jerusalem origin - the thesis

7/30/2019 Jerusalem Origin - The Thesis

1/41

ABSTRACTJerusalem's origin is deeply analyze

comparing the latest archaeology

and the Biblical narrative to discove

whether the water of the Gihon

spring was first fortified to protect

its sanctity.

Author: Kevin Bermeister


2/41

1

1. Introduct ion: Jerusalem's Origin

Recent discoveries in the City of David adjacent to the Gihon spring may have

uncovered secrets of Jerusalem's past. I suggest an earth-shattering theory,

which at first may seem somewhat unbelievable, but a closer look at some

ancient sources may reveal that the archaeology is not always as it seems.

Excavations on the high

ridge above the Gihon

Spring revealed odd

shaped rock formations

and specific

installations. They

initially puzzled

archaeologists and the

public was asked to

suggest what they were,

the truth may shock you.

One hundred years ago

Montague Parker

excavated the area and

produced this map. The

exposed rectangular

area suggests Parkers

representations are

accurate. The circled

area is the subject of

this paper.

I propose that the high ridge above the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem is the location

of the earliest Biblical Beit El, previously Luz1. In recently found excavations, four

1Bereishit 28:19


3/41

2

primary chambers were carved into bedrock (the walls are from bedrock,

hollowed spaces). The complex had a cultic purpose and served worshipers.

Scientific proof that this is Beit El would challenge everything scholars anticipate

about the location of the previous temples. Whilst there are many unique features

of this recently discovered complex, arguably the most striking is the discovery of

a unique perfectly retained matzevah(3cm slab thickness), a monument, or

headstone (but not a grave marker), constructed on the bedrock, apparently

supported in a square frame of rocks.

On the high ridge plateau of this complex discoveries include, the perfectly

retained erect semi-circular monument or headstone (50l x 30h x 3w cm held in

a frame (50l x 6h x 40w) of 12 rocks). The stone is set between two large

chiseled bedrock walls the south wall (left) and north wall (right) exposes a

cavernous space in which the monument sits. The north wall is shared with its

neighboring chamber to the north. The walls of the neighboring chamber fall from

a height of 2m, from the west, at 45, to 30cm to the east onto the same

bedrock level on which the headstone is located.

Between this chambers chiseled walls, at the northwest corner of this room

exists a small bedrock platform (10cmh 100cmw x 50cml). Its southern edge is

adjacent to a narrow 7cm channel running 5m to the east of the room cavity

emptying into a carved hollow pit. The cavity walls resemble stepped edges. In


4/41

3

the adjacent chamber, south of the headstone (down mountain) three carved V

shaped grooves and a straight groove exist on the bedrock floor. The V markings

in the bedrock may have held the support structure of a water laver or other

fixture used to conduct sacrificial functions for worship.

The high ridge is immediately west and above the Gihon Spring. In the same

area, immediately southwest of the V markings is a tapered hollow, deep cavity

carved in the floor (seen in the image below) and a second similar cavity 10m

north, in line and east of it. These cavities are grain and olive presses

respectively.

Somehow the monument that is part of this complex survived thousands of

years. Most of the City of David, where it is located, was burned, destroyed down

to the bedrock leaving only small clay artifacts. Why this artifact survived may be

crucial to the theory of this complex. Adjacent to the monument or matzevah,is

the room with the stepped sides rising from east to west. This may have been a

ramp to a bedrock table in addition to the altar or mizbeach(see the Raised

Platform chamber north of matzevahfor possible identification) that occupied the

platform in the north-east corner.


5/41

4

2. Constructed from the Biblical sources - a chronological framework.

Isaac's son Jacob slept at Beit-El on his way to Haran2. He took 12 stones from

the altar of Isaac and placed them around his head as a protection and fell

asleep. The stones converged to become one1 - the matzevah, which I suggest

has now been rediscovered, located in the chamber illustrated above and shown

in the photo below.

Traditionally, the altar was located where the Holy of Holies was built in the first

and second temples somewhere in the confines of the temple mount. Since the

Shrine to Calif Omar was built in ~687 CE, tradition has become more acutely

focused on that site. However, Jewish law states the permanent place of the altar

is the akeida (binding) of Isaac. Kabbalah and Gemara describe the south-east

corner of the altar on land belonging to the tribe Yehuda penetrating the land of

the tribe Binyamin2.

Although mention is made that the altar Noah built after the great flood was

located at this site, Noah's (oldest) son Shem (Malchi-tzedek) who worshiped at

this site and named it Shalem could have been the first to construct and chisel

2Genesis 28:16


6/41

5

bedrock, perhaps laying the seeds of what ultimately became the City of David

1500 years later.

Families of Egypt's royalty migrated into Shems land. Their direct lineage was to

Ham (Shems brother), which included Hams grandson Kanaan (Canaan).

Kanaans northerly conquest and occupation may have been familial imperialism

to Shem, because by the time modern Israel became known as Kanaan, Ham

had appointed his son Mitzrayimin charge of land further south (Egypt).

There were three deals made by Abraham, Isaac and later David that delayed

the re-possession of (Tzion) Zion, so named by David. Similarly, the word Tziun

means a marker or beacon. However, Davids conquest of the Tziun shattered

long held inter-nation tribal deals that once upheld the honor of Abraham and

Isaac in the eyes of non-Israelite-tribes.

Avimelech (Father King) of the Philistines (Plishtim) was a descendant of

Noah's son Ham. He requested and obtained a first treaty from Abraham, which

was extended by a second treaty with Isaac, that provided Avimelech and his 7

nation tribal descendants the rights to ongoing occupancy in exchange for

peaceful co-existence. When Abraham wanted to buy the cave of Machpela from

the Hittites, to bury his wife Sarah, the Jebusite (Yevusi) relatives of the Hittites

objected. As part of the land purchase, the Hittites demanded clarification that

Abrahams descendants would permit the Jebusites to live in Shalem

(Jerusalem).

Jacob may have been next to excavate briefly at the site of the matzevah when

he returned to dedicate Beit El the house of God, but tragedy had struck his

family and they settled near Shechem before immigrating to Egypt. In EgyptJacob's family grew to millions, the nation of Israel in exile. With Israel rising, the

descendants of Ham and Avimelech, who had settled both sides of the Jordan

River were threatened. Their respective nations were motivated to cooperate with

the Jebusites to construct the massive fortress over the Gihon known today as

the Spring Tower. If this was the motivation, then the fortress over the Gihon


7/41

6

Spring was intentionally constructed to block Israels access to the holy site and

matzevah Jacob once erected. Further, the first walls surrounding the city were

erected. Each project a significant undertaking well beyond the capacity of the

Jebusite occupants of the relatively small city area. A nationally inspired,

defensive project of such magnitude for that time anticipated Israels return.

Following Israel's return, Joshua (Yehoshua) commenced a conquest of the land

including Jerusalem, then referred to as Beit El. However, Joshua was reminded

by occupants of the walled city of the treaty once made by his descendants. He

honored that treaty allowing the inhabitants to continue their occupation.

Similarly, after Joshuas death, the army of tribe Yehuda attacked, but were

lenient. The Yevusiresponse on each occasion was to further fortify the city

against future attacks.

Seven years after David was anointed King he marched to Jebus (Yevus),

Jerusalem, to bring the fortified city back under Israeli control. The inhabitants,

living under Ornan (Aravna) the King of Yevus, taunted Davids men reminding

them of Avraham and Isaacs pact. Davids men penetrated and occupied the

water tower arguing with the inhabitants that the ancient pact was obsolete, but

they allowed the King of Yevusto live among the new Jewish occupants

including King David.

During King Davids reign the site was modified to function, for 37 years as the

transition temple between Mishkan the Jews had used under Moses and the

temple of Solomon.

After Solomon, during the conquests of Jerusalem that spanned several hundred

years leading up to the destruction of the first temple, much of this site above the

Gihon had been buried and forgotten. Then during the reign of King Hezekiah, he

blocked the waters of the Gihon spring redirecting them in a new-cut channel to

the southwest of the water tower. At that time he constructed the foundations of a

new city wall that penetrated the soft earth at the site and may have uncovered


8/41

7

the site after it had been buried for hundreds of years. In any event the site is

now being uncovered for the first time in at least 3400 years.

3. The Geography of the City of David and ancient Jerusalem in Jewish

tradition

In Jewish mystical teachings, the neck is associated as the only place in the body

absent of capacity to contain a soulful attribute or characteristic. It is the passage

between the head (the intellect) and the body (the emotions). It is associated with

concealment and limitation. Egypt (Mitzrayim) is analogous to the confined neck

in which the Jewish people were trapped by their enslavement, their release, a

complete act of redemption. The Hebrew letters for Mitzrayimalso spell Meitzer

Yamconsidered to be the concealment of understanding. The Hebrew letters

used for Pharaoh are also used for Oreph- the back of the neck. The Jewish

people are referred to as stiff necked and Jerusalems Temple, the antidote is

identified with the neck.


9/41

8

Topographically, Mt. Moriah resembles a head connected to the neck. The

largest vertebra at the base of the neck, the 7th is also known as the Luz bone,

which is associated in Judaism to end of day resurrection prophecies. Along this

topographic neck exists the high ridge and Gihon Spring at approximately the

comparative location one could expect to find a Luz bone. Immediately south of

the Gihon spring the eastern facing slope of the mountain climbs rapidly from the

Kidron valley floor to a platform on an elevated ridge a plateau. The source of

the Gihon Springswater is a subterranean stream just beneath the Kidron valley

floor.

South of the Gihon Spring, bedrock has been chiseled to form a large rectangular

cistern adjacent to (west) and converging with the cliff face of the high-ridge at

the approximate location of the monument. The area below the high-ridge and its

lower sections operated as a cistern to store water. After the cistern was

constructed, water flowed from the Gihon Spring through and into subterranean

sections in the bedrock and ultimately back to the Kidron Valley floor. In this

cistern, known as the Upper Gihon Pool exclusively kosher animal bones have

been discovered. The original entrance to the high-ridge site as it was originally

built is not fully understood although recent excavations are telling.


10/41

9

In context of the entire excavation also known as the Parker excavation, the

above image highlights the stone monument (matzevah blue square) where

rooms have been excavated on the high ridge.

Anecdotally, the entire topography on which the excavation is located is a single

bedrock mountain referred to in the Jewish exegesis as even hashtiyah or the

foundation stone. It is often confused with the rock subsection known as the

Dome of the Rock. This mountain known as Mount Moriah is also referred in the

Bible as being in the land of the Amori, on which Abraham was told by God to

sacrifice his son Isaac.

TheAmorireference may be to theAmoritepeople who descended from Canaan

the son of Ham, son of Noah who may have been living in this region at the time

of Abraham and Isaac. Although the head of the topography is associated with


11/41

10

the Temple Mount on which the Jewish temples were previously built, the

bedrock at the head is not distinguished with rich archaeologically relevant

features as is the topography on the bedrock of the neck.

4. Rediscovering the ancient city: Follow the Water!

From the high hills of Hebron water flows downhill through underground natural

aquifers, which during various kings reigns wereelevated3above the ground, to

feed Jerusalem and its Gihon Spring. The following is supported byhydrological4

study that water from the southern Hebron region flows underground to supply

the Gihon spring. No specific hydrological study of the Gihons local water source

exists. Other water flows from the north to the Temple Mount through theaquifers under the Temple Mount, but the waters that flowed along the ritual

route known as ha shalshelet, which were used in the temple services, flowed

south north from the direction of Hebron.

Anecdotal5evidence in the Biblical record suggests this ritual water source and

its location to have been spiritually important to the occupants of the region

before the construction of walls around the base of Mount Moriah. Archaeologists

suggest motivation to fortify the Gihon site may have been to control the water

and exclusively benefit local populations especially during times of war. The

archaeological record at the sites surrounding the spring increasingly suggests a

long span of history and periodic construction before any fortification.

Principle to the archaeological evidence are the following features;

1. The springs original geographical path and water exit from the bedrock.

2. The man-made underwater wall (by Hezekiah) diverting the Gihons water

passage to the south west Pool of Shiloh.

3. The steps presently used to access the spring and bedrock pools.

4. The Hezekiah channel.
http://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdf


12/41

11

5. The Canaanite channel.

6. Warren Shaft system.

7. The north wall section (Figure 2) from the mezzanine to the high-ridge.

8. The south wall section (Figure 2) from the valley floor to the high-ridge.

9. The high-ridge bounded by the north and south wall sections.

10. The monument (matzevah)area south of the south wall section.

Figure 1 Cut through mountain section red star marks area of interest
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=203848019719443&set=a.195652120539033.34397.152980821472830&type=3&theaterhttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=203848019719443&set=a.195652120539033.34397.152980821472830&type=3&theaterhttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=203848019719443&set=a.195652120539033.34397.152980821472830&type=3&theaterhttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=203848019719443&set=a.195652120539033.34397.152980821472830&type=3&theater


13/41

12

Figure 2 enterance to high ridge from mezanine level of Gihon Water Tower

Based on the above features I deduce a chronological theory of settlement and

development as follows;

1. Early Bronze I 3300-3050 B.C.E. sparse, periodic settlement

2. Early Bronze II-III 3050-2030 B.C.E. sparse, permanent settlement

3. Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I-2300-2000 B.C.E. - expanded settlement

and bedrock chiseling on high ridge

4. Middle Bronze IIA 2000-1750 B.C.E. established settlement, expansion of

Gihon site

5. Middle Bronze IIB-C 1750-1550 B.C.E. excavation of valley floor pools and

enclosure rising to the high ridge

6. Late Bronze I 1550-1400 B.C.E. commencement of city walls

7. Late Bronze IIA-B 1400-1200 B.C.E. accelerated construction of city wallsand water tower

8. Iron Age I 1200-1000 B.C.E. completion of water tower and city fortification

9. Iron Age II 1000 586 B.C.E.rearrangement, internal city construction,

expansion North and eastern outer wall


14/41

13

The development of archaeological evidence is now ordered earliest to latest, to

support the proposed theory;

1.Pre-Chalcolithic- The spring exit and natural well from the bedrock

9.Early Bronze IV Practices on the high-ridge rock platform

10.Middle Bronze IIB Chiseling chambers on the high-ridge south of the south

wall section

3.Middle Bronze IIC Chiseling the valley floor stair-well (presently used to

access the spring and bedrock pools)

8.Middle Bronze IIC Chiseling the cistern and walls extending from the valley

floor to the high-ridge rock platform

5.Late Bronze IIA- *The Canaanite channel

6.Late Bronze IIA/Iron Age I - *Warren Shaft system

7.Late Bronze II/Iron Age I- * Wall sections extending from the mezzanine to

the high-ridge rock platform

4.Iron Age II- Hezekiah channel

2.Iron Age II- Wall diverting the Gihon water passage to Shiloh -

*variation of order can be tolerated

A dissertat ion on the ordering follows;

Population growth in the region of the Gihon spring during the Early Bronze Age

may have caused water demand to exceed supply, thus triggering excavation of

cisterns. However, archaeological evidence highlights the use of wells in the

immediate region as well as the extended region from Hebron to Beer Sheva,

indicating, generally that water was not in short supply6.

It is evident in the archaeological evidence, especially in the water flow from the

Gihon that little attempt was made to contain and control the water until much

later when in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, natural water flow from the

spring was channeled. Evidence therefore suggests the water was sufficient to


15/41

14

support settlement and little effort was made to control the water. Instead, in

early periods it was left to flow from the source of the spring into a natural

artesian well where it rose to the surface and along the bedrock to the low point

on the Kidron Valley floor.

At some point reason arose to fortify the area over the Gihon spring and up to the

high ridge. However, no evidence exists to determine the exact order in which

this fortification took place or the reasons for it. This theory proposes that the

area of the high ridge platform immediately was the first area to be settled in the

late Early Bronze period.

Evidence presently suggests the southern wall section (from the Valley floor and

mezzanine level to the high ridge) was constructed earlier than its northern wall

counterpart. The condition of each wall differs significantly, and the construction

of the northern section appears to be developed to a later construction standard.

This would support the view that the southern wall was constructed for some

purpose other than to control water from the Gihon.

In its primitive condition the welling of water from the Gihon would have first filled

the cave in which it is located before rising to the level of the bedrock on the

valley floor where the first pools were constructed, as evidenced in the

archaeology at the foot of the southern wall section. The first attempt to dam this

water is thus connected with the construction of the southern wall section, which

was required to secure the high-ridge platform. Further, that the purpose of this

construction was thecontainment of water7(Fig 3) required for the sacrifices

offered on the upper rock platform, the area of the matzevah(area south of the

south wall).
http://www.archpark.org.il/waterStudies3.shtmlhttp://www.archpark.org.il/waterStudies3.shtmlhttp://www.archpark.org.il/waterStudies3.shtml


16/41

15

Figure3 Upper Gihon Pool immediately below (east) and adjacent to the high ridge

Ordering of this development chronology is therefore structured to emphasize

and support the sanctity of the high-ridge rock platform as the motivating reason

for initial fortification. Its spiritual attractiveness, demonstrated by excavations on

the high-ridge platform including the matzevah, sacrificial platform and other

features are the pivotal reason demand developed to occupy the area as a city.

Controlling water from the Gihon Spring was the secondary demand driver.

Frequent ritual activity on the high-ridge platform led to its further development

and formalization as an area of worship. Its importance is evidenced by the

substantial structure eventually built into the bedrock and thematzevah.

The southern wall section adjuncts the cavernous cistern in the bedrock at the

valley floor, east of the high-ridge rock platform (Fig 3). Other water poolsindicate a containment (damming) of water at the south-east base, the lowest

point of the southern wall structure. The higher point of the waters release from

the Gihon Spring is to the north of the south-east base, which is north of the

Upper Gihon Pool. This Pool, would have contained and provided water to

facilitate ritual bathing and cleaning the high-ridge platform from blood and fats of


17/41

16

sacrifice. The initial importance and use of the high-ridge platform was sporadic,

apparently increasing in regularity, leading to the construction of the southern

wall section and tunnel from the Gihon Spring and Upper Gihon Pool (water

cistern).

Sporadic use during Early Bronze II led to more permanent development in Early

Bronze IV. This progression is supported by more detailed archaeological

evidence, particularly the development of the northern wall and section and water

tower concealing the Gihon spring.

The more sophisticated developments at the site were apparently motivated by

the increasing necessity to protect and control access to the water source. This

could indicate the increased competition for resources, perhaps the result of an

expanding population. Further fortification through Late Bronze ultimately

supported the extended development of expanded, fortified city walls. This

sustained a growing population as indicated by the expanded walls along the

eastern slope to the north and south, encasing and cutting off the surrounding

bedrock, mezzanine and high-ridge platform.

The Canaanite channel that led from the Gihon Spring to the Upper Gihon Pool

provided water alongside/outside of the city wall including terraced agriculture to

support the growing number of city residents. The channel constructed in

bedrock would have drawn water from the Gihon Spring filling multiple pools and

small reservoirs along its route whilst providing sufficient water to the cavernous

cisterns formed in the bedrock. This construction eventually provided sustenance

and protected access to water for residents of the city, including via Warrens

shaft. The effect of the Canaanite channel was the substantial damming of water.

The later addition of the Hezekiah channel rendered the Canaanite channel

redundant causing water to pass directly into open pools deeper inside the city

walls. When the water of the Gihon was finally redirected along Hezekiahs


18/41

17

channel, it was no longer available to populations in areas outside of the city

walls. Cutting off this valuable and precious water supply to the outside caused

an increase in competition for access to the inner-city precinct and with it

demand for control over it increased.

Figure 4 Adjacent the monument on the high ridge perhaps a place for preparing slaughtered animals

A conclusion that the area of the high-ridge rock platform was the original holy

site used for sacrificial purposes spanning many generations, is supported by

evidence that the Gihon water was not the primary motivating factor for earlypopulations to occupy the site. Therefore, a theory that survival was the primary

motivator associated with the Gihons water is not consistent with the

development of early discoveries at the site. Therefore, it was not the motivating

reason for the earliest fortification on the south side of the Gihon Spring.

Fortification of the Gihon probably commenced in the ~200 years of Israels exile

in Egypt. Some of this is identifiable in the type of period construction. With

Israels rising toward the end of Exile the occupants around the Gihon readied

themselves for a return. This is the alternative motivation for nations, who would

have conspired to construct the impressive fortress and city walls.


19/41

18

5. The Biblical Narrative

Abraham, Hebron and Gihon

These new discoveries may correspond to many references from the Bible and

commentaries. In one ancient story, we learn that three men came to Hebron to

break the news that Abraham and his wife Sarah were to have a son. As Abraham

prepared to slaughter one of the calves for these men it escaped. He chased it into

the cave at the end of the field of Machpelah (Hebron) where he smelled the

Garden of Eden.

Was he alerted to the presence of the underground water source by the calf high

in the hills of Hebron? In the 37 years after Isaacs birth, Abraham traced water,

digging wells along the aquifers path as it makes its way from Hebron toward

Jerusalem. Many of these wells are still accessible today. Abraham was told by

God to offer his son as a sacrifice at the instructed place. At the end of the journey

he stopped to ask his assistant Eliezer and two sons Ishmael and Isaac who could

see The Place (HaMakom), Isaac recognized the feature.

Did Abraham know this (Mount Moriah) to be the location at which the underground

waters turn from their northerly or southerly flow toward the east? In the final test

of his commitment, whilst carrying a flame to light the fire for burning the sacrifice,

waters surged forth, blocking their path, threatening Abraham and Isaacs lives and

to douse the flames. After the sacrifice was offered, Isaac, remained in the field

that surrounds the Place (HaMakom), this is considered the same field he first saw

his future wife Rebecca and where he discovered Beer sheva, seven additionalwells.


20/41

19

Isaac becomes known as the well digger and Jacob returns.

The little we know of Isaac from the Bible amplifies its declaration that he also digs

wells. He searches for water, repairs the wells that his father dug, and generally

discovered water from the ground, which provided him certain independence and

much wealth. Isaacs son Jacob, after running away from his brother Esau,

journeyed to Haran8(northwest of Israel), but slept one night at a place he named

Beit El, its name was originally Luz. At this place, he erected and anointed a semi-

circular9stone as a monument (matzevah) to God.

We understand Luzto mean a specific bone of the spine, the vertebrae connecting

the spine and neck to the head. It is heralded to be the hardest bone in the body

and associated with the end of days prophecy related to the resurrection of the

dead; the bone that survives all and which is not subject to permanent state of

death. In the mystical tradition, the Luz bone exclusively gets its nourishment from

the melaveh malkameal on Saturday night after Shabbat. We also understand

semantically it relates to a high plateau or ridge. Finally, it can also be used as the

name for Almond.

The Midrash tells that Luz was enclosed (walled) and its entrance hidden such that

the only way in and out was through a hole in an Almond tree that concealed an

opening to a cave which led to the entrance of the city. The analogy here is to the

Almond Shell. The storytells of a man who advised troops of the tribes of Joseph

when they first attacked the city after Joshua entered to the land of Israel, where

to find the secret passage. The man and his family were freed then settled in the

eastern part of the world where they named a town Luz, which today is Madras in

India.

On Jacobs10return to Israel 20 years later after raising his young family, he was

confronted by the guardian angel of his brother Esau on the banks of the Yabok

River. He crossed back over the River to collect some jars, possibly sacred oil that


21/41

20

he needed to anoint the monument hed erected 20 years prior, there he fought

the angel of death, but he prevailed demanding the angel bless him, which it did

by bestowing on him the name Israel. The next day Esau received Jacob in peace

and Jacob left with his family and made his way south to Beit El/Luz where Jacob

built an altar, and he named the place Beit El11. Deborah, Jacobs mother

Rebeccas wet nurse, who had come to inform them of Rebeccas death died, she

was buried under an Oak tree in the valley below Beit El, (which was located on a

hilltop) on a plateau.

According to a tradition, the olives from the branch that Noah received from the

dove he sent to test the waters, were made into pure olive oil for holy dedication.

The oil was passed to Noah's firstborn, Shem, Malchitzedek, the high priest of

Shalem (Jerusalem) who gave it to Abraham as a gift. Abraham in turn handed it

to Isaac who passed it to Jacob.

The Midrash supports that the matzevahand the altar are also the site where Isaac

(Jacobs father) was offered as a sacrifice. Further, that 12 stones were taken by

Jacob from this altar which fused to become the semi-circular stone monument

(matzevah) on which he rested his head on during the night. On insertion into the

bedrock, the monument headstone and the 12 stones, converged to become one,

in, with and as the Foundation Stone of creation of the world. The stone marks the

place the temple will be built. The stone and altar reside in Luz, it is known as an

area in which the angel of death cannot exist.

The mountain is also mentioned in writings of a future time when the matzevah

stone will become the House of God. The monument may also be referred to as

the corner stone that the builders despised in the holiday liturgy known as Hallel

which states the stone has in the future become the chief cornerstone. The

Midrashim refers to unsuccessful attempts by the builders of the first and second

temples to move this stone into the wall of those temples, which may explain why

it was despised. The future altar, which will be located on this mountain -


22/41

21

HaMakom (The Place), Mount Moriah, The Temple Mount amongst many other

names, is located at the site of these 12 stones because they were extracted from

the altar on which Abraham offered his son Isaac and that will, according to Jewish

Law, be the place of the altar of The Temple.

Among many references, in the praises known as Hallel, the Levite priests of the

temple once sang and Jews continue to sing many times each year that the stone

the builders rejected has become, in the future, its chief cornerstone12 - which

stone? Was it meant as a metaphor and what about the strange syntax that

confidently expresses a future event? Torah is interpreted on 4 levels, from literal

to mystical, which must be used to reconcile with past interpretations. So why did

the priests who, at the time of the first temple lived adjacent to the Gihons high

ridge, between the city wall and its eastern boundary, write this line and choose to

climax the hundred plus lines of Hallel by repeating this verse amongst all the

verses of the entire prayer?

13In fleeing this land, Jacob, was forced to lie down by the sudden sunset. He

experienced a primal fear, causing his comment "How awesome is this place! And

he dreamed of the stairway to heaven and he received his vision of this

foundation, the temple - Beit El, which inspired him to set up the monument of

twelve-stones which that night fused-into-one. And according to this midrash what

did God do?

He stretched out His right foot and sank the stone deep into the earth. Accordingly,

the stone is called, even hashtya, the Foundation Stone - the navel of the world

and from there the whole Earth was stretched out and upon that stone the temple

of God stands.14

I consider that the cornerstone of Hallel is the monument, the matzevahof Jacob.

The ArtifactJewssing of was emphasized because Hiram and King Solomons

foreign builders of the first temple relegated it as a design construction problem: It

being on the neck of the mountain and the temple construction project being on

the head. But the priests who discovered its existence in the years they were living


23/41

22

between the city wall and the outer eastern wall of the city, did not rest, they wrote

and sang about it in protest.

The area below from the Upper Gihon Pool to the high ridge is Shalem, Luz, which

is Beit-El the origin of Jerusalem.

Figure 7 High ridge west of Upper Gihon Pool Reconstruction as it may have looked, prior to the construction of the city

wall. Palace of King David (north).


24/41

23

Figure 8 apex of Mount of Olives in context, pointing at City of David and Gihon Spring location

The location of Luz (as show above) is identified at the end of the thick red line

pointing across the valley floor away from the apex of the Mount of Olives

cemetery.

Joshuas Return

Under the command of Joshua, we are told of two cities that were attacked by

Israel immediately after re-entering the land following their exile. Its the city of Ai

or Ay that interests us, because of the great confusion its location causes to the

students of Torah. Here I propose the alternative that resolves much of the

confusion.


25/41

24

Figure 9 Joshuas battle for control of Ai and Beit El - http://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-

mizbeach-of-akeida.html

As described in the image above, (1) under the cover of darkness Joshua led an

army of 30,000 men up the Judean mountains to (2) a camp below, or south of the

then Canaanite city home to Beit El. Before daybreak, Joshua moved 25,000

through the valley between Beit El and Ay (today known as the Kidron Valley),

where (5) a rear guard ambush party of 5000 troops remained, whilst the balance

(3) climbed to the top of the hill (to the north - today known as Mount of Olives)

across the valley that separated them from the city of Ay. At daybreak Joshua

crossed the valley to taunt the guards and residents of the city, who on a previous

occasion had successfully chased Joshuas, much smaller, first invading party.

The gates of the city were open and a similar pursuit soon began, only this time

Joshua planned it to be a trap. By the time the army of Ay and Beit El had chased

(6) Israel some distance, the ambush party (5) came up the rear attacking the city

and setting it alight. Once the pursuers of Ay saw and realized their city was
http://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-hypothesis-for-mizbeach-of-akeida.html


26/41

25

burning, they retreated and in their retreat, Joshua turned his retreating troops on

them. In a pincer movement they were trapped between Israels main army and

Israels rear guard ambush troop. The people of Ay were defeated and the city

destroyed.

Looking South East toward Ay circled in the background

The suggestion here is a significant departure from the confusion brought by King

Yerovam, which has plagued the Jewish people for thousands of years. An

adoption of this theory would require a reconsideration of many previous

interpretations. Centering the source of Israels holy connection to the location at

the corrected Beit El, at the Canaanite city that became the City of David has been

a long time coming

Sword over Jerusalem!

Sources from Tanach (The Bible) relate the difficulty King David had in selecting

the place at which to build the altar, thus to mark the location at which Israels
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LjQNCG9A56I/VAw49OlegLI/AAAAAAAABBM/fVGHN2YxsgU/s1600/HarHaBayit+Ai.jpg


27/41

26

temple could eventually be built. Without this no temple could ever be built and

King David would be unable to fulfill, what he considered to be his life mission. The

King had to locate the altar on the spot which Isaac was offered and he had to do

it with prophetic support. However, his search for Isaacs altar was complicated so,

he turned to the advice of his teacher Doeg and the Prophet Gad. Doeg was a

convert and a very serious Torah scholar, he was known to have ruthlessly

consumed the intellects of his fellow students and teachers with his sharp

commentary. His rivalry with the knowledge of Torah law that King David

possessed revealed his jealous disposition. Doeg tried to disqualify David from

being King because David was born through the lineage of Ruth, a Moabite convert

allegedly forbidden by Torah law. However, the prevailing legal opinion was in

Davids favor15.

Doeg also challenged David who was struggling to determine the site of the future

temple. Doeg argued it should be in the high mountains south-west of ancient

Jerusalem. David preferred it to be close, among the people of the city. But it wasnt

until King David, against his General Yoavs advice, ordered the army to take a

census that the location was determined. The census was ordered by the Kings

desire not by a prophecy of God, as was the Law. When David contemplated his

actions, he became remorseful and repented. Retribution followed swiftly and

Prophet Gad told him he had three choices by which to repent; three years of

famine, three months of fleeing his enemies or endure three days of plague in the

land. King David chose the plague. Immediately 70,000 men from the outlying tribal

lands received their fate.

As the nation was suffering, The King saw the angel of death standing on the

threshing floor of Aravna - King of the Jebusites, stretching out its sword over

Jerusalem16(The ancient City of David) and David was immediately fearful.

Before the three days were up, God stopped His angel as it was about to reign

pestilence on the people of Jerusalem. The angel of death challenged and in


28/41

27

response Avishai, the brother of Yoav and the Kings most loyal follower lost his

life. In the moment of national pandemonium Gad advised the King to make an

altar at the site the King had seen the angel standing poised to destroy Jerusalem.

The site was the threshing floor that belonged to the Jebusite King Ornan (Aravna),

who lived in the City of David, on the top of Mount Moriah which was outside of the

walled city.

In the national pandemonium King David purchased, using donations from the

tribal leader the threshing floor from Aravna the Jebsuite (King). There he was

instructed by Gad to build an altar and make holy sacrifices in repentance of his

sin. By national consensus this became the place by which the future site of the

first and second temples in Jerusalem was determined. Here we have a

declaration in Tanach that the site was the threshing floor identified with the angel

of death and the advice or prophecy to build it there was Gads.

Are we to rely on chance or hidden meaning that the prerequisite for the site of the

altar being the site at which Isaac was offered by Abraham has been met? No

scholarly source exists directly stating King Davids selection of this location to be

the location of Isaacs altar, as such for the past 2840 years from the time King

Solomon built the first temple and its altar, people have simply believed the site to

be true. It is a tradition relied upon from generation to generation.

The simplistic illustration below describes the scene David is likely to have

witnessed.


29/41

28

Figure 10 Angel of death as it may have been envisaged by King David

Why is the most holy site for Jews identified with the feet of the angel of death and

why is the sword pointed over Jerusalem? The 70,000 men were killed by the

plague in the tribal regions of Israel, not in Jerusalem! David struggled to find the

site of the temple, for years he contended with Doeg over its location.

Did he not have a sign, an archaeological fingerprint, something to go on that wasbetter than the angel of death and a prophecy of Gad to annul the plague? If David

did not know that the altar of Isaac was a prerequisite for the building of the

Temple, the tribal elders and scholars certainly would have reminded him.

Davids son Solomon built Jerusalems first temple based on the plans of his father.

In Tanach we have a declaration17that details how it was built by Solomon.

The missing ingredient in all this is the location of the altar of Isaac which is the

essential item according to Halacha (Torah Law) for building a temple in

Jerusalem. So, where is it?

I argue that the newly excavated site on the high-ridge above the Gihon, on Mount

Moriahs neck, where sacrificial worship and ceremony is now known to have taken


30/41

29

place, is in fact the site of Isaacs altar. Notwithstanding popular opinion, this site

is likely the original site of Shalem, Luz, Beit-El and Jerusalem as such it ought to

be more seriously considered as the site King David did not disclose for the Temple

his son built. To understand the reasons why the King did not disclose the site, we

must be sensitive to a chronological series of events that presented him a great

difficulty.

When King Davids general and a small band of men conquered the Jebusite city,

now known as the City of David, its walls had been heavily fortified and constructed

to prevent and protect its residents from attack whilst they would draw water from

the perennial Gihon Spring. Within and adjacent to the inner sections of the city

walls, many homes had been built. The walls and the homes were built over the

site of Isaacs altar, using its carved bedrock as foundation for the city above. After

the Jebusites first began occupying the area, they extended the existing cavernous

cistern that once walled the important site of Isaacs Altar. I suggest the first small

protective wall was built by Jacob and his sons when they returned from Haran to

Hevron via the place of the altar. This is also the place Jacob anointed a monument

to God and where he experienced his famous dream in which the angels walked

up and down the ladder between heaven and earth and where he accepted the

name Israel upon himself.

Whether King David knew of this site on the high-ridge is unknown, regardless its

emergence for the first time in more than 3000 years and its identity today is

remarkable. The question remains whether we will be open minded enough to

seriously ascertain the site we presently identify for the third temple is in fact its

true location?


31/41

30

6. Deeper analysis

Solving the Riddle of Beit-El and Beit-el.

Rav Soloveitchik (ZL) advised the Haftorah of the Torah portion is a commentary

in and of itself, so I used this to delve into the meaning behind the portion read on

Pesach outside of Israel as Yom Tov on the second day.

On the Yom Tov we read the Torah portion to do with the sacrifice immediately

preceding the exodus from Egypt. On the second day (only outside of Israel) we

read the instructions for sacrifices required in the Mishkan one year later, for the

festival of Pesach, in remembrance of the exodus and for the other major holidays.

In the first days Haftorah we read of Israels re-commitment to the covenant

through circumcision before entering Israel 40 years later at the end of their exodus

from Egypt. However, on the second day we read about King Josiah (Yoshiyahu)

who restored, with full pomp and ceremony, the dwindling festival of Pesach in

Yerushalem as it was called at that time. I can understand how the first day

connects Pesach, to the exit from Egypt and the entry to Israel, but for the second

day, why is this Haftorah selected? Surely there are other stories in Tanach in the

815 years between Yoshiyahu and entering the land of Canaan (Israel) that would

perhaps be appropriate? To understand, I considered the second day message is

targeted to Jews outside of Israel. Its these Jews that the portions of the 2nd day

must be speaking to. Perhaps the Jews in exile would be sufficiently inspired to

discover the reasons for this selection. I was motivated to try, but before reading

further its important to know the background.

Yoshiyahu was among the last kings in the lineage of King David - along the 800

year kings list that preceded him. His great-grandfather was Hezekiah, hisgrandfather Menashe was banished to exile and his father Amon ruled over the

southern kingdom of Yehuda, but was killed by his servants. At 8 years old, on the

death of his father he was anointed king of Yehuda. Later, Yoshiyahu passionately

followed the ways of King David, eventually he restored monotheistic traditions and

renovated the Temple. During the renovation, the high priest Hilkiyahu discovered


32/41

31

a Torah scroll, written by Moses, which was open on the section including Devarim

28:36 - the curse predicting exile of the Jewish people. Yoshiahu surpassed

prophet Jeremiah, instead he asked Hulda the prophetess of its meaning, she

foretold the imminent destruction of the first Temple and the exile of the Jewish

people. Perhaps it was an effort to change the nature of the prophecy that

Yoshiyahu led the elders of Yehuda and the people of Yerushalem to the Temple

where he read from the scroll and made a covenant to observe Gods

commandments and the people accepted the same upon themselves.

They immediately targeted all idolatry that had been brought into the Temple

including vessels, pillars, trees and statues and burned them in the plains of Kidron

(outside Yerushalem toward the Dead Sea) and carried the ashes to Beit-El. He

banished idol practices, relinquished the Temple rights of priests who had followed

any idolatry and defiled their altars. After all was accomplished they reconstituted

traditions and made a Pesach celebration like no other before. No king turned to

God with all his heart and soul like Yoshiyahu. Such was his genuine commitment

to Torah and worship that the prophet Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) ben (son of) Hilkiyahu

managed to secure the return of some of the ten tribes who, for the first time in a

hundred years agreed to live under the Kings unifying reign.

On the surface the story sounds like a reasonable basis for selection on 2nd day

haftorah, but further investigation into the missing sections of the story that do not

make it into the haftorah reveal deeper mysteries of our exiled state and Jewish

connection to the Temple. Firstly, the haftorah is an amalgamation of two sections

from Kings II 23:1-9 and 21-25, so what does the missing section 10-20 contain

that it was left out?

Perhaps the gory details of idol worship including the sacrifice of children to theidol Molech in the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem center. However, verse 17

and 18 stand out amongst all the destruction of idolatry, altars and graves noted in

these passages, because they describe how one specific monument is saved. An

even closer analysis of the section reveals ambiguity, which must be subjected to


33/41

32

Hebrew analysis, which I highly recommend each reader studies carefully. There

are at least 4 major commentators who read this in differing ways.

23:15. Furthermore (), the altar that was at Beit-El and the high place which

Yerovam ben Nebat, who made Israel sin, had made, also (

) that altar and the

high place he broke down. Then he demolished its stones, ground them to dust,

and burned the Asherah. 23:16. Now when Yoshiyahu turned, he saw the graves

that were there on the mountain, and he sent and took the bones from the graves

and burned them on the altar and defiled ( ) it according to the word of the

LORD which the man of God proclaimed. 23:17. Then he said; What is this

monument () that I see? And the men of the city told him, It is the grave

) ) of the man of God who came from Yehuda and who proclaimed such

words/deeds upon () the altar of Beit-El. 23:18. He said, Let him alone; let no

one disturb his bones. So, they left his bones undisturbed () the bones of the

prophet who came from Shomron. 23:19. Yoshiyahu also removed all the houses

of the high places which were in the cities of Shomron, which the kings of Israel

had made provoking the LORD; and he did to them just as he had done in Beit-El.

23:20. All the priests of the high places who were there he slaughtered on the

altars and burned human bones on them; then he returned to Yerushalem.

23:17

23:18

A very careful reading of this passage, juxtaposes its prophetic counterpart some

330 years before Yoshiyahu during the reign of King Yerovam18

, suggesting theman who came from Yehuda is also the prophet who came from Shomron.

Yoshiyahu is refrained after defiling the altar with human bones by his discovery

of the monument ( ). The word hatziun - used as

monument (matzevah) in this context, is the only occurrence of the word in

Tanach. Further he is told by the men of the city it is the grave ( ) -hakever of


34/41

33

the man of God who came from Yehuda, another exclusive word. The simple

reading underscores this action occurring in Beit-el Shomron. However, if the text

exclusively refers to Beit-el Shomron, why would a grave of a man of God from

Yehuda be at an altar in Shomron - the kingdoms were at war? Who fits the

description - the man of God who came from Yehuda that is also the prophet who

came from Shomron? To discover the answer, we must try to understand the

location of Beit-El to which this man came.

Today, there is enormous confusion over place names in modern Israel with their

origin in Tanach. The confusion occurs because of mystical or literal

interpretations, or through local or foreign competition or intervention over the

millennia including in-fighting between the Kingdoms of Yehuda and Yisrael

(Shomron). In any event, at 23:20 we learn Yoshiyahu defiled the altar, presumably

the high places in Shomron, then he returned to Yerushalem. Further, we

understand King Yerovam lived in Shechem19 and that Beit-el in Shomron, the

traditional land of Efrayim (Yosef) was the location at which Yerovam dedicated

the idolatrous altar - the high place of one of the golden calves used by him to

compete20with Temple worship in Yerushalem in the southern kingdom of Yehuda.

Finally, from an alternative reading of 23:15 the altar Yoshiyahu defiled near the

monument at Beit-El could be the counterpart to the idolatrous altar at Beit-el in

Shomron. Analogous to competing Beit-El/els of Yerovam (Yehuda) and

Yoshiyahu (Yosef) - the message crystallizes.

The man of God from Yehuda usurps King Yerovam with a prophetic proof when

he splits his altar at Beit-el, then succumbs to the advice of his false prophet

nemesis from Shomron, goes against his own prophecy and is mauled to death by

a Lion that is also at peace with the Donkey21. The false prophet buried the man

of God in his grave and requested his sons bury him together in the same grave.

The metaphor supports truth and justice directed at a false prophet and one who

does not follow his own prophecy. Surely this is pointing the reader to recognize

the pathological condition that locks Israel in its exilic state and perhaps Beit-El is

our key.


35/41

34

In the simple reading one is left to believe these events occur in Beit-el Shomron.

In the alternative reading of 23:15 Yoshiyahu first defiles the altar at Beit-El before

defiling its counterpart at Beit-el. Then the encrypted description of the man who

came to Beit-El, as a man of God from Yehuda (Hevron, Beer Sheva), who

returned to Beit-El, as a prophet from Shomron (Shchem), may be exclusive to

Yaakov and the monument he dedicated to God at Beit-El? And where is this

monument? It is located beside the altar of Beit-El in the City of David,

Yerushalayim, not in the northern, modern city of Beit-el!

We can just begin to sense the fledgling and broken state of Jewish nationhood,

interrupted through generations of wayward kings each of whom flavored Torah

life, temple tradition and belief to benefit their plans. The Torah portion for 2nd day

Pesach that instructs the sacrifices of the Mishkan is linked to Yoshiyahu because

he fervently restored Jewish life and culture prescribed in Torah. Yoshiyahus

heightened sensitivity to Torah led him to destroy idolatry, restore The Temple,

celebrate Pesach and hide the Ark of the Covenant in its, yet undiscovered secret

location. At 39 Yoshiayhus body was pierced by 300 arrows of the lame Pharaoh

Neco because he refused Egypt clear passage through Israel to attack the looming

enemy, the king of Assyria who dominated Babylon. Approximately 22 years later

the First Temple was destroyed by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Pesach, the one holiday Jews are commanded to remember their redemption from

exile had almost been forgotten in Yerushalem. The monument, erected 1100

years earlier by Yaakov in the location he named Beit-El adjacent to which The

City of David was built had also been forgotten. The men of the City of David

confused by King Yoshiyahus question of the monument recall the prophecy at

Yerovams altar at Beit-el by the man of God from Yehuda, the Prophet from

Shomron who proclaimed words on it. Their confusion reflecting Yerovams

prerogative, the segmentation of the nation - the exiled state!

Today we have identified the location of the City of David, ancient Jerusalem, the

Gihon Spring, the fortified high-ridge at the Gihon which I maintain is Beit El - once

called Luz, including the monument of Jacob (Yaakov) and the adjacent altar on


36/41

35

which Isaac (Yitzchak) was offered and which Yoshiyahu defiled. Perhaps this

location holds within it the stone the builders despised that will become the chief

cornerstone and which if we care to remember it, will reorient our understanding

of ancient Jerusalem and through it the importance of Beit-El to the future

development of the city.

Israel and the Nations - the detailed sources

Drawing on the sources identified in this paper I conclude; Israels relationships

with the nations has relevance to Islam since it is the only mainstream religion that

conforms to Torahs seven universal laws as evidenced by the fact Halacha

(Jewish law) permits a Jew to enter and pray in a mosque.

Parshat Yitro (Jethro) deals with the mystical and psychological relationship

between the source of the minds Insight and Wisdom and its reflection on the

attribute of Understanding22as it relates to the re-incarnation of Cain in Yitro and

Abel in Moshe (Moses). The Zohar quotes; Yitro and her (Moshes wifes) two sons

came to Moshe and Moshe went out to meet them. To explain Rabbi Shimon

quotes Isaiah 2:3 Many people will go and say, Come let us go up to the

mountain23of HaShem, to the house of the God of Jacob, He will teach us His

ways and we will walk in His paths. For Zion will come from Torah and the word

of HaShem from Jerusalem.

The Zohar goes on to explain To the house24 Jacob, who called this place

house. Mountain and house although all is a single rung25 one transcends

the other26. Mountain for other nations, when they come to enter under Her

wings, House for Israel, to be with them as a wife with her husband in one

dwelling, in joy, crouching over them like a mother over her children. Moses

father-in-law, and his sons and his wife came to Moses to the wilderness 27.

Since it is written to Moses to the wilderness the Zohar explains it to be the

Mountain of Elokim a place for converts to convert and whoever comes and

attains it and is called ger tzedeq28.


37/41

36

Rashi derives from the phrase he encountered that Yaakov prayed at the site of

the Beit Hamikdash, and instituted the maariv prayer. There is a Midrash that cites

the verse Give praise to the Lord our strength; blow a teruah to the G-d of

Yaakov29. This Midrash asks why Yaakov is singled out here, and answers with a

parable. Once a king had three friends to whom he showed a site where he

intended to build a palace. The first looked and said, You mean on that hill, and

the king left him. The second said, You mean in that field, and the king also left

him. The third friend looked and said, Theres going to be a palace over there.

The Midrash says that Avraham called the Beis Hamikdash a mountain, Yitzchak

called it a field and Yaakov, on the other hand, called it a house, as when he awoke

he declared, this is none other than the House of Hashem. The Midrash then

relates that Hashem said that because Yaakov called it a house even before it was

built, it would be called by his name.3031

The Midrash Rabba quotes Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Yossi Ben Zimri

who suggests that the ladder of Yaakovs dream was rooted in Beer Sheva,

stretched to Beit el and had its center at Jerusalem. 32. The house Jacob speaks

of is associated with Luz and Beit El, the location of Jacobs dream, the monument

he anointed to God (matzevah), the place Isaac was offered as a sacrifice, the

mountain of God identified by Abraham and the field in which Isaac prayed.

Avraham always believed that his son with Hagar, Yishma'el would be included

among the Chosen People. We find signs of this in many places. When Sarah

suggested exiling Yishmael and Hagar, "It was very bad in Avraham's eyes,

because of his son"33. It required a direct mandate from God to force Avraham to

send Yishmael away. A more poignant proof is the Midrash cited by Rashi34

regarding God's command to Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak.35

When did Abraham have a son from Sarah? When he prayed on behalf of

Avimelech36" 37


38/41

37

Hagar, also ha ger translated the convert and Sarahs concubine with whom

Avraham had Ishmael, praises the Seeing God for recognizing her and showing

her how to be humble38. The term used is [a]M[e]Ra[h] the meaning of

which is drawn from its 15 occurrences in the Torah. It comes from a primitive word

root that can mean answer, appoint, avouch, boast about self, call, declare,

challenge, certify or command and it could reflect truth or untruth. In context the

occurrence reflects Sarais encounter with Hagar, Avrahams encounter with

Avimelech over Sarah40F

39, Rivkahs advice preempting Yaakov to take the first

blessing of Yitzchak41F

40, Leahs birth of Reuven42F

41, Tziporahs action to save Moshes

life43F

42, Hannah, Elkana and the birth of Shmuel44F

43and Elishas miracle breaking the

drought in Shomron45F44. In addition in Proverbs46F45- Wisdom, understating and evil 47F46,

Kohellos48F

47- Shlomo seeking one mans wisdom, Lamentations49F

48- faith and plea

for help, Yechezkel50F49- the pleasure businessmen of Tyre obtained on hearing the

temple was destroyed, Hoshea51F50 - on illicit relationships and childbirth and

punishment for harlotry and ultimately its relationship to Peace52F51.

The present dynamic of Israel to the nations of the world is like The Temple Mount

compared to the neck of the Mount Moriah on which the Temple Mount it is located

in the daily recitation of blessings before Shma break the yolk of nations

from our neck and speedily lead us upright to our land refers to the trappings of

Israels exiled state and the last request made before entering the elevated mental

state designated for heightened Shma and Shmoneh Esrei (Amidah) prayers. The

future dynamic of Israel to the nations of the world is the Temple compared to its

location on the neck of Mount Moriah.

The mystery of Parshat Yitro alludes to the higher order of Wisdoms reflection

from the point of Understanding which requires the negation of ego to correctly

interpret and benefit from the Wisdom. Its inner meaning is alluded to in the twin

girls born with Abel and the twin girl born with Cain, where Abel gazed on the

(reflected) image of the Divine presence and for this he received death. If Israel


39/41

38

interprets the reflection of its Wisdom in the manner of Yaakovs middle line of

Balance (Tifferet), it will learn that the neck is the designated place through which

the correct vision of the head can pass and when this occurs the yolk of nations

will be removed once and for all.

7. Summary: Searching for the Mizbeach of Akeida Yitzchak

In summary: I hypothesize that the area on the high ridge above the Gihon is Luz

that Yaakov named Beit El. To support this I provide sources for this research, but

it starts with an attack on the conventional view of Ay, the ancient city or location

associated with Avraham. I propose the Beit El and Ay of Avraham52conforms to

the map of the Jerusalem's holy basin presented in the section Joshua (above);

This theory suggests the Beit-El, established at the time of Yerovam was a

deception, a duplicate of the familiar geographical names surrounding the first

temple holy basin. Yerovam established these to heist the northern nation of Israel

into believing his priests, temple and idols were a suitable substitute to Jerusalem

Once the remnant of Yerovams confusion is removed we can get back to the

essential issues. These include the geophysical flow of water from the high valley

of Hevron to the low point of the Dead Sea (Yam Ha Melach) via the ridge that

terminates at Mount Moriah - the Even Ha Shtiya (Foundation Stone) under which

the aquifer water flowing north south u-turns to the east.

The site above the Gihon and the area of Shalem has characteristics, which are

highly unusual. The most notable of these features is the matzevah, which in itself

is a miraculous discovery that is yet to be publicly detailed. I challenge you or

anyone else to find an archaeologically similar discovery in any site in Israel such

a perfectly preserved item built onto bedrock and still standing does not exist.

My theory, explains this is the site of the matzevah Yaakov anointed (Bereishit

35:14-15). There are many midrashic references to this site including the source

of the stones Yaakov used for the matzevah the altar (mizbeach) of akeida

Yitzchak


40/41

39

We progress to the time King David decided where to put the altar that became

the site for the first and second temples on the top of the hill. Apparently he

struggled for a long time before making that very difficult decision.

Whilst I dont state my view in this paper, I believe King David prophesied about

the final temple at the end of days and as a result made a conscious, albeit very

difficult decision, to obfuscate the site of Akeida Yitzchak from nations of the future

to protect the true site, which heknewabout.

Review sources relating the neck to the site of the temple, they point directly to

the site above the Gihon and the area of Shalem. I have presented the very

detailed sources from which I draw the conclusion it is possible to have the third

temple at this site without disrupting existing sites on the top of the mountain.

Finally, no other platform of a once used mizbeach (altar) exists on Mt. Moriah.

The only place such an artefact exists is adjacent to the matzevah on the high

ridge above the Gihon Spring.

Other Information relied upon for this paper includes;

1.http://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdf

2.http://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdf

3.http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_J

erusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdf

4.http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150492#.TuGSBGOlOHg

5.http://www.antiquities.org.il/IRD_movie_eng.asp

1 Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (chapter 35)2Zvachim 53b/54a3

http://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdf4http://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdf5https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_US6Israel Antiquities Authority, Survey of Jerusalem The Southern Sector Amos Kloner7Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, Hadashot Arkheologiyot-Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115:51*-53*8Genesis 28:199http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/779949/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm#footnote14a77994910Genesis 35:7:811http://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/three-festivals.html
http://dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-053.htmhttp://dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-053.htmhttp://dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-053.htmhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150492#.TuGSBGOlOHghttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150492#.TuGSBGOlOHghttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150492#.TuGSBGOlOHghttp://www.antiquities.org.il/IRD_movie_eng.asphttp://www.antiquities.org.il/IRD_movie_eng.asphttp://www.antiquities.org.il/IRD_movie_eng.asphttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttp://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/779949/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm#footnote14a779949http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/779949/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm#footnote14a779949http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/779949/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm#footnote14a779949http://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/three-festivals.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/three-festivals.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/three-festivals.htmlhttp://israelfact.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/three-festivals.htmlhttp://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/779949/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm#footnote14a779949https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G80ODb393WsfNLeV7cPgnudJhd9auEmcjgI4F8qR1Wg/edit?hl=en_UShttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://www.antiquities.org.il/IRD_movie_eng.asphttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150492#.TuGSBGOlOHghttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Mullins_flies/ANE230_State_Formation_files/Cahill_Jerusalem_Time_United_Monarchy.pdfhttp://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lower-aqueduct-wpics.pdfhttp://www.gsi.gov.il/Eng/_Uploads/163Geotechnical-Hydrogeological-Concern.pdfhttp://dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-053.htm


41/41

12Psalm 118:2213Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (chapter 35)14http://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htm15Yevamot 76b, 77a; Midrash Shmuel xxii161 Chronicles 21:16 / 2 Samuel 24

171 Kings Chapter 618(Kings 13:11-32)19(K1-12:25)20 (K1-12:28)21(Kings 13:11-32)22Yitro - Apples from the Orchard Rabbi Wisnefsky on The ARI and Rabbi Vital23Zohar [Matt] Yitro pg:388 mountain of H - Avraham24Zohar [Matt] Yitro pg:388 house Jacob on the identification of the site of Jacobs dream as the Temple.25Zohar [70a]26Zohar [Matt] Yitro pg:388 Mountain and houseboth allude to Shekinah mountain alludes to

accessibility whilst house alludes to intimacy and She welcomes converts under Her wings27Exodus 18:528Zohar [Matt] Yitro pg:389 that place accessible - such a person is linked with Shekinah29Tehillim 81:230http://www.northhendon.co.uk/sedra/pages/5764/vayeitzei5764.pdf31http://www.parsha.net/pdf/Bereishis/Vayeitze59.pdf32(Midrash Rabba Bereishit 69:7)33Bereishit 21:1134Bereishit 22:2, based on Bereishit Rabba 55:735http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/bereishit/07-60vayetz.htm36Bereishit 20:1837Pesikta Rabbati 3938Genesis 16:1339Genesis 20:5 and 21:1640Genesis 27:6

41Genesis 29:3242Exodus 4:26431 Samuel 1:22442 Kings 6:2845Proverbs 9:446Proverbs 30:1647Ecclesiastes 7:2748Lamentations 3:2449Ezekiel 26:250Hosea 2:551Hosea 2:1252(Bereishit 12:68)
http://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htmhttp://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htmhttp://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htmhttp://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htm

jerusalem origin - the thesis

Documents