Talk:Hebrew calendar/Archive 2

How popular is it? [Mar-Aug 2007]

I've noticed many Hebrew language sites and Israeli sites use the Gregorian calendar and not the Hebrew calendar. Arab web sites on the other hand almost always use the Islamic or Iranian dating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

You should take a look at the most popular Israeli newspapers to guess that this is not so nowadays. Just take three of them: ידיעות אחרונות, מעריב and הארץ, then you will see that ידיעות alone does not give the Hebrew date. — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 09:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) / יום א׳, י״ב באלול תשס״ז

The drifting Jewish Calendar mathematical solution [March 2007]

The Jewish Calendar is lunisolar. That means it attempts to coordinate with both the sun and the moon. The calendar does a great job coordinating with the moon but the average length of the Jewish year is about 6 minutes, 12 seconds longer than the Gregorian year (solar year). This accumulates to one day every 232 years or so. The solution to this problem is to borrow the mathematical ideas behind Easter. Our current allocation of 12 and 13 month years is mathematically equivalent to a 19 year cycle with epact starting at 2. Three times every 700 years, lower the epact by one. When we lower the epact by one to 1, this mathematically moves the 13-month year in the eighth year to the ninth year. This will cause the average date of Rosh Hashonah to come earlier by one day over the 19 year cycle. This will cancel out the one day drift in the Jewish calendar every 232 years. When the epact changes from 0 to 29 for the first year, the average date of Rosh Hashonah will come later by about 29 days. If we remove one month from the calendar at that time, the average Rosh Hashonah date will reset one month earlier. This is how to remove one month from the calendar without changing the average solar date of Rosh Hashonah. When we recalculate the 12-month and 13-month years within a 19 year cycle three times every 700 years, the average Rosh Hashonah date on the solar calendar will come earlier by one day cancelling out the drift in the Jewish calendar. These adjustments will keep the Jewish calendar more accurate with the sun. --Trust101 05:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This method is not applicable to the Hebrew Calendar because it does not use epacts. Instead a proposal to use a 334-year cycle of 123 intercalary years has been made [1] made up of 18 19-year cycles, that last of which is truncated to 11 years. -- Karl 13:40, 8 March 2007.

Any calendar system can be made more accurate by increasing the length of the repeating cycle. Once a calendar cycle goes beyond a lifetime, it becomes difficult to maintain. Pope Gregory was concerned back in 1582 that we wouldn't remember that 2000 was a leap year but we did. My proposal would use the epact system similar to Easter to determine the allocation among the 19 years, not specific solar dates for holidays. When the epacts decrease, the allocation of 12 and 13 month years changes pushing the average date of Rosh Hashonah earlier to cancel out the later drift. When the first epact changes from 0 to 29, we remove one lunar month from the calendar to keep the solar average date of Rosh Hashonah consistent.--Trust101 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Month names in the Tanakh [March 2007]

Parts of the Tanakh do use the post-exilic names. Megillat Esther uses these extensively, for instance. Zakharin 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Days of the Week? [March 2007?]

Shouldn't this article be the place to also discuss the days of the week and their names, and the 7 day week, yom-rishon thru shabbat?

Proper forum for calendar revisions?? [March 2007]

Is Wikipedia the appropriate forum for proposing revisions to the Hebrew calendar? The discussion of the rate of drift of the existing calendar is entirely appropriate. But I don't think the discussion of hypothetical revisions and the political obstacles that lie in the way of revisions is encyclopedic material. The calendar is the way it is, for better or worse, and is not likely to change any time soon. Wikipedia needs to be addressing what is, not what might be. My $0.02 Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

SPAM? [April 2007]

Is it just me, or are the phrasings of the external links to conversion software more than mildly SPAMmish? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction: Is Gamaliel II in the proper era? [May 2007]

In the Second Temple era section, Gamaliel II is cited for innovations made in "c. 100" (whether BCE or CE is not specified). According to the linked article on his life and times, this would be ca. 100 CE, well after the destruction of the Second Temple. Work is needed to correct or clarify this confusing chronology. Hertz1888 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seventh day [2007-2008]

i am not a JEW, am a Christian.A seventh day adventist to be more precise. am trying to find out how possible it is that the seventh day has been the seventh day since the time of Adan and EVe. I need help urgently.- Clayton Busiku

In the Bible, or the Torah, the seventh day of the week is first metioned in Genesis 2:2, which is one day after Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day in Genesis 1:27 (which mentions male and female). Historically, your question cannot be answered because Adam and Eve were not historical individuals. Of course, the seventh day as well as all other days of the week were part of the original Hebrew week, which is generally regarded as being formed during the Jewish exile in Babylonia, and thus is based on Babylonian cultural practices, which did not include an endlessly repeating seven day week. — Joe Kress 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the earliest datable reference to the sabbath as we now know it is Ezekiel 46.1. (There are earlier references, but they might or might not refer to a continuous 7-day cycle.) This suggests that the sabbath has fallen every seventh day without fail since the mid-6th century B.C., and possibly longer.--Mockingbird0 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One would think that if Jews were commanded to observe the seventh day at Sinai, that they would have been told at that point which day was the seventh day, if they were not aware of it already.Ewawer (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For non-Hebrew speakers [Aug 2007]

Hi everyone, whichever your religion!
I do not intend to start a war about names and their transliteration, but I noticed that non-Hebrew speakers are most often misleaded by transcriptions of ח by CH, which they inevitably read [tʃ] instead of the (various) correct pronunciations. That is why I replaced Chamishi (יום חמישי) with Ḥamishi. In the same way, I added the transliteration of עי"ן (ʻ) and gave יום שני as Yom Sheni (i. o. sheini) and יום רבעי as Yom Reviʻi (i. o. rivi∅i — furthermore, if I read well, the רי"ש in יוֹם רְבִיעִי bears a שווא, not a חיריק).
I may add that I just refrained from transliterating שבת by Shabat, with a single b, as I have already been sniped at for simply removing the מקף from תל־אביב, to reflect the Israeli most common use (I thought that Israelis know better than non-Israelis how a (non-Biblical, modern) city should be written — I couldn't guess that New-Yorkers knew better than Israelis…).
It seems that Israeli Hebrew has no place here, and I wonder why… — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

First Day in the Hebrew Calendar [Aug 2007]

According to the Hebrew Calendar, did creation of the world (1 Tishri 1 AM) begin on a Sunday or a Monday or a Saturday?--98.195.141.44 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The creation of the world occurred on the first day of the week, generally equivalent to Sunday, according to the Torah. Because the days of creation are "the evening and the morning", this first day began about six hours before the midnight beginning of Sunday. But that was not 1 Tishri 1 AM, a date which is almost one year before Creation, hence called molad tohu, the new moon of chaos or the new moon of nothing. 1 Tishri AM 2 is usually regarded as the creation of Adam, a Friday according to the Torah but not according to the modern Hebrew calendar, developed long after the Torah was written. — Joe Kress 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hebrews vs. Jews vs. Israelis vs. Israelites [Aug 2007]

Just a reminder to anyone who edits the article that there are differences between them.

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/INTRO/INT_4B.HTM

So the parts that speak of the Jews receiving the commandments should be changed to Israelites or Hebrews. I'll leave that up to other people to decide on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.165.225 (talk) 03:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew calendar or Jewish calendar [2007-2009]

Is there a difference between the Hebrew calendar and Jewish calendar? I have seen both termed used. Is one more appropriate than the other? --Andrew

In my experience both terms are used interchangeably. Ezra Wax

I wonder whether Andrew's question has really been addressed — do we have to speak about a Hebrew calendar, a Jewish one, or yet, use a more adequate term? Were there no interaction between miscellaneous systems, before and/or after this one has been established? — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 09:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In the article's cited references, Hebrew calendar is used about as often as Jewish calendar, so the title must be named one or the other according to the Wikipedia naming policy, "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". No author gives any reason for using one term over the other. I have seen a distinction made only once: In the Encylopædia of Religion and Ethics two articles appear, one entitled "Calendar (Hebrew)" for the ancient calendar and another entitled "Calendar (Jewish)" for the modern form. However, that was probably a desicion made by the editor to distinguish articles by two different authors because neither author gave a reason for using their 'assigned' title. In contrast, I have seen a distinction made by one author for using Muslim calendar over Islamic calendar. He regarded the calendar as currently used to be a product of the followers on Islam, that is, Muslims, not a calendar dictated by the religion itself, Islam. I prefer Jewish calendar because it is used by the followers of the religion, whether or not they are ethnic Hebrew or even speak Hebrew. — Joe Kress 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my observation that the use of the term "Hebrew" in these sort of contexts is a hangover from the times when antisemitism was more ingrained into western culture. Until quite recent times, the word "Jewish" had pejorative connotations (and still does to some people) so a more neutral term was used in "polite" discourse. This also applied to descriptions like the "Hebrew Bible", "Hebrew congregation" etc. At another time, and for the same reason, the descriptive term "Palestinian" was also used in place of "Jewish". On the other hand, the term "Hebrew" still remains part of the terminology in common use, notwithstanding its history. Ewawer (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 proper terms for Jews: Hebrews (from the term "Me-ever hanahar"), Jews (from Judah - the predominant tribe after the exile of the 10 tribes) and Israelites (from Israel - the 2nd name of Jacob). At various times all have been used - from ancient to modern times. Israel/derived terms (i.e. Israeli Calendar in this context) is not appropriate much of the time because it would indicate a direct connection with the land rather than the people and the State of Israel uses both the Gregorian calendar and the Hebrew calendar and the Hebrew calendar is used by Jews everywhere. That leaves Hebrew or Jewish - they are really very much the same thing. Hebrew does imply the language as well as the people (and in fact Jewish is often used (or at least was by my grandmother) as a synonym for Yiddish - definitely not for Hebrew), but for purposes of the calendar that is OK as the terms used in the calendar are Hebrew words (names of months, etc.) Similarly, Hebrew Bible makes more sense than Jewish Bible as the original language of that book was Hebrew. Similarly, Hebrew Congregation made sense until recently as the language of the prayers was all Hebrew (and still is in Orthodox synagogues) - i.e. not just a Congregation of Hebrews but a Congregation that prayed in Hebrew. Palestinian was never, to my knowledge used as a synonym for Jewish. It referred to the place that became the State of Israel and was based on ancient names. It was used by Jews until the founding of the State of Israel as "Israel" was just a reference to history/dream for the future and Palestine was the recognized name of the place for a period of time. Of course, it never referred to the Arab people either, but that's a whole different discussion. Manassehkatz (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is another term which should be added to the mix: ""semitic". Those terms, including Palestinian were used at one time by those who could not bring themselves to use the terms "Jewish" or "Jew".Ewawer (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference technically. The term Hebrew calendar ought to (but doesn't always) refer to the original lunar calendar of the Torah (see the earlier comment here about the Essenes) which was entirely different to the modern lunisolar calendar used today and known as the Jewish calendar. Although most people, including the various sources used here, don't honour the distinction and because tradition is often more important than necessarily being correct to many, most people (even Jews) have little knowledge of the original, purely lunar calendar. Gorovich (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WHUT YEER IS IT? [2007-2008]

CURRENT HEBREW YEER?--Goon Noot 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

5768. Why the funny spelling? Hertz1888 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The scriptures that show the current biblical year (anchored on Genesis, the Exodus, the start of the Temple, and Sennacherib's invasion listed in Isaiah): [2]

2008 becomes the 3503rd from Egypt, and 6171st from Creation. No938 (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting [Oct 2007]

Working my way through a restructuring. But what exactly does this sentence mean? "If one back-calculates the moments of the traditional moladot using modern astronomical calculations then the closest that their reference meridian of longitude ever got to Israel was midway between the Nile River and the end of the Euphrates River (about 4° east of Jerusalem), and that was in the era of the Second Temple." Kaisershatner 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This comes from Irv Bromberg's web page Moon and the Molad of the Hebrew Calendar. It presumes that Jews of the first millennium CE knew the modern longitudes of locations in the Middle East. Instead, their calculations would have been based on first millennium longiudes, most likely those given by Ptolemy in his Geographia. — Joe Kress 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of "remedy" for calendar drift [Oct 2007]

Cut this from article. Is is WP:OR? If not, it needs to be cited. Kaisershatner 20:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As the 19-year cycle (and indeed all aspects of the calendar) is part of codified Jewish law, it would only be possible to amend it if a Sanhedrin could be convened. It is traditionally assumed that this will take place upon the coming of the Messiah, which will mark the beginning of the era of redemption according to Jewish belief. [This paragraph is in conflict with the historical gradual evolution of the calendar rules that was outlined above. If the calendar development was indeed gradual and did not reach its final form until Maimonides, who published the first complete and unambiguous codification of both the observational and fixed-arithmetic Hebrew calendars, then a Sanhedrin is not required to change it. If the calendar rules were set by the Sanhedrin of Hillel II, then the gradual history outlined above is wrong and only the present or future Sanhedrin can change them.]

An excellent solution would be to replace the 19-year cycle with a 353-year cycle of 4366 lunations, including 130 leap months. It is predicted that this cycle, together with use of a progressively shorter molad interval, will keep the amended calendar from drifting for more than 7 millennia (deduct 3 millennia if the traditional molad interval is retained). The calendar arithmetic to do this is straightforward and is documented in the public domain (see the external link to the Rectified Hebrew Calendar).

Another possibility would be to calculate the astronomical moment of the actual northward equinox and declare a leap year if and only if Pesach would otherwise start before the equinox. Similar ideas are used in the Chinese calendar and some Indian calendars. This would be very accurate, but would require a central authority to be responsible for the official calculations, because there are small differences between astronomical algorithms, depending on the methods employed.

Adopting an astronomical calendar would require more explicit definition of the calendar rules. Should the calculated equinox moment be the actual astronomical equinox, or the mean astronomical equinox, and which meridian of longitude should the moment be referred to? (The traditional equinox moments of Tekufat Shmuel drift at the same rate as the Julian calendar, and those of Tekufat Adda drift at the same rate as the fixed arithmetic Hebrew calendar, so neither can be used.) Should the leap month be inserted if the equinox would otherwise land after the end of the first day of Passover (as Maimonides suggested), or should the cutoff be the moment of the Korban Pesach sacrifice 30 minutes after noon on the 14th of Nissan (most compatible with the Torah command in Deuteronomy 16:1), or should the average equinox moment align with the average moment when the month of Nissan starts (calendrically most sensible)?

Should a progressive molad be used, or the actual lunar conjunction, or a prediction of new lunar crescent visibility (a reliable way to do that still doesn't exist), and which meridian of longitude should the moment be referred to? Should month lengths vary such that any month can have 29 or 30 days, or should the present rules for fixed month lengths be continued? (In particular, should the length of Elul be fixed at 29 days, which was mentioned in many places in the Talmud?) Should there be any offset between the "molad" moment (however determined) and the start of months (one day yields good agreement with the performance of the fixed arithmetic calendar)? Should Rosh HaShanah postponement rules be continued, or advance/postpone used instead (arithmetically much simpler)?

The compatibility of the selected astronomical rules with the dates of High Holy Days and other events, and with the weekly Torah portions, needs to be evaluated and confirmed as acceptable.

This also comes from Irv Bromberg, via his Rectified Hebrew Calendar web page, although, IIRC, it was added by an anonymous editor who added his own opinions. — Joe Kress 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the early Gaonic period [Feb 2008]

The article states:

"Furthermore, Jewish dates during post-Talmudic times (specifically in 506 and 776) are impossible using modern rules, and all evidence points to the development of the arithmetic rules of the modern calendar in Babylonia during the times of the Geonim (seventh to eighth centuries), under the Abbasid Caliphate."

What impossible dates of 506 and 776? Perhaps a one-day disagreement between the day of the month and that of the week? If so, I have read a plausible resolution. An article in a recent edition (#456) of "Meorot HaDaf HaYomi" discusses such one-day differences. One example: a tombstone dated Tuesday, 12 Elul 4263 (or rather: 435 to the destruction of the temple), while the current calendar would have 12 Elul on Wednesday. The author proposes that the day of the month is to be counted from the first ot the two days of Rosh Chodesh, so that in the example given the actual date is 10 Elul, eleventh from the thirtieth of Av, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Elul. The author continues to quote various medieval sources that this alternate reckoning of dates was actually in practice.

Is there any further information as to whether this would resolve these discrepancies? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The year 506 involves the date that Rav Achai bar Rav Hunah died according to the Iggeret of Rav Sherira Gaon, on Sunday 4 Adar 4265. This is a year in the Era of Adam, hence equals the modern AM 4266 (506 CE). But according to the modern rules, 4 Adar 4266 is a Monday. This is discussed by Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky in the Avodah Mailing List (v3n33). He also discussed your tombstone dated Tuesday 11 Elul 4263 (Wednesday in the modern calendar). Both involve a one day difference between the day of the week and the date.

The year 776 does not involve a one day difference, but a difference in molad Tishri. In the Baraitha of Samuel, an astronomical text, at the beginning of chapter 5 is the statement "'sun and moon and years of release and tequfoth were readjusted' in AM 4536, and that tequfat Tishri (of AM 4537) took place on Tuesday, towards the end of the day, and 2 hours before the conjunction of the month of Tishri, which occurred at the beginning of Wednesday (= Tuesday, 6pm)." Ignoring the tequfa, the stated molad Tishri 4537 of 4d 0h differs from that of the modern calendar, 4d 3h 363p. Entering either molad into the table of limits (the four gates) of the modern calendar places 1 Tishri 4357 on the fifth day of the week, Thursday, so there is no difference in the day of the week. See Samuel Poznanski, "Calendar (Jewish)", Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics 3 (1911) 118&122. -- Joe Kress (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment [Feb 2008]

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthday [Oct 2008]

Correct me if I am wrong: In the 19-year calendar cycle there are 7 years with 13 months called leap years and 12 years with 12 months. If you happen to be born in the 'leap' month, when do you celebrate your birthday in a non-leap year? Juve2000 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In a leap year, the actual leap month is Adar I, not Adar II - so that a person born in Adar I has their birthday in normal Adar in non-leap years. Those born in Adar II have no problem, because that is not a leap month.Ewawer (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, if two people are born in the same leap year; one on the tenth day of Adar I and the other on the tenth day of Adar II, in a non-leap year they will share the same birth date on the tenth of Adar even though they were born 30 days apart.Juve2000 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Day is divided into halachic hours [Nov-Dec 2008]

The article's assertion that

The day is the smallest unit of time in the Jewish calendar.

is ridiculous, as any of the millions of observant Jews around the world can testify.

The day is not the smallest unit of Jewish time, and there is a halachic use of hours (called sha`oth - שעות.) The period from morning to night and from night to morning is each divided into 12 portions, and various events during the day, such as sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem and prayers in the synagogue, must occur during different hours of the day and night. The use of hours is all discussed in the Mishnah, as is some of the dispute about when the day and night each begin. The latter issues are further discussed in the Gemara.

The hours themselves are divided into minutes (dakot - דקות - also meaning "thin [ones]", being a "thinner" portion of time than hours) and "portions" (chelekim - חלקים - also meaning "fractions.") The minutes are used in a few places for specifying durations of time such as the amount of time to wait for Birkat Hamazon (Grace after meals) or how long before moistened dough is considered leavened (and hence unfit for matzo.) The "portions" are used only for the public announcement of the molad - the earliest time when the new moon becomes visible over Jerusalem.

I don't have time now to properly write this up and add it into the article, with proper citations, so I slapped the {{Disputed}} tag on the offending section. At least the facts are now here.

--84.109.186.85 (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence to which you object, as you are correct. However, I doubt whether hours, portions etc are really part of the calendar itself. Ewawer (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hours, minutes, and portions are a part of the Jewish system of keeping time. To say that

There is no clock in the Jewish scheme,

is nearly as misleading, because there IS a Jewish clock, with variable hours. Just about every Jewish calendar published prints times on it, with the mapping of secular time (the fixed, 24 hour clock) to halachic time (the 12/12 variable hours system) the same way it shows the mapping of the secular calendar (January through December) to the Hebrew calendar.

If you want to say that this article is about the calendar, and that the division of the day deserves a separate article, I would agree with you completely. --84.109.186.85 (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding a note directing the reader to the part of the article that discusses halachic hours and smaller units of time. However, dakot are not yet mentioned. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Rambam understood that when it came to calculating the calender components, the time 6:00 pm was chosen as beginning the day. This was used for convenience, and is used in reference to the molad calculation. However, the reality is that there is no 'fixed' start of the day, but varies depending on the number of halachic hours in a given day. This however is not the discussion - the Jewish Calendar does not address this issue, nor should it, this a feature of Jewish time, not the Jewish Calendar. However I'm in full agreement that the statement: "

The day is the smallest unit of time in the Jewish calendar.

" is ridiculous. It might be better modified to: "The moment or chelek is the smallest unit used the determination of the calendar". The statement itself that the smallest unit of time is simply wrong. As the article concurs, that hours (for the determination of the molad - the basis for the calendar) maybe divided into Chalakim (1080 parts to an hour) and these are further subdivided into Regaim (76 Regaim/moments in a Chelek). This is all explained by the Rambam, and elaborated by Ganz's translation.

Dannyza1981 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hostile attitude [Dec 2008]

Some parts of the article demonstrated an openly hostile attitude toward Jewish sources. It stated several times that they had failed or been proven incorrect when nothing in the source material indicated as such, thus constituting original research, if not outright lying. Specifically in the section about the calculated calendar, spurious reasoning and tortured wording were used to give the impression that the Jewish sources were wrong, rather than just presenting their contents straight(since they are the only direct source on the matter). I tried to clear some of it up and use more neutral wording, but I left the unsourced criticisms and disparagements on the chance that someone might find a source for them. It says in one place that something is unknown when another place explains how it was proven. It definitely needs more work.

Other examples of this hostility are discussed in other talk sections, such as Day is divided into halachic hours, Discrepancies in the early Gaonic period, and Discussion of "remedy" for calendar drift. 75.168.23.105 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Drift in mean synodic month [Mar 2009]

It is possible to find "reliable sources" that say the actual mean synodic month is getting longer and others that say it is getting shorter. I thought I would record the solution here for reference. It is not clear what the exact definition of "mean synodic month" is, but essentially: equations matching the actual motion of the moon comprise some very slowly changing non-periodic functions and some periodic functions with slowly changing parameters. The "mean synodic month" can then be taken as the non-periodic part (which is not a precise definition since different mathematical models might have different non-periodic parts). Anyway, the solution to the puzzle I started with is: the mean synodic month is getting both longer and shorter, depending on the unit of measurement. If we measure time by an absolute standard like an atomic clock, it is getting gradually longer. However, the rotation of the earth is getting slower at an even greater rate, so from the point of view of someone on Earth measuring time by day and night, the mean synodic month is getting shorter. The latter way of measuring is what matters for calendrical purposes. According to some calculations I did with the DE404 lunar-solar model from JPL, the mean synodic month exactly matched the Hebrew calendar value around 1 CE and is now about 0.6 seconds less (measured in earth rotations). The cumulative drift from 1 CE until now is about 125 minutes. McKay (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronounce "shibboleth" [May-July 2009]

Four months are named in the bible, before the Exile: 1st: Aviv (Exodus 13:4) 2nd: Ziv (1Kings 6:1) 6th: Éthaniym (1Kings 8:2) 7th: Bul (1Kings 6:38).

There's departure from this in the post-Exilic calendar.

The Hebrew calendar followed a 1000-year cycle, and there was no need for the initial 1000's digit when describing the year, since a lag of one day was generated for each 1000 years. I generated this from the verb rules for Hebrew. [3]

I contend that the current calendar (where the year doesn't match scripture [4]) is Chaldean.

The Talmudic divisions of a lunar cycle were revised in the first couple centuries AD. --No938 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the sources for these assertions. Ewawer (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Section criticism [Jul 2009]

The section Weeks has a very weak discourse, for example concluding that:

The names of the days of the week are modeled on the seven days mentioned in the Creation story.

It is likely that the creation story seven-days was modelled after the Hebrew length of the week, but that then 1 ... 7 is modelled after 1 ... 7 is nonsential, except possibly in some very esoteric modern axiomatic logic. The "week names" are just a simple numbering translated to Hebrew, no names proper. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)