User:StevenJ81/sandbox

/Public holidays in Israel =Revision to article "Geshem"=

Template for otheruses goes here.

Template for JewishMusic goes here.

Article Lead
Tefillat Geshem (תפילת גשם, "Prayer about Rain") (Ashkenazi) or Tikkun Geshem (תיקון גשם, "Rectification for Rain") (Sefardi) is a prayer added to the musaf, or additional service, for Shemini Atzeret. It serves as an introduction to the first annual reading of the phrase "משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם" ("He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall"). This phrase continues to be inserted in every Amidah prayer throughout the rainy half of the year, from Shemini Atzeret to Passover.

Tefillat Tal (תפילת טל, "Prayer about Dew") (Ashkenazi) or Tikkun Tal (תיקון טל, "Rectification for Dew") (Sefardi) occurs in the musaf for the first day of Passover to mark the discontinuation of the passage cited above—and in many versions of the liturgy, its replacement with "מוריד הטל" ("He causes the dew to fall") in every Amidah from Passover to Shemini Atzeret.

Purpose of the recitation of Geshem and Tal
Prayers concerning rain in its season—but only in its season—are a regular part of the Jewish liturgy. In the central Amidah prayer, the phrase "משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם" ("He [God] causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall") is added to the second benediction of every Amidah throughout the rainy half of the year (ימות הגשמים, yemot hageshamim, i.e., between Sukkot and Passover). It is omitted throughout the dry half of the year (i.e., between Passover and Sukkot); in most versions of the liturgy (although not all), the phrase "מוריד הטל" ("He causes the dew to fall") is substituted.

Sukkot and Passover have been designated as the time for the change in liturgy since at least the time of the Talmud. On Passover, the liturgy is changed on the first day of the holiday. At Sukkot, it is seen as incongruous to ask God for rain during Sukkot proper, which is celebrated outdoors in the sukkah for the most part; as a result, the liturgical change is delayed until Shemini Atzeret, when the Sukkah is no longer used [in Israel].

These liturgical additions (or their removal) are seen as an affirmation of the divine power to control the seasons. Accordingly, their insertion or omission in the proper season is seen as critical–so much so that one making an error must repeat his/her prayer. This view led to the rabbinical instruction that at the time of change (Shemini Atzeret or Passover), no private individual should change his or her own prayers, either inside or outside the synagogue, until the change has been proclaimed by the prayer leader, or by the gabbai [or rabbi or other synagogue official]. The prayers of Geshem and Tal were instituted to add solemnity and emphasis to these notable liturgical proclamations.

Details and customs associated with the recitation of Geshem and Tal
Geshem and Tal are recited at the beginning of the musaf (additional service) because attendance is high at that point in the prayer service. However, two different practices have emerged as to how this is accomplished:
 * Most Sefardim (need confirmation), and most Ashkenazim within Israel (based on the rulings of the Vilna Gaon), recite the liturgical poems (piyyutim) of Geshem or Tal just prior to the silent Musaf Amidah (or prior to the Ḥatzi Kaddish that precedes it)
 * Most Ashkenazim outside Israel (Orthodox and non-Orthodox) and some Chasidim within Israel recite Geshem or Tal as part of the reader's repetition of the Amidah.

Ashkenazi customs
Check against whether the melody is used in Israel for Kaddish after Geshem/Tal is recited It has become customary for the Ḥazzan (prayer leader) of the musaf on the days on which "Geshem" or "Ṭal" is inserted to wear the kittel, as on Yom Kippur.

The principal piyyutim of Geshem and Tal are ascribed to Eleazar ha-Kalir, an early, important liturgical poet:
 * The principal piyyut of Geshem is an invocation in six stanzas, each of which closes either with "For his sake do not withhold water!" or with "Through his merit favor the outflow of water!" The six stanzas successively refer to the merits of the three Patriarchs, of Moses, of Aaron, and of the twelve tribes crossing the Red Sea.
 * The principal piyyut of Tal is also an invocation in six stanzas, each of which closes with בטל ("in dew" or "with dew"). The stanzas refer both to the physical land and crops of Israel, which are watered in the summer by dew, and to the spiritual health of the Jewish people, whose prayer and Torah study are likened to nurturing dew.
 * Recitation of either piyyut concludes with a threefold invocation by the Ḥazzan: "For Thou, O Lord our God, causest the wind to blow and the rain/dew to fall: For a blessing and not for a curse! / For plenty and not for famine! / For life and not for death!"  And the congregation each time answers, "Amen!"

Version 1
In Israel, the recitation of the piyyut of Geshem or Tal represents the entire addition to the liturgy. The prayer leader then proceeds to Ḥatzi Kaddish and the Amidah, recited as on any other festival day.

Outside Israel, the Ḥatzi Kaddish prayer preceding the musaf Amidah is chanted with a traditional melody closely related to those of Yom Kippur (see Melodies, below). The beginning of the repetition of the Amidah is chanted with the same melody. A small poetic insertion, also ascribed to Kalir, precedes the conclusion of the first blessing of the Amidah, while a second small insertion is added after the first line of the second blessing. At this point–which is the point in the Amidah where the statement about rain or dew would be recited year-round–the appropriate one of the two piyyutim described above is recited, along with the concluding invocation. After this, the reader recites the remainder of the Amidah as on any other festival day.

Version 2.
In Israel, the recitation of the piyyut of Geshem or Tal is followed by Ḥatzi Kaddish, the latter chanted in a traditional melody closely related to those of Yom Kippur (see Melodies, below). The Amidah is then chanted as on any other festival day.

Outside Israel, both the Ḥatzi Kaddish and the beginning of the repetition of the Amidah are chanted with the same traditional melody. A small poetic insertion, also ascribed to Kalir, precedes the conclusion of the first blessing of the Amidah, while a second small insertion is added after the first line of the second blessing. At this point–which is the point in the Amidah where the statement about rain or dew would be recited year-round–the appropriate one of the two piyyutim described above is recited, along with the concluding invocation. After this, the reader recites the remainder of the Amidah as on any other festival day.

Both versions continue

 * Conservative congregations follow the practice described above, although without the short insertions in the first two blessings of the Amidah. Current Reform prayer books include a shortened, translated version of the piyyutim ending with the traditional threefold invocation.

Additional piyyutim
The ordinary German-Polish (Nusaḥ Ashkenaz) festival prayer-book (maḥzor) also contains a number of other related compositions, albeit sometimes in an appendix. Foremost among these is one that sketches the agricultural work in each of the 12 months, and parallels therewith the influence of each of the 12 signs of the zodiac, setting Aries against Nisan, and so on through the year. Old maḥzorim often have the text illustrated with twelve rude woodcuts. These compositions are not found in Conservative or Reform prayer books, and their recitation even in Orthodox congregations is becoming less common.
 * These are also not normally found in maḩzorim based on Nusaḥ Sefard, such as those of Ḥasidim.

Melodies
So much being held to depend on the proper proclamation of the "Geshem" and "Tal" prayers, a special melody was naturally adopted for each, for the sections of the Amidah, and for the piyyuṭim therein introduced and associated with them. Hence in each European ritual melodies arose of much charm, which are already of some antiquity and are well worthy of perpetuation.

Ashkenazic melody
The melody thus used by the Ashkenazim is the most Middle-Eastern in style, but this is due only to the utilization, for the "Geshem" service originally, of two characteristic phrases reminiscent of services performed on the two important occasions of the Jewish year immediately preceding Shemini Atzeret, when it is sung.

These phrases are taken, the one from the introduction to the "Ne'ilah" at the close of Yom Kippur, the other from the chant sung during the waving of the palm branch (lulav) during the Hallel of Sukkot, and they are developed with new phrases into the effective combination here transcribed. According to the system in which so many of the traditional intonations are utilized (see Cantillation, Synagogue Music), it is the particular occasion and service rather than the particular text which determines the tonality and outline of the officiant's chant. There is no need to present independently the Ḳaddish, the opening benedictions of the Musaf, or the following medieval verses, with all of which the motive is employed; but it will suffice to summarize the underlying thought for which the chant is generally appropriated. This melody is used by the Ashkenazim as the traditional intonation for both "Geshem" and "Ṭal."

Sephardic melody
With the Sephardim the most representative melody of the "Geshem" and "Ṭal" is that reserved for the beautiful poem by Solomon ibn Gabirol commencing "Leshoni bonanta," which occurs in both services. This melody is of Spanish origin, and bears evidence of having been originally set to words of a different rhythm. It is probably one of those numerous folk-songs which, according to the repeated testimony of contemporaries, were constantly being adapted for synagogal use from the 10th to the 15th century. The close in the major at the end is of course the inspiration of some ḥazzan after the adaptation of the tune.

Levant (Edot HaMizrakh) melody
The version preserved in the communities of the Mizraḥi (Levantine, Oriental) Jews appears to be a mutilated fragment of the Sephardic melody. But in place of the other hymns of Gabirol in these services the Turkish Jews preserve a chant of far more Eastern character, the tonality and construction of which brand it as a more recent offshoot of the Perso-Arab musical system. The Mizraḥi tradition attributes to Israel Najara (d. 1581) the selection of the non-Jewish melodies which are utilized in their rendering of the service. Among the 650 which he adapted to Hebrew words this melody may well have found a place, especially as the modes of the Perso-Arab musical system were most favored by him in his selection of tunes.

More, yet unused, material
Check Mordecai on Ta'anit i and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 114 as to how much detail there really is While the text of the daily prayers has reflected the beginning and end of the rainy season since Talmudic times, it is not as clear when the liturgy expanded to include the piyyutim that have come to be known as Geshem and Tal. Neither the Mordecai, an authoritative 13th century CE German source, nor the Sefer Abudirham, a definitive mid-14th century CE Sephardi work, mentions such an expanded liturgy. Abudirham, for example, distinguishes the additional services for Shemini Atzeret and the first day of Passover only by saying, "The reader proclaims 'He causes the wind,' etc., before the silent [Amidah]." to be continued

But modern Sephardic siddurim give a poetic prayer after "Shield of Abraham," and another which leads up to the distinctive words of the season; these words being added: "For a blessing, for grace, for joy," etc.

Jewish Encyclopedia bibliography

 * Baer, Ba'al Tefillah, Nos. 834-838 (Ashkenazic airs);
 * De Sola and Aguilar, Ancient Melodies, No. 45 (Sephardic);
 * Löwit and Bauer, in Shir ha-Kabod, part i., No. 20 (Turkish);
 * F. L. Cohen, in Israel, 1899, iii. 178;
 * Journal of the Folksong Society, vol. i., No. 2, p. 34.

=JE Template=

=Note for future work in Amidah= Add some description of why "mention" is (and can be) in G'vurot; why "prayer" is what it is.

=References=

Note
Sasha, I hear what you're saying, and certainly some of your arguments are valid. I'm very well aware that there are more projects in the WMF universe like Bulgarian Wikinews than like English Wikipedia. Still, LangCom did not undertake its first substantive project closure/deletion in about five years lightly. Here are some reasons that this particular case was unique. Grigor didn't really succeed over the course of an entire year in creating the citizen journalism he promised, and I'm not convinced that if we gave him another year on his own that would have changed. And I don't even think the three key contributors will leave Wikimedia. They've all been here at least eight years, and are all active at Bulgarian Wikipedia. I think if you offer them a home at Russian Wikinews, there is a good chance they will accept. If they don't, I hope they will succeed somewhere else.
 * 1) The original request was for a deletion, rather than a closure, because of the highly suspect nature of much of the current contents (at the time).
 * 2) * For most projects, "inactivity is not a reason" to close, not to mention delete. For Wikinews projects, we'll sometimes execute a "soft close" (to avoid the embarrassment of an obsolete main page), but we still try not to (really) close.
 * 3) * Accordingly, we gave Grigor and the others who requested it time to revive the project. This request started about a year ago, and we've been very, very patient about letting things evolve organically. Normally, I would want to see some real progress in 2-3 months. But Grigor said right up front that he didn't think he could get a dozen quality contributors in much less than a year. So we didn't push things.
 * 4) LangCom does not see its job as being the Meta-Arbitration Committee, ruling on content and process issues within a given project. The reason we have landed in such a role here is that these problems came up during a time interval where we as LangCom were encouraging the project's revival. We set two main parameters for that revival: establishment of a reasonable contributor community, and cleanup of questionable content. We have really been judging this whole situation just on those issues, and if our recommendation ended up "closure/deletion", it is because we decided that our parameters have not been met.
 * 5) * In LangCom's discussions, there was concern that this decision would turn into a wider precedent. In the end, we decided it would not. We would be very reluctant to get involved in any such decision where the community is active, even if there is substantial controversy. And, as you said, there are plenty of projects like that existing in the WMF universe. We're not involved.
 * 6) LangCom warned Grigor (when it granted additional time to revive the project) that it wanted to see biased and questionable content removed. However, the one real attempt to do that was basically hijacked by the three active contributors at the time.
 * 7) * They have argued, and you have argued, that as they were the only contributors on bgnews at that time, only they were entitled to vote. When a community's de facto size is only three contributors—one of whom arguably has a conflict of interest—it's questionable whether that limitation is true even if the vote is originally set up in that way. But since broader opinion was originally solicited (by StanProg), and since that is a reasonable and common approach for such discussions where small communities exist, the broader RfD discussion was valid, and the contents should have been deleted.
 * 8) * You ask why Luchesar didn't do this anyway. Did you want him to start a wheel war?
 * 9) * I must add: Grigor claims to be behind speshno.info, but it was never clear to me that he proved it sufficiently to justify his right to put all the contents into the public domain for Wikinews. Even if he did, though, it was all 5+ years old. And he has a COI on the contents. At minimum, the way he handled the RfD reflected very poor judgment on his part.
 * 10) While I've been watching the situation since the beginning, and moderating the discussion on Meta to some extent, I didn't even pull the trigger on starting the closure/deletion mechanism. Other members of LangCom saw what was going on and decided to act.
 * 11) * Still, it is my opinion that if that RfD had been closed as valid, and the content deleted, other LangCom members might never have seen what they saw as critical problems in the project, and we might have been able to handle this in a less drastic way.
 * 12) Grigor hoped to have a dozen regular contributors by the end of one year. In fact, he has three:
 * 13) * Himself (fine, as far as it goes, but with a COI on some of the old content)
 * 14) * Stanqo (who had a history of a topic ban on Bulgarian Wikipedia over some fairly similar issues, though I grant that Wikinews is not the same as Wikipedia)
 * 15) * Zelenkroki
 * 16) Finally, while there is now a bit of reasonable activity going on at Bulgarian Wikinews, there is plenty of evidence that most of it only happened once it became clear that LangCom might really close the project. (Stanqo didn't start contributing regularly until two months ago.)
 * 17) * As a sustainable community, three contributors are at best borderline, especially given the history involved. Who knows if they stay involved when the pressure is off? They weren't there a year ago, or even six months ago.
 * 18) * Certainly copyvio and other cleanup wasn't being taken seriously until LangCom published its recommendation. The copyvio project was started the day before yesterday. How can we be remotely confident that the quality will remain acceptable if there is no threat hanging over the project?

ar:مستخدم:StevenJ81/ملعب en:User:StevenJ81/sandbox de:Benutzer:StevenJ81/Spielwiese fr:Utilisateur:StevenJ81/Brouillon he:משתמש:StevenJ81/טיוטה lad:Usador:StevenJ81/sandbox la:Usor:StevenJ81/Harenarium simple:User:StevenJ81/Sandbox