Talk:Ness Ziona

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ness Ziona. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ness-ziona.muni.il/Htmls/English/ARTICLE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ness Ziona. 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/20080407044619/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_14.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st02_14.pdf

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) 07:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkpiztmxq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.39.180 (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

What's the connection between "Ginnot Tzarifin" of the Babylonian Talmud, and the former nearby village of Sarafand? Did Ishtori Haparchi identify a connection? Is this all there is? Did he even distinguish between the two village in the immediate vicinity which were both called Sarafand (Sarafand al-Kharab and Sarafand al-Amar)? Not to mention the other two Sarafands further away, but not too far.

That's little more than nothing, and not even that is made clear within the article, it's just my guess after looking at the reference, which also doesn't mention this connection explicitly, but only offers the name of the Jewish traveller. That is an indication of what might have been meant: Ishtori Haparchi tried to identify ancient Jewish sites by the similar Arab names he encountered after a millennium+ in the expected areas. Not an incorrect approach, as proven by Edward Robinson and others, but far from failproof.

So all we have is a vague implication, Haparchi apparently said something - not a base for placing that paragraph in this article. Won't remove it to give the editor the chance to fix it, if feasible. Arminden (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Davidbena: hi David, I thought it might be you. Please make it stick, because as of now it's in no way clear that it belongs here. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since we're at it: why is צָרִיפִין transliterated once as Tzarifin and once as Tzrifin? And Tzrifin is also very close to Ness Ziona and is named after the other Sarafand, so we're going back to the main question: how can we be sure what's related to what? Arminden (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

On Sunday, I'll recheck the source and will make the distinction. I have a copy of Haparchi's outstanding work, and which is accompanied with a gloss (comments) made by today's modern scholars. I'll cite them, as well, for greater clarification.Davidbena (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In English transliterations of Hebrew, since the Hebrew is written without vowels and they must be automatically inserted by the person speaking Hebrew, this explains why the transliteration will, sometimes, omit the vowel sound, as they did here in Tzrifin. After the letter Tz (Hebrew: צ‎) there is a unique vowel known as shewa na (the movable shewa), which has a slight "a" or "e" sound, and which some linguists will write as "a" or "e", while others will omit it altogether. This is a common occurence in Hebrew diction. Today, there is a military base near Nes Ziona named Tzrifin and which takes its name from the Talmudic site.Davidbena (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To editor Arminden: To editor Davidbena: A common problem with modern editions of medieval itineraries is that the editors are not aware of archaelogical discoveries so they treat the identification question via textual analysis only. I don't know if that is true in the present case.

Anyway, the site of Sarafand al-Amar is known in Hebrew as Horbat Zerifin and it is where the Zerifin compound is now located. Archaeologist Achia Kohn-Tavor wrote this:

Eshtori Ha-Parhi identified the village of Sarafand al-‘Amar with Zerifin of the Mishnah and this identification is accepted by most scholars, although no remains in the recent excavations that can be attributed to a settlement from this period were identified. Therefore, I suggest that Sarafand al-‘Amar is not the Mishnaic Zerifin and the origin of the Arabic name, which means ‘Sarafand the Living’ or ‘the Built’ derives from the Byzantine name of the place. (Hadashot Arkeologiyot, vol 120, 2008, page 370)

A later excavator Ron Toueg also found no Mishnah-era remains and reported Kohn-Tavor's conclusion without contradicting it. (Hadashot Arkeologiyot, vol 123, 2011, p493). Kohn-Tavor's final report is in Hadashot Arkeologiyot, vol 127, 2015, p194, and still reports no findings from before Byzantine times. Note that this site is 6km from Ness Ziona, but only 2km from Rishon LeZion and Be'er Ya'akov. So even if the Sarafand al-Amar identification is correct, this is the wrong article for it. As for Sarafand al-Kharab, no remains from before the 7th century have been found. Zero^talk 05:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Zero0000:. I accept your conclusion that, perhaps, another article should contain this archaeological information. Still, the source book that I have (Kaftor va-Ferach) also includes a gloss where the editors cite the conclusion of academics and scholars regarding the identification of these old sites. Bear in mind, however, that identification of old settlements and sites is often only tentative.Davidbena (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Per your remarks that "Kohn-Tavor... reports no findings from before Byzantine times." Let us remember that the site Tzrifin is mentioned once in the Mishnah, Menachot 10:2, (compiled in year 189 CE), once in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1; p. 37a in the Oz ve-Hadar edition), and three times in the Babylonian Talmud (Menachot 64b; Baba Kama 82b; Sotah 49b), and which same Talmud was redacted (i.e. finalized) in the Byzantine period itself, in the year 500 CE. Moreover, the site is mentioned as being a place where people reside in make-shift booths covered over with cane reeds and willows!!! No wonder then that no archaeological finds have been found before the Byzantine era.Davidbena (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000 and Davidbena: thanks. From what I see, there might be enough in the gloss of David's edition of Ishtori HaParhi's book as to keep Sarafand el-Kh. in the run among at least two places, but not more. This, I believe, should make the current DAB page the more appropriate place for the Talmud story: change its character to an article about the name Sarafand, with a section on Talmudic Tz(a)rifin and the possible identification of that village, and one on the possible etymologies linking Sarafand to Tz(a)rifin and whatever "Byzantine name" Kohn-Tavor had in mind. N.B.: the rule was that toponyms from the Byzantine prriod were adaptations of older Semitic ones, but there were exceptions (Greek, Christian saints' names, etc.).

If that requires too much work, I'm afraid the section must be put aside, or maybe David can integrate it into an article on Talmudic topics.

David, thanks for the explanation about Tzrifin/Tzarifin. I know well about the vowel problem, but knew nothing about the almost silent half-vowels. Anyway, the way it's formulated now in the art. ("not to be confused with the IDF base Tzrifin", with both names followed by the Hebrew-written ones), is puzzling, as they are IDENTICAL, safe for the extra word for 'gardens' in one case, and we know so many examples where such qualifying additions do NOT point to a different place, or they do to a closely related one. Plus they are both very close to each other geographically, so the names are most likely related anyway. Conclusion: the categorical "not to be confused with" is not supported; a notice of the 2 Sarafands, just a few km apart, and their possible relation with an ancient Zrifin, or a link to the modified DAB page containing this info, is what's needed.

My two cents on Tzrifin: I guess ancient places called "booths" were a dozen to the prutah. We're still to see if the Talmud gave any indication for what area in Israel that barley offering came from (why not the northern Sarafand's predecessor?), and if Ishtori had anything to say about that.

PS: I wouldn't take it so literally with the place name automatically meaning that people actually lived in straw huts. Place names a) have a ling life, so many large cities are called "X-village" or "Y-garden", see Düsseldorf and Stuttgart, and b) any inhabited place, even Bedouin encampments, leaves archaeological traces (pottery, holes from tent poles, remains of animal pens, etc.). So that argument definitely doesn't stand. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is also correct, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there in the plains the people dwelt in tzrifin (= "make-shift booths covered over with cane reeds and willows").

My most-recent findings: Yosef Braslawski wrote an article in 1947, published by the Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, in which he shows the places where historical geographer, Samuel Klein, disagreed with the conclusions reached by Ishtori Haparchi in his work Kaftor va-Ferach, which you can access by the link here. There, Braslawski, citing Klein, wrote that Haparchi erred in a few of his identifications, meaning, yes, we must take what Ishtori Haparchi wrote with a grain of salt and must compare his statements with all other academic sources. Still, with respect to Tzrifin, Haparchi states explicitly that Tzrifin is situated west of Peqiʻin, which latter was a village that lay somewhere between Lod (Lydda) and Yavne (Jamnia). Modern historical geographers have identified this Peqiʻin with Qubayba, now a Moshav near Rehovot. Braslawski, citing Klein, says that "west" or "east" in Haparchi's writings have the connotation of either "south-west" or "north-west", as well as "south-east" and "north-east". Haparchi wrote in vol, 2 (chapter 11), p. 75: "From Nob going west in a straight course, about 3 hours [on horseback] is Tzrifin, and it is called [in Arabic] Ṣarfān." This place was said to be in the Ramle Subdistrict. The editors of Kaftor va-Ferach added there a note in which they wrote: "According to L. (Abraham Moses Luncz?), the intent is to Sarafand al-Kharab, within the city bounds of Ness Ziona, rather than to Sarafand al-Amar where is now situated the large army base" (End Quote). I find it perplexing that the editors only mention the first initial of his surname.

I wish to call your attention to the Wikipedia article, Sarafand al-Kharab, where it states there: "In 1838, Edward Robinson reported that there were two villages by the name of Sarafand in the area, one of which was inhabited by Muslims and the other ruined. Thus, it may be that Sarafand al-Kharab ("Sarafand of the ruins") acquired its name during this period.[source: Robinson and Smith, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the year 1838, Boston 1841, vol. 3. p. 45]..." (End Quote)Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

David, so you found the connection to Sarafand-of-the-Ruins: if the editor looks reliable, then put it in and all is good!

Ibrahim's campaigns led to lots of wasteland in Palestine, it fits well with the time Robinson was there.

What you say about the reed huts being widespread in the plain can also mean that there were lots of places called Tzrifin-Something :) But OK, a source is a source (me being mean). Good work! Arminden (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Davidbena: I guess you intend to add the link you found between HaParhi and Sarafand-the-Ruined into the article? Please also check how credible your source is vs. Zero's, the archaeologist Achia Kohn-Tavor, who writes that HaParhi identified the Talmudic site with THE OTHER Sarafand, "the Living", and that there is a general consensus among scholars with that opinion! Be it one she doesn't share. See here or Zero's quote here-above. BIG confusion! In the end, it doesn't look good for the whole Talmudic story, which was probably never meant to deal with a concrete geographical site, but much more with a lesson in how the sages approached difficult situations. So of very limited and remote utility for an encyclopedic article about a living, modern town. Archaeology might be so too, but at least it's dealing with certainties (the findings as such; not their interpretation). Arminden (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Haparchi does not specify which Sarafand is the Talmudic Tzrifin, but only writes that Tzrifin is Ṣarfān (Heb. צרפאן‎) (sic). I, of course, was relying on the editors of the 2007 modern edition of Kaftor va-Ferach, who, citing a certain "L" (identity unbeknownst to me) writes that Ishtori Haparchi's reference is to "Sarafand al-Kharab." So, my question would be this: On what basis does Achia Kohn-Tavor say that HaParchi identified the Talmudic site with the other Sarafand, "the Living," when, in actuality he only mentions the name Ṣarfān (without distinction), a name that was applied to two sites in the general area? If you think that we should say that the identification is disputed, I can agree to that. Meanwhile, I'll continue to search for other scholarly references to this site. By the way, in Conder & Kitchener's day, the same site was simply called Khurbet Surafend ("the Ruin of Surafend"), which suggests that it was uninhabited during the Ottoman period. See the link here. Davidbena (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You ask a good question. One thing to note is that it is the site of Sarafand al-‘Amar and not Sarafand al-Kharab which was named "Horbat Zefirin" by the Israeli Geographical Names Committee, presumably on some advice. Another identification with Sarafand al-‘Amar in an influential source is Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, 1967, vol II, p458. But Abel does not mention HaParchi. Zero^talk 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm aware of that. The archaeological report calls "Sarafand al-Amar" by the name "Horbat (ruin) [of] Zerifin", but which refers to the Tzrifin located at the large military base, north-east of Ramle.Davidbena (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that very much. The Names Committee wasn't in the habit of naming sites after military bases, and this one wasn't even at this location. They always used the names of ancient sites if they were available. The "ruin" at precisely this spot was the ruin of Sarafand al-‘Amar and its predecessors, so either they thought it was the site of ancient Zerifin or that ancient Zerifin was "close enough". It is possible to find out the reason because the Names Committee records are on the web at the Israel State Archives — except that after suffering a cyber-attack a few months ago they still haven't recovered. It must have been serious. Incidentally, I don't know exactly when the name Zerefin was attached to this place, but the ruins of Sarafand al-‘Amar and some buildings around it are labeled "Tserifin" already in a 1955 official map. Zero^talk 03:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that you've misunderstood my intent. Of course the site was NOT named after a military base, but rather, the military base (which happens to lie on or near the historical village Sarafand al-Amar, and which village was thought by some to be the Tzrifin of the Talmud), its modern Hebrew name takes its name from the old Talmudic site - although, in actuality, there were two sites by the same name "Sarafand," with distinguishing epithets. (see my explanation under the heading "Unassailable Proof")Davidbena (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for the whole Talmudic story, I concur with you that perhaps it is unnecessary for us to bring down the entire account on how the name was derived and how the geographical site was eventually found. Perhaps it is equally informative just to say that scholars are disputed as to which of the two Sarafands was the Tzrifin mentioned in Talmudic sources. In the final analysis, based on this archaeological report, most scholars hold one of the two Sarafands as the Tzrifin mentioned in Talmudic sources.- Davidbena (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To editor Arminden: Now I see a lot of OR in the article. We cannot write in wikivoice that Sarafand al-Kharab was Ginnot Tzarifin because we don't know it to be true. We don't even know for sure that Haparchi thought it was true. Furthermore the archaelogical evidence is that it was not true. I can provide multiple sources that associate that name with Sarafand al-Amar. The only correct way to handle this is to report multiple opinions. Zero^talk 12:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the Talmudic story is irrelevant here. What matters most is that the identification of the Talmudic site is disputed by scholars, some writing that it is Sarafand al-Amar and others writing that it is Sarafand al-Kharab. I'll delete the irrelevant material.   DoneDavidbena (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Zero, I agree, that's why I opened this discussion in the first place, so I don't need convincing. I am waiting for David to work on it, so pls see about this with him. I changed just a couple of words especially to point out that it was still far too vague. Anyway, if David comes up with the missing link, great, I like good stories as much as anyone; if not, I'll leave it to him or others to move it to a place where it fits in better (I've already made my suggestions). Arminden (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The edit has already been made. We are all in agreement here as to the irrelevance of the Talmudic story in this article, although, in all fairness, anyone who has ever equated Safarand with Tzrifin has done so using the Talmudic sources as their primary source. Those who say it is Safarand al-Amar acknowledge the place name of Ginnot Tzrifin, and those who say it is Safarand al-Khatab also acknowledge the place name of Ginnot Tzrifin, as explained in Talmudic sources. It is not so much an infringement on Original Research, as it is rather a questionable application for either site, seeing that both sites are disputed.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

David, I stopped following the arguments a few steps ago, but if you think the Talmudic story is irrelevant here, why not use the entire range of Wiki options? Just park it elsewhere, and place cross-references everywhere where it MIGHT fit in, but we can't be sure it does! One can transform DAB pages into articles, which allows for putting more material in. Or maybe there are already suitable articles about Talmudic thinking, the sages,... I don't know.

It's a great story, I'm happy I read it. So please, keep it on Wiki, put links, under See also if not inside the text, on Ness Ziona, both Sarafands, and wherever else it fits. And be happy about doing a great work! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yiddish thinking (Reisler-Shmeisler) & repeated transliteration can make non-Jewish names hard to recognise. The municipality page had Reisler, Eilat Gordin Levitan - Reissler, but the Tempelgesellschaft doesn't seem to have had members of either name, but it did at some later point have such with the very common German surname of Rössler. Still, no Gustav Rössler shows up on Google Search, so I'm back at square one. But it's certainly Lehrer, not Lerer (German foster family's name) and Patchornik (neither the more West Slavic-sounding Patchornek, nor Patchchornik). Hard is the life of a Yekke-at-heart :) Arminden (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sumanuil: hi. I am fundamentally in favour of offering the user a maximum of good, orderly structured information. In this case I applied to other editors' help to sort out why a JPG that's working perfectly well on Hebrew Wiki, isn't doing so here (see heWiki article here). I figured it to be a minor headache for ppl more versed in technical issues, who'll fix it in no time - that's why I've left it in the article, with a worked-out legend and at the best suited position in the text. It was like a photographic red link, and not much of an eyesore. But I see you took it out right away.

Here it is again, maybe someone can fix it and put it back in?

 

Thanks, Arminden (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It isn't on English Wikipedia or Commons, that's why. Different language wikis can't access each other's files. They can only use their own or ones on Commons. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks. I got used to moving them around between various Wikis, didn't pay much attention why it worked when it worked well, especially when the JPG has an English name, like here. Arminden (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can move it to Commons if the license is suitable. Zero^talk 09:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I don't know how, maybe I can figure it out, but maybe not. Arminden (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Arminden: NesZiona22.jpg is now available. I have a bad feeling that I might have fucked up something in he.wiki. Zero^talk 12:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To editor Zero0000: Thanks. I had written to Tamar Hayardeni, who's uploaded the image, asking her to do it, but she seems to have stopped any contact with Wiki after going mad over the post-October 7 politisation, which I can extremely well understand. She's a lovely person, hugely knowledgeable, with multiple research publications, and it would be a major loss if Wiki activism had indeed managed to push her off for good. Just getting it off my chest. Arminden (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zero0000: and @Arminden:, shalom. Ishtori Haparchi wrote in his monumental work Kaftor va-Ferach (vol. 2, chapter 11, p. 75 in the 2007 edition): "From Nob going west in a straight course, about 3 hours [on horseback] is Tzrifin, and it is called [in Arabic] Ṣarfān. Within the general vicinity of Tzrifin there is a city named Ramle" (End Quote}. Israeli Antiquities Authority archaeologist, Kohn-Tavor, thought that this Tzrifin was to be recognized in the name Sarafand al-Amar, a site located north-west of Ramle. Not far off in another direction, west/south-west of Ramle, there is another ruin, called Sarafand al-Kharab. When Ishtori Haparchi writes in vol. 1, pp. 146-147, that Tzrifin and Piqi'in both lay somewhere "between Lod and Yavne", it is clear that he was referring to the Tzrifin that is called Sarafand al-Kharab, since it fits the description of lying in a westerly/south-westerly direction from Ramle, between Lod and Yavne. No wonder then that the editors relied upon L. who correctly identified the site with Sarafand al-Kharab.Davidbena (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Davidbena: Unfortunately your directions are wrong. Sarafand al-Amar is not north-east of Ramle, but north-west. And Sarafand al-Kharab is not south-west but slightly north of west. Look in the middle of this map.

 

Zero^talk 12:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was basing my directions on the fact that Ness Ziona is indeed south-west of Ramle, and which I, unwittingly, had written "south-east." After correcting my mistakes, the conclusion reached my me remains the same. Ishtori Haparchi states explicitly that Tzrifin and Peqi'in were, more or less, located somewhere between Yibna (Yavne) and Lydda (Lod). Now look at your inserted map for these two cities. You can see that this Tzrifin could only be Sarafand el-Kharab. Anyway, thanks for correcting my directions. By the way, I have since corrected my post, so you can read it again with its corrections, thanks to you. The proof, as I said, is still here.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nes Ziona is not south-west of Ramle, but directly west. All of this is highly unconvincing. Both sites are close enough to Haparchi's description. There were no accurate maps and people could only guess at straight-line directions then from where the winding roads went. Look how "going west in a straight course" from Nob (Shuafat) misses both sites by a long way (the line comes to Yibna, quite far south from the other locations). Zero^talk 00:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

A more definite way to determine for sure where haParchi visited would be to identify which villages were alive at the time. I don't know how to do that for haHarphi's time, but a few centuries later it is known that Sarafand al-Amar was alive and Sarafand al-Kharab was not. That's because only Sarafand al-Amar was listed in the early Ottoman tax registers. Zero^talk 01:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, determining the extant villages at Haparchi's time would have been ideal. It could also be that where there is a ruin (such as that of Sarafand al-Kharab), it suggests a more ancient site. Anyway, we both can agree that it's all tentative. Yesterday, I found another reference in Haparchi's book Kaftor va-Ferach (vol. 1, chapter 7, p. 146 in the 2004 edition), which states this:

"South [of Lod] is Yavne, about an hour [on horseback] in a straight course; towards the west [of Lod], within her territorial bounds is Tzrifin, which is also called Sarfan" (End Quote).

From this description, it can very well be that Haparchi had in mind Sarafand al-Amar. Bear in mind, however, that Braslawski points out in his article written in 1947 (published by the Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society) that "west" and "east" in Haparchi's writings can also have the connotation of "north-west" or "south-west," as also "north-east" and "south-east." This is deduced from taking the whole range and gambit of other sites described by him with their cardinal directions.Davidbena (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right, I see that Braslawski says that as well as directions, haParchi often gets distances wrong too, and misunderstood many Arabic names. He suggests that haParchi wrote a lot of the travelogue from memory. Incidentally, above you mentioned Peqi'in and Qubayba. There seems to be no moshav called Qubayba, but I surmise it refers to Al-Qubayba, Ramle, which was renamed Kfar Gevirol after 1948 and is now the Eben Gevirol neighborhood of Rehovot. It is south-west of both Sarafand's at about the same distance, so it doesn't help. Zero^talk 07:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

About the moshav, that is correct. The name "Qubayba" was changed to Kfar Gevirol. We once had friends that lived there. Historical geographer and author, Yitzhak Goldheir, in his book "Admat Kodesh," has identified Peqi'in of the Tosefta (Sotah 7:6) with Qubayba (Kfar Gevirol), a view accepted by most Israeli scholars. According to the Tosefta, "Rabbi Yoḥanan b. Beroqa and Rabbi Ele'azar Ḥisma were going from Yavne to Lod and they greeted Rabbi Yehoshua in Peqi'in."Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply