Talk:Afikoman

i removed "(assuming that the books were thoroughly dusted and cleaned from all traces of chametz);" because it was superfluous. Wouldn't we then have to check everything (had we not already)?

The first section says "The children "steal" the piece of matzah, usually wrapped in a napkin, and find a hiding place for it until after the meal." However, it is the adults who hide the afikoman and the head of the household must barter or negotiate to buy back the afikoman from the child who first finds it. This not only provides the children with entertainment, but also lets the adults converse in relative peace and quiet.

Families do it both ways. Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

דב הניס סוף יוני 2008 מציע את פשר ומקור האפיקומן כדלהלן

המונח המשנתי "בירך על המוגמר

מתיחס ל"מוגמר", שהיו קיסמי בשמים במחתה על אש, והברכה על הגשת המוגמר היתה "בורא עצי בשמים":

(ברכות ו'ו'):

- "היו יושבין לאכול, כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו. - הסבו - אחד מברך לכולן. - בא להם יין בתוך המזון - כל אחד ואחד מברך לעצמו. - לאחר המזון - אחד מברך לכולם, והוא אומר על המוגמר אעפ"י שאין מביאין את המוגמר אלא לאחר הסעודה"

אפי-קומן היה קרוב לוודאי המונח הרומי-לטיני, "אחרי הקומונלה", אחרי הסעודה הקבוצתית, אשר במתכונתה, לדעתי, נוצרה מסורת "מסיבת הסדר", ויתרת המצה מ- "הא לחמא" של פתיחת המסיבה היתה התחליף היהודי ל"מוגמר" של הסדר.

דב הניס 93.172.69.41 (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

דב הניס: Could you translate what you wrote, please? Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

To discuss with You on this subject is very important. I want to invite You, if it is possible, to rethink the etymology of "Afikoman" on the ground of what was unexpectedly given for me to discover during my work of doctoral thesis on the subject of Book of Exodus 1-18. The meaning of Afikoman as a Hebrew word (see Pesachim X.8) was shown in my article "Tzafun". The main remarks are: The etymology of the Hebrew word "צפון" (the name of the 11th part of the Seder Meal during which the Afikoman is eaten) is connected with the name of locality Baal-zephon (see: Num 33:7 - בעל צפון ; with vowels: בַעַל צְפוֹן ; in Exod 14:2.9: בַעַל צְפׁן), in front of which Israelites passed through the Sea of Reeds. The etymology of the Hebrew (not Greek!) word "אֲפִיקוֹםָן;" is also connected with the Exodus of Israelites, with their passage through the Sea of Reeds. More about it - see my article Tzafun (if this article is cancelled, see its copy in html or in pdf , please.)

Thank You for Your kindness for me!

Dr. Wojciech Kosek Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoninah:

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your thesis seems to fall under this category. Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Wojciech Kosek:

Dear Yoninah! This article is not of this category, I am sorry. This is an important part of doctoral thesis, published in Poland, Cracow 2008 (see external links to this article, please). I want to ask You to spend some time to analise this sources... 95.51.208.170 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

76.172.73.97 (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)OD-CA. AAre there any sources for WHEN the word "afikomen" came into use. I found it quite amusing to compare it (the word) to the Dutch language. Komen is to come. Afkomen as I see it FWIW means to Come After. It's my point of view and certainly not ancient lore.

Dear Dr. Wojciech Kosek: You are continually inserting the conclusions of your own research, which is considered original research by Wikipedia guidelines. You must find secondary references to the etymology that are you are citing – meaning, a dictionary, a newspaper article, or a magazine article that makes the case for the translation. The definition of Afikoman based on the Greek also needs to be cited, so I added a citation needed tag. Yoninah (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yoninah!
Do You know anything about complexity of Hebrew names? For example:

• BDB: Gabriy'el : Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God" (or exactly : “man of El”). An archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary
• [http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/miykael.html BDB: Miyka'el Michael = "who is like God" – Mi +ka+El lakym
• BDB: 'Abiyma'el - Abimael = "my father is El (God)" son of Joktan, descendant of Shem
• BDB: 'Abiymelek - Abimelech = "Melek is father" or "my father is king"; king of Gerar in Abraham's time; king of Gath in David's time; maybe title of Philistine kings; son of Gideon by a concubine priest, son of Abiathar

The same rule is observed in the word "Afikoman": Afik + o + man:

• BDB: 'aphiyq AFIK - channel; ravine; of hollow bones (fig.). Full information see: BDB Lexicon – PDF, page 67 of Lexicon, 94 of PDF. In Wikipedia see about [BDB Lexicon ]
  
• BDB:Man MAN - manna - the bread from Heaven that fed the Israelites for 40 years of wilderness wanderings means 'What is it?'

This information is also my answer for the author of the next topic: Greek etymology
Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yoninah!
Some important remarks about "No original research" and "reliable source"
I must say something about two rules in Wikipedia: "No original research" and "reliable source" in Wikipedia. You don't understandt these fundamental ideas, I am sorry! What can we read about "original research" in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:No original research? The most important is:

• Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.

Well, we must notice:

• You are to understand that when somebody uses in Wikipedia the material attributable to a reliable, published source, this material is not of the category "original thought"!
• You are to understand that when author uses in Wikipedia the material that contains some new analysis or syntehsis clearly proved by the reliable, published sources, this material is not of the category "original thought"!

So we must understand:
The category "original thought" is not connected with persons (author of the material, author of the article) but with the material presented in the article in Wikipedia.
The only question is: is the material attributable to a reliable, published source?!!!
If the answer is "Yes", the article is written according the rules of Wikipedia.
If the answer is "No", the article is not written according the rules of Wikipedia.
It is the question about the reliability of the material that You are to consider. Only the question about the material is to be considered. This is the clear rule of Wikipedia, isn't it?
And now the second question. What can we read about "reliable source" in the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source?

• The most important is: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources".
• Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature."
• Wikipedia: Neutral_point_of_view holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Do You understand? - all significant views, not only Your and Your friens view...
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete Important rule: "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Why You did not respect it, Yoninah? - If You do not belive that You didn't respect it, think about the non-existence of the Tzafun article in Wikipedia...

Can You answer why you have deleted the article Tzafun which presented the etymology of Afikoman and Tzafun in the light of the scientific research of Paschal ritus, performed and published on The Pontifical Academy of Theology in Cracow?!
You do not share my point of view that I wrote the article Tzafun according the rules of Wikipedia? But:
As You can read in Wikipedia rules:
"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

• the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)
  Can You write two words KOSEK WOJCIECH in the AUTHOR window in The National Library of Poland to check the existence of the book: Pierwotny ryt Paschy w świetle schematu literackiego Księgi Wyjścia 1-18; Imprint: "Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej, 2008" (Cracow: The Scientific publishers of The Pontifical Academy of Theology); Series: Series Rozprawy Doktorskie / Papieska Akademia Teologiczna w Krakowie. Wydział Teologiczny.
  and The bibliographic descriptionin of this important book in Polish
• the creator of the work (for example, the writer) - Dr. Wojciech Kosek
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
  See The Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow, where You can click in the link Name (international): Pontifical Academy of Theology in Krakow and a new website appers. You can click in the English version of it.
  

All three can affect reliability."

And now we are able to answer the last question: what rules are not the rules of Wikipedia?

• There is not the rule that an expert can not write in Wikipedia about what he knows perfectly.
• There is not the rule that an author of the scientific book being reliable source can not write in Wikipedia about what he knows perfectly.

But we can notice that these rules are in Your mind, Yoninah - only in Your mind...
These pseudo-rules (Your rules) makes You a person being above the Wikipedia rules. In a new way You must think about the rules in Wikipedia. Your way of thinking is not for normal situation of sharing the knowledge being reliable sources for Wikipedia authors, I am sorry. Do You understand Your fault, Yoninah? Can You honestly answer my questions?
Thank You for Your kindness for me!
Dr Wojciech Kosek2 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Greek etymology

Jastrow's dictionary (p. 104 - אפיקומן) has a different Greek etymology - what is the source for the etymology given in the article? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)