Yes, They Are

046

Hanan Eshel attempts to discredit the identification of mikva’ot at Sepphoris,¹ but he also suggests that first-century C.E. Sepphoris, in the time of Jesus, was both a pagan and a Jewish city. This has been the subject of much discussion and debate among the excavators as the article “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” of this issue shows. I believe that at the beginning of the first century C.E., and even after the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.), Sepphoris was overwhelmingly Jewish.² Since this larger issue provides a context for the mikva’ot question, I will first review some key findings.

As we stated in the other article, Billy J. Grantham, our staff anthropologist who specializes in faunal remains, has studied more than 10,000 animal bones recovered at the site in their stratigraphic contexts.³ Grantham’s study of the faunal remains on the western summit reveals that there were so few pig bones found in Roman period contexts that they were statistically equivalent to zero. From the beginning of the Byzantine period (middle of the fourth century C.E.), pig bones, presumably attributable to Christian newcomers, do appear. Several ostraca with Christian names and prayers and terra sigillata bowls with crosses on them confirm a demographic shift at this time. Grantham’s study also shows that the cuisine of Roman period pagans would have included game meats and a regular supply of pig, neither of which we have evidence for in the domestic areas of the acropolis.

In light of these data, I think that, in regard to demonstrating a significant pagan presence in Sepphoris during the time of Jesus, the burden of proof lies with Eshel.

But our excavation uncovered much more evidence. The support for a Jewish presence on the western summit is overwhelming. Many stepped pools have been uncovered there in layers dating to the late Hellenistic through the Roman period (second century B.C.E. to fourth century C.E.).⁴ We have found several ostraca in Hebrew and oil lamps with Jewish symbols, such as Torah shrines and menorahs, on them. Even the early numismatic data may be understood in a Jewish setting. As mentioned in my earlier article, the discovery of the ’epimeles ostracon clearly indicates that there was a Jewish population at Sepphoris in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.E.), when we begin to have a regular supply of Hasmonean coins.⁵ Sepphoris first began to mint its own coins in 68 C.E., during the First Jewish Revolt. Its first known coin has Eirenopolis (City of Peace) inscribed on it, no doubt a reflection of the pro-Roman, pacifistic stance of 047Sepphoris’s citizens during the revolt, as described by Josephus in The Jewish War. An inscribed lead weight uncovered at Sepphoris also points to a clear Jewish presence. The weight, dated to the third century C.E., refers to two market inspectors—“Simon son of Aianos and Justus son of … ” The name Simon is clearly Jewish.

All this archaeological evidence should be viewed in the context of the numerous references to Sepphoris in rabbinic literature (even though it is difficult to relate these references to specific places at the site).⁶

Eshel claims that the stepped pools at Sepphoris were used simply for washing, not for ritual cleansing. He has four reasons for disqualifying them as mikva’ot.

(1) The stepped pools at Sepphoris, he says, are smaller than mikva’ot found at other sites, especially in Jerusalem. This is irrelevant. All of these pools easily contain 40 seahs of “living” water, as required by Jewish law. Although there are disagreements over how many gallons there are in a seah,⁷ these disagreements have no bearing on the question. Whether 40 seahs equal 60 gallons (the lowest estimate) or 250 gallons (the highest), all of the pools under discussion here can easily accommodate the required amount.

(2) Eshel next claims that the stepped pools at Sepphoris do not have a separating line on the steps to indicate where one descends ritually unclean and ascends purified. This, too, is irrelevant. Most mikva’ot do not have them. Certainly such a separation, as Eshel acknowledges, is not required by Jewish law. It is the water that purifies; once an individual is cleansed, he or she cannot impart impurity to the water or to the stairs.

(3) Another objection Eshel offers is that in the houses in which the stepped pools were found, no “normal” bathing facilities were uncovered. To this there are several answers. For one, he is wrong on the facts: Many of these houses do have both washing facilities and a ritual bath, most notably the Dionysos Mansion.⁸ Other houses have ample space for washing, near a cistern or in a plastered depression on a floor; or residents may have washed with a pouring vessel in a corner of a room. Some of the smaller plastered pools may have been used 048for purifying vessels, although these could also be purified in the stepped pools.⁹

Moreover, two beautiful public baths have been found by the Hebrew University excavations at Sepphoris in the civic center along the cardo.¹⁰ In addition, the University of South Florida expedition to Sepphoris has identified what may be public baths on the western summit.¹¹

Finally, all of the stepped pools we have identified as ritual baths are convenient for a single individual to fully immerse in but are rather inconvenient for hygienic washing. If they were used for cleansing, they would have required frequent, awkward cleaning and emptying by hand, unless they had out-drains. No drains have yet been found, however. As ritual baths, they would have needed partial emptying by hand from time to time, but far less frequently than for a cleansing bath.

(4) Eshel also relies on the fact that our stepped pools do not have an otzer, that is, a reservoir of living water adjoining the immersion pool. On this issue Eshel may have been overly influenced by the evidence from Jerusalem. The building traditions regarding the construction of mikva’ot are not necessarily the same in the Galilee as they are in Judea generally or in Jerusalem in particular. Moreover, at Sepphoris one or two ritual baths (in area 84.1 and to the west of the summit domestic areas) do have an otzer. One even has a lead connecting pipe in situ.

We should keep in mind the domestic nature of these stepped pools. An otzer is at the same level as the ritual bath it adjoins. It takes up space. In a domestic context, there was a natural concern to use all internal space efficiently. Efficient and economic use of space led the Sepphoris builders to 049use roof space for all sorts of activities.¹² Such space was certainly used for storage of rainwater, which was a major source of living water. While the great water reservoir at Sepphoris easily provided living springwater to the lower city, we still don’t understand how water was transported up to the summit reservoirs, though bits and pieces of lead pipe and ceramic channels suggest that it was. Rabbinic literature mentions the presence of a water wheel that brought springwater to the upper city, so it is likely that living springwater was available for ritual purposes on the summit also.¹³ Even more probable, however, is that rooftop catchments served as reservoirs for ritual baths. Rainwater was secured and released by a system of ceramic pipes, many pieces of which survive in all domestic areas of the site. The presence of so many ceramic pipes suggests their extensive use in houses, especially on roofs, though those have not survived.

The use of rooftop rain collectors is common even today. Ritual baths supplied with water this way are sometimes called “rainwater mikva’ot” (Regenwasser mikve in German).¹⁴ Eshel’s failure to consider the likelihood of rooftop collectors is a telling weakness in his argument.

Nearly 25 years ago, when I was excavating the ancient synagogue at Khirbet Shema‘, we found an elaborate rock-cut pool that had no obvious otzer but whose function was clearly to allow immersion in water. We asked Rabbi Muntzberg, one of the mikveh experts who judged the pools at Masada, to look at the pool at Khirbet Shema‘. Our architect showed the rabbi how the superstructure might have looked and how rainwater might have been collected above the superstructure or transported from a nearby cistern that lay close by and higher in elevation. Rabbi Muntzberg cogitated, then looked up and declared, “Kosher.” Even without an otzer, the pool met all the requirements of Jewish law.

We do not seek anyone’s blessing or heksher (ritual stamp of approval); we ask only that all possibilities be considered. We have never contended that the inhabitants of the western summit of Sepphoris were Jews solely because of the mikva’ot. The extensive faunal evidence, the epigraphic remains, the Jewish symbols on lamps, the numismatic data and the rabbinic literature all lead to the ineluctable conclusion that most, if not all, of these stepped pools were used by Jews and served ritual rather than hygienic purposes.

Hanan Eshel attempts to discredit the identification of mikva’ot at Sepphoris,1 but he also suggests that first-century C.E. Sepphoris, in the time of Jesus, was both a pagan and a Jewish city. This has been the subject of much discussion and debate among the excavators as the article “How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?” of this issue shows. I believe that at the beginning of the first century C.E., and even after the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.), Sepphoris was overwhelmingly Jewish.2 Since this larger issue provides a context for the mikva’ot question, I will first review some […]