Talk:L'Shana Haba'ah

"Return to Jerusalem"

The desire is not to return to Jerusalem, but to return to the "rebuilt Jerusalem" – i.e. the time when the Third Temple in Jerusalem will be built and the messianic redemption will take place. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I noted in the lead and background sections that L'Shana Haba'ah evokes a desire to return to a rebuilt Yerushalaim, but I agree that this should be explained in more detail. I will expand the background section to provide relevant context. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oldest English reference

@Notecardforfree: @Yoninah: @Drsmoo: I am trying to find the oldest English reference to the phrase "Next Year in Jerusalem". Searching on google books I find nothing of relevance before the 20th century, which surely must be wrong given the prominence of the phrase today. Any ideas of places to look for this would be appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. I'm not sure why you need an English reference anyway, since it is just the translation of a Hebrew phrase that dates back to the Yom Kippur machzor. Interestingly, there are plenty of books that call themselves by this name. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Levine page 9

@Drsmoo: where on page 9 of Levine does it support the sentence "the sentiment of longing for a return to Jerusalem is reflected in the ancient Haggadot"? I have read it a dozen times in case I am missing something, but it definitely isn't there.

Also, the clauses you added after "...and the Talmud..." read very awkwardly, and appear oddly defensive. Who cares that this other stuff exists? Your new sentences added at the beginning of the paragraph provide more than enough context. I don't mind and won't remove it, I just think it could do with rethinking. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

A weird question to ask about other stuff, no one cares that the exact phrase isn't in the Talmud, the desire is seen throughout. And this is after you misquoted the sources, claiming Sefer HaMinhagim was the first use, when it was merely the first time the custom was recorded in writing. That whole sentence is certainly undue. The bits about Rambam (aka Maimonidies) (not Ramban, as you misspelled his name earlier) hoping for the opportunity to complete the Korban Pesach in the rebuilt Jerusalem, and described as echoing the sentiment of Rabbi Gamliel. Drsmoo (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't miss anything. You were just proposing to include WP:OR. The part of p.9 about the Rambam you are referring to is: "But in the Yemenite manuscripts, the brachah concludes: גואל ישראל! Not that God redeemed us in the past; but that he’s redeeming us in the present! Because the Rambam is dreaming – hoping – for the time when we’ll be able to observe the Pesach Seder as it was meant to be observed – in Jerusalem eating the Korban Pesach." This is the author of the paper interpreting romantically the difference in tense in the single word "גאל" vs. "גואל".

So logically the best you could write accurately would be: "the sentiment of longing for a return to observing the Pesach Seder as it is meant to be observed may be reflected in the Yemeni translations of the Rambam's Haggadot, through the use of the present tense of the word Hebrew word for redeem, although at no point is Jerusalem named or directly implied in this".

If you want to support the sentence "the sentiment of longing for a return to Jerusalem is reflected in the ancient Haggadot", you'll need a source that actually says that.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

PS - you mispelled the Rambam's name - it is Maimonides (not Maimonidies, as you misspelled his name earlier). Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Citing a reliable source isn't original research. PS you misspelled misspelled Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I definitely admit defeat in the misspelling competition. Our little spelling tête–à–tête made me laugh. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

@Drsmoo: It looks like you have done a google search for the Hebrew phrase, found two sources, and then synthesised these to produce a narrative that does not exist in scholarly literature anywhere. That is called WP:SYNTH.

I don't object to the primary sources on their own, together with a plain and factual description, even though one could very easily make the argument that their very existance in this article is implying synth. I think they serve to educate readers a little, but it be helpful to provide in the paragraphs a little more of the context in the poems in which the words were used.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources are fine on Wikipedia and were used correctly. The bit about 1826 is incorrect. If you have an issue take it up on a noticeboard. You also deleted secondary sourced academic materialDrsmoo (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It is pure synth. You wrote a sentence which implies that the phrase L'Shana Haba'ah as described in this article was used regularly since the 10th century. Yet you have no source which says that. It is a flagrant breach of WP:OR. The WP:ONUS is on you to bring a source which explictly supports the sentence you want to include. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the source does say that. It includes the full text of the poem. Drsmoo (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, Elizur says there were multiple versions, studies two of those, and only shows the phrase in one. As an aside, it's not even clear that Elizur's view as to who the original author was has gained scholarly consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the phrase is in both. Drsmoo (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to my read. Provide page numbers please. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: per the policy WP:BURDEN, please provide specific page numbers. Per the policy WP:NONENG please provide quotations of the relevant portions of the source. Because you plagiarized all this information from a student website, and the sources being used are primary and/or in a non-English language, the verification bar needs to be reasonably high. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In terms of A'amir Mistatter, in the "Between Joseph and Joseph" article, on page 71 the two versions of the poem are placed side by side. The right side is the version from the Cairo Geniza, the left side is the version from the Ashkenazic custom. On page 74, line 57, you can see that "בירושלים לשנה הבאה" is in both versions. The author goes into more detail in the notes on that section. He writes the following: "This may be the first hints of the use of the well known phrase "next year in Jerusalem" which is still in use today. Abitur wrote the line “in Jerusalem next year”. This sentence appears in two of his other books: - he signed it in a part of a book about Passover. There is a copy in Cambridge university sections T-S 8 H 16.15. And in Oxford - bodiliana (2712/19) Ms. Heb. e pages 107-108. Later you can find a variation of that sentence in Spain in the poem to Sukkot אבאר מצות סוכה (Avar Mitzvot Sukkah) by rabbi Ben Giat and also in the prayer ידידיך מאמש (Yedidekha me-Emesh), also by Ben Giat, which was was mistakenly attributed to Rabbi Yehuda Halevi."

The article also has an abstract in english which adds "The purpose of this article is to identify the author of a well-known yotser, Aʾamir Mistatter bi-Meʿon Ḥevyon, which appears in numerous Ashkenazic maḥzorim as a yotser for the Sabbath before Passover." "It now transpires that much of this poem appears in an early manuscript from the Cairo Genizah in which it is attributed to R. Joseph Ibn Avitur, a Spanish poet who left his native land at the end of the tenth century CE and was active for many years in the East, primarily in Egypt." Drsmoo (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)