Have Questions or Comments?
Leave us some feedback and we'll reply back!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Phone Number)

    In Reference to

    Your Message


    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.