This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yeshiva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are women allowed to study at these schools, or was it all made up for the movie Yentl?
Concerning "Yentl", I think it's quite obvious that I'm ignorant about this matter and that's why I mentioned Yentl, because that is my only reference point and I never claimed that it's a good reference point or anything. I could've bought the whole thing, but I'm aware of the fact that Yentl isn't a good reference point (it's like using "not without my daughter" as a reference for islam) and that's why I asked - to find out.
This is arrant nonsense, pardon me for putting it so bluntly. I spent 8 years in yeshivah—an ORTHODOX yeshivah, with an Orthodox shul attached—in Brooklyn (Crown Heights) in the 1940s, a school that still thrives, in a different Brooklyn neighborhood, and yes, I graduated, and so did my brother. But we girls did NOT learn Gemorah. The term Modern Orthodox did not exist, because the Chasidim had not yet become a significant force, though the Lubavitchers were already well-established in our neighborhood. No one ever applied the term 'seminary' to our yeshivah. This article should not be slanted toward the Haredim, who are commonly referred to as ultra-Orthodox. Actio ( talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My God! Such ignorant nonsense in such an important Jewish subject. Beit Yaakov is NOT the female equivalent of yeshivot, it is simply the name of a very popular chain of schools for girls! The "female equivalent" (though Gmara usually isn't taught in these schools) is called a "seminary" (often called in short "sem"). I also don't understand the statement in the beginning, saying that "yeshiva" is a term in "classical Judaism". What the hell is "classical Judaism"? Does the author mean to say that the term is obsolete? If so, it is not. My best guess is that "classical Judaism" is meant as a strange euphemism for Orthodox Judaism. I've never written on the English Wikipedia before, but this is simply atrocious. -- InbalabnI ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree "yeshiva" is ambiguous: it usually means an advanced rabbinic school like Mir or Telz, but in a different sense refers to ordinary Jewish high schools like the Yeshiva of Flatbush. In the latter sense, yes they admit girls.
"Classical Judaism" is, as far as I know, a term mainly used by Israel Shahak to demonise medieval and pre-modern Judaism. As the yeshiva in its modern form (Volozhyn onwards) does not antedate the rise of Reform Judaism, there is no need to avoid the term Orthodox. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP-identified editor added the following
In the yeshiva system of talmudic study the first area to be mastered are eight mesechtohs (volumes that deal with a given subject which are divided into chapters that deal with sub-topics relating to the general subject) that deal with civil jurisprudence.
Could he be more specific (here)? What are these eight magic masechtot, and what are does he mean specifically by "civil jurisprudence"? Having studied in some well-known Yeshivot, both modern and Chareidi (but not Hesder), I've done plenty of Moed and Nashim, both in high school and beis-medrash. Mzk1 ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this statement:
Until the late 20th century, yeshivot were attended by males only. Many
Modern Orthodox yeshivot have opened since then for girls and women.
If by yeshiva you mean just a religious school, as in the U.S., then this isn't true at all; schools for women are neither specifically Modern Orthodox or that recent.
If you mean a traditional, full-time-Talmud study Yeshiva, are there really "many" for girls and women? Perhaps if you include Israeli Midrashot (some of them), but then Modern Orthodox may not be the best term. How many did you count?
Mzk1 (
talk)
23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that
this edit (from circa "14:49, 28 May 2019") has an "edit comment
" that says, [quote:] << "m (→top: clean up language templates)" >>.
Many of the changes that were made then (in an edit marked as "minor"), seemed to involve changing "he-n" to "he" ... in a template [instance] of {{
lang}}. That is, (removing the '-n' suffix). That is, changing "{{lang-he-n [...] }}
" to "{{lang-he [...] }}
" in a given instance of [invoking, or ... "transcluding"] that [{{
lang}}
] template.
However, when I looked at the "Example" [table] in [the only April 2019 version of] /info/en/?search=Template:Lang-he-n ... it seemed to me that the entry in the "Output" column that is shown on the top row (the row labeled "This template") may actually be preferable to the entry in the "Output" column shown on the second row (labeled "Another template").
I mean "preferable" in terms of clarity, readability, and helpfulness to the reader (that is, "preferable to" in the sense of "better than").
I would have already reverted those changes by now, however ... I may be unfamiliar with some of the issues involved here, and there might be something ( interesting) to know about the reasons why the editor of the "14:49, 28 May 2019" edit made those changes [see (the above link to) the DIFF listing for that edit].
So ... I still might (remain inclined to [want to]) revert those changes, (that ones that seemed to me, to be a step in the wrong direction); but first, ... Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Yeshiva article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are women allowed to study at these schools, or was it all made up for the movie Yentl?
Concerning "Yentl", I think it's quite obvious that I'm ignorant about this matter and that's why I mentioned Yentl, because that is my only reference point and I never claimed that it's a good reference point or anything. I could've bought the whole thing, but I'm aware of the fact that Yentl isn't a good reference point (it's like using "not without my daughter" as a reference for islam) and that's why I asked - to find out.
This is arrant nonsense, pardon me for putting it so bluntly. I spent 8 years in yeshivah—an ORTHODOX yeshivah, with an Orthodox shul attached—in Brooklyn (Crown Heights) in the 1940s, a school that still thrives, in a different Brooklyn neighborhood, and yes, I graduated, and so did my brother. But we girls did NOT learn Gemorah. The term Modern Orthodox did not exist, because the Chasidim had not yet become a significant force, though the Lubavitchers were already well-established in our neighborhood. No one ever applied the term 'seminary' to our yeshivah. This article should not be slanted toward the Haredim, who are commonly referred to as ultra-Orthodox. Actio ( talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My God! Such ignorant nonsense in such an important Jewish subject. Beit Yaakov is NOT the female equivalent of yeshivot, it is simply the name of a very popular chain of schools for girls! The "female equivalent" (though Gmara usually isn't taught in these schools) is called a "seminary" (often called in short "sem"). I also don't understand the statement in the beginning, saying that "yeshiva" is a term in "classical Judaism". What the hell is "classical Judaism"? Does the author mean to say that the term is obsolete? If so, it is not. My best guess is that "classical Judaism" is meant as a strange euphemism for Orthodox Judaism. I've never written on the English Wikipedia before, but this is simply atrocious. -- InbalabnI ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree "yeshiva" is ambiguous: it usually means an advanced rabbinic school like Mir or Telz, but in a different sense refers to ordinary Jewish high schools like the Yeshiva of Flatbush. In the latter sense, yes they admit girls.
"Classical Judaism" is, as far as I know, a term mainly used by Israel Shahak to demonise medieval and pre-modern Judaism. As the yeshiva in its modern form (Volozhyn onwards) does not antedate the rise of Reform Judaism, there is no need to avoid the term Orthodox. -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
An IP-identified editor added the following
In the yeshiva system of talmudic study the first area to be mastered are eight mesechtohs (volumes that deal with a given subject which are divided into chapters that deal with sub-topics relating to the general subject) that deal with civil jurisprudence.
Could he be more specific (here)? What are these eight magic masechtot, and what are does he mean specifically by "civil jurisprudence"? Having studied in some well-known Yeshivot, both modern and Chareidi (but not Hesder), I've done plenty of Moed and Nashim, both in high school and beis-medrash. Mzk1 ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this statement:
Until the late 20th century, yeshivot were attended by males only. Many
Modern Orthodox yeshivot have opened since then for girls and women.
If by yeshiva you mean just a religious school, as in the U.S., then this isn't true at all; schools for women are neither specifically Modern Orthodox or that recent.
If you mean a traditional, full-time-Talmud study Yeshiva, are there really "many" for girls and women? Perhaps if you include Israeli Midrashot (some of them), but then Modern Orthodox may not be the best term. How many did you count?
Mzk1 (
talk)
23:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that
this edit (from circa "14:49, 28 May 2019") has an "edit comment
" that says, [quote:] << "m (→top: clean up language templates)" >>.
Many of the changes that were made then (in an edit marked as "minor"), seemed to involve changing "he-n" to "he" ... in a template [instance] of {{
lang}}. That is, (removing the '-n' suffix). That is, changing "{{lang-he-n [...] }}
" to "{{lang-he [...] }}
" in a given instance of [invoking, or ... "transcluding"] that [{{
lang}}
] template.
However, when I looked at the "Example" [table] in [the only April 2019 version of] /info/en/?search=Template:Lang-he-n ... it seemed to me that the entry in the "Output" column that is shown on the top row (the row labeled "This template") may actually be preferable to the entry in the "Output" column shown on the second row (labeled "Another template").
I mean "preferable" in terms of clarity, readability, and helpfulness to the reader (that is, "preferable to" in the sense of "better than").
I would have already reverted those changes by now, however ... I may be unfamiliar with some of the issues involved here, and there might be something ( interesting) to know about the reasons why the editor of the "14:49, 28 May 2019" edit made those changes [see (the above link to) the DIFF listing for that edit].
So ... I still might (remain inclined to [want to]) revert those changes, (that ones that seemed to me, to be a step in the wrong direction); but first, ... Any comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)