text:
Talk:Hebrew calendar

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloe24681234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Question of Passover 2019, calendar drift, and so forth.
Hi, everyone. We seem to be having an edit war here on the subject of Passover 2019. Apparently, the proponents of these edits wish to include it as an example of how calendar drift can push Passover to the second full moon after the equinox rather than the first. So ... I propose we answer these questions here and come to a resolution, and then decide where (if anywhere) this edit should go. Until we solve this here, I propose to revert any attempt to put the edit back in the article. Note that I am not taking sides—I only want to settle this without further edit warring. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Proponents: Do I correctly state the case?
 * Opponents: Leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, why is this an inappropriate or confusing example? Alternatively, is the example ok, but the wording poor? Side question: is there a year closer than 2019 when Passover falls on the second full moon after the equinox?
 * Everyone: Again, leaving aside for the moment the question of where in the article this might go, am I missing anything else that is causing this edit war?

 * I removed it once, only because it seemed out of place. I have no specific knowledge regarding the questions asked above. It is a technical detail, a highly technical and rather minor detail, and as such seems unnecessary. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is where I can ask my question. It seems to me that Passover in 2016 fell on the second full moon after the equinox. The Equinox was Sun. Mar. 20. The following full moon was March 23. The next one was April 22, which was the date of Passover. So here's my question. The Jehovah's Witnesses claim to use the Hebrew calendar to determine Nisan 14, so that they can celebrate that. This year (2016) they celebrated on March 23. Did any Jews celebrate on Mar 23? I'm a bit overwhelmed by the article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

 * You are correct that this past Passover fell around the second full moon after the equinox. No Jew that I am aware of celebrated Passover on March 23. You need to understand the following, all of which is somehow included in the article, but might not be obvious:
 * At this point, we do not use the astronomical equinox to calculate anything. Our leap years fall in years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 19 of a given 19-year cycle, regardless of the true equinox date. At this point, Passover falls around the second full moon in years 8, 11 and 19.
 * If JW use the Hebrew calendar, they should not be celebrating on March 23. More likely, they are using the principles behind the Jewish calendar, which in theory prefer Passover to be around the first full moon. Even at that, though, when the Sanhedrin actually decided the issue, the Sanhedrin was allowed to defer Passover to the second full moon, in that they could also use crop ripeness or the condition of roads as part of their decision-making paradigm. This wasn't common, but apparently did (rarely) happen.
 * Further, we no longer use lunar observation to set months. Accordingly, Hebrew calendar months do not necessarily start on the day of the astronomical new moon, meaning Passover does not necessarily start on the day of the full moon. (This is true absolutely, and even more true where postponement rules (q.v.) apply.) If your almanac says that the full moon falls on Wednesday, Passover might very well start Thursday, and even possibly the following Saturday.
 * If this article is overwhelming, consider looking at the corresponding article in Simple English Wikipedia (that is, simple:Hebrew calendar). I was the primary writer there, and made an effort to be complete for a lay audience without letting the details of the calculations become overwhelming. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarity to Turkish names of months (and perhaps Arabic).
Anyone is welcome to insert the information into the article, I just couldn't figure out how to do it best. Turkey uses the same calendar used in the Western world and the names of the months in Turkish (English in paranthesis) are -starting with the first month in the Hebrew calendar: Nisan (April), Mayıs (May), Haziran (June), Temmuz (July), Ağustos (August), Eylül (September), Ekim (October), Kasım (November), Aralık (December), Ocak (January), Şubat (February), Mart (March). Best. --Stultiwikiatext me 12:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So 4 months, February, April, July and September are like the Hebrew names Shvat, Nisan, Tammuz and Elul. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

High latitudes
"At higher latitudes in summer, when the sun does not sink below the horizon, a day is counted from midday to midday, and in the winter, when the sun does not rise above the horizon, from midnight to midnight."

Is that correct? Shouldn't it be the other way around? That is, when the sun is up all day, shouldn't the new day start when its at its *lowest* point, i.e., "midnight", and likewise when it's below the horizon all day, at midday? Like, the day before that prolonged daylight would begin at sunset, when the sun briefly drops below the horizon. Noon would only be 12 hours later than that, so if you're defining the day as midday to midday, then you'd have a 12-hour day when it switches from sunset to midday reckoning, whereas 24 hours after that last sunset would be the sun at its lowest point, just skimming the horizon XinaNicole (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 * It contradicts the last sentence of Jewish law in the polar regions. I suggest it be removed from this article altogether. McKay (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree. AJD (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So do I. This seems counterintuitive. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The South Pole has to be considered, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.130 (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First use of the calendar?
The "History" section is vague about when the Hebrew calendar actually came into use. Since the calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh, we can imply that it was devised prior to about 450 BC, but there is no specific mention about when it was first known to be used. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that "the calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh"? Debresser (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 * It's right there in the article, at the beginning of the "History" section:
 * The Tanakh contains several commandments related to the keeping of the calendar and the lunar cycle, and records changes that have taken place to the Hebrew calendar.
 * Also, you reverted my edit which included actual dates of when the Hebrew calendar came into use. It seems rather ironic to fail to mention the dates of a date-keeping instrument, doesn't it? Yes, the articles are linked, but surely a little redundancy amongst articles is proper. Why wouldn't we want to mention historical dates in the "History" section? — Loadmaster (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 * There is a huge difference between that quote and your statement. The Tanakh contains certain instructions relating to the Jewish calendar is not the same as saying that the Jewish calendar is mentioned in the Tanakh. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As to the dates. First of all, one of them is only approximately. But the main issue with them is as I mentioned, that the articles are already linked, so better leave the dates to those articles. Here, is is redundant and only clouds the article with non-essential information. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 * So the simple question "When did the Hebrew calendar start being used?" is not directly answered in the article about the Hebrew calendar. Super. I think that the approximate date that the calendar was first used should be fairly essential information in a section entitled "History". — Loadmaster (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm actually inclined to agree with User:Loadmaster that we should have some explicit mention of this subject within the article.
 * That said, I'm not sure if we really know for sure when it was first used, or even when it was first used in a form remotely resembling that used during the Mishnaic period. Religious Jews like us may assume things from primary sources, but I'm not sure what other proof may even exist. To be sure, much of our calendar seems similar to the Babylonian calendar, but again what constitutes proof I don't know. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * No problem. Just find a source and add a sentence.
 * Note that in his edits, Loadmaster did not try to address the question when the Jewish calendar started being used. He just added dates to some examples of usage of the Jewish calendar. A huge difference. Now he suddenly raises this issue, and only in his second post on the talkpage, but it really is not related to the edits I reverted. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, in fact, I did intend to address the question of when it began being used. It's the reason I looked up the article in the first place. Yes, my first attempt at providing a simple answer to the question was not the correct approach. But it's still the same question, though, and my original intentions were to try to provide some kind of answer. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The question "when did the Jewish calendar first come into use" is not a well-posed question so it can't have a precise answer. Does it require a calendar with the same 19-year cycle, or does ad hoc insertion of leap-months count? Does it require month lengths defined by rules as now, or does observation of the moon count? If it means the current algorithmic calendar based on a specific epoch, a specific length for the mean synodic month, and a particular set of rules for applying these, it can't be proved that the calendar was used before the Middle Ages. Some aspects of it appeared earlier though. So the question is not so clear-cut and a useful answer is necessarily long. McKay (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Jewish traditions says that he names of the month "came with them from Babylonia". That would probably mean what is now called "Jewish" calendar, was based on the Babylonian calendar, and accepted sometime during the 70 years of the Babylonian exile. Debresser (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 * At the very least, I think we should mention the earliest (plausible) date(s) that the Hebrews started using their own calendar, separate from those of other cultures (e.g., Babylonian), even if it was not in its more refined form. That's an important timepoint in the Hebrew culture, I would think. Further, I think mentioning the evolution of their calendar, like McKay alludes to, possibly with plausible date ranges, would be informative. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Only based on reliable source. No original research! See WP:RS and WP:OR. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I added parenthetical dates for the Mishnaic and Second Temple periods. Corrections are welcome. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And I reverted you. Your sneaky or aggressive behavior, whichever, is not appreciated. Just because you reached consensus with yourself, does not mean you can now repeat an edit that was reverted and discussed here without garnering clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Please remain civil. Do you have a specific problem with the addition of the dates I added? They meet your own criteria of reliable research, and do not contradict other WP articles. They simply specify when the Mishnaic and Second Temple periods took place, which are taken directly from the linked articles themselves. Mentioning the dates of the periods does not contradict the sentences they parenthetically modify, nor do they place any specific dates on the existence of the calendar itself; they simply duplicate the information in the linked articles about the historic periods. Maybe I'm misreading your intent, but you seem to be taking the position that the History subsection should not contain any mention of dates, and that readers should (only) click on the articles to find out what those date intervals are. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Please don't make any edits without consensus, and you won't have to remind other editors to be civil to you.
 * I think you more or less correctly explained my position on this issue. But you left out my main point: that we should add dates, but only based on sources that pertain directly to the subject (the Hebrew calendar). Are there really no sources we can use? What with the lead I gave you here in this section a bit higher up? Debresser (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw e.g. this article, which says what I stated above. Perhaps not the best source, but better than nothing. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * → Google translation from Hebrew to English is here. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This very reliable source mentions it also. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * → Google translation from Hebrew to English is here. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. At this point, what exactly would Loadmaster like to add, and what exactly is Debresser willing to see added. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I'd like to see any dates (or range of dates) that give some indication of when the calendar was plausibly first used by the Hebrews. If this means denoting the years spanned by a given period in which is was first used (e.g., the Mishnaic period) in place of more authoritative dates about the calendar usage per se, that would be okay. In other words, some date range that gives the reader a reasonable estimate of how old the calendar is. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fine with dates, from reliable sources relating directly to the Jewish calendar. No original research along the lines of "since the calendar is mentioned here or there, and that was then and then, therefore the calendar was in existence at least since then and then". Debresser (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hebrew calendar. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o_6wrQe6ppUJ:personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf+%22Sanctification+of+the+New+Moon%22+Maimonides&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a with https://web.archive.org/web/20100621084628/http://personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf on https://personal.stevens.edu/~msenator/hand0.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.judaica-frankfurt.de/content/titleinfo/177450
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://elkind.net/calendar/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.cgate.co.il/calendar/calendar_diaspora.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011103950/http://www.bethabracha.co.uk/calendar/ to http://www.bethabracha.co.uk/calendar/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906123702/http://www.yeshiva.org.il/calendar/eng to http://www.yeshiva.org.il/calendar/eng/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.chelm.org/jewish/calendar/explain.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125180434/http://www.geocities.com/DafAWeek/HebCal.html to http://www.tichnut.de/jewish/

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) 23:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use the tools linked above to fix this. The tools provide an easy way to communicate with the bot and to inform it of corrections.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 11:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Calculating the day of 1 Tischri in Gregorian calendar
Using the Pessah formula by Gauß and Eastern formula by Lichtenberg i constructed this formula to get the day of 1 Tischri. X is the number of the hebrewan year:

--87.144.190.66 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the contribution. Hebrew calendar is built into the MediaWiki software platform, so we don't need to go to this trouble. But this might be useful to some users who wish to code their own work. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

 * No problem - i forgot to translate one word, because i have postet it on german wiki first - "Jahr" -> "year". Maybe you can find a nice place for it; here on the talk page it will be lost some day... --93.220.232.186 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hebrew calendar. 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/20050919014237/http://www.kaluach.org/ to http://kaluach.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129165850/http://calendar-converter.com/index.php?p=jewish to http://calendar-converter.com/index.php?p=jewish

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) 07:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Fixed one "correction". StevenJ81 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Samaritan Version of Calendar?
The Samaritans operate a similar version of the calendar, but out of sync with the mainstream Rabbinic Jewish Calendar. For example they celebrate Pesach on "Nissan 15-22" like Jews, but in practice this works out to be a few weeks later or earlier. I think this should be added to the Other Practices section.62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Give us a few days on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's six months you've been given. Any progress? 81.154.25.196 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please include sources. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See https://www.israelite-samaritans.com/religion/calendar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.216.96 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ See . StevenJ81 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Writing the year with alphabetical numbers omitting the thousands.
It would be useful to add a discussion of how the year is written. See http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Hebrew_numerals

Otherwise it is somewhat obscure why 5777 is written תשע״ז.

Thank you very much for your consideration

Michaelaoash (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Also a good point. Will also try to get to this during this week. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was already there, but I provided examples. See Hebrew calendar. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
Could you please update this page a bit in the Months section of the Components section of this article by saying "In leap years (Such as 5779)". Please. 2602:304:5D47:EC19:4D84:3C29:4961:DBB4 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ But it seems to be very difficult for you not to have all dates in all of these articles updated to future years. 5774 was a perfectly appropriate example. Don't worry about these things so much. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018
The Hebrew calendar month counting is not as simple and straight forward as the month table suggests as each month has two numbers associated with it.

While the number column on the page is accurate for the Hebrew sacred calendar (best to my knowledge), it does not contain the numbers for the Hebrew civil Calendar.

I have looked at 3 websites to verify my information and not a single one, including one that is maintained by a Jewish practitioner, has the both month numbers.

I have copy and pasted below the table that you do have on the page and have added a second number column and titled the number columns in respect to their civil or sacred standing.

This information should be verified with a Rabbi to ensure that I do not have the Civil and Sacred column titles reversed. Sometimes I get things wrong even when I double triple and quadruple check them. I really hate when that happens!

Due to the lack of complete and verifiable information on the internet, people are confused on just how the Hebrew/Jewish calendar actually works. I don't think having both sets of numbers will make it less confusing, but it will ensure that they have the complete information regarding the calendar and the way that the months are numbered for whatever research they may be conducting.

Thanks for making the update! Source: Bottom of Page 850 of the Holy Bible Authorized King James Version PTL Partner Edition Thomas Nelson Publishers Copyright 1975 page 850 69.218.72.2 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 * You should add Adar II. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Adar II is covered right below that table (and in several other places), so I left it alone for now. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew Calendar abbreviated as HC
Roman calendar used AUC ab urbe condita before Jesus Christ and BC/AD Anno Domini. Hebrew calendar (HC). 73.85.207.74 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think we should do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:E1B7:8159:8851:AE75 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not? HC is the obvious abbreviation for Hebrew Calendar and it's being used on many Internet sites (google that). I have yet to find it in a book. 73.85.202.253 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be obvious, but I never saw it before, and I would like to see it used in some serious publications, not the Internet, before we start using it on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Usage in Auschwitz
I think this article is very informative and helpful to people who are trying to learn more about the Hebrew Calendar. I will add a subsection called Observance in Auschwitz under the Modern calendar section. I found an interesting article called Tracking Jewish Time in Auschwitz, which appeared in a peer-reviewed journal and is written by Alan Rosen, who has a Ph.D. in literature and religion from Boston University. I will add information about the dangers of having a calendar while in Auschwitz and the importance of women making the only known surviving calendars. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe24681234 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you might want to take a look at where there are many more instances of this for many places in Europe, not just Auschwitz. I think you can use this to expand the section quite a bit. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My thinking now is that with your link and my link above, the information is enough for a standalone article, Hebrew Calendar and the Holocaust, or something along that line. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that, even if only to avoid WP:UNDUE claims in this article. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018
In the section Implications for Jewish Ritual, don't forget to add AM 5776, the 19th year of the cycle, and Gregorian year 2016 CE. Please. 2601:401:C400:357:985:79B4:8920:1D07 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that in 5776(2016), which was the 19th year of the cycle, Passover was late by a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:985:79B4:8920:1D07 (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparison between Hebrew and Gregorian calendars
For a school project I tried implementing all the date rules as described in the article in JavaScript, but my results did not match the moladot times for the civil year given. I checked and re-checked, and they seem to be in error. I’ve replaced the moladot times for the civil year with moladot times for the ecclesiastical year (which I think may be more useful anyway) computed directly according to the rules in the article; these results seem to match those given by molad sites such as Chabad.org and TorahCalc.com. Hope I didn’t break anything. PowerPCG5 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from the revision history, I replaced incorrect times for moladot Nisan with an alternative list of moladot Tishrei computed by directly applying the rules described in the article, but an anonymous editor deleted them. As I have no desire to get into an edit war with an anonymous editor, I put computed moladot Nisan back in place of computed moladot Tishrei but at least put back correctly computed values as calculated per the article and verified with the online molad calculators in the external links.  I’m including my original computed moladot Tishrei (which I still think many would find more useful than moladot Nisan as computation of Rosh Hashanah forms the basis of Hebrew calendar calculations IMHO) again here for reference for anyone interested in computing Hebrew calendars on their own using the rules described in the article and wishing to check their results.  Good luck, and have fun:)
 * Molad Tishrei 5777 (year 1 in Metonic cycle) = 14:40 $$\tfrac{4}{18}$$ Saturday, 1 October 2016
 * Molad Tishrei 5778 (year 2 in Metonic cycle) = 23:28 $$\tfrac{16}{18}$$ Wednesday, 20 September 2017
 * Molad Tishrei 5779 (year 3 in Metonic cycle) = 08:17 $$\tfrac{10}{18}$$ Monday, 10 September 2018
 * Molad Tishrei 5780 (year 4 in Metonic cycle) = 05:50 $$\tfrac{5}{18}$$ Sunday, 29 September 2019
 * Molad Tishrei 5781 (year 5 in Metonic cycle) = 14:38 $$\tfrac{17}{18}$$ Thursday, 17 September 2020
 * Molad Tishrei 5782 (year 6 in Metonic cycle) = 23:27 $$\tfrac{11}{18}$$ Monday, 6 September 2021
 * Molad Tishrei 5783 (year 7 in Metonic cycle) = 21:00 $$\tfrac{6}{18}$$ Sunday, 25 September 2022
 * Molad Tishrei 5784 (year 8 in Metonic cycle) = 05:49 Friday, 15 September 2023
 * Molad Tishrei 5785 (year 9 in Metonic cycle) = 03:21 $$\tfrac{13}{18}$$ Thursday, 3 October 2024
 * Molad Tishrei 5786 (year 10 in Metonic cycle) = 12:10 $$\tfrac{7}{18}$$ Monday, 22 September 2025
 * Molad Tishrei 5787 (year 11 in Metonic cycle) = 20:59 $$\tfrac{1}{18}$$ Friday, 11 September 2026
 * Molad Tishrei 5788 (year 12 in Metonic cycle) = 18:31 $$\tfrac{14}{18}$$ Thursday, 30 September 2027
 * Molad Tishrei 5789 (year 13 in Metonic cycle) = 03:20 $$\tfrac{8}{18}$$ Tuesday, 19 September 2028
 * Molad Tishrei 5790 (year 14 in Metonic cycle) = 12:09 $$\tfrac{2}{18}$$ Saturday, 8 September 2029
 * Molad Tishrei 5791 (year 15 in Metonic cycle) = 09:41 $$\tfrac{15}{18}$$ Friday, 27 September 2030
 * Molad Tishrei 5792 (year 16 in Metonic cycle) = 18:30 $$\tfrac{9}{18}$$ Tuesday, 16 September 2031
 * Molad Tishrei 5793 (year 17 in Metonic cycle) = 03:19 $$\tfrac{3}{18}$$ Sunday, 5 September 2032
 * Molad Tishrei 5794 (year 18 in Metonic cycle) = 00:51 $$\tfrac{16}{18}$$ Saturday, 24 September 2033
 * Molad Tishrei 5795 (year 19 in Metonic cycle) = 09:40 $$\tfrac{10}{18}$$ Wednesday, 13 September 2034
 * PowerPCG5 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to Wikipedia!  Thank you for your interest in this topic.   Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem with your edit.   You say you are "interested in computing Hebrew calendars on their own using the rules described in the article and wishing to check their results".   Someone has done that and found that the new rules you added don't give the correct answer (see their edit summary at the article revision history).   In the example they gave for 2020 you wrote:

"Molad Nisan 5780 = 10:14 $$\tfrac{11}{18}$$ Tuesday, 24 March 2020"

Next year Nisan begins on Thursday, 26 March. Please explain how your figure gives the correct starting date. If you can't, please put the article back the way it was. Once again, thanks and happy editing! 2.27.36.48 (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 * PowerPCG5 has checked the dates with two websites, and I checked a few samples and found them correct.
 * The molad is usually a bit before the beginning of the month, so why do see a problem here? Debresser (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 * As it was, the time for 2020 (02:38 AM Wednesday, 25 March) gave the correct date for Nisan 1 of Thursday, 26 March (because Wednesday is a forbidden day).  You want to use the time of the molad, 10:14 AM, Tuesday, 23 March.   Please provide a worked calculation explaining how, using that time, you arrive at Thursday, 26 March for 1 Nisan. 2.27.36.48 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to make sure that something is clear here. @User:PowerPCG5 suggested above that the molad times for the ecclesiastical year may be more useful than the molad times for the civil year. I'd just like to remind everyone that in the current, calculated version of the calendar, the only molad time that actually has an impact in practice is the molad time for Tishri (i.e., civil year). Every other month start is simply counted off from the date of 1 Tishri so calculated at intervals of 30 or 29 days. What am I missing here? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 * @2.27.36.48 Why would we want to see a calculation? This information is readily available on a variety of websites and publications. The beginning of Nissan 1 is not relevant to any of the usual calculations, so PowerPCG5 did a good thing removing that and replacing it with the molad. Which is also the beginning of the month, in a way.
 * @StevenJ81 The molad can be counted from any month, theoretically. But I agree that having the molad of Tishrei would be more useful, since it is indeed customary to count from Tishrei. Debresser (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only customary, but under the current calendar laws, it's halacha. (I've long thought it ironic that every molad is announced in synagogue except the one for Tishrei...yet that's the only one ever used in calculations of months and years.)
 * The one thing that the moladot of Adar and Nissan would give us that is interesting is that we could compare them to the moment of the astronomical equinox and see which month is really "supposed" to be Nissan. But that's a very theoretical sort of thing in practice today, as it wouldn't change which month is actually Nissan. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you alter a table and you don't know what you are doing you will mess it up - i.e. it will no longer do what it says on the tin, which in this case is give the Gregorian date corresponding to 1 Nisan.  When Debresser says "Why would we want to see a calculation?" that suggests to me that he has not verified that his new times give the correct answer.   Information which has not been verified may not be included.   The times in the long-standing version have been verified, so I would suggest that they be reinstated.   Please don't wait for comment from Debresser as he may have gone offline for shabbos. 2.27.36.48 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @StevenJ81 It's not halakha. The Rambam is very clear about it that any molad from any given year can be used as a starting point for further calculations.
 * @2.27.36.48 And your posts suggest to me you are not here to contribute positively to this community. And are possibly some WP:SOCK. So I'd really advice you to keep your suggestions to yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I don't know exactly what it going on here but from a distance it looks like a battle of povs. You really need to restrict yourselves to material that appears in published reliable sources. Trivial calculations are allowed (see WP:CALC) but calculations as complex as these that you did yourselves are definitely not allowed in the article. It's hard to believe you can't find a reliable source for this information. McKay (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 * This entire section was added to the article 7 February 2015 by a sockpuppet of the banned user WP:LTA/VXFC, recognized by her personal name of "Exigian" for the Revised Julian calendar. For that reason alone the section should be deleted per WP:BMB. It is WP:OR because no source tries to convert the Hebrew calendar into the "Exigian" calendar. It has some minor errors "remainder 200 or 700 [600] when divided by 900" and "(Exigian) is correct to one day in 44,000 [5,000] years" per . I plan to replace it with the conversion equations (Jewish to Gregorian) written by E. G. Richards in Mapping Time. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And it appears that 2.27.36.48, above in this section, is also VXFC. Mojoworker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 * He definitely behaves like a sock. The section contains information that can be readily checked on a number of websites, as PowerPCG5 did. Another question is whether this information, a list of times of the molad of Tishrei in various years, is something this encyclopedia should have. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Basic chronology in the Biblical period
This short section is problematic to say the least and it makes no mention of the debate around the opinion that is expressed well by Rachel Elior that a solar calendar of 364 days was used up to the Seleucid period when it was replaced by a Greek lunar calendar on the orders of Antiochus IV. The biblical evidence is more in congruence with a solar calendar starting in the Spring with what later came to be known as Nissan. Alan3278 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 * The Bible isn't reliable history, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yahrzeit
The plural of יאָרצײַט is יאָרצײַטן, so the transcription should be changed to yahrzeitn (to remain close to the Yiddish form) or maybe yahrzeiten (which is closer to the modern German plural). --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is it now? I don't see this word in the article. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote it in Yiddish but it is written in Latin script in the article as Yahrzeits, which is a non-Yiddish plural. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Found it, thanks. Don't know what to say. On the one hand, the Yiddish plural is as you say with an "n", but in America many would use the "s" like in English. As far as I am concerned it is not a big deal, and either way works for me. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think it is not worth editing the article just for this one word but it would be nice if someone did this alongside some other edit (like fixing the other points I mentioned below), therefore not creating one more unnecessary article version because of one word. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The plural of the Yiddish word יאָרצײַט is יאָרצײַטן, but the plural of the English word yahrzeit is yahrzeits. The article contains the English word, not the Yiddish word. AJD (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

″One scholar″
There is no reason not to name the scholar whose position this article informs us about. The reference is an article by Solomon Gandz, so I assume (being to read nothing more than a preview page) it is him and not someone quoted in his article. As the article is protected, I cannot change this myself. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

″20th-century Samaritan High Priest″
That is Avraham b. Pinchas, according to the reference (whose author is written Tsedaka and not Tzedaka, by the way), and there is no reason not to name him. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did you see this? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated above, this is according to the reference; the link, that is. You will find the names of the High Priest and the author there. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strangely I found no Avraham ben Phinhas in the list of high priests at Samaritan High Priest or even on the list of high priests at that very same site which is the source of this information.
 * That is weird indeed, especially since Tsedaka is a Samaritan himself and should know. Maybe he mixed up some name while writing? By the way, I know either he or another Samaritan with the same last name insists on the orthography (see above); I forgot in which book I read this, though. And the reference still implies this was his first and not his last name, which is nonsense. --84.167.153.120 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Calendar drift calculations
In the wake of a edit war between two users over calendar drift calculations, I went and checked the calculations on both pages. I've confirmed the assertions using exact calculations: I'm not sure what the claim about "Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths" being an index page is about, but it's straightforward to find the claims in "The Accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar" and "The Relative Rate of the Hebrew Calendar" if you scroll down. Arcorann (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The average Hebrew year length is 235/19 * (29 + 13753/25920) = 35975351/98496 = 365.24682220597794 days (rounded).
 * The average Gregorian year length is 365 + 97/400 = 365.2425 days.
 * Thus, the difference between Hebrew and Gregorian is ~0.004322206 days, or 1 day in ~231.363 years. (Exact value according to Wolfram Alpha is 10643/2462400 days.)
 * Similarly, taking a tropical year length of 365.2422 days gives the difference as ~0.004622 days, or 1 day in ~216.3 years (using 365.24219 gives ~215.9 years).

Curious fractions need explanatory note
I'm sure that this
 * Molad Nisan 5779 = 01:25 $$\tfrac{17}{18}$$ Friday, 5 April 2019

makes sense to some readers but for the rest of us, would someone please explain the meaning of $$\tfrac{17}{18}$$? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I can help. According to Hebrew_calendar, the Jewish minute is divided not into 60 seconds, but into 18 parts (in Hebrew "helek", plural "halakim"). Debresser (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My first assumption was "fractions of a minute" but I decided that would be too far-fetched! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories
The Julian and Gregorian calendars are part of the category Calendars. Why isn't this calendar part of the category Calendars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.132.240 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I took a look. You are wrong; neither Julian calendar nor Gregorian calendar are a part of Category:Calendars. Instead, both articles (as well as this one) have their own, self-titled categories. SkyWarrior  04:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The value of the conversion table
First off, as it has been present for seven years it should not have been removed without a consensus on the talk page first. A source was added but AstroLynx removed it again. Wikipedia pages can be copied for future use, so its removal also means that those without computers who have not yet taken a copy will not be able to work out e.g. the date of their Yahrzeit. External sites can be offensive - yesterday I visited one of the cited websites AstroLynx referred to and it repeatedly flashed me this message:

Hurry, Ramadan's almost over! ZAKAT Give in the name of Allah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.119.149 (talk • contribs)

 * The deleted section was previously discussed in 2019 and the consensus at the end of the discussion was to delete it as it was largely based on OR from a well-known banned user and, with the availability of online calendar converters, it was highly unlikely that anyone would ever use this method. If some of the online calendar links at the bottom of the Hebrew calendar page give undesirable results then they can always be removed or replaced with better ones. AstroLynx (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I have read the cited discussion.  It identifies the originating editor who has a clean block log and geolocates to Cornwall.   The consensus was not to delete but to ensure the material is reliably sourced.   Please do not make that mistake again.   Even you don't argue that Carl Friedrich Gauss (the greatest mathematician since antiquity) is "an unreliable source". 78.150.119.149 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * This is not how I read the 15 and 16 April 2019 comments on this section by, and . There was clear consensus to delete this section. I have no quibble with your claim that Gauss was one of the greatest mathematicians of all times but how is that relevant here? Sticking a celebrity's name on a mud pie does not make it a delicacy. AstroLynx (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with AstroLynx. My comment on that section meant to say, that we should not have this section. It is one big original research. Based on some sources, but original research nevertheless. It is also something of very low encyclopedical value. IMHO. So yes, I think that was correctly removed, based on that discussion in 2019. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * There was overwhelming consensus to retain, which is why the section was not removed.  Supporters included Debresser, PowerPCG5, StevenJ81, etc.   Support would have been greater but someone removed the following supportive comment:

 * If we source this, presumably all parties will be happy.  I suggest, therefore, that we add back the changes which were introduced at 16:32, 10 April and after the words "The list below gives a time which can be used to determine the day the Jewish ecclesiastical (spring) year starts over a period of nineteen years" add this inline citation:

I note that AstroLynx only pinged editors who supported his view - a clear breach of WP:CANVASS. The "Original research" argument is dead in the water - I have checked the text of the section against Gauss' paper and can confirm that all the data is lifted from it. I wouldn't describe Gauss' contributions to science as "a mud pie". 78.150.119.149 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 * As this was a two-year old discussion, I had no intention of repeating the whole thread and just mentioned the outcome. Checking the page history I now see that I probably also should have pinged, and . You are correct that the 2019 discussion now visible is not complete and that some postings are missing. Still, I fail to see general consensus for keeping this section despite your attempts to twist the words of other editors to suit your purpose. The only editors who wish to keep this section appear to be you and your earlier London-based aliases. AstroLynx (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion was initiated and fueled by IP socks of community-banned Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. I just blocked the most recent incarnation, 78.149.213.149, after they repeatedly tried to modify the article. If someone would like to delete or archive the discussion, that would be in the spirit of Banned means banned. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note on LTA

19 year cycles
When did the last 19 year cycle begin in the Hebrew calendar? 90.241.152.219 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This year is 5782. Dividing by 19 gives us 304. 304 * 19 = 5776. Which also means that this is the 6th year of the 305th cycle. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Month names in the bible
I have always had trouble with the statement that four month are named in the Bible (Aviv, Ziv, Ethanim and Bul). My problem with that statement is that the words "Aviv" and "Ethanim" are preceded in those verses by the definite article (he hayedia), indicating that those are adjectives, not nouns like names of months should be. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

shwa in Tishri
Could someone with edit access please add the shwa to תִּשׁרִי Tishri in the table under History. --188.28.96.91 (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Ar2332 (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022
Please change "mounted up" to "amounted", as the current wording isn't normal English. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Still filled with original research even years after discussion
Throughout this article there seems to be a lot of unsourced material after years of discussion about it. From my reading of the discussion there seems to be a consensus of leaving in much of the unsourced material, because it is factually true. The problem is thats not how wikipedia works. EVERYTHING in this or any article needs to be sourced from a reliable secondary source, and not based on either personal knowledge or reasonable conclusions based on reliable sources. Can we get some references? If not, every unsourced thing needs to be deleted. RevDan (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have specific examples? There are currently 127 inline references and an extensive bibliography. Most paragraphs have one or more references. Please let us know what areas you believe need more referencing so we can work on them.--agr (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to list everything, but in many places the Bible AKA Tanach, is used a reference. The Bible is a primary source, not a secondary source.  Also biblical references are used on dates, based on correlation to unnamed sources. Likewise the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud are also primary sources not secondary sources.  References must be secondary sources.
 * the phrase "These measures are not generally used for everyday purposes. Its best known use is for calculating and announcing the molad." is an example of an original conclusion, that is not referenced. there are many of those throughout the article.
 * "There is no clock in the Jewish scheme, so that the local civil clock is used. Although the civil clock, including the one in use in Israel, incorporates local adoptions of various conventions such as time zones, standard times and daylight saving, these have no place in the Jewish scheme. The civil clock is used only as a reference point—in expressions such as: "Shabbat starts at ...". The steady progression of sunset around the world and seasonal changes results in gradual civil time changes from one day to the next based on observable astronomical phenomena (the sunset) and not on man-made laws and conventions." unreferenced and probably OR.
 * The whole section of "Weeks" is unreferenced though it has non reference footnotes. The same goes for "Months" (though there is one referenced paragraph)
 * "Hence it is a reasonable conclusion that the Mishnaic calendar was actually used in the Mishnaic period." probably original conclusion.
 * "Thus, adding 3760 before Rosh Hashanah or 3761 after to a Julian calendar year number starting from 1 CE will yield the Hebrew year. For earlier years there may be a discrepancy; see Missing years (Jewish calendar)."  again probably original conclusion.
 * The section "Leap years" is filled with calculations and statements that look like OR, not reference.
 * There is much more, but I think you get the point. RevDan (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @RevDan That is how Wikipedia works. Till some a-hole comes along and starts deleting relevant and true information based on a deletionist approach to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You may indeed understand that I am of the inclusionist approach. In any case, I hope you are not that type of person. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are long unsourced sections which should have sources. However, since some of these sections are both important/basic and "obviously true", I don't think we have to rush to delete them for being unsourced, there may be higher editing priorities. If someone comes and challenges a specific claim, then we can search for a reference or else delete the claim. Ar2332 (talk) 07:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

’aviv as spring
In the section about leap months it says: “It may be noted that in the Bible the name of the first month, Aviv, literally means "spring". Thus, if Adar was over and spring had not yet arrived, an additional month was observed.” To my understanding this is untrue, while in modern Hebrew ’aviv is the name of spring, it originally meant ripening (or more accurately, the stage before ripening, when the plant was still green) and the meaning of spring is much later, long after the bible was written, in which the month of ’aviv is mentioned. This is inline with the section before it, which speaks about the ripeness of barley. 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're transliterating it differently from the in my opinion correct transliteration currently used in the article (aviv). But in any case, the above is just your opinion, or in more precise WP terms WP:OR, because you are not pointing to any scholarly reliable sources that would support this opinion. If you know of such scholarly WP:RS that make a similar argument, please point them out here. Based on such RS, maybe some change in the wording could be made. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find a scholarly source, for now I can send an article of the Academy for Hebrew that talks about it but it's in Hebrew.
 * https://hebrew-academy.org.il/2018/03/22/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91/ 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By sheer coincidence, I replaced a "failed verification" citation at March Equinox with one that may provide a usable source (in English!) Specifically it says that it "barley ripening" has not arrived, leave it another month.
 * Any use? Or does my edit need correcting?! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Any use? Or does my edit need correcting?! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Aviv is indeed "ripening" (see Ex. 9:31). And from there it means the period of ripening = spring. End of discussion. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is, when did it start to be used to mean 'spring", that is a distinct season, and not just the period of, or before, ripening. 147.235.78.30 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that matter? Debresser (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because if the meaning of spring is much later, than it would be inaccurate to claim that the month of ’aviv in the bible is the month of spring, because when it was written it didn't have this meaning. 2A00:A040:1DD:7402:9472:96C9:84ED:F4B3 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Logically speaking, I would think that the meaning of "spring" is probably very early. Are there external reasons to doubt this? Debresser (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources indicating it is an early meaning? One that existed when the passage mentioning “the month of ’aviv” was written, or at least around this time? 2A02:6680:1105:A23E:ACB2:6223:8FD5:3C84 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023
"Calculation of the Samaritan calendar has historically been a secret reserved to the priestly family alone, and it is based upon the conjunction of the sun and the moon."

Sources: #1 Crown, Alan. "The Samaritans". Page 700. 1989. #2 Mills, John. "Three Months Residence at Nablus, and an Account of the Modern Samaritans". Page 240. 1864. SaturnsThorn (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Under the Samaritan Calendar heading, it says that the Samaritan calendar is based upon "observations of the new crescent moon". This is not correct. The Samaritan method is based upon the "conjunction of the moon and sun". This is the day before the sliver of the crescent moon. The first day of the Samaritan month is when the moon is completely dark and invisible from our point of view. My sources are Sylvia Powells's article in Alan Crown's book, "The Samaritans" and John Mills's book "Three Months Residence at Nablus". SaturnsThorn (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you could draft the sentence you propose should replace the existing one. One of us will append the citations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah postponement rules
After your latest edit, the article reads: Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the date of Rosh Hashanah. That still doesn't make sense. Should it read Each Hebrew calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the Gregorian calendar date of Rosh Hashanah. Would that help? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence is actually: "Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the date of the next Rosh Hashanah.", which makes perfect sense. Don't see reason to change this. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But the date of Rosh Hashanah is always 1 Tishrei, by definition. So no matter how long the preceding year is, the date of the next Rosh Hashanah will not be moved: it will still be 1 Tishrei. So no, it doesn't make perfect sense. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is clear enough from the present text, IMHO. Let's ask for his opinion. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we could avoid the confusion about the word "date" by saying Each Hebrew calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the day on which the next Rosh Hashanah falls. Nevertheless I don't think this section has yet reached peak clarity, so I may want to change the sentence more dramatically later. Ar2332 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe moving the day is the key item? Because, as I have already explained, it doesn't (and can't) mean moving the date. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I does mean moving the date, just according to the Gregorian calendar, and that is clear enough form the context, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is more or less what I wrote at the beginning. In an article about the Hebrew calendar, the meaning the word "date" (given without qualification) defaults to the Hebrew date (e.g. 1 Tishrei). Accordingly, I have revised the text to read Each calendar year begins with Rosh Hashanah, so adjusting the length of the year is equivalent to moving the Gregorian date of Rosh Hashanah. My original "Each Hebrew calendar year begins ..." was a redundant qualification given the article topic, so I am happy to drop that aspect. I hope we can agree that this is a reasonable compromise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I am considering deleting the following paragragh:
 * There is no clock in the Jewish scheme, so that the local civil clock is used. Although the civil clock, including the one in use in Israel, incorporates local adoptions of various conventions such as time zones, standard times and daylight saving, these have no place in the Jewish scheme. The civil clock is used only as a reference point—in expressions such as: "Shabbat starts at ...". The steady progression of sunset around the world and seasonal changes results in gradual civil time changes from one day to the next based on observable astronomical phenomena (the sunset) and not on man-made laws and conventions.

As I see it, it says basically nothing of substance that's non-obvious. It's also very likely wrong, in that the molad/chalakim system is effectively a clock, and shaot zemaniot were apparently used as a crude clock in ancient times. Does anyone disagree and see a reason to keep the paragraph or part of it? Ar2332 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC) This paragraph seems incorrect. There very much is a clock, just that it doesn't usually concern itself with less than an hour, although that does happen, e.g. the molad time. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2023
RAmerica011 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024
Is anyone going to fix the error with the forth day in the weeks section of the article. 78.147.168.178 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 * In the English equivalent of, Yom Revil, the fourth day should be, sunset on Tuesday to sunset on Wednesday 78.147.168.178 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Four gates
I see that the Four Gates section once again claims that the "four gates" refer to the four different categories of years: this year a leap followed by two regular years, a regular year followed by a leap year followed by a regular year, etc. That is, the vertical columns in the chart. There is even at least one reference that would seem to support that. Nevertheless, this is a mistake. The "four" in Four Gates refers to the four different possible days for Rosh Hashanah. We know this because the concept of ד' שערים, Four Gates, originates in the writings of the Gaonim, and that is how they referred to them. For several examples, see Sacha Stern's book *The Jewish Calendar Controversy*. See Aharon ben Meir's first letter, and especially p. 159 where he quotes the Sefer Hamoadim, "the traditions of the 1st Gate are 491, 408, and 204; the traditions of the 2nd Gate are 695 and 204; the traditions of the 3rd Gate are six hours and 204; and the traditions of the 4th Gate are 491, 204 and 589..." Those correspond on the chart to the chalakim numbers for Shabbos, Thursday, Tuesday, and Monday.

I've removed a couple of words in the document that make that mistake, and a comment on one of references which is "Original Research" and mistaken too. MikeR613 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024
The passover date is on the 14th day at even (sunset) not the 15 day as stated herein. The 14th starts at sunset, Saying the passover is on the 14th day at even just means it starts right at the beginning of the day, not the end of the day which would be going int thew 15th. Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. 2607:FEA8:4D41:8800:E8D4:8159:8BAB:6208 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand what the previous editor meant to say. But he mixed up two things: the time of the Passover lamb offering and the festival of Passover. The lamb offering is indeed on the 14th of Nisan towards the evening, while the festive day of Passover starts only at night, which is already the 15th of Nisan. I hope this answers their concern. In any case, the article is correct as it stands and no edits need to be made. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Beginning of Hebrew Calendar
The article incorrectly states that the Hebrew calendar begins with creation. In fact it begins at the end of “day 6” with the creation of man. This is an important distinction. CMCoel (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that the Hebrew_calendar section explains this clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The entry states: “ the year number equals the number of years that have passed since the creation of the world,”. This is misleading.  An accurate statement would be: “the year number equals the number of years that have passed since the creation of man”, 2A02:14F:1FB:682C:8C14:CDF0:E948:D6D0 (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is such a minor difference. Especially since it is explained in detail elsewhere. And, frankly, it is the way the Hebrew calendar is generally perceived. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While YOU may perceive the Hebrew calendar that way it is NOT the Jewish view. The Jewish view is VERY clear that the calendar starts with at the end of the 6th day.  This is far from a minor difference since it gives a VERY incorrect and misleading understanding of the Jewish view of creation, time, the Big Bang, and debate between science and religion.
 * Also, I do not see where, as you say, "it is explained in detail elsewhere".
 * Furthermore, I do not understand the debate to simply change the words 'world' and 'man' to make this Wikipedia entry correct and not misleading. 147.235.204.215 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this bit.
 * "The reference junction of the Sun and the Moon (Molad 1) is considered to be at 5 hours and 204 halakim, or 11:11:20 p.m., on the evening of Sunday, 6 October 3761 BCE. According to rabbinic reckoning, this moment was not Creation, but about one year 'before' Creation, with the new moon of its first month (Tishrei) called molad tohu (the mean new moon of chaos or nothing). It is about one year before the traditional Jewish date of Creation on 25 Elul AM 1, based upon the Seder Olam Rabbah. Thus, adding 3760 before Rosh Hashanah or 3761 after to a Julian calendar year number starting from 1 CE will yield the Hebrew year. For earlier years there may be a discrepancy; see Missing years (Jewish calendar)."
 * So "it's complicated". 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, the entry -- in the first paragraph of the subject -- is incorrect, misleading, and consequential. December 25th is NOT the same year as January 1st. 147.235.204.215 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not really misleading, as the creation of the world and of man are only a few days apart. In any case, the calendar is usually referred to as starting from the creation of the world (which is the literal meaning of anno mundi"), so no need to complicate this in the lead, when there is a more detailed explanation in the article proper. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The entry is incorrect, misleading and consequential.
 * December 31st 2023 and January 1st 2024 are only one day apart but in different years.
 * And your statement "only a few days" apart highlights how this incorrect statement is misleading and consequential. The calendar started with man at the end of Day 5. The "days" prior to that is another discussion. 147.235.204.215 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I really think that you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you - when someone refuses to admit they are incorrect and use expressions like "drop the stick" .... The entry is incorrect, misleading and consequential. 147.235.204.215 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Hebrew calendar


text:
The Holocaust Industry

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering is a book by Norman Finkelstein arguing that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain and to further Israeli interests. According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust.

The book was controversial, attracting praise and criticism. While supporters describe the book as a substantive engagement with issues such as the politics of memory, critics argue that it either reuses antisemitic tropes, empowers them, or does both, and that the book's style is harsh and not respectful enough considering the delicate subject.

Conception
The book began as a journal review of The Holocaust in American Life, by Peter Novick.

The Holocaust industry
Finkelstein follows the Holocaust’s standing in American life from the postwar years to the end of the 20th century. Before the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, he argues, the Holocaust took little part in the lives of American Gentiles and Jews. There was, for example, at that time only a small number of books and films on the Holocaust and few works of scholarship. Not until the late 20th century, especially after the 1967 War, did the Holocaust take up its role as the foremost historical event in the American mind – so Finkelstein argues.

Finkelstein views this growing American fixation with the Holocaust through a materialist lens. After World War II, he claims, the leaders of American Jewish organizations (like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee) understood assimilation and access to elite power to be in their own interest. Thus these organizations distanced themselves from Israel, moderated their demands for German denazification, and collaborated with McCarthyite investigations. In the 1960s, however, the American government began a friendlier relationship with the Israeli government; and the interests of American Jewish leaders changed. Their organizations began openly to support Israel and espouse a Holocaust ideology that emphasized (1) the Holocaust as a unique historical event and (2) the Holocaust as the climax of an eternal anti-Semitism. Finkelstein argues that this Holocaust ideology does not fit with academic Holocaust scholarship. Rather it serves to defend Israel and American Jewish leaders from criticism.

Bad history and fraudulent memoirs
Many popular Holocaust books by contemporary writers have, in Finkelstein’s view, little scholarly merit. He faults Deborah Lipstadt’s 1993 book Denying the Holocaust for expanding the definition of Holocaust denial to include questioning its uniqueness. He writes that Daniel Goldhagen, in his 1996 book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, inaccurately characterizes the entire German people as eager Jew murderers driven by pathological hatred.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., which opened in 1993, gets sharp criticism from Finkelstein. Why, he asks, did the victims of the Holocaust get a national museum but not the victims of American slavery or the American Indian extermination? He also argues that the Gentile victims of the Holocaust – especially the Romani victims of the Porajmos – got only token recognition in the museum. More generally he claims that museum’s leadership is committed to political support of the Israeli state, pointing to its praise of pro-Zionist literature and its condemnation of anti-Zionist literature.

Finkelstein takes book reviewers and historians to task for praising two Holocaust memoirs that were later revealed to be fraudulent: The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosiński (1965) and Fragments by Binjamin Wilkomirski (1995).

Swiss banks
In 1995 the World Jewish Congress initiated a lawsuit against Swiss banks to recover the assets in accounts left dormant by victims of the Holocaust. Finkelstein accuses the leaders of Jewish organizations of exaggerating the size of the assets and of using Swiss payouts to fund their own pet projects. He is equally critical of a similar lawsuit directed at German banks and of attempts to get monetary compensation from the Polish government.

Reviews and critiques
The book has been controversial, receiving a number of both positive and negative reviews. It was reviewed positively in The Nation by Neve Gordon. The Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg said: "Today [Finkelstein] is rather unpopular and his book will certainly not become a best seller, but what it says is basically true even though incomplete. It is more a journalistic account than an in depth study on the topic, which would need to be much longer." Referring to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks and to forced labor, he noted: "I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

Israeli historian Moshe Zuckermann welcomed his book as an "irreplaceable critique of the ‘instrumentalisation of the past’ and underlined its ‘liberating potential’".

Oren Baruch Stier reviewing the book for the journal Prooftexts summarized the book as a "small and pungent manifesto" and concluded his review by writing that "there are worthwhile arguments here, if one can stomach the bile in which they float".

Genocide scholar Omer Bartov wrote that "Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious."

Enzo Traverso reviewing the book for the journal Historical Materialism wrote that the book has proven controversial, concluding that it "contains a core of truth that must be recognised, but it lends itself, due to its style and several of its main arguments, to the worst uses and instrumentalisations." He suggested that the book should be seen as an opportunity for stimulating public debates about difficult topics related to "the politics of memory and on the public uses of history"

Donald D. Denton, reviewing the book for Terrorism and Political Violence journal, noted that it "will be valuable as an historical piece of research and of interest to those who now attempt to deal with the contemporary genocides and the subsequent generations of children of those who endured such horrors".

Wolfgang Benz stated to Le Monde: "It is impossible to learn anything from Finkelstein's book. At best, it is interesting for a psychotherapist." Jean Birnbaum publishing in the same venue added that Norman Finkelstein "hardly cares about nuance" and Rony Brauman wrote in the preface to the French edition (L'Industrie de l'Holocauste, Paris, La Fabrique, 2001) that some assertions of Finkelstein (especially on the impact of the Six-days war) are wrong, others being pieces of "propaganda".

Historian Peter Novick, whose work Finkelstein described as providing the "initial stimulus" for The Holocaust Industry, said in the July 28, 2000 issue of London's The Jewish Chronicle that Finkelstein's book is replete with "false accusations", "egregious misrepresentations", "absurd claims" and "repeated mis-statements" ("A charge into darkness that sheds no light"). Finkelstein replied to the allegations by Novick on his website, replying to five "specific charges", and criticizing his opponents' "intellectual standards". Jonathan Freedland in a column for The Guardian wrote The Holocaust Industry does not share Novick's book's "sensitivity or human empathy - surely prerequisites of any meaningful debate about the Holocaust". Freedland accused Finkelstein of having constructed "an elaborate conspiracy theory, in which the Jews were pushed from apathy to obsession about the Holocaust by a corrupt Jewish leadership bent on building international support for Israel".

Historian Hasia Diner described Peter Novick and Finkelstein of being "harsh critics of American Jewry from the left," and challenged the notion in their books that American Jews did not begin to commemorate the Holocaust until after 1967.

Andrew Ross, reviewing the book for Salon, wrote: "On the issue of reparations, he barely acknowledges the wrongs committed by the Swiss and German institutions — the burying of Jewish bank accounts, the use of slave labor — that gave rise to the recent reparations drive. The fear that the reparations will not wind up in the hands of those who need and deserve them most is a legitimate concern. But the idea that survivors have been routinely swindled by Jewish institutions is a gross distortion. The chief reason why survivors have so far seen nothing of the $1.25 billion Swiss settlement, reached in 1998, is that U.S. courts have yet to rule on a method of distribution. On other reparations and compensation settlements, the Claims Conference, a particular bete noire of Finkelstein, says that it distributed approximately $220 million to individual survivors in 1999 alone."

Alvin Hirsch Rosenfeld wrote that The Holocaust Industry "is representative of a polemical engagement with the Holocaust" that places it in line with a number of other works by "critics of Holocaust consciousness, all of whom stress the utilitarian function of memory", and who see many modern references to The Holocaust as "means of enhancing ethnic identity and advancing political agendas of one kind or another". Rosenfeld also noted that the book presents those ideas in a very "harsh and inflammatory way."

It has been suggested by the editor of  Terrorism and Political Violence journal that the book "probably cost [Finkelstein] ... tenure at DePaul University".

Finkelstein's response to critics
Finkelstein responded to his critics in the foreword to the second edition (published in 2003), writing "Mainstream critics allege that I conjured a 'conspiracy theory' while those on the Left ridicule the book as a defense of 'the banks'. None, so far as I can tell, question my actual findings."

Selected publication history

 * 2000; First edition, Verso Books (London) 150 p. Hardcover, ISBN 1-85984-773-0
 * 2003; Second edition expanded, Verso Books (London) 286 p. Paperback, ISBN 1-85984-488-X

title: The Holocaust Industry


text:
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Ordo Hermeticus Aurorae Aureae), more commonly the Golden Dawn (Aurora Aurea), was a secret society devoted to the study and practice of occult Hermeticism and metaphysics during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Known as a magical order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was active in Great Britain and focused its practices on theurgy and spiritual development. Many present-day concepts of ritual and magic that are at the centre of contemporary traditions, such as Wicca and Thelema, were inspired by the Golden Dawn, which became one of the largest single influences on 20th-century Western occultism.

The three founders, William Robert Woodman, William Wynn Westcott, and Samuel Liddell Mathers, were Freemasons and members of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia. Westcott appears to have been the initial driving force behind the establishment of the Golden Dawn.

The Golden Dawn system was based on hierarchy and initiation (similar to Masonic lodges) and the grade structure was based on the S.R.I.A, however, women were admitted on an equal basis with men.

The "Golden Dawn" was the first of three Orders, although all three are often collectively referred to as the "Golden Dawn". The First Order taught esoteric philosophy based on the Hermetic Qabalah and personal development through study and awareness of the four classical elements, as well as the basics of astrology, tarot divination, and geomancy. The Second or Inner Order, the Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis, taught magic, including scrying, astral travel, and alchemy. The Third Order was that of the Secret Chiefs, who were said to be highly skilled; they supposedly directed the activities of the lower two orders by spirit communication with the Chiefs of the Second Order.

Cipher Manuscripts

The foundational documents of the original Order of the Golden Dawn, known as the Cipher Manuscripts, are written in English using the Trithemius cipher. The manuscripts give the specific outlines of the Grade Rituals of the Order and prescribe a curriculum of graduated teachings that encompass the Hermetic Qabalah, astrology, occult tarot, geomancy, and alchemy.

According to the records of the Order, the manuscripts passed from Kenneth R. H. Mackenzie, a Masonic scholar, to the Rev. A. F. A. Woodford, whom British occult writer Francis King describes as the fourth founder (although Woodford died shortly after the Order was founded). The documents did not excite Woodford, and in February 1886 he passed them on to Freemason William Wynn Westcott, who managed to decode them in 1887. Westcott, pleased with his discovery, called on fellow Freemason Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers for a second opinion. Westcott asked for Mathers's help to turn the manuscripts into a coherent system for lodge work. Mathers, in turn, asked fellow Freemason William Robert Woodman to assist the two, and he accepted. Mathers and Westcott have been credited with developing the ritual outlines in the Cipher Manuscripts into a workable format. Mathers, however, is generally credited with the design of the curriculum and rituals of the Second Order, which he called the Rosae Rubae et Aureae Crucis ("Ruby Rose and Golden Cross" or the RR et AC).

Founding of the First Temple
In October 1887, Westcott claimed to have written to a German countess and prominent Rosicrucian named Anna Sprengel, whose address was said to have been found in the decoded Cipher Manuscripts. According to Westcott, Sprengel claimed the ability to contact certain supernatural entities, known as the Secret Chiefs, that were considered the authorities over any magical order or esoteric organization. Westcott purportedly received a reply from Sprengel granting permission to establish a Golden Dawn temple and conferring honorary grades of Adeptus Exemptus on Westcott, Mathers, and Woodman. The temple was to consist of the five grades outlined in the manuscripts.

In 1888, the Isis-Urania Temple was founded in London. In contrast to the S.R.I.A. and Masonry, women were allowed and welcome to participate in the Order in "perfect equality" with men. The Order was more of a philosophical and metaphysical teaching order in its early years. Other than certain rituals and meditations found in the Cipher manuscripts and developed further, "magical practices" were generally not taught at the first temple.

For the first four years, the Golden Dawn was one cohesive group later known as the "First Order" or "Outer Order". A "Second Order" or "Inner Order" was established and became active in 1892. The Second Order consisted of members known as "adepts", who had completed the entire course of study for the First Order. The Second Order was formally established under the name Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (the Order of the Red Rose and the Golden Cross).

Eventually, the Osiris temple in Weston-super-Mare, the Horus temple in Bradford (both in 1888), and the Amen-Ra temple in Edinburgh (1893) were founded. In 1893 Mathers founded the Ahathoor temple in Paris.

The Secret Chiefs
In 1890, Westcott's alleged correspondence with Anna Sprengel suddenly ceased. He claimed to have received word from Germany that she was dead and that her companions did not approve of the founding of the Order and no further contact was to be made. If the founders were to contact the Secret Chiefs, apparently, it had to be done on their own. In 1892, Mathers professed that a link to the Secret Chiefs had been established. Subsequently, he supplied rituals for the Second Order. The rituals were based on the tradition of the tomb of Christian Rosenkreuz, and a Vault of Adepts became the controlling force behind the Outer Order. Later in 1916, Westcott claimed that Mathers also constructed these rituals from materials he received from Frater Lux ex Tenebris, a purported Continental Adept.

Some followers of the Golden Dawn tradition believe that the Secret Chiefs were not human or supernatural beings, but rather symbolic representations of actual or legendary sources of spiritual esotericism. The term came to stand for a great leader or teacher of a spiritual path or practice that found its way into the teachings of the Order.

Golden Age
By the mid-1890s, the Golden Dawn was well established in Great Britain, with over one hundred members from every class of Victorian society. Many celebrities belonged to the Golden Dawn, such as the actress Florence Farr, the Irish revolutionary Maud Gonne, the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, the Welsh author Arthur Machen, and the English authors Evelyn Underhill and Aleister Crowley.

In 1896 or 1897, Westcott broke all ties to the Golden Dawn, leaving Mathers in control. It has been speculated that his departure was due to his having lost a number of occult-related papers in a hansom cab. Apparently, when the papers were found, Westcott's connection to the Golden Dawn was discovered and brought to the attention of his employers. He may have been told to either resign from the Order or to give up his occupation as coroner. After Westcott's departure, Mathers appointed Florence Farr to be Chief Adept in Anglia. Dr. Henry B. Pullen Burry succeeded Westcott as Cancellarius—one of the three Chiefs of the Order.

Mathers was the only active founding member after Westcott's departure. Due to personality clashes with other members and frequent absences from the center of Lodge activity in Great Britain, however, challenges to Mathers's authority as leader developed among the members of the Second Order.

Revolt
Towards the end of 1899, the Adepts of the Isis-Urania and Amen-Ra temples had become dissatisfied with Mathers's leadership, as well as his growing friendship with Aleister Crowley. They had also become anxious to make contact with the Secret Chiefs themselves, instead of relying on Mathers as an intermediary. Within the Isis-Urania temple, disputes were arising between Farr's The Sphere, a secret society within the Isis-Urania, and the rest of the Adepti Minores.

Crowley was refused initiation into the Adeptus Minor grade by the London officials. Mathers overrode their decision and quickly initiated him at the Ahathoor temple in Paris on 16 January 1900. Upon his return to the London temple, Crowley requested from Miss Cracknell, the acting secretary, the papers acknowledging his grade, to which he was now entitled. To the London Adepts, this was the final straw. Farr, already of the opinion that the London temple should be closed, wrote to Mathers expressing her wish to resign as his representative, although she was willing to carry on until a successor was found. Mathers believed Westcott was behind this turn of events and replied on 16 February. On 3 March a committee of seven Adepts was elected in London and requested a full investigation of the matter. Mathers sent an immediate reply, declining to provide proof, refusing to acknowledge the London temple, and dismissing Farr as his representative on 23 March. In response, a general meeting was called on 29 March in London to remove Mathers as chief and expel him from the Order.

Splinters
In 1901, W. B. Yeats privately published a pamphlet titled Is the Order of R. R. & A. C. to Remain a Magical Order? After the Isis-Urania temple claimed its independence, there were even more disputes, leading to Yeats resigning. A committee of three was to temporarily govern, which included P. W. Bullock, M. W. Blackden and J. W. Brodie-Innes. After a short time, Bullock resigned, and Dr. Robert Felkin took his place.

In 1903, A. E. Waite and Blackden joined forces to retain the name Isis-Urania, while Felkin and other London members formed the Stella Matutina. Yeats remained in the Stella Matutina until 1921, while Brodie-Innes continued his Amen-Ra membership in Edinburgh.

Reconstruction
Once Mathers realised that reconciliation was impossible, he made efforts to reestablish himself in London. The Bradford and Weston-super-Mare temples remained loyal to him, but their numbers were few. He then appointed Edward Berridge as his representative. According to Francis King, historical evidence shows that there were "twenty three members of a flourishing Second Order under Berridge-Mathers in 1913."

J.W. Brodie-Innes continued leading the Amen-Ra temple, deciding that the revolt was unjustified. By 1908, Mathers and Brodie-Innes were in complete accord. According to sources that differ regarding the actual date, sometime between 1901 and 1913 Mathers renamed the branch of the Golden Dawn remaining loyal to his leadership to Alpha et Omega. Brodie-Innes assumed command of the English and Scottish temples, while Mathers concentrated on building up his Ahathoor temple and extending his American connections. According to occultist Israel Regardie, the Golden Dawn had spread to the United States of America before 1900 and a Thoth-Hermes temple had been founded in Chicago. By the beginning of the First World War in 1914, Mathers had established two to three American temples.

Most temples of the Alpha et Omega and Stella Matutina closed or went into abeyance by the end of the 1930s, with the exceptions of two Stella Matutina temples: Hermes Temple in Bristol, which operated sporadically until 1970, and the Smaragdum Thallasses Temple (commonly referred to as Whare Ra) in Havelock North, New Zealand, which operated regularly until its closure in 1978.

Structure and grades
Much of the hierarchical structure for the Golden Dawn came from the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, which was itself derived from the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross.

 * First Order:
 * Neophyte 0=0
 * Zelator 1=10
 * Theoricus 2=9
 * Practicus 3=8
 * Philosophus 4=7

 * Second Order:
 * Adeptus Minor 5=6
 * Adeptus Major 6=5
 * Adeptus Exemptus 7=4

 * Third Order:
 * Magister Templi 8=3
 * Magus 9=2
 * Ipsissimus 10=1

The paired numbers attached to the Grades relate to positions on the Tree of Life. The Neophyte Grade of "0=0" indicates no position on the Tree. In the other pairs, the first numeral is the number of steps up from the bottom (Malkuth), and the second numeral is the number of steps down from the top (Kether).

The First Order Grades were related to the four elements of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire, respectively. The Aspirant to a Grade received instruction on the metaphysical meaning of each of these Elements and had to pass a written examination and demonstrate certain skills to receive admission to that Grade.

Selected known members

 * Emily Katharine Bates (1846–1922), British spiritualist author, travel writer, and novelist
 * Charles Henry Allan Bennett (1872–1923), best known for introducing Buddhism to the West
 * Arnold Bennett (1867–1931), British novelist
 * Edward W. Berridge (ca. 1843–1923), British homeopathic physician
 * Algernon Blackwood (1869–1951), British writer and radio broadcaster of supernatural stories
 * Gabrielle Borthwick (1866–1952), British pioneering motorist, mechanic, garage owner, and driving teacher
 * Anna de Brémont (1849–1922), American singer and writer
 * Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), occultist, writer and mountaineer, founder of his own magical society
 * Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859–1930), author of Sherlock Holmes, doctor, scientist, and spiritualist
 * Florence Farr (1860–1917), London stage actress and musician
 * Robert Felkin (1853–1925), medical missionary, explorer and anthropologist in Central Africa, author, founder of the New Zealand branch of the Golden Dawn and the Smaragdum Thalasses / Whare Ra temple
 * Frederick Leigh Gardner (1857–1930), British stockbroker and occultist; published three-volume bibliography Catalogue Raisonné of Works on the Occult Sciences (1912)
 * Annie Horniman (1860–1937), British repertory theatre producer and pioneer; member of the wealthy Horniman family of tea-traders
 * Arthur Machen (1863–1947), leading London writer of the 1890s, author of acclaimed works of imaginative and occult fiction, such as "The Great God Pan", "The White People" and "The Hill of Dreams". Welsh by birth and upbringing
 * Samuel Liddell MacGregor-Mathers (1854–1918), British Freemason, one of the three founders of the Golden Dawn, prolific writer, occultist, and researcher
 * Moina Mathers (1865–1928), London trained artist, wife of SL MacGregor-Mathers and sister of philosopher Henri Bergson
 * Alfred John Pearce (1840–1923), medic, writer, pioneering weather forecaster and celebrated astrologer known as "Zadkiel"
 * Sax Rohmer (1883–1959), novelist, creator of the Fu Manchu character
 * William Sharp (1855–1905), poet and author; alias Fiona MacLeod
 * Violet Tweedale (1862–1936), Scottish writer and spiritualist
 * A. E. Waite (1857–1942), British writer, Freemason and co-creator of the Rider–Waite tarot deck
 * William Wynn Westcott (1848–1925), founder of the Golden Dawn, doctor, London coroner, prolific writer, British Freemason, former Supreme Magus of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (SRIA)
 * William Robert Woodman (1828–1891), doctor, British Freemason, former Supreme Magus of the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, one of the three founders of the Golden Dawn
 * W. B. Yeats (1865–1939), Irish poet, dramatist and writer.

Alleged members

 * E. Nesbit (1858–1924), English author and political activist. According to biographer Eleanor Fitzsimons: "Edith's reputed membership in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the foremost occult organization of the day, is intriguing. … Most biographical accounts suggest that Edith was a member of the Golden Dawn, but evidence to support this is rarely cited. The organization was of course secretive by nature, but eyewitness accounts never mentioned her as they did others, and her name does not appear on the rolls."

Contemporary Golden Dawn orders
While no temples in the original chartered lineage of the Golden Dawn survived past the 1970s, several organizations have since revived its teachings and rituals. Among these, the following are notable:
 * The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (founded 1977)
 * Thelemic Order of the Golden Dawn (founded 1990)
 * Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn (2002 – 2019)

The Golden Dawn book
The Golden Dawn, by Israel Regardie; was published in 1937. The book is divided into several basic sections. First are the knowledge lectures, which describe the basic teaching of the Kabalah, symbolism, meditation, geomancy, etc. This is followed by the rituals of the Outer Order, consisting of five initiation rituals into the degrees of the Golden Dawn. The next section covers the rituals of the Inner Order including two initiation rituals and equinox ceremonies.

title: Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn