c a b c : if a B C,` which is not, I think, the intended meaning. I propose that the above description is replaced by the 2 following:

 * if : (Π a : bool . B → C → if a B C)
 * if a b c : if a B C

The first gives the type of the `if` function itself, and the second gives its type when applied to arguments. Scholar596440 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 * I second this :-) BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And it seems like a pretty straightforward typo to me, so I can't imagine your fix would be controversial. As per WP:JUSTDOIT, I think you're safe to go ahead make the change! BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Scholar596440 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of "Introduction"?
Aside from it being a right mess, it seems that the Introduction section begins with a treatment of simply typed lambda calculus, which already has its own page, and then lists a grab-bag of types which have varying levels of universality among type theories. This makes me wonder, what is really the goal of this article? I quite like the general sections (differences from set theory, interpretations, list, applications) because they deal with general type theories instead of a specific one. I would move (and rewrite!) most of the introduction to the STλC article; since I'm a new editor I thought I'd probe for opinions before being bold. Tectoskepsis (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Tectoskepsis, generally encyclopedia articles should be able to stand on their own to a reasonable degree—a rule of thumb is to provide sufficient context to the reader. Mathematics articles may be the most difficult to do this for on the whole site, but I still think it's important to do so. I encourage your improvement of the article, but a summarized context is important to maintain in some form, in my opinion. — Remsense  诉  22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thank you Remsense! (I've been reading your opinions at the Teahouse, and I appreciate the clarity of your thought!) Tectoskepsis   15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Frege published Russell's paradox in 1884
I'm reluctant to jump in and edit a page that has had such careful curation, but the second sentence of the History section starts, "Russell's paradox (first described in Gottlob Frege's The Foundations of Arithmetic)". As far as I know, this is false. Zermelo was apparently aware of the paradox in 1899. Hope someone will fix, or provide a reference. Thanks, Natkuhn (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Type theory