Talk:Hebrew calendar

---

An event mentioned in this article is an October 7 selected anniversary.

---

The Essenes were something like 4 or 500 years after the Babylonian captivity. That needs to be made clear - if they really were resisting a calendar, it was one that was VERY well established. I, for one, am suspicious of any categorical statements about who the Essenes were and what they believed without actual sources listed. --MichaelTinkler

---

I think the source is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I suppose may or may not represent the Essenes, depending on exactly who the Qumran community were, which we don't know with a lot of certainty. Not sure what if anything other sources on Essenes (Philo? Josephus?) have to say about it. Unfortunately I can't give any references... I read it somewhere, I can't remember where (a modern secondary source, of course!).

Possible explanations of 500 year gap: maybe it did take that long for the calendar to be established, maybe some sections of society preferred different calendars, maybe Essenes have a very long history, maybe they wanted to ressurect the "purity" of the past...

I agree someone needs to research this properly. -- Simon J Kissane

---

Well, no one suggests they were a very old movement in anything that I've read. More likely they were cranks, which would run true to the course of ascetic movements in all religions! One of these days I'll get around to writing about Old Calendarist Orthodox, though it would help if there were already something at Eastern orthodox to branch off of. Your 'some sections' has a good possibility - the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions were never entirely unified (hence the 2 Targums, etc., etc.) --MichaelTinkler

---

The Hebrew for "month" is "chodesh" (most often) or "yerach". "Chadosh" means "new", and "yareach" means "moon". I think that's pretty clear: they went by new moons from the beginning. -phma

---

By the way, Is the hebrew year slow by 1 day every x years, or is the hebrew calendar slow every x years? If we were talking about a clock, we would refer to the clock itself, not the hours. I'm not sure which is correct. -D

---

Actually it is not correct to say that the Hebrew calendar is slow by one day every x years, because you are referring only to the year with respect to the seasons and not the month with respect to the moon phase. This too is slow, but much less slow.

I'd say The Hebrew calendar year is about one day slow every 220 years.

-KP

---

The references I've seen that claim that Israelites used a solar calendar are all based on:

• The reckoning of days used by Noah, who lived long before there were any Israelites;
• The Book of Enoch, which if Enoch wrote it was written long before there were any Israelites; or
• The Essenes, who lived several centuries after the Jews were taken to Babylon.

I am therefore changing it to reflect the use of a lunisolar calendar as deduced from Bible verses. See http://www.karaite-korner.org/new_moon.shtml for explanation. -phma

---

A question:

Did the Hebrew calenday actually start in 3761 BC -- that is to say, someone said "this is now year 1" -- or was it backdated, in the same way as the Julian calendar -- for example, someone said "this is now the year 2164 (or whatever), based on our religious calculations"?

The Torah relates that Moses was told how the calendar was to be calculated soon after the Jews left Egypt. However, Noah's flood which was much earlier, seems to be calculated using the same calendar. It is possible that the Torah simply backdates the calendar until then. However, there is a dispute in the Talmud about which month the world was created in, which might indicate that the calendar was in use at the creation of the world. However, that could also be considered backdating.

The short answer is that the calendar was in use from year 1, because God was the author of the calendar and so he used it at the creation.

It is, however, curious how the calendar worked before it was given to the Jewish people, as the calendar allows and requires human intervention in setting its dates. Nowadays, human intervention is not required simply because all the dates have been set in advance through calculation, but that is only because the system for human intervention looked like it would break down. Sometime in the future, however, the old system will be reinstated. Ezra Wax

Counting the number of years since Creation began about the time that the Talmud was written with three or four sequential epochs, whereas the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides in 1187. Before the Talmud, Jews used other counts of years such as the Seleucid Era, called the Era of Contracts, and a count since the destruction of the second temple. I'll be adding a History section soon, after I consult my sources again to iron out some disagreements.
Joe Kress

The count of years is based on a book called the Seder Olam. Its date is uncertain, but it certainly predates the Talmud by a few centuries. I'd disagree that "the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides". He agreed with the Seder Olam. While he no doubt gave great impetus to the universal use of this epoch, it was in limited use well before his time and other epochs continued after his time.

---

I removed these sentences:

    Thus, there are up to 1080 parts per hour, 24 hours per day, and 7 days per week.
    Since the Hebrew month depends on a lunar cycle, the average lunar month is
    given the name "Molad" (for "birth" of the new moon), and is 29 days, 12 hours,
    793 parts long.

The first part repeats what was just said and is confusing due to the "up to". The second part is now expanded into a new paragraph. The value of 0.6 sec at the end is my computation using a program of S. L. Moshier that implements the lunisolar model DE404 from JPL. Some sources make it 0.5 sec.

The article is looking good. One thing missing is a history. There is a tradition that the algorithmic calendar in its modern form was introduced by Hillel II in 359 CE, but there is no solid evidence of it until centuries later. Even towards the end of the 1st millenium CE there were disputes over details. I'll add a paragraph when I get a chance; or someone else can!

--- bdm

---

Is there a difference between the Hebrew calendar and Jewish calendar? I have seen both termed used. Is one more appropriate than the other? --Andrew

In my experience both terms are used interchangeably. Ezra Wax

Barleycorn

Can someone confirm the statement that a Hebrew 'part' is also known as a 'barleycorn'? I can find no corroboration that a 'barleycorn' is anything but a measurement of length (3 barleycorns = 1 inch). - KeithTyler 17:24, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

This information comes from Otto Neugebauer. He discusses it in two places:
"The astronomy of Maimonides and its sources", Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949) 321-60, p. 325; and
"Astronomical commentary", The Code of Maimonides, book 3 treatise 8, Sanctification of the New Moon, tr. Solomon Gandz, Yale Judaica Series, volume XI (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956) p. 117.

He dismisses Maimonides' speculation that an hour had 1080 parts because all numbers from 1-10, except 7, are divisors, noting they are also divisors of 360. He states that the "barleycorn" is an Old Babylonian unit of time, called she (še) in Sumerian, originally equal to 1/180 shekel. He then diverges. In "Astronomy of Maimonides" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/180 cubit in Seleucid ephemerides. 1 cubit = 2 1/2°, thus 15° = 1080 barleycorns, noting that 15° = 1/24 day = 1 hour. In "Astronomical commentary" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/6 finger in late Babylonian texts. 1 finger = 1/12°, 1° = 72 barleycorns, 15° = 1080 barleycorns. Finally, he notes that 1 finger = 6 barleycorns is well known in Arabic, Syriac, and Sanskrit astronomy.
— Joe Kress 04:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

How, again, does cubit, a unit of length, get transformed into a unit of angle? - KeithTyler 17:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that it is some dimension of the device used to measure the angle (like a quadrant). Babylonian units of measurement did multiple duty. In particular, the barleycorn (she) was the smallest unit of length, area, volume, weight, and time! Old Babylonian Weights and Measures Also note that the article only states that a part equals a barleycorn, not that it was also known as a barleycorn. Although the barleycorn was the historical source of the part, by the time of Maimonides, that had been forgotten.
— Joe Kress 05:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

My research suggests that the correct Hebrew name for this unit is helek (plural halakim). I suggest that changing "barleycorn" to "helek" would be a good solution for this dilemma. Note that (1) the plural form "halakim" should be mentioned, and (2) "helek" and "halakim" can be transliterated in other ways, such as "chalakim".

Reference: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictH.html

--B.d.mills 23:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Hebrew name for the part is helek. Nevertheless, its ancestor is the barleycorn, which should also be mentioned. I should begin my long delayed revision of the article. In particular, the history of the calendar in the present article is woefully inadequate. — Joe Kress 01:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

Because this is a featured article on 11th Oct 2004 several changes and reversions have been made to the date format. Arguably BC is not preferred in an article about the Hebrew calendar. However, since some reference to the western calendar has to be made in this article we should look to Wikipedia guidelines for some advice. As far as I can ascertain we should use the version chosen by the original author. Again, as far as I can ascertain, this would appear to be BC/AD. So let's stick with it. At least everyone knows what it means, which is not the case for BCE/CE. Arcturus 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object. BC is not only not preferred in an article about the Hebrew calendar, but the use of BC is unacceptable by some Jews (Jewish historians use CE/BCE). Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state that CE/BCE is just as acceptable as AD/BC. The Manual of Style does not defer to the version chosen by the original author, instead it states that the original author can choose any version they like and it will eventually be made to conform with the Manual of Style by future copyeditors.
— Joe Kress 05:37, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Do Jews object to the term "Gregorian calendar"?141.6.204.14

No, but BCE and CE would be appropriate. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If there is no objection to 'Gregorian' why is there to BC - or maybe there isn't? After all, its use in this article is merely to refer to another (christian based) calendar. I'm sure an article on the western calendar which referred a date to its equivalent in the Hebrew calendar would use the Hebrew notation in such a reference and no one would be bothered, so why bother about BC/AD in this article?

Using Jesus' year of birth as a reference means lending implicit approval. "Gregorian" is simply after the guy who devised the calendar. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There have been some edits recently. I have changed some of the remaining CE dates to AD, since it is important that the article be consistent. I don't think styling a date 'AD' is an implicit approval of christianity, just as I don't think styling a date 'AM' is an implicit agreement about when the world was created. Note that coptic christians count years from the reign of Diocletian, and I doubt they approve of him.

However, I am in favour of BCE/CE dating, because this is an article about the Hebrew calendar. It removes confusion, and as a practical argument, 'AD' can easily be misread as 'AM', but 'CE' won't. squell 01:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, a Jewish article should not use BC/AD, because both are Christian abbreviations. For early years, use BCE because that is standard in Jewish scholarship. But for the Common Era itself, do not specify CE—instead use a bare year number, which is the preferred Wikipedia style. — Joe Kress 02:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly endorse the above comments.
RachelBrown 08:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Not specifying a suffix for AD/CE years might be confusing - does any given number refer to the Gregorian or Hebrew year? Second, two counterarguments to CE: jewish scholars don't define the Gregorian calendar; second, the epoch of our calendar is still christian, naming it CE smacks of political correctness. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to look at other Wikipedia articles about calendars, and follow their style?

In any case, I think the section heading '912 AD' is inappropriate because it describes a dispute in the Hebrew calendar using Gregorian years. I will try to correct this. squell 18:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk:

3.1.2 Style guide

1) Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see [130]. The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." [131]. Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

3.1.3 Optional styles

2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable. Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Earlier, there were inconsistencies within this article (using BC/AD notation in some cases while BCE/CE in others), now it has been converted into BC/AD. I welcome consistency but agree with several editors that denominationally neutral BCE/CE notation and therefore is more appropriate here than Christian-centric BC/AD. In my view, the subject constitutes a "substantial reason" for BCE/CE which is commonly acceptable and is used in practically all articles related to Jewish history & religion. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have briefly checked the other calendar articles. Most either describe a christian(ized) calendar, or show a preference for BCE/CE as well. Do you also support suffixing all years, or just the BCE ones? squell 23:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Squell, what would be your preference? I wouldn't want to overwhelm the reader but OTOH an encyclopedia should be unambiguous. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading the WP:MoS, I have changed my mind and now agree with User:Joe Kress. I think we should actually remove as many suffixes where possible. Except for date ranges spanning the era, and certain conspicuous years such as 1, or where there is possible confusion. This has the added advantage that it's not likely subject to this again in the future. squell 03:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling essentially means "no changes to date styles" (and I have confirmed this with an Arbitrator), so this page should stay using BC/AD notation. This, to me, appears the most appropriate anyway, as it is, by a long, long way, the most common notation in the Western world, and the only one generally understood by the worldwide general public. Preventing confusion is particularly important as people could, otherwise, mistake what to them is alien notation as referring to dates in the Hebrew calendar. I do agree, however, that it may be useful to some readers to have the dates also given in the Hebrew calendar - which can easily be done by adding these dates in brackets after the dates in the Julian/Gregorian calendar, with an explanation on first instance that that is what we're doing, jguk 23:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, thank you for your POV. Please reread my post. Per WP:MoS, either style is accepted. Given that there is a viable neutral alernative, some consider it inappropriate to impose Christian-centric notation in articles deeply related to Jewish history & religion. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do think we should respect the ArbCom's decisions, regardless of whether we agree with them - is that POV? They've said "no change", ergo we should make no change. This is particularly true where we have an article where using anything other than the worldwide standard could confuse. I remember another WPian (who, incidentally has a Jewish background) say that a survey showed a 50 to 1 preference for BC amongst people generally. Results like that show that the issue isn't even close, especially as many, like me, have never been taught and never in normal life (and I do visit museums and watch history programmes on TV) see anything other than BC. In this case, being practical and following the ArbCom ruling that humus himself quotes means that we continue with BC. And what's the big deal anyway? Yes, some prefer a different notation themselves, but, based on the statistics given by that WPian, only 2% - what about the 98%? jguk 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Until very recently, this article used inconsistent style. Both styles are acceptable. Why insist on the one that some consider inappropriate? Especially if it is not a big deal anyway.

Jguk, this is not about you personally and it does not matter who has what background (but rather how they behave). Please quit stalking me around WP. See WP:ANI#Jguk I & WP:ANI#Jguk II. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I should point out that, this article did not have any BC dates, before an anon user changed a few BCE dates to BC, then complained that the article was inconsistent and changed the rest of the BCE dates as well. I was planning on reverting this, but because a lot of the other dates prominently featured 'AD', I figured the anon was right. So changing all the BC dates to BCE dates would in effect be a revert.

I am not interested in engaging in a petty discussion about what combination of letters to place behind a date or editors who try to make a point of this. I think most active contributors to this article would prefer what User:Joe Kress has proposed, unless they're keeping awfully silent. squell 03:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suppoer BCE/CE. Use of BC/AD is likely to be regarded as insulting by most Jews. The 98%/2% debate is irrelevant; firstly, it is not a survey of people likely to see this argument; secondly, if it is insulting to a few people and most don't care, where is the balance of advantage? And no doubt most active contributors to this article would have been otherwise engaged today (and still are in North America) as it is the Day of Atonement.
RachelBrown 20:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see what's insulting about using a date convention that anyone studying history even casually must have seen thousands of times. Besides, this article isn't written specifically for Jews, it's written for everyone - where the 98-2 would be relevant (or at least it would be relevant had ArbCom not already ruled "no changes to date notation" anyway), jguk 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

One week ago this article did not have a clear preference for either style, so going to either style is perfectly sound. You have stated your preference, please stop lecturing about the rules and give others an oppertunity to respond. squell 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted Jguk's revert of Humus Sapiens' revert (...), in the belief that I am acting in line with the general consensus of the editors here. After Humus' edits (which also added other bits to the article), this article he had effectively returned to the dating style that it had before, minus the inconsistency. Also, Jguk's seems only interested in which era dates should use, and not in any other part of the article. squell 18:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. I also noticed all these past weeks edits did in fact introduce errors that were not present before, e.g. changing 3761 to '38th century' and so on. I think I got all these; check the current diff. squell 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The article started using BC notation, and was originally made consistent on it, and WP policy is clear that therefore that is where it should be remained. The importance of it is underlined in a statistic one user noted - that amongst the general public, BC is used/understood/preferred to BCE by a ratio of 50 to 1. We should be writing articles for the worldwide general public, so adopting styles they will be familiar with is important. As a WPian I tend to read a lot of history articles generally (because I like history, but am not an expert on it), whereas I write a lot on cricket (because there I know what I'm writing about). But in both discliplines writing for our audience is key, jguk 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't sound very neutral if you are both arguing sticking to Wikipedia Policy, and at the same time arguing in favour of your preferred dating style. squell 19:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

And if you dig in the history of this article, you'll see that in February 2005, User:Joe Kress kindly expanded this article a great deal: [1]. It clearly had BCE dates after that edit. squell 19:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Julius Caesar started out using BCE/CE consistently, yet uses BC/AD now. Do you want to change it to back to BCE/CE to conform with "policy" or should I? Sortan 19:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrator's ruling says " it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The Anno Domini] begins: 'Anno Domini (Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"), or more completely Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ")...' Thus the abbreviation AD is more than a epochal convention; it can be taken as a profession of Christian faith. I think that is a substantial enough reason for avoiding the abbreviation in articles about Jewish topics. This article might be an appropriate place for a short section on Jewish use of the Gregorian calendar and the preference of many Jews for CE/BCE vs. AD/BC. --agr 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The debate of 921

Interpreting [2], this debate was about the Passover of 4681 AM, and the Rosh Hashanah of 4682 AM, both events which took place in 921. [3] confirms this. However, it is the only site I can find which uses the AM year. I think it's useful to include the AM years in the section, but what about the section heading? squell 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of September equinox

The traditional date of the September equinox is given as September 21. This is incorrect, it is actually September 23. --B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Autumn vs Spring

The article makes extensive references to autumn, some references to spring and a few references to autumnal/vernal equinoxes. This is incorrect - as currently worded, it would imply that Jews living in the Southern hemisphere start the Hebrew year in March/April instead of September/October!

Instead of using specific seasonal references, can someone review these wordings so that they are more precise? "Vernal equinox" should be "March equinox", "autumnal equinox" should be "September equinox", and specific seasonal references should be removed except where they are historically important.--B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the hebrew calendar

---

I have added the comments that the hebrew calendar was probably derived from the sumerian calendar. I have certain reasons to believe so: i) The source of numerous other hebrew traditions can be traced back to the sumerians. ii) It is written explicitly in the jewish bible that Abraham descends from Ur-Cashdim, which is a sumerian city. iii) They are both lunisolar. iv) There are other similarities regarding time measurement between te sumerian calendar and the hebrew calendar. For instance, the timing of the hebrew pasover, which was once considered as the jewish new year celebration, is close to the sumerian new year celebration and in both cultures sunset is considered as the start of the day. .--Tomer Ish Shalom 23:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alt Ben Meir

I've moved the following edit here for discussion:

An alternative explanation for the 642 parts is as follows. The calculated time of New Moon during the six days of creation was on Friday at 14 hours exactly (day starting at 6pm the previous evening), assuming that creation occurred in the Autumn to coincide with Rosh Hashana. However, it was at 9 hours and 642 parts on Wednesday if creation actually took place six months earlier, in Spring. Ben Meir may thus have believed, along with many earlier Jewish scholars, that creation occurred in Spring and the calendar rules had been adjusted by 642 parts to fit in with an Autumn date.

This edit is for the most part plausible, but requires some modification of the tradtional Creation, either spring or autumn. The traditional day of Creation was the first day of the week (Sunday), not the sixth day of the week (Friday). Friday was the day that Adam was created according to both the dominant tradition and the minority opinion that creation occurred in spring. But the modern rules prevent Rosh Hashana (1 Tishri) from occuring on Friday. Nevertheless, the molad (new moon) of Tishri does occur at 14h on Friday (6d 14h 0p) one year after the modern epoch of 2d 5h 204p, and the molad of Nisan between the two does occur at 9h 642p on Wednesday (4d 9h 642p). The modern rules require that if molad Tishri occurs at 6d 14h then 1 Tishri must be delayed to Saturday. But the number of days in the six months before is 177 = 2 mod 7, so 1 Nisan must be a Thursday, not a Friday as the tradition requires. The edit could be reworded to allow both spring and autumn Creationists to accept that Adam was not born on Friday, or that he was born on Friday, but not on 1 Nisan or 1 Tishri, respectively.— Joe Kress 14:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is all very confusing. The moved edit does not say that creation began on Friday. The six days of creation were Sunday to Friday. Following the current calendar rules, the molad of Tishri was on Friday and Rosh Hashana therefore fell on Saturday, the first Sabbath. This began year 2, the six days of creation being the last six days of Ellul in year 1. The epoch of 2d 5h 204p fell 12 months earlier. It is called Molad Tohu (molad of chaos) because it nominally occurred before creation, while the World was stil in chaos. This strange procedure was because the days of creation had to fall in some year. However, the Moon was created on Wednesday and it is far more plausible that the molad should be a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of the Moon than a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of Adam.

References?

Were the works listed in the Literature section consulted by the page authors to add or fact check material in the article or are they just there for more information? The distinction is important, and those that were properly used should be moved to a ==References== section for clarity. I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to (or clarified in) the article. - Taxman 18:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the heading Literature to References per your request. However, I do not recognize your distinction between books or articles used for fact checking and those having more information. In my opinion, they are one and the same. I cannot imagine a reference that is suitable for fact-checking that does not have more information. I read (and re-read) the cited books and articles, most in their entirety—the history section is a short summary of them. They are also suitable for the arithmetic facts of the present article and would be suitable even for a more complete discussion of the calendar's technical side. Of course, they may not have any information added by later editors. — Joe Kress 06:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Adding Dershowitz & Reingold to the References section. As far as I can tell, the article checks against them. Even if there is no footnoteable quote, theirs is a worthy bibliographical source for this subject. — Danny Sadinoff 09:18, Jul 31, 2005 (UTC)

I consider Dershowitz and Reingold an adequate reference, although not as good as the other references already cited for the Hebrew calendar. For that reason I am removing your comment. They do have a good discussion of the calendar's arithmetical rules, which generally equals that in other sources. However, their historical discussion is inadequate, which is to be expected from a book whose purpose is to describe computational algorithms. But even there it is not very good in my opinion. For example, they don't calculate the length of each Jewish year directly, but instead 'hunt' for it, which is not efficient. I prefer the "Four Gates" method developed over 1000 years ago (named for the four allowable days of the week on which 1 Tishri can occur) which is computationally superior to D&R's algorithm, especially in these days of electronic computers (it uses a table lookup). D&R could not have been used to fact check any statement regarding Jewish calendar calculations in this article because Wikipedia's discussion is woefully inadequate at the moment (it doesn't even mention the four postponements)—if I ever find the time, I'll expand it. — Joe Kress 20:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The religious and secular year

I recall reading something to the effect that there are two versions of the Hebrew calendar: the religious and the secular. The difference is that the year boundary of one is six months ahead of that of the other, or something like that. Does anyone know anything about this? It ought to be mentioned in the article. -- Smjg 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not authorative, but most sources I've read claim the calendar starts with the spring month Nisan (1), which is the start of the religious year. But the year reckoning starts in the autumn month of Tishri (7). So today is Tishri 4 5766 AM, but 4 days ago it was Elul 29 5765. If that sounds weird, remember that the British used to have 25 March 1701 follow 24 March 1700. squell 15:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article mentions this Hebrew_calendar#When_does_the_year_begin. By the way, the article should pick one convention and stick to it. Names of the months starts with Tishri at the moment, while Special holiday rules starts with Nisan. squell 15:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of piggybacking of squell's last comment here, but it is a different problem. There's a spot (when does the year begin?) where the article says that the religious year begins with Tishri, and then there's another spot (Special Holiday Rules) where it says the religious year ends with Adar. It might be the syntax (in which case it should be changed), or it could be factual incorrectness (in which case it needs to be changed), but it's definitely not making sense to me. I know the religious year begins with Tishri, but is the "religious year" a full year long? Big questions! Dave 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyedits of Sept 2005

Unbelievable, but I made some major copyedits and forgot to look at the talk page. I had no idea it had been a featured article. Notwithstanding, I hope my edits improve the narrative flow and organization of the article. My apologies if I was too bold, no offense intended. Kaisershatner 21:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit October 7

Av was linked to the page Ab as opposed to Av_(month) which is clearly what it refers to. This was fixed.