Democracy vs. Sovereignty

How certain is the future of Jewish sovereignty over Israel? When asked, most Jews will respond without any real understanding of its implications. They may mean Israel should never fall into the hands of a non-Jewish group or nation that doesn't identify themselves as Jews. But, how can such an outcome be assured given the democracy Israel’s modern state claims in its now fungible Basic Law of 1948. Surely a democracy means that all people living within a nation’s borders must enjoy an equal right to vote? If so, how long will Israel hedge its, river to the sea, border claims against ‘two states’ which have prevented resident aliens from diluting its democracy and Jewish sovereignty?

This thorny question is often the root cause of extreme disagreement among Jews. Some religious fundamentalists claim Israel does not require a state, that Israel is a spiritual ideal defined in the psyche of its people. On the other hand those that rely on Israel’s State law and its response to International Law focus on the physical definition of national borders as determined by the prevailing consensus. The diversity presents the dilemma of a nation seeking a sovereign guarantee for their Jewish, ‘democratic’ ideal.

Under the two-state-solution, once the shared dream of its President Shimon Peres, Israel would have been divided into a Jewish and a non-Jewish state under the Palestinian Authority. However, after significant resistance on both sides, the internationally sponsored idea has failed. In the midst of the political fury, legal opposition and terror Israel equivocates as it grapples with the threat a single state may pose to its Jewish ideal.

Regardless of Israel’s present, positive Jewish demographic trend, risk to Jewish sovereignty, in a single democratic state, from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea, that incorporates all resident aliens, is too much for the Jewish Israeli electorate to bare. Alternatively, giving up security control to an enemy occupying land controlled, but not presently annexed by Israel is controversial, daunting and impractical. The untenable advance of terrorism and global rhetoric is often more alarming to Israel's Jewish electorate than the prospect of losing its Jewish majority in a future single state. The status quo is ineffective, a drain on national and individual prosperity. 

Who can guarantee Jewish sovereignty? The Supreme Court are disinterested and international pressure is growing. The question is increasingly serious, rising up in the minds of Israel's Jewish constituents. Existing mechanisms within the states legal construct are limited, but there is one that fully satisfies the essential guarantee. Compare the United Kingdom with its King and Church of England, Denmark with its Evangelical Lutheran constitution, Italy with its Vatican, Iran with its Ayatollah, Saudi Arabia with its King and Mecca. Although some of the western states identify as religious, their constitutions separate church and state. Similarly, Israel has an inherent solution to its Jewish sovereignty problem, a model that makes sense, is already partially active and works.

Whether secular or religious, the vast majority of Israel’s Jewish electorate periodically participate in religious services of a local synagogue. Through these community synagogues, elected, municipally appointed City Rabbis are nominated by a legally established Electoral Committee that represents communal religious interests. One of those interests is Jewish sovereignty guaranteed by national rabbinical representation in a future Senate or Upper House of Israel’s Knesset (parliament). That may be a confronting prospect to many, but the national benefits for all, Jewish or non-Jewish citizens and alien-residents, are presently misunderstood and underappreciated. 

Many popular elected City Rabbi’s^[1] are self-motivated to empower community voices through their electoral framework and elevate it to Israel's national political stage. Others require replacement by younger, more active and knowledgeable representatives. Rabbinical representation in a bicameral government of a single Jewish state is complex, but societal demands are rising as a result of dedicated grass roots participation. Town hall meetings, community activities, representations organized by appointed City Rabbis and leaders are and will be hallmarks that signify the success of this future movement. Education and awareness that a Sovereign Rabbinical body, elected to the Upper House of Israel's parliament, can truly be representative and liberating will underly the ground swell of this Jewish indigenous ideal. 

Shifting government priority from its present emphasis on defense, energy and technology to also develop labor intensive domestic industry around Israel's rich cultural principles will be essential to satisfy Israel’s growing constituent underclass. Political parties that prioritize development of sustainable industries capable of employing a significant portion of the unemployed and non-participating^[2] workforce will benefit. Israel’s indigenous cultural prerogative, including toward the optimal growth of cultural tourism, is a principle that will serve the prosperity of Jewish and non-Jewish populations of a single, sovereign, Jewish state. The development of skills^[3] directed to economic benefits associated with Jewish sovereignty will ultimately deliver better financial distribution to the broader population.

Objectors may struggle to digest such a prospect: A democratic-theocracy that stacks its constitutional Jewish sovereign deck in favor of its Jewish population by its Jewish religious leaders in an upper house of its government. Jewish sovereignty looms large, but the embrace of non-conventional models, inspired by the ancient past, would for the first time in 2000 years also establish an authoritative, representative religious body licensed to decide its ancient religious laws. 

---

[1] http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/israellaws/fulltext/jewishreliserviceslaw.htm 

[2] http://www.financeisrael.mof.gov.il/FinanceIsrael/Docs/En/The_Israeli_Economy.pdf 

[3] http://skills.oecd.org/supplyskills/documents/21abclabourforceparticipationbygenderandage2010.html 

Angel of Death Trickery?

Jerusalem's City of David and Temple Mount

Renowned commentators have stated that the Foundation Stone (Jacob's stone) was located in the Holy of Holies (of the first and second Temple) and that the 12 stones, from which it was formed were at the precise site that was, is and will be the site of the permanent holy altar. How do we understand this apparent contradiction? 

The altar of Jerusalem's Holy Temple once facilitated individual and national sacrifices and will do so again in future. During its inauguration alone, some 120,000 sheep were slaughtered for it and the feasting that followed! In its location, on the Temple Mount, it served the nation for almost 1000 years, with only a short disruption, but it did not survive the ancient Roman destruction and onslaught at the beginning of the Common Era (CE). 

Moses Maimonides (known as Rambam), the pre-eminent Rabbi and commentator in his Mishneh Torah on Jewish Law of The Chosen Temple tells us that the precise place Abraham once bound (Akeida) and offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice is the same place of the future altar. Further, that the place modern Jews consider the location of the Temples' Holy of Holies is established by tradition. The ambiguity about these locations are reflected accurately by the Rambam.

The commentators expounded that 12 stones of the Akeida altar (or its ramp) were used by Jacob, when he slept adjacent to Akeida the night he dreamed of a stairway to heaven. God fused those 12 stones into a single rock, which He infused with the foundation of the earth. That became known as The Foundation Stone or 'Even Ha-Shtiah', which, by tradition was located in the Holy of Holies. In context the various accounts do not reconcile, primarily because the Holy of Holies of the first and second temple was some distance from and not adjacent to the altar. Therefore, The Foundation Stone (comprising Jacob's stone) could not have been located at or adjacent to the site of Akeida.

For his book, "In Ishmael's House", Martin Gilbert researched passages about the Jews written exclusively in Islamic works. In 638 CE Calif Omar raided Jerusalem, among his men was a Jewish convert to Islam, Ka'b al-Ahbar (Hebrew name was Akiva). Almost 600 years after the Romans had destroyed the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary and its holy altar, Calif Omar requested Ka'b point out the place where the Holy of Holies once stood. After some misgivings, Ka'b identified the spot where the shrine to Calif Omar was erected. Today that shrine is known as the Dome of The Rock, the golden dome that occupies a prominent location on the Temple Mount. That particular location has no special designation in fact or Jewish law, only that it is universally accepted and by Jewish tradition associated with the western most wall of the temple mount.

Detailed legal arguments do not contradict that King Solomon built the first temple altar, Chronicles (II 3:1) on the same site King David had previously built his altar when he made restitution for his wrongful census of the nation. One opinion suggests David's prophecy aligned his altar with Akeida. However, the Bible states the site was located at the feet of the 'angel of death' that was standing between heaven and earth with its sword suspended over Ancient Jerusalem and that prophet Gad caused David to buy the site from the Jebusite king and bring an offering. The detailed arguments are important because the Bible relates the altar was built for David's personal sin and benefit, not for that of the nation. At that time the mobile, national altar was still in service in Givon and David made it crystal clear this was his personal account; 2 Samuel 24:17: “I alone am guilty, I alone have done wrong; but these poor sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand fall upon me and my father’s house!” 

Careful archaeological excavation west of the Gihon Spring, on Mount Moriah's east facing slope, has revealed evidence that the precise site of Akeida may have been hidden under fallen ground cover of the mountain for more than 1000 years. Then, 2600 years ago it was uncovered and immediately buried by constructors of city walls indicating the site has been concealed for 3500-3600 years.   

Stone of Israel, Jacob's Stone or Foundation Stone?

Whether David and Solomon were tricked by the 'angel of death' into selecting a site different to Akeida or this new evidence points to the real Akeida, we must objectively consider all the arguments and commentaries we have learned and prepare ourselves for new possibilities on Holy Mount Moriah.

Jerusalem's Temple Zero Underground

Temple Zero Excavation (north end)

Temple Zero Excavation (south end)

More than 500 years before King David Temple Zero, in Ancient Jerusalem's City of David had been constructed, used regularly and completely buried by falling groundcover. Whether King David ever re-discovered Temple Zero, or King Uzziah or Hezekiah were the first to re-discover it is debated here. Recently excavated elements, located on east and west adjacencies of Temple Zero, under virgin soil, in an ash layer above bedrock and a defensive wall prove the hypothesis that King David never discovered it. The discovery presents Temple Zero as a legitimate contender for the altar of the future temple in Jerusalem.

  

Seeds of wheat and barley, in a delicate 2m long, 1cm thick layer of ash, 5cm above bedrock, lay undisturbed from Middle Bronze Age through the Iron Age period of King David until King Uzziah and remained in place until their recent extraction. This delicate ash layer was preserved only because soft dirt had accumulated above it. In the ash, one seed was preserved under the wall of a late Iron Age building the other under collapsed rocks from surrounding Iron Age constructions. These seeds were carbon dated ~3290 years before the present (using 1950 as the reference age) and corelated to Middle Bronze Age archaeology of 1605-1510 BCE. 

Area U in pink (also map below).
Western edge of Temple Zero (greyed) in center of pink border

Water channel (Blue)

Iron Age wall constructors would first probe soft dirt until they discovered underlying bedrock sufficient to support wall construction. Then, they would remove soil and other moveable elements until they located the full length of bedrock necessary to support the wall width and length. On that they built their wall.

The Iron Age buildings were constructed after the wall, along Temple Zero's westernmost edge of Area U (map below) on the elevated edge of its rock-cut-rooms. The bedrock edge drops down the sheer east facing walls, of hollowed bedrock rooms 1.5-2m to the bedrock floor of the Temple Zero complex. Well before the Iron Age, the hollowed out rooms had once been filled with accumulated sand or natural dirt, that fell down the slope burying Temple Zero to a depth of  at least 1.5-2m. 

Red dots mark carbon dated evidence
  Iron Age walls (red) on western edge
of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms

Heights above sea level

Less than 10 meters east, further down slope toward the valley, additional evidence was found, between bedrock and leveling rocks supporting a Middle Bronze Age wall (red dots on the image above-right). This indicates earth below the supporting rocks of the walls base had been used 150-200 years before the seeds trapped in the ash layer (further to the west). However, around 1m above the bedrock additional evidence, taken from the walls' mortar, revealed entrapped seeds of a similar date as the ash layer seeds. Therefore, the walls foundation layers were constructed on a base above bedrock more than 150 years earlier, shown in the image below. 

Large rock placed on smaller supporting rocks
near the bedrock base, site of earlier dated evidence

Curiously the study identified an unusual 17th century gap in evidence, indicating that the entire area went out of use during the 50-75 years that preceded the ash layer seeds and the building of this small Middle Bronze Age wall.  

This evidence at the rock-cut-rooms of Temple Zero strongly points to a natural burial, by slippage, wash, wind and accumulation. It is widely known to archaeologists that a location on a steep slope, such as this site, on the east of Mount Moriah would naturally accumulate sufficient dirt to be entirely covered over within 5 years. Complete burial would naturally obfuscate the existence of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms.

Since Temple Zero was buried underground sometime in the 17th century it would not have been used for active worship during the 10th century reign of King David because the evidence in the drainage channel was undisturbed. The next time all of Temple Zero's rock-cut-rooms were exposed was during the bedrock discovery phase, required for construction of Jerusalem's massive eastern defensive wall, in the 8th century leading up to or during the reign of King Uzziah. Almost 1000 years after the seeds became trapped in the ash layer, constructors of the massive defensive wall discovered, preserved and re-buried Temple Zero where it remained for another 2600 years until it was recently discovered in 2011.

The implications of this study are important because they provide a credible reason why Temple Zero was never discovered by King David and how the fragile matzevah (Stone of Israel), located in Temple Zero survived in its original place, preserved in soft sand, in tact all these years. One can only imagine what King Uzziah’s Iron Age wall constructors must have thought when they discovered and preserved it for our generation?

Finding Zion!

A decade of persistent effort by the El Ad foundation, The City of David and archaeologists from Israel's Antiquities Authority has produced sensational results on the eastern slope of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah. More than ever before, evidence and context have reduced events to a narrow range of comprehensible theories. Now, we are left to ponder the most perplexing question of all...

The Gihon Spring, near the Kidron Valley floor was ancient Jerusalem's only perpetual water source. It sustained Paleolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age populations who lived in proximity to the valley until around 4000-3800 years ago. In the Middle Bronze Age, commensurate with Biblical Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob populations migrated 50+ vertical meters further up the steep east facing slope to live on the mountains' ridge. For these occupants, access and secure passage of water, from the spring became crucial to successful survival. 

Mount Moriah, one rock

During the past 15 years several key discoveries have informed our knowledge of the eastern slope: 

1. Cave K 

Recent excavations identified a tightly packed, richly layered floor that should reveal information about the historical and chronological use of the cave. Work, presently underway indicates a usage spanning terminal Iron Age back to the Bronze Age. The cave was an important accommodation for occupants of the lower mountain. The cave exit/entrance, on its north-west end once connected with Passage XVIII that runs west, connecting Cave K with a rock-cut-temple around 10 vertical meters higher up the slope. 

North Entrance

Level crossing, from Cave K over the lower bedrock once provided convenient access to water from the Gihon Spring.

2. Passage XVIII

The remnant of this bedrock passage climbs up from the roof level of Cave K to the rock-cut-temple, due west, at a steep grade 10m further up the eastern face. The Cave K end of the passage appears to have been quarried or fissured and breaks lower level access to passage XVIII. Organic materials, found in mortar of a wall built in this passage was carbon dated to 3700-3500 years ago. This evidence aligned with similar materials discovered in a drainage channel along the west boundary immediately behind the rock-cut-temple. The organic material indicated that construction on the passage had occurred sometime during this period and provides evidence of its use during the middle bronze age.

3. Rock-Cut-Temple

Excavation to expose Rock-Cut-Temple

This is arguably the most fascinating complex of Mount Moriah's eastern face. The temple cut in the  rock contains all of the necessary elements for worship, similar to the practices that followed in King Solomon's First Temple as widely document in ancient Jewish texts. The features include (looking West); 

Matzevah in the cabinet (left) - Altar Platform, liquids channel (right)

Matzevah

Altar platform and liquids channel

A Matzevah or standing stone was forbidden by Biblical law for use in any Jewish worship. Therefore, the practice ceased around 3300 years ago, some 300 years before King David arrived on Jerusalem's Mount Moriah. Prior to that, use of a matzevah was permitted as referred in Biblical Jacob and has been widely reported in archaeology. However, this humble matzevah is unique in all Israeli archaeology. The altars' liquids channel and altar platform once supported a stone altar on which animal sacrifices were offered.

To the left (south) of the matzevah 'V' cuts in the bedrock used for slaughtering, processing and preparing animal sacrifices. The room also contains a sunken mortar for crushing grains. To the right (north) of the altar platform an olive press for preparing pure olive oil, of the highest grade to be used for anointing and preparing baked sacrificial offerings.

North over the olive press

Looking north over the oil press, passage XIX is terminated by Wall 108 (see map below). The northern wall W108, of the double wall was excavated and dated along with W109 to the Middle Bronze Age. It is still unknown as to why the double wall was built and this remains one of the more perplexing elements of the temple complex.  

4. Wall 108 and 109

The double wall complex was one of the most challenging constructions in the City of David and certainly on the eastern face. Massive boulders stacked to a height of up to 5 meters had to be hauled up, or lowered down the slope and precisely placed. It was a serious construction requiring a labor force greater than the size of the entire local population of the mountain. It is presently anticipated that the passage between the double walls was sealed, a ziggurat type structure that led worshipers on an ascent to passage XIX where they would turn left (south) and proceed to the rock-cut-temple complex. 

A recent discovery (see image below) confirmed that the double walls abutt passage XIX, but that W108 (north, top of picture) extended through the passage further west blocking north-south access. W109 meets the passage and would have ensured foot traffic, between the walls, was guided to the south along passage XIX toward the rock-cut-temple complex.  

Looking North, at the top, large steps
between W108 (north) and W109

5. Defensive wall 

As confirmed by surviving organic material, 1000 years after the rock-cut-temple were last used, toward the end of the iron age, a defensive city wall was built on the eastern face of the mountain. The wall was constructed over the rock-cut-temple and soft sand (discovered in 2011) was used to fill the spaces between the wall and the bedrock to protect the matzevah from damage by the heavy rocks of the wall. That decision, most likely by King Uzziah or Hezekiah, preserved the matzevah for 2600 years until it was discovered in-situ by archaeologist Eli Shukron in 2011. However, the wall constructors cleared the rock-cut-temple artifacts leaving only a small amount of Middle Bronze age pottery in the room adjacent to the altar.

Significant scale wall (looking north).
 Top right of the wall intersects W108.

6. Question

If the rock-cut-temple was last used around 3500 years ago (the time of the surviving organic matter, particularly the remnant discovered in the drainage channel) it is conceivable the entire rock-cut-temple lay buried under earth and silt, unused for almost 1000 years before Hezekiah's wall was built, 2600 years ago in the lead up to the destruction of the first temple. The wall constructors would have exposed the rock-cut-temple, its artifacts and the matzevah causing the King at that time to decide what next? We now know that the defensive wall was constructed over the rock-cut-temple, but the constructors preserved the matzevah indicating respect and honor. If Hezekiah was king at the time and believed the matzevah were an object of idolatry his constructors would certainly have destroyed it.

On this evidence we must ask whether King David, who was compelled to this mountain, ever discovered the rock-cut-temple that existed 700 years before he became King?

2 Samuel 5:7–9 tells us; David conquered the “fortress of Zion that is the City of David,” after which he is said to have built “from the Millo inward”. The fortress David captured (thought to be the Spring Tower, see map above including W108 and W109) gave him full control over the precious water supply lines inward to the Gihon Spring. That's all it took to conquer the city 50m up the hill that was dependent on the Spring. 

Did the 700 year legacy of priesthood and ancestral history, at the rock-cut-temple motivate David to capture and locate Zion? Did he ever find it?

Hezekiah's Dilemma

Hezekiah's Seal

I was surprised to read a sequence in Talmud, Sanhedrin (95-97) that connects several mysteries related to contraction of land, suspension of the sun's orbit, Jerusalem and a messianic prophecy. 

First in the sequence, Avishai saved King David's life. (95a:8) But, Tanach and midrash inform us that after King David's sinful census 70,000 in Israel's north were killed, the next day, on the summit of Jerusalem's Mount Moriah, when the angel of death was poised to destroy Jerusalem, Avishai was sacrificed to pacify the angel and prevent Jerusalem's destruction. At the foot of the angel of death David offered his personal sacrifice and that site would become the future altar of Jerusalem's first temple. This story is reflected in the 'sword over Jerusalem', words that are said each year at Passover tables the world over.  

Next, Talmud steps the reader back ~500 years to the time Jacob returned and stumbled on 'the place' his fathers prayed (95b:1). By this, midrashim and commentaries we know 'the place' to be the Beit El of Abraham and Jacob, the Akeida (binding) of Isaac, which according to Jewish law will be the place of the future temple altar.

Then, the reader steps forward ~1000 years to learn of Hezekiah's failure to obtain his Messianic designation after Sancheirev attempted to destroy Jerusalem (95b:14). In other places we learn that Hezekiah' failed because he did not immediately attribute the saving of Jerusalem to Divine intervention. Then, Sancheirev was killed by his sons (age 64 - c.681BCE) and Nebuchadnezzar seized control of the Babylonian-Assyrian alliance. Around 100 years after Sancheirev's failed attempt, Nebuchadnezzar dispatched Nebuzaradan and destroyed Jerusalem (96b:4).

Among the brutal detail of Jerusalem's destruction we learn Merodach-Baladan, who preceded Sancheirev, as king of Babylonia, (96a:10) wrote a letter to encourage Hezekiah shortly after he recovered from a near-fatal illness. Young Nebuchadnezzar was the scribe to Merodach-Baladan, but did not draft nor agree with the content of the letter. Hezekiah lived another 15 years (died aged 52 c.687 BCE), around the age of 37 he would have received the letter. 

Finally the Talmud continues a detailed conversation about the Messianic redemption following a sabbatical year (97a:1-10).

In a recent archaeological discovery, the defensive city wall that Hezekiah built to protect Jerusalem from the wrath of Sancheirev's doomed army was uncovered, but it presented an intriguing puzzle about the date of its construction. 

We asked whether the onset of Hezekiah's illness coincided with the city wall construction? If so, the constructors would have commenced during his early 30's, c.707 BCE and discovery of rock-cut-rooms, in the path of the wall construction may have presented a serious dilemma? Carbon dated evidence suggests, for more than five centuries the rock-cut-rooms lay buried below meters of dirt and debris supporting their spontaneous discovery that probably delayed construction until a decision about their treatment was reached. 

Why the dilemma? Well, one thing is for sure, the flimsy matzevah discovered in (2010 by Eli Shukron), in the rock-cut-rooms was preserved by Hezekiah's constructors and remains a declaration of its holy, non-idolatrous status. If not they would certainly have destroyed it, instead they preserved it in soft sand and built the defensive city wall alongside it to the east. We will never know what other  Bronze Age artefacts may have also been discovered at that time (Eli Shukron found some), but we see, from Hezekiah's actions the matzevah was important.

The fact the rock-cut-room temple complex preceded Solomon's temple surely would have prompted Hezekiah to ask why Solomon's temple was built in a different location, further up the mountain? How would Hezekiah, the one designated for messianic status answer that question? Was this 'the place' Jacob stumbled, where he dreamed of a stairway to heaven, set his matzevah (pillar), the place spanning time back to Akeida and beyond to Malchi-Tzedek and the original temple of Jerusalem? 

Walk in Hezekiah's shoes and ponder the depth of his dilemma.

 

72 Golden Bells

In 2011 a rare golden bell, in the shape of a pomegranate was discovered in a drainage channel near the Temple Mount along the route to the Siloam Pool (Shiloah) at the southern end of the City of David. The Second Temple artefact was thought to be one of 72 similar bells adorning the hem of the High Priests garment. The route along the drainage channel is one the High Priest would have frequently used.

The discovery was widely publicised prompting many to question whether this was one of the actual bells and it exposed an age-old debate among Torah scholars. The adornment of the High Priests garment is discussed in unusual detail in the section known as Tetzaveh, Exodus 28:33-34:

וְעָשִׂ֣יתָ עַל־שׁוּלָ֗יו רִמֹּנֵי֙ תְּכֵ֤לֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן֙ וְתוֹלַ֣עַת שָׁנִ֔י עַל־שׁוּלָ֖יו סָבִ֑יב וּפַעֲמֹנֵ֥י זָהָ֛ב בְּתוֹכָ֖ם סָבִֽיב׃ 

On its hem make pomegranates of blue, purple, and crimson yarns, all around the hem, with bells of gold within them all around

פַּעֲמֹ֤ן זָהָב֙ וְרִמּ֔וֹן פַּֽעֲמֹ֥ן זָהָ֖ב וְרִמּ֑וֹן עַל־שׁוּלֵ֥י הַמְּעִ֖יל סָבִֽיב׃

a golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate, all around the hem of the robe.

Two major commentators Rashi and Ramban had differing views about the interpretation of these words. Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (c. 1269 - c. 1343), known as Ba’al haTurim commented on these:

Tur HaArokh, Exodus 28:34:1

פעמון זהב ורמון, “a golden bell and a pomegranate.” According to Rashi the Torah speaks of two distinctly separate kinds of ornaments, one looked like a bell, the other like a pomegranate. Ramban writes  We must assume that the bells were surrounded on the outside by these “pomegranates,” the “pomegranates” being hollow, they were made to look like unripe small “pomegranates” that had not “opened” yet, and the bells were hidden within their cavities, but could be seen partially from the outside.

Perhaps the Ba'al haTurim was also saying that the golden bells were concealed by the woven yarns, as a shell around the golden bell depicted below:

Indeed we find further support for this archaeological wonder, that explains the meaning of these detailed instructions in Torah. 'זָהָ֛ב בְּתוֹכָ֖ם' - 'zahav betocham' - 'gold within' and from an earlier passage 'וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם' - 'v'shachanti betocham' provides more meaning; make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell within them (Exodus 25:8). Here 'within' provides the key clue as to the golden pommegranate shaped bell.

A commentary from Zohar (2:95a), on the preceding sections of Exodus known as Mishpatim discusses a donkey driver whose knowledge of Torah was not sought referring; "that donkey driver, is he here? For sometimes in those empty ones, you may discover bells of gold" The commentary associates the sound of the hidden bell with the concealed presence of God in the world.

As Isaac Mozeson of Edenics so eloquently states: "We have to elevate a P'aMoaN beyond rings and bells to the פעמו of Judges 13:25 - the divine spirit of Redemption moving in the camp of Dan".

But, the proof text that this is in fact a bell from the garment of the High Priest may lie in a word relationship to Exodus 25:12 that discusses the four gold rings (אַרְבַּ֣ע פַּעֲמֹתָ֑יו). These rings were cast onto the four corners of the ark through which the poles, that suspended it for transport were secured. The word פַּעֲמֹתָ֑יו  in (25:12) relates to (28:34) פַּֽעֲמֹ֥ן, the golden pomegranate bell by at least the first three letters and vowels, which invokes a question about exactly what the word references.

If we infer the logic of (25:12) to (28:34) Torah is explaining that Moses cast a gold ring on each gold pomegranate shaped bell, through which it was attached to the High Priest garment. Indeed this is the very design of the gold pomegranate shaped bell that Eli Shukron discovered, albeit without its long disintegrated, outer woven cover. 

Anceint Jerusalem Walks and Quacks Like a Duck...

 

The Matzevah of Jacob?

According to carbon dating the rock-cut-rooms on Mount Moriah's east facing slope were not discovered by King David (~3000 years ago) and the matzevah, located in the rooms may have been erected by Jacob (~3600 years ago). After King David, ~2700 years ago, when King Hezekiah discovered the rooms and the matzevah, during his defensive wall construction, he preserved it in soft sand and left it intact against the new city wall.  If he didn't think it were holy, he would have destroyed it along with the other idolatry that was destroyed. Thanks to his decision it was re-discovered in 2010.

The evidence from Weismann and Cambridge confirm organic remnants, found adjacent to the rooms date back 3500-3800 years overlapping with Jacob and accumulating evidence overwhelmingly reenforces the Jacob hypothesis as follows:. 

1. Carbon dating confirmed the rock-cut-room's immediate adjacencies were in use 3500-3800 years ago

2. In situ, organic samples, at a height of 1.2 meters above the bedrock and in compressed earth of a water channel indicate surface dirt would have accumulated for 500 years or more, from 3500 years to 3000 years ago and entirely buried the rock-cut-rooms.

2. Use of a matzevah was banned from the time of Moses (3300 years ago) as recorded in Torah law. King David (3000 years ago) would never have breached Torah law.

3. The altar in the rock-cut-rooms is holy according to Torah law. It faces west, meaning priests would have their backs to the sun, which would be against the principles of east facing sun worship.

4. Hezekiah (2700 years ago) cleared the bedrock artifacts to build the city defensive wall, but he preserved the free-standing matzevah. 

5. During the Middle Bronze Age (MBII = 3800-3500 years ago), Wall 108 and 109 of the fortified passage led people from the lower levels of the eastern slope to the rock-cut-rooms.

6. A simultaneous discovery in 2010, around 1.3 KM east of the rock-cut-rooms could confirm the enigmatic City of Ai.

This accumulating body of evidence make it increasingly difficult to refute the suggestion that the rock-cut-rooms are the location of Jacob's matzevah, Isaac's Akeida and Abrahams Beit El.

It is important to acknowledge the remarkable work of archaeologists and scholars, but its much more important to identify that our discovery of the location King David so desperately sought is part of a much greater awakening. 

More here: 

 

The Enigma of Ai

 

The Excavation
1.3KM East of City of David

Many have searched for the elusive ancient city of Ai, but so far no suitable candidate has gained comprehensive support from archaeology and biblical scholars. However, one recently discovered location has been missed, not spoken of very much and not identified with any other previous locations. Uncannily, it was excavated in 2009 simultaneous with the the rock-cut-rooms on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah, 1.3 kilometers to the west.

East of Beit El, West of Ai

IMPORTANT: Jeroboam established a competitive Bethel, that confounds people to this day.

To resolve confusion, the image above satisfies each of the five places, in the Bible that link Bethel and Ai. For the correct archaeological site to be identified, each description must conform to the precise physical location.

a. Abram’s tent: "From there he moved on to the hill east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and he built there an altar to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name." (Genesis 12:1-8)

          

And he returned by stages from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been formerly, between Bethel and Ai, the site of the altar that he had built there at first; and there Abram invoked the Lord by name. (Genesis 13:3-4)

b. The conquest of Ai: “Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which lies close to Beth-aven – east of Bethel” (Joshua 7:2). Joshua set an ambush of thirty thousand warriors, followed by a second ambush of five thousand, strategically placed “between Bethel and Ai – west of Ai.” When Joshua and his men feigned retreat, the armies of both cities pursued their Israelite foes, leaving the cities defenseless against the hidden ambush: “Not a man was left in Ai or in Bethel who did not go out after Israel; they left the city open while they pursued Israel” (Joshua 8:17).

c. The 31 Canaanite kings: One of the kings listed is “the king of Ai, near Bethel” (Joshua 12:8).

d. The returnees from exile (in Zerubbabel’s time): ...of those “who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own city” (Ezra 2:1; Nehemiah 7:6), the returnees are organized by point of origin. There we find: “The men of Bethel and Ai – 223” (Ezra 2:28; in Nehemiah 7:32 the number is given as 123).

e. The final listing of the people of Israel: “The Benjamites: from Geba, Michmash, Aija [Ai] and Bethel and its outlying towns” (Nehemiah 11:31).

In each of the above cases the excavation at Ras al-Amud fits the correct location, time period and scale for the missing city of Ai. 

City of Ai at Ras Al Amud, finally located

In the rectangle original Beit El before the walled city.
Approximately 1.3KM west of Ai
Boundary - Benjamin (north) and Judah (south).

The hypothesis for original Beit El is strengthened by archeological findings and carbon dating. Details in the video below.

 

“Jacob Gave The Name Beit El To Jerusalem”

 

Click to enlarge

בראשית כ״ח:י״א

(יא) וַיִּפְגַּ֨ע בַּמָּק֜וֹם וַיָּ֤לֶן שָׁם֙ כִּי־בָ֣א הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ וַיִּקַּח֙ מֵאַבְנֵ֣י הַמָּק֔וֹם וַיָּ֖שֶׂם מְרַֽאֲשֹׁתָ֑יו וַיִּשְׁכַּ֖ב בַּמָּק֥וֹם הַהֽוּא׃
Genesis 28:11
(11) He came upon a certain place and stopped there for the night, for the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of that place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place.

Rashi verbatim

THIS IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HOUSE OF GOD —R. Eleazar said in the name of R. José the son of Zimra: “This ladder stood in Beersheba and [the middle of]) its slope reached opposite the Temple” (Genesis Rabbah 69:7). For Beersheba is situated in the South of Judah, Jerusalem in the North of it on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin and Bethel in the North of Benjamin’s territory, on the border between the land of Benjamin and that of the children of Joseph. It follows, therefore, that a ladder whose foot is in Beersheba and whose top is in Bethel has the middle of its slope reaching opposite Jerusalem. 

Now as regards what our Rabbis stated (Chullin 91b) that the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “This righteous man has came to the place where I dwell (i.e., the Temple at Jerusalem, whilst from here it is evident that he had come to Luz) and shall he depart without staying here over night?”, and with regard to what they also said, (Pesachim 88a) “Jacob gave the name Bethel to Jerusalem”, whereas this place which he called Bethel was Luz and not Jerusalem, whence did they learn to make this statement (which implies that Luz is identical with Jerusalem)? 

I say that Mount Moriah was forcibly removed from its locality and came hither (to Luz), and that this is what is meant by the “shrinking” of the ground that is mentioned in the Treatise (Chullin 91b) — that the site of the Temple came towards him (Jacob) as far as Bethel and this too is what is meant by ויפגע במקום, “he lighted upon the place” (i.e., he “met” the place, as two people meet who are moving towards each other; cf. Rashi on Genesis 5:11). Now, since Jacob’s route must have been from Beersheba to Jerusalem and thence to Luz and Haran and consequently when he reached Luz he had passed Jerusalem, if you should ask, “When Jacob passed the Temple why did He not make him stop there?” — If it never entered his mind to pray at the spot where his fathers had prayed should Heaven force him to stop there to do so? Really he had reached as far as Haran as we say in the Chapter גיד הנשה (Chullin 91b), and Scripture itself proves this since it states, “And he went to Haran”. When he arrived at Haran he said, “Is it possible that I have passed the place where my fathers prayed without myself praying there?” He decided to return and got as far as Bethel where the ground "shrank” for him. This Bethel is not the Bethel that is near Ai (cf. Genesis 12:8) but that which is near Jerusalem, and because he said of it, “It shall be the House of God”, he called it Bethel. This, too, is Mount Moriah, where Abraham prayed, and it is also the field in which Isaac offered prayer as it is written, “[Isaac went out] to meditate (i. e., to pray; cf. Genesis 24:63) in the field”.

Thus, too, do we read in the Treatise (Pesachim 88a) in a comment on the verse Micah 4:2: “[O come ye and let us go up] to the mountain of the Lord (i.e. the mountain upon which the Temple is built) and to the house of the God of Jacob”. What particular reason is there for mentioning Jacob? But the text calls the Temple not as Abraham did who called it a mount, and not as Isaac did, who called it a field, but as Jacob did who called it Beth[el]—the House of God. (To here from “This Bethel” is to be found in a certain correct Rashi-text)

Beit El, Jerusalem - Did King David Know?

For 10+ years I patiently waited for news, finally it came. Using carbon dating on seeds, twigs and dirt, Regev et al unambiguously showed that the Rock-Cut-Rooms, on the eastern slope of Mount Moriah are sandwiched between two sources of evidence dated to the Middle Bronze Age approximately 3500 and 3800 years ago.

Bronze Age Rock-Cut-Rooms

This is important because all archaeological evidence on the bedrock of these rooms was removed in the Iron Age II, around 2600 years ago when builders for King Hezekiah constructed the recently discovered eastern city wall (W20005 - W20021). Based on this evidence, before the rooms were first uncovered 2600 years ago they lay buried, out of use for some 900 years. No evidence of this time-frame showed up in the carbon dating report. 

Area U and Rock-cut Rooms
 (V. Essman and O. Rose)
Approximate evidence locations marked in red.

You following this? These rooms were in use up till 3500 years ago, then they stopped being used for 900 years, then 2600 years ago they were discovered, uncovered and immediately buried, finally they were re-discovered and uncovered again in 2011. 

East-side evidence samples

West-side evidence samples

Stunningly, the flimsy matzevah at the west end of room 4 (Area U map above) was intact as far back as 3600 years ago, the time of biblical Jacob. This perfectly fits the time-frame of evidence discovered on both sides of the rock-cut-rooms. Further, as the evidence stretches back to 3700 or 3800 years it suggests the rooms were actively in use at that time.

Matzevah (Pillar) of Jacob?

Eli Shukron, the archaeologist who excavated these rooms is unequivocal, this is the first temple that ever existed on Mount Moriah, a thousand years before the First Temple of King Solomon. If this is the matzevah of Jacob (Genesis 28:18, 28:22, 31:13, 31:45, 35:14, 35:20), then this is also the Beit El where Abraham built an altar, tithed to Malchi-Tzedek and offered his son, Isaac. Could it be?

Context to slope of original passage (Parker XVIII)

between Gihon Spring and rock-cut-rooms