Talk:Shavuot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Untitled[edit]

Shavuot, sometimes pronounced Shavuos (Hebrew: שבועות; Israeli Heb. [ʃa•vu•'ʕot]; Ashkenazi [ʃə•'vu•əs]; "[Feast of] Weeks"), is one of the three annual times appointed by YHWH (The LORD, Jehovah) observed by all faithful males in their appearance at the place appointed by YHWH (Deuteronomy 16:16); by Rabbinical tradition most Jews observe this on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan, corresponding to late May or early June. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer and the day the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. It is one of the shalosh regalim, the three Biblical pilgrimage festivals mandated by the Torah. Others, Torah observant Christians and Messianics, count fifty days from the day after the first Sabbath, or Easter which is on the first Sunday, after Passover; the Greek word in the Septuagint and the New Testament is "pentecost" meaning "count fifty" in accordance with Leviticus 23:15. Pentecost was from that Sunday in 34AD when the Holy Spirit was given to the first Christians, including all belivers in YHWH regardless of Nationality.

Shavuot - Sola Scriptura or Tradition as dictated by a hierarchy?[edit]

Are the definitions provided by and within the written Torah to be accepted for what they are or is everyone but a self-select few to succumb to a more or less random set of definitions or doctrines dictated by tradition as interpreted by those same self-select few?

A good example illustrating the above question is my very brief entry on "19 April 2008" under Shavuot / Counting of the Omer providing first a fundamental Torah definition of a key word, i.e. "ממחרת" and secondly a reference to how the Torah instructions were being applied 2000 years ago as recorded in Greek manuscripts originally most likely written in Hebrew by the Jewish scholar and Pharisee Paul also named Saul. In order to make available to the interested reader some more relevant context and something more re the thinking of the parties referenced in my edit, I also provided an outside reference to a previously published source authored by that same party, i.e. "An exception... are such as find that the Torah teaches...:"

"An exception to all of the above are such as find that the Torah teaches that "ממחרת" is a reference to the morning after the beginning of the Shabbat, i.e. Shabbat morning. Cf. Genesis 19:34 and the first occurrence of "ממחרת." Support for this stand is also found from Acts 21:27 which in the supporting manuscripts indicates that Shavout was observed on the Seventh Day by Christians and Jews alike.[1]"

Unfortunately, the day following my original edit I found my contribution edited out by someone apparently believing him or herself having been given the rights and responsibilities of a censor. I believe my brief edit was and is very much an edit in harmony with the fundamental spirit and intent of Wikipedia's stated aims as published in the left hand column link entitled “About Wikipedia:

“Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard...”

Yes, said censor is providing his or her basis for removing my edit (Cf. history:)

"Counting of the Omer: removing per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper))"

The external link provided in my edit is clearly not intended as the basis or authority for either of the Hebrew Scriptures being referenced or for the concept conveyed by those same passages. So far as I can tell, my link is, and can only reasonably be considered such subject matter as satisfies all criteria provided under Wikipedia:SELFPUB.

Unless my original edit and this entry of mine is rebutted while providing good cause I find the censoring of my original edit being contrary to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia's stated aims and my original edit must be allowed as originally entered.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tree of Life Time (TLT)Talk 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

-

The policy on self-published sources states that they are only acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" or "in articles about themselves". Neither applies here. EALacey (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

-

Re "in articles about themselves:"

If and when I lay out in the open for all to perceive and to scrutinize the thoughts that are in my mind and which thoughts shape and form my beingness and my character, how can that not be an article about myself?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tree of Life Time (TLT)Talk 02:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- -

I think you are misunderstanding the policy. Your article may be about your views, but this article, Shavuot, is not about you. EALacey (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- -

Yes, I frequently do misunderstand things before I understand them better... Thanks for helping all of us clear up another misunderstood word, "the policy!"

Yes, it seems to me that the Shavuot article is written by a party belonging to one fraction of Jews only, i.e. by such as follow the tradition: "Shavuot... is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan..." and that accordingly this article about Shavuot is predominantly about that particular fraction of Jews. However, Christians, Reform Jews, Karaite Jews, and the Jewish diaspora are also being referenced in the Shavuot article. Thus this article is about these latter people also and is clearly not about one select group only.

Wikipedia is not only about all of the above said, but about all, [as also quoted above] and... (emphasis added:)

"Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of ALL ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles."

Thus, "the policy" is clearly about all and and although the article Shavuot could potentially be about a select group of people, as I have shown above it is not exclusively about such a select group. Accordingly, I can make no sense out of your statement that the policy and/or the article "is not about [me and mine.]" Furthermore, suppose I do identify myself with one or more of those Christian or Jewish people being referenced in the article, how can this article then not be about me? And if it is about me at all, is the Shavuot article not then misrepresenting the facts of the matter when it states without more that:

1. "Shavuot... is a Jewish holiday that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan...;"
2. "Christians gave it the name Pentecost... this always falls on a Sunday (Leviticus 23:16)"
3. "In the Jewish diaspora outside Israel, the holiday is celebrated for two days, on the sixth and seventh days of Sivan...;"
4. "Karaite Judaism today continues to follow the interpretation that the Counting of the Omer begins on the Sunday after the first Shabbat during Passover, and thus celebrates Shavuot on a Sunday...;" and
5. "the Christian feast of Pentecost, which falls on the fiftieth day counting from Easter, is always on a Sunday."

Do you or anyone have a right to prohibit me or mine from identifying with anyone of the names Jew, Christian, Israel or Karaite? You don't, do you?

Since when is it ok to discriminate against the natural rights of even the tiniest of minorities?  :)

Who is "misunderstanding the policy?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tree of Life Time (TLT)Talk 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- - -

I think the policy on self-published sources is quite clear. For a self-published source to be cited in Wikipedia, the author must be a recognised authority on the topic, or the article must be about the source itself or its author. It is not sufficient for the article to be about a topic on which the author of the source has an opinion – that would allow any source to be cited on any topic discussed in Wikipedia. And yes, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, but they should do so by writing about views represented in reliable published sources. If you'd like another opinion about whether the Tree of Life website is a suitable source for this article, I suggest posting a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EALacey (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

- - -

Why should anyone care about anything written by an "author..." that is "a recognised authority on the topic" if that which is written is obviously in error or based upon a false foundation?

On the other hand, why should anyone care about who the author is, if that which is written is pointing out an obvious albeit long overlooked treasure, especially when that forgotten treasure may be a blessing for everyone that cares to make use of it?

I can certainly see the importance of guarding an encyclopedic endeavor such as Wikipedia against anything that tends towards error or towards Wikipedia becoming just another chat blog where gossip rules with common thought and tradition and not much more.

I am also well aware of the solid grip within which most every "scholar" is being held by each their own particular paradigm, be that paradigm ever so far from the obvious truth. Rare indeed are the scholars that dare stand alone upon the platform of truth where he is not yet seing any other stand. "Scholars" are not leaders by nature. Compliance is the name of the game aiming at climbing the ladder of the hierarchy. The winners of that competition are characterized by being more loyal, more compliant, more apt to follow and obey and to do what is expected than are the losers. They are not leaders. They will never pick a true leader to be the leader of their gang. On the contrary they will do everything they can to remove anyone that is a true leader even when such a leader would otherwise make the world a better place for them all. This is all well known, well recognized, and nothing new. Yet it is all too rarely applied in the case of the here and the now and upon the first person. That is too scary and hard to perceive or accept. It is much easier to point the finger to someone far away in time or place...

That last paragraph above is longer than I like, but the point is that it is very hard to find censors that are truly free from being caught in the grip of each their own paradigm. Is it even possible to find anyone who is truly free for that job, and that would be willing to accept the post of limiting the freedom of others? I'd say yes indeed, it is! Those that are truly free knows well how to submit to the highest principles of all. The problem may be another. There is a vested, albeit hidden interest hiding behind a smoke screen, or, like the wizard, behind the stage in the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately the wizards are well enough hidden that the puppets being controlled do not believe that the Wizard is anything but fiction and fairy tales.

Pass the buck... "That's not my responsibility..." Someone else will take over... Change of guards... Lost in the shuffle... and so it goes on and on forever like a game of Domino. Until someone is strong enough to do nothing at all to give his support to the game any longer. Until a true blue American stands up to be counted. Until One of the true remnant People of God are encountered. Until there is a Galileo, a Luther, a Yeshua, a John the Baptist, a Moses, an Elijah, a Noah, an Enoch, that is not fearful of the Intimidators or their game, and who doesn't care if he might loose his job and his pay check or his status or the support of his "friends" or "peers."

Is Wikipedia a guardian of the truth? Or, is Wikipedia fast becoming yet another smoke screen for the purpose of hiding the real truth for the common man on the street?

Is Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia aiming towards true freedom for all? Or, is Wikipedia nothing but yet another "free" benefit tying the minds of the puppets to the strings of the Wizards behind the screen?

Let the reader be the judge... Better yet, let the consequences in the long run be the judge! As best I can understand the simple and straight forward Hebrew Torah, this is Passover night. Remember the angel, the messenger, referenced in Exodus 12:12, 23, 29! Others may not perceive what I perceive. I am not here to determine anything for anyone but me. Nonetheless...

That which is is. That which will be will be. No one can hide from reality. Not I. No one. Not even in the land of the Wizard of Oz. Let's get back to Kansas!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tree of Life Time (TLT)Talk 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

Hi Tree of Life Time, I have been reading this conversation for some time, and have decided that I now have to step in to help. I don't know why you are getting so worked up, and would strongly recommend that you calm down and remember that everyone here is interested in making a better encyclopedia. If you cannot contribute in a calm and polite manner, I think it would be best if you do not contribute at all.
Let me take a moment to review what I see happened
  1. You add a paragraph about the "correct" interpretation of "ממחרת" [2], you support this claim by what appears to be your own website.
  2. Your edit is reverted and it is explained in the edit summary that this goes against wikipedia's policy of self published sources (WP:SPS).
  3. Instead of explaining the merits of your edit you launch a triad about how wikipedia is censoring you [3].
  4. You then continue adding the material, and continue scream on the talk page without any reference to wikipedia's overall guidelines and show no inclination to learn.
I have carefully read what you have wrote above and you seem to be greatly confused about what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is NOT the guardian or truth; when there is a conflict between what is true and what is verifiable wikipedia choose verifiable every time. Wikipedia is NOT "aiming towards true freedom for all", by free we mean you can copy this encyclopedia and make your own based on it as long it conforms to the GNU free document license. Finally wikipedia DOES "discriminate against the natural rights of even the tiniest of minorities" if my "natural rights" you mean "right to be in a wikipedia article".
Perhaps you can find a project which more closely aligns with your world view. Jon513 (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- - - -

Dear Jon,

Yeshua said:

Luke 9:5 "And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."

I've many times wondered what exactly those words means. Perhaps you have too?

Yet, things definitely do look very different when one's vantage points are different, do they not?

Reading your brief note above I am awe struck by how thoroughly, based upon your own words, you are misconstruing and misunderstanding just about everything touching upon my edit. From my point of view it might seem as thought you must surely be either kidding or purposely distorting my words, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate me or for whatever purpose, yet my experience also tells me that when one person who is living in a world of fiction, such as is the world that is based upon the Vatican's calendar, aka Gregorian, then things do indeed appear very different than when one is living in the real world where things are what they are in real time. And therefore I can better understand the different realities being so beautifully represented by the book and the movie The Wizard of Oz, as well as also the different reality that you may indeed be honestly perceiving, be that reality of yours ever so different from that reality which I perceive so very very clearly.

Just as I am, from my point of view, at this very moment of writing at the very midst of the seven days constituting the Feast of Unleavened Bread as I perceive that Feast being defined in the Hebrew Torah, I recognize that from the point of view of someone believing that Passover and Easter are one and the same and that Easter this year occurred in March, surely my point of view must be in error.

Likewise when considering those two vastly different vantage points it is clear that from the point of view of Romanism and the Vatican pagan world:

  1. Sabbath is on Sunday and not on Shabbat, the Seventh Day of the week;
  2. Resurrection occurred at dawn on a Sunday morning and not at the sunset constituting the beginning of the Third Day of the week [Monday evening] and the beginning of the "foremost of the Sabbaths" of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread [cf. the Greek words "mia ton sabbaton" rendered in KJV "the first day of the week;"]
  3. The Last Supper occurred on a Thursday night and not on Tuesday evening;
  4. The Crucifixion of Christ occurred at the third hour of the Day or about 9 o'clock in the morning after Jesus had twice stood before Pontius Pilate that very day (sic!,) once at the sixth hour or about noon and the second time somewhat later that same day;
  5. Jesus was born at Christmas time by one that was still a virgin, and was not conceived shortly after the Sixth month (aka Sextilis or August) as clearly stated in Luke 1:26 re a young woman named Mary who was a virgin some time before she conceived and eventually delivered her baby about nine months later in the early part of summer; and
  6. Pentecost "falls on the fiftieth day counting from Easter [and] is always on a Sunday" in contradistinction from that day which is defined in the Torah by the words "עד ממחרת השׁבת השׁביעת" which words may be literally translated "until the morrow of the Seventh Day of the Seventh week."
  7. The most important part of life begins at death and nothing of real or lasting value should be expected in the here and the now while life is still for real.

So, yes you are surely entitled to your point of view as well as to your own opinion - as I am also to mine. Yet, even when one person's point of view is as different from that of another as is darkness from light, we can each and all continue to respect each other's rights to be whatever we choose to be within each our own dominion while yet continually living side by side on the same planet just like a couple of tiny Whip Tails can safely build their nest within a nest of Golden Eagles while both couples safely and securely lay their eggs, hatch them and eventually raise their young nestlings to maturity.

Thus, I have no need or desire of converting you or anyone into something of a different nature than you are already so long as you are what you desire and so long as you are living in the world which is the very best you could ever wish for yourself and so long as you allow me to be me without trespassing upon that which is mine from the beginning.

All I ask is that I be equally respected for what I am and that my rights of being and my rights of singing my song for anyone who may wish to listen are not being trespassed upon:

An exception to all of the above are such as find that the Torah teaches that "ממחרת" is a reference to the morning after the beginning of the Shabbat, i.e. Shabbat morning. Cf. Genesis 19:34 and the first occurrence of "ממחרת." Support for this stand is also found from Acts 21:27 which in the supporting manuscripts indicates that Shavuot was observed on the Seventh Day by Christians and non-Christian Jews alike.
Cf. also the first occurrence of "ממחרת" in the Torah (Genesis 19:24) and the timing of this event as reflected by Acts 21:27 in the most original language available. These passages both indicate that the respective events occurred on the morrow after the beginning of a certain event or of the day (sunset; 15. "ממחרת השׁבת" and 16. "עד ממחרת השׁבת השׁביעת") rather than on the morrow following the end of a specified [שׁבת] day.


Thanks also for clarifying so distinctly what "Wikipedia is NOT...!"


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Tree of Life Time (TLT)Talk 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Life, this encyclopedia does not belong to any specific religion or philosophy. Every calendar is just as useful as a time-telling system to those who prefer it. The claims you attribute to Wikipedia or the Christian community (how you think these are in any way similar is beyond me) are absurd. Wikipedia mentions how Christians misuse our words because it's something they're noted for saying, not because Wikipedia believes it. Wikipedia strives to avoid any choice of belief. The Jewish holidays are labeled and explained as such, but it needs to be mentioned that some Christians, syncretics, etc. have their own holidays that they consider similar — not to confound the two, but to distinguish them. If you feel you can arrange the article to better express this, Wikipedia will consider constructive suggestions.

To mention when and how a ritual occurs, that is practiced still in modern times, the correct description can only be what those who actually perform it are known to do. Finding a long-forgotten passage that says they should do something different is irrelevant to an article seeking to define and describe the ritual to a world audience. (collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.61.98 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bikurim Photo[edit]

The photo of bikurim (first fruits) used in this article includes bell peppers and maize. Both are of North American origin, and would not have been offered in Temple times. Also, orange carrots were a Dutch innovation of the 15th or 16th century. Perhaps a more historically accurate example of bikurm would be appropriate? 134.174.21.2 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of origin, carrot, peppers and maize are not fruits within the context of Bikurim. I am deleting the picture from this article. --Redaktor (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

link[edit]

[4] can be added to ext. links. Can't do it myself since I'm part of that site. Tnx. יוסף שמח (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a vandalism at the end of "Connection with the Harvest". 12.75.*.* (collin237) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.75.42.27 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with the article[edit]

How can Shavuot have to do with first fruits when the Day of First Fruits is over a month before?--69.146.108.94 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated in the article lead, the Torah calls Shavuot "Yom HaBikkurim" (The Day of First Fruits). What other day are you thinking about? Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In Leviticus 23 it says very clearly that First Fruits is the day after the sabbath then count 50 days and that is the pentecost so either shavuot is not the day of first fruit or pentecost should not redirect to shavuot--69.146.108.94 (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If you read the Bible in the original Hebrew, it makes more sense. There is a lot of discussion among the rabbinic commentators about what "the day after Sabbath" means. The halakha (Jewish law) concludes that here "Sabbath" means the first day of Passover. Thus Jews begin counting the Omer on the second day of Passover; the 50th day is Shavuot.
Leviticus 23:17 refers to the special offering which is brought on Shavuot: two loaves of wheat bread. Here the Torah calls this offering bikkurim, which means "first-offering", since it is the first Temple offering from the new wheat crop (the Omer offering at Passover was from the barley crop) (see Rashi).
The Torah discussion of the mitzvah of Bikkurim (First Fruits) appears briefly in Exodus 23:19 and in depth in Deuteronomy 26:1-10.
The term Pentacost has nothing to do with the Bible or with Shavuot; it is a Christian holiday celebrated 50 days after Easter. Although the church believes that Pentecost is symbolically related to Shavuot, the Torah doesn't mention it at all. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
But it says the 50 day count starts at first fruits not for first fruits --69.146.108.94 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Where do you see this? All I see is Leviticus 23:15: "You shall count from the day after the Sabbath" (meaning the day after the beginning of the holiday of Passover, or the second day of Passover); 23:16: "You shall count 50 days and then bring a new meal-offering to God" (there are 50 days between the first day of Passover and the day of Shavuot); 23:17: "The two loaves of leavened flour will be a first-offering to God" (as Rashi explains on 23:16, the Shavuot offering of 2 loaves is called both "new" and "first-offering" because it is the first Temple offering from the new wheat crop, which is harvested at Shavuot).
According to the traditional rabbinic commentators, this passage in Leviticus has nothing to do with the mitzvah of Bikkurim (First Fruits). That mitzvah is detailed in Deuteronomy 26:1-10 and briefly mentioned in Exodus 23:19. Yoninah (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
23:3 is sabbath 23:4-8 is passover&unleavened bread 23:9-14 is first fruits 23:15-22 is feast of weeks then it goes on to the remaining 3 feasts--69.146.108.94 (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for citing the verses. Your interpretation is simply wrong. This passage about the Omer offering refers to exactly that, the offering of barley beginning on the second day of Passover. It has nothing to do with Bikkurim.
You are confusing the words "harvest" and "first fruits". The "harvest" refers to the barley or wheat crop; "first fruits" refers to the mitzvah of bringing the first-ripening fruits from the Seven Species to the Temple in Jerusalem, as delineated in Deuteronomy 26:1-10. Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This isn't just my interpretation it’s also how the NIV separates and headlines them; also, the Church I go to outlines the feast on an annual feast calendar this way--69.146.108.94 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we probably need a page Shavuot (Christian holiday). Yoninah (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. And with regard to the IP: "pentecost should not redirect to shavuot". It does not redirect to shavuot. Enigmamsg 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"forgotten holiday", "little-known"[edit]

I can't understand this edit. Sourced material was removed. Reason given is that it is an "op-ed" article — it doesn't call itself that. Another reason given is that it is "advertising" — for what? I put it back in, with another source asserting the same idea. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration in infobox[edit]

In the infobox, a transliteration of the actual Hebrew name could be helpful. I don't know any Hebrew, but if anyone does, perhaps they could transliterate it. --N-k (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Tikkun Leil Shavuot[edit]

This section is rather confused and confusing regarding the origin of the custom. Certainly the information regarding the text of Tikkun Leil Shavuos is wrong. Every copy of the Tikkun I have ever seen ascribes its organisation to the Shaloh. Section needs major rewrite. If no one else does it, and if no objection, I will try to do it when time allows.Kepipesiom (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Corn?[edit]

The Counting of the Omer section starts, "The Torah states that the Omer offering (i.e., the first day of counting the Omer) is the first day of corn harvest". Is this a holdover from the KJV? Shouldn't that be "barley harvest"? Pedantrician (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the heads-up. Yoninah (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Shevuot in Jewish literature of the post-Torah pre-Mishnah gap[edit]

Someone should probably take a look at this source from the Dead Sea Scrolls and work out the best place for it in the article.

The date of Shevuot was disputed in the Second Temple period. The Qumran community, commonly associated with the Essenes, held in its library several texts mentioning Shevuot, most notably a Hebrew original of the Book of Jubilees which sought to fix the celebration of this Feast of Weeks on 15 of Kislev, following their interpetation of Exodus 19:1. ref Joseph Fitzmyer Responses to 101 questions on the Dead Sea scrolls 1992 p87- "Particularly important for the Qumran community was the celebration of this Feast of Weeks on 111/15, because according to Exod 19:1 Israel arrived in its exodus-wandering at Mt. Sinai in the third month after leaving Egypt.. Later the renewal of the Covenant came to be celebrated on the Feast of Weeks (see Jubilees"

  • Where it is between Leviticus and Bikkurim looks a bit disjointed at the moment. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Squelching a budding edit war[edit]

Since I saw this issue about the Christian holiday (not to be confused with, etc.) deleted and reverted a few times, I took the liberty of taking the fact and moving it into a footnote with a cross reference. I hope this will meet with everyone's satisfaction: it explains the connection fully, yet takes it out of the body text, where it is really a distraction. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

49 or 50?[edit]

Under "Significance", "Scriptural", "Names in the Torah":

If Shavuot happens 49 days after Passover, then Pentecost ["50th", another name for the same day] can't be the 50th day after Passover. So which is it? -lifeform (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the 50th day, there being 49 days in between. I agree that the present text at Shavuot#Names_in_the_Torah isn't clear in this regards and should be improved. Debresser (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Book of Ruth (and other traditions)[edit]

I did edit the section under "Book of Ruth" by asking for citations about which books are read on which holidays, and on Ruth being a convert. Also I reworded the part about Ruth being a convert to more obviously show the correlation to Torah being given at Sinai, though it still seems tenuous. I completely removed a sentence that incorrectly cited a passage in Deuteronomy, and seemed to have an agenda.

I'm not convinced that this entire section is relevant to Shavuot. I believe this information belongs in the article about Ruth because this section is focused on the thematic elements of Ruth. Perhaps a passing mention of Ruth being read during this time and a link to the correct article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.66.246 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid your edits. That Ruth is a convert is specifically stated in the Book of Ruth, and can so easily be sourced you should be ashamed for tagging it. The sentence you claim is incorrectly cited and seems to have an agenda I restored, because: 1. I think it is correctly cited 2. It is relevant 3. It is ulear to me which agenda it would promote 4. We don't censor Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's possible that the description of the other four megillot—which the IP editor did not actually remove—might be better moved to a footnote in this article, because that description is not directly relevant to Shavuot. Other than that, though, it is reasonable for it to stay. In any event, I am adding a link from there to the article Five Megillot, and we'll allow that article to carry the brunt of proof for the overall concept.
In any event, Debresser, it wouldn't be bad to have an overall reference or two to this entire section. To people like you and me, (1), (2) and (4) are WP:BLUE, but I'm not sure that's true for everyone. (3), especially, and (5) as well, are also often cited, but less frequently. I have to admit that I have never seen (6) cited as a reason to read Ruth on Shavuot, though I've certainly seen (6) as a justification for Ruth's marriage to Boaz. Finally, while the association of Ruth with Shavuot is fairly universal, its public reading in synagogue is less so. In many Sefardic/Edot HaMizrach communities it is not read during the tefillah, though it is often studied. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and would be perfectly fine with a {{Unreferencedsection}} template. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Both men and women participate in this tradition."[edit]

There's no reason to say this. Both men and women participate in just about any tradition, with one obvious exception. I'm sure there are women who participate in it as well as thousands of other traditions. It doesn't belong there. Enigmamsg 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I take your point. It's useful, though, to look at the page history, and I did that. (You can get a pretty good sense by looking back approximately every Shavuot, when [not surprisingly] much of the editing happens.) Some reference to women participating in all-night Torah study on Shavuot has been in the article since User:Yoninah added it in 2006. She did much of the work on this article over the years, and she herself modified the approach to that very subject over time. At first, the reference was pretty gender-neutral. But at a certain point, Yoninah changed that to read something to the effect of "Men learn in classes or chavruta; some communities also offer classes for women. That version was also stable for a while, but eventually the PC police got a little jumpy. That eventually resulted in "People [my emphasis] learn in classes or chavruta ...", along with the relatively useless phrase you proposed to remove.
So I guess the tradeoff is that something along these lines has been an explicit and stable part of the article for about ten years, and taking it out can't be taken lightly. On the other hand, what's there at present is a plain-vanilla phrase that doesn't add much. So let me propose the following: Let's give Yoninah (and anyone else interested) a week or so to come by and respond to this. And if no one else does, you and I can either take out all references or find a non-awkward way to approach it. Fair enough? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. Right now the sentence doesn't do anything. It's mostly men but some women do it in some places as well, as with many other traditions. So revisit later this month. Enigmamsg 18:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Enigmaman: I believe I may be guilty of trying to teach my grandmother how to suck eggs. If so, I apologize. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the statement is unsourced. In addition, I for one have never seen a woman taking part in the reading of the traditional Shavuot texts, so if anything, this is something reform or fringe, and that should be properly noted. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. The statement was in the general section on "all-night Torah study", not in the subsection on Tikun Leil Shavuot. If you've never seen a woman at an all-night Torah study in an Orthodox shul on Shavuot, you're simply hanging out in different places from me. (Which is probably true, as far as it goes.)
  2. Beyond that, the statement was not contested as inaccurate. User:Enigmaman simply thought it didn't add anything to the page at this point. (See the comment up top.)
    In particular, Enigmaman didn't complain that it was unsourced. I mentioned that in my own reversion of the initial edit. But as far as it goes—and considering it refers to the general concept of all-night learning, not Tikun, per se—I would have thought that it was WP:BLUE.
  3. I'm not going to revert further and keep contesting this, however. At the end of the day, the statement in its current form was probably going to be dropped as not adding much to the page.
    However, that statement has been in this article, and stable, for around four years, and some explicit mention of women learning on Shavuot night has been in this article continuously for ten years. So to say that it should be dropped first and discussed afterwards is really not correct. I will defend any effort to add a properly sourced statement to this section, or may add one myself going forward. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Still, it is unsourced and challenged, so Wikipedia guidelines are clear that it should be removed. That is in addition to the second point, that it is not a general custom in traditional Judaism. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Debresser, the fact that you don't see women participating doesn't mean they don't. It just means they don't where you live. Even when I was growing up they had a few shiurim and where I am now they have the whole night participation. Just look at many shul's programming calendar for the night and you'll see shiurim for women or for both women and men together. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand there may be various customs. Still, participation by women is not part and parcel of the tradition of Shavuot in Judaism. So, as I said, if it exists, it should be properly noted that this is a minority custom or the custom of a certain movement in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Who said it's a minority custom? It really all depends on the community and also the age group. I don't see the big deal with mentioning that both men and women participate, that doesn't mean that all women and all men (many men don't, do we need to include that?) participate, just that women do in fact participate in this. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It runs against Jewish laws and customs, which stress the role of women in the house and hold that women do not have a commandment to learn Torah. If there are denominations or specific shuls where women do partake in a special learning program on Shavuot, then those deviate from traditional Judaism. So far fact Now for assumptions. I assume those programs are a minority. In any case, making a general statement that women partake in the learning creates the incorrect impression that 1. this is a traditional tenet of Judaism 2. this is commonly done. Both statements are incorrect. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoa! This is starting to go way afield here. I'd like to make a couple of stipulations here, in the hopes that we can wrap this up and not keep it burning over yom tov:
  1. Taken from the traditional, Orthodox perspective, there is no specific commandment for women to learn Torah (in general). On the other hand, there is most certainly, even from the most traditionalist perspective, a requirement for women to learn practical Torah in realms where they are active. And it is certainly true that women receive positive s'char ("credit") for learning they do, in any event.
  2. The article at status quo ante did not say this was a traditional tenet of Judaism. It said only that within many parts of the Jewish world, the current practice is that women participate in some of the overnight Torah learning on Shavuot.
    I'll find a source if you want, but I imagine that Dovid will take my word for the fact that there are plenty of Orthodox synagogues where women attend the shiurim. From the most traditionalist perspective, that's surely not customary, but at the same time, to say "those deviate from traditional Judaism" is an excessively strong statement. (This is especially true given how often in very "traditional" communities women leave the house to work so their husbands can learn. So I'd back off the "role of women in the house" stuff for now.) And in any event, again, the status quo ante article made no statement how traditional this might be, only that it takes place.
  3. The article as it now stands is agnostic on gender in this paragraph—all the language is gender-neutral, and if you weren't thinking about that question going in, you wouldn't think about it leaving, either. I'm willing to live with that. If someone tries to change the language to suggest explicitly that it's a male-only practice, then I will work hard to revert that.
Can everyone live with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I can. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia goes, it's best to avoid mentioning gender altogether. Enigmamsg 17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)