Talk:Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behemah

Merging "Cattle Tithe" and "Rosh Hashanah LaBehemah?
Should this page be merged with that of "Cattle tithe"? We note that this is indeed the case for the article ראש השנה למשאשר בהמה at Hebrew Wikipedia. User:Debresser, what do you think? -Aharon (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case I would oppose that, and I would have expected you to oppose this idea as well. If anything, the "Rosh HaShanah for something" article should be merged into the article about that something, and I don't think you would be happy about that. Merging the article the other way is not logical. Nor is it necessary. As an additional argument, since we have article about all the tithes: first, second and poor, we should have one for the cattle tithe as well. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Noting again that the two articles are merged on Hebrew Wikisource is why I thought it relevant to bring up here, regardless. I think the underlying issue is really how behemah (and indeed "cattle") is understood in both Hebrew and English. I think "cattle" in English was once a general term for "grazing animals" including cows, sheep, and goats (and so was etymologically related to "chattle" -- movable propert). In older English biblical translations, this nuance is lost. And I wonder (but haven't checked), whether the "Cattle Tithe" article was simply a carryover from the old Jewish Encyclopedia (1905). In the Talmud, behemah/behemot ("domesticated" animal(s)) is a much more general category defined in contradistinction to ḥayah/ḥayot ("wild" animal(s)). My point is that any discrete or contextual meaning of these terms is easily lost or distorted. In any case, I can bring this issue up to the good folk who administer Hebrew Wikipedia, concerning the merger of the two articles, "מאשר בהמה" and "ראש השנה למאשר בהמה," over there. If they unmerge the two pages over there, it will make it possible to make a "Languages" link to the two pages over here. -Aharon (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean the Hebrew Wikipedia, not Wikisource, I suppose. What does the issue of "cattle" have to do with the difference between an article about the tithe and the new year for that tithe? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia, thank you (not Wikisource). Because if behemah were only "cattle" in current usage, then the tithe would only be for cows, rather than for a broader group of domesticated ungulates. The term "cattle" is thus misleading in today's world. (In the days in which cattle was understood colloquially as referring broadly to all domesticated ungulates there was less of an issue, of course.) Essentially, "cattle" ≠ בהמה/בהמות in the Torah, Talmud, or elsewhere, in Rabbinic parlance, AFAIK, (although I imagine there may be specific instances where it may.) -Aharon (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that Cattle tithe is not the correct title. You should raise that issue on its talkpage. I noticed that according to my dictionary, cattle does not include goats or sheep, while the Hebrew term refers to those as well, so you seem to have a point. The question is if there exists a valid alternative.
 * However, I don't think that issue correlates to the question of a merger, for which I still see no real reason. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I will raise this issue on the Cattle tithe's article talk page, as well as on the related talk page in Hebrew Wikipedia.
 * Agreed, in opposition to a merger. -Aharon (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The cited Mishna translates to Maaser (tithing) of BeHema (singular for the plural for animals)
The current Wiki topic means the new year celebrated by animals. Odd. I'd think that it's people who tithe, not that the animals self-tithe. Time to MOVE/rename the article. Nuts240 (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Article title
The current article title does not match the form used in the article. It also appears to be an inconsistent transcription, transcribing as -h in HaShanah but omitting it in Behema. Looking at Naming conventions (Hebrew) it encourages omitting the -h except for words which are widely known in English in a form that includes it to conform to guidelines which encourage using common names. Presumably "Rosh HaShanah" is in this form because of the common name exception, but it seems inappropriate to apply this guideline on a per-word basis; other guidelines at Article titles encourage consistency. The -S- in HaShanah was capitalised to conform to guidelines, but this makes it inconsistent with other article titles (which may themselves need to be moved); eg. Rosh Hashanah, Rosh Hashana kibbutz, Rosh Hashanah (tractate), Rosh Hashanah seder.

Additionally, the note to editors for the form used in the article seems to suggest that the current title is wrong to use -aa- in LeMaasar, and, looking very quickly at Naming conventions (Hebrew) it appears to encourage the apostrophe for shva unless it is actually normally pronounced in Hebrew, but even in those circumstances it recommends using an -e- so the -aa- would still be discouraged (though I'm unsure if using -e- applies when it follows a vowel).

Should the article be moved to Rosh Hashanah L'Ma'sar Behemah or some other title? – Scyrme (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You've all previously made relevant edits to this article; what are your thoughts? – Scyrme (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It should ideally be "HaShanah", but - as stated in that same WP:HEBREW - that rule is moved aside in view of the common English usage without the capital "S";
 * I don't see why the "Le" should be replaced by "L'";
 * I think that it would be best to use Ma'asar", because both a's can be heard, as the ayin is written with a hataf, not a shva;
 * The "h" at the end of "Behemah" should probably be removed, as per both the general WP:HEBREW rule and common usage.
 * Debresser (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree except for one thing: the ayin is written not with a hataf, but with a shva, as in וְכָל-מַעְשַׂר הָאָרֶץ (Lev. 27:30). So it should be Ma'sar. -- -- -- 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm all for Behemah with an 'h' at the end. I'm all for properly romanizing Hebrew by representing a final ה with an h in such transliteration schemas. (Sorry, I'm late to the party here. My two-cents is that the inclusion of lema'sar in the title sounds to me to be overly-correct in the same way that Rosh haShanah leMa'sar Ilanot would sound strangely overly correct for someone referring to Tu biShvat. It's OK to just say 'Rosh haShanah laBehemah' in the same way it's ok to say 'Rosh haShanah laIlanot.') -- Aharon (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Current title: Rosh HaShanah LeMaasar Behema
 * Recommendation by Debresser: Rosh Hashanah LeMa'asar Behema (if I read the above comment correctly)
 * Recommendation by User:-- -- --: Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behema
 * Any other variations to consider? Any one of these that are best? -- Green  C  00:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, another consideration: Why all of these capital letters? Aren't they all common nouns? -- -- -- 03:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Individually they are common nouns, but the phrase as a whole title isn't a common noun. Holidays/festivals are proper nouns and articles about them consistently treat them as such in article titles, including Rosh Hashanah.
 * The other variations to consider are and Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behemah. As I said, I don't think it's appropriate to apply the guideline regarding -h on a per word basis. I don't think that's what the guidelines intend and the guidelines for article titles encourage consistency. Applying it on a per word basis is a bit pedantic and readers aren't likely to transcribe and search for topics in that way; they are more likely to transcribe it consistently one way or the other. The title is a phrase not a list of isolated words and the guidelines should be applied consistently to the title as a whole. Either omit both or keep both.
 * As a note, any variations not chosen can be redirected to whichever title is chosen so if readers do expect a different title are still able to find the article if they search for it. – Scyrme (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon consideration of the above, I agree that grammatically it is Ma'sar, so Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behema is the agreed upon proposal. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to go with Ma'sar, but we aren't agreed about omitting the -h. – Scyrme (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you, correctly, mentioned that WP:HEBREW which says to omit the "h", I was sure you agree with that. Why wouldn't you? Not to mention that prevalent usage in English seems to be without the "h" (based on summary Google search). Debresser (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The exception for common names makes it clear that WP:HEBREW does not override broader guidelines. The guidelines at WP:AT repeatedly stress the importance of naturalness and consistency, and I don't think it's the intention of WP:HEBREW to contradict that. It is neither natural nor consistent to apply different conventions for transcription to different words. Whether to use the final -h should not be judged on a word-by-word basis because the title of the article isn't just a list of words, it's a single name. Evaluating it word-by-word creates an unnatural composite which readers are unlikely to predict and when taken as a whole is unlikely to be the common name of the topic. Accordingly, the title should be Rosh Hashana LeMa'sar Behema or Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behemah if the latter is the common name. – Scyrme (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, searching myself, even partial matches for the title show a preference for "Behemah" over "Behema". Compare, for example, results for "Ma'sar+Behemah" and "Ma'sar+Behema". This only ceases to hold when comparing "Behemah" and "Behema" by themselves, absent all relevant context. – Scyrme (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Recall the title of the article is a placeholder for the most common name per WP:COMMONAME, it's not necessarily the most accurate name linguistically. Also this is the English Wikipedia so we go with how the English speaking world presents. A google search for most of the above returns 0 results. The one that returns the most is "Rosh Hashanah LaBehemot". This suggests (though doesn't determine) a most common English name. -- Green  C  23:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On my end searching for the exact phrases of full titles:
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LaBehemot" returns about 1,500 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LaBehema" returns about 1,200 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LaBehemah" returns just 10 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeBehemah" returns just 2 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeBehema" returns 0 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeMa'asar+Behema" returns 0 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeMa'asar+Behemah" returns 0 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeMa'sar+Behema" returns 0 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeMa'sar+Behemah" returns just 9 results but it's better than nothing,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+L'Ma'sar+Behemah" returns over 7,000 results,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+L'Ma'sar+Behema" however returns just 1 result (a French Wordpress blog post)
 * "Rosh+Hashana+L'Ma'sar+Behema" returns 0 results,
 * "Rosh+HaShanah+LeMaasar+Behema" (the current title) returns only 5 results including Wikipedia,
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LeMaasar+Behemah" returns 0 results.
 * The double apostrophe retaining the -h in both cases is the clear winner in terms of quantity of search results, although that's an imperfect measure. It outdoes all the other variations here, even if you add all their search results together. There are other variations that could be tried but it seems unlikely any are more widely used than Rosh Hashanah L'Ma'sar Behemah. – Scyrme (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Rosh+Hashanah+LaBehema" is why I said the "h" should be omitted, but I can understand the argument that consistency should be maintained, and have no problem with having both "h"s. But the "Le" should stay, not "L' "since that is a matter of grammar and WP:HEBREW, and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply here, since this is not a common term in English. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not a common term in English". I don't see that qualifier in WP:COMMONAME. In naming discussions (WP:RMs) COMMONNAME is usually the main issue. If we had an RM here I'm sure it would be too. -- Green  C  14:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See Naming_conventions_(Hebrew). Debresser (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How about Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behemah? I think any candidate will immediately be seen as a problem and we will get nowhere because *none* of them are perfect. I choose this because it's closest to the 7,000 results above. -- Green  C  14:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - Is this acceptable-enough for the moment? I hope this discussion can establish a level of consensus to prevent further unilateral article renames (which are causing problems for one of the date templates); I think RM then becomes the option if we can't get consensus here, or, if after this rename someone wants to rename again.  --  Green  C  16:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can accept Rosh Hashanah LeMa'sar Behemah; it addresses my main concerns (inconsistent transcription, capitalisation which doesn't match similar titles, and the -aa- in "Maasar").
 * Making likely alternative candidates into redirects will prevent unilateral future moves by requiring a technical move procedure. It'll also help readers find this article more easily if they expect a different title. I intend to create these redirects after an agreement on the appropriate title is reached. – Scyrme (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since GreenC has moved the article, I've now made a number of redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)