Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Could someone translate this page into Welsh?

Karaite section[edit]

The section on Karaite Synagogues only has a picture. If it is not expanded with text, I suggest we remove the section, and just leave the picture interspersed with the others. I've marked it as "expansion necessary." -- Avi 16:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there's no obvious need for this section. One could argue about whether Karaism has any place in this article at all. I genuinely don't know if it can still be considered a stream of Judaism, or if it is too 'heretical' because of its rejection of all of the Oral Torah. I'm removiing the section, until someone can both convince me that it has a place and that there is anything to say. Nomist 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, some people say although they removed the TORAH, it also means that they new a lot about it! In others they say they do not need. It me seem horrible to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, what is going on here. First of all, let me disperse some of this ignorance with basic facts - Jews are called Jews because in the babylonian exile we lost our tribal caste system, with judah being the largest population in exile and the levites + kohanim always being seperate, they were the only two tribal identities preserved post-exile. After this, all Israelites/Hebrews of the southern kingdom became known as Judean, from the tribal identifier Judah, or Jews. So - knowing this - any person of ancient Israelite/Hebrew descent that came from the southern kingdom can be identified as a Jew. The Teimani and Beta Israel have the oral traditions of coming from Benjamin and Judah, and so are Jews. The Karaites have the tradition as well and are, as such, Jews. The Samaritans, however, have the tradition of coming from Ephraim and Manasseh, and as such are not Jews, as they are not Judean. Make sense?

Secondly, Karaites did not remove the Torah. They did not remove the Kethuvim or Nevi'im, either. They refuse to acknowledge the Talmud/Gemara/Mishneh as authoritative sources because they do not believe Rabbinic authority can exist over the words directly stated in Torah. As such, they do things as literally and directly described in Torah without the Rabbinic additions. Any thought of Karaites being restricted or barred from having representation in any Jewish space is antisemitic and has no place in Jewish study. Cakiva (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology of "Synagogue"[edit]

According to the Online Eymology Dictionary: c.1175, from O.Fr. sinagoge (11c.), from L.L. synagoga "congregation of Jews," from Gk. synagoge "place of assembly, synagogue," lit. "meeting, assembly," from synagein "to gather, assemble," from syn- "together" + agein "bring, lead." Used by Gk. translators of the Old Testament as a loan-translation of late Heb. keneseth "assembly" (cf. beth keneseth "synagogue," lit. "house of assembly.") [1] Jayjg | (Talk) 16:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love the Online Etymological Dictionary, but doesn't use diacritics. And it makes a difference. The LL synagoga should be syagōga, but no big deal, it usually wouldn't be written that way anyway - in the same way accents in Russian are only written for learners. But with the Greek it does make a difference. Whether y or u not so much, but since the o and e in this word are infact ω and η it should be transliterated synagōgḗ and he Greek has an accent on the end I believe, like: συναγωγή. I guess if you don't have unicode it could be a problem, but other languages should be given the same consideration we give the French cedilla or German umlaut in my opinion - and unicode is the way of the future (I'm as crazy for Unicode as Wikipedia though!). Also, why is there no Hebrew, like בית כנסת? I suppose I'm in the linguistically fanatical minority of Wikipedia that believes in putting the original language in parenthesis whenever appropriate though! Khirad 02:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Well, why exactly are we talking about parentheses! This is history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica version[edit]

Why is Britannica's 1911 article being included in this article? Jayjg | (Talk) 02:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


If you don't know the Greek, don't put ?????? in the article. It makes it look cluttered. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paws for history- I get your frustation! I know Greek, I will write some! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Spanish & Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam is known as the Esnoga. Should a disambiguation page for the term "Esnoga" be created? and a page for the Amterdam Synagogue created? (right now "Esnoga" just redirects to the "Synagogue" page). -- Cardozo

No, there are multiple synagogues referred to as "Esnoga". If you want to write about the Amsterdam Esnoga, please start Amsterdam Portugese Synagogue and redirect Amsterdam Esnoga there. JFW | T@lk 12:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paws for history: This is a great subject, start writing ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I changed the text that read "the small ruined synagogue at Masada is believed to be the world's oldest, and the only one known to date from the time of the Second Temple." This is untrue, as many synagogues have been found which predate the one at Masada, but that is the only one discussed by Josephus (to my knowledge) and so the best known. I think thre were others at Herodium and Gamla which date from the second temple period, but I am not sure. Also, is possible that those of Ostia, Dura Europus, and Stobi date from this period, but not certain. The lesbian 21:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


the term Esnoga is mentioned in Zohar. From Hebrew "Esh Nogah" meaning "fire of splendor" (see Ezechiel) hence the term "synagogue" Moshe 08:07 04 Nov 2005

The Zohar uses "esnoga" because Moses de Leon spoke Spanish, and that was the Spanish word for a synagogue. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2003 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Altneu shul in Prague[edit]

The name has no connection to "oldnew" In hebrew "Al tneye" means"on condition". The synagogue was dedicated on condition, that it be a study-hall. So it will have less restrictions than a prayer-hall.Moshe 08:14 04 Nov 2005

That's very inventive. Nevertheless, Alt-nue means "old-new" in Yiddish, the vernacular of the Jews of Prague. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have actually heard of this version, but I think it does not need to be elaborated on this page but on the Altneushul's own page. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if it can be tied to a source. The Jewish community in Prague's version is that it was originally called the neu shul when it was built, and got the name altneu after a later synagogue opened. --agr 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Divine Presence?[edit]

The article says, "According to tradition, the Divine Presence can be found wherever there is a minyan (a quorum of ten—in Orthodox Judaism, defined as ten Jewish men aged 13 or over)." I'm not sure I like this wording, as it suggests the Divine Presence isn't there if there isn't a minyan. But the Mishnah Pirkei Avot 3:3[2] says "But when two sit together and words of Torah pass between them, the Divine Presence rests." And the Divine Presence is often referred to as Makom, meaning Omnipresent. It's my understanding that minyan is required to recite certain prayers, but is not required for the Divine Presence to be found. The minyan article quotes Maimonides that the Divine Presence is more likely to listen to a prayer from a community, but doesn't say the Divine Presence isn't there if there is no minyan.

Does anyone know more about this than me? Ferret-aaron 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that when it comes to communal prayers, an edah (ceremonial group) is required. From textual inference, the Talmud defines an edah as consisting of >=10 adult males. I don't think the Divine Presence is a prerequisite, but rather a result. JFW | T@lk 02:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't my point. The Shechinah (Divine Presence) is believed to be omnipresent, and as I pointed out in the quoted section of Pirkei Avot, the Shechinah is certainly thought to be present if only two people are together. The wording in the article "the Divine Presence can be found" suggests that this isn't the case- that The Shechinah is only present when a minyan gathers. This is a wrong inference, and Jews don't believe that the Shechinah is only present when a minyan gathers. Rather, they believe that God will be more inclined to hear a congregation's prayer if there is a minyan. Ferret-aaron 19:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the information about Synagogues?[edit]

I am leaving a complaint about "oka is so smart", the whole article is gone and this sentence is left throughout the article instead. I came to learn about synagogues not to know that some oka is smart! Restore the article.

This was a case of vandalism, which I fixed. --agr 20:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not amused as I can still see the article with the words "Oka is so smart".
I have refreshed the browser and the article came up. Excellent.
ok, I will be calling in here now and again to check on any form of vandalism. I hate vandalism and I don't find it funny. I shall be checking around.
You can help by learning how to fix vandalism. Its really quite easy. Click on the history tab and then click on the previous version of the article. It will usually be intact. Then click edit this page. Ignore the warning that you are about to edit an older version of the article, explain what your are doing in the edit summary ("rvv" is a handy abbreviation for revert vandalism) and click save page. --agr 14:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of need for expansion[edit]

I identify the areas in which this article needs expansion as:

Agree to most of this. Please keep in mind, though, the distinction between Sephardi and Mizrahi. (There are very few Sephardi synagogues in India, for instance.) -- Olve 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new synagogue and a new record holder?[edit]

I heard that a new synagogue was inaugurated, maybe in Costa Rica, which is presently the greatest synagogue of the world. It is an orthodox synagogue. I haven't found more data about it in Google. I wonder if anyone knows or can find more about it. Adam78 02:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt this is true. How many Jews are there in Costa Rica? JFW | T@lk 04:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is chabad there They also have a website Jabad Lubavitch de Costa Rica --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The biggest synagogue in the world is probabaly the one recently completed by the Belzer Hasidim in Jerusalem, it seats six thousand people, and then some... photo IZAK 12:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do you get the information about Bevis Marks being the oldest continuously functioning synagogue in the world? Amsterdam is older (or is the point that it did not function during the second world war?); and what about the synagogues in Venice? -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Plz remove the edit option.

How come there is no list, as there is a List of churches and List of mosques? IP Address 14:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me that the section on the Budapest Synagogue, added on May 31, 2006 would be better off in a seperate article. The level of detail on this one synagogue does not belong in the general article.

Formatting problem[edit]

The section "Traditional and Orthodox synagogues" has all its items bulleted, but I do not see the bullet for the first one of the list (the Ark). Is the picture interfering somehow? Is it just my browswer, or do others see this too? Please fix! Thanx --Keeves 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I fixed that by moving the picture to the right side. --Keeves 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Budapest Synagogue[edit]

I think the Budapest Synagogue section is long enough to get spun off as a separate article. Anyone agree or disagree? (Also, if we decide to do it, is there are way to keep its history intact, rather than just looking like a brand new article?) --Keeves 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just what I thought, reading the article :) --Serinde 15:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Messianic synagogues[edit]

A section on "Messianic synagogues" was added today. I'd love to delete it on the grounds that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism but of Christianity, but it is clear from that article that their members would disagree. So here's my question: Has an official Wikipedia policy been formed on this? Have there been precendents set that we can cite? For example, has someone tried to add a section about Messianic practices to the Passover article? Can anyone offer suggestions? --Keeves 01:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Messianic Judaism#Jewish objections. Despite the name, "Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual and Christianity." [3]. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I saw Messianic Judaism#Jewish objections, but I felt that it is pretty much balanced out by Messianic Judaism#Christian objections, which says that they're not Christian. That simple solution is that they are neither Jewish nor Christian. Thanks also for the reference to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which would strongly support the suggestion which I will now make: This information about Messianic synagogues should not appear in this article, but it can appear in its own article, and have a link from here to it. In other words, those who want this information to appear in Wikipedia are free to start a new article titled Messianic synagogues, and then to come back to this article (which is about Jewish synagogues only) and add a link to it in the "See Also" section. --Keeves 13:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The past 30 edits have consisted of nothing but the insertion and deletion of This listing does not include those synagogues of alternative movements in Judaism., with (as far as I can tell) absolutely no substantive eplanation of what the objection is to including it. To me, it sure sounds very similar to the suggestion I made above. I've been patiently sitting here on the sidelines watching the others go back and forth, and I really do not understand what is going on. I am tempted to edit the article myself, but I fear that whatever I do will get undone. Is anyone interested in a mature discussion of the pros and cons? --Keeves 12:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the link (and earlier, a picture) is being inserted here to promote a fringe movement that, according to Judaic tradition and authorities, is outside of Judaism and therefore the definition does not apply. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight and Messianic Judaism#Jewish objections. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed, we definitely should see what it says at WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Here's an excerpt:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

Please note that were are not advised to ignore the Flat Earth Society entirely. Rather, it suffices that they are given less attention than the mainstream views. I believe that this is exactly what we currently have here, by giving a mere one-sentence reference and a link to where more information is available. To deny inclusion of even that one line would go against the very source that Humus refers to.--Keeves 01:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong quote. Here is a relevant one:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

The Messianics are not only "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" - they are beyond that, because they are outside of Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that it is your opinion that the Messianics are outside of Judaism. Actually, it is my opinion too, except that I also place reform and conservative outside of Judiasm. If we were in some explicitly Jewish forum, we could continue discussing that point, but in an NPOV place such as Wikipedia, I really can't see any legitimate reason to exclude a tiny one-line reference to another article. I really think the time has come to get other Wikipedia administrators involved in this dispute, to get some kind of official ruling on it. --Keeves 13:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Messianic Judaism#Jewish objections addresses your concerns. It is not to WP editors or admins to redefine Judaism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and it is also not to you to define Judaism. But by refusing to allow this reference, which is explicitly about non-mainstream views, aren't you trying to define Judaism for all Wikipedians? --Keeves 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the references. If their abundance is not convincing enough, many more can be easily added. Don't make this personal. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an article entitled Synagogue, not Jewish Synagogue. As such, I cannot see why Messianic Jewish Synagogues are not included in this article; those buildings are also called synagogues, no?Svyatoslav (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Svyatoslav. If Messianic Jewish Synagogue buildings are in the tradition of Synagogues, they are to be considered Synagogues as far as Wikipedia is concerned, regardless of whether one agrees with the religious doctrines taught there. Jjgw (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article falls under the "Judaism" portal of Wikipedia, and as such represents specifically Jewish synagogues. Messianic 'Jews' are not Jews because they believe in and practice Idolatry by all Jewish and even Israelite/Hebrew definitions (Worshipping a higher power in a physical (human) form). As such, Messianic 'Synagogues' should be represented in an article about different Christian churches, as that would be under the appropriate Christian portal. In addition, I do not appreciate this representation of 'Reform and Conservative or Karaite Jews are not Jews' idea. This is antisemitic and a critical lie, as they follow the primary covenant, and they follow Moses as their primary prophet with specifically Jewish interpretations and understandings of these texts. They are, by biblical standards, kosher Jews, and taking a different Rabbinical opinion seperate to what is upheld by the reactionary Orthodox movement does not automatically sever them from their people or from being Jews. Even the very politically conservative state of Israel understands this, and will even accept Reform Jewish converts who have no Jewish heritidge for Aliyah. Important to note is that they will not accept any Messianic 'Jewish' converts for Aliyah.Cakiva (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Controversy[edit]

I will re-list the Messianic Synogogues for the time being and attach a Note that says the validity of this section of the article being displayed is under debate, until we have it solved whether or not it belongs. Messianic Judaism is Torah-based religion and has a majority of ethnically Jewish practitioners, thus there is no reason to have it removed (at least, not without a conclusive debate). With over 200 synagogues, the movement is just too big to treat as if it were non-existant. Thank you.

Also, before my edits Reconstructionist Judaism synagogues only had one sentence! I expanded it to a paragraph, so hopefully that can even begin to give readers an idea.

To the vast majority of Jews, "Messianic Judaism is Torah-based religion" the same way that Christianity and Islam are Torah-based religions. That is, they do place a certain amount of value in the Torah, but then they add and detract in such a manner as to make a new religion of it. How about this idea: At the top of the article, we'll have a disambiguate section: This article is about synagogues in mainstream Judaism. For synagogues in Messianic Judaism, see Synagogue (Messianic). --Keeves 13:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That will be relatively suffiecient if you add a disambiguate section saying that this article is about mainstream synogogues, thanks Keeves. And no, it isn't "Torah-based as Christianity and Islam are". Chrsitianity explicitly denies Torah and Hebrew traditions as a relic of the past, and Islam is Quran-based (a book that states the Bible has been changed by men past recognition, despite the fact that the Torah codes and Dead Sea Scrolls completely show otherwise). Messianic Judaism, on the other hand, is majority ethnic Jewish, with most members: keeping Kosher, observing Jewish holidays such as Yom Kippur, Chanukkah, and Rosh HaShannah, use the Talmud, and hold Torah readings mainly in Hebrew. How many Reform and Reconstructionist Jews can even say these things of themselves? Calling Messianic Judaism non-Judaism or Christianity isn't a satisfactory explanation for it; I consider it "running for the hills".
Your POV. This is not a place for such discussions. See WP:NOTHumus sapiens ну? 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Wikipedia a Community or a Police State?[edit]

Tell me why you reverse my edits before actually doing it, and that includes any other Joe as much as it includes PinchasC. That will let me AT LEAST know that that you know what I changed before removing it. Of course, you'll probably never respond to this message, because that may require actually changing your mind about something.

Zorkfan 00:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:NOT and please reread what I wrote about WP:NPOV#Undue weight above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When and if an article on Messianic synagogues is created, the edit Keeves suggested up should suffice. To expand on what Humus mentioned, there's no reason we would put a statement like "the list below doesn't include Baptist Churches" either. And you threw in Jewish Renewal, but since it's more of a movement that isn't even always separate from the mainline denominations it doesn't make sense to say "the synagogues below don't include Jewish Renewal". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're jewish, and you believe what they believe - no, it's not a police state. As long as you agree with them, and they agree with you, it's a free place to exchange ideas. Just don't disagree with them. That's a NO NO. (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think you're allow to use words like "Baptist". You can only say "Jewish". And make sure it's properly capitalized and stuff. lol (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since Hebrew is an ancient language, I'm guessing as old as if not older than Greek, why use a greek word and not a hebrew one? I've always wondered that and was hoping to find a paragraph in this article explaining how a greek word was adopted. Does it have anything to do with the large population of Jews in Alexandria where Greek was the predominant language? --Kimonandreou 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that quite possibly synagogues may have developed initially to a significant extent among Greek-speaking Jews, of whom there were enough even in Jerusalem that the inscription of the synagogue in Jerusalem that (very likely) predates the destruction of the second temple is in Greek. All of the oldest written references to synagogues are in Greek. However, I have not found any explanation regarding why this might be the case this in reliable (scholarly) sources, so I think your question cannot be answered in the Wikipedia article. Jjgw (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blanking image gallery[edit]

I am questioning this blanking. The edit summary says: "Wikipedia is not an image gallery with no text to accompany them; upload your pictures to Wikimedia Commons)". Why was this done without any discussion? What's wrong with illustrating history and architecture of famous synagogues, including "text to accompany"? Compare with Moscow and many other articles that have image galleries. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Touro Synagogue and end of Revolutionary War[edit]

I am questioning the statement that Washington ended the war in 1787 at this site. The war ended in 1783. Washington took the surrender of British forces in Yorktown in 1781. Mfletcher1 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On what grounds is חבורה transliterated chabura instead of chavura? I've never heard the former pronunciation, nor can I think of any grammatical justification for it. Flourdustedhazzn 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egyptian Jews as well as a few other communities don't differentiate between beth and veth. It's possible that it was transliterated by someone from such a tradition...or it's possible that it was transliterated by someone who is insufficiently familiar with spoken Hebrew to have realized their mistake. Tomertalk 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Habura" is the common Sephardic transliteration. Thus, it is not a mistake. Pokey54 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Pokey54Reply[reply]

Synagogue is not a replica of the Temple[edit]

I have replaced this section.

Orthodox Judaism has considered synagogue construction over the last two thousand years as following the outlines of the original Tabernacle, which was also the outline for the temples in Jerusalem.

Synagogues are not replicas of the temple or tabernacle. There is no source for this and it does not happen in practice. It is a myth. 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any spanish synagogue?[edit]

Why there is not in the article any spanish synagogue? Samuel ha Levi's synagogue was built in 1356; synagogue of Santa María la Blanca was built in 1180 and modified in XIII century; Cordoba's synagogue was built in 1315. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Description of "minyan" in the lead[edit]

The lead describes a minyan as simply "ten jews". I know the subtleties are covered in the article for minyan, but based on what I read there, is this a case of oversimplifying something to the point where it's a bit misleading? How about something like:

"Jewish worshop can take place anywhere, although a 'minyan' of ten Jews (traditionally but not always adult men) is required for some rituals."

Not a big change, but maybe the extra words convey both the subtlety and the fact that there isn't consensus between different schools? Your call. Señor Service (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plum Street Temple[edit]

Perhaps the Plum Street Temple in Cincinnati would be a good addition to the Reform Synagogue section. It is both a very historical and beautiful Synagogue. Maybe just a picture would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a beautiful Catholic church downtown, where I live. Most people have never seen it. Should I post a picture of that building also? Should everyone? Is there a limit to the number of pictures of religious buildings we can post? I have hundreds of pictures of this Catholic masterpiece. Is it OK if I post them all? I don't want the world to be cheated. Everyone would benefit from the beauty of this Catholic building. Don't you agree? (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perennial issues[edit]

I just did a major clean-up of the page, which suffers from the impulse to clutter usually caused by those adding true but trial=vial facts, or disquisitions on some aspect of synagogue life such as detailed explications of customs of chasidim, reform, Sephardim, etc. , or material about theology, development of the reform movement, etc., which would be better added to articles on specific topics that can be linked here.

  • I also tried to select photos that will show the antiquity of the synagogue, the range of synagogue styles, and the way the interior of the synagogue looks to those who are unfamiliar. What wikipedia really needs are many good photo os synagogues added to articles such as Bimah and to articles on individual synagogues or to Jewish ceremonial art, or to particular styles of synagogue art and architecture. We could use, for example, articles on Synagogue wall paintings, Synagogue menorahs. And on the synagogues of particular styles or regions in the manner of the article on Wooden synagogues. Not everything we know about synagogues needs to find a spot on this page. Better to have more information on a wode net of articles.Historicist (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are the weekly services called?[edit]

What are the weekly services called? What's the Jewish equivalent of "going to mass"? --Thomas Btalk 06:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In English, one might say "I'm going to services" or "I'm going to Shul" (equivalent to "I'm going to Church.") For the names of the different services see Jewish prayer.--agr (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
T'filah, or you can more specifically refer to a single service, Shacharit (morning), Minchah (Afternoon), or Arvit/Maariv (night) - Cakiva (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Jewish synagogue"[edit]

That phrasing appears in the article three times. Varlaam (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the issue? - Cakiva (talk) 09:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Jewish synagogue? Are you sure it isn’t a Catholic synagogue? Fried Pork Dumplings (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synagogue, Hekhal, D'bhir[edit]

I erased the following from the lead: [Synagogues have a large hall for prayer (the main sanctuary)] "called "Hekhal" from which is derived the term 'Hykala'. Beyond this is the D'bhir or holy of holies (from which is derived the term "M'dbha")" attributed to Stinespring W. F. (1962) 'Temple, Jerusalem' in 'The interpreters Dictionary of the Bible' vol 4 p 536. For one, this distinction is unclear. It seems to claim these are two separate rooms, which they are not. Actually the sanctuary has an Ark which is a sort of cabinet, not a room. Second, this sentence was unsuited to the lead (what is a Hykala or a M'dbha?).Third, the body of the article (->Interior Elements) was much better and more accurate on this point and quite sufficient. Yabti (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?[edit]

Origins of "Shul"[edit]

I see "shul" listed as Hebrew. The only etymologies I've been able to find are that it's Yiddish, not Hebrew. Any source for it being Hebrew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1434:E00:4DD3:41C0:4A5E:A94C (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want my religion pasted all over Wikipedia.[edit]

I want my religion pasted all over Wikipedia. How do I do that if I'm not a jew? It seems impossible, since judaism seems to have special status on this site. I don't see special badges for Catholics or ... Why not? Are we not entitled to badges? This is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the 'special badge' for Catholics is called the Christianity portal.[1] You might want to take a look at it. - Cakiva (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Origins of Synagogues in Palestine[edit]

I wanted to inform you all that I am preparing to edit the Origins section to include a bit on the origins of synagogues specifically in Roman Palestine. I am going to be using the text Revolt and Reformation, written by Schiffman, to discuss how the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. prompted the emergence of synagogues. If anyone has anything they want to share, contribute or discuss, please let me know on this talk page. DanaBerk (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DanaBerk, your source is unclear. Who is "Schiffman" and what is the title "Revolt and Reformation"? Double check that info. Other than that the content sounds promising. Chapmansh (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Binder as a source[edit]

The source for Second temple synagogues was Donald Binder. Someone marked it as [unreliable?]. I don't really have an opinion, but I wanted to share what I found from a quick search. This is his Amazon bio:

DONALD D. BINDER is Rector of Historic Pohick Church, colonial parish of George Washington and George Mason, near Mt. Vernon, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from SMU (1997) and has written extensively on the topic of Second Temple period synagogues, the subject of his published doctoral dissertation, 'Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period' (SBLDS, 1999), and the reference volume, 'The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book' (Brill, 2008), co-authored with Anders Runesson and Birger Olsson.

So he has a PHD at Southern Methodist University. He appears to be doing some very original research. This guy also cowrote a book with him: Again, very original stuff. I think the skepticism is whether he is academic or theological. I wouldn't like to see the paragraph go away, but stay, either with or without the unreliable tag. (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)John DeeReply[reply]

I would say keep the unreliable tag as, being christian, this warrants further scrutiny and we should remain aware that there is motivation to provide misinformation. On the other hand, he has apparently no experience on archaeological sites or spent any time studying with established scholars or been accredited by any authoritative institutions on this subject and this may as well be accredited to my mother, an education PhD who has her own thoughts about the second temple, although she has no expertise or actual experience in this subject. - Cakiva (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Synagogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Synagogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin, "Great Assembly": unsourced, Rabbinical view only[edit]

"During the Babylonian captivity (586–537 BCE) the men of the Great Assembly formalized and standardized the language of the Jewish prayers."

  • There is no scientific proof the Great Assembly ever existed.
  • Even if some kind of "committee of the sages" existed, the possible date of its creation is not usually set that far back.
  • No source is quoted.

Right now, this paragraph is useless rubbish. Arminden (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An important thing to consider about Judaism is that there are both cultural/religious traditions, and conflicting factual/historical evidence. Both exist side by side and must be represented equally, in my own personal belief. I agree that the dating and sourcing are poor and that makes the value of this statement nigh useless. However, as the Great Assembly is attributed with many developments in Jewish practice by Jewish oral tradition, it is of value to include this statement, but only if it can be properly sourced. Whether it existed or not is irrelevent, the point is that a perceived body known as the 'Great Assembly' constructed these things by Jewish tradition and that, by itself grants merit and validity to statements such as this and they have the right to be included. Perhaps, to represent the equally important scientific side of this argument you could add in that this statement is attributed to oral tradition and not historical evidence. - Cakiva (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samaritan Synagogues[edit]

This may seem a bit trivial, but if the Delos Synagogue is a Samaritan one surely it should not be listed in the list of 'oldest synagogues' as Samritanism is clearly not Judaism - just as Messianic Judaism isn't Judaism, but it is a related religion sharing many features.--Grammarbishop8 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Nah... forget what I said. --Grammarbishop8 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After working on this topic, the collected material might have turned out to be large and important enough as to require an article of its own. If that happens, we could just keep here the most important general info and add a hatnote linking to the new article. If that doesn't happen, please don't cut down the material, it's quite an interesting topic. The main source I used is not the newest, there are lots of other & newer sources, but my time is limited - please allow those interested to expand and elaborate on the topic. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Samaritans are just as old and ancient, both ethnically and ritually as any Jew. They have actually been perpetually inhabiting Eretz Yisrael since biblical times. They are not Jews, no, however they are protected under the banner of Jewish culture and common descent from the ancient Israelites/Hebrews. Messianic 'Jews' are not Jews because they have rejected one of the core foundations of Judaism - an absolute rejection of Idolatry - and will openly admit this, and the inclusion of Christian text, understanding and practice to their religious tradition. Cakiva (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Argument About Messianic 'Synagogues'[edit]

So here's something to consider in this argument. Judaism holds core foundations that are represented in traditional practice and religious doctrine - the Tanakh. In order to be considered a Jew, someone needs to be part of any of the major streams of cultural and religious tradition that is descended from the ancient ethnic and cultural kingdom of Judea. A core aspect of this belief is a total rejection of idolatry, as outlined in Leviticus (I am using english terms to make it easier for everyone to understand), and that one should not try to convert an idolater, or preserve the towns of idolaters, and to attack and shun them whenever possible. Obviously, worship in G-d through a human representation (a physical representation) is idolatry in the eyes of any stream of Judaism, and would traditionally eject the Messianics from being represented as Jews. For the argument that they are 'mostly ethnic Jews', it has been found that they are roughly half, or less, ethnically Jewish as they seek converts and take in a lot of Christians.[1] In addition to this, they adopt Christian doctrine, documents, Christian belief systems and interpretations, reference other Christian leaders as well as Jewish Rabbis, etc. As such, they cannot claim to be Jews. This article is about Jewish synagogues, which was decided when the page was put under the Judaism portal. A synagogue is defined only as a place of meeting. The only reason of why a Synagogue is different from a Church in any other faith is that it is Jewish. Even if under a different name, such as Temple, it is still considered a Synagogue and not an entirely new place of worship because it is still Jewish. My argument is this: considering everything I've said, it would make the most sense to put Messianic 'Synagogues' under a page about Christian places of worship, as no stream of Judaism or ethnic descendents of ancient Israel have adopted Messianics as being true Jews, it has no place in a Jewish portal and would not need its own seperate page because it is more in line with Christian belief. Please, give me your thoughts on thisCakiva (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No mosque[edit]

No Muslim (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]