Talk:Shavuot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Holiday-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of objectives or join the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Judaism Portal
Shavuot is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. 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:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

-

Re "in articles about themselves:"

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

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

- -

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

- -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is "misunderstanding the policy?"

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

- - -

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

- - -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - - -

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

- - - -

Dear Jon,

Yeshua said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


[edit] Bikurim Photo

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

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