Talk:Yeshiva/Archive 1

List of prominent yeshivot
This list is rapidly degenerating into a general list of yeshivot. It should be moved to its own page. JFW | T@lk  01:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's move the entire list to a separate page, without leaving any names of yeshivas on this page, as there will always be dispute as to which yeshivas are "prominent". Ayinyud 07:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are all the non-Orthodox yeshivot?
There are a number of prominent yeshivas that are not orthodox. Where is the Union for Tradition Judaism's Metivta, or the Conservative movement's JTS, or the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem? This article only presents the point of view of an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and no one else. The Academy for (of?) Jewish Religion in Manhattan certainly fits the article's definition of a yeshiva as well (they claim to be "non-denominational", but that seems to be a cop-out for being Conservative without having to use a label. They do have some Orthodox rabbinical teachers, however, and even a few Reform.  Mark3 ("3", because mark 1 and 2 are taken) 21:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Article misleading
Yeshiva translates to acedemy. ..... gtg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.112.203 (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of bible study
Im not so sure about this entire paragraph. I have visited many modern orthdox yeshivot and found a great emphsis on bible studies, with at least 2 bible shiurim a week and recomended half hour/hour seder (study session) time on bible too. Not to mention parasha shiurim (weekly portion of the bible lessons) on fridays and recomended shnayim bmikra (reading the weekly portion) for students! 62.90.235.99 (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
no references then no B. Nice article but must be sourced. Victuallers (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bible study
Although one of the blogs is my own and two of my (biological) brothers contribute to the other, it appears to be in accordance with the following WP policy.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

"Work in the relevant field" - controversy related to the Yeshiva community.

See the NYT and Forward articles about "Chulent" - for instance.

As caveat, I'm merely attesting that the subject is (or certainly can be) controversial. It was originally put in by someone whom I don't know in person, and directly caused the ensuing posts.DayKart (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

accreditation and beyond
The Brooklyn Yeshivah I attended was fully state accredited, and we had a full day's 'secular' English-language program in the afternoon, in co-educational classrooms (too risque for some parents in the neighborhood, but not most, for our parents trusted the children and their teachers to keep order) and a full Hebrew-language, 100% Torah-based curriculum (meaning there were almost no nonreligious subjects except some slight attention to history) in segregated classrooms taught by rabbis in the morning.Actio (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What types
Ezra, you help by clarifying that this is based on the Lithunian model. But can you add more information? I (and I bet others) would like to know when this model developed, and under what conditions (namely, what Jewish and secular education was available before this model; after the model was developed were their any alternatives? How were yeshivot financed?  Has the financing changed ovr time, or as Yeshivot moved from Europe to Israel, the US, and elsewhere?  Is the growth in Yeshivot in the US a primarily post Holocaust pehnomena?  Were there US Yeshivot (Lithuanian model) in the US before WWII?  Is there any centralized organization of Yeshivot, or is administration decentralized?  In the US how do Yeshiva students get a secular education -- I mean, doesn't the state require children to learn English, math, science? Slrubenstein

This is okay... but we need more about Yeshiva's in general... not just about ones on the Lithuanian model -- Mon.


 * of course you are quite right. Can the article begin my listing the major models? Slrubenstein

The fact that the Mesilas Yesharim was lauded by the Vilna Gaon is not irrelevant. It is the reason why it is considered the preeminent Mussar sefer in Lithuanian Yeshivos.

Calling the Yeshiva ancient implies that it is outdated. That is simply an anti-Orthodox opinion. Are Lithuanian yeshivos the most active? It is debatable.

ancient does not mean outdated, it means established long ago.Actio (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Grammar fix
I fixed the grammar and also deleted two "editorializing" words -- demanding, and most intense. These are very subjective terms; I am sure that many (a majoritay? all? I do not know, you would have to do a survey) find yeshivot demanding. But this is a subjective claim that really is not very imformative. A lot of people find any kind of school demanding. Demanding by what criteria? In what way? This could be a valid article, but it needs to be developed. My advice for development: avoid subjective adjectives like "demanding" and "intense" and instead provide more information that describes what goes on.

It would be useful, too, to learn more about different kinds of yeshivot. Are there any umbrella organizations? How are they acredited? Does the state recognize them? Are non-talmudic subejcts taught? Are teachers liscensed? How? Also, what is the history of Yeshivot? Are Yeshivot in Ohio today much like yeshivot in Latvia three hundred years ago? Or have their been changes in their form and functioning? Slrubenstein

See Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, a rather unique organization, from an historical perspective.--77.124.198.123 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful English version of Ivrit words for "large" and "small"
This might not deserve a new section but of course the first e in "gedola" stands for an unpronounced shwa; same for "ketana". Possibly "g[e]dola", "k[e]tana"or other indication that the words are pronounced as two-syllable words would be helpful.Svato (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaonic Period addition
I note that a large addition was made for the Geonic period. I welcome this, but think it needs work. Several issues come to mind:


 * How reliable is this source for the purpose?


 * The divisions were based on dogmatic schisms that took place in the third century C.E. Dogmatic schisms? This is the first I've heard of such a thing, and it seems to catradict all that I know of their history. What possibly could they have been?


 * There was a Yeshiva in Jerusalem? When and for how long? Rav Sherira Gaon, in his history of the academies, says that Sura was founded on "on the model of the Yeshiva in Tiberias". The "Yeshive in Tiberias" was, of course, the Sanhedrin. (I think this says something also about the original meaning of the term, but this is very close to synthesis.)


 * The title "Gaon" techinically belonged to only one academy (Pumbedita?)?


 * The Resh Galuta (Exilarch), who also had a sphere of infuence, should be mentioned, as well as some of the histories (Rav, Shmuel, Neharda'a, compiling the Talmud).

Now that the first editor has taken up the guantlet, I hope others will fill in.Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)