This week, the Israel Antiquities Authority announced that an ancient limestone box has gone on display at the Israel museum, which archaeologists believe was used by a merchant for displaying items for sale to pilgrims coming to visit the Second Temple. Gavriel Friske writes:

The square box, 30 centimeters (1 foot) on a side and thought to be 2,000 years old, is divided into nine internal compartments and was discovered about two years ago “in a destruction layer inside an ancient store dated to the end of the Second Temple period that once stood alongside the Pilgrimage Road in the City of David,” according to a press release. The sides of the box are blackened, indicating that it was burnt “perhaps during events of the Great Jewish Revolt [66–72 CE], which ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem,” the notice said.

Excavations in the same area have revealed a myriad of objects linked to commercial activities and a busy city market, including glass and ceramic vessels, weights, coins, measuring tools, and manufacturing and cooking facilities, a “testament to the flourishing commercial activity that took place alongside the road during the Second Temple period,” the archaeologists said.

Thousands of fragments of ancient limestone vessels have been uncovered in Jerusalem. Jewish law indicates that stone vessels cannot become impure, unlike metal or clay, explaining their widespread use in the city.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.