If an unglazed earthenware pot is to be used for cookong, follow the following steps to seal the pot: Soak the pot entirely in water for 24 hours. The next day, take up the pot and gently wipe the pot with a cloth, and when the pot is still damp, spread coconut oil on the inside and outside of the pot. Afterwards, set the pot in the hot sun so that the oil will fully absorb within the pores of the pot. After the oil has been fully absorbed, place rice water (water wherein rice was left to soak for 1 day) into the pot, along with a little rice flour, and bring the rice water to a boil. Afterwards, pour out the hot rice water and allow the pot to cool off. After cleaning the pot from the residual rice product, refill the pot with tap water and place the pot in a larger pan to see if the pot will continue to seep. After 24 hours, check the pot and the larger pan, and there should be no seepage! The earthenware pot should be completely sealed and can now be used for cooking.
Jewish scholars, such as Judah Halevi (12th-century) in his Kuzari and Hayyim Selig Slonimski (19th-century), advocated taking Sinai and Jerusalem, respectively, as the Prime Meridian and the standard for the beginning of time, by which all other time zones, and subsequently, date-lines, were to be advanced.[1] Accordingly, this would place Jerusalem at 35°13′25″ east of Greenwich (31°46′44″N 35°13′25″E / 31.77889°N 35.22361°E) and which, when the sun is at its zenith during the hour of noon, daylight spans 90° towards the east and 90° towards the west, for a total of 180°, which is half the circumference of the earth, or what it takes for the sun to traverse in 12 hours (from man's perspective).[1] Countries to the west of Greenwich at 145°13′25″ and beyond, according to Slonimski, would have then been marked by a different date-line, one day behind that of Jerusalem.[1] Such a division, had it been adopted, would have placed Alaska in a different date-line than that of the rest of the continental United-States[1] and would have altered the dates (time zones) now universally recognized for other countries, based on the Coordinated Universal Time. Had this method been adopted, it would have placed China 18 hours behind that of Jerusalem (which is now 5 hours ahead of Jerusalem).
The conventional view of modern-archaeologists is to reckon the counting of these four gates (e.g. 1, 2, 3 and 4) from left to right, as one would count in Western societies, making Robinson's Arch the fourth and last in a row, counting from left to right.[2] The question, however, which arises is whether or not Josephus, a Hebrew who was accustomed to reckon numbered objects while counting them from right to left, intended that this gate should, in fact, be the first gate mentioned in his description of the gates leading into the Temple Mount enclosure on its western side.[3]
→ in re: Draft:Outline of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Royal Stoa was, for all practical purposes, a basilica with four rows of columns running lengthwise, each made of 40 columns, the Royal Stoa thus contained three parallel aisles, with a central aisle measuring 14.8 metres (49 ft) in breadth and two flanking aisles measuring 9.9 metres (32 ft) in breadth each, for a total breadth of 35 metres (115 ft).[4] Each column was approximately 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) in diameter and, according to Josephus, 30 feet (9.9 metres) tall. The central hall was twice as tall as the aisles, probably nearly 33 metres (108 ft) tall. Israeli archaeologist Ehud Netzer estimates the Royal Stoa was roughly 33 metres (108 ft) wide and 240 metres (790 ft) long, though Josephus wrote that the Royal Cloisters ran the entire length of the Southern Wall,[5] which wall measures 922 feet (281 m). This distance was known to the Greeks as stadion (translated by others as "furlong").[6]
A lever is a beam connected to ground by a hinge, or pivot, called a fulcrum. Archimedes once said, "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
Talmud (Baba Bathra 3:3 [end]) - 55a - b
R. Ashi said in the name of R. Johanan: A boundary or a tree which is found between two estates of a proselyte is considered an intervention concerning hazakah (usucaption), but not concerning corner tithe and concerning defilement. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan: It is considered an intervention concerning the two last-mentioned as well. But how is the law if there was no boundary and no tree, and nevertheless they were separated? R. Mrinus in the name of R. Johanan explained that he acquires title to the whole field which is called after his name. What does this mean? Said R. Papa: If people call it the field which the proselyte used to water from his valley. R. Aha b. Ivya was sitting before R. Assi, and said in the name of R. Assi b. Hanina that a hazuba (Sea squill) makes an intervention in the estate of a proselyte. What is a hazuba (Sea squill)? Said R. Jehudah. in the name of Rabh: This was a mark by which Joshua marked the land which he divided among the tribes of Israel. He says again in the name of the same authority: Joshua did not count but the cities which were placed on the boundaries (i.e., the cities which are enumerated in the Book of Joshua). He said again in the name of Samuel: All that the Holy One, blessed be He, had shown to Moses from the land of Israel was subject to tithes. (It means that from the products growing in those places tithes must be separated biblically.) What does it mean to exclude? The land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites [Gen. xv. 19].
Some Old Hebrew names reflect Grecian usage, such as Paneas for the ancient Leshem. The retentention of Old Hebrew name for Cesarea Philippi, according to Schürer, effectually began in the 4th century, when the name Paneas was once again used.[7][8] The names Lod, Beisan, and Sepphoris were preferred by Semitic groups over their Greco-Roman names, viz., Diospolis, Scythopolis and Diocæsarea, respectively.[9] By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, "that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country," had no longer been realised.[10]
1 Kings 19:6
...as well as the country's Jewish population.[11]
Wars against Chu, Han, and Wei edit
| Summary of major events | |
| Year | Events |
|---|---|
| c. 557 BC | Qin fought with Jin |
| 361 BC | Duke Xiao became ruler of Qin |
| 356 BC | Shang Yang implemented his first set of reforms in Qin |
| 350 BC | Shang Yang implemented his second set of reforms in Qin |
| 338 BC | King Huiwen became ruler of Qin |
| 316 BC | Qin conquered Shu and Ba |
| 293 BC | Qin defeated the allied forces of Wei and Han at the Battle of Yique |
| 260 BC | Qin defeated Zhao at the Battle of Changping |
| 256 BC | Qin ended the Zhou Dynasty |
| 247 BC | Ying Zheng became ruler of Qin |
| 230 BC | Qin conquered Han |
| 228 BC | Qin conquered Zhao |
| 225 BC | Qin conquered Wei |
| 223 BC | Qin conquered Chu |
| 222 BC | Qin conquered Yan, Dai and the Wuyue region |
| 221 BC | Qin conquered Qi and unified China under the Qin Dynasty |
"From Shimʻon ben Cosibah to Yeshuʻa ben Galgulah and to the men of the Gader, Peace. I call heaven to my witness that I am fed-up with the Galileans that be with you, every man! [And] that I am resolved to put fetters on your feet, just as I did to Ben ʻAflul."
(Original Hebrew)
משמעון בן כוסבה לישע בן גלגלה ולאנשי הגדר. שלום. מעיד אני עלי משמים ימס מן הגללאים שאצלכם כל אדם. שאני נתן מכבלים ברגלכם כמה שעסת[י] לבן עפלול
.jpg)
The PEF's Survey of Western Palestine (SWP)
The virtue of Eretz Yisrael is very great, as there are commandments that depend on the land, that is to say, it is impossible for a person to perform them unless he is in the Land of Israel.
Jewish custom and tradition anchor us to our past, prioritize the present, [...], but most importantly, connect us to each other.
Indigo dye is a greenish dark blue color, obtained from either the leaves of the tropical Indigo plant (Indigofera), or from woad (Isatis tinctoria), or the Chinese indigo (Persicaria tinctoria). Many societies make use of the Indigofera plant for producing different shades of blue. Cloth that is repeatedly boiled in an Indigo dye bath-solution (boiled and left to dry, boiled and left to dry, etc.), the blue pigment becomes darker on the cloth. After dyeing, the cloth is hung in the open air to dry.
A Native American woman described the process used by the Cherokee Indians when extracting the dye:
We raised our indigo which we cut in the morning while the dew was still on it; then we put it in a tub and soaked it overnight, and the next day we foamed it up by beating it with a gourd. We let it stand overnight again, and the next day rubbed tallow on our hands to kill the foam. Afterwards, we poured the water off, and the sediment left in the bottom we would pour into a pitcher or crock to let it get dry, and then we would put it into a poke made of cloth (i.e. sack made of coarse cloth) and then when we wanted any of it to dye [there]with, we would take the dry indigo.[13][14]
In Sa Pa, Vietnam, the tropical Indigo (Indigo tinctoria) leaves are harvested and, while still fresh, placed inside a tub of room-temperature to lukewarm water where they are left to sit for 3 to 4 days and allowed to ferment, until the water turns green. Afterwards, crushed limestone (pickling lime) is added to the water, at which time the water with the leaves are vigorously agitated for 15 to 20 minutes, until the water turns blue. The blue pigment settles as sediment at the bottom of the tub. The sediment is scooped out and stored. When dyeing cloth, the pigment is then boiled in a vat of water; the cloth (usually made from yarns of hemp) is inserted into the vat for absorbing the dye. After hanging out to dry, the boiling process is repeated as often as needed to produce a darker color.
References edit
- ^ a b c d Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 159-162 (s.v. יום ולילה). OCLC 54817857. (reprinted from 1922 and 1938 editions of the Hebrew Publishing Co., New York)
- ^ Cf. Warren, C. (1876). Underground Jerusalem: An Account of Some of the Principal Difficulties Encountered in its Exploration and the Results Obtained. London: Richard Bentley and Son. p. 68. OCLC 931310929., where Sir Charles Warren counted the gates in the western wall from left to right, by calling the first gate "the most northern," i.e. as one faces the western wall on its outside, the northernmost gate being on one's left-hand side. This way of counting, however, contradicts the practice in the Land of Israel, where the Mishnah (Middot 1:4) counts the southern gates of the Inner Temple Court, naming first the Kindling Gate (שער הדלק) and, lastly, the Water Gate, and which gates are later enumerated from right to left (2:6) as one stands within the inner enclosure of the same Temple Court and faces the southern wall, and where the gates closest to the western side (on one's right-hand side) are said to be the Upper Gate and the Kindling Gate, with the Water Gate being the farthest removed from the western side.
- ^ For sources on the origins of this dispute, see Olshausen, Justus [in German] (1833). Zur Topographie des alten Jerusalems (in German). Kiel. pp. 4–5. OCLC 882780088. and Robinson, E.; Smith, E. (1841). Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838. Vol. 1. Boston: Crocker & Brewster. pp. 566-567. OCLC 989455877.. The dispute centers around the question on which direction one is to begin the count of the four gates on the western enclosure of the Temple Mount mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities 15:410 (15.11.5.), and whether they are to be counted from left to right (as in western societies), or from right to left (as in oriental societies).
- ^ Figures here are based on the Greek Aegina standard foot (pous) of 33.3 cm. per foot, and based on Josephus' testimony in Antiquities 15.11.5. that there were 30 feet (Greek: πόδες) to each aisle, excepting the middle aisle which was one and a half of the other two aisles.
- ^ Josephus, Antiquities 15.11.5 (15.410)
- ^ Josephus, Antiquities 15.11.3 (15.415–416). Compare Mishnah Middot 2:1 which states that the Temple Mount measured five-hundred cubits (Heb. amah) by five-hundred cubits. In reality, this was not an exact square, but rather a trapezoidal shape. It is to be noted that Herod the Great, according to Josephus, expanded the northern area of the Temple Mount by filling in that sunken area with earth, which accounts now for its overall area being far more than an imperfect square. Based on the southern wall's measurements from west to east, this would place each cubit at 56.205 cm. Saadia Gaon, on the other hand, holds that a stadion was equivalent to only 470 cubits (v. Uziel Fuchs, "Millot HaMishnah" by R. Saadia Gaon — the First Commentary to the Mishnah, Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature, pub. Bar-Ilan University Press (2014), p. 66), in which case , each cubit was 59.792 cm, close to the 57.6 centimetre (22.7 in) cubit espoused by the Chazon-Ish.
- ^ Schürer 1891, p. 134 (note 345).
- ^ Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.1. (18.26); ibid. The Jewish War 2.4.2. (2.57); Jerusalem Talmud (Shevi'it 9:2)
- ^ Rainey 1978, p. 10.
- ^ Sozomen & Philostorgius 1855, p. 481 (epitome of book vii, chapt. 11).
- ^ Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2017). "Palestinian Jewish Aramaic", Glottolog 3.0, Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
- ^ Yardeni, ʻAda (2000). Textbook of Aramaic, Hebrew and Nabataean Documentary Texts from the Judaean Desert and related material. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem on behalf of the Ben-Ṣiyyon Dinur Center for the Study of Jewish History. pp. 155–159. OCLC 610669723.; P. Benoit, J.T Milik and R de Vaux, "Les grottes de Murabba'at" - DJD II, Oxford: Clarendon, 1961, pp. 243-254.
- ^ Knight, Oliver (1956–57), "History of the Cherokees, 1830–1846", Chronicles of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Historical Society, p. 164, OCLC 647927893
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) - ^ Foreman, Grant (1934). The Five Civilized Tribes. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. p. 283. ISBN 978-0-8061-0923-7.