Daf Ditty Shekalim 21:Burial Tools/Dolabra

The "Tombs of the Kings", believed to be the tomb of Queen Helene of Adiabene; 19th-century lithograph by William Henry Bartlett

رﻮﺒﻗ :Keveri HaMlakhim; Arabic רבק י כלמה םי :The Tombs of the Kings (Hebrew French: Tombeau des Rois) are a rock-cut funerary complex in East ; ﻦﯿطﻼﺴﻟا Jerusalem believed to be the burial site of Queen Helene of Adiabene (died c. AD 50–56).

The tomb is mentioned by who writes about Helena, queen of Adiabene, a small kingdom from Mesopotamia (today part of Kurdistan, northern Iraq) who came to Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple Period. Her family converted to Judaism and built a palace in the area today known as the City of David. Helena's son Monobaz II had her remains and those of his brother buried "three stadia from Jerusalem." Medieval Europeans mistakenly identified the tomb as belonging to the kings of Judah.1

1 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-france-orthodox--archaeologists-battle-over-e-j-lem-s-tomb- of-the-kings-1.6766370

1

Halakha 1 · MISHNA The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure. Since neither ritually impure people nor were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case except for spittle found in the upper marketplace, where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

2

Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year, i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot, spittle that is found in the middle of the street is ritually impure, and spittle that is found on the sides of the street is ritually pure. According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. But during the time of the Festival, when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found in the middle of the street was ritually pure, and that found on the sides of the street was ritually impure. The difference is due to the fact that at the time of the Festival, the ritually impure minority moves to the sides of the streets.

The mishna continues: All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem on the way down into the bathhouse, wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are ritually impure, and those that are found on the way up are ritually pure. The mishna explains: Their descent into the bathhouse is not by the same route as their ascent out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. However, Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves, to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.

The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it on the thirteenth

3 of Nisan, he immerses it again. Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening.

GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir, all spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure, except if it were found in the upper marketplace. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains: A fortress [katzran] of gentiles was there in the upper marketplace. The Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav (see 17b and Nidda 34a), therefore their spittle is impure. The Roman soldiers were gentiles, so any spittle found in the upper marketplace was presumably theirs.

The Gemara recounts an incident about this fortress. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once they were killing wild donkeys in Jerusalem, to feed the lions in the circus (see Menaḥot 103b), and the pilgrims coming to Jerusalem to celebrate the Festival were wading in blood up to their ankles from the large amount of blood coming from the wild donkeys. And they came before the Sages to find out if they had been rendered ritually impure, and they, the Sages, did not say anything, as the blood of an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure, even though the carcass itself does. Where did this story take place? Rabbi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: There was a , i.e., Roman, fortress there, in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem, and that was where they were killing the wild donkeys.

Apropos the ritual impurity of blood from an animal carcass, the Gemara recounts that. Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: There was an incident with regard to a

4 mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household that died, and the Sages ruled its blood to be ritually pure and not subject to the impurity imparted by an animal carcass. On this topic, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Simon: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? And he did not answer him. He then went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said to him: Up to the size of a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is ritually impure. And Rabbi Elazar was annoyed that Rabbi Simon did not respond with the that the minimal size for ritual impurity is a quarter-log, as he certainly heard it from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

The Gemara continues: Rav Beivai was sitting and teaching this story of the mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household, in which the Sages ruled that the blood of a carcass does not render one impure. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna said to him: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure? Rav Beivai said to him: Up to a quarter-log is ritually pure; more than that is impure. And then he kicked him.

Rabbi said to Rav Beivai: You kicked him because he asked you a question? He said to Rabbi Zerika: Because my mind was unsettled, and not because he did anything wrong. As Rabbi Ḥanin said in expounding the verse:

And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou 66 וס וּיָהְו ,יֶיַּח םיִאֻלְתּ ְל ;דֶגֶנִּמ ;דֶגֶנִּמ ְל םיִאֻלְתּ ,יֶיַּח וּיָהְו shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy דַחָפוּ ָתְּ יַל הָלְ ,םָמוֹיְ ו אֹלְ ו מֲאַת ןיִ ןיִ מֲאַת אֹלְ ו ,םָמוֹיְ ו הָלְ יַל ָתְּ דַחָפוּ .life .יֶיַּחְבּ Deut 28:66

5 “And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life” “And your life shall hang in doubt before you”; this is one who buys for himself wheat for a year, who has no financial security with regard to the following year. “And you shall fear night and day”; this is one who is so poor that he buys wheat from the storekeeper a bit at a time, with the attendant concern that he might not have enough for the morrow.

“And shall have no assurance of your life”; this is one who is so poor he buys from the baker and cannot afford to buy wheat in advance to assure even one future meal. And I rely on the baker, i.e., I am on this lowest level of poverty, and therefore I do not have the presence of mind to answer his questions.

The mishna states that according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion, all the spittle found in Jerusalem is pure, except for spittle found in the upper marketplace. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi say this in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina: The Sages did not decree the spittle found in Jerusalem to be ritually impure? If so, why is the spittle found in the upper marketplace ritually impure? The Gemara answers: But wasn’t it stated with regard to that marketplace that Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: A fortress of gentiles was there, and since the Sages decreed that gentiles have the ritual impurity of a zav, any spittle found there must be from them and therefore is ritually impure.

Steinzaltz

6

The mishna also states Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that for most of the year, all spittle found in the middle of the street was impure and spittle found on the sides was pure; during the pilgrim Festival, the spittle in the middle was pure and that on the sides was impure. The Gemara discusses a that explains this opinion: On the rest of the days of the year, the ritually impure proceed down the middle of the street in a group, and the pure proceed on the side to avoid contact that would render them impure. And the ritually pure proceed ordinarily and don’t warn the ritually impure not to touch them, while the impure are the ones who say to those who are ritually pure: Stay away. During the period of the pilgrim Festival the ritually pure proceed in a group in the middle of the street and the impure proceed on the side of the street. The impure proceed ordinarily and do not warn the ritually pure not to touch them, and the ritually pure are the ones who say to those who are impure: Stay away, i.e., be careful not to touch us and render us impure.

Steinzaltz

7

The mishna further states: And all the vessels that are found in Jerusalem, if they are found on the way down to the bathhouse, where one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, they are ritually impure, and if they are found on the way up, they are ritually pure. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The Sages did not decree ritual impurity with regard to the vessels found in Jerusalem? The Gemara answers: Since they were found on the way down to the bathhouse, it becomes as if it had been conclusively demonstrated that they are ritually impure, for one does not bring a vessel to be immersed if it is not ritually impure.

The mishna also states that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that all vessels that are found in Jerusalem are ritually pure, except for the basket, the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves. The Gemara recounts that Abba Shaul, who was a gravedigger and regularly used such tools, would call them, the tools referred to by the name meritza, fingernails [tzipporin]. The Gemara explains: The one who said to call it tzipporin did so because this tool was similar in appearance to a fingernail, with a sharp point. The one who said to call it a meritza, literally, a runner, did so because it is a tool with which one runs, i.e., moves the stone used to close the entrance to the burial cave to the cemetery.

Steinzaltz

8 Jastrow

Rav Bartenura

Yachin

9

Tos Yom Tov

Judges 9:53

But a woman dropped an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head and cracked his skull.

RASHI

10 Summary

Rabbi Yose says: they are all clean, except the basket and the shovel or pick which are specially connected with [work in] cemeteries. Rabbi Yose says that in Jerusalem people are extra careful to make sure that they don’t leave unclean vessels lying in the streets.

Therefore all vessels are unclean except for vessels which were most likely to have been used in cemeteries. The basket referred to here was one in which bones were put into and moved to an ossuary. The shovel was used to collect them and the pick was used to dig graves. Since these almost certainly came into contact with a corpse or with bones, they have to be assumed to be unclean.

"MERITZAH" Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah says that when one finds an instrument called a "Meritzah," he must assume that it is Tamei because it is used for burying the dead. What is a Meritzah?

(a) The Gemara (21b) explains that it is a tool that crushes stones. Grave-diggers use it when they dig a grave.

(b) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos, cited by the TIKLIN CHADTIN) apparently has a different text in the Gemara. According to his text, a Meritzah is used to crush bones in order to facilitate transporting them to the burial grounds. Bones occasionally need to be placed into a smaller sack when they are transported, and thus they are crushed.

How can the Rambam suggest that a Meritzah is used to crush the bones of the dead? The Halachah clearly forbids breaking or dismembering the bones of the dead in any way (SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 403:6). (TIFERES YISRAEL, HAGAHOS RADAL)

The PEIROS TE'ENAH cites the RADVAZ (Teshuvah #611) who was asked whether one may dismember the body of the dead or break bones in order to transport the body to Eretz Yisrael. He proves that it is permitted from the words of the Rambam here. He explains that in the case that the Rambam describes, the dead body needs to be transported in order to be buried near family members, which is a form of honoring the dead.

The bones may be broken in order to enable the body to be transported, since it is done in order to give honor to the deceased. Similarly, transporting a body to Eretz Yisrael is a form of honoring the deceased. Therefore, the bones may be broken in order to enable the body to be transported.

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-021.htm

11 Are Found Utensils Presumed to Be Pure?

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The eighth and final perek of Massekhet Shekalim follows the mishnayot of the previous perek, which discussed money that was found in the Temple and in Jerusalem, and whether that money is to be considered consecrated to the Mikdash or not. These mishnayot deal with other things that are found in Jerusalem; in this case the question is whether they are to be considered ritually pure or defiled.

One case, for example, is utensils that are found in the city. According to Rabbi Meir, if they are found in a place that leads to a mikveh, where such utensils are taken to purify them, we must assume that they are tameh, but if they are found on the path leading away from the mikveh, we can assume that they were already dipped and are considered ritually pure.

Archaeological excavations have found many mikva’ot like the ones described here, in which there are separate staircases leading into the mikveh and leading away from it, with a clear separation between them. They were set up this way in order to ensure that the people going in to the mikveh who are tameh, should not touch the ones who were leaving the mikveh, already tahor.

However, Rabbi Yose says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the meritza, which are specifically used for graves, to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.

During the Second Temple period people were buried in temporary graves and after their flesh decomposed their bones were moved to permanent family burial caves. The basket was a special one that was used to collect the bones.

The shovel had a wide head and a long handle, held in both hands; when associated with a basket, as it is here, it was used for digging as well as the collection of bones for burial. The meritza in this context was a tool similar to a pickax, also called a dolabra, with which one could extract large stones and then push them into place to close a burial cave.

The Rambam rules like Rabbi Yose, that utensils in Jerusalem are not automatically assumed to be tameh, since the Rabbinic ordinance that such utensils are tameh that was applied in other cities (see the Mishna in Taharot 4:5) was not applied in Jerusalem.

The purpose of the stone discussed in our Gemara is the subject of dispute among the commentaries, and the precise wording of the text of the Gemara itself is variable.

3 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim21/

12 learns that the stone is used to push other stones to the grave, to form a cover for the יליריס ו ר”ש ו יליריס learn that the stone was part of a tool used to crush and טרבמ נ ו הר ע ו דב י ה בר י grave. Rambam and break bones in order to have them fit into a basket which was used to transport the remains to another place.

questions this explanation, because the tool is described as being brought “to הדעה ברק ן יש י ר י The and not that it was itself a stone used to crush bones. Yet there are“ תא רמ י הצ באה ן —crush stones limbs crushed which tool.“ וש ת” קמע הכלה others who say that the text of Rambam in our Gemara רמ י הצ םצעה “ was (1:61) writes that the text of Rambam was that this tool was רמ י הצ תא רבאה -the ”.it was used to break bones– תא

Tiferes Yisroel (Yachim, #10) notes that this rendition of the Gemara is troubling, because it is a Baraisa) פ”ב י תבר י לבא ) generally prohibited to treat human remains with such disrespect. We find which clearly states that it is prohibited to dislodge bones of a body one from another, and it is similarly not allowed to sever sinews.

The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D.403:6) rules accordingly. The Tiferes Yisroel therefore explains that this tool was actually a metal plate which was used to bring stones to the graveyard, or it was used rules, based upon Rambam, that it is permitted to transport a ( בדר”ז )וש”ת to crush stones. 2:611 body to Eretz Yisroel for interment, even though this might cause the body to become dismembered or that some of the bones might break.

This is a move which is ultimately for the honor of the deceased, and we see in our Mishnah that there was even a special tool which was used to break the bones of the body if it had to be carried in a basket to be taken to burial. The procedure described in the Mishnah most probably was only done for a constructive purpose when transporting the body, such as to move the body to be buried in a family plot. And this would certainly be the case in order to bury the body in Eretz Yisroel.

Rabbi Seth Goren writes:4

Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread.

-- Pirke Avot 3:21

We know that a dead body imparts impurity and that certain kinds of blood (menstrual blood, for instance) also impart impurity. But what about blood from a dead animal?

Today’s conversation centers on the death of a mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household whose blood was declared to be ritually pure. With regard to this incident, we learn that, in small quantities, this blood does not impart impurity — but in large quantities it does:

Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Simon: Up to how much blood (does not render one ritually impure)?

And he did not answer him.

4 Myjewishlearning.com

13

He then went and asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said to him: Up to the size of a quarter log is ritually pure; more than that is ritually impure.

Rabbi Elazar was annoyed that Rabbi Simon did not respond with the halakhah.

In this exchange, Rabbi Shimon is either reluctant to divulge the answer (one quarter log, or about one third of a cup), or he does not know. This irritates Rabbi Elazar. But his irritation is nothing to what happens in this next story about the same question:

Rav Beivai was sitting and teaching this story of the mule from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s household, in which the sages ruled that the blood of a carcass does not render one impure.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Bisna said to him: Up to how much blood from an animal carcass does not render one ritually impure?

Rav Beivai said to him: Up to a quarter log is ritually pure; more than that is impure.

And then he (Rav Beivai) kicked him (Rabbi Yitzhak).

Wait, he kicked him? Like the mule in the story might have (if it were still alive)? Above, Rabbi Elazar was annoyed when Rabbi Shimon failed to supply the answer. Here, Rav Beivai is clearly beyond put out at being asked.

Now, to be fair, Rabbi Yitzhak was a bit of a yutz at times (he once lost the keys to the house of study, and because it was Shabbat, no one could carry another set over to open the synagogue). Moreover, we could read the story to understand that Rabbi Yitzhak either was interrupting or simply wasn’t paying attention when Rav Bevai supplied the answer himself. (In a similar version of this story in Tractate Menachot, Rabbi Yitzhak’s question is more of a challenge, and Rav Beivai is simply silent in response.) Even so, Rav Beivai’s mulish reaction here still seems unreasonable and disproportionate.

Rav Beivai’s colleague Rabbi Zerika seems just as flabbergasted as we might be, declaring: You kicked him because he asked you a question? This gives Rav Beivai a chance to account for his behavior. He begins by explaining: Because my mind was unsettled, and not because he did anything wrong.

Rav Beivai follows this up with a , quoted in the name of Rabbi Hanin, about the fear that accompanies poverty — the anxiety of not knowing if one will be able to feed oneself or one’s family. He admits that his unfortunate reflex to plant a boot into his colleague, however earnest or legitimate his question, is rooted in his food insecurity. He doesn’t offer this as an excuse, but as an explanation.

14 Sadly, some 2000 years later, food insecurity is still a huge problem — around the world, even in developed countries. Rav Beivai wasn’t alone then, and he isn’t now. Nothing excuses resorting to physical force, but the impact of food insecurity goes beyond just how much someone has to eat, with potentially serious emotional and psychological repercussions for those who suffer from it.

Rav Beivai reminds us of the importance of confronting this systemic and persistent problem, as real today as it was hundreds of years ago, and ensuring access to nutritious options in educational settings and beyond. Truly, as Pirkei Avot tells us, without food security, opportunities for learning are closed off to us all. And we can also admire his strength in owning up not only to his behavior, but to his reasons for it. That too takes enormous courage.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:

In explaining the position of Rabbi Yosi in the Mishna (Shekalim 8:1), our daf (Shekalim 21b) quotes a Beraita describing the way people walked in the streets of Jerusalem throughout the year and during the Festivals:

[spiritually impure) [who were the majority) אמט Throughout the year, those people who were‘ spiritually pure) [who were the) הט ו ר would walk in the middle of the street, and those who were did not אמט minority] would walk at the sides of the street. When this occurred, those who were would proclaim: “Stay away from us [so that we הט ו ר specify [their status], while those who were who were] הט ו ר status]”. However, during the Festivals, those who were הט ו ר can maintain our would walk at the אמט the majority] would walk in the middle of the street, and those who were did not specify [their status], while הט ו ר sides of the street. When this occurred, those who were הט ו ר would proclaim: “Stay away from us [so that you do not lose your אמט those who were status].”’

Reflecting on this teaching, Rabbi Yehuda Ginzberg explains in his ‘Mussar HaMishna’ that while we deeply mourn the absence of the Beit HaMikdash, it should not be forgotten that it was due to ,(spiritual impurity and purity) האמוט הרהטו a sense of excess zealousness surrounding these laws of would keep far from each other not as a gesture of sensitivity אמט and הט ו ר where those who were and kindness (as suggested by the Beraita), but as a form of social rejection. And as a result of this, it led to resentment and hatred amongst elements of the Jewish people.

Of course, in terms of these laws, some form of distance had to be kept. But this didn’t mean that such distance should have been desired.

תיביר This observation reminds me of a story I once heard relating to the Torah prohibition of interest through the words that you say) – meaning that if) תיביר םירבד ,interest) and specifically) someone borrows money from someone else, then when they return the money, even the very gesture of saying ‘Thank you’ may be regarded as a form of forbidden interest.

With this in mind, there was once a very poor Yeshiva student who needed money to visit his parents. He borrowed money from his Rosh Yeshiva and then, on his return, he gave the money

15 back to the Rosh Yeshiva and said thank you. In response, the Rosh Yeshiva taught him about the and said that one should not say thank you when returning a loan as some תיביר םירבד rule of authorities consider it to be a form of interest (nb. today this is unlikely to be the case as ‘thank you’ is generally not construed as flattery, but simply good manners).

On the next occasion when the student borrowed money, he returned it by entering the office of the Rosh Yeshiva, placing it on his desk, and leaving. The Rosh Yeshiva called the student back and asked him about his behaviour. The student explained that he did not want to contravene the by saying ‘Thank you’ and this is why he acted as he did. To which the Rosh תיביר םירבד rule of Yeshiva responded, ‘True, you shouldn’t say “Thank you” in such a case. But you should look like you want to.”

What this story comes to teach is that even when something needs to be done or needs to be avoided, it doesn’t mean that it should be desired. And similarly with respect to today’s daf, while and while this may have been needed to , הט ו ר and the אמט the streets were divided between the .it most certainly should not have been desired , אמט becoming הט ו ר avoid those who were

Ancient usage of the dolabra as an entrenching tool. Romanian National History Museum, Cast of Trajan's Column

16

The dolabra is a versatile axe used by the people of Italy since ancient times. The dolabra could serve as a pickaxe used by miners and excavators, a priest's implement for ritual religious slaughtering of animals and as an entrenching tool (mattock) used in Roman infantry tactics. Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo said, "you defeat the enemy with a pickaxe"

The tool that built the Roman Empire — The Dolabra5

The gladius gets the most fame and glory for being the implement of empire building when it comes to ancient Roman history. However, credit for literally building the Roman Empire is more deserved for a handy multi purpose tool called the dolabra. With a pick on one end and an axe head on the other, the dolabra has filled many roles and purposes throughout Roman history. It

5 https://urbanprojectization.com/2018/05/18/the-dolabra/

17 could be used for chopping down trees or chopping wood, breaking up stone, breaking up tough soil, and could be wielded as a formidable weapon. It has been used by Roman woodsman, carpenters, miners, farmers, shipbuilders, construction workers, engineers, soldiers, it was even used by ritual priests to slaughter large animals for sacrifices.

For the Roman legions the Dolabra was an indispensable tool and weapon. While Roman soldiers are famed for being among the best soldiers in the ancient world, Roman soldiers were also master builders. When in war the Romans built extensive fortifications. When on the march, the Romans would surround their nightly encampment with a stockade so that they could rest within the safety of a fortified camp. During the Siege of Alesia in 52 BC, soldiers under Julius Caesar built an 11 mile long wall around Alesia to besiege the defenders. Simultaneously, they built another 13 mile long wall to protect themselves from outside counterattack. This wall included a palisade with battlements and towers, a series of trenches, and various booby traps.

Another famous example was in 66 AD when Roman forces laid to siege to the fortress of Massada, held by Jewish rebels during the First Jewish Revolt. In order to capture the fortress, the Romans built a 375 foot tall ramp.

When not at war, Roman soldiers were often used as laborers on public works projects such as roads, bridges, walls, aqueducts, docks, and canals. Thus, the dolabra and other common tools were standard issue items for the Roman soldier.

While the dolabra was primarily used as a tool, there were many occasions when it was also pressed into service as a deadly weapon. During the Gallic Wars in 57 BC, Roman soldiers were busy building their nightly fortifications when they were ambushed by an army of Belgic tribesman. In a snap instance the Romans hastily formed battle formations and lacking time to retrieve their weapons and armor successfully fought off the assault with their building and entrenching tools. Another instance occurred in 21 AD during the Florus and Sacrovir revolt, where enemy rebels used heavily armored gladiators called crupellarii as their front ranks. The Romans could not pierce the armor of the crupellarii with their swords, so they retrieved their pickaxes and mattocks to batter the rebel gladiators into submission.

18

An ancient burial cave, dating from the 5th century BCE, smack by one of Israel's busiest traffic arteries, the Ayalon Highway.6

Elon Gilad writes:7

From the archaeological record, we know that the burial practices of the earliest Jews, the Israelites and the Judahites (who would unite into the people called yehudim, or the Jews), usually interred their dead in "family caves" located outside the settlement.

These "family caves" were usually created by expanding naturally-occurring tunnels in the chalky foothills of the region.

The burial rite consisted of two parts. First the body would be brought into an outer room and laid on the floor, or in special slots in the wall. Then later, perhaps a year later, the family would return to the burial cave, collect the bare bones and add them to a pile of bones left by previous generations in an inner sanctum.

This ancient custom continued even after the invasion of their kingdoms in the eighth and sixth centuries BCE, persisted during and after the exile, throughout during the Second Temple period

6 Credit: Moshe Gilad 7 https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-the-history-of-jewish-burial-rites-1.5353617

19 – lasting, in fact, until the Middle Ages. During those millennia, though, some innovations did develop.

Bare-Bones Burials Eliezer Segal writes:8

There has been much publicity in recent months concerning an ancient box that allegedly housed the bones of Jesus' brother James. Although most of the controversy has focused on the artifact's dating and authenticity, I suspect that many Jews must have been puzzled by the basic question of its function.

The item in question is referred to as an "ossuary," a receptacle for bones. Too small to function as a full-fledged coffin for a corpse, it was used to store the bones of the deceased following the decomposition of the flesh.

The institution of ossuaries implies that a distinction existed between the relative sanctity of the flesh and of the bones as regards their rights to permanent interment. It also presupposes

8 https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/021219_Ossuaries.html

20 that the remains can be removed from their original burial spot and relocated to a different locality, a procedure that is known as "ossilegium."

In all these respects, the practice differs radically from current halakhic standards, which insist on permanent burial of all physical remains of the corpse, even items like intravenous tubing. Israeli highway engineers and archeologists are very familiar with the outcries that come from religious circles whenever the need arises to excavate an ancient cemetery.

In reality, however, the practice of reburying bones has deep roots in Jewish history. Perhaps the most notable precedent was set by Joseph in the when he commanded his descendants to remove his remains from their burial place in Egypt for re-interment in the holy land.

There exists much archeological evidence from biblical times of secondary burials in individual, family or collective ossuaries. However, the practice seems to have enjoyed its greatest popularity in Jerusalem and its environs, from the Herodian era (around 20 B.C.E.) until the city's total destruction in the second century. For some time after that event, the use of Jewish ossuaries spread to other corners of Israel.

Although they vary considerably in their physical forms, certain motifs are common in these caskets. Architectural patterns in the shape of gabled houses have been explained variously as expressing the idea of a "final home" for the departed, a portal to the next world, or homage to the holy Temple of Jerusalem. The seven-branched menorah, arguably the most widespread and identifiable symbol of Judaism, appears on many of the ossuaries. A six-petaled floral pattern known as a "rosette" is particularly common, though its symbolism (if it is not merely decorative) is not obvious.

The practice of ossilegium is discussed at considerable length in talmudic literature, where it is referred to in Hebrew as liqqut asamot, bone-gathering. The ossuaries are often identified by the Greek term "glossokomon" (which appears in Hebrew as gluskema or dluskema), or by the biblical word aron.

A passage in the Jerusalem succinctly summarizes the stages of the process and its ambivalent psychological impact on surviving family members: "At first they used to bury people in ditches. After the flesh had decomposed, the bones were collected and deposited in chests. On that day, the son would grieve, but on the following day he rejoiced because his parent had now found rest from judgment."

As we learn from the above tradition, the day on which people gathered their parents' bones for reburial combined contradictory elements of mourning and elation, in recognition that the deceased will henceforth enjoy a final repose. In this respect, the ritual is reminiscent of the emotional complexity evoked by our custom of observing the yahrzeit as a blending of celebration and sorrow for a departed loved one.

21 Historians are not in agreement about how or why the use of ossuaries became so popular among Jews. It is possible that the practice was dictated by the dearth of available land for conventional cemeteries within Israel's narrow borders.

Some authors have pointed out that the ancient Hebrew ideal of spending eternity in the bosom of one's family, expressed in the biblical idiom of "sleeping with one's ancestors," encouraged the creation of family mausoleums which were most conveniently (in keeping with the realities of Israeli geology) situated in caves to which the bones of the deceased would have to be relocated.

That most cemeteries and burial sites belonged to individual families is confirmed by the archeological findings, inscriptions and historical references, and is presupposed by the discussions in rabbinic sources.

Although the initial burial would sometimes be under the earth, as is our current practice, it was more common to lay the bodies in rows of niches that were carved into a cave or mountainside.

There is significance to the fact that most Jewish ossuaries were designed to preserve each skeleton by itself or with close family members, rather than in collective tombs. This development seems to dovetail with a general evolution towards awareness of the individual in the Jewish consciousness, a perception that may have some correspondence with the growing economic affluence of Judean society in Herodian times.

Some scholars trace the origins of the practice to the strong Jewish belief that there is special merit to being buried in the soil of the , or better still, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where the resurrection of the dead will first commence in the messianic era. The custom of transporting ossuaries from the diaspora communities for burial in Israel is well attested in rabbinic sources, and was sometimes resented by the natives. While there are many passages in talmudic literature that speak of the atoning potential of burial in the holy land or the Temple altar, at least one ancient Zionist ridiculed the notion that Jews who had spent their lives in foreign lands should benefit posthumously from burial to the holy land.

Aside from direct communications from the Next World, there is no way to know with certainty how well the respective burial customs serve the interests of those who have departed this life. It is clear, however, that they provide the living with an opportunity to give tangible expression of their devotion to their loved ones.

This important aspect of the ritual was poignantly stated by Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok, who described how he dutifully carried out his late father's instructions to collect his bones and place them in an ossuary. At the end of his account, Rabbi Eleazar voiced his special satisfaction at having maintained continuity from generation to generation:

"Just as he attended his father, so have I attended him."

22

Meyers follows Y. Kutscher in holding that the word "]"D was originallya η East Semitic term, and that kokhim were used for secondary burials, whether for the storage of ossuaries or for the reception of bones without an ossuary. This again is held to point to an eastern origin for burial in ossuaries.9

Tools

Dina Teitelbaum writes:10

The soft limestone was uniquely suitable for thin-lined incisions and the technique called "chip carving ". These kind of ossuaries make up the overwhelming contingent of all ornamented receptacles

a) the furrow cut, 2) the leaf cut, 3) the triangular cut, and 4) the zigzag cut.

The craftsman sketched charcoal guidelines on the smoothed surface of the chest using a der or a string and a carving knife. The compass enabled him to circumscribe circles, curves and also to mark the exact distances and intersecting points of other elements in a symmetrical pattern.

Carving tools included the carving knife or a chisel, a gouge and veining-tools.11

9 10 https://central.bac-lac.gc.ca/.item?id=mq22102&op=pdf&app=Library&oclc_number=46556774 11 Levi Y. Rahmani, "Chip-Carving in Palestine." 38 (1988) 59-75 -

23

ALTERNATIVE KEVURA METHODS

Jeremy Kalmanofsky writes:12

Archaeological findings show that ancient Palestinian graves mingled bones, apparently grouping them into family piles. This was also common in biblical times, giving deep meaning to the idiom that the dead “lie with their ancestors.”8

In early modern times, R. Jacob Reischer [1670- 1733, Shvut Yaakov, 2.95] reported from central Europe: “Go examine the people’s practice throughout all Israel’s diaspora, for they bury one next to another and one on top of another, even though this does not conform to the law” of separating graves. This practice is instantiated in famous European cemeteries, like Prague and Vilna.

Also, ancient practices display further variety. Although we have come to expect permanent burial -at all, but two דש ה בק ו תר in individual graves, the norm among ancient Palestinian rabbis was not stage burial: depositing a person’s remains in a temporary grave or in a cave, then after the flesh decomposed, gathering the bones and re-burying them in a family plot, either within smaller stone boxes called ossuaries or in no box at all.

Although this may strike modern readers as macabre, archaeological findings confirm that secondary burial was practiced even in biblical times and was dominant among Palestinian Jews until Amoraic times, in the 5th century CE.9

,or “bone-gathering,” and is attested in numerous texts מצע ו ת ל י ק ו ט This method is described as including m. MQ 1.5 and m. 6.5, and the associated Yerushalmi, as well as the extra- Talmudic tractate Semahot.

An excellent description of the practice comes from y. MQ 1.5 (5a): “Initially they buried people in ditches. After the flesh decomposed, they would gather up the bones and bury them in coffins.”10

R. Yosef Karo quotes this passage verbatim at SA YD 363.4, affirming that this practice is permitted “where it is local custom.” Given the contemporary Israeli crisis in cemetery space, some scholars advocate that Jews resume secondary burial. 11

Jewish law frowns on removing human remains from one grave to another, as the very concept of secondary burial demands. However, the paradigm reason to override that objection is to bring a for a person] מש ח ה ] person to rest amidst family, as in this passage from y. MQ 2.4 [9b]: “It is a joy for a person that he be laid to rest near his] ברע ] to dwell in his own [family plot] … It is pleasant ancestors.” This phrasing is cited by medieval and modern authorities alike. 12

12 https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/2011-2020/alternative-burial.pdf

24 Many Jewish mortuary norms are rooted in eschatological beliefs about the afterlife and resurrection. For instance, some authorities condemn any practice besides in-ground burial, especially cremation, as tantamount to denying resurrection of the dead.13

In this paper I avoid referring to this realm of lore, important as it may be. While religion is always a mixture of the rational and the mythopoeic, it seems unwise to condition behavioral norms on lore which some will reject as superstition. Our norms should make sense even if contemporary people do not accept ancient ideas linking bodily decomposition to redemptive suffering and ritual atonement. 14 The idea that anything could be “pleasant” for a dead person might be an example of such mythicizing. Still, as any community rabbi can attest, people are often moved to think of themselves and their loved ones buried alongside each other. It seems to me empirically accurate that people take comfort in the existence of family tombs.

In summary: the optimal traditional Jewish practice has been to bury people in individual graves in the earth, ideally without coffins, or at least with perforated, bio-degradable coffins that would permit the body’s return to the earth, ideally alongside family members. Over time, this became the nearly universal pattern.

But across history there has been no single legitimate style of grave, deviation from which would be forbidden. Indeed, the themselves practiced in a way that would seem strange to moderns, but which earned legitimacy because it permitted people to burying loved ones’ bones in family tombs.

As R. Elazar b. R. Tzadok reports in Semahot 12.9 about carrying out his father’s death-bed instructions regarding bone-collection: “As he did for his father, so I did for him.”

Notes

8 Eric Meyers, “Secondary Burial in Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist (1970) v. 33, pp. 2-29. 9 Meyers, “Secondary Burial.” T. Megillah 3.15 reports that among the social welfare societies in which helped people with that need, as other groups מצע ו ת ל י ק ו ט בח ו תר ancient Jerusalem was a helped comfort mourners or celebrate weddings and circumcisions. which, רב ז י ן Current editions of Yerushalmi [also Semahot 12.8] say bones should be buried 10 ” רא ו נ ם or “in wood.” Ramban’s version of the Yerushalmi read, ראב ז י ם commentators understand as holds that “caskets” is the correct rendering רא ו ן ה"ש. ג ר their caskets.” The Shulhan Arukh reads, only by flipping the letters Z and R. רא ז י ם or זר י ן of a Greek term, soros, which became KiFeshuta to MQ, 1235. 11 R. Rafi Ostroff, Bone Gathering as Practical Halakhah, Techumin 32 (2012), 387-392, as well as in unpublished papers and lectures by Prof. Yair Furstenberg of Ben-Gurion University. In early 2016, Yad Ben Zvi and Herzog College held a conference on this theme, with presentations by both the aforementioned and others, several of which are available on Youtube. The permission to deposit a subsequent body in a vacated grave can be found in the writings of R. Avraham Itzhak HaKohen Kook [Daat Kohen #207] and R. Eliezer Waldenberg [Tzitz Eliezer, Kuntres Even Yaakov 7.49.8]. Additionally, the space crisis has prompted many Israeli cemeteries to engage in multiple-level burials, separating each grave with at least three or six tefahim of earth.

25 12 See e.g. Or Zarua 1.755, Tur YD 363. Several modern authorities apply a flexible definition of ancestors, permitting reburial for the sake of laying one to rest among relatives besides parents. See R. Yechiel Michael Tucachinski, Gesher HaHayim 1.26, R. Moshe Feinstein Iggerot Moshe YD 1.238, and R. Ovadya Yosef, Yabia Omer YD 7.38. 13 Reb Chaim Ozer Grodzenski Ahiezer 3:72 ימו רבוקש תא ותמ ימאמ ן תיחתב םיתמה ףרושהו ירה אוה רפוככ .מ"החתב רפוככ אוה ירה ףרושהו םיתמה תיחתב ן ימאמ ותמ תא רבוקש ימו 14 See e.g. David Kraemer, Meanings of Death in Rabbinic Judaism [New York: Routledge, 2000], 35, and Meyers, op. cit, 26-27.

26