Talk:Hebrew calendar

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Hebrew calendar is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

---

An event mentioned in this article is an October 7 selected anniversary.

---

The Essenes were something like 4 or 500 years after the Babylonian captivity. That needs to be made clear - if they really were resisting a calendar, it was one that was VERY well established. I, for one, am suspicious of any categorical statements about who the Essenes were and what they believed without actual sources listed. --MichaelTinkler

---

I think the source is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I suppose may or may not represent the Essenes, depending on exactly who the Qumran community were, which we don't know with a lot of certainty. Not sure what if anything other sources on Essenes (Philo? Josephus?) have to say about it. Unfortunately I can't give any references... I read it somewhere, I can't remember where (a modern secondary source, of course!).

Possible explanations of 500 year gap: maybe it did take that long for the calendar to be established, maybe some sections of society preferred different calendars, maybe Essenes have a very long history, maybe they wanted to ressurect the "purity" of the past...

I agree someone needs to research this properly. -- Simon J Kissane

---

Well, no one suggests they were a very old movement in anything that I've read. More likely they were cranks, which would run true to the course of ascetic movements in all religions! One of these days I'll get around to writing about Old Calendarist Orthodox, though it would help if there were already something at Eastern orthodox to branch off of. Your 'some sections' has a good possibility - the Palestinian and Babylonian traditions were never entirely unified (hence the 2 Targums, etc., etc.) --MichaelTinkler

---

The Hebrew for "month" is "chodesh" (most often) or "yerach". "Chadosh" means "new", and "yareach" means "moon". I think that's pretty clear: they went by new moons from the beginning. -phma

---

By the way, Is the hebrew year slow by 1 day every x years, or is the hebrew calendar slow every x years? If we were talking about a clock, we would refer to the clock itself, not the hours. I'm not sure which is correct. -D

---

Actually it is not correct to say that the Hebrew calendar is slow by one day every x years, because you are referring only to the year with respect to the seasons and not the month with respect to the moon phase. This too is slow, but much less slow.

I'd say The Hebrew calendar year is about one day slow every 220 years.

-KP

---

The references I've seen that claim that Israelites used a solar calendar are all based on:

• The reckoning of days used by Noah, who lived long before there were any Israelites;
• The Book of Enoch, which if Enoch wrote it was written long before there were any Israelites; or
• The Essenes, who lived several centuries after the Jews were taken to Babylon.

I am therefore changing it to reflect the use of a lunisolar calendar as deduced from Bible verses. See http://www.karaite-korner.org/new_moon.shtml for explanation. -phma

---

A question:

Did the Hebrew calenday actually start in 3761 BC -- that is to say, someone said "this is now year 1" -- or was it backdated, in the same way as the Julian calendar -- for example, someone said "this is now the year 2164 (or whatever), based on our religious calculations"?

The Torah relates that Moses was told how the calendar was to be calculated soon after the Jews left Egypt. However, Noah's flood which was much earlier, seems to be calculated using the same calendar. It is possible that the Torah simply backdates the calendar until then. However, there is a dispute in the Talmud about which month the world was created in, which might indicate that the calendar was in use at the creation of the world. However, that could also be considered backdating.

The short answer is that the calendar was in use from year 1, because God was the author of the calendar and so he used it at the creation.

It is, however, curious how the calendar worked before it was given to the Jewish people, as the calendar allows and requires human intervention in setting its dates. Nowadays, human intervention is not required simply because all the dates have been set in advance through calculation, but that is only because the system for human intervention looked like it would break down. Sometime in the future, however, the old system will be reinstated. Ezra Wax

Counting the number of years since Creation began about the time that the Talmud was written with three or four sequential epochs, whereas the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides in 1187. Before the Talmud, Jews used other counts of years such as the Seleucid Era, called the Era of Contracts, and a count since the destruction of the second temple. I'll be adding a History section soon, after I consult my sources again to iron out some disagreements.
Joe Kress

The count of years is based on a book called the Seder Olam. Its date is uncertain, but it certainly predates the Talmud by a few centuries. I'd disagree that "the modern epoch was effectively chosen by Maimonides". He agreed with the Seder Olam. While he no doubt gave great impetus to the universal use of this epoch, it was in limited use well before his time and other epochs continued after his time.

---

I removed these sentences:

    Thus, there are up to 1080 parts per hour, 24 hours per day, and 7 days per week.
    Since the Hebrew month depends on a lunar cycle, the average lunar month is
    given the name "Molad" (for "birth" of the new moon), and is 29 days, 12 hours,
    793 parts long.

The first part repeats what was just said and is confusing due to the "up to". The second part is now expanded into a new paragraph. The value of 0.6 sec at the end is my computation using a program of S. L. Moshier that implements the lunisolar model DE404 from JPL. Some sources make it 0.5 sec.

The article is looking good. One thing missing is a history. There is a tradition that the algorithmic calendar in its modern form was introduced by Hillel II in 359 CE, but there is no solid evidence of it until centuries later. Even towards the end of the 1st millenium CE there were disputes over details. I'll add a paragraph when I get a chance; or someone else can!

--- bdm

---

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

In my experience both terms are used interchangeably. Ezra Wax

Contents

1 Barleycorn 2 BCE vs BC 3 Date of September equinox 4 Autumn vs Spring 5 Origin of the hebrew calendar 1 Alt Ben Meir 2 References?

Barleycorn

Can someone confirm the statement that a Hebrew 'part' is also known as a 'barleycorn'? I can find no corroboration that a 'barleycorn' is anything but a measurement of length (3 barleycorns = 1 inch). - KeithTyler 17:24, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

This information comes from Otto Neugebauer. He discusses it in two places:
"The astronomy of Maimonides and its sources", Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949) 321-60, p. 325; and
"Astronomical commentary", The Code of Maimonides, book 3 treatise 8, Sanctification of the New Moon, tr. Solomon Gandz, Yale Judaica Series, volume XI (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956) p. 117.

He dismisses Maimonides' speculation that an hour had 1080 parts because all numbers from 1-10, except 7, are divisors, noting they are also divisors of 360. He states that the "barleycorn" is an Old Babylonian unit of time, called she (še) in Sumerian, originally equal to 1/180 shekel. He then diverges. In "Astronomy of Maimonides" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/180 cubit in Seleucid ephemerides. 1 cubit = 2 1/2°, thus 15° = 1080 barleycorns, noting that 15° = 1/24 day = 1 hour. In "Astronomical commentary" he states 1 barleycorn = 1/6 finger in late Babylonian texts. 1 finger = 1/12°, 1° = 72 barleycorns, 15° = 1080 barleycorns. Finally, he notes that 1 finger = 6 barleycorns is well known in Arabic, Syriac, and Sanskrit astronomy.
— Joe Kress 04:53, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

How, again, does cubit, a unit of length, get transformed into a unit of angle? - KeithTyler 17:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that it is some dimension of the device used to measure the angle (like a quadrant). Babylonian units of measurement did multiple duty. In particular, the barleycorn (she) was the smallest unit of length, area, volume, weight, and time! Old Babylonian Weights and Measures (http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/obmetrology.html) Also note that the article only states that a part equals a barleycorn, not that it was also known as a barleycorn. Although the barleycorn was the historical source of the part, by the time of Maimonides, that had been forgotten.
— Joe Kress 05:39, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

My research suggests that the correct Hebrew name for this unit is helek (plural halakim). I suggest that changing "barleycorn" to "helek" would be a good solution for this dilemma. Note that (1) the plural form "halakim" should be mentioned, and (2) "helek" and "halakim" can be transliterated in other ways, such as "chalakim".

Reference: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictH.html

--B.d.mills 23:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Hebrew name for the part is helek. Nevertheless, its ancestor is the barleycorn, which should also be mentioned. I should begin my long delayed revision of the article. In particular, the history of the calendar in the present article is woefully inadequate. — Joe Kress 01:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

Because this is a featured article on 11th Oct 2004 several changes and reversions have been made to the date format. Arguably BC is not preferred in an article about the Hebrew calendar. However, since some reference to the western calendar has to be made in this article we should look to Wikipedia guidelines for some advice. As far as I can ascertain we should use the version chosen by the original author. Again, as far as I can ascertain, this would appear to be BC/AD. So let's stick with it. At least everyone knows what it means, which is not the case for BCE/CE. Arcturus 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object. BC is not only not preferred in an article about the Hebrew calendar, but the use of BC is unacceptable by some Jews (Jewish historians use CE/BCE). Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state that CE/BCE is just as acceptable as AD/BC. The Manual of Style does not defer to the version chosen by the original author, instead it states that the original author can choose any version they like and it will eventually be made to conform with the Manual of Style by future copyeditors.
— Joe Kress 05:37, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Do Jews object to the term "Gregorian calendar"?141.6.204.14

No, but BCE and CE would be appropriate. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If there is no objection to 'Gregorian' why is there to BC - or maybe there isn't? After all, its use in this article is merely to refer to another (christian based) calendar. I'm sure an article on the western calendar which referred a date to its equivalent in the Hebrew calendar would use the Hebrew notation in such a reference and no one would be bothered, so why bother about BC/AD in this article?

Using Jesus' year of birth as a reference means lending implicit approval. "Gregorian" is simply after the guy who devised the calendar. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Date of September equinox

The traditional date of the September equinox is given as September 21. This is incorrect, it is actually September 23. --B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Autumn vs Spring

The article makes extensive references to autumn, some references to spring and a few references to autumnal/vernal equinoxes. This is incorrect - as currently worded, it would imply that Jews living in the Southern hemisphere start the Hebrew year in March/April instead of September/October!

Instead of using specific seasonal references, can someone review these wordings so that they are more precise? "Vernal equinox" should be "March equinox", "autumnal equinox" should be "September equinox", and specific seasonal references should be removed except where they are historically important.--B.d.mills 23:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Origin of the hebrew calendar

---

I have added the comments that the hebrew calendar was probably derived from the sumerian calendar. I have certain reasons to believe so: i) The source of numerous other hebrew traditions can be traced back to the sumerians. ii) It is written explicitly in the jewish bible that Abraham descends from Ur-Cashdim, which is a sumerian city. iii) They are both lunisolar. iv) There are other similarities regarding time measurement between te sumerian calendar and the hebrew calendar. For instance, the timing of the hebrew pasover, which was once considered as the jewish new year celebration, is close to the sumerian new year celebration and in both cultures sunset is considered as the start of the day. .--Tomer Ish Shalom 23:00, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alt Ben Meir

I've moved the following edit here for discussion:

An alternative explanation for the 642 parts is as follows. The calculated time of New Moon during the six days of creation was on Friday at 14 hours exactly (day starting at 6pm the previous evening), assuming that creation occurred in the Autumn to coincide with Rosh Hashana. However, it was at 9 hours and 642 parts on Wednesday if creation actually took place six months earlier, in Spring. Ben Meir may thus have believed, along with many earlier Jewish scholars, that creation occurred in Spring and the calendar rules had been adjusted by 642 parts to fit in with an Autumn date.

This edit is for the most part plausible, but requires some modification of the tradtional Creation, either spring or autumn. The traditional day of Creation was the first day of the week (Sunday), not the sixth day of the week (Friday). Friday was the day that Adam was created according to both the dominant tradition and the minority opinion that creation occurred in spring. But the modern rules prevent Rosh Hashana (1 Tishri) from occuring on Friday. Nevertheless, the molad (new moon) of Tishri does occur at 14h on Friday (6d 14h 0p) one year after the modern epoch of 2d 5h 204p, and the molad of Nisan between the two does occur at 9h 642p on Wednesday (4d 9h 642p). The modern rules require that if molad Tishri occurs at 6d 14h then 1 Tishri must be delayed to Saturday. But the number of days in the six months before is 177 = 2 mod 7, so 1 Nisan must be a Thursday, not a Friday as the tradition requires. The edit could be reworded to allow both spring and autumn Creationists to accept that Adam was not born on Friday, or that he was born on Friday, but not on 1 Nisan or 1 Tishri, respectively.— Joe Kress 14:01, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is all very confusing. The moved edit does not say that creation began on Friday. The six days of creation were Sunday to Friday. Following the current calendar rules, the molad of Tishri was on Friday and Rosh Hashana therefore fell on Saturday, the first Sabbath. This began year 2, the six days of creation being the last six days of Ellul in year 1. The epoch of 2d 5h 204p fell 12 months earlier. It is called Molad Tohu (molad of chaos) because it nominally occurred before creation, while the World was stil in chaos. This strange procedure was because the days of creation had to fall in some year. However, the Moon was created on Wednesday and it is far more plausible that the molad should be a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of the Moon than a nice round figure coinciding with the creation of Adam.

References?

Were the works listed in the Literature section consulted by the page authors to add or fact check material in the article or are they just there for more information? The distinction is important, and those that were properly used should be moved to a ==References== section for clarity. I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit&section=new) when a few references have been added to (or clarified in) the article. - Taxman 18:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the heading Literature to References per your request. However, I do not recognize your distinction between books or articles used for fact checking and those having more information. In my opinion, they are one and the same. I cannot imagine a reference that is suitable for fact-checking that does not have more information. I read (and re-read) the cited books and articles, most in their entirety—the history section is a short summary of them. They are also suitable for the arithmetic facts of the present article and would be suitable even for a more complete discussion of the calendar's technical side. Of course, they may not have any information added by later editors. — Joe Kress 06:52, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)