It was 1910. This was the year that King Edward VII of England died, that the Mexican Revolution started, and the year that Japan annexed Korea. It was the year that the Boy Scouts of America was founded, and when Halley’s Comet returned referenced in the Gemorah in Horios (10a).
But most significantly for this week’s parsha, it was the year that George Andrew Reisner (1867–1942), of the Harvard Semitic Museum, was excavating the palace of Achav – the king of Northern Israel. And he came across writings over different types of various vessels. In the language of archaeologists these are called Ostraca.
There were 102 of them and they were written in a paleo-Hebrew alphabet. This was typical of the Hebrew used in the northern kingdom. Only 63 of them are legible now, but with emerging technology including AI – you never know if the other 39 could be deciphered. They are known as KAI 183–188 and are currently held in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums. These fragments, known today as the Samaria Ostraca, and date back to the final decades before the Assyrian conquest that would end the northern kingdom of Eretz Yisroel forever.
Initially, these ostraca appeared to be just simple mundane administrative records: They were lists of deliveries; tax receipts, and records of property transfers. But as the ancient script was being deciphered, something extraordinary was about to emerge. Among the place names and official records, two names leaped from the pottery with startling familiarity:
These were not random ancient place names. They were the names of two of the five daughters mentioned in this week’s Parsha: Chaglah and Noah.
So what is going on here exactly?
It seems that over the years, they became actual geographical territories that had been passed down through the generations as family inheritances. The inheritance of Chaglah included the settlement of Yitzat, identified with the Arab village of Yaazid in Samaria. Noah’s inheritance was located in the Zavdah Valley, east of the Dotan Valley, as confirmed by the archaeological survey of Mount Manasseh.
Even more remarkably, a third daughter’s name, Tirzah, has been archaeologically confirmed through excavations at Tel el-Farah, where the ancient city of Tirzah was discovered. This city, which served as the capital of the northern kingdom before Samaria, is first mentioned in the Torah as one of the cities conquered by Yehoshua.
Although we are maaminim bnei maaminim, this can be an incredible Kiruv tool as it demonstrates to one and all—the historical reliability of the Torah’s narrative in the most concrete way possible. Here we have administrative records from the actual period when the northern kingdom of Israel was functioning as a sovereign state, confirming that the inheritance system described in the Torah was not only real but was actively implemented centuries later.
The Mitzvah of Kiruv flows directly from the mitzvah of Ahavas Hashem—our Love of G-d. The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos #3) states that authentic love of the Divine creates an irrepressible desire to spread knowledge of Hashem across the world. This burning passion should drive us to educate those lost in ignorance of Torah and ignite within them the fire to fulfill its teachings. This discovery can help us do that.
Let’s also not forget about Arvus—that each of us stands as guarantor for every other Jew. As long as our fellow Jews fail to fulfill mitzvos, we haven’t fully fulfilled our Mitzvos.
There is a fascinating Mogen Avraham (Orach Chaim 658 §12 and 671 §1) that reveals an extraordinary principle: sometimes we must deliberately diminish our own mitzvah performance to help others to fulfill theirs.
The discovery of these Ostraca way back in 1910 serves as an invaluable kiruv tool. Just as the Mogen Avraham teaches us to sometimes diminish our own mitzvah performance to help others fulfill theirs, and as we see from the Mitzvah of Ahavas Hashem, we must use such discoveries to fulfill our obligation of arvus—bringing our fellow Jews closer to Torah observance through compelling evidence of its beauties and truths.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Why so apologetic about this? “Of course we believe…” “for kiruv…” etc.
1)It’s ok to find this fascinating. Nobody when reading about this (in a different article) says “oh this is boring but great for kiruv!”
2)There are some people who are more academically inclined and come across all sorts of things that the average person does not. That he is interested in this area of knowledge does not make him a bad person. In the contrary, why should we be so ignorant about Jewish history? Are we so scared of what we will learn? I hope our best option isn’t to pretend these things don’t exist. Now, sometimes one comes across discoveries in this field that are not so affirming for our preconceived notions that many of us have. So maybe this discovery that “affirms” things that we believe in is useful and inspiring? Is that a bad thing? Or should we continue do suggest that “only someone who needs kiruv would benefit from this otherwise useless discovery”?
Seforim say these things are like a desert to a meal, but our emunah comes from Torah and mesorah – that Sinai was in front of millions – a claim Christians and Moslem don’t dare to make.
They don’t want to post my reply. But in short, mesorah is not about how many oriole witnesses the event. That argument has many weaknesses. Other nations do have similar phenomena. Mesorah is regardless if verification. Not because of it. That’s what makes it emunah.
Besides, my comment is gufa in response to this sentiment.
Do you believe in the Torah? If so why is it so important to you to post that due to your lies our arguments seem weak? I can’t ‘believe’ your comment was allowed.
I’m a little confused. Did you read what I wrote? No “lies”. Everything verifiable. Do a just little research. Like spend 10 minutes on google questioning yourself. Play the other side. A very healthy exercise In life. Especially in the beis medrash, but just as well outside of it. This is exactly why our mesorah is NOT to rely on proofs. Proofs can be disproven. This is something that both the main article and the first reply to my comment agree on!
I think moderation is doing a great job. They didn’t allow the first version of my earlier reply. I thought they were too strict, but that’s why they get to moderate. Kudos to them. No kudos to you.