A very exciting and relatively new area of halachic concern is the potential effect of archaeological discoveries upon halachic decision-making. The areas of possible impact include proper positioning of mezuzot, mikveh construction, identification of techeilet, the proper time for megillah reading, and the weight of coins used for pidyon haben (redemption of the firstborn).1The Torah (Bemidbar 18:15-16) requires that a firstborn male child be “redeemed” by giving five shekalim to a kohen. We will discuss the extent to which Halachah accords credibility to archaeological discoveries and conclusions.
Four Classic Discussions
Four classic cases in the Gemara and Rishonim raise the question of the halachic utility of archaeological discoveries. First, the Gemara (Bava Batra 73b-74a) relates that Rabbah bar bar Channah was once traveling in the desert with an Arab guide, who directed him to the graves of the dor hamidbar (those who died during Am Yisrael’s forty-year sojourn in the desert). Rabbah bar bar Channah sought to remove the tzitzit from one of the bodies, hoping to bring it to the beit midrash for scrutiny by the sages, but his efforts failed. When he returned, his colleagues chided him, saying that if he simply wanted to determine whether Halachah follows Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel regarding the number of strings on the tzitzit, he merely had to examine the tzitzit and report his findings, not try to remove a sample.
Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav p. 53 footnote 26) notes that Chazal were willing to consider the tzitzit of the dor hamidbar in deciding between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Apparently, they believed that we may consider archaeological evidence in rendering halachic decisions. On the other hand, Rav Chaim Kanievsky (Ta’ama D’kra, Parshat Shelach) and Rav Shlomo Aviner (Iturei Kohanim 174:34) argue that Rabbah bar bar Channah’s failure to derive halachic conclusions from his discovery indicates that Hashem does not want us to draw such conclusions from artifacts of the past.
The latter approach seems to contradict the celebrated principle of “lo bashamayim hi” (literally “it is not in heaven”), which states that Heavenly decrees after the time that the Torah was given play no role in halachic decision-making (see Bava Metzia 59b). We may respond that the Gemara merely teaches that halachic authorities should discount divine declarations of agreement with specific rabbinic opinions. However, suggests Rav Yehudah Shaviv (editor’s note to Techumin 24:496), if the divine guidance of history indicates general principles, Halachah might endorse them. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik adopts a similar approach (see Nefesh Harav p. 88 footnote 29; also see Nefesh Harav p. 53 footnote 26), arguing that Hashem’s will is discernible from the direction of history.
The second classic source on this issue is the Semag (Aseih 22), who endorses the common practice to wear tefillin whose parshiyot are arranged in accordance with Rashi’s view.2Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam dispute the order in which the last two parshiyot should be placed in tefillin. Rashi (Menachot 34b s.v. V’hakorei) believes that “Shema” should come before “V’haya im shamo’a,” while Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot ibid. s.v. V’hakorei) believes that “V’haya im shamo’a” should precede “Shema.” He supports this position from an ancient set of tefillin that were found buried in the area of the prophet Yechezkel’s grave. The Drishah (O.C. 34) objects that this find does not necessarily disprove the dissenting opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, as these tefillin may have been buried precisely because they were invalid! The Bach (ad. loc.) responds, though, that improper ordering of the tefillin would not have warranted burial, as the parshiyot simply could have been rearranged in the proper order.
A more significant problem with the Semag’s argument is the unreliability of conclusions drawn from one artifact; it is entirely possible that in other digs, tefillin whose parshiyot are ordered according to Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion will be found. In fact, in twentieth-century archaeological excavations of the Dead Sea area, both types of tefillin have been discovered.3See the Encyclopedia Judaica (15:904). See also Piskei Tosafot (Menachot 92), which records that “In Nahardea and Jerusalem, two pairs [of tefillin] were found, one in accordance with Rashi and the other in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam.” The discovery that the Rashi-Rabbeinu Tam debate already raged in earlier generations should not surprise us. The Gemara frequently records disputes between the Amoraim about issues that the Tannaim had debated in earlier generations. I encountered this phenomenon in the late 1980s, when I became involved in eruv design and construction. I learned that poskim in America and Israel debated whether the positioning of a lechi beneath a wire should be determined by plumb line or by eyesight alone (see Gray Matter 1 pp. 182-184). I thought that I could resolve this debate simply by asking older authorities what the practice was in pre-war Europe. To my surprise, I discovered that the same difference of opinion had existed then and merely had reemerged in the 1980s when Jews began building community eruvin in America.
The third classic case of discovering ancient artifacts is recorded in some editions of the Ramban’s commentary to Shemot 30:13, where the Ramban discusses the debate between Rashi and the Rif regarding the weight of a shekel. This impacts a number of areas of Halachah, such as determining the minimum weight of the coins used for pidyon haben. According to Rashi’s opinion, the shekel is one-sixth lighter than the Rif believes it to be. Though the Ramban originally supported the opinion of the Rif, he writes that when he made aliyah, the local Samaritans showed him an ancient coin with “shekel hashekalim” written on one side and “Yerushalayim hakedoshah” written on the other. Upon weighing this ancient shekel, he discovered that it accorded with Rashi’s view, whereupon he concluded, “And behold the words of Rabbeinu Shlomo (Rashi) are supported4Note that the Ramban states that Rashi’s opinion is “supported,” not “proven,” by the discovered artifact. by a great support.”5Rav Yonatan Adler (Techumin 24:497) reports that many such coins have since been discovered throughout Eretz Yisrael and have been dated by academicians to the period of the last years of the Second Temple.
Interestingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 305:1) does not rule in accordance with Rashi despite the Ramban’s discovery. This might be based on two criticisms of the Ramban’s evaluation of his discovery. The Abarbanel (Shemot 30:13-14) notes that it is possible that the shekel lost some of its weight over time.6I have been informed, though, that whether or not the shekel lost weight can be tested scientifically. In addition, the Tashbeitz (3:226) is disturbed that the Ramban relied on Samaritans to decipher the writing on the coin. Since we have profound ideological differences with the Samaritans, their testimony holds no halachic credibility. These two criticisms of the Ramban’s approach foreshadow the two main concerns that some poskim express today regarding the reliability of ancient finds – the integrity of the discoveries and the credibility of archaeologists who are not observant Jews.
The fourth classic case is the dispute (Shabbat 63b) regarding whether the words “kodesh lahashem” (holy to Hashem) on the tzitz (headplate of the kohen gadol) were engraved on one line or two lines. Although the Tanna Kama (the first, anonymous opinion quoted) believes it should be on two lines, Rabi Eliezer the son of Rabi Yose believes it should be on one line. Rabi Eliezer bases his opinion on the fact that he saw the tzitz in Rome, and on that tzitz, the words kodesh lahashem were written on one line.
The Rambam (Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9:1) presents a nuanced ruling regarding this issue. On the one hand, he rules in accordance with the Tanna Kama that kodesh lahashem should appear on two lines. However, he also considers the opinion of Rabi Eliezer by stating that if it appears on one line, it is acceptable, and he adds that “Sometimes it was written on one line.” The Kesef Mishneh (ad. loc.) explains that the Rambam partially codifies Rabi Eliezer’s opinion because of his claim that he had seen an actual tzitz. Rav Hershel Schachter told me that this also indicates that Halachah considers archaeological evidence.
We may add though, that the Rambam does not extrapolate from the tzitz in Rome as much as Rabi Eliezer did. The latter drew the broad conclusion that if this one tzitz had kodesh lahashem on one line, every other tzitz throughout history did as well. The Rambam, on the other hand, concludes from the sighting only that “sometimes” kodesh lahashem is on one line. After all, only one tzitz was sighted. It is possible that the Rambam might be open to changing his ruling if more artifacts were discovered.
Modern Archaeology and its Limitations
The four cases we have discussed deal with fairly concrete artifacts. The issues raised by modern archaeology, however, are often much more nuanced and abstract. For example, archaeologists looking to date human bones would likely compare them to pottery found in the same stratum. If the pottery has been determined by archaeologists to be from the Canaanite period (before Avraham Avinu’s arrival), archaeologists might conclude that the bones, too, are from that period and hence must be of non-Jewish origin. Does Halachah permit relying on such assertions of professional archaeologists? To answer this question, we will briefly explore the advances and limitations of modern archaeology.
The study of archaeology has advanced very significantly in the past hundred years. Archaeology is constantly evolving, and each succeeding generation has introduced new methods for more accurate exploration and assessment of the past. Today, computers and other technological equipment are standard tools in archaeologists’ ever-expanding arsenal of exploratory techniques. Naturally, this means that each generation of archaeologists can produce more reliable conclusions than its predecessors.
Such rapid evolution, however, is a double-edged sword – archaeology is often questioning and challenging its own findings. Since the early 1900s, each succeeding generation has identified flaws in some of the methods and techniques previously employed. Even some current techniques will possibly be viewed as somewhat antiquated in as little as twenty years as technology makes available new tools for the processing and analysis of artifacts. Accordingly, while we may admire the achievements of archaeologists, we must at the same time recognize the limitations inherent in some of their conclusions.
On the other hand, certain archaeological findings are unlikely to be challenged, such as the readings of the inscriptions on the hundreds of shekalim that were common after the Second Temple era. Similarly, after finding over one hundred stepped pools in Israel that can be identified as mikva’ot, it is unlikely that significant new classes of mikva’ot will be unearthed.
There are other significant limitations that we must also bear in mind when assessing the value of archaeological findings. First, the survival of most artifacts is inherently limited, as use and exposure to the environment cause them to deteriorate over time. Organic items such as food, papyrus, and animal skins do not last unprotected for long. Even metal and stone objects often do not survive in their original form, as we noted earlier. Most items were meant to be used – they were not created with the intention that they endure forever – so only a small percentage of the entire corpus of material actually survives. Second, only tiny percentages of areas of interest have been excavated. The reasons for this include excavation costs, the fact that some areas are inhabited and thus unavailable for archaeological digs, and the wish to allow future archaeologists to test their theories and methods on existing sites. Hence, it is difficult to draw broad conclusions based on documents or artifacts that have not yet been found in archaeological excavations.
Additionally, recorded ancient histories that have been unearthed often include bald lies and exaggerations. Ancient kings frequently employed individuals to record “history” as flatteringly as possible for their regimes rather than as objectively as possible. Even for accurately recorded documents, an integral component of many archaeological studies is the interpretation of the materials that have been unearthed. Interpretation is by definition subjective, and the archaeologist’s political or religious beliefs might color his analyses.
An example is the conclusion of some archaeologists that the battle of Ai described in Sefer Yehoshua did not occur, a conclusion based on excavations at Ai showing that the city was not inhabited at the time of Yehoshua’s entry into Eretz Yisrael (Encyclopedia Judaica 2:471-472). However, Rav Yoel Bin Nun asserts (Mechkerei Yehudah V’Shomron-Ariel, second conference, 5752, pp. 278-289) that he demonstrated that they had excavated the wrong area. He claims to have found the correct location of Ai, which, when subsequently excavated, yielded evidence that it was in fact inhabited during the time of Yehoshua’s conquest.
Twentieth-Century Evaluations – Chazon Ish vs. Rav Kook
Two of the greatest authorities of the first half of the twentieth century expressed their evaluations of archaeological enterprise. The Chazon Ish deals with the question of whether the laws of shemittah apply to produce grown in the city of Beit She’an. The Gemara (Chullin 6b) records that produce grown in Beit She’an is exempt from shemittah restrictions, leading the inhabitants of modern-day Beit She’an to ask whether they could assume their city to be the one the Gemara calls by that name. The Chazon Ish (Shevi’it 3:18-19) rules unequivocally that we may not assume that it is the same Beit She’an. He believes that the practice of identifying places in Israel with their biblical and Talmudic namesakes is built on mere “umdenot” (conjectures), which are insufficient evidence for halachic purposes.7Since the time of the Chazon Ish’s death in 1953, the site of Beit She’an has been excavated extensively. Archaeologists today have a much better idea of the borders of the city in ancient times.
In his letters (Collected Letters of the Chazon Ish 3:19), the Chazon Ish reveals his underlying attitude towards archaeology. He writes, “I am not acquainted with the endeavor of excavations and studies of antiquities, and I oppose this enterprise because of the many uncertainties involved.” The Chazon Ish seems to reject wholesale the value of investigating the past by searching for artifacts, believing that anything we need to know about our past has been preserved throughout the generations; we may assume that anything that was not preserved was not worth preserving.8This seems to be identical to the Chazon Ish’s approach to the discovery of previously unknown manuscripts of early halachic authorities. He is famous for rejecting the attachment of any halachic significance to these newly discovered manuscripts. He reasons that Hashem allowed only those manuscripts that were worth preserving to be transmitted from generation to generation; if the transmission of a manuscript was interrupted, it means that Hashem did not want this manuscript to be part of the mesorah (tradition) and the halachic process. It should be noted, though, that not all authorities subscribe to the Chazon Ish’s view on this matter. For example, Rav Ovadia Yosef often relies upon recently discovered manuscripts in issuing halachic rulings. For further discussion of this issue, see Rav Moshe Bleich’s essay in Tradition (27:2:22-25).
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook (Igrot Hare’iyah 423) adopts an ostensibly similar yet fundamentally different approach to this issue in a brief but illuminating responsum to Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky. The specific issue he addresses is whether a particular location should read the megillah on the fifteenth of Adar based on contemporary scholarship’s conclusion that the area was surrounded by a wall in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun.9Cities surrounded by a wall at the times of Yehoshua read the megillah on the fifteenth of Adar, while those that were not surrounded by a wall at that time read on the fourteenth of Adar (Megillah 1:1). Rav Kook writes (in 1912):
Regarding the issue of establishing the reading of the megillah in the [new] settlements [on the fifteenth of Adar], I do not find that the evidence you have sent me is sufficient to establish these places as having been surrounded by walls during the period of Yehoshua. The evidence does not even rise to the level of doubt, since it must overcome the Rambam’s observation that the rov (majority) of cities of the world was not surrounded by walls during the time of Yehoshua. This entire enterprise of “Eretz Yisrael scholarship” is filled with guesswork. Although this endeavor is worthy of respect and warm admiration for the scholars involved in this study, due to our love of holy Torah matters, one nonetheless cannot make halachic decisions based on the Arab names of a specific area. Nevertheless, if you have any fundamental doubts or insights regarding any of the new settlements, kindly inform me of them and b’li neder I will express my views on this matter.
Although Rav Kook shares much of the Chazon Ish’s skepticism regarding the field of academic Eretz Yisrael studies, he nevertheless seems to evaluate the entire enterprise with a crucially different attitude. First, he articulates positive sentiments about archaeological endeavors in general. Second, Rav Kook keeps an open mind about this matter, expressing willingness to consider more conclusive evidence. The only specific tool he rejects is the use of Arab names for an area.10It is entirely possible that the Arabs named the town after a different town whose ruins are located in the general vicinity. We rely upon Jewish traditions, such as the identification of an etrog as the “pri eitz hadar” mentioned in the Torah (Vayikra 23:40), because each generation is meticulous about passing on the correct identification to the next generation. We should note that there are other types of evidence that have been used in many cases to identify ancient sites since the time Rav Kook wrote this letter in 1912, as we will see in our later discussion of when to observe Purim in Lod. He expresses a similarly skeptical yet positive and open attitude in Igrot Hare’iyah 574, in which he discusses basing halachic rulings on ancient coins, and in Igrot Hare’iyah 91, wherein he discusses the implications of finds from the ancient past regarding the age of the universe.
The Techeilet Controversy
In the early 1990s, Rav Eliyahu Tavger11Rav Tavger was assisted by Dr. Ari Greenspan, Dr. Baruch Sterman, and Mr. Joel Guberman. (see Techumin 9:425-428) sought to demonstrate that the murex trunculus (a type of snail) is the chilazon, the crustacean whose blood must be used to create the techeilet dye for tzitzit.12Some of the tzitzit strings are supposed to be dyed with techeilet, but the Mishnah (Menachot 4:1) states that we fulfill some aspects of the mitzvah even if we do not have this dye, which has been the case for at least one thousand years. Among Rav Tavger’s proofs are archaeological finds on the northern coast of Eretz Yisrael, where huge mounds of murex trunculus shells were discovered alongside dyeing vats (Encyclopedia Judaica 15:914). His claim sparked a great controversy, as some believed it likely that a mitzvah that had been lost from Am Yisrael for over one thousand years13For a discussion of when precisely the use of techeilet ceased, see Rav Tavger’s essay on this topic published in Kuntreis - Topics in Tekhelet, 5767 (available at www.tekhelet.com). He reviews the debate between the Radzyner Rebbe and Rav Yitzchak Herzog regarding whether techeilet was used during the times of the Geonim. finally had been restored, while others doubted this claim. This controversy still has not been resolved, leading some Jews to wear tzitzit dyed with this “new” techeilet and others to refrain.
Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv argues against wearing this techeilet (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:2). One of his arguments is that the Radzyner Rebbe, writing in the late nineteenth century, also claimed that he had discovered the lost techeilet, identifying it as the sepia officinalis (cuttlefish). Subsequently, in the early twentieth century, Rav Yitzchak Herzog demonstrated that the Radzyner’s identification of the techeilet was incorrect, asserting that the techeilet was actually from a snail known as the Janthina. Now, less than a century later, others have refuted Rav Herzog’s claim, too, and have identified a different snail as the authentic source of techeilet. “And,” Rav Eliashiv argues, “we do not know if, in the coming years, others will come and disprove their claim as well.”14Rav Menachem Burstein, in his work Hatecheilet, fully explains the respective approaches of the Radzyner Rebbe and Rav Herzog. Abundant material regarding the current techeilet is available at www.tekhelet.com.
Rav Eliashiv’s skepticism has ample precedent among the Acharonim. Rav Yonatan Eybeshitz (Kreiti Upleiti 40:4), for one, writes that scientific claims should be treated with great skepticism. He notes that although the works of Galen and Aristotle were accepted as truth for many centuries, they are nowadays dismissed as incorrect. Rav Kook (Teshuvot Da’at Kohen 140) likewise writes that Halachah treats scientific claims as only possibly correct. He even argues that we rely on a physician’s assessment that someone must eat on Yom Kippur merely because of the possibility that he is correct (safeik nefashot l’hakeil).
Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Hershel Schachter, on the other hand, consider the current identification of techeilet. Rav Tavger’s identification is based on the work of Rav Herzog, which is based on the work of the Radzyner Rebbe. Each generation does not simply dismiss the previous generation’s work, but rather builds on it to advance the process of identifying techeilet. The contemporary poskim who advocate wearing the techeilet believe that at some point, the evidence becomes convincing enough to rise at least to the level of safeik. Moreover, there are times when poskim accept certain scientific claims as certainly correct, such as in the context of hilchot niddah.15See the discussion of the credibility of doctors in Nishmat Avraham 2:82-85.
The advocates of the “new” techeilet therefore believe that while it is wise to maintain a healthy skepticism about archaeological and other scientific claims, it is also wise to keep an open mind about them. These poskim consider the current identification of techeilet to be possibly correct (safeik techeilet). As a precedent that one must wear safeik techeilet since there is a chance that he will be performing a mitzvah thereby, Rav Tavger (in a letter available at www.tekhelet.com) cites the Mishnah Berurah’s ruling (39:26) that one who has access only to tefillin that are merely possibly kosher must wear such tefillin.16Dr. Baruch Sterman and Rav Chaim Twerski have written articles that discuss this topic for the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (43:112-124 and 34:77-102, respectively). Both are available at www.tekhelet.com.
Since the new techeilet is at best safeik techeilet even according to its supporters, we must also assess whether wearing it entails any halachic risk – whether wearing potentially false techeilet is worse than wearing none at all. Rav Eliashiv argues that there is such a risk, as the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 9:5; see the Pri Megadim cited in the Mishnah Berurah 9:15) cites an opinion in the Rishonim that the color of the tzitzit strings not dyed with true techeilet should match the color of the tallit to which they are attached. Rav Hershel Schachter responds (Ginat Egoz 2:13) that the possibility of properly fulfilling the biblical mitzvah of tzitzit with techeilet enjoys priority over satisfying this minority opinion cited in the Shulchan Aruch. Of course, since we are not certain that we have succeeded in identifying the correct techeilet, one should not attach wool tzitzit even with the new techeilet to a four-cornered linen garment (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 9:2).
Can Archaeological Discoveries Substitute for a Mesorah?
Among the reasons marshaled against accepting the “new” techeilet is that a mesorah (tradition) from our ancestors is necessary to identify the authentic chilazon. Indeed, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Shiurim L’zeicher Abba Mari Z”l 1:228) reports that his great grandfather, the Beit Halevi, rejected the Radzyner Rebbe’s identification of the techeilet precisely for this reason. Rav Soloveitchik argues that just as we know that the etrog is the “pri eitz hadar” mandated by the Torah (Vayikra 23:40) purely from a tradition handed down from generation to generation, so must the identity of any animal or plant involved in the fulfillment of mitzvot come from such a tradition. This approach inherently rejects the possibility of reviving a lost tradition before the arrival of Mashiach. The Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 9:12) seems to adopt Rav Soloveitchik’s approach as well, as he writes that the mitzvah of techeilet will not be restored until the time of Mashiach.
Rav Shabtai Rappaport suggests a creative response to this objection. One may argue that Mashiach himself will be identified by simanim (signs), namely, the descriptions of Mashiach that are outlined by the Tanach, Chazal, and the Rambam. We can identify the techeilet in a similar manner, since the Gemara in various places (such as Menachot 42b-43a) describes many aspects of the techeilet-making process. On the other hand, we may argue that this is precisely why it is necessary for Eliyahu Hanavi to precede Mashiach’s arrival (Eruvin 43b and Rashi ibid. s.v. Lifnei Bo) – to identify the authentic Mashiach without resorting to simanim. Techeilet, too, might require more than just simanim to be trustworthy.
Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav p. 53 footnote 26) notes that the Beit Halevi, in a letter he wrote to the Radzyner Rebbe, adopts a significantly different stance from that presented by his great-grandson.17The letter was first published by the Radzyner in Ein Hatecheilet p. 13, and it also appears in Rav Menachem Burstein’s Hatecheilet p. 190. The Beit Halevi emphasizes that the fish (and the method of extracting its dye) that the Radzyner identified as the chilazon was known among Torah scholars for many generations, yet they never identified it as the chilazon. Thus, we have a “de facto mesorah” that this fish is not the authentic chilazon. In contrast, Rav Schachter comments, Torah scholars in earlier generations seem not to have known about the murex trunculus. Moreover, the method of obtaining a sky-blue dye from this snail was unknown until it was discovered serendipitously in an Israeli laboratory in the 1980s.
The letter published in the Radzyner’s work does not prove Rav Soloveitchik’s presentation of his ancestor’s idea to be incorrect; it simply shows that the Beit Halevi articulated different approaches to this issue. However, the idea expressed in the letter does present an alternative outlook to that presented by Rav Soloveitchik, one that opens the possibility of restoring a lost tradition through the use of archaeology. In fact, the Beit Halevi wrote in his letter that “If this fish [or the method of procuring its dye] was lost and newly rediscovered, we would be obligated to listen to [the Radzyner] and wear [his techeilet].”
Nonetheless, Rav Eliashiv raises another problem with reviving the mitzvah of techeilet today: we lack a mesorah for how to resolve disputes among the Rishonim about the production of the techeilet. Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz (in a personal communication) similarly pointed out the lack of a mesorah for how to tie the knots of the tzitzit and how many strings to dye with the techeilet, both of which the Rishonim debate.18For a discussion of the many opinions regarding these issues, see Rav Yehudah Rock’s essay in Techumin (16:412-432). Other poskim, such as Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg (in an essay available at www.tekhelet.com) and Rav Hershel Schachter (Ginat Egoz 2:16-18), argue that sufficient analytical bases exist in the Shulchan Aruch and the Acharonim (for example, Mishnah Berurah 9:7) to resolve these disputes. We also have the precedent of shemittah and other Eretz Yisrael-dependent mitzvot, regarding which modern-day poskim have resolved halachic issues despite the absence of clear halachic precedents.
Mezuzah
Archaeological evidence also appears to be relevant in interpreting the Gemara’s statement (Menachot 33a) that mezuzot may not be placed “in the manner of carpenters.” Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. Avida) explains that this forbids placing mezuzot horizontally, while Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot ad. loc. s.v. Ha) believes that it forbids placing them vertically. Whereas the Sephardic tradition employs Rashi’s vertical orientation (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 289:6 and Yalkut Yosef, Y.D. 285:5), Ashkenazic Jews customarily attempt to compromise between the two opinions, placing their mezuzot on a slant (see Rama ad. loc.).19Essentially, though, even Ashkenazic Jews accept Rashi’s position, as noted by the Vilna Gaon (Bei’ur Hagra Y.D. 289:14). An archaeological perspective on this issue comes from the notches that our ancestors used to etch in their doorways into which they would insert their mezuzot. All the notches that have been found have been vertical or slanted,20It is interesting to note that the notches have the top portion facing inward, matching the Ashkenazic custom recorded by the Rama. apparently supporting Rashi’s opinion.21Slanted mezuzot are acceptable according to both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, as noted by Tosafot (Menachot 33a s.v. Ha). None has yet been found with horizontal notches, which would accord with Rabbeinu Tam’s view.22See Tarbut Chomrit B’Eretz Yisrael Biymei Hatalmud pp. 60-69, where Professor Daniel Sperber marshals other archaeological evidence based on the construction of doors unearthed at Beit She’arim in Northern Israel which support Rashi’s view.
Unlike the evidence for techeilet, this evidence should not move Ashkenazic Jews to change their tradition. Firstly, the archaeological data might be inadequate. It is possible that homes where the mezuzot were affixed in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam will be found, just as tefillin have been found that match each of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam’s opinions about the order of the parshiyot.
A second reason for Ashkenazic Jews to maintain their custom is that we should not abandon our tradition even in light of archaeological evidence. As we have seen with respect to the techeilet, archaeology possibly can play a role when there is no mesorah, but it cannot uproot one.23The archaeological findings, though, could reinforce Sephardic Jews’ resolve to abide by the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 289:6) to follow Rashi’s view. Rav Moshe Shternbuch similarly uses archaeological findings to support the non-Chassidic style of writing the letter tzadi, as we shall see later.
Another reason is that perhaps the debate between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam already raged in ancient times, and the Jews who kept their mezuzot on a slant did so as a compromise between the two views, much as Ashkenazic Jews do today. Thus, the fact that some mezuzot were slanted does not indicate that the position of Rabbeinu Tam is unfounded.
Mikveh
There is no exclusive tradition regarding how to construct a mikveh. In fact, at least five different styles of mikveh construction are employed throughout the world today.24See Gray Matter 2 pp. 255-298 for a fuller discussion of the various methods of constructing and maintaining mikva’ot. The many mikva’ot unearthed in Jerusalem (Techumin 19:448-455) and Massada (Techumin 17:389-398) were rendered kosher using either zeri’ah25This refers to the method of pouring a large amount of non-kosher water into a preexisting kosher pool, which renders the previously unacceptable water kosher. or hashakah.26This is the process whereby a pool of non-kosher water is placed next to a kosher pool and allowed to mix freely with it, which makes the non-kosher water acceptable. There were no split-level rainwater collection pools, unlike many of the mikva’ot constructed today (such as those following the model of Rav Yaakov Breisch, Teshuvot Chelkat Yaakov 3:53-54). Should contemporary mikva’ot be adjusted to match the design of those unearthed in Israel, particularly those discovered outside the southern wall of the Temple Mount?
Contemporary mikveh design does not take these findings into account. Technological advances (and greater availability of water) allow us to construct mikva’ot that meet “higher” standards than were possible in ancient times. In addition , we believe in the concept of yeridat hadorot, meaning that earlier generations, who were closer to the revelation at Sinai, were on a higher spiritual level than we are today (Shabbat 112b). Hence, we require more safeguards in our mikveh design than did our ancestors in Israel. Indeed, contemporary mikveh design is motivated to a great extent by the desire to avoid potential errors.
Purim
Since cities that were surrounded by walls during the time of Yehoshua bin Nun celebrate Purim on the fifteenth of Adar, various places in Eretz Yisrael have encountered the question of whether to consider archaeological evidence in determining what their status was at that time. This question has arisen in two variations. The first concerns areas that have not maintained a tradition that they might have been surrounded by walls during the time of Yehoshua, but which twentieth-century archaeological evidence indicates were surrounded by walls at that time. A variant question arises when the archaeological evidence simply confirms an existing tradition that a city might have been surrounded by walls in Yehoshua bin Nun’s time.
Purim in Beit El
The first variation arises in a number of places, such as the town currently called Beit El. The Tanach (Shoftim 1:22-25) clearly indicates that the town known in biblical times as Beit El was surrounded by a wall during the time of Yehoshua bin Nun. Yoel Elitzur (Techumin 1:109-118) argues that archaeological (and other) evidence proves that the contemporary town of Beit El (established in the 1970s) is located in the same place as the biblical Beit El. He therefore suggests that poskim should consider ruling that Purim be observed exclusively on the fifteenth of Adar in contemporary Beit El.
The reactions of poskim (recorded in Techumin 1:120-127) were mixed. Rav Shaul Yisraeli felt that Purim should be observed only on the fourteenth of Adar, contending (among other objections) that the archaeological evidence was inadequate to determine that the contemporary Beit El was surrounded by walls during the time of Yehoshua. Rav Ovadia Yosef, though, felt that the evidence was sufficient to rise to the level of safeik, compelling him to rule that “it is worthwhile and proper” to read the megillah in Beit El on the fifteenth of Adar without a berachah in addition to the regular reading on the fourteenth with a berachah.27The Gemara (Megillah 5b) records that Chizkiyah maintained such a practice in Tiberias due to unresolved questions as to its status as a walled city. Rav Mordechai Eliyahu was even more inclined to rule that Purim should be observed in Beit El on the fifteenth of Adar, though he stressed the importance of reaching a rabbinic consensus on this matter so as to avoid halachic pandemonium.
Longtime Beit El residents report that they have never heard of anyone in the city reading the megillah on the fifteenth. They follow the ruling of the longtime Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Beit El, Rav Zalman Melamed, who authored a responsum (Techumin 1:130-134) arguing that it is sufficient to read it on the fourteenth. Rav Melamed emphasizes that he believes the archaeological evidence to be so “far from certain” that “In [my] opinion, even a halachic safeik has not been created.” In a conversation with Rav Melamed in 2004, he confirmed that no one actually reads the megillah on the fifteenth in Beit El. He cited the practical difficulties associated with observing Purim on two days and the majority opinion amongst the poskim (based on the Yerushalmi, Megillah 1:1) that if a resident of a walled city (mistakenly) observes Purim on the fourteenth, he nevertheless fulfills his Purim obligations. Rav Ovadia Yosef also notes this last point in his responsum.
Purim in Lod
A variation of the Beit El debate has emerged regarding the city of Lod. The Gemara (Megillah 4a) states unequivocally that Lod was surrounded by walls during the time of Yehoshua bin Nun. However, Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (in his famed Luach Eretz Yisrael) rules that Lod should observe Purim on both the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar, since we are uncertain whether the city we refer to today as Lod is located precisely where the ancient city of Lod stood. The suggestion emerged in the 1980s, though, that residents of Lod should observe Purim exclusively on the fifteenth, as archaeological evidence seemed to prove incontrovertibly that the current city of Lod lies on the ruins of its ancient namesake.
Yoel Elitzur (Techumin 9:367-380) suggests to poskim that Purim should now be observed only on the fifteenth of Adar in Lod. He presents what he deems to be overwhelming evidence that the city of Lod is built on the ancient city. He notes that in practically every change to the infrastructure of Lod, ancient relics have been discovered.
Once again, the reactions of poskim (recorded in Techumin 9:365-366) have been mixed. None of the poskim ruled that Purim should now be observed exclusively on the fifteenth of Adar in Lod, but subtle differences are discernible in their respective approaches. Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvot 1:68:2) seems not to be moved by the archaeological discoveries, writing that the practice recorded by Rav Tukachinsky should be maintained. Dayan Weisz (Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak 8:61), on the other hand, writes that although Purim should still primarily be observed on the fourteenth of Adar in Lod, as has been the custom, Lod residents should nevertheless be especially careful to hear the megillah without a berachah on the fifteenth of Adar.
Rav Natan Ortner, the Rav of Lod (whose comprehensive essay on this topic appears in Techumin 9:341-366), told me in 2004 that when asked, he advises that the megillah be read again on the fifteenth without a berachah, in accordance with the rulings of Rav Eliashiv and Dayan Weisz. He added that although Purim generally is observed on the fourteenth of Adar in Lod, some shuls do indeed conduct megillah readings both in the evening and in the morning of the fifteenth.
Identification of Bones
Probably the most delicate issue that emerges in the context of the debate over the acceptability of archaeological evidence in Halachah is whether or not poskim may accept an archaeologist’s claim, based on currently accepted archaeological techniques, that a set of human remains is not from a Jewish person.28Proof for such an assertion might come from dating the remains to the Canaanite period.
We should note first that Halachah favors claims presented by Torah-observant archaeologists. Although it also accords credibility to non-Torah-observant professionals because we assume that they do not wish to jeopardize their professional standing (see, for example, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 20:1), Halachah nevertheless prefers the advice of a Torah-observant professional. For example, it is preferable to seek the judgment of an observant doctor to determine if a sick individual must fast on Yom Kippur (see Bei’ur Halachah 618:1 s.v. Choleh).
The reason for this is straightforward: as the Mishnah (Bechorot 4:10) records, “One who does not observe a particular mitzvah cannot serve as a judge or witness regarding that mitzvah.” For example, one cannot trust the kashrut of someone who does not abide by the laws of kashrut. One who does not observe a Torah law sometimes cannot psychologically grasp the importance of observing that law meticulously. An archaeologist who does not observe Torah law might not be sensitive to the importance of the great dignity with which Halachah requires us to treat the dead.
However, it is not obvious that Halachah accepts the claims of an observant archaeologist either. Poskim regard many scientific claims with a healthy dose of skepticism, because a later generation of scientists might disprove and reject the claims being made today. Thus, even if a Torah-observant archaeologist claims that scientific methods preclude any chance that bones in an excavation are of Jewish origin, poskim might regard this claim only as possibly correct. Poskim consider the possibility that later generations will reject the validity of the scientific methods of the current generation of archaeologists.
Nonetheless, Rav Kook does write (Teshuvot Da’at Kohen 79 and 191 and Teshuvot Ezrat Kohen 41) that Halachah can accept scientific claims as being either certain or very likely to be certain when ample empirical evidence exists to support the claims. He cites numerous examples in which Chazal accepted specific scientific claims as the basis for their halachic rulings (see Tosefta Ohalot 4:2, Bava Kama 91a, and Sanhedrin 78a).
One example of this is the procedure delineated by the Mishnah (Makkot 3:11) for administering malkot (lashes), which relies upon a doctor’s evaluation of how many lashes the offender can sustain. It seems from this Mishnah that we will rely upon a doctor’s counsel if poskim determine that it is based on a solid foundation of evidence. Rav Yonatan Adler thus concludes (Techumin 24:504) that each specific claim of archaeologists should be evaluated by poskim to determine whether it should be dismissed as conjecture, regarded as possibly correct, or accepted as certain or almost certain truth.29See our earlier discussion regarding the admissibility of blood tests and DNA evidence in beit din for other examples of how poskim display varying levels of acceptance of scientific claims. Cooperation between poskim and observant archaeologists would be most helpful in reaching appropriate conclusions about such matters.
Writing the Letter Tzadi
A final illuminating example of a halachic evaluation of archaeological evidence is a teshuvah of Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Mo’adim Uzmanim 2:166 footnote 2) in which he discusses the celebrated dispute surrounding how to write the Hebrew letter tzadi in Torah scrolls. He reports that ancient tefillin that have been dated to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt support the non-Chassidic, Ashkenazic tradition regarding the shape of this letter. Although Rav Shternbuch expresses very serious reservations about relying on archaeological findings regarding halachic matters, he writes that the tefillin nonetheless demonstrate that many Jews used the non-Chassidic, Ashkenazic style in ancient times. Thus, the Vilna Gaon and the Chazon Ish (O.C. 9:6) are supported in their insistence that non-Chassidic Ashkenazim not deviate from their tradition of how to write the tzadi. Rav Shternbuch even urges them to be sure to hear parashat zachor30This is the section from Devarim 25:17-19 that is read the Shabbat before Purim. The consensus amongst poskim is that this reading is biblically mandated (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 685:7). As such, we are more stringent regarding the requirements for this reading (see, for example, Mishnah Berurah ibid. 18). read from a Torah scroll whose letters are written in accordance with this tradition. He does not suggest, though, that Sephardic or Chassidic Jews alter their practice based on the archaeological evidence; he merely uses the artifacts as support for those who follow the Ashkenazic practice in this matter. Indeed, it is entirely possible that in the future, tefillin will be found supporting the Sephardic and Chassidic tzadi. Moreover, the mid-twentieth-century work Tzidkat Hatzaddik, written expressly to defend the Chassidic and Sephardic form of the tzadi, includes (p. 40) a picture of a Torah scroll written by the Ran in which the tzadi is indeed written in the style of the Sephardim and Chassidim (also see Teshuvot Yabia Omer 2 Y.D.20).31Another example of a question that could be resolved by archaeology is the size of eggs and olives. The Teshuvot Noda Biy’huda (1 O.C. 38; see also Mishnah Berurah 486:1 and Bei’ur Halachah 271:13 s.v. Shel Revi’it) asserts that eggs today are half as large as those in the times of Chazal, thereby requiring us to use the equivalent of two modern day eggs in order to determine the shiurim of an egg (required for Halachot such as sitting in the sukkah; Shulchan Aruch O.C. 639:2) and an olive (one half of an egg, the shiur required for many mitzvot, including matzah; Shulchan Aruch O.C. 486:1). Other poskim, such as the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 168:13 and 472:12), question the Noda Biy’huda’s claim. Professor
Avraham Yehudah Greenfield (Techumin 16:433-442) marshals archaeological (and other) evidence that the size of eggs has not changed dramatically since the times of Chazal. Similarly, researchers at Bar-Ilan University announced in 2008 (reported by the Jerusalem Post, April 11, 2008) that they had discovered that the olives in the times of Chazal were in fact smaller than those available today, which would make the shiur of an olive smaller than is commonly assumed. However, the Chazon Ish (O.C. 39:6) rules that the shiurim given by Chazal are by definition imprecise and can be calculated based only on the olives and eggs of each time and place, a position that eliminates the halachic impact of these archaeological findings.
32These pictures, showing the different styles of writing the tzadi, appear in Sefer Torah Shenimtzah Bah Ta’ut p.49.
Conclusion
The Chazon Ish and Rav Kook might be interpreted as disagreeing as to whether poskim should consider the findings of archaeology. We have seen this debate play out amongst the late-twentieth-century poskim, some of whom are open to the findings of archaeology, and others of whom seem to disregard them. Indeed, we have seen that Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, Rav Moshe Shternbuch, Dayan Weisz, and Rav Ovadia Yosef consider archaeological evidence in their rulings. However, even those who consider the findings of archaeology to be of halachic significance view the findings critically, declining to rule based on archaeologists’ findings when they contradict a mesorah of Am Yisrael.