A treatise analyzing whether the archaeological discovery on Mount Eival by Professor Adam Zertal can be used to establish practical Halacha regarding the construction of an altar (specifically the requirement of Avanim Shelemot / “complete stones”).
Key Summary Highlights
Halachic Definition of “Complete Stones” (Avanim Shelemot) & Modern Solutions:
-
- Majority View (Rambam, Rashi, Consensus): “Complete stones” must be naturally smooth and unblemished (free from nicks or defects that would catch a fingernail check).
- Minority View: Stones need not be smooth, but must strictly be untouched by metal tools.
- Halachic/Technological Solutions: Rather than relying on unhewn rough stones based on archaeological finds, three solutions satisfy all views:
- Solution A: An inner core of natural pearls (halachically considered stones) wrapped in heat/acid-resistant protective materials.
- Solution B: Cutting stones smoother than a slaughtering blade using indirect abrasive water-jet streams (gerama).
- Solution C: Utilizing synthetic sapphire created via high-temperature plasma gas, avoiding the status of kiln-baked bricks (Levinim).
- Can Archaeology Decide Halacha?:
- Archaeology is cited only when proofs are incontrovertible (e.g., the Beit Yosef & Rashba citing ancient Tefillin found at Ezekiel’s Tomb matching Rashi/Rambam’s order).
- Artifacts from crisis periods (e.g., Bar Kokhba caves) or non-ideal states (e.g., the single-line Tzitz in Rome noted by Kesef Mishneh) cannot override prescribed Rabbinic standards or normative law.
- Core Halachic Arguments Disproving the Eival Discovery as Joshua’s Altar:
- Immediate Dismantling: The Mishnah (Sotah 7:5), Tosefta, Talmud (Sotah 36a), and an overwhelming majority of Rishonim (Rashi, Bartenura, Meiri, Tashbetz, Chizkuni, Radak, Rabbeinu Bachayei) dictate that Joshua built the altar on Mount Eival for a single day, after which it was dismantled and its stones permanently re-erected in Gilgal.
- Cardinal Alignment Failure: Talmudic law (Yerushalmi Eruvin 5:1, Zevachim 62b) mandates that an altar’s four walls must align precisely with true North, South, East, and West. The Eival structure is oriented diagonally off-axis.
- Missing Structural Elements: An altar requires four corner horns (Karanot), a foundation base (Yesod), a broad southern ramp (Kevesh), and a perfect mathematical square shape (Ribo’a) (Sukkah 49a, Rambam Beit HaBechirah 2:17). The Eival structure is rectangular (9 meters by 7.5 meters), lacks horns and a foundation, and has an impractically narrow ledge (~1m wide) instead of a functional sacrificial ramp.
- National Encampment Status: The ceremony occurred “Before Hashem” (Deut 27:7), denoting full national encampment status where all public altar requirements applied.
- Archaeological, Faunal & Chronological Contradictions:
- Non-Sacrificial Species (28% Wild Game): 20%–28% of the bones found at Mount Eival belonged to Yachmur (fallow deer/antelope). Jewish offerings are restricted strictly to 5 domestic species (cattle, sheep, goats, turtledoves, pigeons; Rambam Maasei Korbanot 1:1). The Chafetz Chaim notes that wild pure animals are permitted only on Gentile/Noahide altars.
- Chronological Mismatch: Excavated pottery and Egyptian scarabs (from the reign of Ramesses II) date the site to ~1200–1130 BCE—placing it decades to centuries after Joshua’s entry into Canaan under traditional Biblical chronology.
- Pre-existing Structure: Beneath the rectangular structure lies an older circular stone layer (~1240 BCE). Joshua would not have erected a holy altar upon an existing pagan or profane foundation.
Author: Shlomo Moshe Scheinman (See vilnagaon.org and 60ribo.org for various “Haskamot” {Endorsements} from prominent Orthodox rabbis for some of my other articles.)