Can AI Rebuild the Beis Ha-Mikdash?
by R. Gil Student
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, halakhah 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, Hilkhos 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 halakhic 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 halakhic 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 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 halakhically 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 halakhic uncertainty and offer us permission. Halakhah 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 Halakhic 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 tekheiles, 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 halakhic 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 tekheiles without an unbroken tradition (Nefesh Ha-Rav, pp. 53-54). They argue that empirical identification, no matter how convincing, does not carry the same halakhic 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 halakhic 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.