
29 Jul CAN AI REBUILD THE BEIS HA-MIKDASH?
Artificial Intelligence
(AI) is changing how
we approach complex
problems across a wide
range of fields. From
diagnosing rare diseases
to reconstructing lost
languages, AI has proven
itself capable of analyzing vast amounts of
data, detecting patterns and offering insights
that human researchers might miss. Perhaps
there is room to ask whether AI could help
solve a very intricate and complex religious
question: can it determine the exact location
of the mizbe’ach, the altar in the Beis Ha-
Mikdash, the holy Temple in Jerusalem?
At first glance, the question seems technical.
Feed AI everything we know from the Bible,
Sages, commentators, ancient and medieval
attestations, and archaeological surveys, and
let it find patterns and connect information
in order to identify the precise location.
Many researchers have attempted to do this
over the past century, yielding conflicting
results. Perhaps AI can reach a conclusive
determination that satisfies all parties.
However, halachah is not always governed
by evidence alone. Sometimes it demands a
specific type of certainty, one rooted not in
analysis, but in tradition or prophecy. The
placement of the mizbe’ach may be such a
case.
I. A Fixed and Holy Location
The mizbe’ach is not just another vessel in the
Temple. Its location is permanent, not subject
to change. The Rambam writes: “the altar’s
place is very precise which may never be
changed” (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Beis Ha-
Bechirah 2:1). This spot is the same location
where Adam brought his sacrifice, where
Noach offered sacrifices after the Flood,
where Avraham built the altar at the Akeidah
and where David and Shlomo ultimately built
the Temple (ibid., 1-2).
The Talmud (Zevachim 62a) emphasizes the
need for precision in placing the altar, ruling
that it must be built on its exact location.
This is not merely a preference for historical
continuity, but a halachic requirement
embedded in the sanctity of the site. Building
the mizbe’ach even slightly off-site would
invalidate the sacrifices offered on it.
II. Prophetic Identification
How was the correct location identified?
The Bible describes how the prophet Gad
instructed King David to purchase the
threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite and
build an altar there (1 Chron. 21:18–30). This
episode is not simply a historical footnote,
but rather serves as the halachic basis for the
location of the Temple. Rambam’s citation of
this story emphasizes that the placement of the
mizbe’ach was confirmed through prophecy.
In 1862, Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer
published his Derishas Tziyon, in
which he advocated for the immediate
resumption of sacrificial worship. In
the third essay (part 1, par. 2, p. 91 in
the 2002 edition), Rav Kalischer says
that Rav Akiva Eiger asked him how
we can know where the altar should
be if in the past they needed prophets
for that. Rav Kalischer replied that
we can measure from the Western
Wall and recreate the Temple based
on the Mishnah tractate Midos.
Rav Kalischer’s colleague, Rav Eliyahu
Guttmacher, challenged him that we need a
prophet to identify the place for the altar (p.
134). Rav Kalischer replied that the prophecy
was needed not to identify the place of the
altar but because they wished to expand the
altar and needed the prophet’s instruction
on how to do that. However, reconstructing
the altar itself requires only knowledge of its
past place. Rav Yechiel Michel Tukaczinsky
answers more simply that King David did
not know where the altar should be built and
require a prophet to show him. If we can
determine the proper place without a prophet,
we are allowed to build the altar on our own
(Ir Ha-Kodesh Ve-Ha-Mikdash, vol. 5, ch. 6,
par. 7, p. 67).
Rav Yaakov Ettlinger argues with this view
(Binyan Tziyon, no. 1). He contends that
even if we know the exact site of the altar, we
need prophetic permission to offer sacrifices
there. Many others follow suit, making this
the majority, mainstream view (see Rav
J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic
Problems, vol. 1, pp. 259-262). According
to this approach, we cannot rebuild the altar
or the Temple, nor offer sacrifices, without
the instruction of a prophet.
III. Prophecy or Evidence?
Particularly since the Six Day War’s
reconquest of the Temple Mount, many
studies have been published attempting
to determine the location of the Temple,
with conflicting conclusions. AI could
potentially play a significant role in
resolving any doubts that remain. Its
capacity to synthesize texts, analyze spatial
data and correlate seemingly unrelated
pieces of evidence makes it uniquely suited
to the task of finding the right spot. AI could
process all references to the Temple Mount
in rabbinic literature, compare descriptions
across centuries, overlay historical maps
with modern satellite images and match
archaeological findings with textual
data. Such a system might determine the
precise location of the altar relative to
other fixed points. It might even be able
to reconstruct a highly plausible model
of the Second Temple and superimpose it
on the current Temple Mount. In a purely
analytical sense, AI could offer the most
precise determination ever produced. But
even if its conclusions are correct, are they
halachically actionable?
According to Rav Kalischer, AI can help
us sort through the information and make a
detailed plan for the altar and the Temple. All
we need is certainty, whether it comes from
prophecy or analysis. However, according to
Rav Ettlinger, prophecy is needed to rebuild
the altar. Even the most advanced AI cannot
resolve the halachic uncertainty and offer
us permission. Halachah might treat all AI
conclusions as impressive but ultimately
insufficient. According to this approach,
neither history nor science, archeology nor
architecture, can allow us to build the altar.
IV. Recreating Halachic Items
This tension between evidence and authority
might be broader than reconstructing
the Temple architecture. For example, a
comparable debate exists regarding the
identification of techeiles, the colorful dye
used in tzitzis. After centuries without it,
some contemporary researchers have argued
that the chilazon, the sea creature that
produces the dye, has been rediscovered in
the murex trunculus.
Many halachic authorities, including Rav
Hershel Schachter and Rav Yisrael Belsky,
accept this identification based on strong
scientific and textual evidence. However,
other authorities, including Rav Joseph B.
Soloveitchik, are reluctant to endorse the use
of techeiles without an unbroken tradition
(Nefesh Ha-Rav, pp. 53-54). They argue
that empirical identification, no matter how
convincing, does not carry the same halachic
weight as tradition. This is particularly true
when arguing based on evidence that is
largely circumstantial, attempting to correlate
contemporary facts to ancient descriptions.
While AI may offer valuable tools to support
the investigation of halachic items, its
conclusions will be bound by the limits of
evidence-based research.
For those who believe that the location of
the altar can be determined empirically, AI
may help decisively show us how and where
to build it. But for those who maintain that
only prophecy can permit the rebuilding, no
algorithm can replace a prophet. According
to this view, AI might help us look back with
clarity, but only prophecy can help us move
forward with certainty. In the end, AI may
clarify what we know, but it cannot authorize
what we do.