Talk:Tisha B'Av

Revision as of 22:03, 25 December 2012 209.212.35.135 (talk) inserted the boldface section

• The First Crusade officially commenced on August 15, 1096 (Av 9, 4856 AM), killing 10,000 Jews in its first month and destroying Jewish communities in France and the Rhineland. A grand total of 1.2 million Jews were killed by this crusade that started on the 9th of Av, this crusade killed each and every Jew that they could get ahold of on the way to and back from the promised land.

There is no documentation for the number 1.2 million and it is not in the references given. It is disproportionate high for the size of European population at the time (about 50 million). The Wikipedia editor is unknown. I propose that the statement be removed.Pacomartin (talk)

Isn't the 10th of Tevet the date that most Haredim commemorate for the Holocaust?

Not universally. Do you have a source? JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, a very small minority use 10th Tevet. Tisha b'Av is the major fast day to mark the persecution of the Jews through the ages, and and is therefore almost universally regarded as the fast day to mark the Holocaust (as well as other tragedies). Many religious communities will have seminars on the Holocaust on Tisha b'Av, including talks with survivors and video presentations. The Holocaust also has its own memorial day - Yom HaShoah on 27th Nisan.

That's from the Talmud. Its not a Chabad thing. Chabad might emphasize the notion, but its normative Jewish thought. --Meshulam 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually it's from the Zachariah 8:19: "Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. Therefore love truth and peace." (best translation I could find, the book isn't on Wiki) The day of the fifth month counting from Nissan is the fast of Av, the 9th of Av, that will turn into a day of celebration after the Redemption. --ACogloc 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Hebrew "midbar" is actually translated "desert", not "wilderness". -- 11:12, August 8, 2006 147.234.2.2

I'm not aware of any recognized authority on how to translate Hebrew words. If you see a reason why "desert" is more appropriate than "wilderness" in this particular instance, then by all means, please tell us why. Oh, and by the way, which instance are you talking about anyhow? --Keeves 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interesting reflexion, how to prove the meaning of the word in a foreign language... Well, the 4th book of Torah is Bamidbar and it tells the tale of the Bnei Israel in the desert, not in the wilderness (although the desert sounds wild). The word has no other use in Tanakh and thus in modern Hebrew language, which is based on Tanakh. Ask any Israeli. שטחים פתוחים is the translation for wilderness. --ACogloc 10:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

how do you know the jews were in the desert in bamidbar(because you translate midbar as desert?)? maybe they were in the wilderness. After all how did gad and reuvain have cattle for 40 years if they were in the desert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.28.56 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Asking Israelis is no guide to Biblical Hebrew; there are plenty of words which have changed, with most Israelis not even aware of the difference! I've heard the correct translation is indeed "wilderness", but don't have anything on me at present to back this up. --Michael Grant (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires (7/18/94) happened in 10 Av, not in 9 Av. see here. I also know this because my B-day is 9 Av... go figure. :)

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.28.56 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply 

I think it might be interesting, for the more mystical, to include the fact that according to the 360 day Biblical year, the time between the destruction of the first and the second temples was 666 years...

656x365.25/360=665.5666...=666 years

Mike 203.59.136.156 03:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

188.220.247.78 (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Why do you find it "interesting"? Because it subtly implies "the devil"? Well, Mike, the Biblical year does not comprise 360 days, so you will have to come up with another facile interpretation to "prove" that the Jews are the devil.Reply

Ranking 14 August 2005/9 Av 5765 -- the day in which "[t]he primary laws of the Israeli disengagement began to go into effect on Tisha B'Av 2005[,]" as one of the calamities befalling the Jewish people -- is a desecration of the memory of those who actually did suffer and die in tragedies related to this calendar date. I note that on the main page, this quotation is ascribed to a page from adat.org but does not actually appear on that linked page. An earlier version of the Wiki page stated, even more baldly, that the "expulsion" of "Jews" from Gaza was set to begin on that date (the page has been edited and I don't remember the exact text.)

The Jewish Gaza settlers, who were settled there at Israeli government expense, arguably in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, on land that did not belong to them, are being resettled -- again at Israeli taxpayer expense -- into prime real estate within the pre-5 June 1967 armistice lines (the so-called Green Line, which a majority of Israelis consider to be the de facto boundaries of the State of Israel (minor modifications notwithstanding.) Their lives will continue much as before, speaking Hebrew, serving in the Israeli army (those who serve), voting in Israeli elections, buying their daily goods in shekels, riding Egged buses and driving on Israeli roads. (They may not be able to harass and provoke Palestinians quite as much as they did before, but they can always go to Hebron to do that if they must.) This stands in sharp contrast to the sufferings of Jews on Tisha B'av at the hands of others in years past, and as already stated, comparing the experience of the settlers to those who have suffered and died in the past desecrates the memory of the latter.

You could of stated your point without going into "politics" (which are arguably not correct).

You are incorrect. Sharon and his government avoided 9 Av as the starting point for the disengagement to avoid historical connotations. Of course the settlers are keen to be associated with 9 Av, but this is simply incorrect. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although I believe that the expulsion of Jews from Gaza belongs in an article about tragedies which happen to Jews, it doesn't belong in Tisha B'Av, for the one reason as JFW mentioned that it did not happen on Tisha B'Av. If it did then there would be something to talk about but it didn't. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The inclusion of the disengagement under the list of tradgedies is innappropriate given how diverse the feelings of the Jewish people are regarding this issue. It should be removed from the list but included elsewhere in the section in order to give a complete, but accurate picture. --70.41.158.148 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have removed it again. The maximum I will agree with is a mention of the fact that Sharon delayed the disengagement until after 9 Av explicitly to avoid this. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The expulsion is generally accepted to have begun on the ninth of av, though the deadline to leave was on the tenth. Regardless of when the actual soldiers came in they were massed and ready to carry out the orders.

The following is from the official chabad website. http://www.chabad.org/calendar/view/day.asp?tdate=8/4/2006

More than 8,500 Jewish residents were forcefully expelled from their homes in 25 towns and settlements in the Gaza Strip (including 16 settlements in the flourishing "Gush Katif" belt) and Northern Shomron in the summer of 2005, as part of the Israeli government's ill-fated "Disengagement Plan."

Av 10 was the deadline set by the governments for all Jews to leave their homes in these areas. Two days later, tens of thousands of soldiers and police officers began the forceful removal of the thousands who refused to leave willingly. The removal of all Jewish residents from Gush Katif and the Gaza Strip was completed by Av 17, and from Northern Samaria a day later. The army completed its withdrawal from these areas on the 8th of Elul, after bulldozing all the hundreds of homes and civic buildings in the settlements. The Jewish dead were disinterred and removed from the cemeteries. Only the synagogues were left standing.

The government's hopes that the "disengagement" would open "new opportunities" in relations with the Palestinian Arabs were bitterly disappointed. No sooner had the last Israeli soldiers departed from the Gaza Strip that Arab mobs began looting, desecrating and tourching the synagogues. The vacated settlements became the staging grounds for terrorist attacks against Israel, including the unremitting rocket fire on the nearby Israeli town of Sederot and the cities and settlements of the Western Negev.

I don't see why this comment has anything to do with Tisha B'Av. MG196 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the disengagement as a political decision, to call this event a "calamity", on par with the Holocaust and the destruction of the Holy Temple, is highly controversial. Some people would also find it extremely offensive. If we are to include this event at all in an article about Tisha b'Av, we should make clear that it is not universally accepted as a "calamity". This is what I have done in my latest edit, and I would urge everyone to please now leave it alone.

Not everyone agrees that any of the events listed are calamities. The Iranians, for instance, would say the AMIA bombing was a wonderful thing. Christians believe the Second temple was rendered obsolete by the Crucifixion, and its destruction was the inevitable result of that. And I won't even go into the other events. Just list it without any commentary, and the reader can decide for herself how to view it. Zsero 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Christians still view it as a calamity for the Jews and know the pain caused by it, and believe that it was another fulfillment of G-d's Tisha b'Av promise. You're right, but I just wanted to add that. - Cyborg Ninja 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You'll say that I'm wrong because I can't prove what I say but as an Israeli I don't know any single Jew that doesn't mourn the settlement evacuation on Tisha B'Av, except precisely for the Hilonim, those that don't fast on Tisha B'Av, since the Halacha (Jewish law) forbids us to give away land, as well as the great Rabbis (Rav Yossef, Rav Eliashiv, and most Orthodox rabbis said). So you could as well put the fasting section in the Orthodox section... Ridiculous --ACogloc 10:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find this discussion very interesting, but - to repeat previous comments - comparing an internal Israeli, political decision to the destruction of the Temples, let alone the Holocaust, is extremely POV. The Gaza Disengagement should in no way be represented in the article. MG196 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why this is still considered an issue but having deleted the disengagement from Gaza from the calamities section only to have it reinstated is concerning. The disengagement wasn't even supposed to be on Tisha b'Av; it was postponed so that it wouldn't coincide with the three weeks/nine days. In addition, an Israeli governmental policy that dismantled settlements only a few decades old is not on par with any of the other calamities, such as the Shoa, expulsions, and crusades. Therefore the Gaza disengagement should not be included. —njj2100, 00:53 16 June 2024 UTC

These should always be discussed in terms of sources. I'll note that Steven Fine in his introduction to The Menorah mentions this slightly. A bit circular, but a top-tier English source for religious observance. Secondly, it may interest editors to know that this has been discussed extensively on Hebrew wiki, with a slight majority in favor of not listing it. Although the vote was close, this consensus seems to have held and is reflected by the current Hebrew page. Anyway, my take is that we should list it, but attributed to the Religious Zionist movement. There's no hard criteria so it's hard to say that it definitely doesn't belong, some religious figures say that it does (and it's ultimately a religious question) see here and here, and no one will be misled or injured by including it. We should always err in favor of including information and letting readers decide for themselves.GordonGlottal (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough; I still would argue that it shouldn't be included, if for no other reason that the rest of the calamities were external forces acting on Am-Yisrael and the disengagement was Am-Yisrael acting on itself. However, keeping it and attributing it to the Religious Zionist movement is valid. I'll add that edit now. Njj2100 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at the source cited (>OzTorah.com), by Rabbi Raymond Apple, for a claim added that Orthodox Jews believe that the Temple should not be rebuilt until the coming of the Messiah. The source simply doesn't say this. After listing certain conditions that Rabbi Apple's interpretation of halakha leads him to believe are necessary, Rabbi Apple concludes "It is hardly likely that all seven would be feasible in pre-messianic times." Thus, Rabbi Apple himself stated that he believes that it is entirely possible that the Temple could be rebuilt in pre-messianic times. He merely thinks it unlikely. In addition, I could see no basis for claiming that Rabbi Apple's interpretation of these matters is shared universally by all Orthodox Jews. For these reasons, I rolled the language back to the previous version Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Again reverted a cite to Rabbi Apple's personal website for a claim regarding the views of "most" Orthodox Jews. The cited web page offers views that appear to be Rabbi Apple's otherwise unpublished personal views and of a speculative nature, using language like "hardly likely", "feasible", "Rabbi Lehrman once advanced an interim proposal", etc. -- the language of speculative argument, not the language of decided matters. Wikipedia cannot generally accept an individual rabbi's personal webpage as a source for speculative views. Please see reliable sources and WP:SYN. Thanks, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This section should be removed. Bad stuff has happened on every single day of the year, and near every single day of the year; sections like these are bad, because they're meaningless. We could equally say lots of GOOD stuff happened on this day. 69.59.212.172 (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tish'a B'av is a day reserved for punishment (muchan lepur'anut) and it's to be expected that a disproportionate number of disasters happen on it. Listing later disasters that happened on this day is part of the theme of the day, and therefore relevant. -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The issue isn't what we think is relevant. It's what reliable sources think relevant. If reliable sources connect certain events with the day and believe they have significance, it doesn't matter whether we agree or not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. We don't need a RS that it's relevant. All we need is a RS that it happened on or about that day. -- Zsero (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

original research is prohibited, so any content without reliable sources will definitely need to be deleted. Wikipedia can't accept editors' personal opinions about what events Tisha B'av is relevant to. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is silly. Every article consists of facts from various sources brought together by editors who deemed them relevant to the subject. No source is needed for relevance - if an editor thinks it relevant she puts it in, if another editor thinks it irrelevant she can take it out, and any disputes over relevance can be discussed on the talk page, but there's certainly no requirement for a source on relevance. In this case, Tish'a B'av has long been seen as a day which is "muchan lepur'anut", and any bad thing that happens on or close to it is automatically relevant. The only sources that are required are that the event actually happened then. -- Zsero (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

<undent> For that matter, how about the articles on each day of the year? 1 January, 2 January, 3 January, etc? No source is ever required to show the "relevance" of the listed events to the date. It's enough that they happened then. Tish'a B'av is a date like any other, so why object to any event that happened then? -- Zsero (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But you're not simply listing notable events on a date, you're listing only bad events. You're selecting only those specific facts that tend to support a point you want to make, which is what WP:SYN specifically prohibits. Do you have a reliable source for your statement that "Tish'a B'av has long been seen as a day which is "muchan lepur'anut", and any bad thing that happens on or close to it is automatically relevant."? You're welcome to present a reliably sourced religious belief, as a religious belief, that calamitous events tend to happen on that day, and identify the historical events people who have this belief use to support this argument. However, any attempt to conduct your own synthesis of historical information so as to convey an impression that calamaties tend to happen on Tisha B'Av as a matter of historical fact rather than religious belief will need to be dealt with under the WP:SYN policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note: One very appropriate approach would be to simply list the events that are commemorated by kinnot and mention the kinnot commemorating them. This would cover most of what you want to say but it would be reliably sourced rather than original research. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Shire, this is an article about a holiday - not about a date. Not everything that happened on this date relates to the holiday (the birth of Nathan Alterman for example!?). In fact, in the Hebrew Wikipedia there is an article he:ט' באב (for the date) and an article he:תשעה באב (for the holiday). Jon513 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Except that the standard kinnot haven't been updated for centuries, and aren't likely to be. And they commemorate events that happened at any time of the year - a great many of them are about the events of TaTNU (1096), which were mostly in Iyyar and Sivan. So any event later than the composition of the kinnot would not be included. Meanwhile, you can please stop making out as if the list of calamities is the work of one editor, with some kind of agenda. This list has been a part of the article since the beginning, with editors refining it as time goes by. It's ridiculous to challenge it now. -- Zsero (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would add that not everything in WP has to be sourced. Otherwise it would be nothing but footnotes. Only contentious claims need to be sourced, and it's ridiculous to consider this matter at all contentious. -- Zsero (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does not have to be sourced this instant, but we should be looking for other people who have made a connection between an event and Tisha B'Av. This does not have to be kinnot, it can be anyone. There are plenty of online sources that can help us here. But there is a limit. When no one can be found that makes a connection between a "calamity" and Tisha B'av (except an anonymous wikipedia editor) it cannot be included. Jon513 (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, what exactly is your point? That TB is seen as a time for bad things is undisputed. You're not disputing it are you? So what exactly needs to be sourced? How is someone else drawing a connection better than a WP editor - what could possibly qualify someone else as a more "reliable" source, since it's not a question of factual accuracy? This is rules-lawyering run amok. We are not talking about some novel interpretation that some editor decided to add yesterday, we're talking about something that has been integral to the day for millennia, and has been in the article since the day it was created, and is certainly not attributable to any one editor. In fact the WP article has had a lot of work done to correct false connections, such as the almost universally-believed idea that the Spanish expulsion was on TB. -- Zsero (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you know the talmudic source that tisha B'av is a day of perpetual calamity? if so can you please add it. I have failed to find it in my searching. Jon513 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I could probably find one if I put some time into it, but it shouldn't be necessary. Hamefursamot einan tzrichot ra'ayah, and that rule applies on WP too - only contested statements need sources, and I don't see anyone seriously contesting this one. Contesting it just for the sake of doing so doesn't count, the challenger has to have real doubts that it's true, which I don't believe anyone here does. A source would be nice to have, and if I ever come across a source I'll add it, but I don't see any urgent need to go looking for one. -- Zsero (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think many non-religious people would seriously doubt that Tisha B'Av is actually associated with calamities as a matter of historical fact, or that divine punishment is involved. Presenting a list of historical events with a bare claim would seem to be presenting an argument about history, not a view of religion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nope, it's part of the nature of the religious day that it accumulates extra trouble as time goes on. In any case, the proposition that any list, however long or short, is not pure coincidence, can never be proved. Those who don't believe in it will always say that it's a pure coincidence that all these things happened on or near this day, so what kind of "reliable source" are you looking for? The mere fact that someeone else noticed these things doesn't help - that source would be no more of an expert than any of us. By its nature there aren't any experts on this. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be best if there were an introduction (even just a sentence or two) saying something like "according to the talmud tisha b'av is a day of perpetual calamity and some latter rabbinical authorities has pointed to the following events as later tisha b'av calamity." 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon513 (talk • contribs)

The first would be nice, and if someone comes across such a source they should add it. But it's not important enough that I'm going to drop everything to look for one. The second clause is unnecessary; once we've established that later calamities are part of the day we don't need a source acknowledging the significance of any specific event. Significance is in the eyes of the beholder, and no source is going to be more authoritative than a WP editor or reader. -- Zsero (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the calamities section, there are some questionable claims. I will only address two.

1. In the First World War, Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, 1914, Tisha B'av.
2. On July 31, 1941 coinciding with Tisha B'Av, under instructions from Adolf Hitler, Nazi official Hermann Göring ordered SS general Reinhard Heydrich to make all the necessary preparations for the Final Solution.

First of all, in 1914 most Jews around the world were glad to see Germany go to war against Russia. The Jews of Germany were the most successful in the world at the time, and Russia was despised for its mistreatment of its Jewish citizens. So, Jews in Germany and Austria saw the war as a crusade to liberate their abused brethren, and even in the U.S. Jews wanted Germany to smash tsarist Russia (at least until the U.S. joined the war on the Entente side). The war was not seen as a calamity for world Jewry, but rather an opportunity. It was only with the massive displacements of civilian populations that the war came to be seen as calamitous, and even then, the German defeat of Russia and the Russian revolution(s) brought the emancipation of the Jews of Russia. So, I am going to remove that association.
As for July 31, 1941 . . . yes, Göring issued an order on that day, but to claim that that was the day on which the Final Solution was decided or initiated shows a misunderstanding for the development of the Holocaust. Poldy Bloom (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

At the time some Jews may have seen the war as a positive thing, but it quickly became evident that it was not, and certainly in hindsight the war brought disaster to the Jews. And most Jews at the time lived in the Russian empire, so the fact that the war for them began on that day is significant.

Göring's order wasn't the first or the only step in the process, but it was a significant step, entirely in keeping with the history of the day. The destruction of the Temples didn't happen on one day either; the events leading up to it happened a long time earlier, and the the bulk of the actual destruction happened later, but the 9th was when the fire was lit, so it's the day we commemorate. That makes the parallel clearer. -- Zsero (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poldy makes a very good point. What you call "hindsight" would better be discribed as a particular view of history to support a religious thesis. I am not saying that this historical view is wrong, but it has to be presented as one view. Jon513 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This "view of history" is an integral part of what the day has been about, from its very beginning. Including going way back into history to find incidents like the Spies returning from their mission on that day. -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pure original research. If party conventions happened to occur on Tisha B'Av, it would be like an editor saying that George Bush's (or Bill Clinton's) nomination represented one of the calamatous Tisha B'Av events that punish Jews. There's no source for the claim any Jews regard these events as calamatous; there's no source for the claim that it ever occurred for Jews to connect the events with Tisha B'Av; there's no source for the claim that these events have any relationship with the Jewish religion whatsoever. A pure original research synthesis. This content has no business being in Wikipedia. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Considering the German declaration of war on Russia in 1914 to be a Jewish calamity is an anachronism and is ahistorical for reasons that I have already provided above. At the time, the German declaration of war on Russia was hailed by western Jews. Moreover, it is debatable whether it was really a long-term calamity for Jews. There were large Jewish population displacements as a result of Russian successes on the Galician front in 1914, but Russian/Polish Jewry benefited enormously from the German/Austrian occupation of western Russia in 1916-1918. It is a historical fact that eastern Jews greeted German and Austro-Hungarian soldiers as liberators from the yoke of tsarist oppression.
Additionally, it is not correct to write that "most Jews at the time lived in the Russian empire". The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906--an authoritative source on pre-WW1 Jewry--counts 11.2 million Jews in the world around 1900. The Russian census of 1897 counted 3.8 million, which wasn't even a numerical majority of European Jewry (8.9 million). There were approximately 2.1 million Jews in Austria-Hungary, another 600,000 in Germany, almost 300,000 in Romania, and 280,000 in the Ottoman Empire's European possessions, plus many smaller communities in western Europe. There were many Jews in Russia, but we cannot say "most."
The aish.com website cited by Jon513 reads, "World War One broke out on the eve of Tisha B'Av in 1914 when Germany declared war on Russia. German resentment from the war set the stage for the Holocaust." I appreciate his finding a source, but Aish's claims are factually incorrect. 1) World War I broke out on July 28, 1914, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in retaliation for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. 2) German resentment from World War I cannot be linked to the Holocaust. The Holocaust can be directly attributed to Nazi ideology and the vicissitudes of Nazi policy on control over a disenfranchised, geographically trapped Jewish population. (See Eberhard Jäckel's Hitler's World View and Karl Schleunes's Twisted Road to Auschwitz for more detail.) Additionally, literally, hundreds of thousands of German Jews also resented the loss of World War I. Resentment over the lost war cut across religious lines. The Nazis were able to exploit nationalist sentiment for political purposes, but so did every other political party right of center. The decisive factor in the Nazis' rise was the Great Depression. (See Heinrich August Winkler's Weimar 1918 - 1933 and William Sheridan Allen's The Nazi Seizure of Power.) Once in power, they pursued a vigorously anti-Semitic policy, but it was also not teleological to the Holocaust. (See Schleunes et al.) Poldy Bloom (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The entire calamities section is now gone. This is absurd. Even if there is no particular list of canonical calamities references, the article is misleading if it says Tisha B'Av is ONLY an observance of the destruction of the First and Second Temples.

There is a problem with expulsion from Spain and Alhambra decree. It is stated that the pogrom STARTED on Tisha BeAv, but the truth is it started BEFORE. Alhambra decree was introduced on March 31st 1492 and the deadline for leaving was July the 31st. I checked the dates in Hebrew calendar and I found out: only the date July the 31st corresponds with Tisha BeAv, but ONLY if you include reform from Pope Gregory! If you do not include it, the deadline for expulsion was 11 days before Tisha BeAv. Therefore I am not certain if it can count as "calamity of TBA". I mean, by this standards you can include almost ALL calamities in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.122.194 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then can you tell me how the decree itself is a calamity? I mean, it's a frightening piece of paper. However, the calamity, the killings, the forced conversions, started precisely on Tisha B'Av. Also, please provide a source for the Gregorian calendar date.

As for the rest of the calamities, forget Wikipedia policy and focus on the calamities. These actually are, to my Jewish knowledge, the very worse event the Jews ever suffered. The schism after Solomon was too. But we don't have a date for it anyway. I have to agree with Poldy, I can't well see the link between World War I and the calamities but it's an interesrting fact that the physically worst period for the Jews (besides the destructions of the Temples and the wars that went with it) began precisely on that day. --ACogloc 10:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since the list included a recent events like the Gulf War and the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, whose status as "calamities" depends entirely on ones political viewpoint and whose association with the religious meaning of Tisha B'Av appears to be entirely original research, I've removed the entire list of events as a violation of WP:SYN. In the future I will remove all events which are not explicitly connected with the religious holiday of Tisha B'Av by a reliable source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I support your decision. The section can be expanding with sources. Here are some from aish Hatorah [1] [2] . Jon513 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What makes Aish an RS? -- Zsero (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is ridiculous. WP:SYN says: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position". Does that bear any resemblance to the current case? Which editor's "own conclusion" or "position" does the list "try to demonstrate" or "serve to advance"? This is not some novel concept that one person parachuted into WP in order to bolster some fringe theory of his. It's the work of many editors over the course of four years, it makes no arguments whatsoever and serves no agenda. It's simply a list of calamities that happened on that day.

The example given for SYN shows clearly what is meant: sentences that explicitly make an argument, based on RS, for a position that does not itself have an RS. Again this bears no resemblance to our current case, where all we have is a list, which makes no argument and contains no reasoning, leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusion.

I am restoring the list. If you feel some particular item ought not to be on the list, feel free to argue that; but the list itself stays. I can't believe anyone is seriously challenging it or denying that commemorating such events has been an essential part of the day since its very beginning. (What else do you think the canonical list of five events was about?)

-- Zsero (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

For one thing the labeling of an event as a calamity without a source is problematic. What make a historical event a "calamity"? (how was the gulf war a calamity for the Jews? and there are those that say that Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip was a good thing)

Another problem is pointing to "starting points" for particular events. If one was to ask "what day did the holocaust start?" there could be many possible answers to that. Presenting a "fact" that the holocaust "started" on tisha b'av is problematic. Why is the date that "the first transports reached Treblinka" more noteworthy than the first date that transports arrived at any of the other concentration camp? Why is the date that "Hermann Göring ordered SS general Reinhard Heydrich to make all the necessary preparations for the Final Solution" more noteworthy than the day that Hitler gave the order? or the date that Heydrich carry out the order? why is only one date on the chain of command chosen? These dates where not chosen out of honest historical insight, but rather after the fact (in "hindsight") as a way of connecting the event to tisha b'av.

Notice how carefully these dates are chosen. Note how it says "in 1290, King Edward I signed an edict to expel the Jews from England". Why is the signing date chosen? why not the day they are kicked out? or the date that the edict was announced? Also note how it was the date "Sabbatai Zevi, a Jewish false messiah, was born". Why not the day he declared himself a false messiah? or the day he converted to Islam? or the day he married a 12-year-old prostitute?

Another problem is how it singles out event that happened on, or even near, tisha b'av when they are not particularly noteworthy. There have been literally thousands of terrorist attacks and a few happened around tisha b'av ("In 1955, El Al Flight 402 was shot down over Bulgarian airspace on the 8th of Av." "The AMIA Bombing (Asociación Mutua Israelita Argentina) by terrorists in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and wounded more than 120, occurred on July 18, 1994, the 10th of Av.") The 2006 Lebanon War lasted a month and included tisha b'av. It would be hard for any war lasting over a month to not include at least one Jewish holiday. Would it be noteworthy if it included shavuot?

I am not saying that there is no value to these date but they must be presented in context, as an after the fact attempt to connect these event to tisha b'av. Jon513 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Shirahadasha and Jon513 about the absolute need for source-based assertions. As I mentioned above, the Aish website is not a good source. However, I will provide some scholarly sources.

-- On pages 248-249 of The Ornament of the World by Yale University professor Maria Rosa Menocal, the link between the expulsion from Spain in 1492 and Tisha b'Av is made. She notes that even at the time, the Jews of Spain associated the date of their expulsion with Tisha b'Av.

-- Another source--a primary source--is an Account of the Expulsion from Spain, written by an Italian Jew in April/May 1495, in The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315-1791, ed. Jacob Rader Marcus (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1999; orig. 1938), p. 59.

Indeed, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain is far-and-away the most commonly cited post-antiquity calamity associated with Tisha b'Av. It is the only one that I would cite in the article. Poldy Bloom (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Note that I was the editor who corrected the false assertion that the expulsion happened on the 9th itself. This assertion had been in the article, unchallenged, until I did a bit of poking around, found that the dates didn't match, and corrected it accordingly. Nevertheless, every "reliable source" you'll find on TB will make the claim that it was on that day. So much for RS. You'll also find the "WW1 broke out on that day" in pretty much every post-WW1 "reliable source", even though once again it isn't quite accurate. But these examples show how Jews have traditionally regarded TB, and how every time something bad happens on that day it's automatically associated with it. The list is just a list, with no editorialising, and the reader is free to make up his own mind about how well each item fits. -- Zsero (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zsero wrote, "If you feel some particular item ought not to be on the list, feel free to argue that." I strongly believe that the start of World War I and German declaration of war on Russia does not belong on this list. World War I began on July 28, 1914 when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. It did not begin on August 1 with German declaration of war on Russia, as was claimed in the article. That is a historical fact, and facts do matter. As for sources that claim otherwise, that are not factually correct. Secondly, it is a matter of opinion that World War I was a calamity for Jews of eastern Europe. In fact, much of Russian Jewry was liberated by pro-Jewish Austrian and German forces in the war. The Bolsheviks finished off the tsarist regime and enacted Jewish emancipation (as individuals, not a kehilla) in Russia. Therefore, one could argue that the war was good for the Jews of eastern Europe. It is simply too unclear. (Whereas the destruction of the temples or expulsion from Spain is not ambiguous.) As for the fact that this information is so widely conveyed on the internet, it is highly likely that website authors who are not experts in European history took the erroneous information from other websites, which themselves were incorrect. Thirdly, the Holocaust did not result from World War I. The Holocaust was the result of Hitler's ideological agenda. It was by no means a natural or logical development from World War I or, for that matter, World War II. Above, in the discussion, I have provided scholarly, reliable sources that make that argument. Poldy Bloom (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is inappropriate to include the legal removal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 on this list. TheGrapeSantini (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just because it is observed today, does it really qualify as "current"? And really, will information change as the event progresses? Surely not. I am removing the tag. 13:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in Jewish tradition the idea is to attempt to observe Tisha B'Av every year as if it were a current event. That is why the mourning rituals are extreme every year, as opposed to mourning for a parent where the yearly observance (Yahrtzeit) involves little if any public mourning ritual. However, from a secular worldly perspective, this is not a true "current" event. Manassehkatz 16:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manassehkatz (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. However, whether it is observed as current or not, I seriously doubt anything about it will change as the event progresses, which Is why I removed it. But it's over now anyways. Smartyllama (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting that you say it because, according to some commentators, the Messiah is meant to build the 3rd Temple on Tisha B'AV to accomplish Zechariah's prophecy. But other than this, Tisha B'Av already happened 1942 times and I admit that it can be hard for Gentiles to believe it will change. --ACogloc 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about the correct names for the First and Second Temples at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Building and destroying the Beit Hamikdash. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The text of the article says "Torah study is forbidden on Tisha B'av (as it is considered a spiritually enjoyable activity), except for the study of distressing texts such as the Book of Lamentations, the Book of Job, portions of Jeremiah and chapters of the Talmud that discuss the laws of mourning." I think a wording change might be necessary because the distressing texts listed are not actually part of the Torah. This isn't to say that they aren't important, of course. The first three listed there are part of the Tanakh (which includes the Torah as well) and the Talmud is "a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history;" it mentions the Torah and Tanakh, but is not part of either. Perhaps the change should say something like "The study of Torah and other religious texts is forbidden..." Hbomberman (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a problem present in much of the "Laws and Customs" section. Most of the sources cited are secondary or tertiary at best. Part of the issue is that many of the modern customs of orthodox Jews during Tisha B'av (and the preceding periods of nine days and three weeks) are from scattered sources. Many are based on talmudic mishnaic sources which, centuries later, were quoted by Rabbis as having given birth to customs that were present at the times of those Rabbis. However, the reason the customs were then established as general minhag yisrael (global Jewish custom) is unclear. 70.18.138.148 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Garry SF (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC) The word "Torah" has several possible meanings. The Orthodox position is that the "Torah" that God gave on Sinai consisted of both written and oral teachings. The Talmud is a record of discussions of those oral teachings. I have never heard of any Jewish group that distinguishes Talmud study from Torah study.Reply

In order to avoid an editing war, there should be a public discussion for the terminology choice, "marital relations" or "marital intimacy" v. "sexual relations". Given that these are religious practices (abstentions), and given that the vast majority of practitioners of these practices are sensitive to the nuanced difference between delicate and coarse language, it is appropriate to use the more delicate language in this context. Bachrach44 justified the coarser language because "no need for silly euphamisms" [sic.] - this comment can be insulting to some religious readers, is a possible violation of NPOV and in fact there is no Wikipedia benefit to one word choice over the other. The fact that one user is insensitive to the distinction and finds the euphemism "silly" is no justification. Therefore, the phrase that is most consistent with the subject matter of this article should be used. --Narcissus14 06:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello and welcome. Please forgive me for moving your comment - the general practice for talk pages is to put newer comments at the bottom, and this makes it easier for other editors to see the new conversation. Secondly, please watch your edits when using the various rollback functions. Even if you disagree with one part of an edit, there may have been more to an edit than you see at first glance - you accidentally removed info from a ref in this edit. Anyway, on to the real issue you raised - choice of words for sex. Your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that the word sex may be offensive to some, so we should use a euphemism such as "marital relations". There is little need to discus whether this is true, because Wikipedia has a clear policy that Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Wikipedia is not censored. To quote: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." --Bachrach44 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I haven't heard any objections, and I've also noticed that this exact conversation took place at Talk:Shabbat#Marital_relations. They ultimately decided to replace the euphemism with the word sex. Someone there also pointed out Wikipedia specific policy on not using euphemisms which I hadn't linked to before. I'm going to go ahead and revert to the previous version and ask that any other editors discuss on the talk page before using the phrase "marital relations". --Bachrach44 (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The term "marital relations" is clear enough, and is hardly a euphemism. So here you have your objection. :) Debresser (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for cleaning up my sloppiness and apologies for that. I'm glad you mentioned the Shabbat discussion because I wasn't aware of it. It actually is a good counterpoint to this article rather than a proof for it. Now, if you want to be strictly technical, the proper term is probably "sexual intercourse". However, on Tisha B'Av it would be misleading to state that sexual intercourse is prohibited, because in fact the prohibition extends to other types of marital intimacy, such as kissing and hugging. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy, it should remain "marital relations". On the Shabbat page, I think you might have a stronger case for "sexual intercourse between husband and wife" however that sounds a bit crass and doesn't convey the emotional intimacy that is also required by Jewish law; the term s.i. may in fact mislead some readers. --Narc (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Calamities. As a new editor, I hope I have done the correct thing here (putting comment at the foot of all others): In reading the talk-text above, particularly with regard to calamities, it occurs to me that several of the events claimed for 9 Av in particular years occur on dates not exactly the 9th but what are regarded as 'near enough'. They are then disputed by others who claim that they are not relevant to the article Tisha b'Av. Surely the answer is to transfer many (or all) of these calamities to the article 'Three weeks' which already exists and duplicates some of the material, simply referring from this article. Prentur (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Jeremiah 32:1 refers to the siege being underway during Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605. It is evident that Jeremiah counted accession years as part of the reign, based on a comparison of Jeremiah 52:12 (includes accession year) with the Babylonian interpolation (doesn't include accession year) at Jeremiah 52:29. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year by Jeremiah's reckoning therefore was 588 BCE. Therefore Jeremiah 52:12-14 refers to 587 BCE as the year for the destruction of the temple, being the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, including his accession year.

3175AM aligns with 587 BCE as a result of a historical shift in the enumeration from the creation of Adam. See Missing years (Jewish_calendar)#Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Other calamities section seems to be becoming a catch-all for unfortunate events that happen to coincide with the date of Tisha B'Av. Unless an event can actually be cited from a reliable source as being associated with Tisha B'av, it should not be included in the list. This is especially the case where politically motivated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Removed example again of Israeli government removal of Jewish settlers from Gaza. Arb over Israel-Palestinian Conflict is irrelevant in this case as removal done by democratically elected government that Settlers participate in. In addition due process and removal was announced publicly in advance and Israeli government utilized non-violent strategies. That it fell on a Hebrew date in proximity to the 9 of Av is coincidence. TheGrapeSantini (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's irrelevant that it's a coincidence, it happened on that date. Many of the other dates also just happened to fall on that date. I am not sure why the nature of the democratic status of the government has any bearing on this. This is why the 9th of Av is a sad day for many people, it has many calamities throughout the ages that just happen to fall out around this time that just feel like coincidences to others, that's why it's on the list. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The statement that the two temples were destroyed 490 years apart is not consistent with the dates 587 BCE and 70 CE given for the destructions.

Jmichael ll (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The html header for this page only displays B'Av (instead of Tisha B'Av). I cannot find how to edit this - please someone edit this.

Yeshua (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere on the page Tisha B'Av do I see a B'av without a Tisha before it. I am confused by your assertion that there's somewhere on the page a B'av without its Tisha. Can you be more specific?. Thank you.--Akhooha (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I edited the page to remove 4 Aug 135 as the date for the fall of Betar. Someone used a Jewish Date Calculator to get the Julian date that was posted, but that is not valid. Modern Jewish Date Calculators are based on a calculated calendar that was not operative in Judaism until sometime after the tenth century AD. Before that time, especially in antiquity, the calendar was set by the observation of the moon. The evening of the observation of the new crescent moon was the first day (evening to evening) of the new month. Thus, one must use astronomical tables of new moons to determine when the month of Ab began, not a modern Jewish date calculator. The new crescent for Ab would have been observed on 30 July AD 135 according to astronomical tables. That means that 9 Ab would have been Saturday, 7 Aug AD 135 on the Julian calendar (i.e., the day started at sundown on 6 Aug, and Betar would have fallen in the daylight hours of 7 Aug). Aesteinmann (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply