Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 1

Undated Talk, prior to 2005?
The use of BC/AD is historically accurate in that it has been used globally for millenia. Regardless of whether one likes or dislike a particular aspect of history, it is history. Changing BC/AD to anything else is a weak attempt at rejecting that history. This is revisionism which is always attempted by the weak to change language in order to influence others toward their views. Changing the language does not change the history, in fact, history looks back and is able to clearly see such revisionism as it is an obvious demarkation recorded in history. Such actions are clearly viewed by history as an anthropological attempt at changing history. Political correctness is an American phenomenom that, from the view of other advanced countries, has stilted our advances in many areas of life, especially science. As historians we must let history be what it is and record it rather than try to change it with the words we record. Olegnarac 28 June 2008
 * You're entitled to that opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that ArbCom has stated and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has produced the consensus that BC/AD are not to be used when discussion non-Christian calendars. Groupthink (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Essenes were something like 4 or 500 years after the Babylonian captivity. That needs to be made clear - if they really were resisting a calendar, it was one that was VERY well established. I, for one, am suspicious of any categorical statements about who the Essenes were and what they believed without actual sources listed. --MichaelTinkler

I think the source is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I suppose may or may not represent the Essenes, depending on exactly who the Qumran community were, which we don't know with a lot of certainty. Not sure what if anything other sources on Essenes (Philo? Josephus?) have to say about it. Unfortunately I can't give any references... I read it somewhere, I can't remember where (a modern secondary source, of course!).

Possible explanations of 500 year gap: maybe it did take that long for the calendar to be established, maybe some sections of society preferred different calendars, maybe Essenes have a very long history, maybe they wanted to ressurect the "purity" of the past...

I agree someone needs to research this properly. -- Simon J Kissane - Well, no one suggests they were a very old movement in anything that I've read. More likely they were cranks, which would run true to the course of ascetic movements in all religions! One of these days I'll get around to writing about Old Calendarist Orthodox, though it would help if there were already something at Eastern orthodox to branch off of. Your 'some sections' has a good possibility - the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions were never entirely unified (hence the 2 Targums, etc., etc.) --MichaelTinkler

The Hebrew for "month" is "chodesh" (most often) or "yerach". "Chadosh" means "new", and "yareach" means "moon". I think that's pretty clear: they went by new moons from the beginning. -phma - By the way, Is the hebrew year slow by 1 day every x years, or is the hebrew calendar slow every x years? If we were talking about a clock, we would refer to the clock itself, not the hours. I'm not sure which is correct. -D -- Actually it is not correct to say that the Hebrew calendar is slow by one day every x years, because you are referring only to the year with respect to the seasons and not the month with respect to the moon phase. This too is slow, but much less slow.

I'd say The Hebrew calendar year is about one day slow every 220 years.

-KP - The references I've seen that claim that Israelites used a solar calendar are all based on: I am therefore changing it to reflect the use of a lunisolar calendar as deduced from Bible verses. See http://www.karaite-korner.org/new_moon.shtml for explanation. -phma
 * The reckoning of days used by Noah, who lived long before there were any Israelites;
 * The Book of Enoch, which if Enoch wrote it was written long before there were any Israelites; or
 * The Essenes, who lived several centuries after the Jews were taken to Babylon.

-

A question:


 * Did the Hebrew calenday actually start in 3761 BC -- that is to say, someone said "this is now year 1" -- or was it backdated, in the same way as the Julian calendar -- for example, someone said "this is now the year 2164 (or whatever), based on our religious calculations"?

The Torah relates that Moses was told how the calendar was to be calculated soon after the Jews left Egypt. However, Noah's flood which was much earlier, seems to be calculated using the same calendar. It is possible that the Torah simply backdates the calendar until then. However, there is a dispute in the Talmud about which month the world was created in, which might indicate that the calendar was in use at the creation of the world. However, that could also be considered backdating.

The short answer is that the calendar was in use from year 1, because God was the author of the calendar and so he used it at the creation.

It is, however, curious how the calendar worked before it was given to the Jewish people, as the calendar allows and requires human intervention in setting its dates. Nowadays, human intervention is not required simply because all the dates have been set in advance through calculation, but that is only because the system for human intervention looked like it would break down. Sometime in the future, however, the old system will be reinstated. Ezra Wax


 * Counting the number of years since Creation began about the time that the Talmud was written with three or four sequential epochs, whereas the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides in 1187. Before the Talmud, Jews used other counts of years such as the Seleucid Era, called the Era of Contracts, and a count since the destruction of the second temple. I'll be adding a History section soon, after I consult my sources again to iron out some disagreements. Joe Kress


 * The count of years is based on a book called the Seder Olam. Its date is uncertain, but it certainly predates the Talmud by a few centuries.  I'd disagree that "the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides".  He agreed with the Seder Olam.  While he no doubt gave great impetus to the universal use of this epoch, it was in limited use well before his time and other epochs continued after his time.

---

I removed these sentences: Thus, there are up to 1080 parts per hour, 24 hours per day, and 7 days per week. Since the Hebrew month depends on a lunar cycle, the average lunar month is    given the name "Molad" (for "birth" of the new moon), and is 29 days, 12 hours, 793 parts long. The first part repeats what was just said and is confusing due to the "up to". The second part is now expanded into a new paragraph. The value of 0.6 sec at the end is my computation using a program of S. L. Moshier that implements the lunisolar model DE404 from JPL. Some sources make it 0.5 sec.

The article is looking good. One thing missing is a history. There is a tradition that the algorithmic calendar in its modern form was introduced by Hillel II in 359 CE, but there is no solid evidence of it until centuries later. Even towards the end of the 1st millenium CE there were disputes over details. I'll add a paragraph when I get a chance; or someone else can!

--- bdm - The scriptures that show the current biblical year (anchored on Genesis, the Exodus, the start of the Temple, and Sennacherib's invasion listed in Isaiah):

I also have a calendar that is derived solely from the verb rules for Hebrew, using the 3-digit year, that lags about one day every 1000 years (which you don't add). I'll gladly e-mail out on an Excel spreadsheet through my contact page on that website, upon request.

4 months are mentioned in the bible prior to the Exile, and they aren't the one in use today or even immediately following the Exile. At what point will someone note the pre-existing Samaritan influence and question why the original month names that are listed in the bible aren't used after the Exile?No938 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Barleycorn [Oct 2004-Jan 2005]
Can someone confirm the statement that a Hebrew 'part' is also known as a 'barleycorn'? I can find no corroboration that a 'barleycorn' is anything but a measurement of length (3 barleycorns = 1 inch). - KeithTyler 17:24, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * This information comes from Otto Neugebauer. He discusses it in two places: "The astronomy of Maimonides and its sources", Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949) 321-60, p. 325; and "Astronomical commentary", The Code of Maimonides, book 3 treatise 8, Sanctification of the New Moon, tr. Solomon Gandz, Yale Judaica Series, volume XI (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956) p. 117.


 * He dismisses Maimonides' speculation that an hour had 1080 parts because all numbers from 1-10, except 7, are divisors, noting they are also divisors of 360. He states that the "barleycorn" is an Old Babylonian unit of time, called she (&#x0161;e) in Sumerian, originally equal to 1/180 shekel. He then diverges. In "Astronomy of Maimonides" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/180 cubit in Seleucid ephemerides. 1 cubit = 2 1/2°, thus 15° = 1080 barleycorns, noting that 15° = 1/24 day = 1 hour. In "Astronomical commentary" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/6 finger in late Babylonian texts. 1 finger = 1/12°, 1° = 72 barleycorns, 15° = 1080 barleycorns. Finally, he notes that 1 finger = 6 barleycorns is well known in Arabic, Syriac, and Sanskrit astronomy. &mdash; Joe Kress 04:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * How, again, does cubit, a unit of length, get transformed into a unit of angle? - KeithTyler 17:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect that it is some dimension of the device used to measure the angle (like a quadrant). Babylonian units of measurement did multiple duty. In particular, the barleycorn (she) was the smallest unit of length, area, volume, weight, and time! Old Babylonian Weights and Measures Also note that the article only states that a part equals a barleycorn, not that it was also known as a barleycorn. Although the barleycorn was the historical source of the part, by the time of Maimonides, that had been forgotten. &mdash; Joe Kress 05:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * My research suggests that the correct Hebrew name for this unit is helek (plural halakim). I suggest that changing "barleycorn" to "helek" would be a good solution for this dilemma. Note that (1) the plural form "halakim" should be mentioned, and (2) "helek" and "halakim" can be transliterated in other ways, such as "chalakim".


 * Reference: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictH.html


 * --B.d.mills 23:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the Hebrew name for the part is helek. Nevertheless, its ancestor is the barleycorn, which should also be mentioned. I should begin my long delayed revision of the article. In particular, the history of the calendar in the present article is woefully inadequate. &mdash; Joe Kress 01:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

BCE vs BC [2005-2007]
Because of their length, the previous discussions of this section have been archived.

The consensus of the editors on this article is that Common Era dating style is preferred.

Previous discussions:


 * Talk:Hebrew calendar/BCE vs BC

&mdash; 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone had bothered to check, BC can't mean "before Christ" since the best evidence is that he (if he/she existed) was born in 4BC. The nearest date to correspond to BC is in fact the date at which the julian calendar was finally realigned with the leap years for the next 1582 or so years in February 1BC. Therefore if BC were a shortened form of anything meaningful (which it is not as it would be b.c.) it ought to mean and does in fact mean "before calendar".

Or ... perhaps all the dates should be changed so that all dates before e.g. 2006 will now be called B.P.C. (before political correctness) and all dates after will be called A.A.F.P.A.A.S.F.O.D.T.J.M.T.I.M.D.T.S. (After a few people adopted a stupid form of date which just makes the internet more difficult to search)

On reflection, I'm being a bit harsh on those pundits who have mistakenly adopted "before Christ's Era" in the belief it is more politically correct (beats me how they come to that conclusion), afterall the papyrus confirming 1BC as the date of alignment only came to light in 1999, ... although the fact that the date of Jesus, brother of James' birth did not align with 0AD/BC I think has been known for a very long time!

The only date of any significance that could possibly relate to the start of "0BC" - is the start of the correct julian calendar with leap years every 4 years - so what on earth are so many people spending so much time changing what cannot be changed - the great historical books will all continue to have AD/BC even in the (very unlikely) event that everyone agreed with BCE/B.C. (which they clearly don't!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.55.179 (talk) 88.110.55.179


 * It is quite laughable to see the use of CE as a supposed PC term. As a non Christian I am very offended by this new: "Christian Era". Whilst may not be to everyone's liking at least it has a historical reason for its use (afterall the calendar to which it refers was dated from the birth of someone the christians believed to be a messiah). I can accept BC as a historical mistake and I like the idea of changing its meaning to: "Before calendar". But I can't see why anyone would want to use a term of "Christian Era" which is insulting to all none christians! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.47.136 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Christian Era [Jan 2007]
I was following up this article and came across the following in WIkipedia: ". Dionysius introduced the Christian Era (counting years from the Incarnation of Christ) when he published new Easter tables in 525 .[3][4"

Those who advocate the BCE system as being less obnoxious to none Christians may like to consider how much more obnoxious is the idea that everyone now lives in an era that is defined as being Christian! Christ is a greek word for annointed. Whether or not he was the messiah is clearly dependant on your view, but whether or not he was called "christ" is a matter of historical fact, whatever your religion! The (incorrect) dating of his birth is also historical fact and therefore though I don't personlly much rate this "christ" I'm prepared to tolerate BC = "before Christ", (although I like "Before calendar") but I'm not prepared to tolerate the idea of the "christian era" which is unquestionably an insult to the vast majority of the world both Christian and None-Christian! 88.111.47.136 13:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate of 4681AM (921CE) [Oct 2005]
Interpreting, this debate was about the Passover of 4681 AM, and the Rosh Hashanah of 4682 AM. confirms this. I've added a link to a webpage which goes into this in some detail. squell 16:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of September equinox [Nov 2004]
The traditional date of the September equinox is given as September 21. This is incorrect, it is actually September 23. --B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Autumn vs Spring [Nov 2004]
The article makes extensive references to autumn, some references to spring and a few references to autumnal/vernal equinoxes. This is incorrect - as currently worded, it would imply that Jews living in the Southern hemisphere start the Hebrew year in March/April instead of September/October!

Instead of using specific seasonal references, can someone review these wordings so that they are more precise? "Vernal equinox" should be "March equinox", "autumnal equinox" should be "September equinox", and specific seasonal references should be removed except where they are historically important.--B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the hebrew calendar [2004-2008]
I have added the comments that the hebrew calendar was probably derived from the sumerian calendar. I have certain reasons to believe so: i) The source of numerous other hebrew traditions can be traced back to the sumerians. ii) It is written explicitly in the jewish bible that Abraham descends from Ur-Cashdim, which is a sumerian city. iii) They are both lunisolar. iv) There are other similarities regarding time measurement between te sumerian calendar and the hebrew calendar. For instance, the timing of the hebrew pasover, which was once considered as the jewish new year celebration, is close to the sumerian new year celebration and in both cultures sunset is considered as the start of the day. .--Tomer Ish Shalom 23:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "This is to be your first year" so what month did it start with? The first.


 * I think Rosh Hashanah was moved to the 7th month as a misinterpretation of the Sabbath Year, since when the trumpet sounds on the Day of Atonement, freedom is proclaimed in the land in the 6th year. There are months before the Sabbath Year starts in which the freed go back to their inheritance, prior to the start of the new year.


 * After freedom in the 6th year on the Day of Atonement, obviously there's celebration among those freed, with the Feast of Tabernacles being anticipated the next week.No938 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Alt Ben Meir [2005]
I've moved the following edit here for discussion:
 * An alternative explanation for the 642 parts is as follows. The calculated time of New Moon during the six days of creation was on Friday at 14 hours exactly (day starting at 6pm the previous evening), assuming that creation occurred in the Autumn to coincide with Rosh Hashana.  However, it was at 9 hours and 642 parts on Wednesday if creation actually took place six months earlier, in Spring.  Ben Meir may thus have believed, along with many earlier Jewish scholars, that creation occurred in Spring and the calendar rules had been adjusted by 642 parts to fit in with an Autumn date.

This edit is for the most part plausible, but requires some modification of the tradtional Creation, either spring or autumn. The traditional day of Creation was the first day of the week (Sunday), not the sixth day of the week (Friday). Friday was the day that Adam was created according to both the dominant tradition and the minority opinion that creation occurred in spring. But the modern rules prevent Rosh Hashana (1 Tishri) from occuring on Friday. Nevertheless, the molad (new moon) of Tishri does occur at 14h on Friday (6d 14h 0p) one year after the modern epoch of 2d 5h 204p, and the molad of Nisan between the two does occur at 9h 642p on Wednesday (4d 9h 642p). The modern rules require that if molad Tishri occurs at 6d 14h then 1 Tishri must be delayed to Saturday. But the number of days in the six months before is 177 = 2 mod 7, so 1 Nisan must be a Thursday, not a Friday as the tradition requires. The edit could be reworded to allow both spring and autumn Creationists to accept that Adam was not born on Friday, or that he was born on Friday, but not on 1 Nisan or 1 Tishri, respectively.&mdash; Joe Kress 14:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is all very confusing. The moved edit does not say that creation began on Friday.  The six days of creation were Sunday to Friday.  Following the current calendar rules, the molad of Tishri was on Friday and Rosh Hashana therefore fell on Saturday, the first Sabbath.  This began year 2, the six days of creation being the last six days of Ellul in year 1.  The epoch of 2d 5h 204p fell 12 months earlier.  It is called Molad Tohu (molad of chaos) because it nominally occurred before creation, while the World was stil in chaos.  This strange procedure was because the days of creation had to fall in some year.  However, the Moon was created on Wednesday and it is far more plausible that the molad should be a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of the Moon than a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of Adam.

References? [Apr-Jul 2005]
Were the works listed in the Literature section consulted by the page authors to add or fact check material in the article or are they just there for more information? The distinction is important, and those that were properly used should be moved to a ==References== section for clarity. I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to (or clarified in) the article. - Taxman 18:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have changed the heading Literature to References per your request. However, I do not recognize your distinction between books or articles used for fact checking and those having more information. In my opinion, they are one and the same. I cannot imagine a reference that is suitable for fact-checking that does not have more information. I read (and re-read) the cited books and articles, most in their entirety&mdash;the history section is a short summary of them. They are also suitable for the arithmetic facts of the present article and would be suitable even for a more complete discussion of the calendar's technical side. Of course, they may not have any information added by later editors. &mdash; Joe Kress 06:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Adding Dershowitz &amp; Reingold to the References section. As far as I can tell, the article checks against them.  Even if there is no footnoteable quote, theirs is a worthy bibliographical source for this subject.  &mdash; Danny Sadinoff 09:18, Jul 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider Dershowitz and Reingold an adequate reference, although not as good as the other references already cited for the Hebrew calendar. For that reason I am removing your comment. They do have a good discussion of the calendar's arithmetical rules, which generally equals that in other sources. However, their historical discussion is inadequate, which is to be expected from a book whose purpose is to describe computational algorithms. But even there it is not very good in my opinion. For example, they don't calculate the length of each Jewish year directly, but instead 'hunt' for it, which is not efficient. I prefer the "Four Gates" method developed over 1000 years ago (named for the four allowable days of the week on which 1 Tishri can occur) which is computationally superior to D&R's algorithm, especially in these days of electronic computers (it uses a table lookup). D&R could not have been used to fact check any statement regarding Jewish calendar calculations in this article because Wikipedia's discussion is woefully inadequate at the moment (it doesn't even mention the four postponements)&mdash;if I ever find the time, I'll expand it. &mdash; Joe Kress 20:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The religious and secular year [2005-2008]
I recall reading something to the effect that there are two versions of the Hebrew calendar: the religious and the secular. The difference is that the year boundary of one is six months ahead of that of the other, or something like that. Does anyone know anything about this? It ought to be mentioned in the article. -- Smjg 16:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not authorative, but most sources I've read claim the calendar starts with the spring month Nisan (1), which is the start of the religious year. But the year reckoning starts in the autumn month of Tishri (7). So today is Tishri 4 5766 AM, but 4 days ago it was Elul 29 5765. If that sounds weird, remember that the British used to have 25 March 1701 follow 24 March 1700. squell 15:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article mentions this Hebrew_calendar. By the way, the article should pick one convention and stick to it. Names of the months starts with Tishri at the moment, while Special holiday rules starts with Nisan. squell 15:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of piggybacking of squell's last comment here, but it is a different problem. There's a spot (when does the year begin?) where the article says that the religious year begins with Tishri, and then there's another spot (Special Holiday Rules) where it says the religious year ends with Adar. It might be the syntax (in which case it should be changed), or it could be factual incorrectness (in which case it needs to be changed), but it's definitely not making sense to me. I know the religious year begins with Tishri, but is the "religious year" a full year long? Big questions! Dave 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a very counter intuitive and confusing issue. Let me try to make it perfectly plain. The months are not counted from the beginning of the year. They are counted from the middle. The year does not start with month #1, it starts with month #7. Then continues 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and then 1 in the middle of the year. The distinction which needs to be made is that the year begins with Tishri(#7), but the months of the year begin with Nissan(#1). So Adar(#12) is the last month in the count of months, but Elul(#6) is the last month in terms of the year. The number of the year advances (meaning that the new year is) at the end of Elul(#6) and the begining of Tishri(#7). So New Year's Day is the first of Tishri(#7) and not of Nisan(#1). Nisan(#1) is the "new year for months" because it is numbered 1, but not the real new year.75.168.23.105 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedits of Sept 2005
Unbelievable, but I made some major copyedits and forgot to look at the talk page. I had no idea it had been a featured article. Notwithstanding, I hope my edits improve the narrative flow and organization of the article. My apologies if I was too bold, no offense intended. Kaisershatner 21:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit October 7 [2005?]
Av was linked to the page Ab as opposed to Av_(month) which is clearly what it refers to. This was fixed.

When days begin/end should be described.
When days begin/end should be described. For religious events the day ends at sundown- this should be discussed or at least mentioned.

Done. Manassehkatz 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

epoch conversion? [Feb 2006]
The article says:


 * Thus adding 3760 to any Julian/Gregorian year number after 1178 will yield the Hebrew year number beginning in autumn (add 3759 for that ending in autumn).

So that implies that this year, 2006, corresponds to 2006+3759=5765 and 2006+3760=5766. But the 2006 page and the Jewish holidays 2000-2050 page both agree that 2006 corresponds to 5766-5767. I don't know how the 3760 and 3759 numbers were derived, but they don't seem to work. It looks like the explanation should be changed to:


 * Thus adding 3761 to any Gregorian year number after 1178 will yield the Hebrew year number which begins at Rosh Hashana in that (Gregorian) year's September or October. (Or, add 3760 for the number of the preceding Hebrew year which ends then.)

(where I'm also making the explanation clearer, and taking into account B.d.mills's earlier suggestion about "autumn", and also dropping the implication that Julian and Gregorian year numbers are equivalent, because of course they're not).

I suspect that the ±1 discrepancy (i.e. the evidently incorrect derivation of the 3760 and 3759 offsets) may stem from the eternal confusion over whether there was or wasn't a year 0 in various calendars.

Steve Summit (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

642 parts and the Babylon meridian [Sept 2006]
A while back, in the section Controversy over the Passover of 4682 AM, someone wrote: Local time on the Babylonian meridian is 642 parts later than on the meridian of Jerusalem. This is totally unsourced. Therefore, I added some explanation, including specific meridians of east longitude: Local time on the Babylonian meridian (44°09′30″E) is 642 parts (8°55′) later than on the meridian of Jerusalem (35°14′30″E). With this new information, anyone with a map of the area which shows longitude can easily see that the statement is accurate. This is especially true if one clicks on the Babylonia article, which says, in the first paragraph, that the city of Babylon lies within Babil Province, which includes the 44°09′30″E meridian. --- ooops! I just now noticed that the second paragraph goes into greater detail. The city of Babylon is not only within current-day Babil Province, but it equates to today's city of Al Hillah, and the top right corner of the Al Hillah article gives its longitude as 44° 26′! Sorry, everyone! Al Hillah is 15′30″ further east than the meridian I had pointed to. That is equivalent to 18.6 parts, putting Jerusalem and Al Hillah 660.6 parts from each other, not 642. On the other hand, Babylon was a pretty big city, and this amateur is willing to suspect that the Jewish part of town was on the west end, giving more validity to the 642 figure. Therefore, here is my proposal. Let's change the text to: Local time on the Babylonian meridian is about 642 parts (8°55′in modern terminology) later than on the meridian of Jerusalem (35°14′30″E). If others insist, I'll be willing to delete the Jerusalem meridian, but I feel strongly that the 8°55′ figure be included, to enable readers to easily verify it themselves on a map, rather than accepting it as one editor's conjecture. --Keeves 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That paragraph needs substantial revision. Its present wording is the standard geographic explanation which may be found, IIRC, in the article "Calendar (Jewish)" within the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics edited by Hastings (1911), already referenced in the article. Since the time that I wrote it, I have been reminded that Ben Meir had no knowledge of modern coordinates, hence any mention of 642 parts = 8°55' has no bearing whatsoever on why he chose 642 parts. If it is mentioned, it must be stated to be a false explanation. The best available geographic coordinates available to Ben Meir was Ptolemy's Geographia, where the longitude difference between Jerusalem and Babylon is 13°00' or 936 parts, substantially larger than 642 parts. Unfortunately, the alternative explanation given in the article (not by me) is no better because Ben Meir did not propose changing the epoch from autumn to spring, only its time on the original autumn day. If the shift is not due to using Jerusalem time rather than Babylon time, then there are substantial ramifications for the entire structure of the calendar which may not have been appreciated by whomever noted it. I don't remember reading the latter explanation in any of the references given in the article (I've read them all), so it is unsourced as far as I am concerned. — Joe Kress 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Year Zero? [Sept 2006]
I could not find a definition of year zero in the article. Did I miss it? In that case, maybe it was burried to deeply in the text.

85.230.6.150 20:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, this is indeed an important point. As I recall, one view is that Adam was created on Rosh Hashana of Year 1 A.M., and that the previous five days were in Elul of the year 0. The other view (held, I suppose, by people who had difficulty with the concept of 0 as an ordinal number) was that the first five days of creation were in the year 1, and Adam was created at the start of year 2. I forget which of those views was the Seder Olam. Nor do I remember which view is the more popularly accepted. But in any case, someone who knows more than me ought to write about it! Thanks! --Keeves 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Three different world eras have been popular in rabbinical chronology, having their years one on three successive years. Year one of the modern year count begins one year before the creation of Adam. Ever since Maimonides in the twelfth century CE it has been dominant. It has no need for a year zero, which is why the article does not mention any year zero. Year one of the era of Adam begins at his creation. It was popular during the ninth through eleventh centuries CE. The year containing Creation could be called year zero in the era of Adam. The era used in the eighth century CE revision of the Seder Olam as well as one isolated instance in the Talmud began its year one one year after the creation of Adam. These would be elapsed years, used in the same way that a person's age is specified in the West (you don't become one year old until one year after birth). Edgar Frank does note that Adam was created at the beginning of year zero in the Seder Olam era in Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology (1956). But then what would the year of Creation be called, year −1? — Joe Kress 05:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Essene calendar [2006-2012]
I would like to see a discussion, from someone with more than my fragmentary knowlege, about the Essene version of the Hebrew calendar (it's not discussed under Essenes, either)  It was purely lunar--and perhaps is an interesting forerunner of the Muslim calendar. The Essenes laid great stress on the unrighteousness of the mainstream Jews in sacrificing on the wrong dates. DGG 07:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that, to the extent anything is known about an Essene calendar which differs from the standard Hebrew calendar, that calendar is believe to be the 364-day solar calendar discussed in the article as the "Qumran calendar." The same calendar is used in the Book of Enoch.  Nobody has any information about whether, or to what extent, this calendar was used by anyone during the crucial period of 100 BCE to 100 CE.  However, it is interesting that, in this calendar, Rosh Hashanah always fell on a Wednesday and Yom Kippur always fell on a Friday, while, in the modern Hebrew calendar, Rosh Hashanah is not permitted to fall on a Wednesday (among other days) while Yom Kippur, which occurs 9 days after Rosh Hashanah, is not permitted to fall on a Friday (among other days).  We do not know, if, during the period 100 BCE to 100 CE, the Hebrew calendar had rules regarding the days of the week on which Rosh Hashanah may fall which were the same as those applied today.  The reason stated for the rules is to make sure that no more than one Shabbat falls between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.  -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Mods to Programmer's Guide [Nov-Dec 2006]
Although most of the mods that have been made to this section since I first posted it have been improvements (better wording, use of English words rather than Hebrew, and so on), I want to caution folks against making substantive changes to the actual rule-set. The original rule-set that I posted has been tested and has correctly predicted the date of Rosh Hashana for every year from 1200 CE to 2300 CE (as wide a range as I could find published data for). Changing any of the reckonings by even a few halakim will cause it to fail to pass this test. So far only one modification has been made that could affect that, and that is the last clause that somebody added about Julian day numbers beginning at noon. I am aware that for astronomical purposes, Julian day number begins at noon UTC. But for the purpose of the rules, adding this qualification is confusing. The original rule-set regarded Julian day number as simply a one-to-one correspondence of day numbers with dates on the secular calendar. If you go adding half a day, as the mod suggests, then you have to adjust the reference molad given accordingly. But the easiest way to convert dates is to simply regard the day numbers, as I've said, as corresponding to actual dates. Then you convert secular calendar date to Julian day, and then to Hebrew date, and worry about what time the actual date begins afterward. For this reason I am considering removing the clause about Julian dates beginning at noon. Karlhahn 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing that clause. While it may be technically correct astronomically, in all date arithmetic programs I have seen for secular purposes (e.g. accounting and database programs, and I have written some myself) the Julian date is treated as starting at midnight, not noon. In this case it shouldn't make a difference because the Hebrew day never starts between midnight and noon, but it goes against normal programming convention. Manassehkatz 23:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just added the Table of Limits, which requries that the epoch be the first year of a nineteen-year cycle. Thus I had to change the modern sample epoch from 5752, year 14 of a cycle, to 5758, year 1 of a cycle. However, I have taken Karlhahn's concern into consideration and used a "midnight Julian day number", but I noted that the regular Julian day number begins at noon. I realize that the Table of Limits is a radical change to the previous set of rules, but it directly indicates the type of the desired Hebrew year, which avoids having to repeatedly apply the four postponements to the beginning and end of the desired Hebrew year, essentially hunting for its type. Furthermore, it is well documented in Hebrew literature (if you know where to look). I had to learn the rules of Cascading Style Sheets in order to present the table with borderless cells. — Joe Kress 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider everything except the reference molad that has been added in rule 11 to be implementation details (there are many ways to implement the calendar once you know the rules -- eliminating, for example, whole numbers of cycles, whole numbers of years, whole numbers of weeks, and/or whole numbers of days). I do, however, think that the designation of a reference molad (whether it be the one I suggested, or the 5758 molad that Joe Kress suggested) is important enough to deserve its own rule number. Anybody writing calendar software will be looking in particular for that piece of information with which to set the clock, so to speak. The table of limits is interesting and ought to be kept -- perhaps in its own section. But I think the programmer's guide should offer only the minimal set of information needed to write the program. Karlhahn 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Table of Limits would be very useful to a programmer. If I were going to write my own Calendar program (probably won't any time soon because there are many already available but I have considered it in the past) then I'd seriously consider using the Table of Limits + the necessary other rules rather than using the full set of other rules. Keep it in the Programmer's Guide but there should probably be a subheading for the explanation or move the explanation to follow the Table, to make it clear that it is not simply "another rule". Manassehkatz 14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The programmer's guide suggests that the month numbers are Tishrei = 1, Chesvan = 2 and so on, instead of Nissan = 1, Iyar = 2 and so on. This should be corrected. It should also be stressed, as many applications I've used number the months incorrectly. 89.139.30.45 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Rectified Hebrew calendar [Feb 2007]
Please merge any relevant content from [ Rectified Hebrew calendar] per Articles for deletion/Rectified Hebrew calendar. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-19 11:54Z 


 * Can you clarify your reasons for closing that debate as Merge? I only see one person in favour of merging the articles. I doubt many people not involved in that discussion feel very inclined to carry out its outcome. squell 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Squell, by merge, I don't mean "insert the contents of that article entirely here". As noted in the nomination, the Rectified article is largely about faults of the Hebrew calendar, so that information may be relevant here (as long as it's not original research).  For now, Rectified Hebrew calendar is simply a redirect so if there's no useful content, then the status quo is fine.  If it turns out the Rectified calendar does have enough notability to be mentioned (but not its own article), a sentence can be added here. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-21 07:26Z