Talk:Lag BaOmer

message: I have made a minor semantic correction to this article, substituting the following line: "The day is also the Yahrzeit, the anniversary of the death, of the Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai [1] who is believed by some to have authored the Zohar, the landmark text of Jewish mysticism." The line as it was originally defined bar Yohai as the author of the Zohar, when the exact authorship of said text has been a matter of debate for centuries. See Zohar for more information. --Brasswatchman 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: can be added to ext. links on this page. Couldn't do it myself since I have connections to the site. Tnx יוסף שמח (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: *Hitler and Lag BaOmer-see []  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.216 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler and Lag BaOmer 

message: OK, I think we need to be a little careful here about not automatically undoing things:
#I reverted the latest IP edit because it was unsourced, but mostly because it was poorly worded; I could not figure out what the person was really trying to say.
#I partially restored the long IP edit that Debresser reverted.  Use of the whole, long quotation was inappropriate, and it made the fact that the edit was sourced far from obvious.  I think the point of the edit is that if the Zionists really "reinterpreted" the history, they did not do so from whole cloth; rather, there was non-trivial support from traditional sources.  
#I removed one of the two appearances of "ideologues" from that paragraph; one was plenty.  (That's probably the word that felt non-neutral to the IP editor.)
Can we please get back to harmony before Sunday?
Shabbat Shalom ...
StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with your edits. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  That ''achdut'' was sure brief ... 

message: Can someone please give a source where in Talmud or Midrash the day of Lag Baomer is mentioned? I was under the impression that the first mention was in mystical works written later than the Gemara?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.193.120 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I did some research and found that the first mention was in the 13th century by the Meiri, a leading Talmudist. I amended and added references to the page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I noticed that the paragraph replaced by original insert about the view of the Tosafists, but I can live without that, if the Meiri is there. Either way, I took out part of the paragraph because there was another thing attributed to the Talmud that isn't there - the whole thing about "befitting their level" and the explanation of it is not there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the explanation is after all rooted in later Jewish sources, you could have simply moved up the reference earlier in the sentence, and leave the explanation in place after the reference. That is sometimes a smart way out of such issues when not all of  a statement is in the source. Debresser (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The thing is, I think the extra stuff was more homily than explanation - I'm not so sure it's was ever intended as an actual explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.217 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Debresser, would you take my language with "there is traditional support" or even "there is some traditional support"? Maybe strong is WP:Synthesis, but I think the source itself lends itself to a softer claim without it being synthesis on my part.  StevenJ81 (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the two sources, both only say that it is a theory that if the words of the Talmud were not supposed to be understood literally but rather as an allusion to something, then that could be an allusion to a military defeat and respectively victory. This in itself is a large claim, and rather fringe. (1. Even modern Bible commentaries do this with the Bible only, but not with a later texts like the Talmud. 2. There are uncensored version of the Talmud after centuries of Christian censure, so why would a short era of Roman censure be reason to look for veiled allusions?) And it is suggested hypothetically that this could be a recapture of Jerusalem. Surely you are not suggesting seriously to mention anything like that in this article? And especially not referring to "traditional sources" as basis for these assumptions and suggestions?! Debresser (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Point taken.  I skimmed through the sources too quickly the first time.  As long as we avoid language around "rewriting" history and leave it at "interpreting" or "reinterpreting" history, I'm satisfied.  StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  "rewriting" is what they did in Russia. They simply rewrote the history books. I am not sure this is not what happened in Israel as well. But in absence of a source stating so, I too would have no problem with "reinterpreting". Debresser (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Support in Traditional Sources" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lag BaOmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501164650/http://www.beyondbt.com/2012/05/09/mournings-end-understanding-sefira-and-lag-bomer/ to http://www.beyondbt.com/2012/05/09/mournings-end-understanding-sefira-and-lag-bomer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lag BaOmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130630044858/http://www.rabbiorlofsky.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=13 to http://www.rabbiorlofsky.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=13
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601095514/http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/english/lior/omer/omer.htm to http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/english/lior/omer/omer.htm
*Added  tag to http://shulchanaruchharav.com/Home-Database/default.aspx?pageid=lag_baomer1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not a subject expert, so I haven't changed the article, but there seems to be a fair bit of inconsistency in the formatting and capitalization of the name. We have Lag BaOmer (unitalicized), Lag BaOmer (italicized) and Lag Baomer (in picture caption). The boldface in the Etymology section seems a bit over the top as well. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I can help. Should be Lag BaOmer with three capitals, per WP:HEBREW. Should be all instances italicized per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard formatting 

message: The word gematria is actually in the text twice, but the second one is the one linked to the article. Should that be changed?Naraht (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks for that. I also removed it from the See Also. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the link to gematria? 

message: Please update first sentence to more accurate. While historically it may have been only a religious holiday, it is a Jewish ethnic holiday today. E.g., non-religious Jews celebrate it by building a bon fire, making BBQ, roasting marshmallows, etc. 5.28.190.10 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-religious celebration  

message: It is not clear why you think this is a reliable source. You call it a "thesis", but that usually means a thesis written for a higher degree, yet the document does not identify itself as a thesis. In any case we only cite theses in some cases, and never without evidence they have passed examination. Your only chance is to make a case based on the qualifications of the author, but merely being a rabbi is insufficient. I'm also doubtful if an article posted to an online forum counts as "published", which is essential for us. It is also all but certain that the link will rot before long as documents posted in online forums always do. Zerotalk 05:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source on an online forum