Talk:Minyan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
|
|
[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)
[edit] Article Section headers
The article currently has three section headers called "Classical laws", "Rabbinic Judaism", and "Orthodox Judaism". They seem redundant to me because any of the content could be in any of these headers. Does anyone object to eliminating at least one of them? We could simply put everything under "Orthodox Judaism" and add a single sentence that "Orthodox Judaism follows the classical laws (halakha) of Rabbinic Judaism). Best, --Shirahadasha 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intro
"ten or more adult Jews (over the age of 12 for girls and 13 for boys)" - I was under the impression that women could not count as a minyan in Orthodox judiaism. At least when the term is used it normaly reffers to an assembly of ten men or more.Kjsi 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted irrelevant section about geneal prayer requirements
I deleted a few paragraphs that discussed at length the scope of womens' general obligation to pray since these paragraphs never mention how this relates to the issue of minyan. All the quoted sources that require women to pray (such as shulhan aruch) also exclude women from minyan, so the issues are apparently not related, and if they are those paragraphs didnt explore how. YaakovOfNY 21:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've undeleted this content to preserve the status quo pending discussion. I agree that this section could be much better written, is currently unbalanced in its POV, and may even belong somewhere else rather than here. But I don't believe it should be simply deleted. To help explain the issue to a general reader, I would suggest starting with classical Orthodox arguments why women do not count in a minyan for t'filah. (Only those obligated are counted in a minyan for fulfilling an obligation, and t'fillah is a time-bound mitzvah from which women are generally exempt). Once this context is laid out, arguments that women are obligated for at least some portions of t'fillah become more relevant, but shouldn't outweigh the mainstream Orthodox view. I agree the current content is very unbalanced: it completely omits the traditional explanation in a section that is supposed to be on Orthodox views and ought to emphasize them. I also agree that this whole discussion might better belong elsewhere -- perhaps Role of women in Judaism or even a new article on something like Women and prayer in Judaism. I'd be open to suggestions. But I believe it belongs somewhere in the encyclopedia and don't believe it should be out-and-out deleted until a place is found for it. In the meanwhile, feel free to add more information and halachic authorities regarding why women do not count in a minyan for t'fillah in Orthodox Judaism. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, good idea to discuss it 1st I suppose. I wasn't even entering into the POV issues you allude to, I was just saying I don't see how veering off to discuss women's obligation to pray is relevant in an article entitled "minyan". maybe a sentence or 2, but it never connects the 2 issues to each other in the text, so it really belongs in a different article. maybe if i hav time later i'll fix it up. It also seems like original research YaakovOfNY 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted sentence
The sentence was:
- In the last 300 years many traditional rabbis have condoned and enabled trends which allow women to follow many (though not all) of the same prayer requirements made of men.[citation needed]
I undeleted this sentence but on reflection I agree that deleting it is correct although for a different reason than was stated. It represents an analytical/synthetic view and as such requires a WP:RS source, and none has been offered for more than 6 months. Accordingly, it shouldn't go back unless a source is found. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent changes
Hi! I made a few changes to this article including:
- Language clarifying that a minyan exists for multiple purposes and the rules for how one is defined can be different for each purpose.
- A new section on women in minyan in Orthodox Judaism. I attempted to consolidate existing content and added an overview.
- Separated Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism sections.
- Added additional information about Conservative Judaism's approach.
- Consolidated the Rabbinic Judaism and the Orthodox Judaism sections, since after the role of women content was consolidated the Rabbinic Judaism section no longer said much.
Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recommendation for Improving Article
I would like to recommend that Wikipedia contact the principal Jewish denominations for assistance with the writing and editing of articles on Judaism. They should be eager to assist in providing accurate information on their faith.
The article on Minyan's is an example of one article that would benefit from their input.
If you need contact information, I would be happy to provide this.
HenryB2001 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Simplification and Clarification of Iniital Section
I attempted to simplify and clarify the initial paragraphs of the article.
The age requirements should be dealt with in a separate paragraph rather than a parenthetical comment in the first sentence. Also, 13 year old males and 12 year old females count in a minyan, as opposed to being over these ages.
The orthodox exceptions should be dealt with in the section on Orthodox Judaism rather than in the Introduction.
I didn't include links to other articles, as I don't know how to do this.
HenryB2001 (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I had to change the edits you made because you used the strikethrough font rather than actually deleting the text you wanted to delete. I also reworked the introduction from the change you made. The simplified intro as you left it characterized the situation as a binary of general egalitarianism with a small Orthodox exception. I believe the sources show that the actual situation is somewhat more nuanced with both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism having a range of practices and philosophies which are distinctly different from the approaches of movements to their left. I made some additional edits to the introduction in an attempt to provide an overview of this range, which made it somewhat more complicated. I also strongly disagree that the Orthodox approach doesn't belong in the intro. When the intro is presented as a range of views, all the major denominations are appropriately mentioned. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes. The article reads much better than the way I left it. The reason for my comment about the exceptions is one of style. I prefer to keep the introductory material simple and straightforward, and put the details in the body of the article. But, what you did works too.
Relative to the age for girls, I believe it is age 12 and above for Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism. Girls are Bat Mitzvah when they are 12, which makes them an adult. There is also the question if a boy 13 and above, and a female 12 and above, should count if they have not had a B'nai Mitzvah. I don't think that they count because they become an adult in Judaism by B'nai Mitzvah, and not by simply growing older. However, this is probably a moot point, as no one asks if they have had a B'nai Mitzvah.
I am new to editing in Wikipedia. To delete text, do you just hit the delete key ? Do people normally communicate via the discussion page or by e-mail ?
Regards, 66.234.172.214 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)