Talk:Tisha B'Av

message: That's from the Talmud. Its not a Chabad thing.  Chabad might emphasize the notion, but its normative Jewish thought. --Meshulam 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's from the Zachariah 8:19: "Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. Therefore love truth and peace." (best translation I could find, the book isn't on Wiki) The day of the fifth month counting from Nissan is the fast of Av, the 9th of Av, that will turn into a day of celebration after the Redemption. --ACogloc 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 Av will be a day of celebration 

message: The Hebrew "midbar" is actually translated "desert", not "wilderness". -- 11:12, August 8, 2006 147.234.2.2
:I'm not aware of any recognized authority on how to translate Hebrew words. If you see a reason why "desert" is more appropriate than "wilderness" in this particular instance, then by all means, please tell us why. Oh, and by the way, which instance are you talking about anyhow? --Keeves 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting reflexion, how to prove the meaning of the word in a foreign language... Well, the 4th book of Torah is Bamidbar and it tells the tale of the Bnei Israel in the desert, not in the wilderness (although the desert sounds wild). The word has no other use in Tanakh and thus in modern Hebrew language, which is based on Tanakh. Ask any Israeli. שטחים פתוחים is the translation for wilderness. --ACogloc 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desert versus wilderness 

message: The AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires (7/18/94) happened in 10 Av, not in 9 Av. see here. I also know this because my B-day is 9 Av... go figure. :)
Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amia bombing 

message: I think it might be interesting, for the more mystical, to include the fact that according to the 360 day Biblical year, the time between the destruction of the first and the second temples was 666 years...
656x365.25/360=665.5666...=666 years
Mike
203.59.136.156 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Period between the destruction of the two temples 

message: I've looked at the source cited (>OzTorah.com), by Rabbi Raymond Apple, for a claim added that Orthodox Jews believe that the Temple should not be rebuilt until the coming of the Messiah. The source simply doesn't say this. After listing certain conditions that Rabbi Apple's interpretation of halakha leads him to believe are necessary, Rabbi Apple concludes "It is hardly likely that all seven would be feasible in pre-messianic times." Thus, Rabbi Apple himself stated that he believes that it is entirely possible that the Temple could be rebuilt in pre-messianic times. He merely thinks it unlikely. In addition, I could see no basis for claiming that Rabbi Apple's interpretation of these matters is shared universally by all Orthodox Jews. For these reasons, I rolled the language back to the previous version Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Again reverted a cite to Rabbi Apple's personal website for a claim regarding the views of "most" Orthodox Jews. The cited web page offers views that appear to be Rabbi Apple's otherwise unpublished personal views and of a speculative nature, using language like "hardly likely", "feasible", "Rabbi Lehrman once advanced an interim proposal", etc. -- the language of speculative argument, not the language of decided matters. Wikipedia cannot generally accept an individual rabbi's personal webpage as a source for speculative views. Please see reliable sources and WP:SYN. Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messianic Era 

message: Just because it is observed today, does it really qualify as "current"? And really, will information change as the event progresses? Surely not. I am removing the tag. 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Jewish tradition the idea is to attempt to observe Tisha B'Av every year as if it were a current event. That is why the mourning rituals are extreme every year, as opposed to mourning for a parent where the yearly observance (Yahrtzeit) involves little if any public mourning ritual. However, from a secular worldly perspective, this is not a true "current" event. Manassehkatz 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. However, whether it is observed as current or not, I seriously doubt anything about it will change as the event progresses, which Is why I removed it. But it's over now anyways. Smartyllama (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting that you say it because, according to some commentators, the Messiah is meant to build the 3rd Temple on Tisha B'AV to accomplish Zechariah's prophecy. But other than this, Tisha B'Av already happened 1942 times and I admit that it can be hard for Gentiles to believe it will change. --ACogloc 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event? 

message: Discussion about the correct names for the First and Second Temples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct names for the First and Second Temples 

message: The text of the article says "Torah study is forbidden on Tisha B'av (as it is considered a spiritually enjoyable activity), except for the study of distressing texts such as the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Job, portions of Jeremiah and chapters of the Talmud that discuss the laws of mourning."
I think a wording change might be necessary because the distressing texts listed are not actually part of the Torah. This isn't to say that they aren't important, of course.
The first three listed there are part of the Tanakh (which includes the Torah as well) and the Talmud is "a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history;" it mentions the Torah and Tanakh, but is not part of either.
Perhaps the change should say something like "The study of Torah and other religious texts is forbidden..." Hbomberman (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Customs 

message: In order to avoid an editing war, there should be a public discussion for the terminology choice, "marital relations" or "marital intimacy" v. "sexual relations". Given that these are religious practices (abstentions), and given that the vast majority of practitioners of these practices are sensitive to the nuanced difference between delicate and coarse language, it is appropriate to use the more delicate language in this context. Bachrach44 justified the coarser language  because "no need for silly euphamisms" [sic.] - this comment can be insulting to some religious readers, is a possible violation of NPOV and in fact there is no Wikipedia benefit to one word choice over the other. The fact that one user is insensitive to the distinction and finds the euphemism "silly" is no justification. Therefore, the phrase that is most consistent with the subject matter of this article should be used. --Narcissus14 06:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello and welcome. Please forgive me for moving your comment - the general practice for talk pages is to put newer comments at the bottom, and this makes it easier for other editors to see the new conversation. Secondly, please watch your edits when using the various rollback functions. Even if you disagree with one part of an edit, there may have been more to an edit than you see at first glance - you accidentally removed info from a ref in this edit. Anyway, on to the real issue you raised - choice of words for sex. Your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that the word sex may be offensive to some, so we should use a euphemism such as "marital relations". There is little need to discus whether this is true, because Wikipedia has a clear policy that Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Wikipedia is not censored. To quote: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." --Bachrach44 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, I haven't heard any objections, and I've also noticed that this exact conversation took place at Talk:Shabbat#Marital_relations. They ultimately decided to replace the euphemism with the word sex. Someone there also pointed out Wikipedia specific policy on not using euphemisms which I hadn't linked to before. I'm going to go ahead and revert to the previous version and ask that any other editors discuss on the talk page before using the phrase "marital relations". --Bachrach44 (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "marital relations" is clear enough, and is hardly a euphemism. So here you have your objection. :) Debresser (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for cleaning up my sloppiness and apologies for that. I'm glad you mentioned the Shabbat discussion because I wasn't aware of it. It actually is a good counterpoint to this article rather than a proof for it. Now, if you want to be strictly technical, the proper term is probably "sexual intercourse". However, on Tisha B'Av it would be misleading to state that sexual intercourse is prohibited, because in fact the prohibition extends to other types of marital intimacy, such as kissing and hugging. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, it should remain "marital relations". On the Shabbat page, I think you might have a stronger case for "sexual intercourse between husband and wife" however that sounds a bit crass and doesn't convey the emotional intimacy that is also required by Jewish law; the term s.i. may in fact mislead some readers. --Narc (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customs 

message: Jeremiah 32:1 refers to the siege being underway during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605. It is evident that Jeremiah counted accession years as part of the reign, based on a comparison of Jeremiah 52:12 (includes accession year) with the Babylonian interpolation (doesn't include accession year) at Jeremiah 52:29. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year by Jeremiah's reckoning therefore was 588 BCE. Therefore Jeremiah 52:12-14 refers to 587 BCE as the year for the destruction of the temple, being the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, including his accession year.
3175AM aligns with 587 BCE as a result of a historical shift in the enumeration from the creation of Adam. See Missing years (Jewish_calendar)#Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  587 BCE 

message: The Other calamities section seems to be becoming a catch-all for unfortunate events that happen to coincide with the date of Tisha B'Av. Unless an event can actually be cited from a reliable source as being associated with Tisha B'av, it should not be included in the list. This is especially the case where politically motivated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant that it's a coincidence, it happened on that date. Many of the other dates also just happened to fall on that date. I am not sure why the nature of the democratic status of the government has any bearing on this. This is why the 9th of Av is a sad day for many people, it has many calamities throughout the ages that just happen to fall out around this time that just feel like coincidences to others, that's why it's on the list. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Other calamities' 

message: The statement that the two temples were destroyed 490 years apart is not consistent with the dates 587 BCE and 70 CE given for the destructions.
Jmichael ll (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistent dates 

message: The html header for this page only displays B'Av (instead of Tisha B'Av). I cannot find how to edit this - please someone edit this.
Yeshua (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nowhere on the page Tisha B'Av do I see a B'av without a Tisha before it. I am confused  by your assertion that there's somewhere on the page a B'av without its Tisha. Can you be more specific?. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  html header 

message: I edited the page to remove 4 Aug 135 as the date for the fall of Betar. Someone used a Jewish Date Calculator to get the Julian date that was posted, but that is not valid. Modern Jewish Date Calculators are based on a calculated calendar that was not operative in Judaism until sometime after the tenth century AD. Before that time, especially in antiquity, the calendar was set by the observation of the moon. The evening of the observation of the new crescent moon was the first day (evening to evening) of the new month. Thus, one must use astronomical tables of new moons to determine when the month of Ab began, not a modern Jewish date calculator. The new crescent for Ab would have been observed on 30 July AD 135 according to astronomical tables. That means that 9 Ab would have been Saturday, 7 Aug AD 135 on the Julian calendar (i.e., the day started at sundown on 6 Aug, and Betar would have fallen in the daylight hours of 7 Aug). Aesteinmann (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 Ab 135 for fall of Betar