Regarding the response about the size of the eggs, very recently they discovered a 1,000 year old egg in Israel, a 1,700 year old egg in England, and a basket of 2,500 year old eggs in China.
From the pictures and rulers, they all look the same size, like a small or medium egg of today, about 6cm.
I remember that in the introduction of a sefer from about 100 years ago, Rav Kook wrote that 8n Egypt they had found ancient eggs, which were the same size as the eggs in his time.
I don't recall which sefer.
So of course we all are happy to be machmir, but why doesn't this prove that the smaller shiur is in fact the correct one.
Some now claim that the Grouch Noeh was wrong because of coins that were discovered which are smaller than the size and weight he had used in his estimation according to the Rambam
There must also be some other explanation to answer the discrepancy found by the Tzlach and the Gra and the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe, all of whom used the finger measuring method.
Menachem K, Brooklyn, New York
Dear R' Menachem,
You make a great point. As you know, we would be most interested in what the volume of each egg was, since that is the relevant quantity, as it relates to Shiurim in Halachah. You might also know that Rav Yakov Gershon Weiss (author of Midos U'Mishkalos Shel Torah) also pointed out that eggs found in the pyramids of Egypt and eggs preserved by the ashes of Vesuvius are both about the same size as today's eggs.
As a general point on archaeology, some Rishonim did indeed rely on discovered artifacts as decisive evidence to settle certain disputes in Halachah. One notable example is that of the Ramban who writes (Shemos 30:13) that he came across an ancient coin, and based on its weight he ruled in favor of Rashi's opinion regarding the size of a half Shekel. Granted, others were less trusting of the Ramban's conclusion based on the coin. For instance, Abarbanel (ibid) was more skeptical, since coins can shrink over the years. That suspicion might be less relevant regarding eggs.
In modern times opinions differ regarding how to treat archaeological evidence as it pertains to Halachah. The Chazon Ish (Collected Letters 2:22, 3:19) seemed unenthusiastic about relying on archaeological findings, since drawing conclusions from those findings might involve too much uncertainty. Rav Kook (Igros ha'Reiyah 423, 574, 91) also expressed skepticism about certain archaeologists' conclusions, but did welcome their attempt to glean insights from their findings.
Potentially, one can reconcile the conclusion of Rav Chaim Na'eh with the size of our fingers by using a measure of the thumb's width at a point closer to the tip of the thumb (2 cm) rather than at the widest part of the thumb (2.4 cm).
For someone interested to learn more about this subject, I would encourage reading these articles where I found these insights about the subject:
https://dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-109.htm
I hope this helps!
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky
Dear R' Menachem,
I wanted to add a number of sources to our discussion.
First, the question of where to measure the width of the thumb -- either at knuckle which is the widest point (2.4 cm), or nearer to the tip which is narrower (2 cm) -- is found in Tosfos at the bottom of Menachos 41b [1,2].
Second, as Rabbi Chavel points out in his edition to the Ramban on Chumash, the Ramban wrote to his son . Typically, the easiest place to find the Ramban's account of the episode is in the back of Chumash Devarim of the Ramban Al ha'Torah. The paragraph begins "Birchani Hash-m" [3].
Third and finally, you can see Rav Kook's writings in the references below [4,5].
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky
References:
1. https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tosafot_on_Menachot.41b.13.2?lang=he&with=all&lang2=he
2. https://dafyomi.co.il/menachos/tosfos/mn-ts-041.htm
3. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40235&st=&pgnum=134
4. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=26909&st=&pgnum=80&hilite=
5. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=26909&st=&pgnum=217&hilite=
Rabbi Rasowsky,
About 4 years ago you were kind enough to answer a question of mine regarding the size of eggs, related to Pesachim 109, and you had mentioned the late Rabbi Yaakov Gershon Weiss z"l who recently passed away, that "...mummified eggs found in the pyramids of Egypt, as well as eggs preserved by the ashes of Vesuvius in the ruins of Pompeii, are essentially the same size as today's eggs."
It wasn't clear if you were quoting from something he wrote, perhaps in his sefer Midos U'Mishkalos Shel Torah which you had mentioned, or perhaps somewhere else, or perhaps he had told you or someone else this observation.
Would you happen to know the source for this statement of his?
Thank you very much again for all the invaluable information.
(The sugiya continues, and I've found some additional research about the size of the egg)
Menachem Kwartowitz, Lakewood, NJ USA
Shalom R' Menachem,
Always great to hear from you!
I notice in a reply above I wrote the web page from the Kollel site at which I found this information. But more specifically, it's this:
https://dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-109.htm#:~:text=6.%20It,as%20today%27s%20eggs.
Let me also ask if anyone from the Kollel has more information to add about this source, and if so can it be passed along to you to assist your excellent research.
May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
Warmly,
Yishai Rasowsky
Unfortunately, as far as I can remember (and I double-checked) the statement from Rabbi Gershon Yaakov Weiss zt"l does not actually appear in his Sefer "Midos u'Mishkalos Shel Torah." On the other hand, in more recent works on halachic measurements, there are indeed mentions of archaeological egg finds. For example, in Hidurei Torah by Rav Hadar Margolin, page 206, includes the reference to the Pompeii eggs that R' Yishai mentioned.
You can find an English summary in his book on page 137, and the reference to the ancient-preserved eggs can be found on page 140, footnote 119. Here is a link to that Sefer and the English page:
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=56417&st=&pgnum=140
You will also find a fascinating discussion in an article by Dr. Zohar Amar (whom I had the privilege of meeting in his home where he put on a Choshen which he had made by hand) that summarizes the topic in depth. I've pulled from it the most relevant material for the question at hand.
here is a link to the article:
https://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/sites/jewish-faculty/files/shared/JSIJ22/amar.pdf
In Egypt, archaeologists found mummified chicken eggs buried in tombs. One particularly well-preserved egg from Dendera, now in the British Museum, dates to around the 2nd century BCE. It still has its shell and inner membrane, and when measured, it holds about 42-44 milliliters. Even older eggs from the New Kingdom period (around the 14th to 12th centuries BCE), found in places like Saqqara and Thebes, were dried out but still intact enough to estimate their volume at about 41-45 ml.
In Jerusalem, egg shell fragments were discovered in an ancient kitchen dump in the City of David, dating back to the 7th century BCE. Researchers were able to digitally reconstruct the shape of the eggs, showing a typical size of 40-43 ml. Similar finds came from Masada and the desert caves nearby, where rebels during the Roman period (1st century CE) left behind partial eggs and shells. Again, the size lands in the same 41-44 ml range.
Farther west, in Pompeii, Italy, a city famously frozen in time by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, a bronze bowl was uncovered with four eggs still inside. One of them survived whole, and its volume came out to about 44-46 ml. A few centuries later, in 4th-century Roman Britain, a whole egg was found in a waterlogged wooden well in Aylesbury. CT scans showed it was still full of liquid and measured around 43 ml.
Even a thousand years later, in 10th-century Yavne (Israel), an egg was recovered from a cesspit. Despite breaking during excavation, the contents were collected, and the volume was still in that same familiar range of 42-44 ml.
So across more than a millennium and from four different regions (Egypt, Israel, Italy, and Britain) the eggs that have survived all seem to share the same basic size: about 40 to 46 milliliters. That's basically the volume of a modern medium egg. No matter where or when, the eggs seem to match, suggesting that the Halachic "k'Beitzah" was not based on something bigger than life. It was just... an egg.
Aharon Steiner