Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Here's something else to fight about:

Yigal Levin

>From
<http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/09/01/faith.20050901-sbt-MICH-
D4-For_Jews__a_cubit_is.sto>=====================================

For Jews, a cubit is a great deal

By RICHARD N. OSTLING
Associated Press Writer

How long is a "cubit"?

Defining that ancient measurement may seem a matter of mere Bible
trivia, but in theory the answer could affect a potentially
calamitous modern-day religious confrontation.

The term occurs in the Bible more than 100 times. Some well-known
examples:

# God's directive to Noah on building the ark: "The length of the
ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits"
(Genesis 6:15).

# The dimensions for the Jerusalem Temple that King Solomon built:
"60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide and 30 cubits high" (1 Kings 6:2).

# The prophet Ezekiel's vision of the restored Temple precinct:
"Set apart for the Lord a portion of the land as a holy district,
25,000 cubits long and 20,000 cubits broad" (Ezekiel 45:1).

Cubit, from the Latin word for "elbow," is used in most English
Bible translations when the Hebrew word for "elbow" refers to
measurements.

In various ancient cultures, the cubit referred to the typical
measurement between a person's elbow and the tip of the middle
finger. Obviously, there was no fixed meaning because people come
in different sizes. Scholars say the cubit became a more or less
standardized measure but referred to different lengths in ancient
Sumer, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Israel.

As for biblical usage, scholars estimate the cubit at anywhere from
1.33 to 2.2 feet, says Joshua Schwartz, the dean of Jewish studies
at Israel's Bar-Ilan University, writing in the current Biblical
Archaeology Review.

The consensus appears to be the 1969 view of Arye Ben David that in
Temple measurements, at least, a cubit was 1.84 feet.

However, Asher Selig Kaufman is a "cubit minimalist" who puts the
length at only 1.43 feet. Historian Kaufman specializes in aspects
of the Temple Mount, the sector where the Temple once stood (called
the Haram as-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary" by Muslims). His short
cubit provides the basis for controversial calculations on the
location of the ancient Temple.

During the past five centuries, most Jews have agreed with Rabbi
David ben Zimra's belief that the ancient Temple stood at the exact
site that's now occupied by the Dome of the Rock. This is one of
Islam's holiest structures, commemorating what's believed to be the
spot from which Muhammad ascended to heaven.

Some zealous Jews and Christians interpret the Bible as teaching
that it's God's will for the Temple to be rebuilt someday at its
original location. If the conventional location is correct, that
would require demolition of the Muslim shrine -- and incitement to
interfaith world war.

But the effect of Kaufman's short cubits is to undermine the old
"central theory" for the Temple's location. His "northern theory"
puts the Temple site northwest of the Dome of the Rock at a cupola
known as the Dome of the Spirits or Dome of the Tablets.

(There's also a third or "southern theory" promoted by Tel Aviv
architect Tuviah Sagiv.)

Kaufman set forth his case in Biblical Archaeology Review in 1983.
He pursues the theme further in a 2004 book published in Israel,
"The Temple Mount: Where Is the Holy of Holies?" the third in a
series treating the Mount.

If Kaufman is right about cubits, it's possible Israel could
someday rebuild the Temple without having to destroy Islam's Dome
of the Rock -- not that Muslims would welcome such nearby
construction, either.

Besides calculations based upon a short cubit, Kaufman argues based
on the alignment of the Temple in relation to the Mount of Olives.

In Jewish tradition, a priest would burn a red heifer and mix the
ashes with water to be sprinkled on worshippers for ritual
cleansing. The ceremony took place on the Mount of Olives with the
priest looking toward the entrance to the Temple sanctuary.

To Kaufman, the line of sight argues for the northern location.
Schwartz's article says, "With all due respect to the calculations
of the author, it is impossible to know where the priest stood."

Though Kaufman's views "have been accepted by very few scholars,"
Schwartz says, he is an acknowledged expert and his general
contributions to Temple Mount scholarship "cannot be denied."