Talk:Minyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minyan is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism.
Portal:Judaism
 Judaism Portal
If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Recent "NPOV" edits

Jayjg reverted a number of my edits, for reasons I don't entirely understand. Rather than get into a revert war, I am posting the edits here for discussion.

  • The second paragraph ends in a comma.
    • Good point. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed "synagogues" to "communities", since many circumstances requiring a minyan take place outside of synagogues, e.g. saying "eloheinu" in birkat hamazon, saying kaddish at a cemetery.
    • Is a group of people at a gravesite or saying birkat hamazon a "community"? Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No, but they probably adhere to some sort of community norm about how to count a minyan. Dreyfus 03:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Probably? Synagogues are where formal policy is executed. Anyway, what do you think of the current version, I've added "prayer gatherings". Jayjg 03:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Looks good, and thanks for clarifying the other points. Dreyfus 21:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Non-Orthodox minyanim include women and men, not only women.
    • As is obvious from the context. The paragraphs discusses the traditional definition of a minyan, which was men only. It then notes that non-Orthodox minyans include women as well. Saying men and women is redundant, all minyanim include men. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, to split a few hairs here, there is a traditional minority opinion that women may form a separate minyan for Zimmun — which would by definition not include any men... :-) -- Olve 00:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • This is for counting three women to the zimmun, but under that opinion, ten or more women wouldn't say "eloheinu". I don't think there is any opinion under which 10 women (exclusively women) count toward anything. Dreyfus 01:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • What about 10 women counting toward a minyan for purposes of e.g. (1) Megillat Ester; (2) Birchat Hagomel; (3) Public Martyrdom --Shirahadasha 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • The article says that minyan relates to (D'varim SheB'Kedusha "Holy utterances") in that sense women are definitely not included. In terms of minyan of wittiness being a public not a private event, I think I remember that there might be those that include women. If can quote sources (preferably reshomin) include it. But you should make clear that they are two (at least) meanings to minyan (ie (1) Megillat Ester; (2) Birchat Hagomel; (3) Public Martyrdom are not D'varim SheB'Kedusha) Jon513 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
              • This is the main context in which the concept of minyan is applies, but it is not the only one, and the article also mentions other contexts in which the concept of minyan is used and to which the concept relates. Surely you're not suggesting removing mention of these other contexts. As Frimmer's article points out, the term 'minyan' is used in a number of contexts, in some of which women are counted, in others not. --Shirahadasha 19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I think that if you can source these claims well (reshomin and achromin and responsa) then include it in a way that that shows how there are two concepts of minyan in the orthodox judasim. Jon513 16:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
                • It's not clear that we have a dispute. I'm not claiming that these other contexts (Birkhat HaGomel and so forth) are D'varim SheBa'Kedusha; I'm only saying that the concept of minyan nonetheless applies to them; D'varim ShBe'Kedusha isn't the only context to which 'minyan' refers. Do you disagree with this? And isn't the Frimmer article with its list of contexts and discussion of sources for each context an acceptable source? --Shirahadasha 21:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • For Rishonim permitting ten women to say Zimmun beShem, see hamMeiri (Berachot 47a), Sefer hammeorot (Berachot 45b), Shilté haggibborim (Berachot 7:2, citing haRosh)... :) -- Olve 05:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • [Under "Changes in non-Orthodox forms of Judaism"] "Since that the time practice..." doesn't appear to be a grammatical sentence.
    • Good point. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "(though Orthodox Jews do not accept their validity)" -- isn't this obvious? Is this not sufficiently clear from the section heading that says "non-Orthodox forms of Judaism"? Is it also necessary to say "though Muslims do not accept their validity"? Maybe prefacing "Rabbinical Assembly" with "the Conservative movement's" would be enough to get the point across.
    • It may be obvious to you, but I doubt it is obvious to the casual reader. The paragraph outlines non-halakhic responses, then halakhic responses, noting that the Orthodox do not view these as truly halakhic. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "do not see themselves as bound by halakha" and "thus they disregard the traditional prohibition of counting women as part of a minyan" -- this phrasing isn't appropriate if the article is written from a neutral POV (rather than an Orthodox POV). The Orthodox position on the issue is already laid out very clearly in the section "Laws", citing the Shulchan Aruch, Mishnah Berurah, etc. It is clear that the liberal positions are incompatible with that position, and it is only fair to also show the liberal perspectives in their own language. It would be equally inappropriate to write "Orthodox rabbis do not see themselves as bound by egalitarianism, thus they disregard the Reform prohibition of excluding women from a minyan." The primary reason that Orthodox minyanim include only men is because the halakhic sources require this, and the primary reason that Reform minyanim include men and women is because gender equality requires this; the fact that both are at the same time rejecting other positions should go without saying.

Dreyfus 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • The Reform position of not seeing themselves bound by halakha came long before the current position on egalitarianism; it would be disingenuous to conflate the two. The Reform position is as a result of both those imperatives, and the current wording presents the Reform position in their own language. The counter-example (Orthodox rabbis do not see themselves as bound by egalitarianism, thus they disregard the Reform prohibition of excluding women from a minyan) is not reasonable, since Orthodoxy never was "bound by egalitarianism", whereas the primary split from tradition by Reform was its insistence that it was not bound by halakha. It is a curiousity that the Reform movement feels minyanim are required at all, I wonder if all Reform temples hold to this requirement. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also "most Conservative Jewish synagogues" -- here's one source: [1] "According to movement officials, however, only about 10% of Conservative congregations still maintain a complete ban on women leading services or receiving Torah honors, while another 20% still uphold some restrictions. The proportion of egalitarian to non-egalitarian congregations has flipped during the past two decades, with two-thirds now providing equal ritual opportunities to both men and women." Dreyfus 02:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good find. Jayjg 02:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hauptman's analysis

I have not yet included any of the following points in this article. However, it should be noted that Professor Hauptman's work is considered authoritative by many non-Orthodox Jews, and is widely ciruclated and read by modern Orthodox Jewish women. Her halakhic analysis of classical rabbinic texts has been used in several Orthodox gatherings. While I assume that most Orthodox Jews would disagree with parts of her analysis, her point of view is now considered pretty mainstream outside of Orthodoxy. (That is not to say that she is the only mainstream non-Orthodox point of view.)

The Mishna and Talmud nowhere exclude women from participating in the modern day form of minyan. In fact, "in all four cases where the Talmud or its commentators allude to gender and minyan, opportunities for minyan participation are extended to women" [Hauptman]. In Judaism Fall 1993 v42(4) Judith Hauptman, professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:

R. Joshua b. Levi (BT Megillah 4a) obligates women to read or hear a reading of the megillah, just like men, it follows, according to some authorities, that women may count in the minyan for reading the megillah, and even read it for men.
The Mishnah (Megillah 4:3, Megillah 23b) states that no fewer than ten must gather to read the Torah in public. A tannaitic source [cited on that page]...says that women may be called to read from the Torah in public, and that, in fact, everyone, even a child, is qualified to read. Can there by any doubt, in these circumstances, that women count in the required minyan?
According to some authorities, women's obligation to recite Grace is Biblical, and a woman can therefore recite Grace for a man. It would also seem to follow that she could then count in the quorum of three for zimmun and the quorum of ten for zimmun in God's name. In fact, R. Judah Hacohen (Mainz, c. 1050) and other authorities rule that a woman may count in a men's zimmun.
If a Jew is asked to violate a commandment of Torah in a public setting, or else die, he must choose death. A public setting is defined as the presence of a minyan of ten Jews (asarah b'nei adam). According to some recent authorities, women are counted in the minyan for kiddush hashem because they, like men, are obligated by this mizvah. Again, the principle at work here is that people who are similarly obligated join together to form a minyan.
...the general defining quality of those who count in a minyan is obligation, unless explicitly stated to the contrary. Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer.


Hauptman's analysis is superficial, and fails to recognize that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others, and definitely do not count in others. I think a full explanation of them is beyond the scope of this article, but I recommend this work to you for a better understanding: [2] . It's by Aryeh Frimer, and written as a pre-cursor to the article you've referred to many times regarding women's prayer groups. Jayjg 19:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, again you are attacking statements that no one has made. Contrary to your claims, Professor Hauptman never said that all minyanim are the same; she in fact says the exact opposite. You have a tendency to do this, and you need to take the time to read the text more carefully. RK
I read the article you link to. The article does not state that the Mishna rules that ten men are needed to constiute a minyan. Rather, it only talks about ten people, without limiting them to being men. That is precisely the point. No code of Jewish law before the 16th century has this limitation. Now, I understand that this may be uncomfortable to some people, but we cannot rewrite history. RK 15:00, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the Rishonim (early medieval rabbis) do not allow ten women to constitute a woman's minyan. However, as Professor Hauptman has proven (and no one has ever shown otherwise) there is no explicit source among rishonim that limits a minyan to an all-male group. This does allow for women to be part of a minyan that also includes men. I understand that Orthodox rabbis today usually assume that such total prohibitions exist, but the problem for them is that they simply do not. The only tosafot on this topic does not ban women counting in a minyan at all; rather, it only bans an all-women minyan. The Tosafot on this issue does not address the issue of a mixed men and women prayer quorum. Now, I would agree with you that according to Orthodox understandings of halakha, women are prohibited from counting in a minyan, and I never claimed otherwise. I am merely pointing out that what Orthodoxy bases itself on did not actually exists as a formal law until relatively recently. You need to stop deleting the historical context of this subject. All Wikipedia articles on all facets of religion have such historical discussions; you cannot deem this "irrelevant" and delete it. RK 15:21, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Understanding the Mishnaic idiom is critical to understanding why and how it uses language. I again recomment Frimer's article for an understanding of the different types of minyanim, and their various restrictions (some types of minyan allowing women to be counted, some not). Historical context is good, but it must be accuate as well. Please bring major changes to the Talk: page for discussion first before entering them, particularly on this topic. Jayjg 16:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, again, you are rebutting a charge that Professor hauptman is not making. Stop these straw-man attacks. RK
Also, stop repeatedly reverting this article to remove historical discussions about how these laws evolved. RK 17:12, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't rebutted any charges of Hauptman. Historical discussions are only worthwhile if they are factually accurate. Jayjg 17:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I won't get into this pointless debate, Jay. I have no intention of debating about whether Professor Hauptman is right or wrong. You can believe whatever you like. When you get your Ph.D. in rabbinics and Talmud, and also semicha (rabbinic ordination), you can rebut her on equal ground all you like. RK 02:21, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Since I'm not debating whether or not Hauptman is right or wrong (as my previous comment made clear), your comments are incomprehensible. Jayjg 04:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are simply lying. You debated her above, and then a few minutes later, you debated her points below! Stop playing games. RK
Please review the time stamps on the edits, and note in which thread the discussion occur. Each thread is a separate discussion. In this thread I made the comments above first; then, in response to your insistence on discussing Hauptman's arguments, I relented and discussed them below in a different thread. Jayjg 15:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Jay, I do not follow you. Professor Hauptman writes that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others, and may not in others. You rebut her by claiming "Hauptman's analysis is superficial, and fails to recognize that there are different kinds of minyanim, and that women definitely count in some, may count in others" Huh? You thus totally agree with her claim on this point, and yet simultaneously argue that she is factually inaccurate. How can you say such a thing? This makes no sense to me. RK

JFW, how do you see his? Do you see Hauptman's above quote as denying that different kinds of minyanim exist? Perhaps Jay is disagreeing with her conclusion that women may count in a minyan, but that is a separate issue, and one that Jay did not mention. Issue (A) is whether or not there is one kind of minyan, each with its own qualifications. Issue (B) is whether or not women may count in one or more of these minyanim, which is a separate issue. Issue (C) would be, based on these mishnayot, can we pasken that women may count in the minyan in which the main prayer services are being held (saying the Shemoneh Esrah, etc.) RK

I have only been talking about issue (A), which Jay agrees with, and yet which he simultaneously is disagreeing with. I don't follow this at all. Please note that I have said nothing in the article about Hauptman's analysis; I understand that this is not accepted by any Orthodox authorities, and that there are some Conservative authorities (e.g. Joel Roth) who disagree. If this view is mentioned in the article, it would only be presented as a Conservative viewpoint. RK 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Since you insist on discussing Hauptman's arguments, the problem with them is that they do not recognize the fact that there are different types of minyanim, and that under halakha women are counted in some, and not counted in others. Rather, Hauptman assumes that all minyanim are the same, and that because women can be counted in some, they can therefore be counted in all. If you believe that Hauptman distinguishes between different types of minyanim, please present her taxonomy. Jayjg 04:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Stop lying. I said the exact opposite, that I will not discuss or debate Hauptman's point of view with you. Further, stop lying about Professor Hauptman's paper; she says the exact opposite of what you claim. Your repeated lies about me and her only further diminish your credibility. RK
I can only repeat, "if you believe that Hauptman distinguishes between different types of minyanim, please present her taxonomy." Jayjg 15:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "belief". She states this explicitly, and some of her explicit quotes on this subject are on this very page. You are simply making false claims about her explicit statements. I cannot imagne why other than some sort of personal anger towards her. In any case, the issue of whether her conclusion is correct is a totally separate issue, and I will not use the Talk page to debate the issue. Debate her elsewhere. RK 16:02, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
We are currently discussing whether (as you insist is the case) Hauptman stated that there were different kinds of minyanum, in which women had different statuses, not whether her conclusions were correct. Hauptman states Since women are obligated to read the megillah, die for kiddush hashem, recite Grace, and theoretically are qualified to read the Torah in public, just like men, and may therefore count in the minyan for these mizvot, and since, as I demonstrated in my previous article, women are obligated to pray at least twice daily, just like men, it follows that they may count in the minyan for prayer. Exactly where does she state that a minyan to read the megillah, or die for kiddush hashem, or a minyan for prayer, are different kinds of minyanim, with different status for women? In fact, she says the opposite, that these are all the same, and therefore women can be counted in all of them. If she anywhere says that a minyan for megillah is halachically different than a minyan for prayer, please quote it, rather than continually accusing me of lying or making false claims, or using ad hominem arguments to attribute emotion on my part towards her. Jayjg 16:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In any event, this has nothing to do with the dispute we are having on the article page itself. Regarding that, as I have stated a number of times before, please bring the text you wish to insert to this Talk: page so that we can discuss it here first, rather than in one liners in the Edit Summary box. Jayjg 04:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have not read Prof. Hauptman's work, so I cannot contribute to the discussion about what she is actually saying in general. However, it is a fact that there is a mahloqet, including within Orthodoxy, whether minyanim are all the same or of different categories in halakha — and there are important authorities holding the view that all minyanim come under the same category as well as important halakhic authorities that hold the view that minyanim differ in nature regarding degree of obligation, their degree of public nature, their modesty considerations, etc. Other Orthodox authorities hold the view that minyanim are all the same in this respect and that women should not be counted in any minyan. All that being said, I will provide my analysis of the quote that Jayjg provides from her work. This quote seems to suggest that she 1) views the different types of minyanim as different, and 2) views the diverse arguments as backing up her conclusion that women should be included in all these categories. That is not substantially different in terms of logic from other opinions which hold that there are different types of minyanim, and that for differing reasons, women should not count in any of them. I agree with Jayjg that ad hominem arguments are bad. Please excuse me for observing that the escalation seems not to be entirely one-sided... :] -- Olve 01:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is a four month old debate, and RK has since been banned from Wikipedia. Any escalation has long since subsided. Jayjg 05:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox/Conservative

I'm not sure why the addition about where Orthodox and Conservative minyanim can coexist is relevant. I know of at least one place where Orthodox minyanim meet in Conservative synagogues - not in commmunity centers. chaitov 05:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The previous wording gave the impression that it was common, whereas in reality it is quite uncommon, as the movements generally do not co-operate to that extent. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. chaitov 05:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
  • Someone (165.89.84.86 (talk • contribs)) added a huge section, consisting mainly of original research, about a halakhic technicality used by some modern orthodox groups to allow women to participate in a minyan. The number of groups worldwide must be <50, making this a completely fringe phenomenon that serves only to show how easily people are willing to bend halakhah for political purposes.
If this needs to be covered at all, a short section of 2-3 lines should do. The removed material is in the history[3]. JFW | T@lk 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps its own article, but not here. It is not a minyan, per se, it is a minyan-like gathering. Its own article with a link here under "See also" seems most appropriate. Avi 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "…serves only to show how easily people are willing to bend halakhah for political purposes."

To be as NPOV as possible, devil's advocate would claim they are not bending halakha, but coming to their own agreement within its structure. My personal opinion is that this has some semblance of Naval B'rshus HaTorah Avi 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Its own article? It would become a POV fork. Actually, reinterpreting the Gemara by totally ignoring the poskim is something more than what you are suggesting. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
JFW, as much as I agree with the impropriety and distortion of halakha that this phenomenon creates; this is wikipedia, not MTJ, and this is not a forum for halakhic disputes. The phenomenon exists, as do other phenomena that people find distasteful. I agree that at this point it may be fringe; Google only finds one website, Tehila.org, last I checked. But the fact that this may be a perversion of halakha does not invalidate it from having an entry, per se, IMO. Avi 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
However, I still believe that it does not belong on this page, but on its own page. Avi 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV of WP does not mean that every last conceivable point must be raised, only that of the majority and significant minority. See relevant policy page NPOV#Undue weight, where Jimbo Wales is quoted as stating: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia ...". Remember this is just a general encyclopedia (allbeit very good with breadth & depth). David Ruben Talk 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
In that case, it should not be included.Avi 02:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Eliezer, we have precedent that the links need to be specifically-minyan related. A link to a general Chabad-Lubavitch page is beyond the scope of the article. If this should change should be discussed here, and not in a revert-war. However, until precedent is changed, I am removing the link (A Chazaka D'Mayikara if you will, until Acharei Rabim L'hatos changes it.) -- Avi 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the page you will see that it is not a general page rather it is a search for events, and Minyanim. About the link that you quoted I have added it as well but to the correct part of that site. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I am now removing the other link as it appears that it has no data once you do the searches. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Eliezer, the Chabad link is not a minyan-specific link. It explicitly states it is a search for Educational Activities, Classes, Social Events, Prayer Services... Now if you had a link to all the various Batei Chabad or Lubavitcher shteiblach together with their zmanei t'fillah, then that would be appropriate. I beleive that precedent as it stands would hold this inappropriate. I also believe it would be helpful to poll the other editors of frumkeit-related issues on this topic. If that doesn't work, perhaps we should seek mediation. -- Avi 16:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look on the page there is an option to select just prayer services. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As long as one could search for Minyanim on that page there is no reason why it should not be listed. For anyone searching for a Minyan, this would be the best link outhere. Henochz 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What??? Not one minyan in Bnei Berak? I filled in City: Bnei Brak. Minyan for: -- Any -- Nusach: -- Any -- Context: -- Any -- Prayer Service: -- Any -- Has handicap access -- without -- Contains words: -- nothing -- Order results by: -- nothing--

Results: NOT ONE MINYAN IN BNEI BRAK!!! Can you believe it??? Several other places I tried had one or no Minyan. Looks like an interesting tool, once there is some data in it. Now the results look as if they were taken directly out of a broadcast of Shinui's accomplishments over the last couple of years ;-) Good luck with the development, gidonb 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right which is why it was removed... --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
OK thank you. The Chabad link is somewhat of the question of the full and empty half glass. Should we concentrate on what ought to be there or on what should not be there. I will go for the full half glass, since the minyanim are relevant. Yet also the Chabad list misses many regular minyan services that Chabad holds and entire countries in which the movement is active. It is not as bad as the other site. gidonb 18:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It misses any entries for Monsey and Tel Aviv, and doesn't even offer options for Jerusalem and Lakewood? It's response for New York City is two. There are more Chabad houses than that in one neighborhood in Queens! So is its response for London. What gives? This search engine is as weak as the other one. -- Avi 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If the criteria was that it had to be comeplete than the other two links shouldn't be there either. The other one had 0 results for any location! Try doing a search with a zip code instead, and you will get much more results. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Avi asked for my opinion. I have my doubts about all the links provided. None of these sites had useful information about the nature of a minyan, which is presumably the reason someone would be looking up that word in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a link repository. These are closer to community forums (which are generally not OK to link) than to any category that is generally considered appropriate to link. If one of these is to be preserved, at least the GoDaven link has the virtue of being (at least apparently) broad and open rather than specific to a particular group. - Jmabel | Talk 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
(after an edit conflict) A zip code can give a huge range around it, through adjacent codes. The issue which we should address is whether these minyan pages that operate as "event calenders" do not suggest, through underdeveloped databases, that people should go the other side of their town, next state or even country to attend a minyan. This situation differs tremendously from the more reliable synagogue lists. Technically the problem is not necessary, recurring minyanim for all services throughout the year can easility be entered, reality is however that they are just not there. gidonb 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Avi solicited my opinion on this conflict over which links are appropriate to include, so here goes... I think all the links are problematic, at least the way they're presented. The godaven one is probably the only one that's worth keeping. While the others have merit in their own small way, they're really not exactly what they're presented as in the External Links section, and if their descriptions were changed to something more appropriately descriptive of where the links take you, the rationale for including them suddenly becomes very clouded. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link farm. Now, as for the godaven link, it too has a problem with the way it's presented (and this is where I see serious problems with the other links as well)...it should say clearly in the description for all these sites that they list only Orthodox minyanim. I have no problem not running around looking for a database of reform minyanim (if such things even exist), but I think NPOV rather clearly dictates that, while the sites linked to are not required to be NPOV, we have to be, as editors, including in our description of any POV websites; therefore, I think that link description should say something like "GoDaven.com - Find an orthodox minyan anywhere in the world". Although the list is far from complete (woefully so, in fact), at least it's better than the chabad-only event calendar thing. If you're really trying to connect people to synagogues or chavuroth, however, the best approach, imho, would be to include a link to mavensearch's synagogue listing, which is by far the most complete list I know of for the whole world, and irrespective of affiliation. Now to some of the other comments, first, gidon, I think you may be confusing ZIP codes for Area codes. For Eliezer and Avi specifically, what Joe says is very important to keep in mind, and hopefully will help resolve this issue--I think you're approaching the difference of opinion you have from the wrong perspective: instead of asking "is this a good link to include for listings of minyanim", ask yourself "is this a good link to include to help the reader learn more about what a minyan is (not what happens at a minyan by attending one, but by reading further information not included in this article)?" That said, to Joe, even GoDaven has the arguable "weakness" I mentioned earlier about listing only Orthodox minyanim (and quite incompletely, I might add)...regardless of our personal views about what constitutes a valid minyan or valid practice of Judaism, it should not affect our editing... <additional extraneous ramblings deleted /> Tomertalk 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Tomer I am glad you agree with me. I am of course well acquainted with different level geographies. Although I have long ago broken away from geography, it is still very much my passion. Cheers, gidonb 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tomer. The two Chabad links look like little more than free advertising for Chabad's many worthwhile outreach programs, and their listings are woefully inadequate. In all of Israel I only found listings for one minyan on the Chabad International Event Calendar—the one at Chabad House in Ashkelon. On Minyan Maps, nothing at all came up for Jerusalem, where you can find a minyan on every corner. While we at Wikipedia are constantly in the process of expanding articles with more information/details, is the same true for these links? The GoDaven link does have some benefit, though it should be clarified that it is for Orthodox minyanim. Mavensearch's synagogue listing is a far better link which should definitely be included. Yoninah 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jmabel and especially Tomer on this one; none of the links are appropriate for this article. External links should be to appropriate articles about the topic of a minyan, links that contain information not found in the article. They should not simply be advertising for various Orthodox minyan finding services. I'll add a couple of links of the kind I think are more appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all. After reading your respective comments, I think Tomer had it best. One can use Google to find a list of minyanim, of whatever denomination. This article should only link to sites that help explain/clarify the concept of a minyan. Thanks again, your collected input is much appreciated. -- Avi 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, those links look much more like what I was recommending. All that remains is for Eliezer and Avi to shake hands and have a beer. Tomertalk 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 :-) -- Avi 02:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly looks better. I added another general link. The idea of Minyan databases is not wrong, yet the currently available sites are weak. Since as an encyclopedia we are not into event calanders, there is no need to worry about it. Cheers, gidonb 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, this is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. When you are travelling, and you look for a minyan, you look up the local Chabad House. This isn't new. Let the link stand. It is actually useful. If Wikipedia actually wants to create a better, more comprehensive database, then yasher koach. Barring that, a list of Chabad Houses (and, btw, the OU's list http://ou.org/network/synagogues/synagogues.cfm) is a perfectly reasonable link to have here. I do not think the links need to be limited to simple descriptions, if nothing else than to provide examples someone interested may want to visit. As far as denomination, Reform acknowledges that its congregations rarely have weekday services (read introduction to their prayer book) and Conservative fares little better. Not to mention the fact that minyan is a halachic requirement, not a term for "services." PhatJew 03:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rediculous is a rather big word. If you write Chabad in the search window you get to a very detailed page on the movement with links. Fourth link is "Global Chabad-Lubavitch Centers and Institutions Directory". On Google write "Chabad", click "I'm feeling lucky", choose last option and you got it. Your last point actually strengthens the position that the event calanders do not really belong here. gidonb 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was not about Chabad. Anyone who wants to find a Chabad house can. I was talking about finding a minyan...which is why I suggested the OU link. But, some people can only see things in terms of Chabad/non-Chabad, which is pretty sad. PhatJew 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against Chabad. On the contrary. We discussed the general weaknesses of these minyan engines before. I am in favor of the idea, yet the execution is very bad. gidonb 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have a few problems with Chabad on a personal level, but I have nothing against them from an editorial standpoint. As gidonb says tho, well, as gidonb says, agreeing with me, there are problems with the links in question. Let's not make this a matter of sectarianism, and stick with the subject at hand. Tomertalk 21:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eliezer & Chabad links

It's been pretty evident for some time now that User:Eliezer views Wikipedia as just another huge cyber-billboard to plaster as many links to Chabad-related sites no matter where and when, just the more the merrier (from his perspective). He has been called upon to stop this a number of times, but persists in justifying himself. Note to Eliezer: Maybe you may have noticed that other editors are getting just a little too tired of this habit of yours and they're not enjoying seeing all those Chabad links get peppered onto pages, so please slooooooow dooooooown sooooooon. Thanks. IZAK 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that other Jewish sites like aish which are about the same size as chabad.org have links on all Judaism related pages, and for a good reason, they (chabad and aish) are the two largest sites on the internet that have Jewish content. and following WP:EL under "What should be linked to" it says "4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. 5. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.", for this reason they are there, I am not the only editor that has added the chabad links, and there were plenty of them around before I started editing here. About your comment that I view wikipedia "as just another huge cyber-billboard" is outrageous as it is pretty evident from the more than 4,000 edits and numerous projects I am involved in on wikipedia. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Eliezer: There is more to Jewish life, in reality as well as in cyberspace, than Chabad and Aish. They are both "attention-seeking" organizations that like to "toot their horns" for PR ends. That they have used millions of donated dollars to create wonderful websites is good and well, but they should not be allowed to have their links give the impression on Wikipedia that they are in any way shape size or form the "spokes-persons" for (Orthodox} Judaism in cybespace -- because they are not, and enough Jewish editors on Wikipedia know that, and therefore do not appreciate seeing multiple links to either Chabad or Aish sites on every Wikipedia article relating to Judaism. There are lots of other good choices available and we all know it. Kindly do not create noisy and verbose "smoke-screens" to detract from the complaints against you as stated above by a number of well-intentioned editors who mean you nor Chabad no harm, but wish that the Chabad-posters kindly tone down their "in your face" approach of link-encroachment which starts to take on the appearance of a "missionary" creeping annexation, to which the response will be "delete on sight". So let's avoid that kind of situation by everyone, please. IZAK 08:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What there is no List of Chabad.org links, Feh! ems 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] minyanmaps.com

I'm not the one to judge: I notice the recently added minyanmaps.com. Should it be kept? - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Book of Numbers reference?

In the article it says:

In fact, the requirement comes from the sin of the spies (Numbers 14:27), in which the ten spies who bring a negative report of the land of Israel are referred to as an eidah or congregation (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 23b)

yet, Numbers 14:27 says (at least in my KJV bible)

How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.

I'm not a bible scholar, but after reading and re-reading Chapters 13 and 14 I can't find support for the article text. To summarise; Numbers 13 names the 10 who went to scout the promised land (one of them was Caleb the son of Jephunneh). They found the land was good and reported thus, but they also found the land was occupied and feared that the current occupants were stronger than them. However Caleb (as previously mentioned) was supportive of going forth and taking the land. So only 9 of the 10 could really be considered as objecting in any form.

In Numbers 14; all the congregation lifted up their voice and all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron. This suggests that the later congregation mentioned in Chapter 27 refers to the whole people who were grumbling, rather than the 10 who'd gone out, and the 9 who were afraid to invade.

If someone could suggest an alternate reading that does support the article's interpretation, I would be most interested.

-- Jarich 13:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. There were 12 spies sent out in Chapter 13, one for each of the 12 tribes. Joshua and Caleb provided a "good" report (Numbers 14:6), leaving 10 to provide a "bad" one. The 10 were able to turn the entire people around to their ends, the 2 were not able to do this. Thus 10 were able to speak to and for the entire people in a way that 2 could not. One may think these verses don't deserve the load placed on them, but Judaism has an oral tradition in which non-obvious meanings are sometimes inferred from Biblical verses through the oral tradition. This particualr inference has a rather long-standing role in Jewish tradition. The article is talking about classical Jewish beliefs which one may or may not agree with. It's not trying to provide an author's own personal interpretation of the Bible. --Shirahadasha 16:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Thankyou for the clarification. Jarich 10:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar / Linguistic nit

Wow, well, my question is not contentious as the above . The following sentence confused me: "It is also used as a collective noun, as in "do we have a minyan?"" It seems to me that the word is a collective noun, period. How does the usage given in the example differ from the basic use of the word? Perhaps the author of that sentence wanted to convey that it is sometimes used as a semi-ironic or clever substitute for 'quorum'? If so, I'd recommend a little clarification. "It is also used by some Jews and non-Jews as a ironic, humourous, pseduo-learned, or possibly even serious synonym for "quorum" for activities having nothing to do with jewish observances." I'm loathe to make the edit myself because maybe I missing the point, and the minyan itself is not a collective noun, or I'm running afoul of some Brit/US "team is" / "team are" pluralism issue. But I'm enough of a word nerd to bring it up here.  :) Paulc206 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A minyan refers to both a quorum (for prayer services and a number of other religious activities), and to a group of people who conduct a prayer service. But when it refers to a group of people it a prayer service is involved. --Shirahadasha 03:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, "Do we have a minyan?" is (in a religious context) like "Do we have quorum?" That's a slightly different usage than if the expression were "Are we a minyan?" - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Talk%7EMinyan_c748.html"