Talk:Minyan/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)


 * Great work! Egfrank (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Removal of section in Rituals requiring a minyan
According to Halakha (Jewish law) accepted by both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, a minyan is required for many parts D'varim SheB'Kedusha ("Holy utterances") of the communal prayer service, including Barechu, Kaddish, repetition of the Amidah, the Priestly Blessing, and the Torah and Haftarah readings. This is repeatition. The only new words are D'varim SheB'Kedusha! Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be renamed?
....to Women and minyan? As it stands this page is not about minyan per se, but about the role of women in minyan. It is patently clear that over 80% of the article is about women! This material is misplaced and is better placed in Women in Judaism and Jewish services‎ to which I moved some of it, (notice a large chunk also referring to prayer with a minyan from the orthodox position). It just does not belong here. I added and refined content and it was just all reverted back without keeping any of my additions. I removed sentences which had been tagged since December 2007. I kept the conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist views, albeit in a refined manner, I did NOT delete things I do "not agree with"! We do not need all the waffle here about how conservative came to their decision. It reads like an essay, something which is discouraged on Wikipedia. The external link is quite enough for those who wish to pursue the intricacies of the debate and conclusion of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Why the first paragraph about the role of women is given precedence over the origin and source is quite amusing! All the information in the paragraph is a duplication of material presented later on. The information cited from Masechet Soferim was unfortunately erroneous and therefore misleading. Other information is unsourced and is most probably OR. Chesdovi (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like 30%, not 80%. It should be consolidated into one section, and I would think it belongs relatively late in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have calculated that precisely 60% of this article discusses the position of whether women can or cannot be counted in a minyan. And of the remaining 40%, there are clear indications that the article has an undercurrent as to the view of women’s role in minyan. Take for instance the random passage of korban pesach:


 * While the required quorum for most activities requiring a quorum is usually ten, it is not always so. For example, the Passover sacrifice or Korban Pesach (from the days of the Temple in Jerusalem) must be offered before a quorum of 30. (It must be performed in front of kahal adat yisrael, the assembly of the congregation of Israel. Ten are needed for the assembly, ten for the congregation, and ten for Israel.) According to some Talmudic authorities, women counted in the minyan for offering the Korban Pesach (e.g. Rav, Rav Kahana, Pesachim 79b).


 * …glaringly ending with a clarification to whether women can be counted. This example of when a quorum, not of 10, is needed in Judaism is seemingly brought especially for inclusion of that last line. Why are other instances of when a quorum, other than of 10, are needed, is no example brought? There must be tens! All the waffle about a mans obligation to pray in a minyan stems from comments made in Deleted irrelevant section about geneal prayer requirements and the only reason all this surplus infomation about women has been left here is due to a comment “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.” All the material about men and prayer, not minyan, is seemingly needed as a preamble to women and minyan.


 * Are women eligible for minyan or not? Discuss this under a heading called eligibility, not under current sections of: Role of Women, Women and minyan in Orthodox Judaism, and then US Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism and Conservative Judaism which JUST discuss their view on women and minyan!? Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! like it or not, differences over the role of women in a minyan has accounted for the overwhelming majority of the public discussion of the differences between Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism on the subject of minyan and represents one the key difference between them on this subject. You may think the issue unimportant or irrelevant to the subject and you may think it's getting undue weight, but given the enormous amount of discussion the issue has received the reliable sources simply do not agree with you. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After reverting, I've restored virtually all the new material added. While the material deleted is still there, the net result is that the discussion of women and the minyan is a clear minority of the article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is supposed to be about Minyan. Agreed, mention must be made of women in regard to minyan, but this is not the place to dicuss the matter at length. There are other pages for this, as admitted by you in an earlier post. I know you put alot of work into expanding this subject on this page, but please move it to the relevant pages. This page does not discuss womens obligations to pray - with a minyan or not. Chesdovi (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing personal at all. The fact of the matter is, the issue of whether women should be counted in a minyan or not split Conservative Judaism, the largest denomination in the United States at the time, down an ideological fault line and generated enormous controversy. It's a significant sub-topic of the subject. The weight it's getting simply isn't undue. You could make a case that the issue doesn't have as much importance in Orthodox Judaism as it does elsewhere, but I'm not sure if removing all the Orthodox arguments for why women don't count in a minyan will end up strengthening the article's coverage of Orthodox Judaism or help explain it to a reader. I suppose we could move those arguments to the Conservative section since they were the same arguments raised by traditionalists within Conservative Judaism. However, the traditional viewpoint will get less weight there since its now a minority view there. The net result will be to increase coverage of arguments for counting women in a minyan and decrease coverage of arguments against. Do you really want that result? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Jewish services? If "the issue of whether women should be counted in a minyan or not split Conservative Judaism, the largest denomination in the United States at the time", why is it not mentioned?! This is indeed noteable. NO mentiom is made of the "enormous controversy". It is the only issue that split the movement? If so it may deserve a bit more expousure. I am still not happy with the article as you have reverted it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean "split" in the sense of "schism" (although the Union for Traditional Judaism split off in part over this issue) but in the sense of "polarizing", an issue that was (and to some extent still is) highly divisive and discussed a lot. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on women and minyan
Hi. Given the recent discussion at WT:JEW on the relative importance of this subtopic, I've added a list of writings on the topic by some key people, eg Rachel Adler, Joel W., R. Schachter, Hauptman. HG | Talk 07:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Source
Doesn't the requirement for a quorum of ten also come from Abraham asking to spare several cities from destruction if ten righteous souls could be found? The article doesn't mention that but I've always understood it to be the basis of the quorum of ten. -- M P er el 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this episode is not brought as a source for minyan. However, its significance should not be overlooked. Although I deleted the following unsourced mention of this in an earlier version of the article, (A common misconception is that the requirement of ten to constitute a minyan comes from the fact that Abraham stopped decreasing his requests for God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah at ten "righteous" individuals (Genesis 18:32), but this view is not supported by any authorities), after finding this episode mentioned in a RS with regard to minyan, it is my view that it should be readded. Chesdovi (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources of Jewish law
Chesdovi, while it's informative to see the responsa listed, encyclopedia articles generally don't list all pertinent primary sources. There are hundreds of relevant teshuvot, not to mention Talmudic and codificatory lit. The best thing would be to list rabbinic journal articles (like Bleich in Tradition) that digest the key sh"utim by subtopic. Indeed, it's best if we rely on such scholars to select the key psakim, so we don't run into WP:OR and selection disputes. That said, how would you like to proceed? Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 01:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are they in fact primary? Sh"utim may tend to included original, novel approaches and be quoted by others, but generally they discuss and analyse the real primary sources, i.e. Talmudic and codificatory, which make these secondary sources. The journal digests can actually be viewed as the tertiary source, (which "resemble a secondary source in that it contains analysis, but attempts to provide a broad overview of a topic that is accessible to newcomers".) These sh"utim are especially recent. Need they be printed in a journal? It is interesting to note that the issue of women and minyan is not so prominent in this type of literature. Chesdovi (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you're welcome to elicit other views, but I'm pretty sure that most everybody would say that the Igros Moshe is considered a primary source (from a Wikipedia standpoint). It's not the stages of interpretation that define primary vs secondary, since the codes are clearly interpretations of earlier works, and the Talmud as you obviously know is constructed as if it's merely an interpretation of the Mishnah (itself often exegetical from tanakh). Also, it's not the printing in a journal either since, as you may know, some of the Igrot Moshe (et alia) were printed in rabbinic journals before compiled in volumes. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * btw, for comparison, SupCt and other secular judicial opinions are primary sources, though they often review a host of other literature, and law review articles are secondary (with rare exceptions) even if their arguments are more novel. another comparison would be papal encyclicals (i.e., primary docs), which likewise cite earlier lit back to scripture. thanks for your understanding about this, I can imagine it may be frustrating to remove the citations. b'hatzlakha. HG | Talk 02:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comparisons, but you have left me confounded as to what the definition of a PS and a SS is. You have said it is not the stages of interpretation, neither whether they review other literature, or whether they contain original arguments which makes something a PS or not. WP:PSTS states that primary sources included religious scripture. I would include in this the Talmud and works like the Shulchan Aruch which actually codify law. Sh”utim are most definitely secondary sources. They draw on the primary sources, but also on other secondary sources to make analytic claims. The journals you are familiar with fall into the third category. These articles sum up the primary and secondary sources. What indeed makes a papal encyclical a PS? Is it because, although they cite scripture and even expound on it, it itself is an original theological work and composition whos purpose is not to comment on earlier material but which uses it as support? Sh”utim on the other hand analyse the primary sources and secondary sources, similar to the fashion in which Bleich does in his Contemporary Halakhic Problems (CHP), to try and come to a conclusion which compliments the PS. Besides, I think wiki is only adverse to using Primary source’s within the text itself, not placing them in further reading. Chesdovi (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we distinguish between primary sources and secondary ones, in this context? A primary sources is an object of study, it is like an event or topic. An Igrot Moshe responsum is an original, authoritative statement, comparable to a judicial opinion or magisterial declaration. Some Igrot Moshe responsa cite many other works, some do not. But they are treated as authoritative; they are discussed and analyzed extensively in both rabbinic and academic secondary literature. It's partly a matter of genre and authorship, too, but there's no doubt that Igrot Moshe and Bleich's Tradition/CHP writings are functioning at different levels and for different purposes. Rabbi Bleich quotes Igrot Moshe hundreds of times, would Igrot Moshe quote CHP? If you want to continue questioning whether these sh"utim are primary sources, would you please consider discussing it with other editors you respect or with the Judaism WikiProject? Thank you. HG | Talk 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think responsa are primary sources. I think they easily and straightforwardly meet the definition of secondary sources, although tertiary sources may be needed to identify which ones are most accepted. They aren't the first witness to anything. Rather, they analyze and evaluate existing sources, weigh their strengths and weaknesses, and draw conclusions from them. In many ways, responsa are one of the forms of religious writing that most resemble an academic paper. They are not just authoratative declarations, they are studies, a form of scholarship. THe definition says "Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims." That's just what responsa do. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, let's talk this through. I think it's helpful that our guideline has a footnote about how each profession or discipline may understand primary and secondary somewhat differently. In law in general, judicial opinions are primary sources even though the judges draw upon other primary sources and make claims. Law by nature is interpretive and making claims, so those aspects are not what helps us distinguish 1ry from 2ry sources. Here's a Harvard law library explanation: "primary sources of law (i.e. case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions) are the sources that establish the law on a given topic." Similarly, Georgetown's explanation. Closer to home: "Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, articles, and encyclopedias." (see Holmes fn)


 * Likewise, for Jewish law, what matters is whether the text functions at an authoritative level. While some responsa do resemble scholarly works, just as some Supreme Court decisions do, they exert a different illocutionary force, a different kind of authoritative claim. A secondary source, like R. Bleich's erudite articles, does not make the same claim and is not treated as authoritative within halakhic discourse. Thus, Igrot Moshe and other responsa are cited by Elon's HaMishpat haIvri as a source of Jewish law, i.e., a primary source. (These are also known in jurisprudence as the "official" or "legal" sources of law, vs. the unofficial or historical sources.) Conversely, articles in rabbinic journals like Tradition are not sources of the law, they do not establish halakhah. Indeed, they may carry a disclaimer. Please keep an open mind about this and let me know what you think. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps folks are concerned that, by calling responsa a primary source, such sources should be excluded from the article? I do not mean to imply that. We often build a Judaism article from primary sources and, as we learn more or run into disputes etc., later improve the article thru secondary sources. Moreover, we need to be judicious/selective about the use of sources, whether in the text footnotes or "Further Reading"-type section, regardless of whether they are 1ry or 2ry. Hope this is useful in putting my concerns about 1ry/2ry in perspective. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Orthodox Judaism
This section is not about minyan, but about prayer with a minyan. Any relevant material can be merged with Minayn! Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're seriously suggesting that content on prayer with a minyan isn't relevant to minyan? If you think the content should be in a different section you can move or merge it into the other section, or perhaps bring it up here and discussing it, but that's different from deleting it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the section on Orthodox halakhah re:women has been greatly truncated. I gather that Chesdovi has put the text into a comment section, so it is still visible to editors for potential revision and reversion. Is that right? (Chesdovi, the edit summary could have been more explicit about this.) If you feel it needs further explanation (per your comment), then I think it would be more appropriate to put in the explanation, or propose an explanatory text here on the Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of etymology
The following section was removed from the article: ''The word minyan comes from the Hebrew root moneh מונה meaning to count or to number (based on the requirement of 10 men to be in attendance [Mishnah Megillah 4:3]). The word is related to the Aramaic word mene, numbered, appearing in the writing on the wall in Daniel 5:25.''

Reason: There is no etymology for the word "minyan". It is a word which means to count or "the number". It is not made up of other words and has not gone through an evolutionary process. Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! As you note, the English word minyan, found in English dictionaries, is a not a native English word but is based on a Hebrew root. This is part of its etymology. Also, Because "mene" appears in the King James Bible version of the Book of Daniel and translated as "numbered", it will be familiar to many English speakers who don't know Hebrew. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why it has a literal translation. Beth din does not have an etymology. It plainly means house of judgement. However, Tefillin most certainly needs one. It has no hebrew translation, but rather the word tefillin describes their reason for use or what they signify. Is mene aramaic for moneh? There is no need to bring the similar version of this Hebrew word in every language?! Chesdovi (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to a different term from "etymology". If you don't object to the content, we could even put it in the "source" section and skip its having its own section. I think the comparison to "mene" is useful because as mentioned the King James Bible uses this in the "writing on the wall", so a number of non-Hebrew speaking readers will know that "mene" means "numbered". Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks from the "writing on the wall" artilce that good 'ole King James made another glaring error. Mene seems to be associated with monetary currency? Chesdovi (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't have a source for the "monetary currency" thing, added a fact tag. FYI "peres" (separated) is related to parsha. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems this was a view proposed by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau and used by the New Revised Standard Version. However, looking at the JE article, it seems there is great discussion to what exactly these words literally mean. We don't want to second guess it's meaning on this page. There is no good reason why it should be mentioned here. I know this line has been here for a long time, but even then it was removed with good reason. You re-added it. Do you have a veto on this page?! Chesdovi (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this thread. How can a word not have an etymology? Granted, the etymology might not be known to us. In any case, the relation of the noun to its triliteral root is relevant for readers. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it is indeed relevant. As the word minyan means itself to count, or the number, it is weird to let people know that the words root is m-n-eh which also means to count. Who cares?! It may be relevant to students of hebrew grammer, but not those wishing to find out what a minyan is. Have a look at all other similar articles and it is standard the "triliteral root" is never mentioned (Ketubah, Kabbalah, Aliyah), rather the hebrew word is just translated. A fictional example of providing the root here would be like saying "The word Construction comes from the Latin root "constructus" which means to construct." Chesdovi (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, you (and I) realize that the meaning is related to counting, but many readers might not know. Yes, I'm ok with removing the root, but it would still be nice to tell readers that the word is related to counting. "count" is not in the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Well, the text is now back in the article. Anyway, I've registered my thoughts on the matter. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you chose a poor analogy. The section in Minhag about driving a chariot, the bit in Shekhinah about "neighbor" or "settler", help convey something about what the words mean. Hebrew is rich in metaphors, and a close look at the wording regularly provides insight about the meaning of religious concepts. In last week's Haftorah reading, Yishiyahu referred to tzitz hasadeh, translated as the "flower of the field". One has to understand the other meaning of Tzitz and the religious significance that comes with it to catch the profound metaphor he is making in this passage. Similarly, one has to understand the meaning of tzitz as a common wildflower and the way Yeshiahyu uses it in last week's haftorah to gain insight into what the Talmud means when it says the Tzitz, the golden crown of the Kohen Gadol, conveys atonement. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Minhag means custom and Shechinah means DP, therefore the root is of interest. The words meaning is removed form the root. Here, the word minyan means "the number". The same meaning as its root. (PS. I liked you litte dvar Torah :-) Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Potentially touchy subject.
Should the views of Rabbi Aharon Feldman on the validity of Hasidim in minyanim be mentioned in this article? CheskiChips (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't avoid views just because they are touchy. He's a significant player, where does he express this view and how much does he spell it out? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "He rules that it is forbidden to associate with elokists under any circumstances due to their heresy and they cannot be counted for a minyan." - Out of his article. Which was most likely an interpretation from Here by the man himself. CheskiChips (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see what you mean. It's already written up here so maybe we don't need to flame ourselves down here. Perhaps you could skip it for now. Or add the link to section as a See Also? HG | Talk 09:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)