Talk:Shema

On 5 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Shema Yisrael to Shema. The result of the discussion was moved.

Instances in Other Religious Texts

I added a brief reception history of the Shema found in later Jewish Scripture, Second Temple Literature, and the New Testament. This was to fill what appeared to be a gap between Torah and Rabbinic literature on the page. There is a brief section "In Christianity" but I did add a couple more instances found in the New Testament. I do not attempt to interpret or suggest any significance for the selections. It is merely a look at the quotations, reformulations, and abbreviations of the Shema in other religious literature. If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please let me know. Erik755 (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Erik755[reply]

3 blessings after the shema in the evening?

Read Mishna Berachot Mishna dalet בשחר מברך שתיים לפניה ואחת לאחריה; ובערב מברך שתיים לפניה ושתיים לאחריה, אחת ארוכה ואחת קצרה. מקום שאמרו להאריך, אינו רשאי לקצר; לקצר, אינו רשאי להאריך. לחתום, אינו רשאי שלא לחתום; ושלא לחתום, אינו רשאי לחתום

Thats why Nusah Sphard and Sephardi end at ' baruch ata hashem Shomer amo yisrael la'ad' Sadia Hagaon,Rambam and the pratice of some Yemenites includes the '3rd beracha' but they merge it with shomer amo yisrael la'ad by saying 'Baruch Shomer amo etc' not 'baruch ata hashem etc' thus they have also only 2 berakhot that halacha demands. This is likely the origional practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.121.174 (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig?

For some bizarre reason, this was a disambig page where the Jewish article had been put in Shema Yisrael (Judaism) and a New Testament quote in Shema Yisrael (New Testament). Both are about the same principle, so I merged it back and took the opportunity to copyedit both. In my view, there is nothing wrong with having the "Christian" quote on the "Jewish" page. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyone curious why I didn't put this (otherwise fascinating observation) in the External links? The Jewish Haiku. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yoke

OL means both yoke and burden. The meaning -here- is burden. Please find a way to express this. elpincha 18:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) , who also knows OL means beer in Danish language

Shahadah reference

The parallel to Shema in Islam would include both the Shahadah and the takbeer. elpincha 18:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I've improved the context.--Pharos 03:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added key phrases

I added key phrases to understand the totality of the shema: "loving God with all one's heart, soul and might". And to "teach them (referring to these key words) diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."

All this is a logical flow from the starting point that the "Lord is one!" or the "The LORD our God is one LORD". Marax 03:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

The portion regarding the translation to English is troublesome. The Hebrew text in the 'Content' section is שמע ישראל אדני אלהינו אדני אחד, which is (correctly) transliterated as "Shma Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad." The correct Shema (or at least the one I've always known) contains the tetragrammaton rather than אדני. The problem arises in that almost all transliterations of the Hebrew use Adonai, for obvious reasons to most Jews.

I changed the translation to English that used Y-H-W-H ("Listen Israel! Y-H-W-H is our G-d! Y-H-W-H is one!") simply because the Hebrew version of the Shema earlier in the paragraph does not contain the tetragrammaton, which was making the section internally inconsistent. I stopped short of changing the Hebrew itself because I wanted to avoid making a unilateral decision on how to translate the Shema to English, given the difference between the Hebrew and the standard transliteration. Thoughts on this would be welcome.

On a seperate topic, the phrase immediately following this, "Echad - can also rightly mean 'unity'" could be construed as POV. Christian belief dictates that this is the case so as to accommodate the concept of a trinity, but many Jewish sources contest this translation. A case can be made for either side, so either both interpretations should be detailed, or the phrase should be simply removed. Personally, I find it to be out of place and irrelevant, but I know that this is a strongly debated topic and deserves examination. 81.131.130.108 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, this was me. Damn cookies. Dbratton 19:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think YHWH can safely be translated as God, and ellokeinu our "Our Lord" or such. Echad does not mean "unity", and to construe this is indeed POV. "Unity" in Hebrew is "achdut" or "yichud". "Echad" is sometimes used to refer to unity is a metaphoric fashion but never literally. JFW | T@lk 02:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the text here is not actually correct. Instead of אדני we should indeed be having the Tetragrammaton, which is the correct Hebrew version of Deut 6:4. JFW | T@lk 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you agree. Now we just need to find someone who is comfortable typing out the name of G-d to change it. I know I'm not. ;) Dbratton 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to amen that "echad" does not mean unity. I am a Oneness Pentecostal, which means (among other things) that I believe the trinity is false doctrine. The Shema is very central to my faith, and I found this article very informative. I was going to type the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew for you, but I see it is already done ^_^. Blessings! Spiritanointed (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Echad

The translation commentary I added respecting the word Echad was not intended to be a NPOV violation. I felt the existing translation / commentary was incomplete, because of the different ways in which Echad has been known to be used in Scripture. For example, in Genesis 2:24 the word is used to refer idiomatically of sexual union between husband and wife. This passage especially colors my perception of the term.

My persional theological biases not withstanding, it wasn't my intention to shift the nutrality of that section toward one linguistic (or theological) interpretation or the other. I can, in retrospect, see how Dbratton (by whom my edit was reverted) could take my edit the way he did. I also agree with 81.131.130.108: The exact meaning of Echad is the subject of some controversy in both Jewish and Christian circles. Therefore, I'm going to link the term Echad to an article that documents the controversy and gives it the attention it deserves. —Wikijeff

There is no Jewish controversy on the meaning of Echad, and I am more than a bit suspicious of your suggestion that there is. It means one, as in Genesis 1:5, as in the song "Echad Mi Yodea" (who knows "one"?) etc etc. Do not misrepresent matters please. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff. 81.131.130.108 is me, having forgotten to log in.

I do agree with JFW in that there really is no controversy in Jewish circles as to the meaning of Echad. That said, I do recognize that there is a lot of christian support for an alternate translation of the term. As I mentioned above, the best option is to either detail both cases, or to remove the contention altogether - this article isn't the place for it. To that end, your creation of a new article specifically for the term is probably the best approach. I look forward to seeing it developed, and I will definitely be interested in contributing! Dbratton 03:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a seperate article to cover this! That is in complete breech of WP:NPOV. Firstly: where are those Christian sources? In the absence of them, this debate is completely pointless. JFW | T@lk 14:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the assumption that Jeff would be providing such sources in the new article he seemed to be creating (although it's been a few days now). If he finds good, non-biased sources supporting his claims I won't have a problem with linking to an article discussing the difference in translations, but unless and until he does so, I agree that there's no reason to change the Shema article. I personally have never seen a convincing argument that echad in this context can be taken to mean unity, so we'll see. Dbratton 15:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new page to deal with a POV is called a "POV fork" and strongly discouraged by policy. Wikijeff has a fairly strong Christian agenda, so if he wants that viewpoint represented we can work on a section here called "Christian interpretation", because the trinity flies in the face of monotheism and hence calls for a reinterpretation of Echad. If there are no serious sources I will consider the discussion closed. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trinity does not 'fly in the face of monotheism' - people who believe in the trinity also believe very strongly that there is one and only one God. You may not agree with the concept of the trinity - you may think it's false and nonsensical. But that doesn't mean people who do believe it are not monotheists. Nor is an interpretation of 'echad' as 'unity' necessary to believe in one God in trinity.165.120.151.117 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku

I mentioned the Haiku above. An anon actually inserted this in the article, but it was removed[1]. I'm open to persuation, but I thought it would add a nice dimension to the article. Aish.com is an outlet of serious articles[2]. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it mainly because it was smack in the middle of the important Content section, where it seems quite out of place and irrelevant. It's a fascinating coincidence and I wouldn't mind seeing it elsewhere on the page, but it's not really important enough to be stuck between word definitions and the meaning of the prayer. The best I can come up with is at the end of the Content section, but it's hard to say where the best fit is. Dbratton 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There must be other cultural references. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've tagged this article for cleanup due to its bizarre inclusion of patches of text in JPEG format. I don't know who on Earth thought it would be a good idea to enclose some of the text of this article in image files (one of the most intensely annoying design blunders on the web), let alone JPEGs which are intended for photographs and the like and are wholly unsuitable for text, resulting in either huge files (161KB for a short paragraph!) or ugly compression artifacts. This really is a terrible embarrasment to Wikipedia. What in יהוה's name were you thinking?! 86.136.92.195 14:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is of the contents of a Torah scroll. Judaism has many requirements for the appearance of a Torah scroll beyond the text itelf, including special calligraphy, and regards these other elements as essential. Thus, the implicit assumption in your criticism -- that the only thing encyclopedic about this image is its text as text -- is inconsistent with central beliefs of the religion that the article is concerned with. If you believe that this particular image has properties that make it different from and more problematic than other images typically found in Wikipedia articles, these issues could be discussed separately. --Shirahadasha 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Besides Sarit Hadad and cover versions, YouTube has at least two other chanted versions of the prayer. Should they be mentioned? --Ikar.us (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings and Policies

Would it be against wikipedia's policy to post a simple notice to those who wish to print this page-- that they should try not to discard it, for it contain the name of the almighty and is the pivotal prayer in Judaism?DoctorKnockersMD (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to make it less problematic if printed? Pi314m (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Shema in Christianity

Hello friends,

I suggest the section Shema in Christianity to transfer to the another article with same name and include a brief of it here in this article.

Regards--تسلیم (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shema in Christianity

Although well-written, the section "Shema in Christianity" is not neutral and reads like a sermon or religious exegesis.

I've deleted the whole sub-section "splitting the shema". Although as a Christian I have a love for seeing religious debate, a Wikipedia Encyclopedia article shouldn't be promoting any particular religious interpretation, let alone an attack by one school of theological thought on another, and that's what the whole section's primary purpose was. It was really more an argument over the doctrine of the trinity than anything else. Mitchell Powell (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Mark passage is clearly a reference to the Shema, the John passage seems dubious to me. The only connection seems to be the word "one." This seems to be an attempt to make a case for Trinitarianism. I am Christian, but I think this is stretching the text and there is no reference to any Biblical scholar. Thus, I am removing this text "Jesus also refers to the Shema in The Gospel of John 10:30. A group of Jews in the Temple in Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah, asks him if he is Messiah, the anointed one of God. Jesus concludes his response with the words "I and the Father are one." (NIV)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.31.40 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem?

I've heard that in some denominations, I think mostly Orthodox, instead of reading the Tetragrammaton as "Adonai" when reciting it out loud they read it as "Hashem", "the Name". Shouldn't this get some mention? 128.192.216.214 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem is said only when speaking about G-d outside of prayer. When reciting the Shema in the context of a prayer service, Adonai is used. 71.165.132.175 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent of HaShem is used by the Samaritans in prayer, as "shema," or "The Name"; It would seen tres raisonable if "The Name" were an accepted substitute in the Shema for "Adonai," simply because "HaShem" means "ALL names of Hashem," and there are an incalculable number, while "Adonai" restricts itself to one name of HaShem, thereby introducing the concept of splintering into the oneness of the name, a thing which indeed does not belong. BarakZ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Echad" as "alone"

"Echad" is the number 1. Without any English inserted the last two words are "yhwh 1". The Indoeuropean "is" makes it easier to understand, though it is correct to say it is not in the literal translation. 99.48.42.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

historical notes

In the history section there should be information on the prohibitions that led to changes in prayers. For example, the first part of the Shema is in the prayerbook very close to the start of morning prayers. There is a specific historical reason for this that ought to be included in the article. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?

Here it's written אלהינו. But I've got both a Magen David pendent and a Shema Israel ring and it written אלוקינו on both. Which one is it? It's confusing. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shema Yisrael. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930200655/http://www.beki.org/audio.html to http://www.beki.org/audio.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shema is in one place

The actual Shema Yisrael is in one place. As part of Wikipedia, which includes a system of WikiLinks, it is helpful to provide such links. I've added mention of "the Shahadah, a declaration of belief." (NYTimes)

An equal amount of space is provided for another major belief, with a "Main article" template. Pi314m (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the cited .edu article did not have the word "liturgy" even once. Pi314m (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, each has 3 lines Pi314m (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Scripture

I see a link here to Deuteronomy 6:5, which takes you to a NKJV page. I'm new here and don't want to make edits, but may I suggest a link to the Tanakh instead? You will get Hebrew and English as parallel text and you will also get a Jewish translation, though in this case the translation is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard778 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source ?

“ They were first instituted in the liturgy of the Temple in Jerusalem.”

I am not sure this is clearly known. It needs a source reference. Sam (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medrashim about Baruch Shem

Should we add the two Medrashim that explain origins for Bauch shem, and rationales for why it's said quietly?

Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Shem translation, for ever and ever vs. always and forever

I don't know the history of Baruch Shem being translated ending in "for ever and ever". I personally found it confusing that different words were used for the same translation. I saw that always is another translation for לְעוֹלָם as always, and is used to contrast with וָעֶד. Since לְעוֹלָם shares roots with לְעוֹלָ meaning world or entirety, while וָעֶד does not and more closely translates to forever, always might be a better translation since always is contrasted with forever, with always meaning every moment in time, and forever meaning there are no gaps.

Is there a reason why it is translated to "for ever and ever" that I am missing?

DazzleNovak (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olam in le’olam literally means world or universe as you indicate. So a very literal translation would be "to the world/universe". But figuratively/poetically I think most siddurim translate it as "forever" (if your definitions of "always" and "forever" are correct, then by the very nature of the Jewish understanding of the Shema a continuous word would be preferred over a discrete one - G-d isn’t quantum). I read (but don’t have source now) that there weren’t words for endless time so "to the [end of] the world/universe" became a substitute. [This means Hebrew came up for a combined word for matter and time long before Einstein came up with space-time 😁]. Va’ed is associated with continuous repetition, so again figuratively/poetically it acts as an intensifier on le’olam giving "forever and ever". Ayenaee (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. – robertsky (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shema Yisrael → Shema – Propose renaming to the shortened title Shema per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Figure this is uncontroversial, but wanted to open up for comment given the importance of this topic. Longhornsg (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Judaism has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Certainly the common name (and primary topic) as shown, for example, by a Google Scholar search. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although everything is controversial, you should know that by now :). Kidding aside I definitely agree that in Hebrew and transliteration the commonname title should be Shema. I always have to pipe the current name to Shema when I use it. My only concern is with the English, it’s definitely not called "Hear" in English. I’d account for this by having the translations etc in the lead allow for this, so first sentence in lead:

Shema (also Shema [Yisrael]; Hebrew: [שְׁמַע [יִשְׂרָאֵל Šəmaʿ [Yīsrāʾēl], Hear [O Israel]) or something like that I am not being prescriptive.

From the current lead I have left out "Shema Israel" because it’s not possible to transliterate Yisrael as Israel. Also removed "Sh’ma Yisrael" the replacement of the e (shva) is I think only allowed when the "She" modifies a noun, which isn’t the case here - it’s part of the word. To indicate a syllable break "She’ma" could be used but I’ve never seen that. Both of them look like you’re telling your mother to keep quiet :). Ayenaee (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Krias Shema She'Al Hamita into Shema for reasons of context. Klbrain (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Krias Shema She'Al Hamita, the bedtime Shema, into the main Shema article. There's already a section for the Bedtime Shema in this article, which could use the sourcing from the Bedtime Shema article to improve WP:V. All told, there isn't much there for a separate article. Longhornsg (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It fits here logically. Ayenaee (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as a religious jew who understands deeply both topics i suggest this idea to be declined hear o israel (kriyat shema) of shaharit and aravit are comments tho kriyat shema is a tradition to stop nightmares. David eliaz (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David eliaz, thanks for your comment. גם אני יהודי דתי, although I’m not as sure as you are that I understand anything :). Your comment is correct that one of the reasons for the Shema Al HaMitah is to protect you from harm at night, which is not a reason we say it in Shacharit or Mincha. But that doesn’t mean the Krias Shema She'Al Hamita article shouldn’t be combined into this one. The prayer uses the same Shema declaration. Wikipedia likes things that are the same like that to be in one article - but that doesn’t mean you can’t differentiate as you have between different reasons the prayer is used for. If you look at the article I linked you’ll see it’s not very detailed, so when it’s merged here, it will need work to be done, which you’re welcome to participate in. If you have a source for your comment about nightmares you can go and edit that into the article now. If you’re having difficulty finding a source say so on my talk page and I’ll help. Ayenaee (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]