wo archaeological discoveries — one from the Temple Mount, another from First Temple-era storage vessels — may align with Rav Moshe Feinstein’s view on the amah and tefach, reshaping modern halakhic practice.
Why This Matters Now
As Jews anticipate the arrival of Moshiach, we must be ready to apply the halakhot of that time. The Chofetz Chaim warned that we cannot simply wait for Eliyahu HaNavi to resolve our halakhic questions — we must study and decide now. Among the most significant questions: the precise size of Torah measurements. These affect mitzvot ranging from sukkah dimensions and tallis sizes to tefillin, maakeh, and beyond.
Should a 13-year-old’s tallis koton be 18 inches wide — or closer to 21? The answer depends on how we define the amah (cubit) and tefach (handbreadth).
The Halakhic Debate
In the last century, three leading poskim have dominated the discussion:
- Rav Chaim Na’eh zt”l – Amah: 18″ | Tefach: 3.15″
- Chazon Ish zt”l – Amah: 23.4″ | Tefach: 3.78″
- Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l – Amah: 21″ | Tefach: 3.54″
In Eretz Yisroel, most follow Rav Chaim Na’eh or Chazon Ish, sometimes combining stringencies. In America, many — especially Rav Moshe’s talmidim — give weight to his measurements, often combining them with others.
First Archaeological Discovery: The Temple Mount Square
The Mishna (Midot) states the Temple Mount platform was 500 amot by 500 amot, a perfect square. For years, measurements of the current Temple Mount plateau didn’t match.
Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer, assistant to Benjamin Mazar, reversed the research approach. Instead of guessing the Beit HaMikdash location first, he identified the original square platform boundaries archaeologically — and only then located the Temple within them.
Key evidence:
- Ancient staircase blocks at the northwest corner, pre-Herodian in origin, aligned with the eastern wall — not the current Muslim platform.
- Protruding ancient stone course at the northeast corner, distinct from newer masonry.
- Slight bend in the eastern wall’s southern section, recorded in the 19th century by Charles Warren.
Mapping these points produced a square measuring 861 feet per side. Dividing by 500 amot yields a cubit length of 20.67 inches — strikingly close to Rav Moshe Feinstein’s 21-inch amah, far from Rav Chaim Na’eh’s and Chazon Ish’s measures.
Second Archaeological Discovery: First Temple Storage Vessels
Ceramic jars from King David’s era — used for storing food and drink — were found to have openings between 3.48 and 3.53496 inches.
Halakhically, an opening smaller than a tefach can limit ritual impurity (tumah). Larger than a tefach risks contamination. The consistency of these measurements across vessels suggests they were deliberately made just under a tefach.
That tefach size — 3.54 inches — matches exactly with Rav Moshe Feinstein’s calculation.
Implications for Halakha
These converging archaeological findings — one from Beit HaMikdash architecture, the other from First Temple-era household practice — point toward Rav Moshe Feinstein’s measurements:
- Amah ≈ 21 inches
- Tefach ≈ 3.54 inches
Practical effects:
- Sukkah – Height rules could shift.
- Tallis Kotton – Many boys’ garments may need to be larger.
- Maakeh – Guardrail heights could change.
While some maintain archaeology should not decide halakha, others — including major poskim — view historical evidence as valuable when it aligns with textual tradition.
Conclusion
These findings don’t settle the halakhic debate — but they strongly bolster Rav Moshe Feinstein’s position. For American Jewry, where Rav Moshe was widely regarded as the preeminent posek, this could justify giving his measurements greater weight.
In the spirit of the Chofetz Chaim’s warning, now may be the time to revisit our shiurim — so that when the call comes to rebuild, we will be ready.
,
