Talk:Seventeenth of Tammuz

Background: cessation of the tamid offering
The article, prior to my edit, claimed that the offering ceased during the siege of Jerusalem due to the unavailability of sacrificial animals. While this is logical, no source was given.

Rashi (to Taanit 26b) explains that the tamid offering was outlawed by imperial decree.

--Hanina 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Im a hasidic Jew and i read a page that said that we worship a g-d named Yawea well It is not trou And on the ninth of av only people that are 12 and over fas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.44.94 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Five Calamaties
Was there a pressing reason to change the numbered list into a long, prosaic sentence? It is now less easy to read; and it is less apparent to a casual reader that there are indeed five calamaties listed. חנינא (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bulleted lists are discouraged on Wikipedia. See Embedded list. In any case, lists of calamities associated with a certain date are based on midrashim, so further explanation and context would be helpful.--Gilabrand (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a bulleted list, it was an enumerated list, and in this instance number is significant. The context is already given in the body of the article: The source is no less than the Mishna, which itself explicitly introduces the list with the number "five." As an article about what is today a Rabbinic observance (and was never more than midivre sofrim), even nondescript midrashim should be fair game, but certainly a text as authoritative as a mishna should given Due Weight. חנינא (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The material is exactly the same. The number five appears. Numbered lists are not encyclopedic and not WP policy. What is your problem? Are you saying that readers of Wikipedia are stupid and cannot understand a prose sentence???--Gilabrand (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, so many separate points have been raised against my view that, without intending to be contrary, I will respond with a bulleted list. (This is not an article anyhow, so I guess it should be OK.)
 * The material is exactly the same. Yes, except the style has changed, which is what we're discussing. If it doesn't matter because it's "exactly the same," then restoring the enumerated list should be no more objectionable than removing it.
 * The number five appears. &mdash;which is why an enumerated list is appropriate. Even the most brilliant "readers of Wikipedia," especially those unfamiliar with the fast and/or the mishna, can benefit from the five calamities being presented in list form, breaking up a long sentence.
 * Numbered lists are not encyclopedic... Why not? One wikipedia editor's confidence in the notion that lists are never encyclopedic doesn't make the notion factual.
 * Numbered lists are not. . . WP policy. Actually, numbered lists are not against WP policy. The above referenced "Embedded list" mostly deals with lists of links and doesn't even mention numbered lists. Nevertheless, that guideline does'' note that "in some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence." In any case, "Embedded list" is not a policy, but a guideline, which should be followed "except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article."
 * What is your problem? I don't know, I was unaware that I have a problem.
 * Are you saying that readers of Wikipedia are stupid and cannot understand a prose sentence??? No, that doesn't at all sound like anything I have said. But these sharply worded rhetorical questions make a grave accusation that might be mistaken for a personal attack. I think I'll ignore them. חנינא (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi @Hanina,@Gilabrand,
 * I know that it's been a while since this has been discussed, but I was curious about the fifth calamity. It needs at least a little more detail. I know that it's not explicitly stated who erected the idol in the Temple sanctuary, but Sefaria has at least a couple of sources (Talmud included) that name Manasseh of Judah as the person who did it. So could we not add some detail to provide that additional context, whether we'd like to say it's debated or not?
 * Talmud and other text:
 * https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/329841.61?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
 * https://www.sefaria.org/Legends_of_the_Jews.4.9.46?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en GreenEli (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Woah, it's been a long time. Don't remember this discussion at all...Please go ahead and add whatever you think is necessary as long as you provide a source.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Palestinian/Jerusalem Talmud
I made a couple of minor changes to the article: somebody referred to the passage in Jeremiah 52 as indicating the breaching of the walls as being on the 9th of Tammuz. Jeremiah makes the same claim in 39:2, and I added that. It's important because, as I also made clear, it's the verse in 39:2 that the Yerushalmi is quoting. The only other change I made was to the Yerushalmi reference. Somebody wrote IV,4, but it's actually IV,5 --58.173.105.252 (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't "ti" be taken off the end of "Eikhah Rabbati"?
See subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.109.25 (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 05:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seventeenth of Tammuz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215060708/http://ph.yhb.org.il/en/category/zemanim/07-the-laws-of-the-minor-fasts/ to http://ph.yhb.org.il/en/category/zemanim/07-the-laws-of-the-minor-fasts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Checked, and link updated. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. declared independence on this day (really)
I just checked a perpetual calendar program and July 4, 1776, fell on the 17th of Tammuz. This raises two points:

1. Is that a coincidence or did the Second Continental Congress intentionally pick this day? If it was intentional, someone should update the relevant U.S. history articles that discuss the timing of the Declaration of Independence to reflect the reason the date was chosen.

2. While is it definitely not one of the calamities mentioned in the Mishna, do we have a reliable source to say that American independence was NOT a calamity befalling the Jewish people? I tend to think it was actually beneficial to the Jews, but I'm not sure that everyone would agree. If there is no objective standard to decide what is a calamity and what is a good event, then we should just list all the important events that fell on this day without commenting on which were calamities. (Unless the list is suppose to be a list of only the calamities that led to the fast, which would necessarily exclude any that occurred later.)

47.139.41.191 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The link to the 4th of July is trivia at its best. I propose the material is deleted. Arcturus (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No other comments, so I removed it. Arcturus (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)