Photos: IAA

Shlomo Naeh has a new interpretation of what was thought to be a seal certifying purity that was used in the Temple. According to Naeh, it is actually a token for a sacrifice.

Thus, the object was used in Temple worship, but not how Reich and Shukron believe it was, says Naeh. To ensure the purity of animal sacrifices offered in the Temple – and to maintain an economic monoply, Naeh believes – pilgrims had to buy their offerings in the Temple courts. They gave money to a treasurer who would exchange it for a token inscribed with the type of sacrifice they had purchased and the date.

I liked this quote from Naeh:

“People have been saying the ancient sages fantasized everything about the Temple. But … they knew what they were talking about. For me, this is uplifting. The sages of the Mishna, my guys, win out,” Naeh said.

The Hebrew version of the article has a fuller quote from Naeh:

“התגלית הארכיאולוגית היא עדות חיה למנהל המקדשי כפי שהוא מתואר במשנה”, מוסיף פרופ’ נאה. “פירוש זה מסביר גם את נדירותו של הממצא הארכיאולוגי, שכן החותמות הנזכרים במשנה שימשו רק בתוך תחום בית המקדש אמצעי חליפין פנימי, ואפשר להניח שרק פריטים בודדים מצאו את דרכם אל מחוץ לבית המקדש”.”אין לנו משהו דומה לזה. פתאום השטח והספרות מדברים באותה השפה”, אומר נאה, “דווקא בדור האחרון עולה גישה שאומרת שחז”ל פינטזו על מה שקרה בבית המקדש (המשנה נערכה כ-130 שנה לאחר החורבן, נ”ח), אבל המשנה הזו לא יכולה להיות תוצאה של פנטזיה – הם ידעו על מה הם מדברים. בשבילי זה משהו מרומם. חכמי המשנה,
החבר’ה שלי, מנצחים”.

The Mishnaic word for seal is חותמות and it occurs in a number of mishnahs. The following is Shekalim 5:3 (trans. Neusner):

אַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַּל, וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. עֵגֶל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָּקָר גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים. זָכָר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבָד. חוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל מְצוֹרָעִין

Four seals were in the Temple. And on them was inscribed the following: “Calf,” “ram” (male), “kid,” “sinner.” Ben Azzai says, “There were five, and they were written in Aramaic: “Calf,” “ram,” “kid,” “poor sinner” [Lev. 14:21], and “rich sinner” [Lev. 14:10]. “Calf” signifies drink offerings for [offerings from] the herd, large or small, male or female. “Kid” signifies drink offerings of the flock, whether large or small, male or female, except for those which accompany rams. “Ram” signifies drink offerings which come with rams alone, “Sinner” signifies drink offerings which come with the three beasts of those afflicted by metzora.

The name Yehoyariv occurs in Baba Kamma 9:12:

נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וָמֵת, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִ יהוֹיָרִיב וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה, יָצָא, אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה, אִם קַיָּם הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְאִם לָאו, יַחֲזֹר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר. שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְזֵלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ, יָצָא, הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְזֵלוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ, אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב

A. If he [who had stolen from a proselyte] had paid over the money to the men of the priestly watch on duty, and then [the thief] died, the heirs cannot retrieve the funds from their possession, since it is said, Whatsoever any man gives to the priest shall be his (Num. 5:10). [If] he gave the money to the priestly watch of Jehoyarib [which is prior], and the guilt offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah [which is later], he has carried out his obligation. [If he gave] the guilt offering to the priestly watch of Jehoyarib and the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the guilt offering is yet available, the family of Jedaiah should offer it up. And if not, he should go and bring another guilt offering. For he who brings back what he had stolen before he brought his guilt offering has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his guilt offering before he brought back what he had stolen, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If] he handed over the principal but did not hand over the added fifth, the added fifth does not stand in the way [of offering the guilt offering and so completing his obligation].

I am sure that a few articles will be written about this find, but it is interesting that the original press release from the IAA quotes Shekalim 5:4, a source that I think seems to lend support to Naeh’s interpretation of this being a token that was given in exchange for something and not a seal certifying purity.

מִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. וְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת החוֹתָמוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת. וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאִם פָּחֲתוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה

He who wanted [to purchase] drink offerings goes over to Yohanan, who is appointed to be in charge of the seals. He pays him the fee and receives a seal from him. He goes over to Ahiah, who is appointed to be in charge of the drink offerings. He hands over the seal to him and receives the drink offerings from him. Then in the evening the two come together, and Ahiah brings out the seals and receives money for them. If there was an excess [of funds over seals], the excess belongs to the sanctuary. And if there was too little money, Yohanan paid out of his own pocket. For the claim of the sanctuary is always paramount.

Update:  See this update from Paleojudaica.

Here is a video of Shuli Natan singing the song. I assume that this video was made before the Six-Day War because the lyrics are the original ones that weren’t changed to reflect the liberation of the Old City. Also, I would think that if it was after the war some of the background pictures would reflect this.

Here is a video of her singing the song from 2002.

But what is “Jerusalem of Gold”? The bible scholar Shalom Paul solved the riddle in the late 1960′s. The following is from an article that was originally published in the Jerusalem Post.

Paul’s struggle to decode the Jerusalem of Gold began in the late 1960s with an ancient cuneiform document from the Canaanite city-state of Ugarit, whose ancient Semitic language shares common roots with Hebrew. This ancient bit of bookkeeping, circa 1400 BCE, includes an inventory of the trousseau of one Queen Aatmilku, with the unique Sumerian phrase uru k -gi in her catalogue of jewelry. Translated, the phrase reads “one city of gold,” with a listed weight of 215 shekels – the equivalent of 10 pounds.

Analyzing at the most basic level, Paul realized a crown, unlike a bangle or earring, might feasibly weigh 10 pounds and was not yet mentioned in the queen’s trousseau. The tradition of crowns extends beyond medieval European monarchies. In ancient cultures and theologies, they adorn the heads of goddesses and queens in sculpture and story.

The phrase “city of gold” resonates with anyone familiar with the Talmud, the corpus of ancient Rabbinic literature that expounds upon the Torah with commentary and legend. This opulent symbol of wealth figures in many stories. The Talmud implies it is customary for brides to wear one. It declares that only a wealthy woman is permitted to flaunt one in public. It also relates how Rabbi Akiva presented his wife with a “city of gold” as recompense for selling her hair to subsidize his Torah study. The identification of this article of jewelry becomes apparent from a variant version of this text, which substitutes the reading “crown of gold” for “city of gold.” This same crown bears another name in rabbinic literature: “Jerusalem of gold,” since, according to the rabbis, the term “city” referred to their city par excellence, Jerusalem.

But Paul was at a loss to explain why the crown was described as a “city.” Did it relate to the crown’s appearance? It took a bold stroke of luck to connect the dots.

One of Paul’s colleagues, a linguistic scholar, had casually mentioned the corrupted Greek term for “city of gold” used in the Talmud, whose Hebrew text had absorbed several “loan words” from the era’s prevailing Hellenism. The word was a variant compound of “krisos,” or gold, and “kastellion,” or castle.

In a flash of insight, Paul understood that the crown was designed to resemble a citadel or fortress, sculpted into turreted segments to evoke the ramparts that bordered ancient cities. A city was in fact defined by its surrounding walls.

Racking his brain, Paul recalled the frescoes at the Dura Europus synagogue, in Syria, which depict Queen Esther with a turreted crown on her head. Once he began to search, he found ample evidence. A similar crown adorns the heads of Hittite female deities on the rock sanctuary of Yazilikaya, Turkey, dating from about 1200 BCE; of an Elamite queen depicted within an eighth-century relief in Iran; and of two prominent Assyrian women in the same era.

The motif of the turreted crown had even entered the vocabulary of Greek and Roman art. The mythical Greek goddess Tyche, patron deity of cities, is perpetually rendered with a turreted crown. The missing epigraphical link between the occurrence of this phrase in the Ugaritic text and its reappearance in Talmudic sources appears in an Aramaic tablet from neo-Assyrian times. In recording the sale of a slave, it declares that anyone contesting the case must give a “city of gold” to Nikkal, wife of the moon god Sahar.

The following is a restatement of Paul’s findings (pp. 205-206).

Yom Yerushalayim Sameaḥ.

It was striking that almost every paper followed a similar pattern: it usually began with some piece of puzzling evidence, either textual (in the vast majority of cases) or material, and used the other kind of evidence to elucidate it. The product of this analysis was a solution or better understanding of the context of the original crux.

Now there is nothing wrong with this. I know of no serious scholar who would disagree with the assertion that both textual and material evidence can be elucidated by reference to the other; we are not or should not be in silos. Obviously, actually combining this evidence in our work is often hampered by practical considerations (e.g., expertise, access, time), but that’s the ideal. And indeed, it was fascinating to see in many presentations how, for example, judicious use of material evidence can resolve textual cruxes (e.g., Sperber).

Yet even when the resolution of these small cruxes leads to more generalized conclusion, there is also something that I find vaguely unsatisfying about the method.

You can read the rest here.

Worth reading: Israel Finkelstein’s rebuttal to Aljazeera’s propaganda film Looting the Holy Land, which accuses Israel of a systematic policy of stealing artifacts from the West Bank. Finkelstein is the Tel Aviv University archaeologist whose ‘late chronology’ theory claims that most of the finds once attributed to the era of Kings David and Solomon are actually from a later period. As a result, he’s often been accused by modern-day Philistines of providing grist for the mills of those who deny the that the Jews have any rights in the Land of Israel. But here he offers a point-by-point refutation of some big lies.

(Via South Jerusalem.)

The remains of a huge 12,000 year old feast have been found in a cave in Northern Israel. Archaeologists working in Hilazon Tachtit found what they thought was a late Palaeolithic campsite, when they discovered tools and animal bones. However they soon realised they were looking at a large burial site, with huge numbers of animal bones. They found the remains of at least three aurochs – giant extinct cattle – and over 70 tortoise skeletons.

…

The team drew the conclusion that the tortoises had been cooked and the meat had then been removed. This was the best evidence that the animals had been killed and cooked for eating, not killed as a sacrifice.

I am not sure if this is an old story, because here is a detailed blog post about a scientific paper describing the finds from two years ago.

The Yeshiva University Center for Israel Studies presents an international conference for Sunday and Monday, March 27-8, 2011, which will take place at Yeshiva University Museum and on our historic Washington Heights campus. The conference is titled: Talmuda de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in Late Antique Palestine. In the century since Samuel Krauss’ Talmudische Archaeologie, massive strides have been made toward the integration of archaeology into the study of Rabbinic literature and of Rabbinic literature into the study of classical archaeology. This paradigm shift has altered the ways that we view the Rabbis, their literature, Jewish history and the broader Roman world, resulting in numerous publications, conferences and exhibitions. This conference will focus explicitly upon intersections between Palestinian Rabbis and archaeology from the vantage point of Rabbinic literature. Each participant will be asked explore ways that archaeological discoveries impact our understanding of specific rabbinic texts. The conference and the resulting volume will provide a range of viewpoints on well known, and less-well known rabbinic sources, and the ways that archaeology helps us to better understand them and the world in which they were composed.

On a related note, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine will be available this Fall. From the table of contents it looks like it will be a very good book, and I will be glad to accept a review or gift copy.