Hopefully, Moshiach is around the corner, and we need to learn the halachos that are necessary for when that time comes.  The Chofetz Chaim wrote that we may not rely on Eliyahu HaNavi making determinations for us.  We need to study these issues and we need to study them now.

And for generations, a profound mystery challenged Talmidei Chachomim and historians alike regarding the precise measurements of the Torah and of halacha. This question has profound halachic implications for numerous mitzvos including sukkah dimensions, tefillin sizes, tallis size, maakah sizes and many other areas of Halacha. In other words should parents and grandparents stop buying their 13 year old 18 inch talis kotton and start buying 21 inch ones?

The Great Debate Among the Poskim

There are generally three positions among the leading halachic authorities of the last century who established different measurements based on their analysis of the various Talmudic sources. Rav Chaim Na’eh zt”l determined the amah to be 18 inches with a corresponding tefach of 3.15 inches. The Chazon Ish zt”l held the amah was 23.4 inches with a tefach of 3.78 inches. Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l concluded the amah measured 21 inches with a tefach of 3.54 inches.

This author has observed that Torah observant Jews living in Eretz Yisroel generally observe one of three approaches:

1] following Rav Chaim Na’eh’s measurements,

2] following the Chazon Ish’s measurements, or

3] employing a combination using whichever is more stringent for each halachic topic.

Very few Torah observant Jews living there give significant weight to the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, unless they were his Talmidim.

Conversely, many Torah observant Jews living in America considered Rav Moshe Feinstein as the Posek of America and gave more weight to his measurements, often employing combinations that included his view.

First Archaeological Discovery: The Temple Mount Square

A few years ago, a possible breakthrough developed that would seem to vindicate both the precision of the Mishna in Meseches Middos and possibly strengthen Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l’s position on the amah.

The Mishna clearly states that the square upon which the Mikdash stood measures 500 amos by 500 amos, forming a perfect square. Yet when researchers attempted to explore the actual terrain of the Temple Mount, they encountered seemingly insurmountable difficulties as the dimensions simply did not align with what could be observed and measured.

This discrepancy led to various theories among scholars and Rabbis alike. Some suggested that the Mishna’s language was merely an approximation rather than a precise measurement. However, the meticulous archaeological work of Leen Ritmeyer, who served as an assistant to the renowned archaeologist Benjamin Mazar (even though now his granddaughter Eilat a”h is a bit more famous then he), may have provided a solution.

Ritmeyer’s methodological innovation proved crucial. Previous researchers had approached the problem from the wrong direction, beginning with their assumptions about where the Beis HaMikdash itself had stood and then attempting to construct the platform boundaries around that presumed location. Ritmeyer reversed this methodology entirely. Instead of starting with theories about the Beis HaMikdash’s location, he first gathered archaeological evidence to identify the original square platform described in the Mishna. Only after establishing these boundaries did he proceed to determine where the Beis HaMikdash itself had been situated.

This approach allowed the archaeological evidence to speak for itself, free from preconceived notions about the Temple’s location. Ritmeyer’s methodology led him to identify three critical pieces of evidence that would possibly confirm both the Mishna’s precise accuracy and vindicate Rav Feinstein’s position.

The Two Differences

At the northwest corner of the current Muslim platform, Ritmeyer observed two crucial and strange differences in the bottom step of an ancient staircase on Har HaBayis. These blocks were constructed from pre-Herodian materials, indicating they predated the later expansions that Hurdus or Herod had made to the Temple Mount. More significantly, this step ran parallel not to the current Muslim platform but to the eastern wall of the Temple Mount itself.

Ritmeyer hypothesized that this step was actually a remnant of an original wall from the Temple Mount described in the Mishna. When he drew a line eastward from the northern edge of these ancient blocks, it passed along a rock ledge before meeting the eastern wall. The total length of this line measured exactly 861 feet.

At what Ritmeyer proposed as the northeast corner of the original Temple Mount, he discovered another telling piece of evidence. The lowest visible course of stones in this area stuck out beyond the very different masonry that stood above it. This protruding course stopped at a specific point, which Ritmeyer marked as an offset north of his proposed northeastern corner.

The third indication came from the southern end of the eastern wall, where a slight bend had been recorded by the famous 19th-century Jerusalem explorer Charles Warren. When Ritmeyer measured this bend, he made another discovery: it began exactly 861 feet south of where his proposed northern wall intersected the eastern wall. By drawing a perpendicular line westward from the beginning of this bend and a line directly south from the ancient step, Ritmeyer created two sides of a square, each measuring exactly 861 feet in length.

The crucial revelation came when Ritmeyer calculated the measurement of the cubit used in these ancient constructions. The 861-foot measurement from the northwestern corner to the eastern wall, when divided by 500 (the number of cubits specified in the Mishna), yielded a cubit length of 20.67 inches. This archaeological evidence provides possibly quite stunning confirmation of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal’s position of an amah being approximately 21 inches – which he says is slightly machmir.

While not identical to the precise measurement, the archaeological evidence fell remarkably close to Rav Feinstein’s calculation and was notably distant from both Rabbi Chaim Na’eh’s 18-inch measurement and the Chazon Ish’s 23.4-inch determination.

Second Archaeological Discovery: First Temple Period Storage Vessels

Another remarkable archaeological discovery possibly supports Rav Feinstein zt”l’s measurements from an entirely different angle. This evidence comes from ceramic containers dating to the time of Dovid HaMelech and carries significant halachic implications regarding the laws of tumah and taharah.

We may reasonably assume that the general population of Jews living in the time of the first Bais HaMikdash observed halacha, and certainly in terms of tumah and taharah. We may also assume that they, like people in all generations, liked to save money and protect their investments. Just as we put away the milk container back into the refrigerator after making coffee to avoid bacterial contamination, ancient Jews would have been concerned about protecting their stored goods from spiritual contamination.

The halachic principle involved is well-established. Although there are debates between the Rambam and the Rash (Rash not Rosh) regarding the nature of Tumah (impurity)  when dealing with an opening less than a tefach, the vast majority of commentaries,  in this author’s view, understand that when the opening of a storage vessel is less than a tefach in width and length, the impurity is either prevented or limited in some way. Conversely, if the opening of the containers were larger than that of a tefach, it would subject the contents of the containers to the dangers of becoming tameh.

A number of years ago, archaeologists measured the circumference of various ceramic containers during the time of Dovid HaMelech. They discovered that all of them, without exception, had openings between 3.48 and 3.53496 inches. This discovery is uncanny, as the top figure is exactly that which Rav Moshe Feinstein determined for the tefach measurement.

The implications of this discovery are profound. If we accept these archaeological findings, it seems clear that the most precise measurement for the tefach is that of Rav Moshe Feinstein. This would mean, for example, that if someone wanted to sleep in a sukkah under a table, the table height should be under 35 inches. The Rav Chaim Na’eh measurement would be too stringent, and the Chazon Ish measurement would be halachically invalid for this purpose.

Conclusion

These two independent archaeological discoveries, each dealing with entirely different aspects of Jewish life, possibly provide remarkable confirmation of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal’s position on halachic measurements. The first discovery, involving the precise dimensions of the Temple Mount square, suggests his amah measurement of approximately 21 inches. The second discovery, involving storage vessels from the First Temple period, suggests his tefach measurement of approximately 3.54 inches – which is one sixth of the Amah

While some may argue that archaeology has no place in the determination of halacha, others, including some major poskim of the last generation, have disagreed with this position. The convergence of these archaeological findings with Rav Feinstein’s calculations raises important questions about how we should approach these fundamental measurements in halacha.

When this author spoke to a number of American poskim to ask whether we should emphasize Rav Moshe’s shiur tefach in America, since he was considered by so many as America’s foremost posek, most responded affirmatively. Perhaps, in light of these archaeological discoveries, we should consider giving greater weight to his measurements more broadly.

These findings do not definitively resolve the debate among the great poskim, but they do provide compelling archaeological evidence that possibly supports the precision and accuracy of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal’s approach to halachic measurements.

The author can be reached at [email protected]