Hebrew calendar is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 11, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept June 12, 2007 Featured article review Demoted March 25, 2018 Good article nominee Not listed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 7, 2004, October 7, 2005, and October 7, 2006. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concerning WP:ERA: The date styling in this article uses the era terminology of BCE/CE, rather than BC/AD, except for a brief parallel mention in the section on Anno Mundi. Discussions of this were held previously here and here, the later of which dates to February 2013. Because there is consensus on this topic, editors should not unilaterally change this convention on the page. Because consensus can change, editors are welcome to address the topic here on the talk page if they choose.

Archives

BCE vs BC (archived 2005) Archive 1 (earliest to Feb 2007) Archive 2 (March 2007-July 2009) Archive 3 (Aug 2009 and later) Archive 4 (Feb-Nov 2013) Archive 5 (Socking targets by Vote)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloe24681234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, everyone. We seem to be having an edit war here on the subject of Passover 2019. Apparently, the proponents of these edits wish to include it as an example of how calendar drift can push Passover to the second full moon after the equinox rather than the first. So ...

• Proponents: Do I correctly state the case?
• Opponents: Leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, why is this an inappropriate or confusing example? Alternatively, is the example ok, but the wording poor? Side question: is there a year closer than 2019 when Passover falls on the second full moon after the equinox?
• Everyone: Again, leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, am I missing anything else that is causing this edit war?

I propose we answer these questions here and come to a resolution, and then decide where (if anywhere) this edit should go.
Until we solve this here, I propose to revert any attempt to put the edit back in the article. Note that I am not taking sides—I only want to settle this without further edit warring. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it once, only because it seemed out of place. I have no specific knowledge regarding the questions asked above. It is a technical detail, a highly technical and rather minor detail, and as such seems unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope this is where I can ask my question. It seems to me that Passover in 2016 fell on the second full moon after the equinox. The Equinox was Sun. Mar. 20. The following full moon was March 23. The next one was April 22, which was the date of Passover. So here's my question. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to use the Hebrew calendar to determine Nisan 14, so that they can celebrate that. This year (2016) they celebrated on March 23. Did any Jews celebrate on Mar 23? I'm a bit overwhelmed by the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct that this past Passover fell around the second full moon after the equinox. No Jew that I am aware of celebrated Passover on March 23. You need to understand the following, all of which is somehow included in the article, but might not be obvious:

• At this point, we do not use the astronomical equinox to calculate anything. Our leap years fall in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 of a given 19-year cycle, regardless of the true equinox date. At this point, Passover falls around the second full moon in years 8, 11 and 19.
• If JW use the Hebrew calendar, they should not be celebrating on March 23. More likely, they are using the principles behind the Jewish calendar, which in theory prefer Passover to be around the first full moon. Even at that, though, when the Sanhedrin actually decided the issue, the Sanhedrin was allowed to defer Passover to the second full moon, in that they could also use crop ripeness or the condition of roads as part of their decision-making paradigm. This wasn't common, but apparently did (rarely) happen.
• Further, we no longer use lunar observation to set months. Accordingly, Hebrew calendar months do not necessarily start on the day of the astronomical new moon, meaning Passover does not necessarily start on the day of the full moon. (This is true absolutely, and even more true where postponement rules (q.v.) apply.) If your almanac says that the full moon falls on Wednesday, Passover might very well start Thursday, and even possibly the following Saturday.

If this article is overwhelming, consider looking at the corresponding article in Simple English Wikipedia (that is, simple:Hebrew calendar). I was the primary writer there, and made an effort to be complete for a lay audience without letting the details of the calculations become overwhelming. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone is welcome to insert the information into the article, I just couldn't figure out how to do it best. Turkey uses the same calendar used in the Western world and the names of the months in Turkish (English in paranthesis) are -starting with the first month in the Hebrew calendar: Nisan (April), Mayıs (May), Haziran (June), Temmuz (July), Ağustos (August), Eylül (September), Ekim (October), Kasım (November), Aralık (December), Ocak (January), Şubat (February), Mart (March). Best. --Stultiwikia^{text me} 12:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So 4 months, February, April, July and September are like the Hebrew names Shvat, Nisan, Tammuz and Elul. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"At higher latitudes in summer, when the sun does not sink below the horizon, a day is counted from midday to midday, and in the winter, when the sun does not rise above the horizon, from midnight to midnight."

Is that correct? Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, when the sun is up all day, shouldn't the new day start when its at its *lowest* point, i.e., "midnight", and likewise when it's below the horizon all day, at midday? Like, the day before that prolonged daylight would begin at sunset, when the sun briefly drops below the horizon. Noon would only be 12 hours later than that, so if you're defining the day as midday to midday, then you'd have a 12-hour day when it switches from sunset to midday reckoning, whereas 24 hours after that last sunset would be the sun at its lowest point, just skimming the horizon XinaNicole (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It contradicts the last sentence of Jewish law in the polar regions. I suggest it be removed from this article altogether. McKay (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. AJD (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do I. This seems counterintuitive. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The South Pole has to be considered, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "History" section is vague about when the Hebrew calendar actually came into use. Since the calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh, we can imply that it was devised prior to about 450 BC, but there is no specific mention about when it was first known to be used. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean that "the calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh"? Debresser (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's right there in the article, at the beginning of the "History" section:

The Tanakh contains several commandments related to the keeping of the calendar and the lunar cycle, and records changes that have taken place to the Hebrew calendar.

Also, you reverted my edit which included actual dates of when the Hebrew calendar came into use. It seems rather ironic to fail to mention the dates of a date-keeping instrument, doesn't it? Yes, the articles are linked, but surely a little redundancy amongst articles is proper. Why wouldn't we want to mention historical dates in the "History" section? — Loadmaster (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a huge difference between that quote and your statement. The Tanakh contains certain instructions relating to the Jewish calendar is not the same as saying that the Jewish calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to the dates. First of all, one of them is only approximately. But the main issue with them is as I mentioned, that the articles are already linked, so better leave the dates to those articles. Here, is is redundant and only clouds the article with non-essential information. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the simple question "When did the Hebrew calendar start being used?" is not directly answered in the article about the Hebrew calendar. Super. I think that the approximate date that the calendar was first used should be fairly essential information in a section entitled "History". — Loadmaster (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm actually inclined to agree with User:Loadmaster that we should have some explicit mention of this subject within the article.

That said, I'm not sure if we really know for sure when it was first used, or even when it was first used in a form remotely resembling that used during the Mishnaic period. Religious Jews like us may assume things from primary sources, but I'm not sure what other proof may even exist. To be sure, much of our calendar seems similar to the Babylonian calendar, but again what constitutes proof I don't know. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Just find a source and add a sentence.

Note that in his edits, Loadmaster did not try to address the question when the Jewish calendar started being used. He just added dates to some examples of usage of the Jewish calendar. A huge difference. Now he suddenly raises this issue, and only in his second post on the talkpage, but it really is not related to the edits I reverted. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, in fact, I did intend to address the question of when it began being used. It's the reason I looked up the article in the first place. Yes, my first attempt at providing a simple answer to the question was not the correct approach. But it's still the same question, though, and my original intentions were to try to provide some kind of answer. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question "when did the Jewish calendar first come into use" is not a well-posed question so it can't have a precise answer. Does it require a calendar with the same 19-year cycle, or does ad hoc insertion of leap-months count? Does it require month lengths defined by rules as now, or does observation of the moon count? If it means the current algorithmic calendar based on a specific epoch, a specific length for the mean synodic month, and a particular set of rules for applying these, it can't be proved that the calendar was used before the Middle Ages. Some aspects of it appeared earlier though. So the question is not so clear-cut and a useful answer is necessarily long. McKay (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jewish traditions says that he names of the month "came with them from Babylonia". That would probably mean what is now called "Jewish" calendar, was based on the Babylonian calendar, and accepted sometime during the 70 years of the Babylonian exile. Debresser (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the very least, I think we should mention the earliest (plausible) date(s) that the Hebrews started using their own calendar, separate from those of other cultures (e.g., Babylonian), even if it was not in its more refined form. That's an important timepoint in the Hebrew culture, I would think. Further, I think mentioning the evolution of their calendar, like McKay alludes to, possibly with plausible date ranges, would be informative. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only based on reliable source. No original research! See WP:RS and WP:OR. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added parenthetical dates for the Mishnaic and Second Temple periods. Corrections are welcome. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I reverted you. Your sneaky or aggressive behavior, whichever, is not appreciated. Just because you reached consensus with yourself, does not mean you can now repeat an edit that was reverted and discussed here without garnering clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remain civil. Do you have a specific problem with the addition of the dates I added? They meet your own criteria of reliable research, and do not contradict other WP articles. They simply specify when the Mishnaic and Second Temple periods took place, which are taken directly from the linked articles themselves. Mentioning the dates of the periods does not contradict the sentences they parenthetically modify, nor do they place any specific dates on the existence of the calendar itself; they simply duplicate the information in the linked articles about the historic periods. Maybe I'm misreading your intent, but you seem to be taking the position that the History subsection should not contain any mention of dates, and that readers should (only) click on the articles to find out what those date intervals are. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't make any edits without consensus, and you won't have to remind other editors to be civil to you.

I think you more or less correctly explained my position on this issue. But you left out my main point: that we should add dates, but only based on sources that pertain directly to the subject (the Hebrew calendar). Are there really no sources we can use? What with the lead I gave you here in this section a bit higher up? Debresser (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw e.g. this article, which says what I stated above. Perhaps not the best source, but better than nothing. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

→ Google translation from Hebrew to English is here. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This very reliable source mentions it also. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

→ Google translation from Hebrew to English is here. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a little confused. At this point, what exactly would Loadmaster like to add, and what exactly is Debresser willing to see added. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see any dates (or range of dates) that give some indication of when the calendar was plausibly first used by the Hebrews. If this means denoting the years spanned by a given period in which is was first used (e.g., the Mishnaic period) in place of more authoritative dates about the calendar usage per se, that would be okay. In other words, some date range that gives the reader a reasonable estimate of how old the calendar is. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am fine with dates, from reliable sources relating directly to the Jewish calendar. No original research along the lines of "since the calendar is mentioned here or there, and that was then and then, therefore the calendar was in existence at least since then and then". Debresser (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hebrew calendar. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o_6wrQe6ppUJ:personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf+%22Sanctification+of+the+New+Moon%22+Maimonides&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a with https://web.archive.org/web/20100621084628/http://personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf on https://personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.judaica-frankfurt.de/content/titleinfo/177450
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://elkind.net/calendar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.cgate.co.il/calendar/calendar_diaspora.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011103950/http://www.bethabracha.co.uk/calendar/ to http://www.bethabracha.co.uk/calendar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906123702/http://www.yeshiva.org.il/calendar/eng to http://www.yeshiva.org.il/calendar/eng/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.chelm.org/jewish/calendar/explain.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.tichnut.de/jewish/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use the tools linked above to fix this. The tools provide an easy way to communicate with the bot and to inform it of corrections.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using the Pessah formula by Gauß and Eastern formula by Lichtenberg i constructed this formula to get the day of 1 Tischri. X is the number of the hebrewan year:

A = (12X + 5) MOD 19
R = (X + 3) MOD 4


P = 20707440 + 765433A + 123120R - 1565X
Q = P DIV 492480
V = P MOD 492480


W = (Q + 3X + 5R + 6) MOD 7
K = (X + 39) DIV 100
S = (3K + 1) DIV 4 - 30
Y = 0


W:
0 ?(A>11 & V>442110) -> Y=1
1 ?(A>6 & V>311675) -> Y=2
2 Y=1
4 Y=1
6 Y=1<br

M = Q + S + Y - 31


M. Sep / (M - 30). Oct
(W + Y) MOD 7 Weekday [0=Mo]
(X - 3761) Jahr gregorian.
--87.144.190.66 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the contribution. Hebrew calendar is built into the MediaWiki software platform, so we don't need to go to this trouble. But this might be useful to some users who wish to code their own work. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - i forgot to translate one word, because i have postet it on german wiki first - "Jahr" -> "year". Maybe you can find a nice place for it; here on the talk page it will be lost some day... --93.220.232.186 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hebrew calendar. 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/20050919014237/http://www.kaluach.org/ to http://kaluach.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129165850/http://calendar-converter.com/index.php?p=jewish to http://calendar-converter.com/index.php?p=jewish

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fixed one "correction". StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Samaritans operate a similar version of the calendar, but out of sync with the mainstream Rabbinic Jewish Calendar. For example they celebrate Pesach on "Nissan 15-22" like Jews, but in practice this works out to be a few weeks later or earlier. I think this should be added to the Other Practices section.62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair point. Give us a few days on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's six months you've been given. Any progress? 81.154.25.196 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to add it. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please include sources. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See https://www.israelite-samaritans.com/religion/calendar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.216.96 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done See Hebrew calendar § Samaritan calendar. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be useful to add a discussion of how the year is written. See http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Hebrew_numerals

Otherwise it is somewhat obscure why 5777 is written תשע״ז.

Thank you very much for your consideration

Michaelaoash (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also a good point. Will also try to get to this during this week. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was already there, but I provided examples. See Hebrew calendar#writing. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you please update this page a bit in the Months section of the Components section of this article by saying "In leap years (Such as 5779)". Please. 2602:304:5D47:EC19:4D84:3C29:4961:DBB4 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done But it seems to be very difficult for you not to have all dates in all of these articles updated to future years. 5774 was a perfectly appropriate example. Don't worry about these things so much. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Hebrew calendar month counting is not as simple and straight forward as the month table suggests as each month has two numbers associated with it.

While the number column on the page is accurate for the Hebrew sacred calendar (best to my knowledge), it does not contain the numbers for the Hebrew civil Calendar.

I have looked at 3 websites to verify my information and not a single one, including one that is maintained by a Jewish practitioner, has the both month numbers.

I have copy and pasted below the table that you do have on the page and have added a second number column and titled the number columns in respect to their civil or sacred standing.

This information should be verified with a Rabbi to ensure that I do not have the Civil and Sacred column titles reversed. Sometimes I get things wrong even when I double triple and quadruple check them. I really hate when that happens!

Due to the lack of complete and verifiable information on the internet, people are confused on just how the Hebrew/Jewish calendar actually works. I don't think having both sets of numbers will make it less confusing, but it will ensure that they have the complete information regarding the calendar and the way that the months are numbered for whatever research they may be conducting.

Thanks for making the update! Source: Bottom of Page 850 of the Holy Bible Authorized King James Version PTL Partner Edition Thomas Nelson Publishers Copyright 1975 page 850 69.218.72.2 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should add Adar II. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Adar II is covered right below that table (and in several other places), so I left it alone for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman calendar used AUC ab urbe condita before Jesus Christ and BC/AD Anno Domini. Hebrew calendar (HC). 73.85.207.74 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I don't think we should do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:E1B7:8159:8851:AE75 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not? HC is the obvious abbreviation for Hebrew Calendar and it's being used on many Internet sites (google that). I have yet to find it in a book. 73.85.202.253 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be obvious, but I never saw it before, and I would like to see it used in some serious publications, not the Internet, before we start using it on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this article is very informative and helpful to people who are trying to learn more about the Hebrew Calendar. I will add a subsection called Observance in Auschwitz under the Modern calendar section. I found an interesting article called Tracking Jewish Time in Auschwitz, which appeared in a peer-reviewed journal and is written by Alan Rosen, who has a Ph.D. in literature and religion from Boston University. I will add information about the dangers of having a calendar while in Auschwitz and the importance of women making the only known surviving calendars. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe24681234 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chloe24681234:, you might want to take a look at [1] where there are many more instances of this for many places in Europe, not just Auschwitz. I think you can use this to expand the section quite a bit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thinking now is that with your link and my link above, the information is enough for a standalone article, Hebrew Calendar and the Holocaust, or something along that line. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer that, even if only to avoid WP:UNDUE claims in this article. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section Implications for Jewish Ritual, don't forget to add AM 5776, the 19th year of the cycle, and Gregorian year 2016 CE. Please. 2601:401:C400:357:985:79B4:8920:1D07 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that in 5776(2016), which was the 19th year of the cycle, Passover was late by a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:985:79B4:8920:1D07 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a school project I tried implementing all the date rules as described in the article in JavaScript, but my results did not match the moladot times for the civil year given. I checked and re-checked, and they seem to be in error. I’ve replaced the moladot times for the civil year with moladot times for the ecclesiastical year (which I think may be more useful anyway) computed directly according to the rules in the article; these results seem to match those given by molad sites such as Chabad.org and TorahCalc.com. Hope I didn’t break anything. PowerPCG5 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As can be seen from the revision history, I replaced incorrect times for moladot Nisan with an alternative list of moladot Tishrei computed by directly applying the rules described in the article, but an anonymous editor deleted them. As I have no desire to get into an edit war with an anonymous editor, I put computed moladot Nisan back in place of computed moladot Tishrei but at least put back correctly computed values as calculated per the article and verified with the online molad calculators in the external links. I’m including my original computed moladot Tishrei (which I still think many would find more useful than moladot Nisan as computation of Rosh Hashanah forms the basis of Hebrew calendar calculations IMHO) again here for reference for anyone interested in computing Hebrew calendars on their own using the rules described in the article and wishing to check their results. Good luck, and have fun:)

Molad Tishrei 5777 (year 1 in Metonic cycle) = 14:40 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {4}{18))}$ Saturday, 1 October 2016

Molad Tishrei 5778 (year 2 in Metonic cycle) = 23:28 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {16}{18))}$ Wednesday, 20 September 2017

Molad Tishrei 5779 (year 3 in Metonic cycle) = 08:17 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {10}{18))}$ Monday, 10 September 2018

Molad Tishrei 5780 (year 4 in Metonic cycle) = 05:50 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {5}{18))}$ Sunday, 29 September 2019

Molad Tishrei 5781 (year 5 in Metonic cycle) = 14:38 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {17}{18))}$ Thursday, 17 September 2020

Molad Tishrei 5782 (year 6 in Metonic cycle) = 23:27 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {11}{18))}$ Monday, 6 September 2021

Molad Tishrei 5783 (year 7 in Metonic cycle) = 21:00 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {6}{18))}$ Sunday, 25 September 2022

Molad Tishrei 5784 (year 8 in Metonic cycle) = 05:49 Friday, 15 September 2023

Molad Tishrei 5785 (year 9 in Metonic cycle) = 03:21 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {13}{18))}$ Thursday, 3 October 2024

Molad Tishrei 5786 (year 10 in Metonic cycle) = 12:10 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {7}{18))}$ Monday, 22 September 2025

Molad Tishrei 5787 (year 11 in Metonic cycle) = 20:59 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{18))}$ Friday, 11 September 2026

Molad Tishrei 5788 (year 12 in Metonic cycle) = 18:31 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {14}{18))}$ Thursday, 30 September 2027

Molad Tishrei 5789 (year 13 in Metonic cycle) = 03:20 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {8}{18))}$ Tuesday, 19 September 2028

Molad Tishrei 5790 (year 14 in Metonic cycle) = 12:09 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{18))}$ Saturday, 8 September 2029

Molad Tishrei 5791 (year 15 in Metonic cycle) = 09:41 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {15}{18))}$ Friday, 27 September 2030

Molad Tishrei 5792 (year 16 in Metonic cycle) = 18:30 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {9}{18))}$ Tuesday, 16 September 2031

Molad Tishrei 5793 (year 17 in Metonic cycle) = 03:19 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {3}{18))}$ Sunday, 5 September 2032

Molad Tishrei 5794 (year 18 in Metonic cycle) = 00:51 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {16}{18))}$ Saturday, 24 September 2033

Molad Tishrei 5795 (year 19 in Metonic cycle) = 09:40 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {10}{18))}$ Wednesday, 13 September 2034

PowerPCG5 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @PowerPCG5:, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your interest in this topic. Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem with your edit. You say you are "interested in computing Hebrew calendars on their own using the rules described in the article and wishing to check their results". Someone has done that and found that the new rules you added don't give the correct answer (see their edit summary at the article revision history). In the example they gave for 2020 you wrote:

"Molad Nisan 5780 = 10:14 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {11}{18))}$ Tuesday, 24 March 2020"

Next year Nisan begins on Thursday, 26 March. Please explain how your figure gives the correct starting date. If you can't, please put the article back the way it was. Once again, thanks and happy editing! 2.27.36.48 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PowerPCG5 has checked the dates with two websites, and I checked a few samples and found them correct.

The molad is usually a bit before the beginning of the month, so why do see a problem here? Debresser (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it was, the time for 2020 (02:38 AM Wednesday, 25 March) gave the correct date for Nisan 1 of Thursday, 26 March (because Wednesday is a forbidden day). You want to use the time of the molad, 10:14 AM, Tuesday, 23 March. Please provide a worked calculation explaining how, using that time, you arrive at Thursday, 26 March for 1 Nisan. 2.27.36.48 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would just like to make sure that something is clear here. @User:PowerPCG5 suggested above that the molad times for the ecclesiastical year may be more useful than the molad times for the civil year. I'd just like to remind everyone that in the current, calculated version of the calendar, the only molad time that actually has an impact in practice is the molad time for Tishri (i.e., civil year). Every other month start is simply counted off from the date of 1 Tishri so calculated at intervals of 30 or 29 days. What am I missing here? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2.27.36.48 Why would we want to see a calculation? This information is readily available on a variety of websites and publications. The beginning of Nissan 1 is not relevant to any of the usual calculations, so PowerPCG5 did a good thing removing that and replacing it with the molad. Which is also the beginning of the month, in a way.

@StevenJ81 The molad can be counted from any month, theoretically. But I agree that having the molad of Tishrei would be more useful, since it is indeed customary to count from Tishrei. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only customary, but under the current calendar laws, it's halacha. (I've long thought it ironic that every molad is announced in synagogue except the one for Tishrei...yet that's the only one ever used in calculations of months and years.)

The one thing that the moladot of Adar and Nissan would give us that is interesting is that we could compare them to the moment of the astronomical equinox and see which month is really "supposed" to be Nissan. But that's a very theoretical sort of thing in practice today, as it wouldn't change which month is actually Nissan. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you alter a table and you don't know what you are doing you will mess it up - i.e. it will no longer do what it says on the tin, which in this case is give the Gregorian date corresponding to 1 Nisan. When Debresser says "Why would we want to see a calculation?" that suggests to me that he has not verified that his new times give the correct answer. Information which has not been verified may not be included. The times in the long-standing version have been verified, so I would suggest that they be reinstated. Please don't wait for comment from Debresser as he may have gone offline for shabbos. 2.27.36.48 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StevenJ81 It's not halakha. The Rambam is very clear about it that any molad from any given year can be used as a starting point for further calculations.

@2.27.36.48 And your posts suggest to me you are not here to contribute positively to this community. And are possibly some WP:SOCK. So I'd really advice you to keep your suggestions to yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folks, I don't know exactly what it going on here but from a distance it looks like a battle of povs. You really need to restrict yourselves to material that appears in published reliable sources. Trivial calculations are allowed (see WP:CALC) but calculations as complex as these that you did yourselves are definitely not allowed in the article. It's hard to believe you can't find a reliable source for this information. McKay (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entire section was added to the article 7 February 2015 [2] by a sockpuppet of the banned user WP:LTA/VXFC, recognized by her personal name of "Exigian" for the Revised Julian calendar. For that reason alone the section should be deleted per WP:BMB. It is WP:OR because no source tries to convert the Hebrew calendar into the "Exigian" calendar. It has some minor errors "remainder 200 or 700 [600] when divided by 900" and "(Exigian) is correct to one day in 44,000 [5,000] years" per [3]. I plan to replace it with the conversion equations (Jewish to Gregorian) written by E. G. Richards in Mapping Time. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it appears that 2.27.36.48, above in this section, is also VXFC. Mojoworker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He definitely behaves like a sock. The section contains information that can be readily checked on a number of websites, as PowerPCG5 did. Another question is whether this information, a list of times of the molad of Tishrei in various years, is something this encyclopedia should have. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This short section is problematic to say the least and it makes no mention of the debate around the opinion that is expressed well by Rachel Elior that a solar calendar of 364 days was used up to the Seleucid period when it was replaced by a Greek lunar calendar on the orders of Antiochus IV. The biblical evidence is more in congruence with a solar calendar starting in the Spring with what later came to be known as Nissan. Alan3278 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bible isn't reliable history, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plural of יאָרצײַט is יאָרצײַטן‎, so the transcription should be changed to yahrzeitn (to remain close to the Yiddish form) or maybe yahrzeiten (which is closer to the modern German plural). --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what is it now? I don't see this word in the article. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote it in Yiddish but it is written in Latin script in the article as Yahrzeits, which is a non-Yiddish plural. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it, thanks. Don't know what to say. On the one hand, the Yiddish plural is as you say with an "n", but in America many would use the "s" like in English. As far as I am concerned it is not a big deal, and either way works for me. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I think it is not worth editing the article just for this one word but it would be nice if someone did this alongside some other edit (like fixing the other points I mentioned below), therefore not creating one more unnecessary article version because of one word. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The plural of the Yiddish word יאָרצײַט is יאָרצײַטן‎, but the plural of the English word yahrzeit is yahrzeits. The article contains the English word, not the Yiddish word. AJD (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason not to name the scholar whose position this article informs us about. The reference is an article by Solomon Gandz, so I assume (being to read nothing more than a preview page) it is him and not someone quoted in his article. As the article is protected, I cannot change this myself. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is Avraham b. Pinchas, according to the reference (whose author is written Tsedaka and not Tzedaka, by the way), and there is no reason not to name him. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did you see this? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated above, this is according to the reference; the link, that is. You will find the names of the High Priest and the author there. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strangely I found no Avraham ben Phinhas in the list of high priests at Samaritan High Priest or even on the list of high priests at that very same site which is the source of this information.

That is weird indeed, especially since Tsedaka is a Samaritan himself and should know. Maybe he mixed up some name while writing? By the way, I know either he or another Samaritan with the same last name insists on the orthography (see above); I forgot in which book I read this, though. And the reference still implies this was his first and not his last name, which is nonsense. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the wake of a edit war between two users over calendar drift calculations, I went and checked the calculations on both pages. I've confirmed the assertions using exact calculations:

• The average Hebrew year length is 235/19 * (29 + 13753/25920) = 35975351/98496 = 365.24682220597794 days (rounded).
• The average Gregorian year length is 365 + 97/400 = 365.2425 days.
• Thus, the difference between Hebrew and Gregorian is ~0.004322206 days, or 1 day in ~231.363 years. (Exact value according to Wolfram Alpha is 10643/2462400 days.)
• Similarly, taking a tropical year length of 365.2422 days gives the difference as ~0.004622 days, or 1 day in ~216.3 years (using 365.24219 gives ~215.9 years).

I'm not sure what the claim about "Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths" being an index page is about, but it's straightforward to find the claims in "The Accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar" and "The Relative Rate of the Hebrew Calendar" if you scroll down. Arcorann (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure that this

Molad Nisan 5779 = 01:25 ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {17}{18))}$ Friday, 5 April 2019

makes sense to some readers but for the rest of us, would someone please explain the meaning of ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {17}{18))}$? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps I can help. According to Hebrew_calendar#Day_and_hours, the Jewish minute is divided not into 60 seconds, but into 18 parts (in Hebrew "helek", plural "halakim"). Debresser (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. My first assumption was "fractions of a minute" but I decided that would be too far-fetched! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Julian and Gregorian calendars are part of the category Calendars. Why isn't this calendar part of the category Calendars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.132.240 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look. You are wrong; neither Julian calendar nor Gregorian calendar are a part of Category:Calendars. Instead, both articles (as well as this one) have their own, self-titled categories. SkyWarrior 04:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, as it has been present for seven years it should not have been removed without a consensus on the talk page first. A source was added but AstroLynx removed it again. Wikipedia pages can be copied for future use, so its removal also means that those without computers who have not yet taken a copy will not be able to work out e.g. the date of their Yahrzeit. External sites can be offensive - yesterday I visited one of the cited websites AstroLynx referred to and it repeatedly flashed me this message:

Hurry, Ramadan's almost over! ZAKAT Give in the name of Allah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.119.149 (talk • contribs)

The deleted section was previously discussed in 2019 and the consensus at the end of the discussion was to delete it as it was largely based on OR from a well-known banned user and, with the availability of online calendar converters, it was highly unlikely that anyone would ever use this method. If some of the online calendar links at the bottom of the Hebrew calendar page give undesirable results then they can always be removed or replaced with better ones. AstroLynx (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read the cited discussion. It identifies the originating editor who has a clean block log and geolocates to Cornwall. The consensus was not to delete but to ensure the material is reliably sourced. Please do not make that mistake again. Even you don't argue that Carl Friedrich Gauss (the greatest mathematician since antiquity) is "an unreliable source". 78.150.119.149 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not how I read the 15 and 16 April 2019 comments on this section by @Joe Kress:, @Mojoworker: and @Debresser:. There was clear consensus to delete this section. I have no quibble with your claim that Gauss was one of the greatest mathematicians of all times but how is that relevant here? Sticking a celebrity's name on a mud pie does not make it a delicacy. AstroLynx (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with AstroLynx. My comment on that section meant to say, that we should not have this section. It is one big original research. Based on some sources, but original research nevertheless. It is also something of very low encyclopedical value. IMHO. So yes, I think that was correctly removed, based on that discussion in 2019. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was overwhelming consensus to retain, which is why the section was not removed. Supporters included Debresser, PowerPCG5, StevenJ81, etc. Support would have been greater but someone removed the following supportive comment:

If we source this, presumably all parties will be happy. I suggest, therefore, that we add back the changes which were introduced at 16:32, 10 April and after the words "The list below gives a time which can be used to determine the day the Jewish ecclesiastical (spring) year starts over a period of nineteen years" add this inline citation:

^[1]

I note that AstroLynx only pinged editors who supported his view - a clear breach of WP:CANVASS. The "Original research" argument is dead in the water - I have checked the text of the section against Gauss' paper and can confirm that all the data is lifted from it. I wouldn't describe Gauss' contributions to science as "a mud pie". 78.150.119.149 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As this was a two-year old discussion, I had no intention of repeating the whole thread and just mentioned the outcome. Checking the page history I now see that I probably also should have pinged @McKay:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and @Favonian:. You are correct that the 2019 discussion now visible is not complete and that some postings are missing. Still, I fail to see general consensus for keeping this section despite your attempts to twist the words of other editors to suit your purpose. The only editors who wish to keep this section appear to be you and your earlier London-based aliases. AstroLynx (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on LTA

The above discussion was initiated and fueled by IP socks of community-banned Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. I just blocked the most recent incarnation, 78.149.213.149, after they repeatedly tried to modify the article. If someone would like to delete or archive the discussion, that would be in the spirit of Wikipedia:Banned means banned. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When did the last 19 year cycle begin in the Hebrew calendar? 90.241.152.219 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This year is 5782. Dividing by 19 gives us 304. 304 * 19 = 5776. Which also means that this is the 6th year of the 305th cycle. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have always had trouble with the statement that four month are named in the Bible (Aviv, Ziv, Ethanim and Bul). My problem with that statement is that the words "Aviv" and "Ethanim" are preceded in those verses by the definite article (he hayedia), indicating that those are adjectives, not nouns like names of months should be. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone with edit access please add the shwa to תִּשׁרִי Tishri in the table under History. --188.28.96.91 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Ar2332 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "mounted up" to "amounted", as the current wording isn't normal English. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Throughout this article there seems to be a lot of unsourced material after years of discussion about it. From my reading of the discussion there seems to be a consensus of leaving in much of the unsourced material, because it is factually true. The problem is thats not how wikipedia works. EVERYTHING in this or any article needs to be sourced from a reliable secondary source, and not based on either personal knowledge or reasonable conclusions based on reliable sources. Can we get some references? If not, every unsourced thing needs to be deleted. RevDan (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have specific examples? There are currently 127 inline references and an extensive bibliography. Most paragraphs have one or more references. Please let us know what areas you believe need more referencing so we can work on them.--agr (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have time to list everything, but in many places the Bible AKA Tanach, is used a reference. The Bible is a primary source, not a secondary source. Also biblical references are used on dates, based on correlation to unnamed sources. Likewise the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud are also primary sources not secondary sources. References must be secondary sources.

the phrase "These measures are not generally used for everyday purposes. Its best known use is for calculating and announcing the molad." is an example of an original conclusion, that is not referenced. there are many of those throughout the article.

"There is no clock in the Jewish scheme, so that the local civil clock is used. Although the civil clock, including the one in use in Israel, incorporates local adoptions of various conventions such as time zones, standard times and daylight saving, these have no place in the Jewish scheme. The civil clock is used only as a reference point—in expressions such as: "Shabbat starts at ...". The steady progression of sunset around the world and seasonal changes results in gradual civil time changes from one day to the next based on observable astronomical phenomena (the sunset) and not on man-made laws and conventions." unreferenced and probably OR.

The whole section of "Weeks" is unreferenced though it has non reference footnotes. The same goes for "Months" (though there is one referenced paragraph)

"Hence it is a reasonable conclusion that the Mishnaic calendar was actually used in the Mishnaic period." probably original conclusion.

"Thus, adding 3760 before Rosh Hashanah or 3761 after to a Julian calendar year number starting from 1 CE will yield the Hebrew year. For earlier years there may be a discrepancy; see Missing years (Jewish calendar)." again probably original conclusion.

The section "Leap years" is filled with calculations and statements that look like OR, not reference.

There is much more, but I think you get the point. RevDan (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RevDan That is how Wikipedia works. Till some a-hole comes along and starts deleting relevant and true information based on a deletionist approach to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You may indeed understand that I am of the inclusionist approach. In any case, I hope you are not that type of person. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct that there are long unsourced sections which should have sources. However, since some of these sections are both important/basic and "obviously true", I don't think we have to rush to delete them for being unsourced, there may be higher editing priorities. If someone comes and challenges a specific claim, then we can search for a reference or else delete the claim. Ar2332 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the section about leap months it says: “It may be noted that in the Bible the name of the first month, Aviv, literally means "spring". Thus, if Adar was over and spring had not yet arrived, an additional month was observed.” To my understanding this is untrue, while in modern Hebrew ’aviv is the name of spring, it originally meant ripening (or more accurately, the stage before ripening, when the plant was still green) and the meaning of spring is much later, long after the bible was written, in which the month of ’aviv is mentioned. This is inline with the section before it, which speaks about the ripeness of barley. 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why you're transliterating it differently from the in my opinion correct transliteration currently used in the article (aviv). But in any case, the above is just your opinion, or in more precise WP terms WP:OR, because you are not pointing to any scholarly reliable sources that would support this opinion. If you know of such scholarly WP:RS that make a similar argument, please point them out here. Based on such RS, maybe some change in the wording could be made. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to find a scholarly source, for now I can send an article of the Academy for Hebrew that talks about it but it's in Hebrew.

https://hebrew-academy.org.il/2018/03/22/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91/ 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By sheer coincidence, I replaced a "failed verification" citation at March Equinox#Abrahamic tradition with one that may provide a usable source (in English!) Specifically it says that it "barley ripening" has not arrived, leave it another month.

* The Jewish Passover usually falls on the first full moon after the Northern Hemisphere vernal equinox,^[1] although occasionally (currently three times every 19 years^{[citation needed]}) it will occur on the second full moon.^[2]

Any use? Or does my edit need correcting?! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Aviv is indeed "ripening" (see Ex. 9:31). And from there it means the period of ripening = spring. End of discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is, when did it start to be used to mean 'spring", that is a distinct season, and not just the period of, or before, ripening. 147.235.78.30 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does that matter? Debresser (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because if the meaning of spring is much later, than it would be inaccurate to claim that the month of ’aviv in the bible is the month of spring, because when it was written it didn't have this meaning. 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logically speaking, I would think that the meaning of "spring" is probably very early. Are there external reasons to doubt this? Debresser (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have sources indicating it is an early meaning? One that existed when the passage mentioning “the month of ’aviv” was written, or at least around this time? 2A02:6680:1105:A23E:ACB2:6223:8FD5:3C84 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Calculation of the Samaritan calendar has historically been a secret reserved to the priestly family alone, and it is based upon the conjunction of the sun and the moon."

Sources: #1 Crown, Alan. "The Samaritans". Page 700. 1989. #2 Mills, John. "Three Months Residence at Nablus, and an Account of the Modern Samaritans". Page 240. 1864. SaturnsThorn (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the Samaritan Calendar heading, it says that the Samaritan calendar is based upon "observations of the new crescent moon". This is not correct. The Samaritan method is based upon the "conjunction of the moon and sun". This is the day before the sliver of the crescent moon. The first day of the Samaritan month is when the moon is completely dark and invisible from our point of view. My sources are Sylvia Powells's article in Alan Crown's book, "The Samaritans" and John Mills's book "Three Months Residence at Nablus". SaturnsThorn (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SaturnsThorn: It would be better if you could draft the sentence you propose should replace the existing one. One of us will append the citations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: After your latest edit, the article reads: Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the date of Rosh Hashanah. That still doesn't make sense. Should it read Each Hebrew calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the Gregorian calendar date of Rosh Hashanah. Would that help? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sentence is actually: "Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the date of the next Rosh Hashanah.", which makes perfect sense. Don't see reason to change this. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the date of Rosh Hashanah is always 1 Tishrei, by definition. So no matter how long the preceding year is, the date of the next Rosh Hashanah will not be moved: it will still be 1 Tishrei. So no, it doesn't make perfect sense. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is clear enough from the present text, IMHO. Let's ask Ar2332 (talk · contribs) for his opinion. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that we could avoid the confusion about the word "date" by saying Each Hebrew calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the day on which the next Rosh Hashanah falls. Nevertheless I don't think this section has yet reached peak clarity, so I may want to change the sentence more dramatically later. Ar2332 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe moving the day is the key item? Because, as I have already explained, it doesn't (and can't) mean moving the date. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I does mean moving the date, just according to the Gregorian calendar, and that is clear enough form the context, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is more or less what I wrote at the beginning. In an article about the Hebrew calendar, the meaning the word "date" (given without qualification) defaults to the Hebrew date (e.g. 1 Tishrei). Accordingly, I have revised the text to read Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the Gregorian date of Rosh Hashanah. My original "Each Hebrew calendar year begins ..." was a redundant qualification given the article topic, so I am happy to drop that aspect. I hope we can agree that this is a reasonable compromise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am considering deleting the following paragragh:

There is no clock in the Jewish scheme, so that the local civil clock is used. Although the civil clock, including the one in use in Israel, incorporates local adoptions of various conventions such as time zones, standard times and daylight saving, these have no place in the Jewish scheme. The civil clock is used only as a reference point—in expressions such as: "Shabbat starts at ...". The steady progression of sunset around the world and seasonal changes results in gradual civil time changes from one day to the next based on observable astronomical phenomena (the sunset) and not on man-made laws and conventions.

As I see it, it says basically nothing of substance that's non-obvious. It's also very likely wrong, in that the molad/chalakim system is effectively a clock, and shaot zemaniot were apparently used as a crude clock in ancient times. Does anyone disagree and see a reason to keep the paragraph or part of it? Ar2332 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This paragraph seems incorrect. There very much is a clock, just that it doesn't usually concern itself with less than an hour, although that does happen, e.g. the molad time. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

RAmerica011 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]