Talk:Passover/Archive 1

Traditions and those who celebrate the Passover

Modern Jewish customs

Pasta is not leavened. Why must it be replaced?

It increases in size when it cooks. For the same reason, rice and most beans are forbidden. So are most foods other than matzah that contain wheat flour, even if they don't increase in size when they cook. It may not be entirely rational, but religious observances tend to be based on belief and tradition, not reason. --Avocado 20:01, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Yeah, but not all Jews follow that custom...Pasta would be kitniyot, no? Penta 00:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Or is it hametz?

No, no, no. The definition in Jewish Law of chametz is: wheat/barley/spelt/oat/rye, plus water, left unbaked for more than 18 minutes. At that point, it is already possible that some of the fermentation process may have begun that would lead to the "leavening" that we can observe. So pasta is considerd 100% chametz. Rice and beans are certainly not chametz (the Talmud explicitly allows rice, after a brief discussion); the custom only appeared later because rice/bean flour got confused with wheat/barley/etc. flour. TLMD13 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13.

THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER IS AS WELL A DAY OF MOURNING AS IT IS THE BEGINNING OF A CELEBRATION. IN JEWISH TRADITION THE FIRST BORN MALE IN EVERY HOUSEHOLD FASTS COMPLETELY AS A SIGN OF MOURNING FOR ALL THE FIRST BORN EGYPTIAN MALES WHO DIED DURING PASSOVER. THIS IS IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT SMALL CHILDREN WERE INNOCENT OF THE SINS OF EGYPTIAN SLAVERY AND DID NOT NECCESSARILY DESERVE TO DIE AS PUNISHMENT.

Nonsense. The firstborn fast on the day before Passover. The reason you give is not the accepted one. The firstborn fast because God still regretted having to kill any human (see eg Talmud Megillah 10b). JFW | T@lk 12:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reform Judaism celebrates Passover for 7 days. Shouldn't this be mentioned after the sentence, "Outside Israel, the holiday is celebrated for 8 days, with the first two days and last two days celebrated as full festivals"? Cheeeesey 01:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Add it. The "Edit this Page" button is there for a reason. If you can site source, and give the history of when Refom started keeping one day that would be great. Jon513 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Passover

Similar traditions in Roman Catholic and Protestant beliefs

I think this should be a separate article. A "Christian Passover" topic will confuse anyone who is first learning about the true meaning of Pesach (Passover).

The "true meaning of Pesach (Passover)" for who? Christians who observe Passover believe they are celebrating the culmination and "true meaning of Passover." -- ASmolderingWiki 22 June 2005.

There is no such thing as "Christian" Passover

Can you name one mainstream Church that celebrates Passover alone as a full festival and not just as an adjunct to Easter? By the way as you consider this question you may also want to answer: Are there people on Mars? IZAK 08:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This should go - not notable, unless someone brings proof. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Google lists ~4520 hits for the phrase "Christian Passover". A quick scan of pages from the 1st page seems to indicate a distinction between it and Easter celebrations. — Jeandré, 2005-07-29t21:33z

Specifying 'mainstream Church' excludes a very large percentage of the world. There are hundreds of thousands of people who celebrate the Christian Passover. They do not celebrate the Eucharist or Easter, but Passover!

How does one apply the term 'mainstream' anyway? Defining a church as mainstream simply by the number of 'bums on seats'is hardly a measure of its accuracy in interpreting and practicing God's Laws. Biblical exegesis should not involve a head count. As for an example, the United Church of God states as a fundamental belief: 'We believe in observing the New Testament Passover on the night of the 14th of Abib, the anniversary of the death of our Savior (Leviticus 23:5; Luke 22:13-14).' By contrast, they reject Easter as an adptation of pagan festivals to Christianity.

If you don't know about it, you shouldn't be writing about it or editing other peoples writings. Saying that, "There is no such thing as 'Christian' Passover" indicates that your knowledge in this area is insufficient for you to comment.

Although there are some Christians who celebrate the Passover in a manner similar to the Jews, others celebrate in a purely Christian manner following instructions set out in the New Testament of the Bible.

The title of this article is "Passover", not "the Jewish Passover". Therefore, information regarding how other people observe this event is entirely appropriate and should NOT be delegated to another article.

Christians no more "hijacked" Passover from the Jews, than Jews hijacked it from Egyptians or Bedouins. ASmolderingWiki 07:04, 07 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, how about this idea: A disambiguation page called simply "Passover". It will then connect to two separate articles, and in that way no one will be misled or anything. As the titles of the two articles, I think the most NPOV might be "Passover in the Jewish tradition" and "Passover in the Christian tradition". One or the other will have to be first, so how about the Jewish one, as it is the older one?--Keeves 13:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the majority here are not interested in a NPOV.

Maybe a better way to approach this is to have a section about the "Christian understanding" of the passover. It is certainly true that Christians rarely, and certainly not corporately, keep the Passover. However, the Passover has tremendous significance, like it or not, to the Christian understanding of Christ. For example, the gospels of the New Testament clearly point to the death of Christ on Passover. The bitter herbs correlate with the suffering of Christ (Is 53). The sacrifice of the lamb correlates with His sacrifice. The blood on the doorpost correlates with the understanding of Christ's blood which sanctifies. Eating of the lamb, correlates with the notion that the body and character of Christ is to be made an internal work (Jeremiah 31:31-33). The removal of leaven correlates with the notion of the removal of sin from the life, and the searching of heart.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that John says the cross occurred prior to Passover. The closest I can come to is a comment in John 19 that states it was the Preparation day of the Passover when the Pilate scene took place. It is noteworthy that John 13:1-4 states that the Lord's supper happened prior to Passover; and after the Lord's supper, His death took place. Pilate makes a point in John 18 of stating that a prisoner is released on the Passover, so just as Barabbas was let go at that time, so also Christ was sent to His death. Further in other places in John it makes a point of the Jewish leaders specifically not wanting Christ's death on Passover because of the effect it would have on the people, which it did have as we know.

Some groundwork on the Preparation day text. First understand that just as the word Pentecost is used in Acts but nowhere in the Torah, so also there are conventions of terminology that Jews have taken on that can be confusing as to the sequence of days. That is, you will find some that refer to the "Passover" as the whole sequence of days including the feast of unleavened bread, or you also find some that refer to the Feast of Unleavened bread as the whole sequence (starting with the 14th, Passover). Read Leviticus 23:5-11 and you'll see that there is a sequence of the 14th day as Passover (not a sabbath; important) then the Feast of Unleavened bread (starting the 15th with a holy convocation and ending with a holy convocation with NO WORK, sabbaths) then on the 16th the day of first fruits. Preparation days in the bible are prior to a sabbath, see Mark 15:42 Luke 23:54 John 19:31. So, the preparation day here is prior to the first day of unleavened bread, which I believe was both a yearly sabbath and a weekly sabbath overlapped, and landed on the 14th of Abib/Nisan which is Passover as described in Leviticus.

It is also significant that Paul writes the congregation at Corinth that "Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." (1 Corinthians 5:7)

Yes, but surely Christians can remember and honour passover as a sign to God that we are thankful for saving his people from the cruel hands of the Egyptians. After all, the Jews were God's chosen people. Before I watched the childrens' film 'The Prince of Egypt'I hadn't really appreciated that Ramses was Moses 'brother', and that Moses grew up with him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.71.235 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

The feast starts on the 14th day of nisan

The article states that the feast starts on the 15th day but the Bible clearly says that it is to start on the 14th day of nisan (Exodus 12:17-20 & Lev 23:4-6)it starts at nightfall on the 14th day, the passage in Lev. uses two different Hebrew words for feast

Lev 23:4 says (feast strongs #4150)

H4150 מועדה מעד מועד mô‛êd mô‛êd mô‛âdâh mo-ade', mo-ade', mo-aw-daw' From H3259; properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time or season; specifically a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): - appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed).

Lev 23:6 (feast strongs #2282)

H2282 חג חג chag châg khag, khawg A festival, or a victim therefor: - (solemn) feast (day), sacrifice, solemnity.

it is obvious to me that the feast2282 is part of the "greater" feast4150 taken along with the passage in exodus we must say the feast starts on the 14th day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigntammy (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Gregorian dates

http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm#Dates and http://www.hebrewcalendar.net/htdocs/main.en.html as at 2004-12-17t13:22z. — Jeandré

I don't know how to fix a table, but can someone please fix the table that gives the dates Gregorian dates that pesach begins and ends? Since Pesach is 7 days in Israel and 8 in the Diasporah, the table really needs two columns for the dates it ends. Chani 65.74.59.37 06:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

why do we have this at all. It should be included in the holiday infobox? Jon513 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

See also, overpass

I really see no point in having this reference on this article. Any objections to removal? Jwinters

No, it is silly and sounds like a prank. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I just deleted it. Jwinters | Talk 18:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged "genocidal atrocity"

"the (alleged) fact that (the hypothetical) God killed all Egyptian firstborn sons": There should be some reference or comment on this genocidal atrocity.

as far as I can tell, that's in the article.

Nonsense. Genocide would be the killing of all Egyptians, not just the firstborn. If you can find the Latin word for firstborn, then add -cide at the end, and presto, you've found the right term for the killing of the firstborn. And therefore... JFW | T@lk 23:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since I reorganized the talk page yesterday, allow me to clarify my position. Someone (unknown user) had written the above statement about the "genocidal atrocity". I then replied "as far as I can tell, that's in the article." What I mean by that is there is already a point in the article about the killing of the firstborn. Jwinters

The fact is that the angel of death targeted only Egyptian children and while this may not be genocide it is certainly a crime against humanity. The festival of passover is celebrated over the bodies of countless dead children who no power over the fact that the Pharaoh kept the Jews as slaves. I feel that this should be made clear in the article. Holden 27

• I don't know much about terminology and "political correctness", but since when God (in any religion) can be a criminal and/or participate in a crime against humanity ? Using this view would also make noah flood as a crime against all living creatures! This was not a person doing the killings, but an angel sent by God.

The act of killing innocents is murder, no matter who commits it. The maker has no right to kill his creation, otherwise parents could kill their children. And yes, this also classes Noah's flood as Genocide. Larklight 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm not sure how old this conversation is, but since nobody has said this it has to be said. It's that kind of misunderstanding of the Jewish Religion from many outside of it that leads to huge antisemitism. First off Holden 27, Passover is observed, as are most jewish holidays, since celebrated really isn't the right overall word to describe what we do. We ESPECIALLY do not celebrate the killing of the first born, or any of the Plagues for that matter. In fact, an entire portion of the seder is devoted to mourning for the pain the egypitians felt for the plagues. (The part with emptying the wine cups) How dare you say something like that. If you knew anything at all about the jewish religon, you would know That goes beyond offensive. And for you to suggest that anti-semitic Point of view should be written in the article. Frankly I'm Discusted.--Sgore

• Another major misconception about this is that an "Angel of Death" killed the first born sons. It was, in fact, G-d himself who did this. This is stated multiple times in Exodus. Ex4:23, 11:1-5, 11:23, 11:27, 11:29 "In the middle of the night the LORD struck down all the first-born...", Ex13:15, etc.

I concur. There are plenty of web sites out there for twisted opinions. If you disagree with something here, state your case but keep it FACTUAL. Personal poit of view is not fact. If you question a "fact", give evidence, prove your statements. This is not a blog for opinions. There are plenty out there. This is not the "Urban Dictionary". -- Greenbomb101 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)139.76.128.71 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This debate is interesting. I wonder how modern day Eagytians feel about a Jewish holiday that laments them. I think we all know how they feel about the claim that Israel built the pyramids. Are there any objections by Eagytians to this Jewish practice? I know some Eagyptians claim that Israel was never enslaved in Eagypt but I do not know if that is widely held. On the other hand, one could simple point out that this is a Jewish holiday and Jews should be able to do what they want on their own holiday, it being an internal matter of the Israeli faith and all. In all of this I do hear echos of another arguement, say about prayers for the benefit of the Jewish nation in the Latin Mass that for some reason Jew object to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most Egyptians are Muslims, and the Quran recounts the Israelites' leaving Egypt in very much the same terms as the Bible, and does not hesitate to treat Moses as the hero and Pharaoh as the villain. An Egyptian would have to be very secularized to feel bound to defend the honour of the Pharaohs against a story that forms part of his own religion.

On the other hand, it seems likely that the historic source of anti-Semitism as we now know it was indeed the Egyptians of Hellenistic and Roman times, who did feel insulted, and invented a counter-narrative in which the Israelites were thrown out of Egypt for being lepers (see Manetho, Apion).

The oddest thing is when the Passover is celebrated by Jews who actually live in Egypt; children have been known to ask "then why are we still here?". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

date

Someone should clear this issue up and delete one or the other of the statements.

Although the Christian Holy Week occurs around the same time as Passover, Passover rarely occurs during Easter. This is because the Jewish holidays follow a lunar calendar, and Christian holidays follow the Gregorian calendar. Not exactly correct. The Christian calendar is designed so that Easter nearly always falls out during the week of passover or immediately after. When it doesn't, it is simply an error in the Christian calendar. Lukobe

It's not only the Christian calendar that is at fault. Look at this year (5765/2005): Easter is March 27, and the first day of Passover is April 24. Both are supposed to be near the vernal equinox (chodesh ha-aviv), and I'd say Easter gets it right this time. The reason Pesach is so late is the drift of the Hebrew calendar, which moves all of the holidays (relative to the solar calendar) an average of 1 day later every 200 years. (This is because the cycle of 7 leap years every 19 years is close, but not quite. We probably should have had one fewer leap year in there somewhere, so that Pesach would be a month earlier this year.) Dreyfus 23:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's sensible to have a long debate about the date of Easter here. Christians, Roman or Eastern or Protestant, don't think if it as 'celebrating Passover' they think of it as celebrating Easter. It's virtually never called 'Passover' in Christian circles (possibly in Messianic Jewish circles). DJ Clayworth 14:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are Christians (now and throughout history) who celebrate Passover according to the Jewish calendar. It is a very separate and distinct celebration from Easter. (see [http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Easter#Easter_and_the_early_Christian_Church Easter]) Also, according to both articles (Passover and Easter) many languages call Easter by some name that is derived from "Pasch".

Duplication with Passover Seder

Should parts of the "Modern Jewish Customs" section be merged with / replaced with a link to Passover Seder? There is substantial overlap. Avocado 01:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Move/disambig

Keeves split off Passover in the two religions and turned this into a disambig. This is completely uncalled for. The significance of Passover in Christianity derives completely from its status as a Jewish holiday (if Jesus had died on the 10th of August Passover would have been of no relevance to Christianity). To grant equivalence in this area is a misrepresentation.

Apart from an illogical move, Keeves is also acting against consensus on this talk page. Please discuss. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That move was just silly. Passover needs a disambig like a fish needs a bicycle. This "Christian Passover" notion sounds like original research to me, and in any case, there is something POVish in placing these two Passovers next to one another on a disambig page, ie: it gives undue weight to this little known Christian Passover. If the notion is deserving of its own article at all, then a link in the See also section should suffice. Func( t, c ) 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, what Keeves did was silly, however he did have a point that the christian passover doesn't belong on this page, therefore the way it is currently after the edits by JFW it is perfect, that there is a link to the christian passover but the main page is the Jewish one. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for going against a consensus that I did not see. What I see are two very different and incompatible views. I suggested this idea above in the section There is no such thing as "Christian" Passover, and when there was no comment after almost three days, I acted on it. Looks like I've been outvoted, so be it. --Keeves 13:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Passover is primarily understood in a Jewish context; until the late 20th century no Christians celebrated it. When the reader is looking for Passover, he is almost certainly looking for the Jewish one, celebrated for thousands of years, not the Christian one, celebrated for the last couple of decades by a tiny minority of Christians. Wikipedia should cater to the needs of the reader, and have the main article here, with a disambiguation link to the extreme minority usage at the top. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I like and prefer it the way it is now, with the Jewish version on the main page, and Christian stuff elsewhere. And I probably would have split it in that manner, but I would have expected complaints from the people who have been adding the Christian stuff all along, and that's why I figured that two branches would have been more successful. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.--Keeves 17:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Until the late 20th century..."? Again, this shows that those of this group of editors are ignorant of history beyond their own interests. If you had only read the article you are so keen on burning, you would have seen that the Passover has been kept by Christians since the time of Christ! And they are not much more of a minority than the Jews!
 
"The reader...is almost certainly looking for the Jewish" Passover, -- And if he is not, you will make sure he doesn't find it anyway. And so, you do not want the reader to become any wiser! I'm glad to know that it is YOU who determines what a reader wants and needs to know and should know.
 
If splitting the two entries is "silly", then splitting off the one part is abserd. -- ASmolderingWiki 13:40, 11 AUG 2005 (UTC)

Separate from the Passover disambiguation argument, maybe the term "pasch" should not lead directly to the Jewish passover page, as "pasch" can refer not only to the Jewish or Christian Passovers, but to Easter as well. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pasch&x=0&y=0) ----Michael

Section Request

Fast of the First Born. — <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     Found it. Fast of the firstborn Added a See Also. Jndrline 23:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Matza Picture

I think someone should substitute the square matza picture with a picture of shmura matza.

Reverting to months ago

Some IPs have vandalized this page slowly over time censoring Jewish parts and swaping them for Christian parts. As can be seen in this comparing. ems 14:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like some people misunderstood the concensus a while ago, and several little mistakes have been creeping in since. I'd suggest an article RfC to sort out whether the two articles ought to remain split or be re-merged. Following that, it will be easier for the editors to tell what's needed on the page. Rob Church (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, further discussion with Ems has convinced me there is, at least for the present, no need for a second RfC; see how things pan out. Rob Church (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

I am giving warnings to each person that edited after the edit I reverted to. Anyone who reads this, take it as a warning, please keep christianity views on Passover (Christian holiday). And please do NOT remove Jewish views off this article. ems 16:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"warnings" The word Passover isn't even a Jewish word in it's origin. And in wikipedia, excepting administrators, there are no absolute authorities. Now, while I agree that comments about observance of Passover by Christians are out of place, Passover has a huge significance to Christianity and it is absurd to be shunting it off to another forum simply because you don't like Christianity. You are actually not in keeping with NPOV by excluding all comments relating to Christianity. If you read the NPOV description in wikipedia, it very specifically states that it can be achieved by presenting opposite views. The section on the Christian understanding does not trample in any way on the rest of the article, leave it be. Wintermancer 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your making BOTH articles according to christian views. It has been agreed that christian views will be kept on Passover (Christian holiday). This article is about JEWISH views. ems 06:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, the separation has occurred as a result of individuals that wish to discuss 1. Easter in the context of Passover and 2. Christians observing Passover in the present. I'm not sure where the ideas are coming from, but you can see by the title "passover Christian HOLIDAY" that this is what is being addressed. Yes, they so happen to discuss the implications to the Christian world as well. However, there is not a single Christian I know that doesn't appreciate the Passover specifically with its importance pertaining to history and the cross, as it was kept during that day by JEWS. When the public is looking for information on Passover, they are not going to be looking for the "Passover Christian HOLIDAY" and you know it. And while the Jewish observance is important, yes, the Christian side huge as well, but you appear to not want to acknowledge that, and I certainly will call POV here. If you want to say it's about JEWISH views only, why is it that you don't put it in a Passover JEWISH holiday section, or Pesach. Just because you have talked with a former admin doesn't mean "it has been agreed." And no, I don't want the entire article to become Christian, far from it, but a statement on the Christian perspective should be there, and futher it should be separate, not mixed in with the rest of the article, I wouldn't go near all that Talmud stuff. Call it a foot note if you will, I'll even put it after the Gregorian dates. You will notice that nothing else in the article has been touched, I haven't EVER removed anything Jewish from this article. It is amazing to me that with things like Zech 8:18-23 and Isaiah 49:6 there is this move push all goyim out the door, what gives? Wintermancer 07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

99% of the time the term Passover is mostly used to refer to Jewish holiday. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. ems 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

More like 99.99% of the time. If you ask virtually anyone about Passover, they'll say something about Jews, and the flight from Egypt. It is a Jewish holiday, and has been usurped by a minority of Christians. Keep the christian stuff off the main passover page. HedgehogNewt

Agreed. The Traditional Passover is concidered to be the Jewish Passover. There isn't a section called the Jewish Christmas in the Christmas Article, although there may be jews that have ways of celebrating Christmas. (Chinese food and A movie customarily.;)) Technically In any religon believeing in the Old Testimet, this is the traditional passover. Actually there is a special name for the Christian version "Pasch", although some may call it passover. The Jewish version is called "Pesach" So why not just create an article on "Pasch" instead of Christian Passover. Pesach is passover. Pasch is something else. That actually settles everything--Sgore

Factual tag

There's a {{factual}} tag on the article. What's the matter? Can't we get rid of it? JFW | T@lk 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a thorough article expansion to cover the many different aspects of Pesach which were not included here. I also trimmed down the Passover Seder section, because it is really redundant vis-a-vis the Passover Seder article. Everything here is factual; perhaps it just needs a little more sourcing. Yoninah 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Note 1 on chametz

I think that this note is completely confusing and contradictory. In the interests of NPOV, someone has lumped together all the Orthodox, Conservative, and Karaite practices together into an unintellible mess. If someone is interested in the subject, he can view the chametz page, where all this information is stated again (that also needs a rewrite). Can we delete this note? Yoninah 08:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that note should be removed. JFW | T@lk 04:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Chametz extended?

Chametz is the pre-passover foodstuffs, right? What about the food-stuffs bought kosher for passover. Could it be used after passover or must they be burnt also after? John wesley 17:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chametz refers to the type of grain products we eat year-round. This can mean bread, pasta, cookies, soup nuts, and even matzo in which the flour and water have stayed in contact long enough for the dough to ferment and "rise." (According to Jewish law, it takes 18-22 minutes for a mixture of flour and water to start rising.) Thus, the matzo which is sold year-round in stores is not kosher for Passover because the manufacturers have no obligation to be careful about the time limit year-round.

Anything that is chametz must either be eaten or disposed of (thrown away) before Passover. The ceremony of burning the chametz actually applies only to a few morsels, since this ritual is a symbolic statement that all the chametz in our possession has been cleaned out or nullified. After Passover ends, we put away all the Passover dishes for the next year and then go back to buying and eating chametz again.

In contrast, grain products made from kosher for Passover matzo (like matzo itself, matzo farfel cookies or matzo meal cakes) can be eaten year-round, not just on Passover. There is no obligation to burn it after the holiday (in fact, we have to finish it up!). Yoninah 20:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the Feast -- Zecher Korban Pesach

User:Yoninah wrote that the Zecher Korban Pesach is "usually a roasted chicken wing," and commented in the changelog that "According to Halakha, a roasted lamb bone resembles the korban Pesach and can't be used."

I looked in the Mishneh Brura to see what he holds, and met partial success. I could not find a discussion of what food item to use for the Korban Pesach, but I did find a discussion of eating roasted meat. The Shulchan Aruch (סימן תעו, סעיף א) says you must follow the local Minhag vis-a-vis the permissibility of roasted meat. The Mishnah Brura remarks that the Minhag "in these lands" (at least Poland, but what else?) is not to eat Tzli.

The Shulchan Aruch goes on to say (in סעיף ב) that anywhere roasted meat is Assur, so is roasted poultry ("anything that requires Schita"). So it would seem that either a "roasted lamb bone" and a "roasted chicken wing" are both Mutar, or both Assur.

Finally, Guidelines (publ. Feldheim, by R' Barclay and R' Jaeger) says to use "A piece of roasted meat or poultry" (#300), which implies that he does not hold like the Mishneh Brura. Guidelines elaborates to use "the shankbone [i.e.] the foreleg of the animal" (in the case of meat) and "the wing or neck" (for poultry), allowing any piece Bidi'avad (#307). The wording seems to imply that meat is preferable to poultry. Unfortunately, I can't decipher his footnote references, so I don't know his sources.

(caveat: I have not asked a Shailah on this yet!)

If we want the article to be complete, it should say "usually a roasted lamb shankbone, chicken wing, or chicken neck." But maybe simplicity is better than completeness?

In any case, I'm going to add this to the article, and if it's too much we can remove it.

-- Nmagedman 22:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nmagedman, thank you for pursuing this so diligently. My Sephardi neighbors use a leg of lamb on their Seder plate, so your amendation sounds fine to me. (Perhaps you also want to correct what I wrote under Z'roa in the Passover Seder Plate article?) Yoninah 22:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of what to use on the Seder Plate is found in Shulchan Aruch 473:4. It is NOT eaten; it only represents the Korban Pesach. Therefore, roasted meat is okay even for those who do not eat roasted meat at the Seder. --Keeves 16:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Great work, Keeves!

-- Nmagedman 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nisan is the month, Nissan is the car

Just for your information, this is Wikipedia style. Yoninah 14:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 date: April 13 instead of April 12  ???

Someone changed the date on Fast of the firstborn to April 12 a few hours ago. [1] Is this right ? If so, should the date of Passover be April 13 instead of April 12 as displayed right now ? -- PFHLai 07:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nay, the fast takes place during the day until it's broken with the Seder dinner. Both occur on the 12th. Dbratton 11:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify matters, every Jewish date begins at sundown and ends at sundown the next day. Thus Passover, which starts on 15 Nisan, begins at sundown on April 12. The second day of Passover, 16 Nisan, begins at sundown on April 13. Etc.

The Fast of the First-born begins at dawn on 14 Nisan, which is the morning of April 12. It is customarily broken by a siyum (completion of Talmudic learning) right after morning services, so it really doesn't last more than a few hours. Yoninah 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. :-) -- PFHLai 23:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern European Liquor Raids

"In the Eastern European shtetls, the Jews, who were often tavern keepers, would sell their chametz in this way to neighboring gentiles, and risk having the non-Jews enter their cellars to drink all the liquor during the holiday—which they often did."

This sentence seems completely out of place compared to the rest of the text. It looks to me like inflamatory supposition, or like the expression of an old grudge. Entering a neighbor's cellar and drinking all their liquor seems more like an incident than a common practice. In any case it seems completely unrelated to the act of selling chametz. If it is attached to a larger concern, maybe it needs to be moved to a different article.

I was just trying to show that the sale of chametz is an actual sale, not a charade. I'll try to find a published source for this after the holiday (Passover). Yoninah 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Omission

There currently appears to be no mention whatsoever of Christian beliefs regarding Passover on this page. Whatever about the rationale of keeping most such content in separate articles, it is the height of political-correctness to not even remark on the relationship of Passover to Easter, and indeed the early (and even today) Christian celebrations of passover (not to mention mainstream Christian beliefs concerning the symbolism between Jesus and Passover elements).

The fact that Easter's name is derived from "Pesach" in almost every language (other than English, German and a few others) is telling.

Please rectify this - Wikipedia should not be attempting to ensure its article content is pleasing to the majority rather than fully informative.

At the very least there should be a short section with the usual "Main article" line, linking to Passover (Christian holiday).

zoney ♣ talk 12:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing Easter from the "see also" links is absolutely absurd. To say it has nothing to do with Passover shows the "contributor" has not even had a cursory look at our own Easter article, not to mention being wholly ignorant of even simply the name of the observance in most languages.

zoney ♣ talk 12:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to be insulting. I have no problem opening this up for discussion, but since this is likely to be a very controversial topic it would probably have been better for the original contributor to have done so before making the edit. Either way, since I have no interest in a revert war, I look forward to hearing the thoughts of some of the other editors. Dbratton 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for being so forceful, but there was, and is, no justification for the edit. The issue of what further to include is certainly contentious, but having a link to a related topic is a simple necessity as far as Wikipedia's "see also" sections go. zoney ♣ talk 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article, as it happens, is about a Jewish holiday. I would not object to adding a link to Passover (Christian holiday) in the "See also" section, but separate section devoted to an unrelated holiday celebrated by a few people adhering to a different faith is unnecessary in this article. Pecher ^Talk 15:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter is not an unrelated holiday, and is not celebrated merely by a "few people". Not to mention that regardless of the small observance of "Passover (Christian holiday)", there are definite Christian views on Passover shared by the mainstream churches. You may not like including such information on this page, but the fact of the article being about a Jewish holiday does not exclude it (even if the actions of biased contributors have thus far succeeded in doing so). It is entirely relevant and pertinant to include a short introduction to the issue while linking to the main article(s) dealing with the subject. This is the Wikipedia and indeed encyclopaedic model. zoney ♣ talk 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Collect for the Great Vigil of Easter includes the phrase "This is the Passover of the Lord," and the Exsultet includes the line, "This is our passover feast, when Christ, the true Lamb, is slain, whose blood consecrates the homes of all believers." The Liturgy of the Word for the Great Vigil includes Exodus chapters 14 and 15. The Renewal of Baptismal Vows for the day includes a thanksgiving to God for "leading the children of Israel out of the bondage of Egypt into the land of promise."

The rationale for the significance of Passover for Christians is based on the tradition that Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover. Rather than regard the insertion of the historical and theological significance of Passover for Christians as an example of Christian triumphalism (and believe me, I can totally understand that concern), it should be viewed as an example of the deep Jewish roots of Christianity, and the huge debt Christianity owes to Judaism. St. Paul described Gentile believers as wild shoots grafted on to the tree of Israel (Romans 11:17), and the continued centrality of the Passover tradition in Christian faith manifests this. Fishhead64 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a mention that the Christians developed Easter from Passover? A simple statement of history, not of theology? John wesley 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter was developed from Passover, as Christmas was developed as a counter to Bacchanalia and other Winter Solstice celebrations; but the connection of Passover in Judaism and Easter in Christianity is much more intimate than that. Jesus was a Jew, and most scholars believe that The Last Supper was a Passover sedar. Some Christians have been taught that Jesus was only born a Jew, but that he somehow "converted" after death. I can understand that some Jews would feel that mentioning Easter in the context of Passover is a Christian appropriation of an important Jewish holiday, but it is historic fact and I don't see what gain there is for Judaism or for scholarship to try to distance Christianity from its strong Jewish roots. That Christianity does, in effect, acknowledge that Easter = Passover with the addition of Jesus' cruxification is perhaps best attested to by the fact that Christian calendar-makers have done handsprings to have Easter on a Sunday close to Passover without actually acknowledging that that is wha they are doing, rather than have it on a date fixed on the "Christian" calendar. -- Cecropia 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I obviously agree with you (see above), and unless some compelling argument is presented shortly as to why a small section on the significance of Passover in the Christian tradition should not appear here, I will append one by Good Friday. Hopefully that will spur further discussion and reflection. Be assured that anything I do add will be done sensitively and will be brief. Hopefully that will be a satisfactory compromise. Fishhead64 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you would do it well, and I think it is enyclopedically important. I think it would be well to position and describe it in such a way as to describe a recognition of the holiday by a different but related religious tradition rather than as continuum of Jewish practice, since Jews obviously would not see it in the latter sense. -- Cecropia 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A response

Why does Christianity get any special treatment over other groups? This article is about a Jewish holiday. Many things happen to orignate from Judaism. Why don't you go ahead and start List of things orignated from Jewish holidays? (please pick a better name) and link to it - because they all are as notable as each other. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please do not try and push your point of views it will not get you far. You do not own wikipedia, other views on notablity are allowed. If easter had notablity to the Jewish holiday Passover then it would be added. Just because in your views it has a lot more notablity it does not mean in other views it has any more notablity than anything else that happened on April 14 related to Passover. That said, in my opinion, easter is as notable to Passover as Yom Kippur is to the Ramadan. Now if you want to we can have a discussion of the notablity from a neutral point of view viewpoint. This is Wikipedia and we have to live with policies like NPOV no matter how stupid they and their names may be. eeemess 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Passover! Pesach! 71.80.36.167 01:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if want to get right down to it, most Jewish holidays were appropriations from the multitude of beliefs that surrounded the land of Canaan. Joseph adopted Egyptian customs and clothes, took an Egyptian wife, and was given the Egyptian name Zaphenath-paneah (Gen. 41:54). He gave his firstborn son the name Manasseh, meaning: “God has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home” (Gen. 41:51), and his second son the name Ephraim, meaning: “I have been fruitful” (Gen. 41:52). (http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1601/format/html/displaystory.html)

Many of the ritual cleansings (burnt and blood offerings) originated in Egypt.

Passover in the Christian tradition

I included this new section which, I believe, is unsuitable for the separate article on Passover (Christian holiday), since it does not describe Passover as a Christian holiday, but its significance in Christian self-identity and its connection with the events of Holy Week. Let me know what you think! Fishhead64 03:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I like what you wrote very much and hope it will be satisfactory to all. As this is the first night of Passover, I imagine many Jewish people may not be reading and posting, so we may have to wait for more reaction and discussion. Trying to look at it as a disinterested reader might (i.e., coming upon the article as an encyclopedia reader) I think I would want to see a concluding paragraph tying the issue back into Easter's inheritance from the Jewish festival. You also emphasize the importance of Passover in church teachings, but is this knowledge passed on to the church members in the different denominations today? Or is the understanding of Easter divorced from Passover in the sense that the Jewish Sabbath, a critical observance in Judaism, is divorced from Christian Lord's Day observance, with the notable exception of some denominations, notably the Seventh-day Adventist Church? -- Cecropia 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The links with Passover are only unclear to those attending a Christian church who aren't actually listening to the words spoken by the priest/minister, and also unclear only to those who don't read their Bible (or listen to readings/teachings in church). zoney ♣ talk 11:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sneeky adding in a Christian section while all the Jews were alway celebrating Passover. I have read both the added section and Passover (Christian holiday) and they are both saying basicly the same thing. It appears to me that the original reason for making two articles hasn't changed. Having a Christain section in passover is like having a Kwanzaa section in Hanukkah article. While Kwanzaa borrowed elements from Hanukkah its connected to Hanukkah is only breifly mentioned. As the jewish holiday stand on their own they are mentioned alone. As they later holidays are based on the ealier holidays the earilier holiday are mentioned. (Let hold off on any more additions until the holiday is over in america and the Jews can return to wikipedia; however some may take a week wikibreak for Chol HaMoed)Jon513 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to assume good faith. The gentleman who posted this (see his talk page) is not a vandal or Christian POV-pusher. I almost never ask for an apology on Wikipedia (for myself or anyone else) but your comment "while all the Jews were alway celebrating Passover" is way out of line. It accuses this decent person of the worst practices of a vandal. Do you suppose he thought "the Jews" would return and not notice? Your comparison to Kwanzaa is inappropriate. Kwanzaa does not claim to be a religious holiday of any kind, but a cultural celebration. They don't claim their candelabra to be an extension of the Jewish menorah, no matter how similar looking. The connection between Jews and Christians and Passover and Easter are several orders of magnitude more intimate than Kwanzaa's symbolism. -- Cecropia 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your defence, Cecropia. Indeed, what put me in mind of Passover was Holy Week - not some neferious desire to "sneak" something in. I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss the centrality of Passover in the Christian tradition — but, if someone wants to argue why it might be, I'm all for a discussion. Fishhead64 20:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be logical then to insert a section on the Jewish roots and the connection with Passover in the article on Easter? Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. I don't think that the discussion should be limited to one article or the other. The Passover has a relationship to Easter and vice versa. Fishhead64 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a wonderful idea, Pecher. Maybe Fishhead64 will do the honors since he is evidently knowledgeable. I'm in no way a professional at it, but my journeys have brought me in contact with people of many religions and denominations (but a tiny fraction of the world's) so I've heard people discuss their own religions in their own terms (and sometimes their beliefs about others'). I fully except that most religious people consider their own religion "the best" or "the true religion," but I think everyone should at least understand other religions, and when two great religious traditions are bound by common threads (even if spoiled by terrible conflict) it is well to understand them. Oh, and my post-sermon message. This is an encyclopedia: readers deserve to know this stuff if they're interested, even if they profess no religion at all. -- Cecropia

I just took a look at the Easter article, and it's full of references to Passover. It also discusses such issues as Christian groups that are against the celebration of Easter, and Pagan influences. -- Cecropia 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What has been done to this article on the very first day of Passover is going to make me lose my faith in Wikipedia. If you look at the top of this discussion page, you will see a lot of discussion about whether or not to include Christian views of Passover in this Jewish-oriented article. Obviously, there are marked differences between the way Christians and Jews think about and celebrate Passover. The consensus was to make two separate articles. Now along comes Fishhead64 who (in all good faith) decides to put the articles back together again. In my opinion, Fishhead64 should devote his significant writing talents to rewriting the Passover (Christian holiday) article, because he will be able to present the information better than the way that article looks now. However, the whole section he added here has nothing to do with the Jewish Passover. And the first thing the reader sees when he opens this page is a clear directional reference: "Do you want to read about the Christian Passover? Then click here. Do you want to read about the Jewish Passover? Then keep reading." How could anything be encyclopedically clearer? Yoninah 22:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect for your traditions, and understanding the root of your upset, no article in Wikipedia is an advertisement for a particular point-of-view on a particular subject. If this article is not to include the accurate and relevant views of another religion with strong ties to Judaism on Passover, then Passover should be a disambiguation page, and this entire article should be moved to Passover in the Jewish religious view or Jewish traditions of Passover. I could see any number of things objectionable to one or another Christian group in the Easter article, including extensive refrences to Paasover, but would take none of it taken out, unless it were irrelevant or wrong. -- Cecropia 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cecropia: What makes you think that my "traditions" are the "root of my upset"? The "root of my upset" is that every editor is enjoyed to look at the article's talk page before he goes in and starts reworking things. To quote Wikipedia policy:

• If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject, it's a good idea to first read the article in its entirety, read the comments on the talk page, and view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. It's also worth reading around some related articles, as what you thought was a problem or omission may vanish after you have followed a few links.

• If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references.

• Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wikipedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.

I don't know about you, but when I see an article that needs expansion or rewriting, I first take the time to look through the corresponding talk page to see if what I want to add/change has already been aired and discussed. If it hasn't been mentioned, I act boldly and go in and edit/write. Now I am pointing out that Fishhead64 neglected to look at this talk page first and basically inserted something that other editors already decided to separate into a different article. And you're backing him as if no one ever thought of his approach before. If you want to open a new discussion, fine, but don't regard his addition as a fait accompli.

BTW, if it's more clear to you to make Passover a disambiguation page, with directs to Christian and Jewish traditions, I'm all for it. But doesn't the page as it stands make that same point? Yoninah 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I did look at the talk page, and the article Passover (Christian holiday), which is frankly bizarre. Passover is not a Christian holiday, and the article in question definitely reflects a minority (and largely unreferenced) position. Quite frankly, I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. My contribution has nothing to do with viewing Passover as a separate Christian holiday. Rather, Passover has importance in the Christian tradition qua Passover — hence, it seems to be perfectly logical that Passover's bearing and place in a major faith tradition such as Christianity would be of encyclopedic interest in an article on Passover. What am I missing?

I regret the haste with which I made the change, but the article had been already vandalized (in my opinion) between the time I posted my suggestion and the time I made the edits by an individual inappropriately inserting New Testament passages. Knowing the history of such activity, I felt my good faith insertion would deter future insensitivity. Fishhead64 01:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, Passover is not only a religious event, it is an historical event, with significance in world and social history. As Passover has deep significance for Jews, it does also for Christians. To quote from Encyclopedia Britannica:

The term Easter, commemorating the Resurrection of Christ, comes from the Old English easter or eastre, a festival of spring; the Greek and Latin Pascha, from the Hebrew Pesah, "Passover." The earliest Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of the first (paschal) full moon of the first month of spring (Nisan 14–15). By the middle of the 2nd century most churches had transferred this celebration to the Sunday after the Jewish feast. But certain churches of Asia Minor clung to the older custom, for which they were denounced as "Judaizing."

This shows not only the direct lineal descent of Easter from Passover, both religiously and linquistically, but also how the Catholic Church at the time tried to separate itself from the Jewish tradition.

I don't want to be in a fight with the people here, but as a Wikipedian I want those who come here to have the advantage of the best, most accurate, and most extensive information possible. I feel this sets Wikipedia apart from most centrally-edited encyclopedias. By your quoting of Wikipedia policy pages, I am a little taken aback by the extent to which instruction creep has taken hold here, and how well, "bureaucratic" Wikipedia has become. -- Cecropia 01:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, it is not Wikipedia policy to omit references to related topics. Neither is it Wikipedia policy to omit mention of other points of view from an article. The decision to put Christian-related content in a separate article is all well and good (although it's rather roughly done - some content is just as relevant in Easter as Passover (Christian holiday) - and the theology should probably be a longer separate article referenced from both - and indeed from here) but that does not preclude mention of Christian beliefs on this page.

Just because people don't like such content on the article doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. This is an encyclopaedia, not fragmented work where those most closely linked to each subject area have exclusive reign over it.

zoney ♣ talk 11:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fishhead64 and Cecropia: It is not my nature to hold up one side of an argument by myself, but I felt I needed to say something in defense of the previous consensus before more time goes by. I understand your rationale for writing this sub-section, Fishhead64, and I appreciate that all the New Testament quotes have been erased from it. I also understand (and agree) with Cecropia's desire to put Passover into a historical context that jives with Christianity's Easter. And I am gratified that everyone is acting in good faith. But I would like to ask you all to wait another week or so until most of the Jewish editors who have worked on this article over the past year-plus are back on-line again after Passover, so we can discuss this addition more two-sidedly. All the best, Yoninah 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly agreeable to me, Yoninah. Perhaps a retitling of the section to something like "Passover's influence on Christianity" would be more appropriate. It is also a good idea to put this on a back burner to wait for other editors to return; of course, no matter what we might hash out now, everyone else would jump in later anyway. I hope this section survives as I think it is informative for all religious traditions or for any reader who wants to be informed. Cheers! Cecropia 15:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Sea?

Is a damn typo! As Moses was the the baby in the "bulrushes" - it actually is the "sea of reeds!" So please fix it. Or I will. - 67.20.71.218 17:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The Passage of the Red Sea hebrew (ים סוף Yam Suf) took place in the Red Sea. There is speculation that the name Red Sea came from a mistranslation of what should have been the Reed Sea in the Biblical story of the Exodus. The Sea of Reeds (in Hebrew Yâm-Sûph) may have been mistranslated as the "Red Sea". I see no reason not to use it more common name. Jon513 18:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been to the sea? Its red! :D eeemess 14:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The name "Yam Suf" should be used when speaking of the body of water that Moshe and our people crossed. It is more accurate and every Jew worth his kippa would agree.

Pre-Israelite Passover Origins?

While Pesach does celebrate the exodus and independence of ancient Israel from ancient Egypt, some scholars out there DO see pre-Israelite or at the very least pre-Exodus origins of several Passover customs. Some say there was a Springtime Festival and a Festival of Unleavened Bread, others say there was a springtime festival involving unleavened bread. We ought to consider the ideas of those scholars, too. That being said, the exodus and independence from Egypt played an enormous role in the holday's origins. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between Passover and Christianity is intimate. How one accepts that, regardless of religious belief, may depend on how one views Christianity. If Christianity is viewed as a completely separate religious tradition that is at its core antagonistic to Judiasm, and simply appropriates Judaism's symbols selectively, that guides one perspective. That perspective is, of course, understandable in light of more than a millennium of often violent attacks on Jews and Jewish institution. OTOH, if you view (or are able to include in your view) that Christianity is not a "foreign" religion to Judaism but a branch of the Jewish root that is a much different perspective. If you believe that Jesus was the Mosiach, then Christianity is Judaism. (Please don't hurt me, that is an assumption that can cause a lot of trouble, but it follows logically). Having said all that, I am not too sympathetic to giving a lot of play to "pre-Exodus" theories unless they're very compelling and well-founded. It is no surprise that seasonly based festivals (spring, harvest, solstices) go back to pre-history; but I am cautious about putting in material (or if using it, making it too prominent) that may simply be contrarian. I just did a bunch of editing at Coney Island because some people are in love with the idea that the name is of Irish origin when most sources point to Dutch. There is always a market for telling people that things aren't what they think they are. -- Cecropia 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely right, Cecropia. Christianity just didn't descend from the clouds. It began as a Jewish sect, hence it is entirely understandable that a Jewish festival like Passover should play a prominent role. This is why I object to an article like Passover (Christian holiday) - that sort of thing really is a sort of supercessionist appopriation. Passover, as a Jewish festival plays an important role in the Christian tradition, both in terms of providing a metaphor for Jesus' sacrificial self-offering, and as a metaphor for the sacrament of the Eucharist. Those metaphorical understandings flow from the Jewish festival, hence the importance of including it as a section in an article on the Jewish festival.

Incidentally, there remain so many Jewish customs in Christian liturgy, I'm thinking of writing up something to add to an existing article on Christian liturgy or as a stand-alone. Fishhead64 19:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone might need to subscribe to JSTOR... — Rickyrab | Talk 12:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one, more on an amatuer basis. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is potentially very interesting. I am only asking that we evaluate this before changing the article.Timothy Usher 12:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And a Christian perspective — Rickyrab | Talk 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) An Unitarian reverend's take — Rickyrab | Talk 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Temple Israel's take — Rickyrab | Talk 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) By all means, let's go ahead and investigate. Wikipedia is not a collection of random possible opinions of random people. Oh wait, yes it is. Please, this article is about the Jewish holiday. There really is a need for Passover (disambiguation). eeemess 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, so why did you delete "Passover in the Christian tradition"? The section dealt entirely with the Jewish holiday. Fishhead64

While we're at it

nice liberal Haggadah :) — Rickyrab | Talk 12:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Rickyrab: Excuse me, but there is no place for all your pseudo-scholarly "references" on pre-Israelite Passover celebrations, or alternative perspectives presented from any and every conceivable point of view. If you want a source for Passover, simply look up the verses in the Torah and you'll see exactly when and why God commanded the Jewish people to keep this holiday. All the other hypotheses should be condensed into a small, speculative section in this article. Yoninah 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your comment expresses strictly religious point of view. As long as there is a history section ("Origins of the feast") in this article, there should be some place for grounded historical assumptions (from trustworthy sources, of course); Torah is a source for them, but not the only one. (I am not a historian and cannot judge about the content itself, this is why I don't touch this section.) --Yms 07:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yms, I disagree that the academic/alternative view should be omitted, but Yoninah is rightly suggesting it should have its proper place - in a seperate section. Articles on similar religious phenomena tend to portray them from the "inside", leaving critical/extraneous analysis for later. JFW | T@lk 08:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

end of the Korban Pesach

The article reads "When the Holy Temple was standing, the focus of the Passover festival was the offering of a lamb or kid...". I am pretty sure that the Korban Pesach continued even after the distruction for some time. The Pesach is the only Korban that can be brought even without the Temple. Jon513 14:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Passover in the Christian tradition, again

Izak, it would have been courteous if you had chosen to discuss your excision of this section prior to doing so. This matter was discussed some weeks ago, and no one seriously challenged the proposition that the section is about the Jewish holiday, and its impact on the Christian tradition. Passover is not a Christian holiday, except perhaps in some fringe movements, and I challenge you to point to any liturgical formularies of the major denominations that suggest that it is. Rather than get into a reversion war, I'd appreciate an explanation of how, in your estimation, the section in question was not relevant to the Jewish holiday. Fishhead64 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is an article about Passover, and should not be yet another "platform" to broadcast what Chritianity has to say about Passover or anything else related to Judaism. If you like, create another article, called: Passover in the Christian tradition, which is fine, but an article about Passover, which is a Jewish holiday and part of Judaism should remain as such. In any case, are we now going to have all aspects of Judaism seen in the light of "the Christian tradition" because after all Christianity is based on much of Judaism to start with? So let us try to avoid confusion and keep the two domains, and religions, seperate as far as possible. Using links as cross-references should be sufficient and should suffice. IZAK 03:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have created the new article Passover in the Christian tradition and placed the relevant material that belongs there unedited. Thank you. IZAK 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You provide a lot of "should" statements, but you don't actually address the central point, namely the relevance of the material to the article. This is not a matter of broadcasting a sectarian perspective, but of providing information in order to provide a fuller picture of the meaning of Passover as a Jewish holiday. Do you seriously believe that the integrity of the article is threatened because of one rather brief section providing information on the holiday's place in another major world faith tradition? Your proposal seems to suggest that there should be a sectarian-based segregation of the concept, for reasons that you don't really articulate. To the best of my knowledge, Passover is the only Jewish holiday that has had a significant impact on the Christian tradition, and (you have to admit) it's a pretty significant one. In any event, as you imply, Judaism has played a major role in Christian formation and what Judaism had to say about the nascent Christian movement is not an uncommon feature of Wikipedia articles. And where such discussion doesn't exist, it should. Fishhead64 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've since seen your most recent comment. Why do you prefer a reversion war to discussion and, perhaps, compromise? Your move, done without discussion and consensus, goes against Wikipedia policy, does it not? Fishhead64 04:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead: 1) What do you mean by "providing information in order to provide a fuller picture of the meaning of Passover as a Jewish holiday"? Passover as a Jewish holiday, means just that, Passover as a Jewish holiday, without Christian addendums or whatnots. 2) "one rather brief section providing information on the holiday's place in another major world faith tradition", the way it's presented, undermines the entire Jewish religious purpose and intellectual integrity of the holiday by connecting it so thoroughly to another religion. 3) "a sectarian-based segregation of the concept" is actually a very good idea when the ideas and concepts are too complex and detailed for one article. That is why there are other articles such as Christian views of Hanukkah, List of Christian claims of fulfilled Bible prophecies, Quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament. 4) If "Passover is the only Jewish holiday that has had a significant impact on the Christian tradition" then it most certainly deserves an article of its own, such as Passover in the Christian tradition. 5) "what Judaism had to say about the nascent Christian movement is not an uncommon feature" should be in articles devoted to that topic but it is unfair and facetious to expect that articles relating to Judaism should become hosts for other discussions that can be dealt with in other articles. See Category:Jewish Christian topics for such-type articles. IZAK 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Izak, responding to each of your points in turn:

1) If you were consistent in the viewpoint that the article was simply about the Jewish holiday, you wouldnt have added "Christian addendums and whatnots" portraying the Christian response to the holiday in a negative light. YOU have decided to limit the article to what YOU think is the appropriate content, and have gone out of your way to remove the material to other articles without prior discussion. This is, frankly, bad Wikiquette.

2) A brief passage on the place of Passover in Christianity doesnt connect the holiday "so thoroughly to another religion." Is this brief mention really so threatening to the "entire Jewish purpose and intellectual integrity" of the holiday? It merely says, hey, the holiday also has an important role outside Judaism. One would think that this positive influence is something to celebrate, not tremble at.

3) "The ideas and concepts are too complex and detailed for one article." This ain`t particle physics we are talking about here. This seems a rather transparent fig leaf for your own antipathy of taste to having Christian material in the article at all.

4) While Passover is the only Jewish festival to have had a major impact on the Christian tradition, I do not think that this perforce means that it deserves its own article. The brief section seemed to summarize the importance fully, and did so in the appropriate context (Passover). We are not talking about something other than Passover here. We are talking about Passover as the Jewish holiday, and its impact outside Judaism.

5) This is an article that relates to Judaism, and the section related itself to Judaism by examining the impact of the article`s topic in a specific context.

Ultimately, whether or not the article should be parsed into different articles seems unnecessary proliferation of categories, to my thinking. In any event, it should be a matter for discussion, not arbitrary action that encourages edit warring. In order to avoid that, would you be willing to participate in a reference to the Mediation Committee? Fishhead64 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishead, in response to the above:

1. An article about Passover, a Jewish holiday only, should be about Passover, and it should not swing towards tangents ("whatnots") because when readers want to know about this festival they will be looking for Jewish content (since it's a Jewish festival 100%), not someone's original research about THEORIES that purport to link Passover with xyz. Let me ask you, do articles about Christmas or Ramadan have paragraphs in them that "sign off" those articles by mentioning how those festivals link up with Judaism since both those holidays and their religions are spin-offs from Judaism in the theological sense? And since they don't, we should see it as proof positive that what you are proposing here is not called for (unless you want to create a new article outside of it, and see how it is received.)
2. There are three links to the connection with Christianity in the See related articles which are more than adequate and are easily accessed.
3. This is TOUGHER than "particle physics we are talking about here" so your condescension about Passover reveals how little you know about its importance to Judaism.
4. All the Jewish festivals have had an impact on Christianity, not just Passover, but to flood all the articles about Jewish festivals with all the threads that lead to other religions, especially, could easily drown out any primary and axiomatic MEANING to the Jewish festivals themselves if allowed to go unchecked.
5. You can tie anything back to Judaism since Judaism is an ancient religion that has had many influences, but it would be a mistake to confuse the impact Judaism has had with the "real thing" which in this case is the Jewish holiday of Passover part of Judaism itself. Other issues can be dealt with in other contexts in other articles.

Thus I don't think that it is your or Wikipedia's job to present to the world theories about Passover, when all the readers of this article will want to do is to get a better understanding of the holiday as a Jewish festival ALONE, and not some metaphysical projection of wishfull thinking of how Passover influenced the tooth fairy. As for mediation, it is premature to think of it at this time, but I would like to see if I can get some other knowledgeable editors to add their comments here first (a few have already earlier said what I am saying now above already, when we were away celebrating Passover...) IZAK 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Izak, you do make some reasonable points, and I truly believe that reasonable people can disagree as to the best course of action with respect to this issue. I believe your idea of bringing other editors in to comment is a wise first step, and to that end I will place this discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Two parenthtical comments. First, originally the section was referenced, but the references were removed by a subsequent editor, and I never put them back in. This is not original research. Second, I find the accusation of condecension a little disingenuous given your rather gratuitous comment about "metaphysical projection of wishfull thinking of how Passover influenced the tooth fairy." That bespeaks a far greater condescension towards Christianity than my perhaps thoughtless remark did, and is frankly quite an unwarranted slur. Fishhead64 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Izak appears to have things under control, but since you requested comments, I do have a few.

First, it seems disingenuous for you to go so far as to threaten mediation when you introduced the section in question without prior discussion, and without regard for the multitude of comments on this talk page. It's quite clear from reading through here that this issue was resolved previously with the decision to create a seperate page for christian views - if you don't like that page, make changes there, don't ignore decisions made by previous editors. I'm also less than impressed that the section in question was inserted at a time when it was clear that many of the people who helped create the page would be away for some time, but as recommended above, I'll assume good faith for now.

As for the issue at hand, I completely agree with Izak. Passover is exclusively a Jewish holiday, and should be treated as such. Articles should contain information solely about the subject at hand, with cross-references to related subjects. Christianity has no place in an article about a Jewish holiday simply because it has nothing to do with passover. If you believe that passover has something to do with christianity, I fully support a seperate entry detailing this (and there already is one), but it doesn't belong here. Dbratton 09:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Does mediation constitute a "threat"? I thought it was a means of resolving disputes in a peaceful manner. Dbratton, if you read the comments upthread thoroughly, you would see the rationale for distinguishing this section from Passover (Christian holiday). The section had nothing to do with what most Christians would assert is the erroneous claim that Passover is a Christian holiday. The section, as I grow somewhat weary of pointing out, had everything to do with the Jewish holiday, in the context of its influence on the Christian tradition. Hence, I categorically reject your charge that I "ignored" a prior consensus which dealt with a completely unrelated topic. Thanks for assuming good faith, though, that's very kind.

Please explain how the contents of the section had nothing to do with Passover? If you read the contents (now over at Passover (Christian tradition), I believe you will see that the section has (I repeat again) everything to do with the Jewish holiday. If the section "doesn't belong here" an appeal to something other than tenacity would be helpful. Fishhead64 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fishhead,

I worded the mediation bit too strongly, and I apologize. It seems to me that a suggestion for mediation at such an early stage of a disagreement is an attempt to get the other party to back down, but I can understand if you didn't intend it this way. No hard feelings.

Whether or not we agree that this topic has been discussed previously, it's clear from this talk page that previous edits introducing material regarding christian interpretations of the holiday engendered a great deal of discussion and disagreement. When you went ahead and wrote your section without prior consultation with the people involved in these discussions or in the creation and maintainence of this page, it was obviously going to cause problems.

As to the content of your section, I completely agree that it had to do with Passover - there's no question about that. The issue is that Passover, in the form known to the overwhelming majority of people, has little to nothing to do with christianity. User:Jon513 made the point quite well below, that while Passover provides a historic context for the christian interpretations that you detail, these interpretations have no influence or bearing on Passover. To that end, it makes much more sense to put the information in your section in an article about these aspects of christianity, but not in an article about a holiday which in its known and practiced form has nothing to do with christianity. Dbratton 22:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is unreservedly accepted. I had no hostile intent, but rather was taken aback by IZAK's abrupt editorial activity, without prior discussion on the talk page. I still hold that this was bad Wikiquette, and my intent was to try to stave off what I feared would become a spiral into a hostile editing war.

As to your second point, there are numerous articles which deal with aspects of ideas or events which have no influence or bearing on the original idea or event. An analogous situation is found in Easter and Christmas. These are Christian festivals, yet the articles concerning them include discussions of the secular interpretations. Fishhead64 23:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead: What is the connection between the "tooth fairy" and Christianity, if there is one I fail to see it? Passover existed for over one thousand three hundred years before anyone ever dreamt there would be a religion called Christianity, and thus the only point I am trying to drive home here is that one can find traces of the influence of Judaism, its Torah and Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) and their Jewish holidays everywhere... even on the tooth fairy if a "tooth fairy scholar" would wish to do so, no doubt he could since Judaism has many Kabbalistic teachings as well! Therefore, to avoid a "log-jam" and and misdirection of attention by readers who wish to know what Passover is and not what a "Christain (view of a) Passover" is, the focus of this article and this discussion should remain on that of Passover as a Jewish holiday and not detract from that logical goal by entering into a million-and-one ways that Passover is tied in with other religions and practices (tooth fairy included.) IZAK 06:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, claim that Passover's influence on Christianity is so great, it deserves its own article, while at the same time claim that to include a section on Passover in the Christian tradition in this article would open the floodgate to a "million and one ways" in which Passover has influenced the world, its societies, and cultures. What would be just right in your opinion?

As to your other point, a section concerning Christianity and Passover doesn't dominate the article. Users will find the bulk of the article deals with the origin and celebration of the Jewish holiday. They will also find out about its history, which should logically include its history outside Judaism. To claim it shouldn't is to claim that the article should be particular, based on sectarian grounds, and not universal.

If readers come here not expecting to find a section on Passover in the Christian tradition, then maybe they will be interested and intrigued to read about this important way Passover has ahd an influence beyond Judaism. And other readers who click on Passover in articles dealing with Christian themes, will find the full context of the holiday in one article. One stop encyclopedic shopping seems infinitely more parsimonious then flipping hither and yon unnecessarily. Fishhead64 21:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Oy! IZAK, whether or not this should be in a separate article, how could you substitute such an incredibly POV section? There are appropriate places for the terrible historical interactions of Christians and Jews, but that isn't it. Would you prefer a "pure" pre-John XXIII Catholic Christian view be the prevailing view today? Is this a way to engage honest Christians (or Jews) who wish to find areas of commonality instead of conflict? And encyclopedically speaking, that "Jewish sources" do not affirm the nature of the Last Supper vis a vis Passover is irrelavent. Would you go to only Christian sources to speak of the historicity of Jesus? Guess we can't use anything from Josephus. -- Cecropia 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm missing something, IZAK, but it doesn't seem to me that the excised section gives a Christian view of a Jewish holiday; i.e., I don't see where Passover is reinterpreted in conflict with the history of practice of Passover by Jews. Rather the section illustrates how Jews (which included everybody at the "Last Supper," including (obviously?) Jesus) who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and their descendents who became "Christians" and spread this belief to former heathens view the importance of Passover. -- Cecropia 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cecropia: Jews historically suffered from Blood libels at Passover time in Christian lands, that is a well-known fact, why do you have trouble swallowing it? FYI, those "who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and their descendents who became "Christians" and spread this belief to former heathens view the importance of Passover" are Jewish Christians or Jews for Jesus and have no connection with normative Judaism, so I fail to see the connection with a definitive article about a Jewish holiday such as Passover. IZAK 04:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To take the last first, because Passover is more than a Jewish holiday--it is an historical event with context beyond Judaism in its imagery and practice. Now to the blood libel: we have a separate article covering it rather extensively. It is certainly one of the more remarkable myths in the world, since it is based on an alleged practice that is anathema to Jews. AFAIK Judaism is the only non-vegetarian religion which completely forbids the consumption of blood. Christians can have their blutwurst or rare hunk of unsoaked steak to their heart's content, but Jews cannot. Yes, Passover (or more correctly, the days leading up to Easter) has historically been a time of special persecution of Jews. Where I grew up in Brooklyn Jews and Catholics were the number 1 and 2 religious groups. The kids at the public school (Jewish or not) knew when the Catholic School (pre-John XXIII) taught about the crucifixion because that was when groups of Catholic boys would come around hoping to find a lone Jewish kid to beat up. But we are talking about different issues here that can both be in the Passover article: Christian religious tradition and Passover, and Christian persecutions at Passover. But they shouldn't be in the same section. -- Cecropia 05:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since you bring up "Jewish Christians," these are movements I have a hard time understanding, since their philosophy seems to be inherently contradictory. Comparative religion has been a hobby of mine since I was in the US Army, but it seems to me that a Jew who believes that Jesus was the messiah is a "Christian," and that a Christian who considers himself a Jew is simply acknowledging the Jewish root of Christianity. After all the "Christian Bible" is the Jewish Bible adopted whole with relatively few additional sections. IMO, in the modern context "Jewish Christians," "Jews for Jesus," are proselytizing groups trying to make a better connection with Jews, not a separate religious grouping. -- Cecropia 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The top of the article says this article is about the Jewish holiday

Having a christian section contrary to what the article claims to be. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Remind me again how the section in question deviated from discussing the Jewish holiday. Fishhead64 05:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fishhead: If presented in the context of Christian theology, which not all of us around here subscribe to (since some of us are, errr Jewish), then it is no longer Jewish but rather it becomes a "Christian POV of Passover". Why is that not clear? IZAK 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't about Judaism, but about Passover. Passover has an impact beyond Judaism. Since the vast bulk of the article (with the Christian tradition section) dealt with the history, form, and content of the Jewish holiday, I can't see how the article itself becomes a Christian POV of Passover. Instead, it contains points of view about Passover, again, the vast majority of which is appropriately Judaic. Fishhead64

If anthropologists could trace the roots of a Passover ritual to pre-Israelite cultures, would it then be inappropriate to mention its Jewish development? Of course not! Similarly, parts of the Christian tradition have considered their beliefs and practices not only as a continuation of the Jewish Passover, but as a fulfilment of the very essence of its meaning. Some Christian theologians have gone so far as to consider the Jewish practice altogether void, and aspects of Christianity therefore the only true 'Passover'. Surely therefore an article on 'Passover' must mention this understanding of it, however remote it may seem to the Jewish understanding of the word, and perhaps particularly because it is so different. So long as the relation of the two interpretations of 'Passover' is explained neutrally (i.e. not that the Jewish is obsolete or that the Christian is a perversion), the Wikipedia reader is given the full range of meanings without a distorting POV. --ADMH 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in question discusses the Jewish holiday. The controversial section discussed the Christian view of Passover, referring to various non-Jewish works which post-date Christianity's split from Judaism. As such, the section may well be appropriate in Passover (Christian holiday), but is irrelevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Passover is not a Christian holiday. As I asked Izak upthread, I challenge anyone to produce a liturgical formulary of any (bar fringe sects) which identify Passover as a Christian holiday. Passover is a Jewish holiday, and its influence on Christianity is as a Jewish holiday. Fishhead64 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sure, given a little time, Wikipedia editors could come up with dozens of associations between Passover and every other event under the sun, lengthening this article considerably. It is Wikipedia policy, however, to place topic offshoots into different, linked articles. IMO, the extra section about Christian theology is completely out of place with the whole tenor of this article, which describes Jewish holiday observance. I agree with IZAK's idea of creating the separate article, Passover in the Christian tradition, and giving it a See also reference here. Yoninah 16:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not this constitutes a topic offshoot is precisely the matter under consideration. Conceivably, anything could be so considered. Perhaps a reasonable compromise may be to do what other such "headline" articles do: Have a brief section describing x, and then provide a fuller treatment in an offshoot article. I'd be happy to shorten the disputed section down to a few sentences. Fishhead64 21:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I added material, both top and bottom, to put Passover and its relationship to Christianity in a historic context, including also ways that Easter consciously (even offensively, in some ways) broke from Passover. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a religious celebration. -- Cecropia 16:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This Encylopedia claims the article is about a Jewish holiday. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have read most of the preceding comments and I have a few points to make

1. Cecropia, thank you for reminding us that "this is an encyclopedia, not a religious celebration." You seem to think that some editors have forgotten this as you repeat this many times. I assure you that no one thinks that this is a religious celebration. In general I think it is better if people focus on what people say, not why they say it.
2. The main issue, as I see it, is that ideas are often built on earlier ideas. The later idea should reference the earlier idea, but for the earlier idea to reference the later is out of context. For example, the Hanukkah mentions only in passing that Kwanzaa is based on it. Kwanzaa however should explain how it traces parts of its root to Hanukkah and explains how it was developed. Also Zionism is based on Nationalism. How Zionism was derived by nationalism (among other source) is explain in Zionism, and the nationalism article only in passing mentions Zionism.
3. As for "put[ting] Passover and its relationship to Christianity in a historic context, including also ways that Easter consciously (even offensively, in some ways) broke from Passover" I think that Cecropia has a good point but is a bit off. Passover provides historic context for Easter, but Easter does not provide context for Passover. A person can understand everything these is to know about the holiday of Passover without knowing about Easter.
4. ADMH asked "If anthropologists could trace the roots of a Passover ritual to pre-Israelite cultures..." should we mention it (btw Passover does not trace it root to any other cultures that know of beside any general spring holidays see Maimonides's Guide for the Perplexed for more about this ). ADMH says yes. I agree. I think that any idea, holiday, or movement should talk about the connection and development from earlier ideas in that article . ADMH goes on to explain how Christian idea should be explain here. I disagree. The connection should be explained in the later idea, not in the article about the idea, holiday or movement from which it was derived.
5. The Christian articles ( Easter, Passover (Christian holiday) etc) should be in the see also section so reader can learn more about how the idea of Passover was latter developed by Christianity.
6. As far as Passover in the Christian tradition, I am not sure if the article has merit. The fact that the last super might have been a Passover Seder is a statement about the last super not the Passover Seder And should be merged there (I am pretty sure it is already there). If it is kept it should also be in the see also. Jon513 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I just stopped in from RfC. Here are my very brief thoughts. How is Passover in the Christian tradition not a POV fork? If the argument is that this article is about a Jewish holiday, so the only POV valid in this article is the Jewish one, then I think you have POV issues. Next, I think it is terrible to have both Passover in the Christian tradition AND Passover (Christian holiday). Here is my idea. Merge the former with the latter, make a consice 4-5 sentence paragraph to add to this article, with a main tag pointing to the latter. And perhaps add any other relevent non-Jewish POVs to this article as well (historical? secular?).--Andrew c 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename this article!

If there is no place for a historical discussion of Passover and its relevence in the broader context of the world, this article should be retitled Passover (Jewish holiday). Yes, I will take the point that most of the contributors to this article are probably Jewish, but most Wikipedians are not, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate people seeking knowledge. Do all the Jewish people here really think that the purpose of the article is to educate Jews in their own celebration? Do you think such crap as "{...] these hotels assemble a package of lectures, children's activities, tours and a "rabbi in residence" to entertain Passover guests. Each meal is a demonstration of the chefs' talents in turning the basic foodstuffs of Passover into a culinary feast." is relevant to an encyclopedia? Aren't such culinary tricks kind of blasphamous?--in the desert the Exodus Jews didn't have leaven. They also didn't have Master Chefs. Nice concept to remember the suffering of your people by trying to find ways to make a nod to that suffering while enjoying yourself as much as possible. Next we're going to be quoting Maimonides about the Borscht Belt. A fully self-referential article has no place having an unqualified name in Wikipedia. -- Cecropia 17:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to eliminate worthless, non-traditional trivia, if that is your problem. HKT 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You have abused your power. You have pushed your POV without a debate. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry something seems wrong with my cache. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, what an anti-semitic comment. Do you want one in return? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I can take it. But first tell me what comment specifically is anti-Semitic. -- Cecropia 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Cecropia intended to make a anti-semitic comment, but it does sound more like it is commenting on the contributors than the content.--Shanel ^§ 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

While using words like "crap." Right.... ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. The word "crap" is rude, but anti-Semitic? I did not call Jewish observance of Passover, or its origin, or the Seder "crap," I referred to the inclusion in an article in which a scholarly Christian reference must be excised but mention of chefs who are (frankly) figuring out ways to make a personal sacrifice in remembrance of suffering into a "culinary feast." That's encyclopedic "crap."

Moving this article without any even remotely legitimate reason and without prior discussion is absoilutely pathetic and disruptive. Cecropia seems to be willing just to make a point to infuriate the editors who dare disagreeing with her. The article must be moved back: Passover is Jewish holiday, and their is no need to disambiguate, especially in such a rude and disruptive manner. Pecher ^Talk 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to "just" make a point. As a Wikipedian, I feel that an article's title must be descriptive. Since one or another contributor seems intent on "owning" this article despite various reasoned discussion, then the article NEEDS to be renamed to represent the POV that dominates. Any religiously or nationally or ethnically-based article is bound to have people who want it interpreted ONLY according to their tradition, but this is neither proper nor encyclopedic. I am fully aware of the implied insult of having Christianity even mentioned in an article about a Jewish holiday, but that still doesn't make it permissible if the insertion is factual and respectful. Ems2 not only paid Wikipedia the disrespect of cutting an entire informative section, but he paid me the personal disrepect of not discussing the changes I had just made to make the article better, which also included criticism of Christianity's handling of Passover. If the article on Easter can include references to Easter's pagan background, and also talk about Christian groups that refuse to celebrate the holiday, I think Passover can contain some valid historical material unless, of course, it is properly titled Passover (Jewish holiday). If you woner what my added material was, you will have to look at the history, since Ems simplky deleted it, not even preserving it in the "Christian" article. -- Cecropia 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We're gonna need Christmas (Christian holiday), methinks, for the sake of "broader context of the world". This would contrast nicely with other spin-off articles (soon to be created), which could be devoted to purely cultural forms of celebration, such as ibid. (American holiday). HKT 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, your humorous irony notwithstanding, we don't need a Christmas (Christian holiday) article because the Christmas article includes religious celebration, relationship to such pagan rights as Saturnalia, Celtic origins, secular celebrations (very non-Christian countries such as Japan have Christmas and Santa Claus--not to mention the latter is very non-Biblical), the Christmas Tree (prohibited in the bible--a primarily Germanic pagan symbol), Christmas cards and the ever-popular crass commercialization of Christmas. Now excise all but the way observant Christians celebrate religiously, and yes, the article should be titled Christmas (Christian holiday). So I believe you have made my point rather than refuted it. Cheers, Cecropia 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet you seem to have a problem with inclusion of (to paraphrase you with some changes) "the ever-popular crass commercialization of Passover. Now excise all but the way observant Jews celebrate religiously, and yes, the article should be titled Passover (Jewish holiday). So I believe you have made my point rather than refuted it." P.S. Disclaimer: The article should not be retitled in any event. Above wording was maintained for the sake of "humorous irony". See my comments below. HKT 18:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While I may agree with your point, you should always keep in mind WP:POINT. --Andrew c 14:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

When people discuss Passover they usually mean the Jewish holiday. The way Wikipedia articles typically work is that the main topic has the standard name, and other topics are pointed to with a dablink. Thus The Holocaust article deals with the Nazi genocide of 1939-1945, and a dablink at the top points it to other kinds of "Holocausts". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The title is as descriptive as possible; in fact, there are no "other" Passovers except the one discussed here, so there is even no need to disambiguate. Passover in the Christian tradition is not another kind of Passover; it's just an article about some of Passover's influences. Pecher ^Talk 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. There is no Passover except for the Jewish holiday, and again, the deleted section dealt with the impact of the Jewish holiday in the Christian tradition. Hence, one cannot argue that it is irrelevant. As to the charge that it would be better dealt with in a separate article, again (I ask) what are the grounds? There is only one Passover, and it is the Jewish holiday. The real elephant in the room here has been indicated by Cecropia: There is a frank distaste on the part of some editors for "other" religions intruding on an article that is implicitly "owned" by Judaism. A "Christian POV" is being surreptiously woven into an article in order to, oh I don't know, denigrate or water down what the article should be about - i.e., about everything Jewish, and not about pre-Jewish or extra-Judaic contexts. That's pretty arbitrary.

Sadly, what was intended to be a good faith insertion of information that celebrated the multifaith impact of the Jewish holiday, in this case on Christian self-identity, has been regarded instead as a pathogen that must be isolated. Fishhead64 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fishhead,

If you expect everyone to take your edits in good faith, please do so in the edits of everyone else as well. The reason for the preponderance of Jewish editors on this article is merely because it's a commonly known and understood subject in the community. There's no effort to keep out christian ideas specifically; the concern is due entirely to, as you said, the 'watering down' of what the article should be about - Passover. Dbratton 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, dbratton. But it seems a rather finely split hair, since the effect is one and the same. And it is hard not reach the conclusion I outlined, when one sees for example, exchanges such as this one on user talk pages, and the same language ("Christian POV") repeatedly used above. I began this process by assuming good faith and making a sincere attempt to helpfully expand the article, but my motives were declared to be suspect from the outset. Fishhead64 23:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've responded to several editors' points above in a fairly brief time period. Fishhead64 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not kicking out christian POVs. I am rather saying the article clearly says it talking about a Jewish holiday and the Christian tradition is totally out of place in such an article. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

matzo or matzah

This article is switching inbetween spellings. Which one? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Although most people I know pronounce it matzah in normal circumstances, the related Wiki article is titled Matzo, with Matzah redirecting there. I would say to go with consistency and make all the spellings 'matzo'. Dbratton 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care for most common pronoucetion. That is why we have words like "tanakh" that hardly anyone uses. Not even artscroll and they are into that type of stuff (read their intro for chumash with Rashi, they explain why there). Anyway I personally say matzah (like you). Maybe the article should be moved? I don't know anyone that calls it matzo. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 13:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the article is definitely a valid idea. If you bring it up on Talk:Matzo I'll be sure to contribute my support for an investigation into the most common and appropriate spelling. Dbratton 13:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it Matzot? As in "mitzvot" being the plural of "mitzvah" and so Matzot is the plural of Matzah.

Merge tag

Apropos andrewc's excellent point just above the last section (about articles not expressing an exclusive POV and avoiding POV forks), I want to propose placing a merge tag on this article for Passover (Christian holiday) and Passover in the Christian tradition. The examples from articles such as Christmas and Easter provide ample evidence that articles about religious festivals also may include information not directly pertinent to the religious celebration. In what way is Passover different? Fishhead64 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Andrew c's comment, it appears to me that rather than suggesting a merge of all 3 articles - which would contradict the general opinion on this talk page - he's suggesting merging Passover (Christian holiday) and Passover in the Christian tradition together into one article, accompanied by the creation of "a consice 4-5 sentence paragraph" to be added to the Passover article alongside a link to the newly merged page.

I would be willing to try this approach, dependent on what's written into the Passover article. I'm still of the opinion that a link in the 'See Also' section is all that's necessary for this information, but it wouldn't hurt to see how this would look. Maybe it would be beneficial to have a neutral 3rd party write the proposed paragraph? Dbratton 11:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In what way is Passover different? - what a fitting question for this particular article! :) Dbratton 23:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An important distinction is that the Christian holiday called Passover is primarily of an entirely different event that which the classical holiday celebrates, so it is not the same holiday other than in name and superficial historical correlation to an event that is not even the primary focus of the holiday. This is aside from the fact that the Christian holiday is focused on celebrating a point of fundamental disagreement between Christianity and Judaism. (Despite my "humorous irony" above, cultural celebrations of Christmas that do not focus on religion don't entail celebrating an ideology in fundamental contradistinction to the ideology behind the classical religious celebration.)

Let's imagine the following scenario:

There is a notable group of Jews that decided to celebrate Christianity as a holiday focused primarily on an event that occurred around a thousand years ago on Dec. 25. This event was the mass conversion of Christian Crusaders to Judaism. A traditional celebration of this event had been held on Dec. 25 for the past 1000 years. In this new form of the old tradition there is also a tangential commemoration of the importance of Jewish population increase and the importance of becoming a Jewish religious figure, as was Jesus. This notable group of Jews calls the celebration Christmas.

This would not deserve inclusion in the Christmas article, and a disambiguation line at the top of the article would serve as a sufficient reference to a holiday that would resemble Christmas in not much more than name. HKT 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point would have merit were it not for the fact that there is no Christian holiday called Passover. The section Passover in the Christian tradition describes the effect the Jewish holiday had on Christian formation, self-identity, and liturgical tradition. We are not speaking of (a) a different holiday, or (b) a fringe group (Christianity is pretty mainstream!).

Christianity and Judaism do have a fundamental disagreement, namely concerning whether the Messiah has come or not. The effect of Passover in the Christian tradition provides a major faith tradition's POV on Passover (once again) as a Jewish holiday.

I think it is arguable whether a secular celebration of consumerism, which is modern-day secular "Christmas" and "Easter" contradicts Christian teachings, which are fundamentally anti-consumerist and anti-worldly. Many Christians are dismayed by the secular appropriation of the religious festival, but few feel the faith's identity is threatened by it. Fishhead64 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Information on the effect of Passover wouldn't provide a POV on Passover; it would simply present information on Passover's impact on something aside from Passover (as you acknowledge that Passover isn't a Christian holiday). I think that is sufficient justification for a minor mention of all sorts of areas where Passover has had an impact, including a link to Passover in the Christian tradition (probably in the "See Also" section). Not 4 sections on Christian dogma and practice. P.S. Christmas isn't treated as a focused celebration of consumerism, though it often entails a demonstration of consumer economics in action, often by very religious Christians.HKT 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism do have a fundamental disagreement, namely concerning whether the Messiah has come or not. This is not a problem at all. As Daniel writes when the Angel of God came to at the river of Hiddekel: The king of the North will once again raise a multitude greater than the first; at the end of times, years, he will launch an attack with a great army and with vast resources. In those times, many will rise up against the king of the South; and sons of the lawless men of your people will exalt themselves to establish a vision, but they will stumble. The king of the North will come and pour out a mound and conquer a fortified city; the arms of the South will not hold out; his chosen warriors will no strength to withstand." People where destined to stumble and think the Messiah has come around this war. Why is it written in such an unclear way (i.e. why king of north and south)? The answer is found in the last thing the angel told Daniel when speaking to him: As for you, Daniel, obscure the matter and seal the book until the time of the End; let many muse and let knowledge increase. This means write the prophecies in an obscure manner so that their exact meaning remains unclear. People will have to investigate thoroughly and search hard to discern the true intent of these prophecies. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

(I actually debated whether to place a merge tage on Passover (Christian holiday) - this is such a fringe observance that the article might be better off deleted or left alone. I include it for the sake of discussion, especially since so many editors seem to conflate Passover's role in Christian development and the so-called "Christian holiday" of Passover). Fishhead64 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher took it upon him\her self to remove the merge tags as a "disruption" to the article ("why, because they don't deal with the Jewish holiday?" I asked myself). This is highly inappropriate in the midst of a discussion on the matter, and really I fail to see the justification, apart from a desire to shut down discussion. Fishhead64 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Jewish holiday, which is the common understanding of the word. Other topics are in other articles. I see no benefit in merging. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Merging is just another way to insert material that the majority of editors on this page agree is unrelated and unnecessary. See all of the discussion above for reasoning. Dbratton 22:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. See above. HKT 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, the issue has already been decided, so no merge tags are necessary. Pecher ^Talk 08:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been decided to insert a "four or five sentence paragraph," per candrew, and HTK? I could live with that, given the amount of resistance. Fishhead64 16:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's been decided to keep this stuff out per everyone. Pecher ^Talk 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone? Dbratton, HKT, candrew, zoney, Cecropia, Shirhidasha and I certainly don't sign on to that conclusion. Fishhead64 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait to get some more opinions before trying anything. As I said, I would be willing to see how it looks, but I'm as yet still unconvinced. Other editors will probably have thoughts prior to experimenting with this as well. Dbratton 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the basic question is whether is really only one thing, Passover, that Jews and Christians merely have somewhat different views of, or whether there are are two different animals here. One example of how one could conclude there really is a different animal here is that the Christian material on the proposed merge page emphasizes the symbolism of one animal, a lamb, exclusively. But in the Jewish holiday there is no such exclusivity: a kid will do. This is but one of many examples by which the Christian conception tends to select specific elements from the Jewish tradition to focus on and ignore the rest, creating a lense quite diferent from the Jewish one, in addition to adding new elements and giving the ones it chooses new meanings and symbolisms. Thus, what underlies the Christian view is at best a take on the Jewish holiday, a take that is quite different from the Jewish holiday as it has been traditionally observed and perceived. What is important to Christians about the holiday isn't necessarily what is important to Jews. Thus, there would appear to be a different animal involved here, and the readership would be served by separate articles in which the Christian lens can focus on the elements it finds of interest. --Shirahadasha 04:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 09:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the unfortunate thing with all of this is that no one here has ever presented any evidence to show that a discussion of Passover in the Christian tradition deals with anything other than the Jewish holiday. Instead, we've had tenacious assertions of what is or is not appropriate. Excluding content in an article based on sectarian concerns is truly dismaying in an open project like this encyclopedia. When it gets to the point that people perceive a threat to an article's integrity even by the presence of merge tags, you know something more visceral is at work. It is clear to me that a concept of article ownership is alive and well at wikipedia. I believe that some editors would do well to reflect on the meaning of WP:NPOV. My biggest regret is that my belief in multifaith dialogue has been wounded. We can't even talk about cross-fertilization of the Abrahamic religions in the relevant articles. Fishhead64 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

please assume good faith, not everyone who disagrees with you his hopeless biased. Jon513 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that it isn't everyone, but I think that some of the above comments explicitly state what I describe. I feel sectarianism needs to be named when it is articulated in such comments as "a Christian POV" being inappropriate to an article on a Jewish holiday. Beyond sectarianism, I don't know why it would be inappropriate, unless it were somehow irrelevant to Passover. No one has argued against Passover in the Christian tradition being irrelevant to Passover. It's irrelevant to Passover in the Jewish tradition, but not to the holiday itself. In that sense, Cecropia's proposal to retitle this article to Passover (Jewish holiday) seems sadly apt, since the stated intent of some editors is to keep out any material relating to Passover's wider cultural and religious impact - even a four or five sentence summary paragraph! Fishhead64 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhap an analogy might provide some perspective? If one one looks at the Native American articles, one finds discriptions of traditional Native American Culture going into different articles from the general American-culture customs derived from them. Thus there is not one Stickball article, there are two, Stickball (Native American), describing the traditional game, and Stickball, describing the game derived from it. And the Stickball (Native American) article doesn't say a word about later derivations, all language about that is described in the other Stickball article, and it is in this article that it is mentioned that the general American game is derived from the Native American one. And so on down the list. The Sweat Lodge article describes the Native American kind of sweat lodge, not the kind spas and resorts tend to advertise these days. And if you look at the talk pages for e.g. Medicine Man, you'll find Native American editors, with the support of WIKIProject: Indiginous peoples of North America, engaging in a nearly identical debate about the appropriateness of descriptions couched in terms of Anglo perceptions rather than authentic Native American traditions. Thus, Wikipedia indeed has precedent for articles exclusively covering a culture from its own viewpoint when material from one culture becomes borrowed by another, even when the original culture is even more of a minority than Judaism is. If this issue is sent to Admin, perhaps the policy on Judaism articles and the policy on Native American (and various other cultural minority) articles should be the same, one way or the other. --Shirahadasha 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The two situations are not precisely analogous. Sweat lodges and stick ball exist in adapted cultural contexts as activities. Passover exists in Christianity as a metaphor. Parsing off different interpretations of an idea, philosophy, or religious practice has a name - it is called content forking. Therein one will see the guideline described in a nutshell: "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." Fishhead64 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree (I'm not qualified to disagree) with your view that "Passover exists in Christianity as a metaphor", that is, primarily as an intellectual concept. I think the difference is that in Judaism it really is perceived primarily as an activity, as something that is indeed very much like stickball. The analogy is good in one case, not good in the other. I think that's why there's a perception that two different things really are involved. THought of as an intellectual concept, the Jewish and Christian religions present two "perspectives" on something that can be thought of (intellectually) as one thing. But if perceived as an activity like stickball, Jews and Christians do totally different things with regard to Passover -- they're playing different games. --Shirahadasha 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Fishhead, if you expect everyone else to assume that your edits - which could have originally be interpreted as blatant supersessionism taking advantage of Jewish religious timetables - to be completely in good faith, you will have to do so with those of your fellow editors. Checking the entries on Passover on 3 other online encyclopedias:

1. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058669?query=passover&ct=
2. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/P/Passover.asp
3. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575206/Passover.html

reveals no information on christianity whatsoever. The fact that there is an entire article linked to from this page which details the information that you're pushing should be evidence enough of the lack of bias in these matters, especially since it was created by someone that you accuse of being biased against your religion. Also note that so far not a single person here has questioned the existence or relevance of that article.

This is clearly a matter that we disagree on, but I can vouch for the fact that my reasoning is based purely on maintaining the focus of this article to relevant topics - see my contributions to other articles which contain 'multifaith' sections for evidence. You're the one who keeps bringing up our personal religions - are you sure that the problem doesn't lie with your own perceptions?

This has gone on for too long already. You're clearly in the minority on this issue, so please don't lower the discussion to the point of accusations against other editors based on their religions. If you have anything helpful to contribute to the article or the discussion please do, but personally, my patience ran out as soon as you started bringing 'sectarian concerns' into it to make out the thoughts of other editors as less relevant. Dbratton 18:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that I have mischaracterized anyone's motives, I apologise. My perceptions have been shaped by the language others have used, as well as the accusations of bad faith that were levelled at me, which again were couched in sectarian language. If I caused offence, I apologise for that, as well - that was the farthest thing from my intent.

Having said all this, I am still hoping for a satisfactory resolution to this matter based upon your own suggestion above as well as the comments of HKT, candrew, zoney, Cecropia, and Shirhidasha. For the time being, I will hang back and see how the discussion unfolds, since I do not want to further alienate editors with whom I disagree by injecting my perceptions and emotions into my commentary. Fishhead64 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pesah

Who translate like this? ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pesah is an academic transliteration, but with a dot beneath the h to differentiate it from the letter He. --ADMH 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

List of chametz prohibitions

Is this really a commandment?

A prohibition of finding chametz in your domains during Passover (Exodus 12:19).

How can one be prohibited from finding chametz? The one above it also doesn't make sense:

A prohibition of seeing chametz in your domains during Passover.

I have the feeling someone (the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906?) is just interpreting p'sukim as commandments when they are not. Could someone please find a source for this list, and explain the prohibitions better in terms of modern practice? Thank you, Yoninah 09:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The key prohibition is from possessing chametz. --Shirahadasha 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I rewrote the section. Yoninah 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the prohibition is "Finding (or Seeing) the chametz during Passover and not doing anything about it". It's one of the very very rare violations that happen each instant, rather then each occurance. 71.199.123.24 09:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing used in the Hebrew is the passive: "chametz shall not be found" (in your homes), and elsewhere, "shall not be seen" in your homes. ('Bal yera'eh, bal yimatzei'). "Don't find/don't see" is a very poor translation. I fulfill "none shall be found or seen" by doing my best to get rid of it before Passover, and in the unlikely event that I do find some on Passover, getting rid of it ASAP. (There is thus no prohibition on "finding" or "seeing" per se, in fact, if I didn't do a search for Chametz before Passover, I would do one on Passover; similarly, while not a good idea, I could stand in front of a bakery window and look at bread all day long without violating anything.) Does that make sense? TLMD13 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

Dishware

Someone had stated that hag'alah (purging with boiling water) is done for new dishware. To the very best of my knowledge, brand-new dishes get a dip in the mikvah, but don't need purging. I suppose it is possible that there's a very rare (and very extreme, IMHO) chumrah to purge new stuff, but I'd suppose that would be rare enough not to be included here. My best guess is that someone just got all the terms confused when this was written. TLMD13 09:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)TLMD13

In some communities, it is not uncommon to purge new utensils because of non-kosher oils used in the manufacturing, but I've always heard that in terms of metal utensils. I never heard that this problem exists with other materials. So I agree with TLMD13 that the previous writer probably got confused. --Keeves 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Women and a Seder

Removed unsourced claim that only males have a duty to tell the story of the going out of Egypt. There is good, although not universal, authority that women have an obligation to participate in a seder. The Gemorrah mentions that a wife asks her husbands the 4 questions under certain circumstances. And no less a figure than Moshe Feinstein has ruled that women are expected to sit with men at a seder. He used the gemorrah's discussion of a bride blushing at a seder as an indication that women had to have been sitting with men in the days of the Talmud. (This was the basis of his ruling that a mechitzah is not required at a wedding.) A section on the role of women may be in order, although this should perhaps be in the Seder rather than the Passover article. --Shirahadasha 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Pyramid

I watched a video once about a Passover celebration. The people had a small pyramid, and one of the children asked what it was for, so the woman walking them through the Passover celebration responded, "We Jews built the pyramids in Egypt, so that reminds us." Is that pyramid any kind of widespread practice, and if so, should it be mentioned in the article? Ecto 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Ecto,

It sounds like a nice tradition, but as far as I'm aware it's not common. That's based entirely on my personal experience of having never encountered it though, so the experiences of more editors are necessary. Dbratton 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The video was set in the Jewish Heritage Museum in New York (or something along those lines) and the pyramid might have been from an exhibit seperate from the Passover section that just caught the youngster's eye, so the pyramid might not be part of Passover at all. I would think it would have something to do with Passover, though. Ecto 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The pyramid is not a widespread practice at all. The passover seder encourages anything reasonable to be done to encourage children participation. I once heard of a seder where they had tiny plastic jumping frog to illustrate one of the ten plagues. Every family decides how is best to encourage child participation, and those who create there own means of doing so (plastic frogs, pyramids, etc) are the exception rather than the rule. Also, the pyramids were in Egypt before the Jews were enslaved so it is technically incorrect. Nevertheless the point of this "custom" is only to teach the children. Jon513 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Genesis states that the Jewish slaves built a city or two--rather than pyramids--for the Egyptians in Goshen--way to the east of Giza, right? Thanks for your responses, Dbratton and Jon513. Ecto 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

HAPPY PASSOVER ON APRIL 3,2007(April 2 (beginning at sunset)).

It's Mon April 2, 2007 at 17:16 inside Isetann Recto Cinerama Complex,Quiapo,Manila,Metro Manila(Metropolitan Province approx 8 hrs drive SW of Cordon,Isabela),Philippines. Immigrated to Canada in 1976. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/michaelmanalolazo Thanks.

Matzo Baking

Shouldn't this section contain information on the cutom of having penniless widows bake the matzah for Pesach? There is nothing about this in the Matzah article either. Toobsie 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

major edit

There was recently a major edit by User:Ynhockey inappropriately (accidentally?) marked as minor. It should, like all major edits, be reviewed. Jon513 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli language?

Since when was there a language such as Israeli?Vmrgrsergr 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To what are you referring? Is there a mention of a language called Israeli either in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia? --Steven J. Anderson 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Karaite interpretation of counting the omer

The Karaites do not start the count on the 16th of Nisan. I think I'll add this in a footnote. If anyone thinks it needs better attention, it could be brought to the main body.--Hrankowski 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued unencyclopaedic bias

I note this article still contains no reference whatsoever to Easter, not even now a "see also" link (nevermind that there should be a brief discourse on the aspects of Passover that were part of the evolution of Easter).

At present Wikipedia is not even self-consistent due to the omission of any such reference in this article. I refer to the article on "Easter":

In most languages of Christian societies, other than English, German and some Slavic languages, the holiday's name is derived from Pesach, the Hebrew name of Passover, a Jewish holiday to which the Christian Easter is intimately linked.

Anyone care to try excusing themselves and rectifying this? I'm not going to go editing this article just to have an ignorant reversion performed.

zoney ♣ talk 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging Mazzoth

I propose merging the Mazzoth article into a section on academic theories about the origins of the contemporary Passover holiday. Currently the article appears to represent a WP:POVFORK with Passover in the sense that material on the origins of the holiday is currently split by point of view. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)