Talk:Foundation Stone

Name of the article

I was preparing this article as well but you beat me to it! All I can say is that this is the English version of Wikipedia and if something has an English name it should be used. All you are doing by calling it Sakhrah is using an Arabic word for rock, which is in effect another word for stone. You will see that this is how it works, e.g. Dome of the Rock, not Qubbat as-Sakhrah; Temple Mount, not haram es sharif; The Most Holy Place, not Kodesh HaKodshim. The Western Wall, not Kotel Hamaravi. I believe it should be changed. It hardly makes a deference how many people know it as Sakhrah, there was a redirect page. Besides it was know as the foundation stone centuries before Islam and Arabia discovered it. I think the reason why the Kaba is not referred to simply as cube is because the Muslim shrines never were an object of scholarship to the Christian-Judeo civilization of the west. Therefore they took on there local Arabic name. But the rock has been known in Europe as the foundation stone(in the corresponding language), not merely as Sakrah. It is Judaism’s holiest place and should be called Foundation Stone as it has much more significance in Judaism, and this term describes the significance of the stone than the rather mundane ‘Rock’ and if you don’t understand Arabic – Sakrah! Chesdovi 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree. I personally have never before heard the term "Foundation Stone", nor in fact the Hebrew or Arabic versions. I've always heard it simply referred to as the Rock. I hope that whatever term we might come up with (and I do think that Foundation Stone is the best choice) is respectful and acceptable to people of both faiths. LordAmeth 22:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Biblical significance

I have also heard that this same rock may have been the same place that Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices on. Does anyone know of any actual rabbinical citation for this, from the Talmud or Mishnah or anywhere? Thanks. LordAmeth 22:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems doubtful. Genesis 3.23-24 is pretty clear that Adam and Eve were sent in the east of the Garden of Eden, which would logically place said Garden west of Jerusalem and so in Canaan/Israel, making it both a place forbidden to humanity and required to live in by his demand. Also, no kerubim holding a sword of flame has been spotted on the territory of Israel. By the same token and concerning the same paragraph that also mention this altar for Adam stuff, the foundation stone can't also be the stone associated with Jacob's dream, which very specifically happened in the site of Bethel, nowaday 10 kilometers north of Jerusalem. Monsieur Meuble (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

...oh, and Muslims like it too...

There's some great work on the significance of the rock to the Jewish religion, but one minor paragraph-section on the religion that presently (literally) surrounds it. I hope someone with knowledge can fix this problem. --Bobak 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubt?

About this line in the article: "Modern Jewish academics list four possible locations of the Foundation Stone:" Where it says "Foundation Stone", shouldn't it say "holiest of holies"? I do not think that there is any doubt about the location of the rock, it's under the dome, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was left by Krazykenny

• There is a rock under the Dome of the Rock, but some Jewish scholars are uncertain whether that very rock is indeed the actual Foundation Stone which may be situated elsewhere, buried beneath the Haram area. The site of the Stone is also the site of the Holy of Holies, wherever it may be located on the Temple Mount. Chesdovi 10:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks man. Still, I don't think that the article is very clear about that.KeNNy 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mishna reference in Yoma 5:3

Is not there. English or Hebrew. The article should cite Yoma 5:2, which says:

A.Once the Ark was taken away, there remained a stone from the days of the earlier prophets [אבן הייתה שם מימות נביאים], called Shetiyyah [ושתיה]
B.It was three fingerbredths high.

C. And on it did he put [the fire pan].

I am going to change the reference in the article to reflect the correct passage in Mishna Yoma. Morgaledh 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

Conspicuously missing from the Dimensions section are any figures for the horizontal size of the rock. The reader who looks to learn its length and width, even approximately, looks in vain. Can someone with access to this very basic information (sourced, of course) please add it to the article? Hertz1888 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"...a rectangular cut in the rock that is about 2.5 cubits long and 1.5 cubits wide, which are exactly the dimensions of the Ark of the Covenant..." Imprecise, estimated dimensions ("about") cannot be equated with precise dimensions ("exactly"). 76.23.157.102 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I just deleted the word 'exactly' as I thought the same thing.Bitbut (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

mohammed's name in wikipedia

Is it really neccesary to have peace be upon him written after mohammeds name in an encyclopedia?

This is a work of reference not a religious text.

86.137.134.53 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What kind of stone is it?

Is it a sandstone, a limestone, or something else altogether? It'd help to place Mt. Moriah in the context of Jerusalem's geology, along with Zedekiah's Cave. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

I think the Foundation Stone may have once been rectangular or square or a close approximation of such a shape, supporting or providing the floor of the Holy of Holies (and the Ark, perhaps, too). When the Romans wrecked Herod's Temple, they may have proceeded to construct a temple with an apse on one end of it. Apses are semicircular. So they cut the Rock to fit the apse (hence, the lament about the Foundation Stone being "destroyed"). The temple might have been reused as a church or wrecked in the Bar Kochba rebellion (which, I think, sought to build another temple on the site). When the Muslims came along, they recognized the site as sacred, and they determined somehow that Muhammad had ridden his Buraq off it or something. The Muslims erected the Dome of the Rock around a rock that was straight on one side and semicircular on the other, perhaps with alterations on the part of Bar Kochba to try to make it fit Temple functions. Then the Crusades hit and a wave of souvenir-grabbing began, leading to the rock's present irregular shape. The little holes in the rock may have been due to the platform erected by the Christian kings to stop the Crusaders, but that doesn't seem clear to me. The larger hole is anyone's guess. Maybe it was something to squirrel away little scrolls or other items through in some religious ritual, but I can't guess which religion. Christianity? Judaism? Islam, Roman paganism? Greek paganism? who knows? I think the natural cave beneath the Rock may have helped in giving it sacredness. Furthermore, I make out the flat sides pretty clearly, but it's hard for me to find any particular indentation for the Ark of the Covenant. But a lot changes over 3000 yrs, and meleke (which is what I suspect the Rock to be made of) is, unfortunately, relatively easy to cut. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Leen Ritmeyer discussion incomprehensible

"Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer noticed that there are sections of the rock cut completely flat, which north-to-south have a width of 6 cubits, precisely the width that the Mishnah credits to the wall of the Holy of Holies, and hence Ritmeyer proposed that these flat sections constitute foundation trenches on top of which the walls of the original temple were laid. However, according to Josephus there were 31 steps up to the Holy of Holies from the lower level of the Temple Mount, and the Mishnah identifies 29 steps in total, and each step was half a cubit in height (according to the Mishnah); this is a height of at least 22 feet—the height of the Sakhra is 21 feet above the lower level of the Temple Mount, and should therefore have been under the floor." I find this comprehensible. Can somebody who understands it rewrite it for novices, with diagrams ? Also - I understand that we don't really know exactly what a cubit was, so what does "6 cubits" mean ? I'm surprised nobody has ever found a rock with a line on it saying "this is a cubit". Rcbutcher (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Very confusing article!!

For example, the article starts saying that the Fundation Stone is the name of the rock at the centre of the Dome of the Rock, but further it says that "Modern Jewish academics list four possible locations of the Foundation Stone". Furthermore, after that there is an enumeration, not of places, but of sentences:

1 The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is the one under the Dome of the Rock.[13] 2 The stone that was located beneath the altar is now the one that is under the Dome of the Rock.[14] 3 The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now near El Kas fountain to the South of the Dome of the Rock.[9] 4 The stone that was located beneath the Ark of the Covenant is now inside the Spirits Dome situated to the North of the Dome of the Rock.[11]

So, what are the 4 places?

Besides that, the whole article is poorly redacted and very dificult to understand, at least without knowing about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldeluz777 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)