Talk:Shabbat

·

New Sabbath spinout

Having considered the state of Sabbath articles closely, I think there is still one topic to create, namely Biblical Sabbath. Currently this phrase redirects to the summary article "Sabbath" even though that article includes many other Sabbath adaptations that are not Biblical. A new article would compile the Biblical references to Sabbath in a thorough, orderly way, and give all the main viewpoints and interpretations of each passage (compare creation according to Genesis, figs in the Bible, wells in the Bible, etc.). None of the current articles do either of these, because they are quite rightly focused on Sabbath in this or that mainstream viewpoint. However, the notion of "Sabbath as the Bible describes it, without making judgments in favor of any viewpoint" is a topic frequently discussed but lacking. No need to warn me about POV risks, because I am already on duty policing those. It is just my observation that, very often, a WP editor wants to refer just to that notion, "Biblical Sabbath with essentially no POV", and has no recourse to do so (as noted, the summary "Sabbath" article is not Biblically limited, and the Biblically based articles give only one POV each). Particularly, there are many links to "Sabbath" that should very clearly, in context, be directed to Biblical Sabbath, and permitting the weaker link is suboptimal and easily remediable. Also, many of the IP contributors to "Sabbath" would do better to have such a separate article; and some of the debates about where to put this or that apologetic (if at all) would be more readily solved if there were a central article. I will be happy to move this forward, but I wanted to get a couple more opinions first, to confirm my belief that this is a good division of topics. Cross-posted to Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, and Sabbath in seventh-day churches. JJB 05:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lunar Sabbath/"Some prominent rabbis"

I've moved the following section to Talk: for further discussion:

Some prominent rabbis believe Shabbat was originally dependent upon the lunar cycle, with one or two additional unreckoned days.

As is obvious, the first sentence is pure weasel worded POV. Who are these rabbis? What makes them "prominent"? As it happens, I'm the person on Wikipedia who has written the closest thing to a biography on one of them, Isaac Landman. Landman was, in his time, moderately well known known for a combination of things, including his ecumenical work, his political stances, his editing of American Hebrew Magazine, and his publication of his New Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. He was not "prominent" in any particularly scholarly way. The fact that this single, 65 year-old work seems to be the only source for this "lunar sabbath" theory should be a big WP:REDFLAG to editors here that they are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE theory. If there are other, scholarly (and more recent) sources that also promote this theory, then I would be happy to re-evaluate. But, as it stands, the material is highly problematic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, thanks for that! Actually as you could see I posted that on behalf of a "drive-by" editor who sourced it thoroughly. My goal is simply to collect all POVs, and it seems that two rabbis in a (liberal?) Jewish encyclopedia is a significant POV. I don't think it's useful to classify it as fringe or not. If my words were weasely it's only because I don't know one encyclopedia-publishing rabbi from another. If you'd prefer it as "Two rabbis in NUJE suggest", that seems to stand scrutiny. Or we could group it with the tag I used later in the Sabbath disambiguator, that, "In a distinct minority, some European Reform Jews have moved Sabbath observances to Sunday", which also appears to be an includible POV that should work its way into this article sooner or later.

While I happen to disagree with Landman's conclusion rather vehemently, I don't think it's a theory that should be totally banished from listing. "Writing for the enemy", I leave it ripe for the possibility of demolishing itself by its minority status. By the way, a close version of this theory also appears in the landmark Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, as I documented at Babylonian calendar#Week (ignore the repetition of your objected sentence, of course). They reliably link Sabattu^m with Shabbat, but I could not see them coming all-out on Landman's view that the Babylonians came first; but both Landman and ERE give the same calendrical calculation details. Your statement that this "seems to be the only [Jewish] source" is an argument from silence. From what I know of liberalism in various religions, the IP editor's position, that this is an includible POV, seems entirely credible to me. What would you say is proper weight? JJB 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is interesting that there may be theories that are, in your view, similar to Landman's, I'm looking for sources that actually have the same theory. As for an "argument from silence", the onus in this case is to still find sources that support it - again, please see WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Jay, I hope we're not going to pretend that Judaism is monolithic in some way unlike every other religion. We've established that Landman and his contributors, Joseph and Cohen, believe and propound this POV. I've given further unequivocal evidence that ancient lunar-cycled weeks did in fact exist and were named cognate to Shabbat. The issue of weasel words is easily remedied, as above; while your issues of undue weight, red flags, and fringe theory all seem to me to be the same issue, apparently that you don't believe the POV is significant enough to list in any article, even the root "Sabbath" article or the Babylonian article, which has very happily contained all POVs for a long time now. Look, you're saying that the NUJE is an unreliable source, and that burden is really on you, because it would ordinarily be given the benefit of doubt. Really, if you intend to keep this up, it may begin to sound like you refuse WP to report the fact that not all Jews believe in the unbroken Shabbat, as if the much unlikelier claim, monolithic faith, has been proven. JJB 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot at WP:RSN stated that you did not in fact say that the (N)UJE is an unreliable source. Either it's an RS and thus an includible POV, or it's unreliable and thus there is sourceable evidence of its unreliability. Which? I know you're not really saying to delete an RS just because it's turned 65. Also "New" is not in the title. If I don't hear back I will reinsert in all the articles as follows:

In a minority Jewish view, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that Shabbat was originally dependent upon the lunar cycle, with one or two additional unreckoned days.

Ummm, in a word, no. Just because a viewpoint has been published in a reliable source, does not mean it needs to be included. That's why your colleagues are pointing you to WP:UNDUE, which is just a section of WP:NPOV. Because that is the relevant and applicable policy here. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing an origin paragraph

Well, I guess I thought that the majority view was obvious. In that case, all you need is a full and balanced paragraph on "origin of Shabbat". No problem, try my next. JJB 05:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As Dlabtot has explained, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Please review WP:UNDUE again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside all the discussion above, which is important in itself, but I have read and re-read the section on Origin and I find it incomprehensible. I am still trying to work what is the point that is being made.Ewawer (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK help me understand here. Which proposition is at fault?

• Jewish views on where Shabbat came from are encyclopedic.
• The Shabbat article is the proper article for these views to appear on WP.
• These views include an origin at creation (literal/fundamentalist), an origin by Mosaic legislation (conservative), a later temple origin attributed backwards to Moses (liberal), or an origin by adapting a Babylonian custom (textual critical).

"Undue" only applies if a view is held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". You have produced no evidence as to how the views are distributed. I have. What gives?

I came here and I saw a gap and filled it with sourced material, and weighted it "duly" the second time. Generally the decision goes in favor of retaining properly weighted sourced material rather than deleting it because of unstated rationales. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems, as I see it, is that the article is not about a seven-day week, which has its own article, but about the special status of the Shabbat in the Jewish weekly cycle. In that respect it is a particular issue, not open to a full discussion whether it is appropriate to have those observances, etc. or whether other cultures have other customs etc. As to whether material is sourced or not is immaterial, because it should still fit into the subject matter and scope of an article, not go off on a tangent.Ewawer (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to have trouble comprehending. But I think it's appropriate for this article to document how Shabbat came to have special status in the Jewish weekly cycle (and that may involve history that predates the Jewish people). This article has long had a "Biblical source" section, but that section is what WP calls an in-universe description, and is several paragraphs of promotion of only the fundamentalist, literal view (which I happen to hold)— except in the case of people who already have a nonliteral interpretation of the words anyway. The Biblical source needs to be balanced by the other views, and I originally did so in that section, but a separate section is fine. Some of the Biblical source section should be condensed and moved to my new spinout Biblical Sabbath anyway.

If a paragraph on some custom's origins actually succeded in opening a new discussion on the appropriateness of the observances, the custom must be pretty weak. Shabbat is very strong. Similarly, the relationship of Shabbat to other observances is appropriate to touch on, insofar as it sheds light on Shabbat itself and does not create a WP:COATRACK to cover up other, unduly weighted Sabbath views. So I must reject the idea that these points are tangential. The whole cluster of Sabbath articles has suffered long from delineation errors, and that is what we are all about resolving. Each article should focus on all aspects relevant to its particular Sabbatical observance, including its origin and its place among other Sabbatical observances. And my paragraph is not about origin of a seven-day week but origin of Shabbat itself. Now that there is a much better scheme for segregating other observances into their own articles, your concern about tangents has a ready-made solution: true tangents move to their own extant articles. Thank you also for your other improvements, but please watch out for grammar errors. JJB 00:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The 4 Lunar Phases of the 29.53 day Lunar month are roughly 7 days (~7.4 days) each. The Hebrew Calendar - like the Arabic Calendar - is a lunar calendar that alternates between 29 and 30 days. This explains the prominence of the #30 in Holy Scriptures. The Hebrews' Genasis Creation Story was an alternate version of previous Egyptian Religion Creation Stories. Whoever conceived of the ancient Hebrews' version - Moses? - knew the precept of sacred geometry: "As above, so below" and connected the 7-Day Creation Story to the heavens. They also knew the GOD=7_4 Code and made sure that on the 4th Day, "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day and the night, and let them serve as signs, and to mark seasons, days, years and omens." The seventh(7 letters) day Shabbat(7)/Shabbos(7)/Sabbath(7) and 4 weeks in a 'moonth' encodes something really BIG! - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

International date line

We simply must cover the international date line debate, which is highly relevant from various perspectives, and one of the great debates in modern halacha. This should be either in this article or in a separate split-off. JFW | T@lk 13:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Three stars

Can you elaborate more on how the end-of-Sabbath line is drawn? Three stars as end-of-Sabbath - are they specific named stars or just any stars? What happens on cloudy, starless nights? Polar nights? TIA, NVO (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Three stars is symbolic. Shabbat is over when it is dark enough to see several stars. It doesn't matter which ones. Anyway, the rabbis figure out the exact "end of Shabbat" times a year in advance, and all Jewish calendars supply that information, so you don't actually have to look for the stars. And, as you say, it could be cloudy.--Gilabrand (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion??

Should there be a bit of discussion? for example these beliefs are accepted as historic artefacts from a different era - like those concerning safe eating in the desert, clean feet etc. It would add balance to the article to find references to some discussions on the relevance of this stuff to modern life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.48.235 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious question: not likely worthy of mention in article though

this line

Shabbat is the seventh day of the Jewish week and a day of rest in Judaism. Shabbat is observed from sundown Friday until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night. The exact time, therefore, differs from week to week and from place to place, depending on the time of sunset at each location.

What are the rules north of the arctic circle, if it is night time always, or conversly day time always. Seems like a dumb question but if there is an actual rule for such a sitiuation it may be informative in the article. I really doubt there is an actual rule for this. Smitty1337 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting question. I found this site that addresses the question rather extensively. From a quick skim, one recommendation is that Jews in those areas observe the shabbat times of the location they were in before traveling north of the Arctic Circle. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:08, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Guess my question isnt as dumb as i thought lol Jewish law in the polar regions google found me a wiki article on it....imma go link it here after i read it and make sure its relevent.Smitty1337 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Adaptations

I've removed this para from the article because it's both untrue and unsourced:

The principle of weekly Sabbath has also been adopted, instituted, or modified in other beliefs: compare the Babylonian calendar, the Buddhist uposatha, the Islamic jumu'ah, the pagan sabbat, the Bahá'í calendar, the Unification Church Ahn Shi Il, and the parody-religion Pastafarian weekend.

I don't know about all of these religions, but I do know it's untrue for the Babylonians and Buddhists. Buddhists don't give any particular note to Sundays or to any other day of the week. As for the Babylon, the influence works the other way round - it was the Jews who adopted Sabbath-observance from the Babylonians. The whole thing is unsourced in any case. Either find sources for each of these, or leave it out. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. The sources are in the individual articles, of which this is a summary. Your bald assertion of who adopted Sabbath from whom is not backed up by those sources. Further, the Buddhist case is a lunar week (usually 7 or 8 days), also related to early Sabbath. Your statement "I do know it's untrue" is not any more sourced than the text you deleted. Also, please don't repeat your deleting (and imbalancing the POV, toward Judeo-Christian in this case) when another party undoes it: that is contrary to WP:BRD recommendations and is also considered warring. On this article I'll wait to see who else chimes in. JJB 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, the Buddhist cycle isn't based on 7 days, it's based on the phases of the moon - full moon, new moon, and half way between. A 7 day cycle, in contrast, gives exactly 28 days, which means it soon gets out of sync with the lunar cycle (which has 28.25 days). Lunar cycles are based on the fact that the moon is there in the sky - everyone all over the world can see and use it, and they do; no connection with the biblical sabbath is needed, and there's no question of it being an adaptation by one culture from another. As for the babylonian connection, that's in the literature - I think you need to read more widely. PiCo (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have just said that the Biblical mathematical week was adopted from the Babylonian lunar week, and also that the lunar week is unquestionably unrelated to the mathematical week. You have also just said that the lunation of 29.53+ days is actually 28.25 days. JJB 03:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than that. I'll find some sources for you. (And yes, there are 28 and a quarter days in a lunar month).PiCo (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I must say the article as a whoile looks pretty good - it could do with some more sources, perhaps, but the topic seems to be well covered. Now that the references to the Babylonians and, of all people, Buddhists, are gone I have no problems with it. But I promised you some sources, which you can use as and if you please: The Mercer Bible Dictionary, about p.776 for the entry on Sabbath; the Oxford Bible Commentary p105 has a brief description of history and the Sabbath and seems to say that it's no longer held that the Jews got it from the Babylonians, so it seems I was wrong on that point. It might be useful to use these and similar modern sources to re-do the small section on the history of Sabbath, but that's up to you. Thanks for removing the piece that offended me (mostly the Buddhism reference) PiCo (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Further reading section

The entire "Further reading" section is real marginal and perhaps should go; there are probably thousands of books about Shabbat history, practices, etc; what's so special about these? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The important sources should be cited. JFW | T@lk 12:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

non-Jews

Shouldn't there be some mention of Non-Jews not being permitted to keep Shabbos? And that someone who publicly desecrated Shabbos cannot be counted in a minyan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.3.157 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No. First, Shabbos is Yiddish. In Hebrew, it's Shabbat and in English: Sabbath: it's the 'seventh day of rest'. If a Christian choses to observe their Sabbath on Saturday or even Friday sunset to Saturday sunset - like many do - that is certainly "permitted" by GOD! Note: Shabbat(7 letters)/Shabbos(7)/Sabbath(7) on the seventh(7) day. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Friday night section

What the heck does this mean?

Unlike on Shabbat day, one can partake in all the suggested activities on Friday night. There is an idea that the Jews who partake in Shabbat should not only have Shabbat, but they also make Shabbat. Through this opportunity to do all the encouraged activities, Friday night often is when a Jew will "make" Shabbat.[15]

With this idea in mind one might also assert that Friday night is not just a large part of Shabbat, but really is a full half of it.

It doesn't make much sense to me. --194.176.105.147 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it means, ??????, the footnote "[15]" should be in main text as a bracketed primary source "(Shabbat 119b)" not masquerading as a WP:RS "[15]". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That would go against practice in all Judaism-related articles. In addition, where did you dig up such a rule? Debresser (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I also don't understand what this is supposed to mean. But it seems to me it was rightfully removed. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Marital relations

This seems somewhat suggestive and possible prurient, not to mention confusing. Wouldn't it be more sensible just to say 'sexual relations'? Harburg (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the current version? The sources are quite clear that this is marital/conjugal rather than any kind of contact. JFW | T@lk 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, JFW, what's wrong with the current version (current as of 6 June 2012, that is) is that it violates WP:EUPHEMISM – if "marital relations" here means sex between a husband and wife (I'm not Jewish, so I don't know). If "make love" is a euphemism for sex (the one given as an example in the MOS), certainly "martial relations" is too.

In order to remove the taint of euphemism, "marital relations" should be changed to "marital sex", or something similar. Changing it to just "sex" (or "sexual relations", as Harburg suggested) might make it too broad for this context. Someone who is both Jewish (or knows enough about the subject to speak with authority) and is interested in following the MOS advice to avoid euphemism in WP articles should change the wording in this bullet point. I'll copy that bullet both as it stands today and the proposed change here:

Current:

• Enjoying Shabbat (oneg Shabbat): Engaging in pleasurable activities such as eating, singing, spending time with the family and marital relations.

Proposed:

• Enjoying Shabbat (oneg Shabbat): Engaging in pleasurable activities such as eating, singing, spending time with the family and marital sex.

I suppose it is possible that "marital relations" is not used here as a euphemism for sex but as a description of the married relationship in general, and that what is encouraged on Shabbat is for a married couple simply to reflect on how happy they are to be married to one another. In that case, a different term should be used, since, as Harburg noted, there is definitely a hint of something sexual in "marital relations".

On second thought, I'm going to assume that JFW's statement "The sources are quite clear that this is marital/conjugal ..." means that this is talking about sex. Therefore, I'm going to make the change I just proposed. If it turns out that someone who knows better says that this bullet point isn't talking about sex at all, then that person can change it to some better phrase – but, please, one that does not carry the sexual connotation "marital relations" carries.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a side note, this exact conversation took place on Talk:Tisha_B'Av#Customs this week. Just to make consensus clearer should this issue reemerge, I think the correct decision was made to drop the phrase marital relations as it clearly violated WP:EUPHEMISM. --Bachrach44 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The term "marital relations" is clear enough, and is hardly a euphemism. And please, no need to refer to a discussion where nobody commented. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it hardly a euphemism? It's a euphemism for sex (usually), and a confusing one at that. See Jim's comment above where he is unsure if the phrase actually means sex or something else. When it means sex, we need to say sex. When it means something else, we need to say that. It doesn't matter how many people commented here or not, wikipedia policy is very clear on this matter. --Bachrach44 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples I found doing a quick search on wikipedia. On tisha b'av, mikvah, or others it's used in place of the word sex. On ketubah it's used in place of "living together in the same house". On Conservative Halakha it's used in place of "the rules regarding marriage". On Paphnutius of Thebes the phrase is used to mean "marriage". In You shall not commit adultery I honestly can't tell what it's supposed to mean. Why? Because it's an ambiguous phrase. We need to say what we mean. --Bachrach44 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact, "marital relations" covers it perfectly. Clearly "marital sex" is not a recognised combination, while "sex" without a modifier would imply that any kind of intercourse is encouraged. JFW | T@lk 10:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't really a need to qualify it with "marital" since sex outside of mariage would be banned regardless of the day of the week. "Marital Relations" needs to go. If it is a euphemism for sex then policy says it must change. If it is not a euphemism for sex, then it is a euphemism for some other thing, because if I take it as a literal phrase "Marital Relations" I'm banned from being married on shabbat!? Smitty1337 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:naming conventions (use English)

It looks as if this article title may not be following WP naming policy, or WP:RS such as www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12962-sabbath etc? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Jewish Sabbath. We have a separate article on Sabbath. Shabbat is a term widely used in English language texts to refer to the Jewish Sabbath and is therefore appropriate here. See WP:PRECISION.--agr (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arnold, thanks, yes of course, but "Jewish Sabbath" (hence WP:PRECISION) is English, that doesn't bear directly on WP:EN; is it possible that you or someone else could run a Google Scholar or Google Books advanced search to demonstrate that "Shabbat" is more common than "Sabbath" in English-language WP:RS when relating to Judaism? It may well be that is, but the Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that it isn't, or at least wasn't in 1911. Anyone willing to check this? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Resistor Network

In the section "Technology in the service of Shabbat" the article mentions a "resistor network" to store energy from elevators. I get the general idea, but resistor networks don't store energy. I presume what you are talking about here is some kind of big capacitor or rechargable battery, or maybe even an enormous flywheel. This is a point about physics, not Judaism, but it could stand some reconsideration. Rob Burbidge (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Link to 'Activities prohibited on Shabbat'

I added a link under the 'Prohibited activities' section to the 'Activities prohibited on Shabbat' page because for some reason it took me ages to find that particular page from this one and it also seemed to make sense. This is the first time I've edited wikipedia, so hope that was ok and sorry about having to correct what I was doing a couple of times :=]

118.149.61.13 (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the 54 Shabbat parshas

• REQUEST: Please see the centralized discussion about this subject, relating to sources, links, content, etc at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

interwiki

• Could someone correct the Turkish interwiki please. It is linked to a wrong page. The correct one is tr:Şabat. Thank you.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Already done. After I merged these together yesterday, a bot went and (incorrectly) changed. it. I guess they're still ironing the wrinkles out over at Wikidata. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(English: Sabbath)

Hebrew: Shabbat, Yiddish: Shabbos, English: Sabbath. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• If this is the case why isn't the article named Sabbath? Or Sabbath (Jewish)? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • Because the traditional name is shabbat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.46.169 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yiddish spelling

Although the Yiddish pronunciation is Shabbos/Shabbis, it is written as שבת‎, the same spelling as in Hebrew.

Well, yes and no. In the real Yiddish-speaking world (pre-war Europe, for example, and even modern charedi communities), that's correct. But according to YIVO standardized spelling rules, it's probably the other way. I wouldn't bother fussing with it. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Both spellings are now in place. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

days

so it is on friday-saturday but is the 7th day of the week? i'm confused McTreevil (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jewish days start in the evening. It's about the most longstanding tradition you can find - check out the first chapter of Genesis, "and it was night and it was day, one day". --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Content on Siddur Nashim moved

I moved this content to the article Siddur, as the content was about the siddur, not about Shabbat per se. To the original (IP) author, please keep in mind: I moved the content, I did not purge nor suppress it.

I would add: Content about Shabbat-specific prayer books probably belongs more in the Siddur article than here in any event. But if someone disagrees, adds content discussing Shabbat-specific prayer books broadly, and includes information on this siddur, that would be a legitimate approach. Information only about this siddur in this article would not be. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation as added by User:Moscowonthehudson

@Moscowonthehudson today added a number of pronunciations for Shabbat using IPA. (Thank you for a useful addition.) My question to you and others is:

• What reliable source do you have for choosing that pronuncation, especially in English?
• If you're de facto using WP:BLUE—that is, pronunciation is obvious, so doesn't need explicit sourcing—do people really think that most people pronounce in English with a schwa (ə) rather than the equivalent of a pataḥ (a)?

I hear it both ways. I'd say that on the whole, people who are more knowledgeable/more involved tend to use a, or at least something that's closer to a than to ə, even when speaking English. But I do know people who do the opposite; maybe it's the larger number of people, even if less knowledgeable/less involved. I don't know. I basically just want to figure this out and get it right before we forget it's here. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @StevenJ81. I am still new to Wikipedia, so please correct me if I have made any mistakes. I think that the "IPA-en" on wikipedia must use phonemes that are in the english language - here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English. Now besides the Schwa, the only other suitable phoneme for for "Shabbat" is aː, which is a variable vowel, (either ɑː or æ). and pronouncing Shabbat with an æ is completely incorrect. Additionally, most people I have heard pronounce it have done so with the Schwa sound, so I think it is more appropriate. Let me know if anything is off. Moscowonthehudson (talk)

Hi back at you, @Moscowonthehudson, (great movie!) and welcome to Wikipedia. (On talk pages, start using colons to indent responses progressively, like I did here.)

I agree it clearly can't be æ, so therefore the variable aː doesn't work.

• The phoneme I would use (and the way most of my friends pronounce) would be ɑː. But that could be influenced by the facts that (a) many of my friends and I have "some-to-a-lot-of" Hebrew, so may tend to pronounce like Hebrew, and (b) also often hear the Yiddishized pronunciation, where that syllable gets the stress and is therefore never ə.
• Curious: where do you live? (Based on WP:ANONYMOUS, you don't have to answer that at all. But even if you do, I'm more interested in a big-bucket, linguistic-variation sort of answer, not something by which I can pin you down.)

I also suspect that even if ə is most common in the US, it's far less commonly used outside the US.

I'm going to recommend that we let some others weigh in on this, hoping we get people from a variety of geographies. I will ask at WT:WikiProject Judaism for input as well. Thanks for your contribution, and good luck here! StevenJ81 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am from the Greater New York area and am Jewish, and live around Jews. The reason why i don't think it should be ɑː, is because the second "ɑː" after the "b" in "Shabbat" is much longer than the first. Putting an ɑː before and after the "b"s would mean that they are of equal length.

On the pronunciation of "Shabbat" outside of the US, we would need Canadians, British, or Australians to weigh in. That is an interesting question. Moscowonthehudson (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, and ditto, and ditto. Where I live, the second one is usually equal to, or only very slightly longer than, the first, even though the stress is on the second.

I did a little looking up, BTW. Dictionary.com cites the Random House Dictionary from the US and the Collins English Dictionary from the UK, and both use ɑː. But Merriam-Webster, usually my go-to dictionary of US English, uses ə.

If I had to guess, we'll end up with both included, somehow. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shabbat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081203162529/http://www.pcea.org.au/articles/the_westminster_confession/the_origin_of_the_sabbath/ to http://www.pcea.org.au/articles/the_westminster_confession/the_origin_of_the_sabbath/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shabbat. 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/20100119072338/http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq to http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/8-saved-during-qshabbat-from-hellq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040802234725/http://www.torah.org/advanced/shulchan-aruch/ocarchives.html to http://www.torah.org/advanced/shulchan-aruch/ocarchives.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shabbat. 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/20141007195945/http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/international/new-shabbos-app-creates-uproar-among-orthodox-circles to http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/international/new-shabbos-app-creates-uproar-among-orthodox-circles
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141007135626/http://www.shalomlife.com/business/26132/finally-now-you-can-text-on-saturdays-thanks-to-new-shabbos-app/ to http://www.shalomlife.com/business/26132/finally-now-you-can-text-on-saturdays-thanks-to-new-shabbos-app/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Netems2050 has twice added material based on an image of a calendar found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, writing that it "reveals" the Essenes celebrated Shabbat on the 4th day. Unfortunately, that novel interpretation does not appear to be supported by reliable secondary sources.

According to Lawrence H. Schiffman's article about the Sabbath in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford University Press, 2000; Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, eds.), "The Damascus Document ... had much in common with rabbinic legal rulings, but often it tended to be stricter. Both prohibited talking about business, walking in fields to discuss might be done after the Sabbath, allowing non-Jews to do work prohibited to Jews on behalf of Jews, and preparing on the Sabbath for the following workdays. Both systems required that Sabbath observance begin somewhat earlier than sunset on Friday afternoon, and it is possible that the Qumran sect was stricter than the later rabbis. Walking beyond the Sabbath limit was prohibited, based on Exodus 16.29. The rabbis fixed the limit at 2,000 cubits while the sectarians limited it to 1,000 allowing one to walk 2,000 cubits beyond the settled area only if pasturing an animal. The sect did not allow the breaking of an airtight seal on a jar, or any preparation of food, even the peeling of vegetables that were to be eaten raw on the same day, but the rabbis only prohibited actual cooking." (p. 805, emphasis added)

Surely if the Qumran sect observed Shabbat on the 4th day of the week and not the 7th day, Schiffman would note that significant difference between Qumran and rabbinic observance of Shabbat, but instead he only points out that the Qumran sect likely started to observe Shabbat earlier on Friday afternoon than rabbinic Jews.

Relying on one's own interpretation of primary sources is a bad idea, especially in a topic area as well researched as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran community. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly this is not my own research or interpretation and secondly Shiffman has not answered any questions through you regarding why the Essene calendar shows the first Sabbath on day 4. I have cited The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by Eisenman and Wise both scholars of note publication date 1991. The Essenes were as perfect as you can get to the remnant church of that day that broke away from the Jerusalem Pharasaic leaders and in fact as written in the Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered though they broke away the Temple heirachy was using their calendars. In Genesis we find the Shabbat happened 3 days after the creation of the moon and in the Essenes who now have shown that the new moon of Abib was the first day and 3 days later fell the true Shabbat the 7th day of Genesis though designated as day 4. This information is so important and needs to be included in the article thankyou. The Shabbat now in existance is a later alienation stemming from the 4th century AD agreement between the leading Sanhedrins and Rome where the Roman calendar took precedent under duress due to the enforcement of the Christian Roman 7th day Sunday. In the beginning there were no day names the Hebrews used number days commencing from the first new moon of the Holy year of Abib. The 4th day as cited by the Essene calendar is the true 7th day thats why the Essenes did it that way. And the evidence from that calendar also showing a Sabbath on day 2 of the second month speaks clearly as to how they proceeded for the remainder of the year. They reveal that a new moon was used to commence the Holy year clock in the passover month and then all subsequent Shabbots after the 1st initial 4th day calendar Shabbot happened every 7 days. This is in contradisticntion to the many false lunat Shabbot theories circulating on the net where ignorant people unwise to what has been revealed in the DSS are telling people to recalculate the new moon each month causing a non 7 day Shabbot to happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netems2050 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Netems2050, I believe you're citing a photo in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. If what you've written isn't your own interpretation, please cite secondary sources that describe it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not citing a photo I am citing page 192-193 of the calendar that was translated, the facts without what you believe is my interpretation is it shows the Sabbath as day No 4, 11, 18, 25 then 2nd month day 2, 9, 16 and so on. This is very important. We all know as Jews that the first day of Abib is the new moon and thats been that way for thousands of years. We must get back to Truth of God , I leave it to you, lastly according to this Essene calendar in 2018 the new moon of Jerusalem for Abib (Nisan) fell on Sunday 17th March starting at sunset and 3 days later is sunset Tuesday which the Essenes would have kept for the rest of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netems2050 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, at the moment, even if everything you say is true, the best that can be said about this is that it is a minority or emerging opinion. So don't try to make it more than it is for now. And please sign your posts. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Netems2050, I apologize for attributing your edits to a photo. I can't access those pages. Relying on your interpretation (including what "we all know") of a translation (a primary source) is still impermissible original research. As I wrote, please cite a secondary source in which a scholar describes what you see in the calendar. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry there are no secondary sources as I am the first to see the link of the Dead Sea Scroll Calendar to Genesis and decode its mechanics. I have searched to see if there are others but I am alone but what I have stated is true I cannot even give you my nameUser:Netems2050 —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Info on Sephardic and other non-Ashkenazic Jewish Shabbat practices needed

This article is incomplete in that it lacks info on various different Sephardic and other non-Ashkenazic Jewish Shabbat practices.Pokey54 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pokey54: Probably true. Thank you for flagging this issue. Much is the same, of course, and certain differences are going to be relatively esoteric (at least to the average reader of enwiki), and perhaps not even material at the level of detail of this article. I can certainly think of a couple of things that are worth adding. But is there something specific you had in mind? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: My tradition is Western Sephardic, and my comments aren't meant to apply to other minhagim. Our rule is to use the most lenient interpretation of Jewish law that is consistent with the Torah. I agree that some relatively esoteric, minor issues probably have no place in this article. This might be one of them: Some Sephardim welcome Shabbat by lighting oil lamps, not candles. Whether using candles or oil lamps, the number of flames is usually 2 or 3, irrespective of family size. Only the woman of the house recites the prayer.

I think that we place more importance on intent over result than other Jews. For example, we don't unscrew the refrigerator light bulb for Shabbat because (1) when we open the door, the intent is not to light the bulb; and (2) many of us follow the rule that electricity is not fire and that turning an electric appliance on or off is like opening or closing a door, so is allowable. Cooking is, of course, forbidden, but reheating food is allowed. Adding water (up to 50% of the volume of the food in the pot) that's heating on a hotplate ("blech" in Yiddish) is allowed, as often as is needed, if water is needed to prevent the food from being ruined. We are not allowed to adjust the heat, however.

Some Mizrahi, Maghrebi and Iranian minhagim also differ, but I can't speak to them.

Pokey54 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pokey54: As long as you can support what you want to add with reliable sources, and not just on the basis of your experience, feel free to add what you want. What I would not like to see happen, though, is for this to become a battleground of competing halachic opinions or perspectives. So, for example,

• Don't add things like oil lamps. They make no halachic difference, it's not required, and for that matter some Ashkenazim use them, too. Ditto on "only women..."; this is true as a rule in many communities, and unless you can provide a source that in your community a single man without a living mother still doesn't recite the blessing, I'm not sure you can say it is any more than a custom.
• Where you are following halachic opinions that are decidedly different from what currently exists in the article, please add a source. Ideally, this would be in the nature of, "Based on the opinion of [Rav Ploni](ref to halachic source), many members of this community [act as follows ...](ideally, a source describing the practice in the community)". Perhaps slightly inferior, but still very workable, would be, "Unlike members of many other communities, [this community] widely [acts as follows...](ref to unimpeachably reliable source that describes the practice)".

Any other questions, please let me know. You can draft in my sandbox if you'd like, or create your own. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@StevenJ81 Hello, I know this is late but I hope @StevenJ81: is still around for this - my background is sepharadi in the traditional, religious sense. For halachot like this we have two views across all of mena and europe, which follows: there is a general halachic tradition of am yisrael, ie all jews follow these authorities, and then it goes down to community custom. I will open a new topic on this but I also want to change the page to reflect a non-specific community point of view to depict a more general and non restricted understanding of Shabbat that is universal, and then delves into community traditions. What I have issue with in this regard however is the understanding of history on custom. I won't be citing here because I don't have the time but when I make the new topic and re-work the article I will always provide reliable sources.

First, there is a halachic difference in using oil vs candles. The commandment by context of the language of torah and talmud is to use pure olive oil to light the lights as it is pleasing to hashem, and the custom of candles arose in areas where olive oil was more expensive or non existent, and this was especially in europe due to the lack of olive trees north of the mediterranean. So in places like morocco where olive oil was produced, many families used candles as a custom due to cost, and many used oil due to tradition. In Ashkenazi lands, almost everyone used candles for this reason. then in Iraq, nobody used candles (before the 1900s when ashkenazi customs began to be spread across Jewish communities) because they had oil available.

Second, it is preferable in all Jewish communities for women to light the candles as it is a halachic obligation that women are particularly beneficial from, which is understood in every community whether ashkenazi or sepharadi. when you get into the communities that don't particularly study or adhere to the customs in torah-talmud this becomes less of an issue.

Finally, I agree with your position that we must always cite which community does what practice where it diverges from the general custom of the past 2,000 years across the mediterranean (the major jewish regions of north africa, europe, and the middle east which have been deciding the future of judaism for 2,000 years). I think your suggested clarifications for how to cite community traditions is great, however I disagree with ""Unlike members of many other communities, [this community] widely [acts as follows...]", because this creates an othering or biased feeling in the text, that the custom or community may be undesirable or in the minority, when in that community itself their customs are not the minority, if that makes sense. a more non-biased approach like your first suggestion ""Based on the opinion of [Rav Ploni](ref to halachic source), many members of this community [act as follows ...]" should be followed strictly as it provides context of customs and specific communities that perform them, so that if someone comes here to know how other places observe things they can find the information, as is the original goal of an encyclopedia, is it not?

I look forward to your correspondance and hope we can work together to make this a fantastic article for all those looking to learn!

66.142.221.236 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Plural

What is the English plural for Shabbos? Shabbosim? In Hebrew it is "Shabbat -> Shabbatot", but I am asking about the Yiddish-influenced English convention. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you call it an "English convention" I'd suggest "Shabboses?" But "Shabbosim" works too, I think. Why not? (Disclosure: I myself do not use the "English convention" though. I just use the Hebrew terms.) Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I use both Shabboses and Shabbosim. The the first sounds more English, the latter Yiddish jargon. But since I do not live in America, I wouldn't know. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

If an editor challenges non-English terms, or words or phrases in non-Latin character sets, per WP:V, must another editor supply a reliable secondary source that indicates the translation, spelling, and orthography as reflected in the article? Elizium23 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: You really don't need an RFC yet: You need to talk about this in the Talk page rather than thru edit comments. In general, you should not need to provide a citation in the lead ¶ for a non-English term. You should be able to hash out any difference of understanding or opinion on the Talk page. If it's actually complicated, a section later in the article (probably not the lead ¶) on terminology might be in order. Pathawi (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  We're past that, @Pathawi, we've had discussions on talk pages and even the Village Pump, and if the non-English terms aren't anywhere else but in the lede ¶ then that's where the cite needs to be. If the non-English terms are introduced somewhere other than the lede ¶, and are the same terms as the ones in the lede ¶, then cite in the article body and that suffices for the lede. But they must be cited somewhere, don't you agree, @Pathawi? Elizium23 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, I don't agree: If it's complicated or contentious enough that a citation is necessary, then the name itself deserves a section. If it's not actually contentious, then a single editor's wanting a citation doesn't make a citation necessary. I can't figure out from the edit history the reason that a citation has been requested for this article. At present, I can't see the editors who are in dispute talking about this issue anywhere other than edit comments. I do see an ongoing conflict between Elizium23 & Zhomron across many articles, the nature of which I find hard to work out. Pathawi (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Pathawi, that this is not a question for an Rfc. A talkpage discussion should be able to resolve such issues, based on the various Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Starting with the rule saying to use the most common English spelling. And the answer to the question itself IMHO is a resounding "no". Debresser (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

There's been some discussion about pronunciation in edit summaries so I wanted to clarify: In colloquial Ashkenazic Hebrew almost every word is penultimately stressed. Because stress affects vowel length, a two-syllable word like Shabbat, which is ultimately stressed in Tiberian/Sephardic/Modern Hebrew, becomes Shobbis. However, this isn't typically reflected in English spellings. So, while I don't think it should be the main spelling on wiki, this pronunciation certainly isn't "local" and certainly is "mainstream". Almost all Orthodox Jews in America pronounce it this way, and about half of Jews worldwide. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. Please cite sources. Elizium23 (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Samaritans

I think it's significant enough to mention in the lead that Samaritans also observe Shabbat. Synotia (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

All kinds of marginal groups, like Christians who keep Shabbat and Samaritans, are not lead material. The request is probably POV inspired, because even Christians who are keeping Shabbat are not in the lead, and that section is significantly larger than the one short sentence about Samaritans. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I do like the "Samartian" spelling in the title. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

Whats POV is to call Samaritans a marginal group. This article is about a religious concept not a religious group. Pngeditor (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Should be about a concept not a group! Pngeditor (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Since we're on a talk page, it's alright for Debresser to say the truth about the group. I think it is objectively true to say that Samaritans are marginal(ized) and have been since Biblical days, or "The Woman at the Well" wouldn't make sense, would it? This article is about a topic, but since Shabbat is observed by groups with different interpretations, that makes for different concepts as well. So we need to take the groups one-by-one to compare and contrast their particular concept known as "Shabbat". Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC) The claim that Samaritans are marginalised is POV, and dismissive. Marginalised in what sense? Reference to stories in the Hebrew Bible doesn't change that. It is not an appropriate statement for wikipedia. I agree with the rest of what you are saying.Pngeditor (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC) I think you're the one who's being dismissive about this. By what POV are Samaritans not marginalized? If you asked a Samaritan (or a Roma or the Uyghurs if they were marginalized, would they be offended or tell you you're wrong? Have you even seen the reliable scholarly sources that discuss at length the way Jews marginalized Samaritans for over 2,000 years??? Elizium23 (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Samaritans are a small and insignificant group compared to Judaism. No personal offense intended. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Insignificant is even worse than marginalised. All you had to say was numerically smaller. Pngeditor (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Well, there is power in numbers (and by the same token insignificance in the lack of numbers). Now please stop telling me what to say and how to say it, because I don't really care about your supersensitivity here. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dagesh Hazaq

A dagesh can either indicate a "hard" plosive version of the consonant (known as dagesh qal, literally 'light dot') or that the consonant is geminated (known as dagesh ḥazaq, literally 'hard dot').

@Sinclairian without the dagesh the letter Bet would render a V sound, aka "shavat". It's clearly a dagesh qal. The only reason you might assume otherwise is because of the Anglicised spelling Shabbat. But transliteration is not bound by English spelling rules. Rolando 1208 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

These are all the sound changes in (Modern) Hebrew represented by Dagesh Qal, [v]→[b], [x]~[χ]→[k], [f]→[p] Rolando 1208 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Dagesh qal becomes dagesh hazaq in all Begadkefat if they are preceded by a vowel. The English term features a doubled "b" because the transliteration calls for doubled b, not the other way around. Sinclairian (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. Do you have a source for your first statement? Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's basic Hebrew phonology, so WP:SKYBLUE. That said, you can look it up in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, the Academy of the Hebrew Language, etc. Note that in some sources it'd probably be called "dagesh forte" instead of "dagesh hazaq/k" Sinclairian (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no, this is not "clearly obvious" you citing WP like this is incredibly condescending.

The doubling of consonants means that they're geminated. I've never heard any Israeli pronounce it like /b:/. You do really need to prove this with sources. Rolando 1208 (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also per the WP you cited, "Remember to assume good faith and consider that something that may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them, and that many things that "everyone knows" turn out to be false." Rolando 1208 (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh and there's also WP:BURDEN, of course. Rolando 1208 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When a בג"ד כפ"ת letter gats a Dagesh Hazaq, it functions in the modern pronounciation as a Dagesh Qal. Dagesh Hazaq in other letters is not pronounced in modern Hebrew.

There is a Patah on the ש in שבת, which means the consonant after it does not have a vowl - this is another proof that the ב is doubled (shab+bat and not sha+bat). פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I provided you with two high-quality, authoritative sources. Sinclairian (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)