LegalEase. What s the Truth about King David s Tomb? By Ari Z. Zivotofsky

Transcription

1 LegalEase What s the Truth about King David s Tomb? By Ari Z. Zivotofsky Photos: Leibel Reznick Misconception: King David is buried on Mount Zion, in a room that bears the inscription King David s Tomb. Mount Zion is located just outside and to the south of the Armenian Quarter and Zion Gate of Jerusalem s Old City. Fact: Evidence indicates that the area known today as Mount Zion was not part of inhabited Jerusalem in King David s time (tenth century BCE) and that he was not buried there. Rather, King David was buried in the southeastern area of Jerusalem s real Old City, which is located to the south of the Temple Mount and Dung Gate and is known today as Ir David the City of David. Background: 1 The question regarding King David s Tomb seems almost as inane as the riddle popularized by Groucho Marx on his 1950s game show You Bet Your Life. In order to guarantee that no one left his show empty-handed, Marx would ask a losing contestant: Who is buried in Grant s Tomb? (He would usually accept Grant as a correct answer despite the fact that the US National Park Service states that technically, no one is 50 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007 buried in Grant s Tomb. The 159-foot neo-classical structure is a tomb, therefore both General Grant and his wife are entombed above ground and not buried. 2 ) Unlike Marx s joke, however, the question concerning King David s burial site is not trivial. Signs direct visitors to Mount Zion through a series of anterooms to an interior room housing a cloth-covered granite cenotaph. This site is believed by many to be the tomb of King David. 3 To locate King David s actual burial site, one need only consult the Bible to discover that King David died and was buried in Ir David, the City of David (1 Kings 2:10). 4 The same place, City of David, also appears in Samuel 2 (5:7, 5:9) where the text states that David captured a fortress named Metzudat Tzion from the Jebusites and renamed it the City of David. Thus, in order to find his burial site, one needs to ascertain the location of Metzudat Tzion, i.e., the City of David. The name Zion appears in Tanach in reference to the original, ancient Jerusalem. In the Middle Ages, Byzantine pilgrims mistakenly thought that the hill located south of today s Old City s Armenian Quarter was part of that ancient city and named it Mount Zion. 5 This error was not recognized until 150 years ago when archaeological evidence suggested, and more recently has conclusively shown, that the city captured by David was on the smaller, lower hill located to the south of the Temple Mount (the modern-day City of David). That lower hill was the site of the Jebusite city, which then became King David s capital, and constituted the whole Jerusalem for probably more than 200 years until it gradually expanded westward and incorporated the area that is today known as Mount Zion. 6 The erroneous notion that King David is buried on Mount Zion developed over a period of many centuries. During the middle of the second century CE, Jerusalem was razed, Jews were banished from the area, and the knowledge concerning the true location of King David s Tomb was lost. By the mid-fourth century, the tombs of King David and his father, Jesse, are described as being in Beit Lechem. 7 The first mention of Mount Zion as King David s final resting place was in the ninth century, and by the eleventh century, this fallacy was so well-established that the Crusaders erected a Gothic cenotaph, in this case an empty sarcophagus, to mark the site, which remains until today. 8 Rabbi Dr. Zivotofsky is on the faculty of the Brain Science Program at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Continued on 52

2 King David s Tomb: A Different Perspective By Leibel Reznick Photos: Leibel Reznick Those who trust in the Lord shall be like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved but abides forever. (Psalms 125:1) Dr. Ari Zivotofsky s well-presented article What s the Truth about King David s Tomb? addresses the question of the true location of King David s Tomb from a Biblical as well as an archaeological perspective. In the article, Dr. Zivotofsky emphatically states that the area known today as Mount Zion was not part of inhabited Jerusalem in King David s time, and it is highly improbable that he was buried there. The Bible tells us that the City of David is Zion (1 Kings 8:1) and that David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the City of David (1 Kings 2:10). If, as Dr. Zivotofsky claims, the present-day Mount Zion was uninhabited during the time of King David, then it is not Rabbi Reznick is a maggid shiur in Yeshiva Shaarei Torah in Monsey, New York. He has written numerous books and magazine articles on the topic of Jewish history and archaeology. He is presently a scholar-in-residence for the David Dov Foundation of Lakewood, New Jersey, which is dedicated to the research of Biblical archaeology by Orthodox scholars. only highly improbable, but quite clearly impossible that King David was buried there. But what evidence is there that present-day Mount Zion was not inhabited during the reign of King David? The answer is that since no evidence of occupation during the era of King David has been discovered there, that proves it was not occupied at that time. In other words, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence! This is a very dangerous stance to take with regard to the archaeology of Jerusalem. Many archaeologists and historians claim that in the general Jerusalem area there is a dearth of artifacts and remains of buildings from the eras of Kings David and Solomon, which gives them reason to doubt there ever was such a capital city. Some take an extreme position, carrying this line of reasoning one step further: I am not the only scholar who suspects that the figure of King David is about as historical as King Arthur, asserts Philip R. Davies, professor of Biblical studies at the University of Sheffield, England. 1 Those of us who follow the unfolding story of Jerusalem archaeology realize that Davies is hardly a lone voice. In the world of academia, his opinion is close to, if not representative of, the majority view. And on what basis are the views that there was no Davidic capital of Jerusalem and that Kings David and Solomon did not exist predicated? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. As I already stated, this is a dangerous position to take. A tel is a mound that consists of a layer of ruins built upon other layers of ruins. Jerusalem is not a tel in the traditional sense of the word; it s a city of hills with bedrock a few feet below the surface. In some places bedrock even protrudes above the land surface. This is because when an inhabited area was destroyed, the conquerors would remove the debris all the way down to the bedrock and build anew. (Recently the esteemed British scholar and archaeologist Kenneth A. Kitchen quipped about Jerusalem, We are lucky to have anything really old at all! ) 2 Archaeology is the art of interpreting physical finds based on ever-evolv- Continued on 56 Summer 5767/2007 JEWISH ACTION 51

3 Continued from 50 In the twelfth century, the colorful Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela related that during his stay in Jerusalem, he heard a fantastic story regarding the re-discovery of King David s Tomb. Two Jewish workers employed by the Christian patriarch to reconstruct a damaged monument on Mount Zion accidentally happened upon a secret passage and found themselves in a palace made of marble columns. Within the palace was a table upon which rested a golden scepter and golden crown, with riches all around. The workers decided this was King David s Tomb. Suddenly, they were struck down by a fierce wind and heard voices that told them to leave immediately. Three days later, the two workmen were sick in bed and could not be persuaded to return to the site. 9 The present building housing the cenotaph was erected in 1335, but it is built on top of what is probably a second- to fourth-century building. Little was known about the building until a shell exploded there during the War of Independence in 1948, affording an opportunity for archaeological excavations during repair work. In 1951 an Israeli archaeologist and expert in synagogue architecture, Jacob Pinkerfeld, who was later killed in a terrorist attack at the 1956 Archaeological Convention at Ramat Rachel, carried out an archaeological survey. Behind the cenotaph of King David, Pinkerfeld found a niche that was part of the original structure of the building, and beneath the floor, he found three earlier floor levels: a Crusader floor, a late Roman or early Byzantine floor and the plaster of the original building s floor. He noted that the niche was oriented towards the Temple Mount and concluded that the building was originally a synagogue and the niche was the aron. 10 Others have argued with his conclusion, and based on various reasons, asserted that it was possibly a church or a Judeo-Christian synagogue. In the fifteenth century, following an attempt by the Jews to purchase the site, the Muslims wrested control from the Franciscans, 11 and for the next five centuries all non- Muslims had restricted access to the site. Nonetheless, Jerusalem s Jews would make an annual pilgrimage there on Shavuot, King David s yahrtzeit. 12 It was only after the War of Independence, when Mount Zion came under Israeli control, that free access to the site was granted to people of all religions. Since 1948, Israel s Department of Religious Affairs has administered both King David s Tomb, which is used as a synagogue, and the upper room, which is left open for Christian visitors. The site was one of the few holy sites under Israeli control from 1948 to Currently, the Diaspora Yeshiva oversees the entire complex. The building also includes the Last Supper Room, right above King David s Tomb, and other sites of significance to Christians. Because of this, there have been repeated discussions over the years, including during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert s recent visit to the Vatican, about transferring it to the Church, despite the fact that the Diaspora Yeshiva permits free access to all. Even though the site does not contain King David s Tomb, it should be clear to all that it has been sanctified as a site of Jewish pilgrimage and prayer for centuries and should be treated as a Jewish holy place. If King David is not buried on Mount Zion, then where is he buried? The first clue is from the Bible, which states that King David, his son King Solomon and the kings of Judea who followed for the next 150 years 13 were buried in The Old City Of Jerusalem N Armenian Quarter MOUNT ZION HINOM VALLEY Illustration: Eli Kaufman Jewish Quarter Western City Wall Early 1st Temple SHILOAH POOL TEMPLE MOUNT KIDRON VALLEY MOUNT OLIVES City Wall - Current City Wall - End of 1st Temple Period Approximate Site of King David s Tomb Legendary Site of King David s Tomb Ir David. This likely refers to a subsection of the modernday area known as the City of David. Another important source regarding the location of the royal burial site is found in Nechemiah (chap. 3), which describes the teams set up to repair the walls of Jerusalem. The text describes the groups of workers and the region of the wall they repaired in an orderly fashion, circumnavigating the city wall. It states that Shallun, the son of Colhozeh, built, among other things, the wall of the Pool of Shelah [Shiloah] until the stairs that go down from the City of David. It further states that Nechemiah, the son of Azbuk, repaired the wall as far as opposite the tombs of the [the house of] David (15-16). From this description it is clear that 500 years after King David was buried, the location of his tomb was still well known and that it was located near the southeast corner of the city, inside the walls, near the Siloam, otherwise known as the Shiloah (Shiloach) Pool. 14 Rabbi Akiva, 600 years later, was also familiar with the site. 15 He was once asked why the graves of the Davidic CITY OF DAVID GIHON SPRING 52 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007

4 King David s Tomb, according to French archaeologist-egyptologist Raymond Weill. Weill discovered nine caves in the 1920s in the City of David and designated the largest one, T1, as King David s Tomb. dynasty were allowed to be within the city walls despite his opinion that all graves should be re-interred outside the city boundaries due to reasons of tumah (ritual impurity). He responded that the impurity of King David s grave was diverted out of the city to the Kidron Valley via a rock channel (Tosefta, Bava Batra 1:11 [p. 399, Zuckermandel ed.]; Yerushalmi, Nazir 9:3). Because the Kidron Valley is located on the eastern side of the City of David, Rabbi Akiva s statement is further evidence that the sought-after grave is located in the City of David. 16 Given that the City of David is so small 17 and that there are very specific descriptions in Tanach and by Chazal regarding the location of the burial site, French archaeologist-egyptologist Raymond Weill went searching for the tomb in This was the first archaeological expedition conducted by a Jew, with funding from a Jewish sponsor (the mission was funded by Baron Edmond de Rothschild) and at a clearly Jewish site in the Land of Israel. Weill, whose complete report was not published until 1947, was successful in finding important artifacts, and possibly the kings graves themselves. Weill discovered eight man-made cave-like structures that he described as tombs, as well as a ninth cave in a second expedition between 1923 and He designated these caves T1 through T9 and proclaimed that the most monumental, T1, was King David s Tomb. T1 is a long tunnel, with some features of an ancient burial cave. Unfortunately, the caves were used as a quarry during the Roman period, making it difficult to restore them. Weill s conclusion was initially accepted by the archaeological community, but today many archaeologists disagree with him. They claim that the caves he found are not identical to other First Temple period tombs, and furthermore, they argue, it is not certain that these structures are from King David s period (tenth century BCE). They suggest instead that these clearly wellplanned structures were water cisterns or cellars from the Second Temple period. Those who continue to support Weill s contention argue that no other cisterns like those have ever been found and that their structure is not ideally suited for that purpose. Weill s supporters concede that there are indeed no other tenth-century BCE tombs known in Jerusalem and that Weill s findings are not identical with the many known Jerusalem eighth-century tombs. However, an exact similarity cannot be expected; firstly, the known eighth-century tombs were not those of kings or royalty and secondly, the tombs in question were built 200 years later. Finally, they argue, there is really no way to know what Weill s caves looked like before they were destroyed by the extensive quarrying. In summary, the known facts, based on Biblical texts and nearly universally accepted archaeological findings, are the following: King David is buried in the southeastern section of the City of David and not on Mount Zion; one would expect his tomb to be well planned and unique; and a welldesigned, large man-made cave has been found in the likely area. Logic suggests, although it cannot be proven with certainty, that the T1 cave is indeed the burial place of the Kings of Judea, beginning with Kings David and Solomon. 18 Today, the City of David is part of a national park and is administered by the non-profit organization called El-Al. For more information on this area located at the heart of Jerusalem, visit JA Notes 1. For material on this subject, see: Doron Bar, Kever David b Har Tzion B Shnotehah Harishonot shel Hamedinah, Al Atar 11 (5763): 85-95; Yoel Elitzur, Achen! Kivrei Beit David, Al Atar 11 (5763): 15-27; Gabriel Barkay, L ba ayat Makom Kivrehem shel Malchei Beit David Ha achronim, Bein Chermon L Sinai: Yad l Amnon (1977): 75-92; Bargil Pixner, Biblical Archaeological Review (May/June 1990); Hershel Shanks, The Tombs of David and Other Kings of Judah, Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography (New York: 1995), and Ora Limor, King David s Tomb on Mount Zion: The Origins of a Tradition, in D. Jacoby & Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine (Jerusalem, 1988), [Hebrew]. 2. See 3. King David actually has another tomb as well. There is an area in Jerusalem just north of the Old City known as The Tombs of the Kings that is today owned by the French government. A sign hanging there says Tombs of the House of David. These burial caves, which were excavated in 1863, are most likely from the Hellenistic period and are those of Queen Helene of Adiabene, her son Munbaz and their families (see Doton Goren, Parshat Kivrei Hamelachim, HaTzofeh, 5 January 2005, 12, 14). 4. This was unusual because in the early First Temple period, people were generally not buried within the city limits. 5. It has always been common to name structures (and texts) after longdeceased, important persons. For example, Solomon s Stables are located on a section of the Temple Mount that was added by Herod 900 years after King Solomon reigned. Thus, associating the Tower of David near Jaffa Gate with King David is just as absurd as associating Solomon s Stables or Solomon s Pools with King Solomon, or Yad Avshalom with King David s rebellious son Avshalom. 6. When used in the Bible, the phrase Mount Zion often refers to the Temple Mount. There are indeed some people who erroneously cling to the notion that Mount Summer 5767/2007 JEWISH ACTION 53

5 Zion was part of the ancient City of David and that King David is buried there. See Leibel Reznick, Moving Mount Zion, Jewish Action, (summer 2001): 38-43; mer/. Rabbi Y.M. Tukitchinsky devoted an entire chapter of his Ir Hakodesh v Hamikdash (vol. 2, chap. 4) to proving that Mount Zion was within the Jerusalem of Kings David and Solomon. Many of their arguments compress the more than 400 years of the First Temple into one unified period. There is little doubt that at the time of the Churban (Destruction of the First Temple) in 586 BCE, Jerusalem included most of today s Jewish Quarter, possibly extending as far as the modern Jaffa Gate and including Mount Zion. Evidence derived from walls or other artifacts from that period in those regions reveals nothing about what Jerusalem looked like at the start of the period. No one denies that over the course of the First Temple period Jerusalem greatly expanded and eventually did include Mount Zion, but the question here concerns the boundaries of Jerusalem at the time of King David s death (ca., 965 BCE). The overwhelming evidence is that during the reigns of Kings David and Solomon, Jerusalem was the small area known today as the City of David and did not encompass Mount Zion. This is the unanimous opinion today among archaeologists and Biblical scholars, as clearly shown in the articles cited in note 1. As Jane Cahill stated in her November/December 2004 article in Biblical Archaeology Review: One thing on which all scholars agree: In the time of David, Jerusalem was confined to what is still called the City of David (20). The list of scholars includes Rabbi Zalman Koren, who was the consultant to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and remains the consultant to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate on matters relating to archaeology and Old City issues. Although lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, credence must be given to the total absence of artifacts in the most excavated site on earth. Absolutely nothing has been found on Mount Zion dating back to earlier than the eighth century BCE, while down below, in the City of David, a plethora of material dating back to pre-history has been uncovered. Among the findings were segments of the Canaanite Wall on the western side, thus demarcating the city limits, which were below Mount Zion. 7. See Limor, King David s Tomb. 8. It should be noted that although Josephus (first century CE) erroneously suggested that the City of David included 54 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007 Mount Zion, he never implied that King David s Tomb was located there. That notion only took root 800 years later. It is not unusual for places and meanings of words to be forgotten over time. For example, while no one discussed Kever Dan ben Yaakov for centuries, it suddenly appeared not far from Beit Shemesh less than 100 years ago. See Avi Shoshan, Kever Dan, Mechkarei Yehudah veshomron, 10 (5761): In fact, in the 600 years between the Talmud and Rashi and Tosafot, the meaning of words such as tzvi, netz, nesher and korah all changed (Rashi, Chullin 59a, s.v. v harei tzvi; Tosafot, Chullin 63a, s.v. netz). Traditions are delicate and need to be preserved accurately; what s more, seemingly erroneous traditions need to be reexamined. Keep in mind that when Josephus was writing, Mount Zion had indeed been part of Jerusalem for over 700 years, and it is not unreasonable that he should have mistakenly thought it had always been. There is no evidence or reason to suspect that he had some form of tradition regarding this mundane matter. 9. In a fascinating twist, 700 years later, in the mid-nineteenth century, the Turkish city engineer of Jerusalem, knowing nothing about Benjamin of Tudela, also reported finding an extensive labyrinth of caves directly underneath the believed site of King David s Tomb on Mount Zion. According to a theory by archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkay, if these caves do indeed exist, it is possible that they are the second royal burial site of the House of David mentioned in the Bible in the period after the expansion of Jerusalem. Menashe was the first king to be buried at the site known as the Garden of Uzza. 10. If this is correct, it is an additional proof that it is not Kever David; it is unusual to build a synagogue over a grave, thereby barring Kohanim from entering. 11. This Muslim backlash against the Franciscans led to a Christian retaliation against the Jews that included a papal edict by Martin V forbidding Christians to transport Jews by boat. 12. See Yerushalmi, Beitzah 2: Regarding King Solomon, see 1 Kings 11:43. For later kings, see 1 Kings 14:31, 15:8, 24, 22:51 and 2 Kings 12:22, 14:20, 15:7, 38, 16:20. Of the twenty-one kings of Judea, the Bible uses similar phraseology regarding the burial of the first fifteen kings, indicating that they were all buried in the same complex. Similar language is used again in Chronicles for Yehoyada the High Priest, who was an acting king for a time. The usual practice was to have family burial caves; however, this complex seems to have been dynastic and reserved for those who actually sat on the throne. 14. The recently uncovered Shiloah is a large reservoir fed by the robust Gihon Spring that was unquestionably the water source for the early city of Jerusalem, before any cisterns were dug and any complex aqueducts were constructed. See Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Review (September/October 2005): That the late Second Temple period water system, which includes Solomon s Pools and the Mamila Pool, supplied water to the city 800 years earlier, as Rabbi Leibel Reznick suggests in his original Jewish Action article (see note 6), is highly improbable. It is inconsistent to rely on archaeological tools to date certain structures and then ignore the same science in dating others. It should be noted that many authorities such as the Radak and Targum Yonatan assume that the Gihon Spring and the Shiloah are two names for the same water source, or two aspects of it not two separate entities. 15. There is continuous evidence of familiarity with the site. Josephus records that John Hyrcanus opened one of the tombs of the Davidic line and looted it, and 150 years later Herod opened a second tomb and attempted to loot it as well (Josephus, Antiquities 16:7:1). Feeling remorseful, Herod later built a monument on top of the tombs. Thus, according to Josephus, the location of the tombs was known in the first and second centuries BCE (although he does not give the location), and they were said to contain much riches. 16. Even if one were to argue that Mount Zion was inhabited in King David s time, based on this statement there is simply no way that King David s Tomb is on Mount Zion, and it must be on the southern ridge known today as the City of David. 17. The whole City of David is only about forty dunams (ten acres). 18. No other reasonable suggestion has been tendered. However, Dio Cassius, a late second-century Roman historian, reports that the tomb of Solomon had collapsed in his period. It is possible that the Davidic tombs are indeed in the general area excavated by Weill but were destroyed by the extensive quarrying in the Roman period. This is the opinion of leading archaeologist Dr. Barkay (lecture in Jerusalem, November 27, 2006).

6 SumFnl07 6/5/07 1:47 PM Page 55

7 Continued from 51 ADVERTORIAL Mana Hama Soup Kitchen It all started when Avi Amsalem and his friends began delivering food packages to poverty-stricken homes in Ashdod and the recipents began asking for Shabbat meals. When someone asks for food, you can t say no, Avi explains. So Avi opened up Mana Hama, which now feeds 350 Ashdod residents every day. You, too, can be a part of this tremendous project. You may designate your donation for something specific, such as in celebration of a Simcha or as a memorial for a loved one. Expenses of the soup kitchen: Meals for 26 people: $52 Meals for 100 people: $180 Food and maintenance for a full day: $700 Provisions basket for one family: $126 Passover provisions for one family: $126 You are welcome to visit, and to see for yourselves our important work. manahama@bezeqint.net POB 8450 Ashdod, Israel ing scientific principles. The interpretation of the archaeologist is subject to his or her prejudices; therefore scholars who doubt the veracity of the Bible will interpret the finds in a certain way. Those who believe in the accuracy of Biblical history will interpret them quite differently. Leaving the inaccuracy of archaeological evidence aside, I would like to address the issue of the location of King David s Tomb from a Biblical and a historical perspective. Ancient Jerusalem consisted primarily of two large hills, the Eastern Hill and the Western Hill. (See map on page 57.) The northern part of the Eastern Hill is occupied by the Temple Mount and the long, southern slope stretching downward is an area referred to as the archaeological City of David. The Western Hill consists of the Armenian and Jewish quarters of the Old City as well as the area adjacent to the south of the Armenian Quarter, commonly called Mount Zion. Historically, the City of David, Mount Zion and King David s Tomb were all located on the Western Hill. During the course of the twentieth century, archaeologists moved the City of David and Mount Zion over to the southern slope of the Eastern Hill. (Despite the move, people still commonly refer to the Western Hill as Mount Zion.) The question is: Is King David s Tomb located on the Western Hill, where tradition has always placed it, or is it located on the Eastern Hill as the archaeologists claim? The Bible tells us that King Chezekiah repaired gaps in the city wall adjacent to the City of David. The newly constructed wall was moved a bit closer to the center of town, slicing through several homes. The stones removed from the demolished homes were used to build the new wall. The prophet Isaiah stated as much, You [Chezekiah] have seen also the breaches of the city of David, that they are many and the houses that you have broken down to fortify the wall (Isaiah 22:9-11). A section of Chezekiah s wall was found by Professor Nahman Avigad shortly after the Six Day War of The dating of the wall can be determined by an analysis of the method with which the wall was constructed and by the pottery shards that were found inside the wall. And, indeed, the wall passes right through some ancient homes. Avigad s discovery has been dubbed the Broad Wall, named after a wall mentioned in the book of Nechemiah. The wall is located in the Jewish Quarter on the Western Hill. According to Isaiah, Chezekiah s wall was part of the wall of the City of David. Therefore, it follows that the City of David must have been on the Western Hill and not the Eastern Hill as archaeologists claim. Some people erroneously believe that ill-informed Christian pilgrims during the Middle Ages mistakenly named the Western Hill Mount Zion and the City of David. Not so. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, the Western Hill was the site of the City of David (Wars of the Jews, Book V, chap. 4). Josephus, a resident of Jerusalem and a Kohen who served in the Second Temple, was intimately familiar with the geography of Jerusalem and its environs. His writings are the primary source for the history of the late Second Temple period and have served as an invaluable tool in the field of archaeology. Josephus knowledge of the City of David was also based on a tradition that can be traced all the way back to the Davidic Dynasty. If he claims that the Western Hill is the site of the City of David, I am inclined to agree with him rather than take the word of a few modern-day revisionist historians. Could it have been that the location of King David s Tomb was forgotten during the years of the Babylonian exile? No. Nechemiah mentions that during the Post-Exilic period, the walls of the city were repaired to a place opposite the sepulcher of David (Nechemiah 3:16). Josephus refers to the sepulcher of David several times. Similarly, in writing about the early years of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Roman historian Dio Cassius (ca., 200 CE) mentions King David s Tomb (Roman History 69:14). Throughout the generations, Jews and non-jews have referred to Mount Zion and to King David s Tomb. Despite the tradition dating from Josephus time until 1914 placing King David s Tomb, the City of David and Mount Zion on the Western Hill, archeologists claimed that all of these sites were really on the Eastern Hill. Were one to subscribe to the predominate archaeological view, one would have to believe the highly unlikely scenario that one morning every Jerusalemite awoke and could no longer remember where Mount Zion was located. The residents of Jerusalem then took a wild guess and assumed that it must have been on 56 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007

8 the Western Hill. Fortunately, in 1913, French archaeologist Raymond Weill came along and informed everyone they had guessed wrong and it was really on the Eastern Hill. Archaeologists may subscribe to Weill s theory, but I don t buy it. An aerial view of the Biblical City of David One way archaeologists determine the extent of an ancient inhabited area is by studying the contour of the surrounding burial grounds. Since burials were rarely conducted within the city limits, the assumption is that the city extended to the area of the cemeteries. Numerous First Temple period gravesites have been found in Jerusalem. The overall contour begins east of the Eastern Hill and follows a southern course along the Kidron Valley, around the southern edges of the Eastern and Western Hills and northwards, west of the Western Hill. 3 Had only the Eastern Hill been inhabited, then we would expect to find the contour of the burial grounds to surround the Eastern Hill only. However, the contour indicates that both hills were occupied concurrently. (Because of editorial constraints, I do not wish to address the issue of the Tosefta quoted in Dr. Zivotofsky s article concerning Rabbi Akiva. But suffice it to say that the reading of the same Gemara text as printed in the Yerushalmi is quite different. In addition, the Kidron Valley is not only east of the Eastern Hill, it also goes southward and turns west of the Western Hill.) One reason archaeologists are reluctant to place the Biblical Mount Zion on the Western Hill is because there is no natural water source there. The city inhabitants would have required many large cisterns in order to survive. Even if the cisterns had cut into the bedrock, they would not have been adequate because most bedrock is porous. Without waterproof plaster, the water would seep through the rock to a lower level. Many scholars believed that waterproof plaster was not invented until well into the Iron Age, long after the era of the Jebusites and King David. Without plaster, there are no cisterns. And yet, in the late 1950s, Yigael Yadin was excavating a Late Bronze Age level (corresponding to the pre-davidic time of the Jebusites) at Hazor. He writes: The most exciting aspect of the excavations in this area was the many bottle shaped, rock-cut cisterns. In one cistern, the upper, more porous parts of the rock were even plastered! This one [cistern] went out of use for water storage as early as the Late Bronze period. It is one of the earliest examples of its kind known in the country and disproves the allegation that plastered cisterns were first introduced by the Israelites in the 12th and 11th centuries BCE. 4 Speaking of water sources, there are two sources of water that are associated with ancient Jerusalem. One is mentioned a few times in Tanach, the Gihon (Gichon), and the other, mentioned in the Talmud, is the Shiloah (Shiloach). Archaeologists have been puzzled by these two sources since there is only one known underground stream in Jerusalem. That 1,750-foot underground stream begins its course at the eastern slope of the Eastern Hill, runs under the hill and flows into a small pool at the southern base of the hill. Archaeologists solved the two watersource problem by calling the beginning of the stream Gihon and the terminus Shiloah. However, there are a number of problems with this universally accepted solution. 1. It s highly unusual for a small 1,750-foot-long stream to have two names, one for each end. 2. The Talmud (Sukkah 48a) relates that for the Temple Water Drawing ceremony on Sukkot, messengers were sent down to the Shiloah to draw water and bring it back up to the Temple Courtyard through one of the southern gateways, called the Water Gate. If Gihon and Shiloah are the same stream, why did the Temple messengers bypass Gihon and travel an additional 1,750 feet further south to the Shiloah? 3. The underground stream is on the eastern slope of the Eastern Hill. The Gihon was, in fact, on the western side of the City of David. As it states in Chronicles 2 (32:30), Chezekiah also blocked the upper watercourse of Gihon, and diverted it straight down to the west side of the City of David. 4. The verse above refers to the upper watercourse of the Gihon. That qualification certainly implies that there was a lower watercourse. The archaeological Gihon is a single source for the underground stream. How do the archaeologists explain the existence of an upper and lower watercourse? They can t. Summer 5767/2007 JEWISH ACTION 57

9 The solution to these problems is as follows. To the west of the Western Hill are two tremendously large cisterns. One is located at the western base of the Western Hill and its modern name is the Sultan s Pool, referring to Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, who had the walls of the old city constructed. The other cistern is located in Independence Park, behind the Sheraton Plaza Hotel, and is called the Mamila Pool. Before archaeologist Raymond Weill came along, the Sultan s Pool was known as the Lower Gichon and the Mamila Pool as the Upper Gichon. In ancient times, these two cisterns were supplied with water by means of an aqueduct system, traces of which can still be seen. Thus, the author of Chronicles knew what he was writing. The City of David and Mount Zion were clearly located on the Western Hill. 5 Additionally, the Shiloah was the underground stream located on the Eastern Hill. Both ends of the stream had a single name Shiloah. Where is King David s Tomb located? Tradition, dating all the way back to the time of King David, says that it is on present-day Mount Zion. I have presented here a number of arguments supporting this long-held tradition. Archaeologists have recently moved Mount Zion to the Eastern Hill and have called the area City of David. Our Sages said, Kol ha meshaneh, yado al ha tachtonah, The burden of proof is on the one who seeks to change. This is true with regard to tradition and also with regard to moving mountains. 6 JA ADVERTORIAL C ARMEI H A IR Carmei Ha ir, a restaurant in Jerusalem, serves nourishing, tasty food to six hundred hungry people each day. The twoand-a-half-year-old establishment is even more elegant than some of the neighboring restaurants. The only noticeable difference is that at Carmei Ha ir there is no bill; instead, a wooden box by the entrance is for those who are able slip in a coin, and for those who can t, a note of gratitude. Founders Rabbi Yehuda Azrad and Itzik Levitan, two businessmen, wanted to make a difference. Today, tens of people who can t put food on the table are well-dressed and well-educated and have simply fallen on hard times, says Levitan. Donors feel that money given to Carmei Ha ir is money well-spent. I know I am giving a poor man two helpings one of food and one of dignity, says one donor. Want to be part of the action? Visit Carmei Ha ir at 72 Agrippas Street in Jerusalem, behind the shuk, between 11:45-2:30 daily, except Fridays. Or, contact the founders at info@carmeihair.org.il, or Web site: Notes 1. Biblical Archaeology Review 20:4, (July/Aug. 1994). 2. Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, 2003), Ephraim Stern, ed., The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (New York, 1993), Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York, 1975), For an analysis of the derivation of the name Gihon, see my article: Moving Mount Zion, Jewish Action (summer 2001): After completing this article, I found the following quote from Meir Ben Dov, a Jerusalem archaeologist of some note, concerning the location of King David s Tomb. A number of scholars engaged in research on Jerusalem have reverted to the mediaeval theory suggesting the upper city (Western Hill) today s [Mount] Zion as the tomb s location. These propositions can now be accepted since recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the city rose to the upper hills already during the reign of the kings of Judah. Hence, one should not reject out of hand the location of the graves (of the Davidic Monarchy) in the upper city (Western Hill) of which [Mount] Zion is an integral part (Jerusalem: Man and Stone [Tel Aviv, 1990], 237). As an interesting aside, I read recently that Dame Kathleen Kenyon, the famed archaeologist who excavated for a number of years in Jerusalem in the 1960s, found a goodly number of early First Temple shards on present-day Mount Zion but threw them away. Since Kenyon was a minimalist, she firmly believed that Mount Zion was not inhabited during the First Temple period, and that it was only inhabited in the second century BCE. She therefore concluded that the shards did not belong on Mount Zion, and she tossed them out. 58 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007

10 SumFnl07 6/5/07 1:48 PM Page 59