Talk:Sukkot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sukkot vs. Sukkah

Hi, I found this article after seeing the term "Sukkah" in a newspaper article. The term "Sukkah" gets used in this article, but is never defined. Is "Sukkah" the singular form of "Sukkot", and the holiday is called by the plural? Do you build a Sukkah on Sukkot? Thanks, Creidieki 23:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correct. The festival is called Sukkot, which is plural, and the hut is called a Sukkah. JFW | T@lk 11:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All right. I added a note at the beginning of the article; I think it's particularly important to have that towards the beginning, since Sukkah redirects here. -- Creidieki 17:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How many days

The third paragraph should be edited to reflect the Israel/Diaspora dichotomy discussed below wrt Shemini Atzeret. That would probably necessitate a bit of rewriting of both paragraphs to minimize awkwardness. The same goes for the section below entitled "A seven or eight day festival. I may do it when I have time... MOE37x3 20:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added link to entry for Worldwide Church of God

I added a four line entry for Worldwide Church of God at the conclusion of the article due to the several mentions elsewhere concerning this church and the Feast of Tabernacles. See also the entry for the history of Big Sandy Texas. MPLX/MH 06:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sukkah photo

I agree with the most recent edit that the affiliation of the Jews in the graphic is irrelevant. However, I think that the Sukkah pictured is a poor example:

- It looks structurally poor and (IMHO) aesthetically unpleasing.

- More importantly, it is Halachically invalid (at least according to "Orthodox tradition"), since only a minority of the top is covered with schach. I think that it would make more sense for the example of a sukkah pictured in this encyclopedia to be one that everyone would consider to actually be one.

This explains my edit to the caption. Could a better photo be substituted in?

MOE37x3

I agree that it would be better to use another photo. There are copyright issues with using something like [1], right? How do we get around that? Dreyfus 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. The sekhakh must (traditional, Orthodox, Conservative) or should preferably (Reconstructionist) cover the majority of the top of the sukkah to be considered a valid sukkah. The picture in question is not a good choice for the only picture in an article on Sukkot. How about using Bernhard Picart's picture from the Dutch 1700s...? It is old enough to be PD... -- Olve 03:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ushpizzin

To the best of my knowledge, David was the Second King of Israel. However, I'm not familiar with this tradition or holiday so I don't know if the guest is supposed to be Saul, if the explanation should read "the second king of Israel," or if it is correct as is for reasons unknown to me.--Serf 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox Problem

Fixed the Infobox which did not work - problem was incorrect syntax. --LeFrog 09:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Feast of _______?

I've never heard of this title for Sukkot. On Yahoo and Google searches it turned up a couple of very unsavoury sites, on MSN and jewfaq, nothing at all. Anyone know where it comes from? If not, could it be removed please? 62.189.228.3 13:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism. I've fixed it and warned the unsavoury character who made these edits. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing that. Eleanor Miller 14:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The defamatory reference in the heading hereof amounts to further defamation; accordingly, I have removed it. It should not have been on this site for what is now almost a year. --Lance6968 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Months

It says Tishrai is the first month of the year. Actually, Tishrai is the seventh month, and the year begins on the first day of the seventh month. Should I fix it? Put in an explaination?

Yes, indeed, you're correct. I believe Nissan is the first month of the year.--Lance6968 06:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, this sentence needs to be removed, for obvious reasons: "A sukkah is a jewish thing that no one wants of about shizzle gizzle gizingar." I tried to do it myself, but couldn't figure it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.143.116 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ushpizziyot

I think his is crazy. There is no source for this! The source for the ushpizzin is the Zohar. And to add that one person in the entire world wants to add in Ruth is no appropriate to put in this at all. This is meant to be a factual explanation of sukkot based on fact and sources. I think this should be removed immediately!

I also found it quite strange. Some change should be made to this. Amoruso 01:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you do a Google search for “ushpizot” you will find approximately 300 references to this ritual, including explanations, charts and pedagogical material. It is clearly of recent origin and associated with Reform and Renewal practice. Perhaps the transliteration ought to be corrected.Professorkemp 06:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 06:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If so it should not read "many Jews" but "Reform Jews."

The 1998 Conservative movement prayerbook "Sim Shalom" includes the women (p. 330 in the Shabbat and Festival editions; other editions may vary). The intro text in the book explains that the women have been added to the men mentioned in the Zohar and some of the rationale. Charlesg1 07:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

it seems similar to the cup of Miriam in passover - new mostly feminist additions. IMO, mention should be made of such customs (they're cute ;) as long as it's only small additions and no alternations I think it's harmless) but the problem was that in the article it was represented as being on the same level of ushpizzin. Amoruso 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Split "Sukkah"

It's a reasonably separate topic, big enough to have its own article. 'Nuff said. --Smack (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

good idea, it will also enlarge Category:Sukkot. Amoruso 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Move for Semiprotection

FYI I have applied for temporary semi-protection for this article due to the recent barrage of vandalism. Some days I wish I was an admin so that I could have done this myself... Valley2city 17:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've consistently wondered why people vandalise this article--It's not even a subject most people who aren't Jewish have heard of. As for being an admin, why not apply for it? Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kari, but I think I will wait until I have more of a shot, when I double my edits to 1,500, which should, at my accellerating edit rate, probably be late November. Valley2city 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, hopefully this lessens the vandalism influx. Valley2city 23:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

End Date in InfoBox

In the infobox it says sukkot ends 22nd of Tishrei (21st in Israel). Should we be technical here and say that sukkot ends on the 20th? Shemini Atzeret is a completely separate festival! I want to bring this up here instead of making the actual edit because I think that I will get reverted by those who think of it as an 8 or 9 day festival instead of the 7 day festival that is celebrated in Israel and the Diaspora. It is Shemini Atzeret/Simchat Torah which is 1 or 2 days and therefore ends on the 21st or 22nd of Tishrei. Valley2city 21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are technically correct, and I would generally agree with your statement. However, (a) it is sometimes referenced even in the Torah as including Shemini Atzeres (this would support calling it 8 or 9 days) and (b) in the Diaspora we eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres (but not Simchas Torah) although without a bracha. I would leave this one as is. Manassehkatz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are these Festivals addressed as Jewish holidays when the they as well as the Torah were given to all the 12 tribes of Yisrael. Why have I, being a Levite, find this out from a non-Yahudim. Why are these things not being re-revealed to the rest of us who have a Heart for Torah. I now understand why Yahshua had to come. His purpose was to come for the lost sheep of the house of Yisrael and bring the rest of us back to Torah since it's seems like, at least for the most part, we cannot rely on our own Yahudim bretheren. Yahshua has definetly fulfilled his purpose, and I being lost have made teshuva and urge my Yahudim brothers to Find Yahshua because there is no other acceptable sacrifice in this generation but to uncircumsize your hearts. Shema Yisrael... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.112.23 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Where should I begin? This really should be a separate heading, but I don't want to give it that much credibility. However, I feel compelled to respond in case there are people out there who are confused by this drivel. First of all, while this is called a "Jewish" holiday and "Jew" comes from "Judah", it is universally accepted that this refers to all 12 tribes including of course Levites. For this to be turned into a J-for-J advertisement is simply incredibly twisted. Manassehkatz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

The following sentence is problematic: "The sukkah is reminiscent of the type of thatched huts in which the ancient Israelites dwelt during their 40 years of wandering in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt." I ran across this in the course of editing a book by a Protestant minister who made a similar assertion, which didn't jibe with my memory, which is that the sukkah traces to temporary huts used in the fields during the harvest season, in the Promised Land (and therefore in the era after the wandering in the desert). So I ran it by the Conservative rabbi who lives across the street. Here's what he said: "I think [you are] correct to associate the structures we call 'sukkot' with field huts used in agriculture. The Israelite wandering is not confirmed by any extrabiblical source that I am aware of, and so its historicity is questionable to begin with. The Biblical account includes Bilaam's 'Ma tovu ohalekha Yaqov,' and commentators such as Rashi also use the word 'ohel' (tent) to describe the dwellings of the Israelites. That would be the normal shelter for that time and place. The reference "Israel dwelt in Sukkot" is understood, and supported by context and other information, to refer to a place."Dmargulis (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

He is sort of correct, but depending on how you understand the sources, it is strange that he would expect to find such a reference in an extra biblical source, given the specific period it traditionaly should have happened in, the turmoil and chaos in egypt at the time, not to mention egypts penchant for revisionist history and their inability to admit to basic and obvious facts... on the other hand, they're not supposed to be reminiscient, but rather to recall the temporary dwelling. (tents) that they lived in, as well as to be distinct (ie using a hut at a time when a hut would not be generaly used. (thats in the gemorah sukkos.) 136.165.112.219 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two opionins mentioned in the gemara in Sukkos. Rabbi Eliezer states that the "Sukkos" refers to the protective Clouds of Glory, while Rabbi Akiva states that actual booths were used. As to the word ohel, tent, the rigid Tabernacle was also called an ohel. Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the rabbis, but what about Leviticus 23:42-43 for an authority, "Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.238.198.187 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sukkah city

I have moved the "sukkah city" topic out from underneath "Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah", as it is not a sub-topic of those holidays. It is now its own section. 66.208.46.178 (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish - Christian

The Feast of Tabernacles is also Christian. For the Day of Atonement article we have mention of both. Pretty much any Christian keeping Atonement will also be keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. I think we need a similar layout as the article on the Day of Atonement.

ALLthestinkinnamesaretaken (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it observed? Please provide sources. Chesdovi (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to provide resources. I know of many churches that keep it. Church of God International keeps it, there are many independent churches that came out of the Worldwide Church of God that keep it. Here is CGI's site: http://cgi.org/site/index.php/Feast-2008-/-Holy-Days.html. It is kept as an 8 day feast (some call it a 7 day Feast and consider the 8th day, The Last Great Day a separate Feast). You stay outside your home, wherever God's people are. Many people travel long distances. Generally there is a lot of food and services daily and celebration. Here is our church's website, ours is a small independent church http://www.icog7.org/ . There is a link with a brief description of one of our Feasts.

We do not use temporary booths as we believe our bodies are now the temporary booths (or tabernacles/ temples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALLthestinkinnamesaretaken (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not real familiar with how everything works here, I'm amazed I got this in the right spot.

ALLthestinkinnamesaretaken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Well, this article is about the Jewish festival. If some Christian churches celebrate a similar festival, the question will be is it notable, and if so (WP:RS needed), should it be mentioned in this article, or should it get its own article. Seeing how "Christianity" in its more eccentric forms in the US is essentially Old Testament reenactment, I have no doubt some people also observe a Feast of Tabernacles, but this really needs coverage from a quotable source if we are to mention it. --dab (𒁳) 09:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== Christian Links? -- Could someone please explain the direct relevance of the link section entitled 'Christian', prior to my removing it as irrelevant to an article about a Jewish holy festival? Some we will see its presence as incitory proselyting, so unless it can be shown to be directly relevant under the strictest WP terms, I will edit in the near future. Leegee23 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian categories should not be in this article

This article is about one of the major the Jewish holidays, all the observances and references relate to Judaism, and there is no reference here whatsoever that justify the two Christian categories of Category:Christian festivals and holy days and Category:Church of God (Armstrong). In the past, editors who wish to create articles about the Christian version of such holidays have created articles such as Passover (Christian holiday) and Christian observances of Yom Kippur. There is a valid section for the Christian observance of Sukkot at Christian observances of Jewish holidays#Feast of Tabernacles. Therefore, the two categories of Category:Christian festivals and holy days and Category:Church of God (Armstrong) should not be here as they are a violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:NEO among others. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Date?

Being a typical consumer of Wikipedia I do not know how to change this: IMHO the start date for the current year (secular 2013) is wrong as Sukkot started yesterday (September 18) at sundown. Listed references also mention the 18th. Can someone please change this? Thanks! --193.159.12.155 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Observances in the sukkah

OK, so i had mini-edit-warring with User:Debresser about the observances in the sukkah. In the article was written that the observance is "eating in sukkah", and i changed it to "eating and sleeping in sukkah", and again after Debresser reverted the article (the user is a Lubavicher, Lubavichers doesn't sleep in sukkah) i changed it to "living in sukkah", what Debresser reverted again. I have no power to quarrel with this user, so i asking you (only jewish religious people, please): what do you think need to be written in the relevant section: eating \ eating and sleeping \ living \ any other idea? thank you and sorry for my english. איל דימנט (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed "sleeping" because 1. the fact that a blessing is said only over eating in the Succah, not drinking, sleeping or spending time (ti'ul) shows that eating in the Succah is the main observance according to Jewish law 2. if we mention sleeping, then we should also mention spending time, because eating, sleeping and spending time are mentioned together 3. eating meals in the Succah is better know to the wider public than sleeping in the Succah (guest are usually invited for a meal, not to sleep over). I also reverted "living" because although it is true that the Hebrew "teshvu" (lit. to sit) means living, but it conveys the wrong impression. After all, food is still prepared in the kitchen, the car still stands in the garage, and the books still stand on their shelves (with the exception of a few books that need to be handy in the Succah), so we still "live" in our houses. Never seen a four-room Succah, even with people who have a four-room house. 23:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

There is an aspect in which sleeping in the Succah is more strict than eating in the Succah, and that is it is allowed to eat minor things (not bread or pastry) outside the Succah, while even short sleep may be only in the Succah. But to that I would counter that 1. snoozing is allowed outside the Succah (as the Talmud relates that our sages used to snooze on each others shoulders during the Simchat Beit HaSho'eva) 2. there is no halakhic obligation to sleep during the seven days of the festival, while there is a halakhic obligation to eat meals during the festival, and specifically in the Succah. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material

This material has been removed on the grounds that it is inferior. This is RS material and widely accepted in academic circles. 'Inferior' is not a valid reason for its removal, andn I intend to restore it, and hope that there is no edit warring over this.

De Moor has drawn attention to the links between Sukkot and the Ugaritic New Year festival, in particular the Ugaritic custom of erecting two rows of huts built of branches on the temple roof as temporary dwelling houses for the gods.<ref>Title = New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Author = Johannes Cornelis De Moor (1972) | pub = Kok pg 6-7</ref>

In Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Jan A. Wagenaar has suggested that Sukkot, like Shabuot was originally a harvest festival locally celebrated in regional sanctuaries, until a 'centralisation act' (Deut. 16:1-17) records the relocation of these to the central site of Jerusalem as 'pilgrimage festivals'.<ref>Title=Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Author=Jan A. Wagenaar, pub=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005, pg 156</ref> Theredheifer (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Theredheifer I removed it as inferior because 1. Wagenaar sounds like academic speculation, no more. You'd need to show that his point of view is more than just speculation, but rather is a scientific theory that has been discussed and has its adherents. 2. Your references suck, no formatting at all, not to mention the hard breaks in the middle of them. 3. The fact that De Moor "has drawn attention" is not interesting. It is the similarity itself. The sentence as it stands is not an organic part of the article, probably because you were so preoccupied with stressing whatever professor wrote it, that you paid no attention to the natural flow of the article. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed a lot more, all kinds of original research and speculations. I did keep the fact of the agricultural origins of the festival, with clear sources. Also please note that not all material is fit for a lede, which per WP:LEDE must summarize the article proper. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Four Species

The waving of the Four Species is an integral part of the holiday. This subject deserves at least a pargraph, not just two drive-by mentions. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I also had this same thought when I read this article a week or two ago. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

More removed material

this was removed on the grounds of being original research. Sukkot is agricultural in origin. This is evident from the biblical name "The Feast of Ingathering," Ex. 23:16, 34:22 from the ceremonies accompanying it, from the season – "The festival of the seventh month" Ezek. 45:25; Neh. 8:14. – and occasion of its celebration: "At the end of the year when you gather in your labors out of the field" (Ex. 23:16); by its designation as "the Feast of the Lord" Lev. 23:39; Judges 21:19 or simply "the Feast". 1 Kings 8:2, 8:65; 12:32; 2 Chron. 5:3; 7:8 Perhaps because of its wide attendance, Sukkot became the appropriate time for important state ceremonies. Moses instructed the 'all Israel' to gather for a reading of the Law during Sukkot every seventh year (Deut. 31:10-11). King Solomon dedicated the Temple in Jerusalem on Sukkot (1 Kings 8; 2 Chron. 7). And Sukkot was the first sacred occasion observed after the resumption of sacrifices in Jerusalem following the Babylonian captivity (Ezra 3:2-4). i do not see any OR here, and therefore suggest that it be restored, though it may need trimming.Theredheifer (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite a bit of that does in fact sound like WP:OR since it is sourced to bible verses that require interpretation (Unless those assertions and refs to bible verses and the related analysis is made in the Gitlitz/Davidson source, in which case we should probably move all the verses into a note, and cite only the real citation) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed original research. In addition, there are many incorrect statements here, as I explained at length here. Debresser (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In the link you were asked why you had removed material that had an RS in Pilgramage and the Jews. I do not see your answer. Do you agree that I can restore the material found in that RS, and leave out the Primary source material? regardsTheredheifer (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure that I understand which part you want to remove and which to keep. Would you mind terribly to show here what text you would propose? Debresser (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Another "source" removed

This "source" is not up to standards:

1. The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers.
2. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions.
3. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative.
4. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear.
5. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability.

Large claims need impeccable sources. This paper and writer are far from that. Debresser (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first claim is not good enough. The source can be checked by anyone who wants to register for free. The definition of RS is "made available to the public in some form" This source meets that definition.

your second claim is not good enough. The term leftist is your own POV. Haaretz is widely sourced.

Third claim, what do you mean by populariser and where does RS say anything about that?

Last claim, you cannot point to other articles by the writer to discredit this one.

In all, you should restore the text, or take it to dispute. You need than this to justify your removal. Please restore while you take this action.Theredheifer (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right about WP:V.

The term leftist can easily be sourced. Feel free to look around on the web. In general, Haaretz is a reliable source on news facts, but hardly on anything in depth. Especially articles about this subject matter. Especially from this author.

I do not need more than what I said above to justify removal. See WP:BRD. Also please note that I claim the text I removed was not reliably sourced, and that per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such information can be removed at will. If you disagree with anything I said, feel free to discuss.

Asking me to start dispute resolution is a strange demand, since my posting here is precisely that. What more do you want at this stage? Debresser (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Haaretz is a reliable source, and its requirement of registration does not in any way affect WP:V. Statements of opinion in the article should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV , and be balanced appropriately for WP:WEIGHT with other sources, but beyond that there is no barrier for using this source. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the text should be restored attributed to the author.Theredheifer (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The restored text will be as follows According to Elon Gilad, Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. and

According to Elon Gilad, as was the norm with all holidays during the Temple period, Sukkot centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer.Theredheifer (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, just asserting that Haaretz is a reliable source doesn't make it so. Please relate to my arguments above. They were very specific, and explained why Haaretz is indeed a reliable source for some things, especially news items, and this article nevertheless isn't. At all!

In addition, the claims he makes are not mainstream. 1. Why would Sukkot have become significant specifically during King Josiah’s reign? Unexplained and dubious. 2. Why would the pilgrims have to erect huts, rather than sleep with relatives/friends or guest-houses, or even under the usually warm Israeli skies? Dubious. 3. The sukkah huts were used by people working the fields during the harvest period, that is documented and mainstream. Why make up some other theory? Unsourced and dubious. 4. Why suppose that the connection between sukkot and the Exodus was added at a later time? That connection is mentioned specifically in the Torah, which dates from before the time of King Josiah. Unexplained and dubious. 5. Why would the sukkah and 4 species become more important after the end of temple services? And why these 2 (related) observances more than other? Especially in the years after the devastating wars that ruined the country, in which the number of Jews went down and agriculture must also have suffered extensively? Dubious at best and unexplained again. Prayer did become more important after the destruction of the temple. That is mainstream and documented, but why all these strange theories? For non-mainstream points of view, which reek of having been made up by some cheap journalist who was asked by this leftist newspaper to write a series of article about the Jewish holidays, preferably as far from religion and religious sources as possible, better sources than this are needed! Debresser (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless you asking your OR questions. If the source is RS, it goes back in, if it is found to be non RS, it does not go in. Until you publish an article or book, or can find an RS that asks your questions, you are just wasting our time with OR. If it goes in, then find a RS to reflect what you are asking. Your abusive remarks about the author are uncalled for of course.Theredheifer (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Theredheifer. The questions point to problems with the source. They discredit the source, and indicate that it is likely not a reliable source. My remarks about the author are not abusive, you must have intended another word. They do give expression to the lack of any serious credentials by the author, and the impression his articles make. Regarding the newspaper itself, see e.g. [www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1224339 this] article, and then tell me it is a serious newspaper that brings mainstream opinions regarding religious issues! Debresser (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A cheap journalist, is abusive in my book. Your series of OR comments do not affect the source. There are all OR, and if you want to put them on the article, you can only do so with an RS to back up your POV. The talk page is not for discussion of the topic The only outstanding question is whether or not this is an RS. Two editors say it is, so if you remove the text it will be edit warring.Theredheifer (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Laws and customs section

Ref this sentence. According to Halakha, many types of work are permitted during Chol HaMoed. This is from this source. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kZL9RW6q22wC&pg=PA88&dq=chol+hamoed+no+work&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GL4-VOaTOYTgOKOTgHA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=work&f=false

The previous wording was inferior. Whilst nearly all work is 'forbidden' during the beginning and concluding days of this festival, this does not apply to these 'mundane' days. This wording better contrasts the two. It also fits in better with this which is in the lede. The first day (and second day in the diaspora) is a Shabbat-like holiday when work is forbidden.Theredheifer (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, to the general reader it will not be so relevant to note the difference between Yom Tov and Chol HaMoed, rather between regular days and Chol HaMoed. On Yom Tov nearly all work is forbidden, while on Chol HaMoed only some activities are forbidden. In other words, it is not the chiddush that most activities are permitted, which for most readers they always are, rather that some are forbidden.

Also, you should really stop edit warring. When reverted, please first discuss and then edit. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to find a source and use it. It is edit warring to change text that is in the source to something other than what is there. You should have left the text as it was and found another source that reflected what you want to say. That would have been the correct action. You reverted to something that was not there, and that was why I edited back to sourced material. Why did you not attempt this explanation earlier? I still disagree with you, but the RS text should stay until a decision is reachedTheredheifer (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Theredheifer, you are wrong, again. The rule is called "consensus". If you don't have consensus, it doesn't fly, however much you may think you are right. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, as I have already pointed out to you. I even gave you the quote. I can't help you if you will not read what I give you.Theredheifer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE You may insist however much you want. However, please take into account that acting against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially after being informed of your mistake (whether you agree or not) will open the door to possible sanctions against you. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RS material that belongs here

I wish to restore this material.

De Moor has drawn attention to the links between Sukkot and the Ugaritic New Year festival, in particular the Ugaritic custom of erecting two rows of huts built of branches on the temple roof as temporary dwelling houses for the gods.<ref>Title = New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Author = Johannes Cornelis De Moor (1972) | pub = Kok pg 6-7</ref>

− − In Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Jan A. Wagenaar has suggested that Sukkot, like Shabuot was originally a harvest festival locally celebrated in regional sanctuaries, until a 'centralisation act' (Deut. 16:1-17) records the relocation of these to the central site of Jerusalem as 'pilgrimage festivals'.<ref>Title=Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Author=Jan A. Wagenaar, pub=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005, pg 156</ref>

I will add in more details of de moors academic credentials. This material has previously been removed on the grounds that it is speculation and inferior. These are not grounds for removal. Academic research that can be shown to be widely accepted is perfectly acceptable for inclusion. There have been discussions as to insider and outsider views of religious articles. Wikipedia has no such consideration. There is verifiable RS material, and nothing else. Please can we confine this discussion to wikipedia policies, and not non wikipedia opinions? Regards.Theredheifer (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This material was removed for a reason. You saw in the section above that this material is contested. Your revert is therefore simply edit warring, as in an act of aggression to push through your opinion against consensus. Please be warned that next time you will be reported as such, and sanctions may follow. Note that on other articles you face the same problems. Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not added the material, I have said that I want to add it. You advised me to seek concensus and that is what I a doing. Your response is therefore way over the top. Threats are not required. It is only you who object to this material, and you have not given any acceptable reason for your objection, just vague comments about inferior material. This is RS material and it has every right to be here. Please read NPOV. You appear to believe that you can stop non religious viewpoints from being on here and other articles that deal with religious topics. I will escalate this as it clearly sets a precedent if you are going to try and restrict these articles to religious viewpoints only. Regards.Theredheifer (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your other edit from October 3 was also reverted before and you redid it nevertheless without obtaining prior consensus, so you have already proven to be an edit warrior. But I too would prefer to keep my dealings with you as amiable as possible, since I am convinced you can contribute much. I am only trying to explain to you how to integrate materials in this article.

I have clearly said above that I am in favor of adding non-religious viewpoints, in the correct way. Please do not accuse me of what I don't try to do.

Why don't we add the paragraphs you suggest, in a section "Academic viewpoints", for example? I am perfectly fine with that. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer the title to be Academic viewsTheredheifer (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me. Debresser (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me just point you to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Sukkot, where I pointed out what the problems are with the sources you mention. I suggest we talk it out there, before you post anything here. Debresser (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)ther

All I see there is an editor called roscelese who says that you seem to be confused about what constitutes a primary source. I see no point in discussing it there. I have provided reliable sources.Theredheifer (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you missed some pretty large paragraphs. Also, please understand that the reliability of your sources is not in all cases agreed upon. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your arguments on here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Sukkot are all based on your OR. I am now ready to restore the material, and if I do not hear further I will do so.Theredheifer (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do so, and 1. you will be reverted 2. you will be reported as an edit warrior. You have not obtained consensus for your proposed edits. Your belligerent tone here is not appreciated. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please lay out here and not elsewhere your exact issues with this material. All I have seen is based on your own OR. Your opinions do not override material that has an RS. You are not allowed to string this out forever in the vain hope that I give up. I really think that you are getting confused, and it might help you if we split the material into two. On the de moor text you have already written this.

″By the way, that same page 156 also mentions the Ugaritic huts in connection with Sukkot, so you could use it as an additional source for that. That also solves the WP:FRINGE question for De Moor, I guess

Are you now withdrawing that statement? You seem to have finally accepted de moor's credentials. Can I at least put that material in? Then we can come to the other material by Jan A. Wagenaar which I think you have accepted, but want it to go elsewhere. How can we resolve this, as I believe it is important enough to go in all three articles. Note below the support I have from another editor, provided I follow NPOV. I do not appreciate your belligerent tone and threats.Theredheifer (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with De Moor, yes. Feel free to put it up. Please be prepared that the material may be edited afterwards, to make it better, style-wise and Wikipedia-wise. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be prepared that if the changes destroy the meaning or are not backed by the RS then under wikipedia policies they will be contested.Theredheifer (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

CLOSED as far as I am concerned, with suggested edits to be put into new sections so that they can reviewed without all the cluttered comments.Theredheifer (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolving the Religious/Traditional versus Academic/Modern POV conundrum

The above, and below, squabble is not called for because the simple way that it has always been resolved in WP articles is by first citing the classical religious sources and point of view, and then later, usually towards the end of such an article, to mention latter-day academic theories (e.g.: ==Academic or Secular or Christian theories== [pick one or some]) without them changing the traditional observance of the Jewish holidays according to the teachings of Judaism and its sources and then later making room for mention of how secular/atheist/Christian/academics/what have you look at such things. WP has room for all POVs as long as they abide by WP:NPOV. Thanks, 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what I have been saying as well? Debresser (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I would however like to see the word theory used for all sources. They should be treated equally.Theredheifer (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That will never happen. As has been explained to you. Anything else? Debresser (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That is of course not your decision.Theredheifer (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is Wikipedia community consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

References

More removed material

This should now be restored as there do not seem to be any valid grounds left to remove it.

Johannes Cornelis De Moor has drawn attention to the links between Sukkot and the Ugaritic New Year festival, in particular the Ugaritic custom of erecting two rows of huts built of branches on the temple roof as temporary dwelling houses for the gods.

− − In Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Jan A. Wagenaar has suggested that Sukkot, like Shabuot was originally a harvest festival locally celebrated in regional sanctuaries, until a 'centralisation act' (Deut. 16:1-17) records the relocation of these to the central site of Jerusalem as 'pilgrimage festivals'.Theredheifer (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming those two authors are not well known as crackpots or some such, those statements seem to fall acceptably within WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV although I would suggest that "drawn attention to the links between" could be rewritten, as it implies the links are known and he just drew attention to them. If he is suggesting a link, we should say that instead. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How about Johannes Cornelis De Moor has suggested that there are links between, etc, etc,  ? Theredheifer (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To me as well. Another question I have is whether De Moor's theory is not fringe. It would be important to know how other academics have viewed De Moor's suggestion about link between the Ugaritic custom and the Israelite festival. After all, De Moor was published in 1972, and some other academics must have commented on it. Debresser (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph. The fact that Sukkot is a harvest festival is already in the article. The main point of Wagenaar is the suggestion that there was a transition from celebrated in local sanctuaries to a centralized festival. First of all, I oppose the addition of this paragraph, as long as it has not been established that this suggestion is academically accepted as being a valid theory, just like I said above in regards to De Moor, based on WP:FRINGE. Also, this suggestion seems to be related to all Three Pilgrimage Festivals, so it would make more sense to add that information there. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Debresser. Did you read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? As the text is being attributed, it does not need to be shown to be 'academically accepted.' What does that mean anyway? When the text is restored you can either find and include alternative points of view, or if you find accepted evidence this is fringe then you can remove it. As you say the book is old enough that if it was fringe, it would have been exposed as such by now. This applies to the second paragraph as well. The link to the three festivals is your OR. The RS mentions two, so I will put it in both.Theredheifer (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. WP:FRINGE applies even to attributed statements.

By "academically accepted as being a valid theory" I do not mean that the academic world has to agree with the theory, but that the theory has at least not been ridiculed or widely rejected.

You are wrong about Wagenaar mentioning only 2 festivals. See here clearly mentions all three festivals in relation to the "centralization act", but indeed only Sukkot and Shavuot (called "Shabuot" by Wagenaar) as harvest festivals. Since the fact that Sukkot is a harvest festival is already mentioned in the article, and the only reason to bring Wagenaar is to mention the transition from celebrated in local sanctuaries to a centralized festival, as I said above, this is more relevant in Three Pilgrimage Festivals than here, precisely as I said above.

You are wrong when you say that "As you say the book is old enough that if it was fringe, it would have been exposed as such by now", because I said that in relation to the book by De Moor from 1972, while the book by Wagenaar dates from 2005.

By the way, that same page 156 also mentions the Ugaritic huts in connection with Sukkot, so you could use it as an additional source for that. That also solves the WP:FRINGE question for De Moor, I guess. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So I take it that you will be restoring the material that you removed? Why did you remove it instead of looking for another source to satisfy your fringe theory? Again, I ask you what exactly this means 'that the theory has at least not been ridiculed or widely rejected'? That is a ridiculous statement and the idea that one further reference proves it is nonsense. If you insist on using this personal rule that non religious authors must have two sources, then I will apply it to all sources. Note that the significance of moving from regional to centralised festivals is sufficiently important that it belongs in all four articles. Be warned that any further edit warring on your part will be met with the appropriate action. I will not warn you again. The fact that you do not like something is not sufficient grounds for you to remove it. Concensus does not mean that you have to personally agree to every change.Theredheifer (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are an edit warrior, and after this last insolent post of yours, my patience with you is up, and I will treat you as such. I said nothing of the kind, that everything must have two sources. I said that you must make sure not to write fringe theories. that is simple Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I said that you used the two sources rule, which you did, as you were happy to allow material once you had found a second source (see below). I did not say that you stated it as a rule. You should withdraw the claim that I said that you stated that there must be two sources. You came nowhere close to making such a clear statement. If it was as simple as that I could at least understand your issues, rather than your vague fringe remarks. It really is pointless asking someone to prove something without telling them how to do it. You have used the fringe theory statement to revert rather than leave material and discuss. Please just stick to the material under question and refrain from personal attacks. My edits clearly show that I use RS sources, and I am happy to discuss their use, and I await your reply on the other issues. If you continue to simply revert I will of course take appropriate action.

PS this is what you wrote. ″By the way, that same page 156 also mentions the Ugaritic huts in connection with Sukkot, so you could use it as an additional source for that. That also solves the WP:FRINGE question for De Moor, I guess.″

My comment was therefore entirely appropriate, and I will add the material back with two sourcesTheredheifer (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This can be CLOSED as far as I am concerned with draft proposed edits being placed in a new section, so that they can be reviewed without the clutter of commentsTheredheifer (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

More removed material

This was taken out on the grounds that Remove sources that 1. speculate 2. should not be in the lede in any case.

According to the Book of Zechariah, in the messianic era Sukkot will become a universal festival and all those nations who survive the plague that will afflict those who have attacked Jerusalem will go there to worship 'the King, the LORD of hosts', and to keep the feast of tabernacles.(Zech 14:16–19). This section of the Book of Zechariah also points to the origin of Sukkot as a festival 'celebrating divine kingship', and its capacity to provide rain. Rashi in Parashat Pinchas (Numbers, 29:18) writes that the 70 bulls offered whenever the Jewish people are able to offer animal sacrifices, the sum total sacrificed throughout the seven days of the Sukkot festival, correspond to and benefit the 70 national-linguistic groups encompassing all of humanity.

I do not see speculation here, and suggest it be restored but not in the lede.Theredheifer (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it probably does not belong in the lede. It is not speculation to accurately describe the bible/torah prophecies (especially when that description has been done for us by RS), but they should be described as such. As this is a religious topic, related religious prophecies are obviously relevant.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit that removed this material was this one, which included a lot more than just removal of this material and the word "speculate" in the edit summary didn't apply to this specific paragraph.

This is definitely not lede material.

The two statements in this paragraph are non-related, and should be separated.

I see no point in quoting verses and adding too many details.

I see a contradiction between "universal" on the one hand and "all those nations who survive the plague that will afflict those who have attacked Jerusalem", which is pretty specific, on the other hand.

The source is based on a faulty translation. The Hebrew doesn't say "to worship the Lord", it says "to procrastinate to the Lord", which is simply a custom which is a part of visiting the Temple and is in no way specific to Sukkot more than to any of the Three Pilgrimage Festivals.

It is unclear which part of the first statement is sourced to Smith. Just the second sentence, or the first as well? Debresser (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that this go in the lede, I said this above.

I will separate the two paragraphs.

It is not the task of wikipedia editors to try and resolve biblical contradictions. Universal and all those nations are in the source.

It is pure speculation to suggest that there is a single acccepted Bible translation. If you want to change the wording then provide a source that has other wording. Again your claim to know what procrastinating to the Lord means, is OR, without a source. It also does not change the fact that this is a Bible verse, and can be quoted the same as any other.

You should make it clear when you remove material as to the reasons why you have removed that material. It would be easier for other editors if you made two or more edits in this type of situation, with an explanation for each. Other editors can only go by what you say. Regards.Theredheifer (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you would make only one edit at a time, I would have an easier task reverting you...

Regarding the faulty translation, that was indeed only an explanation. That however does not mean that the source is correct in assuming that there is a special connection between Sukkot and worshiping God any more than any of the other pilgrim festivals.

Not everything that is in sources we are supposed to quote. That is a mistake you make all over the board. We, the editors of Wikipedia, write this encyclopedia, and we only base our text on sources, but by no means do we always use their words.

The reason I pointed out that contradiction, is to explain to you further why I think that source should not be used. We do not have to use all sources. If a source has an internal contradictions, then that is good reason not to use it. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The so called faulty translation is a red herring. If you do not like it then provide another. What do you mean by the source is 'not correct'. The source is the Book of Zechariah. If you check the history of this page you will find this was the original entry.

According to the Book of Zechariah, in the messianic era Sukkot will become a universal festival and all nations will make pilgrimages annually to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast there.

Having checked Zechariah I made the edit to include what I found there, and this was my explanation. (This is what the source actually says. There is a bit more to it than is included at the moment.) I do not see how that could have been clearer. I do not understand how you can remove biblical text on the grounds that you think there is a contradiction. This does not make sense to me. Please explain what your reason is for removing a more accurate, more complete version of something that was always there? I note that another editor has agreed that it should be there. It would be good if you just put it back.Theredheifer (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As regards the RS non Biblical material, you could easily have checked that it was this, if you read rather than just revert. This section of the Book of Zechariah also points to the origin of Sukkot as a festival 'celebrating divine kingship', and its capacity to provide rain. Do you have any further objection to its restoration? You will find that the author is a highly regarded academic with many excellent books and articles.Theredheifer (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere does the Book of Zechariah say that "Sukkot will become a universal festival", and it definitely does not say that "all nations will make pilgrimages annually". Please check again that it says that "all those nations who survive the plague that will afflict those who have attacked Jerusalem" will do so.

You have the link I followed..(Zech 14:16–19) Why not use it? Why are you putting texts in quotes, when it was not in quotes before? Are you trying to be misleading? The only section that was in quotes was this 'the King, the LORD of hosts. Here is the same section from the CJB 15 A plague like this plague will also affect the horses, mules, camels, donkeys and all the other animals in those camps.

16 Finally, everyone remaining from all the nations that came to attack Yerushalayim will go up every year to worship the king, Adonai-Tzva’ot, and to keep the festival of Sukkot.

Here is the KJVONLINE.

14:15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Now the NIV.

15 A similar plague will strike the horses and mules, the camels and donkeys, and all the animals in those camps. 16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

Now the OJB

15 And so shall be the magefat hasus (plague on the horse), on the mule, on the camel, and on the donkey, and on all the beasts that shall be in those camps, like this magefah (plague). 16 And it shall come to pass, that all who are left of kol HaGoyim which came against Yerushalayim shall even go up from year to year to worship HaMelech, Hashem Tzva’os, and to keep Chag HaSukkot.

Pick one. Find another euphemism for universal, and put the text backTheredheifer (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All festivals celebrate divine kingship, so to say, so we shouldn't make it look as though Sukkot is anything special in this regard. Again, that would be more appropriate for the Three Pilgrim Festivals article. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim that all 'festivals celebrate divine kingship is just your OR, without an RS, and irrelevant anyway. I think that you have confused yourself, as it is another section where you have previously said that the RS should belong elsewhere. I must point you to the fact that the RS refers to Sukkot, so you are trying to misuse it. That would be OR. The RS can do without the reference to divine kingship, the important elements are these that the natural elements of the festival were'rain and the renewal of creation' and Sukkot celebrated the 'divine capacity to supply rain.' I will re write the section to reinforce this. This is much more than just a reference to a harvest festival, and it deserves to be in the article.Theredheifer (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that looks like the beginning of a compromise. I'd be happy to see a draft. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft for discussion.

According to the Book of Zechariah, in the messianic era Sukkot will become a universal festival and all those nations who survive the plague that will afflict those who have attacked Jerusalem will go there to worship 'the King, the LORD of hosts', and to keep the feast of tabernacles.(Zech 14:16–19).

Mark S Smith has stated that this section of the Book of Zechariah also points to Sukkot celebrating the 'divine capacity to supply rain' and that the natural elements of the festival are 'rain and the renewal of creation'.

Rashi in Parashat Pinchas (Numbers, 29:18) writes that the 70 bulls offered whenever the Jewish people are able to offer animal sacrifices, the sum total sacrificed throughout the seven days of the Sukkot festival, correspond to and benefit the 70 national-linguistic groups encompassing all of humanity.

Note that the original of the first paragraph was as follows. According to the Book of Zechariah, in the messianic era Sukkot will become a universal festival and all nations will make pilgrimages annually to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast there. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion that should be restored. I do not agree to its removal, but would consider a rewording.Theredheifer (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Draft for proposed addition

To go under new section titled

Academic views

Johannes Cornelis De Moor has suggested that there are links between Sukkot and the Ugaritic New Year festival, in particular the Ugaritic custom of erecting two rows of huts built of branches on the temple roof as temporary dwelling houses for the gods.

Comments pleaseTheredheifer (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"their gods". Perhaps just "De Moor" without his first names, which will be in the source. Otherwise very satisfying. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Work in progress

I am moving material here to avoid clogging up other resolved sections. I will lay a possible edit with RS and backup material so as to help other editors understand why I think this is worth adding. Please leave comments until the draft is complete, so as not to waste anyone's time reviewing it until then.

In Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, Jan A. Wagenaar has suggested that Sukkot, like Shabuot was originally a harvest festival locally celebrated in regional sanctuaries, until a 'centralisation act' (Deut. 16:1-17) records the relocation of these to the central site of Jerusalem as 'pilgrimage festivals'. Theredheifer (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are two reviews of the book to show its worth.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5170_5445.pdf

https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/jhs/article/view/5720/4773 Theredheifer (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Shabuot should be changed to Shavuot as per Wikipedia's article Shavuot. Unless it were a direct quote we don't use spelling of sources if it is different from Wikipedia spelling. Also I'd rephrase this a little, to better show the intention of the source: ...suggested that Sukkot, like Shavuot was originally a harvest festival locally celebrated in regional sanctuaries, until a 'centralisation act' records the relocation of these festivals to Jerusalem as a central site for the Three Pilgrim Festivals, as reflected in Deut. 16:1-17. Remember that it is we, the editors, who write the encyclopedia. We do not need to use the language of our sources, and I think this is clearer. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

-- According to Elon Gilad, as was the norm with all holidays during the Temple period, Sukkot centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer.

Alternative sources for this.

http://www.mazornet.com/holidays/Sukkot/ancientrituals.htm states that The plethora of sacrifices offered on Sukkot in Temple times was astounding. Sukkot’s total of 70 sacrifices beat out the number of offerings on any other holiday. On a deeper level, examined by Talmudic scholars the 70 sacrifices are offered to bring merit to the proverbial 70 nations of the world (Sukkah 55b). The notion that Sukkot has a universal meaning is alluded to by the prophet Zechariah, who predicted a time at the End of Days when “all the nations … shall go up from year to year to worship the Sovereign, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the festival of booths” (Zechariah 14:16).

Theredheifer (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I argued above, the first source is completely unacceptable. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The second source doesn't source all of the first paragraph, only the fact that 70 bullocks were offered during Sukkot, which can easily be sourced to Jewish sources as well.

The second part of the second paragraph, about other nations, is not bad. If this would stop all the disagreements between the two of us, I would accept it. Even though you judiciously left out an important part of the verse, where it restricts the words "all the nations" to only a very specific group of nations. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not complete, I will move to sandbox.Theredheifer (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you post a link to the sandbox, please? Debresser (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to work on it further taking into account your comments, and return with a better version.Baal is my Lord and Master 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredheifer (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your diligence. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Are the dates correct????

I think the dates in the infobox and in the lead are incorrect. Sukkos does not have a final two days after Hoshanna Rabbah, that is covered by Shmini Atzeres. Right now the dates interlap with the SA article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 13:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Shimini Atzeres is called "Shmini", which translates "eighth". That should already have been a big indication that it is part of Sukkot. And indeed, outside Israel, we sit in the Sukkah on that day.

In either case, I have restored the previous version, and propose to leave it in place till such time as there would be a clear consensus to remove it. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Shmini Atzeres is 100% not part of Sukkos, the korbanos and davening are not the same at all. It's related to Sukkos but it's not part of Sukkos, which is why you sit in a sukkah outside of Israel but don't wave the arba minim. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I will try to respond in more detail tomorrow. But, Sir Joseph, I suggest you have a look at Shemini Atzeret (and perhaps even more at the superseded version that was briefly a GA). I think if I had to summarize what's there, I'd say:

• Shemini Atzeret is 90% not part of Sukkos. But ...
• The mitzva of simcha (and of Hallel) is related to those mitzvot of Sukkot; they're not independent. (See Gemara, which talks about those mitzvot as being "for eight days")
• The first day of Shemini Atzeret is s'feika d'yoma of Hoshana Rabba, meaning that at least for חו"ל, it's really no less legitimate to count in that day (at least) than it is to count in the eighth day of Pesach or the second of Shavuot.

I'll try to look at exactly what is written here by tomorrow and to make a suggestion. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem, and as for the dates, the dates in the infobox now include Simchas Torah, not just SA outside of Israel. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict

Steven is right, that Shemini Atzeret is s'feika d'yoma of Hoshana Rabba. So saying 100% not Sukkot is incorrect. Derabonan it is also 100% Sukkot.

The question is after all if we should add that second day of the s'feika d'yoma to the lists of Gregorian dates, and that is not the same as asking if Shmini Atzeret is 100% part of Sukkot. So let's leave that question and just ask ourselves if we think that the second day should be added to the goyshe dates. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We also don't treat it as a full safeik, as in the second day of Sukkos, we treat it mostly as SA, the safeik is only eating in the sukkah, nothing else overpowers the separate yom tov part. When people talk about the dates, SA is usually as a separate yom tov. It should certainly not have Simchas Torah listed. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually one other thing also explicitly overpowers the separate yom tov part. (Dovid, this somehow never made it back into the other article. I'll try to do so.) In חו"ל, we say Psalm 27 (i.e., לדוד, ה' אורי) on Shemini Atzeret. We say that due to the s'feika d'yoma of Hoshana Rabba; it's not related to SA, and it's not done in Israel.

And Sir Joseph, I might point out the following. When you say, "When people talk about the dates, SA is usually as a separate yom tov", who are the people talking about the dates? When the three of us talk about the dates, that's true. But I seem to recall a school-district calendar when I was a child (long ago in Maryland) that identified these as "Feast of Tabernacles – Last Two Days", or something to that effect. And between the fact that the Machzor I use on Shemini Atzeret has "Sukkot" on the spine and the description of SA in Sukkah 48a as "the end yom tov of חג," I think there is enough to allow some association of SA to Sukkot, even beyond the s'feika d'yoma.

On the other hand, I do take your point. I have an idea as to how I'd like to address it, but I've already spent more time on this today than I really should have. So with your kind permission, please let me leave this until the morning (US EDT) and then have a go. I think I can do this in a way that will reasonably satisfy everyone. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I gave this a shot. Note that the article itself needs lots of work. Input on both my edit and the article in general is welcome. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with your changes, even though I'm not terribly fond of the overlap bit. I am not sure why Debresser reverted though. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 I don't know who gave you the idea that making an edit is the best way of solving a dispute. As far as I understand Wikipedia guidelines the idea is to talk it over on the talkpage first, and make edits only after a consensus is established. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not really how it works. Regardless, what is wrong with his edits? They seem to handle this situation with as much grace as possible. What could possibly be wrong with it? 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Dovid, I don't really think you needed to revert me. That having been said: Do you have even a remote problem with the way I handled it? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph That is precisely how it works! Per the guidelines at WP:BOLD, bold edits should be avoided in case of an ongoing dispute. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with the "overlapping". I am against have an explanatory note. That should be in the text itself. A;so I don't understand why the end days for 2015 and 2016 are missing. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This wasn't a bold edit. That being said, the end dates should not be included since the end dates overlap, and having a start date is good enough. The length of the holiday is in the text. While you are fine with overlapping, it can only be there with an explanatory note, otherwise it makes no sense having two holidays on the same day. The way StevenJ81 had it was much better than it is now, it also included Related to, SA which is how it should be. Please revert back to his last edit. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, thank you for your support. Dovid, are you serious? This wasn't a matter of making a bold revert, and you know it.

1. The end dates are not really necessary, and I thought it was more graceful (and more concise) simply to leave them out. The overall length of the holiday exists in many places. People can count. Having the end dates might be a nice thing to do, but they are absolutely not necessary.
2. As for making it an explanatory note, I thought leaving it in the body text would make it too involved. If you really insist, I'll put it in the body text.

On the other hand, Sir Joseph, I didn't do that because "it makes no sense having two holidays on the same day". In fact, there are two holidays on the same day. That's how it is. I simply felt that removing the end dates makes it seem less confusing on the surface, without removing any really critical piece of information.

I have tried to provide what I thought was a useful, graceful, efficient solution to the problem. If that's not good enough, leave me out of it. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't think the note needs to be in the text, but if that's the only way Debresser would "allow" it without reverting, then I'm OK with it as well. As for end dates, I again agree with you, it's unnecessary. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The end days used to be in the infobox, and I think they should be there. It is essential information for an infobox when a festival starts and when it ends. The same is done on other festivals, like Pesach, and I don't really see why this should be an issue.

I think the explanation is important enough to be in the text itself. Apart from that, I hate to have to make a special "notes" section just for one explanation. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why should the end date include Simchas Torah? That is the issue with including end dates, it's not needed in this case because it will get too confusing. If someone wants the end date, they can read the text. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the end date should be Hoshana Rabba in Israel and Shmini Atzeret outside of it.

By the way, should we have the Karaite dates in the infobox? Isn't that overdue weight? Debresser (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on end dates, then it must be Hoshana Rabba in Israel and Shemini Atzeret outside it, and that will in turn require the "overlapping" point, to minimize confusion. But really, I personally strongly (strongly) feel that it's better to leave them out here, because the whole subject is inherently confusing.

• Debresser and I worked very hard on Shemini Atzeret precisely because it is so hard. I really think we should let that article do the heavy lifting on this topic and not add a point of confusion here.
• Sukkot is very different from the rest in one very important way: All the other holidays really end when they end, if you get my meaning. But in the case of Sukkot, rather than really ending, Sukkot just morphs into Shemini Atzeret. So why do we have to specify an end date that is already functionally on the vague side.

Karaites who edit on Wikipedia have added their dates to most other yom tov articles, and feel pretty strongly about that. I wouldn't belabor the point unduly, but it doesn't hurt to have those dates, and those dates actually make this page more consistent with parallel articles.

My personal preference is to add an extra notes section, even for a single entry, so as not to excessively burden body text. But I'm not going to fight hard for that. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I do think we should have end dates, and I feel strengthened in that opinion by the fact that they always were here and that they are present in the Pesach article as well. I think that not having an end date would be an omission.

We are in complete agreement what the end dates should be.

I also have noticed that Karaites feel strongly about having their dates and opinions prominently in Wikipedia articles, and perhaps that war is indeed better fought another time.

I'd ask to indulge me regarding not using a footnote. The footnote and the sentence preceding it could be merged. The "see article such-and-such" can be omitted, as all terms are linked anyway. That way the text wouldn't be too complicated. Something like "The festival is closed with another Shabbat-like holiday called Shemini Atzeret, the "eight day of the the festive assembly", which in Israel is a one-day festival, and a two-day festival in the diaspora, where the second day of Shmini Atzeret is a festival in its own right called Simchat Torah". This is only a suggestion, and open for improvement. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(Sigh.) OK, then. End dates will be as indicated above. Karaite will be included. (Debresser, if you try to make a WEIGHT argument in general at a later time, I will oppose you. I would not wish an undue amount of attention on that issue, but the dates themselves are "no big deal", in my view, and are not UNDUE.)

As for the text, I'm going to break up your sentence into three, though, because it's pretty long:

The festival is closed with another Shabbat-like holiday called Shemini Atzeret, the "eighth day of [the festive] assembly", which also incorporates the celebration of Simchat Torah. In Israel, this is a one-day festival. In the diaspora (link if we haven't had already) this is a two-day festival, where the first day overlaps with the eighth day of Sukkot, while the celebration of Simchat Torah is deferred to the second day.

When I do this, I'm first going to use rollback to reverse you (to make the Karaite issue easier to deal with), then will edit. So (a) don't worry about the rollback, and (b) give me a chance to finish before saying anything further.

Is that ok with everyone? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

OK by me. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. A revert is not a red flag, and I am not a bull. By the way, you should not use the rollback function for this type of revert, rather press undo. See Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback.

I don't think you should say that Shmini Atzeret incorporates Simchat Torah, because that is not true outside of Israel. Frankly, I think my text was better, although I have no problem with breaking it into smaller sentences. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm not supposed to use revert for this. That's why I warned you. But fine.

Of course Shemini Atzeret incorporates Simchat Torah, even in חו"ל. Simchat Torah is still the second day of Shemini Atzeret, even if in חו"ל we tend to use one name for one day, and one for the other. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Undo yes, rollback no.

I disagree. It is confusing. WP:KISS Debresser (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm going to make one more change in place, then you do what you want. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

I didn't use much of the blockquote at all, partly because of Debresser's KISS comment. But I still find this confusing and not necessarily simple; that paragraph could be interpreted to suggest that Shemini Atzeret is within the 7/8 days, not after. If you guys want to try to tackle that differently, be my guest.

More to the point, I think a lot about this article is pretty sloppy. Maybe we can collectively make some improvements before we get to Sukkot itself. שבת שלום. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Updating

Could you please update the dates section on the chart to the right by deleting the Gregorian Dates for 2016 and 2017, and adding the Gregorian dates for 2019 and 2020? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:5D4E:5CA9:29A0:CE68:7E77:8C07 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yiddish term

What is presented as "Ashkenazi pronunciation" is actually the Yiddish word for the Hebrew 'Sukkot'. Some Yiddish terms have indeed found access into several Western languages, while remaining the day-to-day language of Haredi Jews and mainly influencing the vernacular of traditionalist and/or religiously observant Jews, and far less so that of culturally assimilated Jews. With Zionism and the creation of Israel, Modern (and Biblical & Talmudic) Hebrew have gained in influence even in areas where Yiddish used to be the "Jewish language" par excellence. I can imagine non-Jewish English speakers from, say, New York still sometimes being influenced by Yiddish rather than Hebrew, but I strongly doubt that that is the rule across the English-speaking world. More than half of the world's Jews now live in Israel, Israel has a strong influence over all things Jewish all across the world, and Israel as well as all Zionist organisations pursue a policy of supporting the use of Hebrew. (I am stating an obvious fact, not showing support or opposition to anything.)

Beside all that, Sukkot is a biblical term, Hebrew in its origin, rather than Yiddish.

For all these reasons I disagree with the stress put by our fellow editor @Debresser: on what he terms Ashkenazi pronunciation. The lead is supposed to give to the regular, non-specialist WP user a concise definition and overview of the matter at hand, and not loose focus by an overload of details, especially not by an excessive use of bold lettering. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Arminden has decided to show he does not know what he is talking about, and insists on his opinion, as usual.

What is presented as Ashkenazi pronunciation is indeed the Ashkenazi pronunciation. Yiddish is another language.

The role of that pronunciation in the English speaking world is apparently larger than he knows.

In any case, it is not up to him to decide what Wikipedia is to do with the Ashkenazi pronunciation, and this is not to be decided on the talkpage of one article. If he wants to change the way we represent the Ashkenazi pronunciation in the lead of all Judaism-related articles, he should raise the issue at WT:JUDAISM. Where, I am sure, other editors will explain him the same as I just did. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: I used the Chabad-inspired Chag HaSukkot bit because a) Feast of Tabernacles is the translation of "Chag Ha...", not of "Sukkot"; and b) for the sake of symmetry & uniformity:

• Chag HaSukkot, commonly translated as Feast of Tabernacles, ....
• Chag HaAsif (חג האסיף), the Feast of Ingathering

That (the way it looks and reads) was also a reason why I thought the Sukkos/Succos bit stretches the sentence a touch too much and I came up with the solution of that second, separate paragraph - which you didn't agree too :)

So, can we put "Chag Ha..." back in? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As regarding to the "Ashkenazi pronunciation" which has, in some illustrious opinion, nothing to do with Yiddish: I'll leave that for the talk page of Jewish_lore#vits. Arminden (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Chag", but I wouldn't say that "Sukkot" is short for "Chag HaSukkot". The name (one of the names) in the Torah is "Chag HaSukkot", our Sages called it simply "Chag", while "Sukkot" (or Sukkos) is the modern name. None is short for the other, just different names in different eras. Debresser (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You probably meant Jewish humor#Wits? I was serious, though. Yiddish is a language, while Ashkenazi pronunciation is (nomen est omen) a type of pronunciation of another language, nl. Lashon Hakodesh. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sukkos is the Ashkenazi pronunciation, and Sukkot is the Sephardi. Yiddish most often uses the Ashkenazi pronunciation in words and modern Hebrew usually uses the Sephardi one, but you can't say Sukkos is Yiddish, it's not, it's the Ashkenazi pronunciation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

My dear friendalachs, what is Askenazi pronunciation? < Who are the Ashkenazi Jews? < What language did they speak? Oy! Gevalt!

Did you ever hear of anyone having a particular pronunciation which was not the result of their mother tongue? For J's sake, the Italians also messed up everybody's idea of their holy language, Latin, by making it sound more Italian than the Romans ever intended it to. Here - the same. But I won't manage to convince you, time will. Arminden (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Did you ever hear of anyone having a particular pronunciation which was not the result of their mother tongue?" Well this is a certifiable case of it. E.g. there is not even a letter "tav" in Yiddish, so how come in Ashkenazic pronunciation the "tav" is pronounced "sav"? Debresser (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

To be read in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (© 2008), Pronunciations of Hebrew: search there for "Yiddish" and you will find, time and again: Ashkenazi pronunciation of Hebrew follows the Yiddish pattern, down to the latter's local variations/dialects.

To your particular question, an empirical observation: lots of 'T's standing next to vowels in Hebrew words seem to turn into an 'S' in Yiddish. See Ko[y]sel (in the middle of the word), Sukkos (final T), whatever.

It seems to me that, whatever the ancient origin of Ashkenazi Hebrew, it historically evolved along the same lines as the Ashkenazi language, Yiddish, closely following the same sound changes undergoneby Yiddish. This shows best in vowels and diphthongs and their variation in both overall Yiddish and specifically Ashkenazi Hebrew terms. Whereby Yiddish vocabulary is defined in the first place as a mix of medieval German, Hebrew+Aramaic, and mainly Slavic later additions. That "holy tongue" Hebrew+Aramaic element underwent, quite naturally, similar changes as the rest of the language, in spite of liturgic vocalization and accentuation. That's what I meant all along. Arminden (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not responsible for your (mis-)understanding of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, or for their content, for that matter. You want to insist on making statements about languages which I doubt you are intimately familiar with, and I think that is not a smart thing to do. Sir Joseph and I have summed up the issue very well, and that is all there is to it. Sorry to see you don't understand such simple things. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Arminden and Debresser: This quarrel is silly. Debresser is fundamentally correct that this pronunciation is the current pronunciation used in Ashkenazic Hebrew. It happens that it's also the pronunciation used in Yiddish, which is part of Arminden's point. In any event, this page is not the appropriate venue for fighting over which language influenced the pronunciation of the other.

Yet note that the current article text says "Ashkenazi pronunciation". And the link goes to Ashkenazi Jews, not Ashkenazi Hebrew. Accordingly, the article is agnostic as to whether the language the said "Ashkenazi Jew" is speaking is Hebrew, Yiddish, or something borrowing from one or both (like Yeshivish English, say). Which makes it a perfect solution, exactly as it is.

Finally, though, Arminden, understand that the Ashkenazi pronunciation is still widely used and heard in English-speaking countries. 25(?) years ago, it would have been absolutely the dominant pronunciation in the Anglo world. Now the pattern is more mixed, as you note. But does it need to remain in the article? Absolutely. StevenJ81 (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is strange

The article is ostensibly about the holiday of Sukkot, yet no mention is made of taking/waving the Four Species which are an integral part of the holiday. Yoninah (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Good catch. (There is actually a very brief and passing mention, but not as substantial as it ought to be.) Will work on that. StevenJ81 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

What determines what gets put in the further reading section? Countless books have been written about this holdiay. Is there anything in particular about the two works chosen for inclusion, or are they simply random choices? If so, would it be appropriate to add more, and what might we add if we do? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism continues

Can someone please edit the Four Species section to remove the 'your mom' interjected comments? I do not know what the sentences ought to say, but it is obvious that the phrase does not belong repeated throughout the section... there are also the longer inserted phrases of 'your mom goes to collage' and 'yes she does go to collage'. Are there supposed to be words behind the inserted phrases? or are they simply inserts that can be deleted, I don't know. BroThadeus (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the sentence "Males awaken there, although the requirement is waived in case of drought" is a complete non sequitur to the point that I think that it may also be vandalism. It makes no sense, even if somebody was trying to say that men sleep in the Sukkah, unless it rains. But that's not what it says, and I'm not even sure that that is what it wanted to say... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)