Jump to content

Talk:Kiddush levana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Blessing" vs. "Sanctification" & the definite article in Hebrew

[edit]

The interwiki link is to the page for ברכת הלבנה in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Note that it relates to the prayer (תפילה) or literally, "blessing" of the [new] moon, while this page is for the "ritual" consisting of "a series of prayers." Why the discrepancy between language versions; does this need to be reconciled or clarified? Furthermore, should the English Wikipedia page be titled Kiddush HaLevana with the definite article? What is the conventional nomenclature, and how can this be reflected in the English? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "blessing the moon" is pagan not far removed from primitives worshipping the sun and/or moon? (David Kravitz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.82.81 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blessing the moon" is not the same as "Being blessed by the moon". In this case, the prayers specifically bless G-d for creating the heavenly bodies with a word. We are acknowledging the significance of the new moon as it relates to our calendar, and thanking G-d for giving use the means to regulate the year and schedule our holidays (Ex 12:1-2).Pedantrician (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kiddush levana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvements

[edit]

Kudos on the progress made to this article. Steps to improve this article include:

Btw, the illustrations are good.

Sources that might be helpful:

Hope this is helpful. ProfGray (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, ProfGray. I have spent quite a bit of time fixing citation format, adding secondary sources and trying to make it NPOV. I also added a section on non-Orthodox Judaism. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what else should be done? Thanks very much. Dovidroth (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see the improvements made in the last day or so, here's some detailed feedback:
POV issues:
  • "Normally" -- treats Orthodox as the norm. Delete. Add a sentence that the exemption does not apply in Conservative Judaism (or in non-Orthodox Judaisms).
  • There are improvements, but I'd caution against "the halacha follows" and "the normative custom" without an explicit attribution.
  • By the way, the current Orthodox sources are mostly Ashkenazi, right? Are there differences with current Sephardic/Mizrachi customs?
  • The sentence about Isaac Klein is biased against Conservative Judaism, partly because of "in theory" (seems dismissive and not in the source) and partly because it emphasizes his point about "all but forgotten" (in a subordinate clause) yet ignores what he says in the rest of that paragraph, e.g., "it embodies much that might be appealing to contemporary Jews" and "has a mystic, haunting air about it." (p.267) quoting Millgram.
  • Update: Klein seems based on Millgram. Do you have access? He says "now hardly known" and not in siddurim (writing in 1971). He identifies it as a distinct service (not in WP article?) and he mentioned geonic period. (Any other sources on Geonim?)
  • Reform "traditionally not observed" -- is that sourced? I know it's currently true, but I'm not sure what is "traditionally" Reform, and it would be best to have a source or maybe omit it.
  • Btw, you might add a source about current observance in Orthodoxy, e.g., from OU.org.
  • (You might add a sentence or two about Chabad or other hasidic groups. Did you know that Chabad started a kiddush levana campaign in 1992? See: https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/79163/jewish/The-Rebbes-Kiddush-Levanah.htm)
  • David Levy 2010 dissertation. Did you get access to a copy? The link in the ref didn't work for me. I do see a brief mention of it here: http://www2.huc.edu/external/newsletter/10/02/25/ Is the article adding, "whom the Reform movement has had difficulty engaging" because that's a key point by Levy?
  • RitualWell -- instead of a "describes itself as" framing (which seems to cast doubt), just say: Ritualwell, a website for progressive Jewish rituals, ....
  • Ritualwell -- "these are not based on the traditional liturgy" -- added unnecessarily, again as if everything should be measured against the traditional
Section headings -- need to improve order of sections and consistency of content within sections:
  • History. Are there any sources that trace the history of the ritual? This section has 1 sentence of history, rest is about location for ritual. Sentence on timing does not belong here. See the Ency Judaica (EJ) for history, mentioning Talmudic sources, Soferim, and Second Temple period.
  • Timing. This section needs some reorganizing. Maybe a lead sentence to sum up key points and/or timing options? Paras 1,2,6 are about regular timing, and 6 should in 1st or 2nd position, right? Paras 3 and 5 are about exceptions or special timing, right? Para 4 -- not so much about timing as about the mourner, e.g., who says it.
  • Ritual -- this is a general heading and I'd expect a description of the ritual here. Maybe a block quote or otherwise give text of the core blessing? But this also has the location (see current history section) and Saturday timing (timing section). The EJ gives the most common elements, not all in article yet.
Other points:
  • "While the mainstream practice in Orthodox Judaism is that women do not recite Kiddush Levana" -- I think the sources mean that women are not obligated, right? Is there a source about mainstream practice in US, Israel, or elsewhere? Fwiw, I've seen women say it in the U.S., though I think that's uncommon.
  • JOFA -- does it make a ruling? Didn't they cite a rabbinic source?
References:
  • There's improvement with the cited references.
  • Can you access the EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica, "Moon, Blessing of the" article? Could be very helpful as an English source,
  • However, there is still a heavy reliance on primary halakhic sources. I personally appreciate it, but it's not typical for Wikipedia or GA status. Look at the current list of FA and GA articles on Judaism. I see few if any of these kinds of primary sources. If you want to move forward with a GA nomination with such sources, I would want to get other opinions on this aspect of the review.
  • Is there Wikipedia guidance on how to cite rabbinic sources? For instance, do we need publisher name and standard pages to specific versions? That would require a significant amount of editing of the references.
  • Wikipedia style would avoid multiple references for a given sentence. Currently there are many sentences with two or three footnotes. Why is that? I can imagine that much could be done with just the JE (English) and Ency Judaica. Ency Talmudit cover so much, but if I were to check, I'd want to know the original primary sources and I also wonder if it's a burden on English readers to rely too much on it.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks again for your work on this piece. ProfGray (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. -- Just asked the Judaism Wikiproject about how to handle rabbinic references. ProfGray (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Profgray for you details comments.
  • I have removed any references to "normally" or "the halacha follows". I removed the unsourced claim that Reform Judaism doesn't generally practice this ritual. And I fixed the description of RitualWell. If you have any other ideas for making it NPOV, please let me know.
  • Yes, I was able to download a PDF of the HUC thesis; if the direct link isn't working for you, maybe try here and clicking on the "Access Online" link on the top right. If that still doesn't work, I'm glad to send you a PDF offline. In any case, I added "whom the Reform movement has had difficulty engaging" because it is a key point by Levy.
  • Regarding your question if the sources are Ashkenazic or Sephardic: I have tried to cover both, and that is one of the cool things about the Shulchan Aruch: It was written by Yosef Karo, but since the late 16th century, all additions have included the glosses of Moshe Isserles about where Ashkenazic custom differs. In terms of contemporary practice: most Sephardic wait seven days, whereas most (non-Hassidic) Ashkenazic communities wait only three, but that is addressed in the article. The only other difference I can think of is some differences in the added passages, but that is discussed as well.
  • I added a history section from EJ. It is pretty short (there's not a lot on history per se), but I hope it will be enough. I moved the rest of the section to other sections. I also added the Chabad campaign in that section (although the article cites was from 1992, I believe the campaign must have been much earlier. In 1992, the Rebbe had already had a stroke and was not really active. In any case, I made it vague and said in the 20th century).
  • I reordered the timing section, and I moved mourner section to another section.
  • I added the text of the Blessing (in English) to the beginning of the "original ritual" section.
  • Regarding your question about the sentence "While the mainstream practice in Orthodox Judaism is that women do not recite Kiddush Levana" - The writeup from the OU (at the moment footnote 62) states that "Although it is customary for women to perform many other time-bound mitzvos, he cites the Shelah Hakadosh who writes that women should not recite Kiddush Levana for Kabbalistic reasons." I believe this is the main-stream Orthodox position, although there may be women in some Orthodox circles who do recite it which is why I said mainstream.
  • JOFA - I don't know if it is a ruling or not. They cite Shlomo Kluger which is cited above in the article (currently note 59) and seem to be saying that women should follow that, although as mentioned, the more mainstream Orthodox position is the other way. I have reworded the sentence, but feel free to suggest another formulation.
  • References - We started off with the primary source references, and I then added sources secondary sources, primary from Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Talmudit, although also from other sources such as the OU and Chabad. That is how we ended up with multiple footnotes. Do you think that I should get rid of the primary Rabbinic sources when I have other secondary sources?
  • Citing Rabbinic sources - I have cited the sources as they are classically cited. The Talmud is cited based on page, and all editions of the Talmud since the Venice 1520 printing have followed the same pagination. And the Shulchan Aruch and commentaries follow chapter and section which are the same in all editions, and I have never seen them cited with an edition. If you have other input for what to do - or perhaps just get rid of the primary sources as I suggested above - please let me know.
  • If you have any more general suggestions, please let me know. Dovidroth (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the changes are very responsive to the concerns I raised. Here's the situation, from my standpoint:
  1. The references are a pivotal issue. I do not know whether the primary sources need to be removed or how they should be cited. Personally, I prefer that they be kept. I'm fine with the current citation method, which is standard in many religious and academic sources. However, at least for GA purposes, I would request and wait for input from uninvolved editors.
  2. To reopen or redo the GA review, I would need to spot check sources, comment more on the writing, ensure that I cover all the criteria. I could do this, though it may take some time. It's fine with me if you prefer to get another reviewer.
  3. I will have some feedback on the changes above, mostly about the writing and flow of the sections, which have improved. Kol tuv, ProfGray (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I am fine with whatever you think makes sense, ProfGray. I would like to get this to move along if possible, but I'm not sure who else would be able and available to review this. I do appreciate that you have been very responsive and helpful in the review thus far. Dovidroth (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have access to the English version of the Ency Talmudit article? @Dovidroth -- ProfGray (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with an English version and I’m not finding any information online. Dovidroth (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I belated pinged you in the Talk section at OR noticeboard. You don't need to comment, though let me know if I've made any errors or misrepresentations. ProfGray (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kiddush levana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dovidroth (talk · contribs) 07:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ProfGray (talk · contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the contributors to this article, including the nominator who has made substantial additions.

However, this article is not ready for Good Article status. Several significant concerns are given in the talk page, in a section on suggested improvements. These concerns include: (1) the article is based mostly on religious, primary sources, so it requires reliable sources from scholars or journalists; (2) the writing needs to be more encyclopedia and should not be expressing or advocating in "wikivoice" the norms of Jewish law; (3) besides adopting a more NPOV voice, the article should give some attention to non-Orthodox Judaisms that are less focused on halakhah; and (4) the citations need more complete and properly formatted bibliographic information. In the Talk section, I suggest a few sources or angles that may enable the article to move forward and to reflect a broader range of Jewish culture(s). These concerns are not likely to be resolved in a week, and I'm not putting the review "on hold," so don't hesitate to ping me for further input or assistance. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiddush_levana&oldid=1262876415"