Talk:Sukkot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Sukkot vs. Sukkah
Hi, I found this article after seeing the term "Sukkah" in a newspaper article. The term "Sukkah" gets used in this article, but is never defined. Is "Sukkah" the singular form of "Sukkot", and the holiday is called by the plural? Do you build a Sukkah on Sukkot? Thanks, Creidieki 23:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Correct. The festival is called Sukkot, which is plural, and the hut is called a Sukkah. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] How many days
The third paragraph should be edited to reflect the Israel/Diaspora dichotomy discussed below wrt Shemini Atzeret. That would probably necessitate a bit of rewriting of both paragraphs to minimize awkwardness. The same goes for the section below entitled "A seven or eight day festival. I may do it when I have time... MOE37x3 20:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, this sentence needs to be removed, for obvious reasons: "A sukkah is a jewish thing that no one wants of about shizzle gizzle gizingar." I tried to do it myself, but couldn't figure it out.
[edit] Added link to entry for Worldwide Church of God
I added a four line entry for Worldwide Church of God at the conclusion of the article due to the several mentions elsewhere concerning this church and the Feast of Tabernacles. See also the entry for the history of Big Sandy Texas. MPLX/MH 06:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sukkah photo
I agree with the most recent edit that the affiliation of the Jews in the graphic is irrelevant. However, I think that the Sukkah pictured is a poor example:
- It looks structurally poor and (IMHO) aesthetically unpleasing.
- More importantly, it is Halachically invalid (at least according to "Orthodox tradition"), since only a minority of the top is covered with schach. I think that it would make more sense for the example of a sukkah pictured in this encyclopedia to be one that everyone would consider to actually be one.
This explains my edit to the caption. Could a better photo be substituted in?
MOE37x3
- I agree that it would be better to use another photo. There are copyright issues with using something like [1], right? How do we get around that? Dreyfus 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
- I also agree. The sekhakh must (traditional, Orthodox, Conservative) or should preferably (Reconstructionist) cover the majority of the top of the sukkah to be considered a valid sukkah. The picture in question is not a good choice for the only picture in an article on Sukkot. How about using Bernhard Picart's picture from the Dutch 1700s...? It is old enough to be PD... -- Olve 03:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Months
It says Tishrai is the first month of the year. Actually, Tishrai is the seventh month, and the year begins on the first day of the seventh month. Should I fix it? Put in an explaination?
Yes, indeed, you're correct. I believe Nissan is the first month of the year.--Lance6968 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Feast of _______?
I've never heard of this title for Sukkot. On Yahoo and Google searches it turned up a couple of very unsavoury sites, on MSN and jewfaq, nothing at all. Anyone know where it comes from? If not, could it be removed please? 62.189.228.3 13:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Vandalism. I've fixed it and warned the unsavoury character who made these edits. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for doing that. Eleanor Miller 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The defamatory reference in the heading hereof amounts to further defamation; accordingly, I have removed it. It should not have been on this site for what is now almost a year. --Lance6968 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ushpizzin
To the best of my knowledge, David was the Second King of Israel. However, I'm not familiar with this tradition or holiday so I don't know if the guest is supposed to be Saul, if the explanation should read "the second king of Israel," or if it is correct as is for reasons unknown to me.--Serf 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox Problem
Fixed the Infobox which did not work - problem was incorrect syntax. --LeFrog 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ushpizziyot
I think his is crazy. There is no source for this! The source for the ushpizzin is the Zohar. And to add that one person in the entire world wants to add in Ruth is no appropriate to put in this at all. This is meant to be a factual explanation of sukkot based on fact and sources. I think this should be removed immediately!
- I also found it quite strange. Some change should be made to this. Amoruso 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually if you do a Google search for “ushpizot” you will find approximately 300 references to this ritual, including explanations, charts and pedagogical material. It is clearly of recent origin and associated with Reform and Renewal practice. Perhaps the transliteration ought to be corrected.Professorkemp 06:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 06:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- If so it should not read "many Jews" but "Reform Jews."
The 1998 Conservative movement prayerbook "Sim Shalom" includes the women (p. 330 in the Shabbat and Festival editions; other editions may vary). The intro text in the book explains that the women have been added to the men mentioned in the Zohar and some of the rationale. Charlesg1 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- it seems similar to the cup of Miriam in passover - new mostly feminist additions. IMO, mention should be made of such customs (they're cute ;) as long as it's only small additions and no alternations I think it's harmless) but the problem was that in the article it was represented as being on the same level of ushpizzin. Amoruso 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split "Sukkah"
It's a reasonably separate topic, big enough to have its own article. 'Nuff said. --Smack (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- good idea, it will also enlarge Category:Sukkot. Amoruso 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move for Semiprotection
FYI I have applied for temporary semi-protection for this article due to the recent barrage of vandalism. Some days I wish I was an admin so that I could have done this myself... Valley2city 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've consistently wondered why people vandalise this article--It's not even a subject most people who aren't Jewish have heard of. As for being an admin, why not apply for it? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Kari, but I think I will wait until I have more of a shot, when I double my edits to 1,500, which should, at my accellerating edit rate, probably be late November. Valley2city 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, hopefully this lessens the vandalism influx. Valley2city 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Kari, but I think I will wait until I have more of a shot, when I double my edits to 1,500, which should, at my accellerating edit rate, probably be late November. Valley2city 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)