Talk:Yeshiva

Yeshivas for women
Are women allowed to study at these schools, or was it all made up for the movie Yentl? Concerning "Yentl", I think it's quite obvious that I'm ignorant about this matter and that's why I mentioned Yentl, because that is my only reference point and I never claimed that it's a good reference point or anything. I could've bought the whole thing, but I'm aware of the fact that Yentl isn't a good reference point (it's like using "not without my daughter" as a reference for islam) and that's why I asked - to find out.
 * Hi, firstly why didn't you sign your user name to your comments so that we can know who you are? Secondly, using "yentl" as a "reference point" is not good scholarship. Thirdly, traditionally and historically in Jewish history, only men and boys attended yeshiva, women were not obligated to study Torah formally. Fourthly, within present Haredi Judaism only males study in the yeshivas and females attend Beis Yaakov (Beth Jacob) schools. Finally, within present-day Modern Orthodox Judaism, some schools, sometimes also called "yeshivas", both male and female students study the same curriculum. IZAK 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a frequent Wikipedia user and was simply curious, so I wanted to know about this and I simply asked, but maybe I should've done it in a better way.


 * Jewish women do not attend a yeshiva, but many attend a seminary with educational goals tailored to the traditional view of the roles of women. Some Modern Orthodox seminaries teach texts normally restricted to men. JFW | T@lk  11:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This is arrant nonsense, pardon me for putting it so bluntly. I spent 8 years in yeshivah—an ORTHODOX yeshivah, with an Orthodox shul attached—in Brooklyn (Crown Heights) in the 1940s, a school that still thrives, in a different Brooklyn neighborhood, and yes, I graduated, and so did my brother. But we girls did NOT learn Gemorah. The term Modern Orthodox did not exist, because the Chasidim had not yet become a significant force, though the Lubavitchers were already well-established in our neighborhood. No one ever applied the term 'seminary' to our yeshivah. This article should not be slanted toward the Haredim, who are commonly referred to as ultra-Orthodox. Actio (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I may explain something, both in regards to the article in general and this subject. The term "yeshiva" in the U.S., for historical reasons, is used for ANY religious school, including elementary schools and co-educational schools. This is something of an oddity, although it may have spread. The article (which I have no connection with) is using the historical and international meaning of the term, which - although changing over the years - means a place where the Sages sit and where the Oral Tradition (later the Talmud) is transmitted. In Israel, it generally does not refer to an elementary school or a girls' or women's school. In the Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon, the history of the Babylonian Yeshivas by one of its most famous heads, he says that they were based on the Yeshiva in Teveriah (Tiberius) - which in fact was the Sanhedrin. Finally, the term Yeshiva Katana, used in its normal sense in the article, in the U.S often refers to a women's school.


 * Some of this should be in the acticle, I think. Perhaps the disambiguation should state the sense in which the term is used.84.229.51.101 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My God! Such ignorant nonsense in such an important Jewish subject. Beit Yaakov is NOT the female equivalent of yeshivot, it is simply the name of a very popular chain of schools for girls! The "female equivalent" (though Gmara usually isn't taught in these schools) is called a "seminary" (often called in short "sem"). I also don't understand the statement in the beginning, saying that "yeshiva" is a term in "classical Judaism". What the hell is "classical Judaism"? Does the author mean to say that the term is obsolete? If so, it is not. My best guess is that "classical Judaism" is meant as a strange euphemism for Orthodox Judaism. I've never written on the English Wikipedia before, but this is simply atrocious. --InbalabnI (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. Where do you live? In the United states, a "Yeshiva" refers to any Jewish religious school. This is a source of some confusion in the article. Outside the U.S., many (not all) religious high schools for boys are called Yeshivot; therefore a Bais Ya'ackov high school would be equivalent. "Classical Judaism" or "Traditional Judaism" is used to refer to Rabbinic Judaism before Reform; to us Orthodox Jews this is the same as Orthodoxy, but as others beg to differ, we cannot necessarily edit that way. It is used to give a broader base to the Judaism of the RamBam and Shulchan Aruch.Mzk1 (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree "yeshiva" is ambiguous: it usually means an advanced rabbinic school like Mir or Telz, but in a different sense refers to ordinary Jewish high schools like the Yeshiva of Flatbush. In the latter sense, yes they admit girls.

"Classical Judaism" is, as far as I know, a term mainly used by Israel Shahak to demonise medieval and pre-modern Judaism. As the yeshiva in its modern form (Volozhyn onwards) does not antedate the rise of Reform Judaism, there is no need to avoid the term Orthodox. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In U.S. terminology, even a grade school is a Yeshiva. Note that the original use of the term appears to refer to the Sanhedrin (see Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon). BTW, since there was no Reform in that part of Europe, I am not sure that one needs to use a limiting term like Orthodox. But for a Yeshiva, I suppose it is fine. (One day, everybody woke up and they were suddenly Orthodox, because someone opened a Reform Temple in Germany?)Mzk1 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific Masechtot?
An IP-identified editor added the following "In the yeshiva system of talmudic study the first area to be mastered are eight mesechtohs (volumes that deal with a given subject which are divided into chapters that deal with sub-topics relating to the general subject) that deal with civil jurisprudence."

Could he be more specific (here)? What are these eight magic masechtot, and what are does he mean specifically by "civil jurisprudence"? Having studied in some well-known Yeshivot, both modern and Chareidi (but not Hesder), I've done plenty of Moed and Nashim, both in high school and beis-medrash.Mzk1 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean about recent modern Orthodox Yeshivot for women.
I don't understand this statement: Until the late 20th century, yeshivot were attended by males only. Many Modern Orthodox yeshivot have opened since then for girls and women. If by yeshiva you mean just a religious school, as in the U.S., then this isn't true at all; schools for women are neither specifically Modern Orthodox or that recent. If you mean a traditional, full-time-Talmud study Yeshiva, are there really "many" for girls and women? Perhaps if you include Israeli Midrashot (some of them), but then Modern Orthodox may not be the best term. How many did you count?Mzk1 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"re-considering" a certain "clean up language templates" edit
I noticed that this edit (from circa "14:49, 28 May 2019") has an " " that says, [quote:] << "m (→‎top: clean up language templates)" >>.

Many of the changes that were made then (in an edit marked as "minor"), seemed to involve changing "he-n" to "he" ... in a template [instance] of lang. That is, (removing the '-n' suffix). That is, changing " " to " " in a given instance of [invoking, or ... "transcluding"] that [ ] template.

However, when I looked at the "Example" [table] in [the only April 2019 version of] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lang-he-n ... it seemed to me that the entry in the "Output" column that is shown on the top row (the row labeled "This template") may actually be preferable to the entry in the "Output" column shown on the second row (labeled "Another template").

I mean "preferable" in terms of clarity, readability, and helpfulness to the reader (that is, "preferable to" in the sense of "better than").

I would have already reverted those changes by now, however ... I may be unfamiliar with some of the issues involved here, and there might be something (interesting) to know about the reasons why the editor of the "14:49, 28 May 2019" edit made those changes [see (the above link to) the DIFF listing for that edit].

So ... I still might (remain inclined to [want to]) revert those changes, (that ones that seemed to me, to be a step in the wrong direction); but first, ... Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)