Iyun Masechet Sota: 33b

A.

The Gemara at the end of 33b discusses the Jewish people's crossing of the Jordan River and the manner in which the Holy Ark (Aron) was carried. We first have to analyze the status of the Aron.

 

The Aron occupies a central place in the Torah's description of the Mishkan, being the first item in the series of the Mishkan's component parts presented in parashat Teruma, and has a major role in the system of the Mikdash (after all, it may very well be the element upon whom the very kedusha of the Mikdash is dependent). Nevertheless, there are several unique characteristics and halakhot that apply to the Aron alone and set it apart from the other elements of the Mishkan.

 

     The first point worthy of mention in this regard is the disagreement between the Rambam and the Ramban in the listing of the 613 commandments. The Rambam lists only one mitzva of building the Mikdash, explaining that he incorporated the various artifacts of the Mikdash (e. g. menora, shulchan, aron etc.) in this mitzva as parts of the whole. The Ramban, though, claims that there are two mitzvot that should be counted – the construction of the Mikdash is one and the second is the mitzva of making the Aron, separately listed. Thus, the Ramban views the Aron as an independent entity that must have its own particular command as it cannot be subsumed under the broader general category of Mikdash or korbanot, as the others.

 

     The second difference between the Aron and the other parts of the Mikdash is the mitzva of the "badim" (carrying rods). Although all of the utensils in the Mishkan had rods, there is a major difference between the rods of the Aron and those of the other utensils in two regards. The badim of the regular utensils were attached to their objects only in the desert, during the period that the Mishkan and its contents were in constant motion and were carried on the shoulders of the levi'im. Upon the establishment of the Mikdash in Yerushalayim and the arrival of the utensils in their permanent abode, there was no longer any need for carrying rods and they were discarded. In other words, the functional need of the utensils to be carried by the levi'im in the desert created the need for badim, which were discontinued upon cessation of that need. The badim of the Aron, though, were not discarded in the Mikdash and remained an integral part of the Aron in the kodesh hakodashim (see Yoma 52b, 54a), even after the Mishkan arrived at its final destination.

 

     In addition, there is another halakhic consideration that accompanies the aforementioned distinction. Unique to the Aron is the fact that removal of the rods is a negative prohibition – "lo yasuru habadim memenu." Removal of the rods from any of the other utensils, even when they were in use, was not a negative act, since the badim are not an integral part of the artifact itself. Therefore, while their removal was obviously disruptive to the work of the levi'im, it is not halakhically protected by the authority of a negative prohibition. However, the badim are an integral part of the Aron and their removal, even when the Aron resides in the Mikdash in Yerushalayim, is considered a disfigurement of the holy ark and prohibited by a special mitzva.

 

     Interestingly, the Tosafot (Yoma 72a) suggest that there were two sets of rods for the Aron, temporary ones that were actually used to carry it in the desert, similarly to the rods of the other utensils, and permanent badim that were unique to the Aron. These were NOT used by the levi'im to transport the Aron; their only significance was in the fact that they were part of the Aron, and only these rods were forbidden to be removed. Other commentators disagree with this novel claim, which even the Tosafot themselves introduce hesitatingly ("lulei demistaphina mechavraih"). Nevertheless, the Tosafot's theory neatly illustrates the vast difference that exists between the role of the badim in the Aron and in the other components of the Mikdash.

 

     The Rambam further emphasizes this point by including the mitzva of transporting the Aron on the shoulders of the bearers as a positive commandment, while excluding the other objects of the Mishkan, even though they too were not loaded on the wagons but carried on the human shoulders of the levi'im.

 

     A last difference that must be mentioned in this account is the fact that there was no Aron in the second Temple, even though all of the other utensils were reproduced and in use during Bayit Sheni.

 

B.

The upshot of all of the above is that the Aron, unlike the other utensils, has a halakhic and metaphysical significance that is independent of its connection to the Mikdash. Simply put, it exists outside the framework of the Mikdash as an independent entity. Therefore, there are halakhic roles that are thrust upon the Aron qua Aron, and these are independent of Mikdash. The most prominent instance of the Aron's autonomous role is in battle, when the Aron joins the forces that go to war to with the KBH's enemies. The prominent metaphysical role that the Aron fulfils in such circumstances is highlighted throughout Nevi'im Rishonim and best expressed by the phrase in Sefer Yehoshua (3:11) that characterizes the Aron as "Lord of the land", and is emphasized by the Mishna in the eighth perek (42a). [There may also be halakhic significance to the presence of the Aron in the military camp, as there are opinions that the mitzva of cleanliness in the military camp is only when the Aron is present - see Yeraim ad loc.]

 

From a spiritual perspective, the independence of the Aron is due to its autonomous source of sanctity, of kedusha, namely kedushat haTorah. There are (at least) two foci of kedusha, the kedusha of the Shekhina that descends upon our earthly world and dwells primarily in the Mikdash, and the kedusha of Torah whose concrete expression is the Aron and its Luchot HaBrit. Therefore, while the other utensils lose all significance outside of Mikdash (the Rav and/or his father R. Moshe Soloveitchik claim in their joint sefer that other utensils lose their status as utensils outside the Mikdash – see Chiddushei HaGram ve HaGrid, Klei HaMikdash 2:12), the Aron taps into its other source and retains its status as Aron HaBrit. This duality expresses itself in the Aron's double name – Aron HaKodesh and Aron HaBrit. (Aside from this brief remark, the format of this shiur does not allow further elaboration of this spiritual issue. The interested reader can find a survey of the suggestions of the Chumash commentators on this matter in Prof. Nechama Leibowitz's zt'l volume on sefer Shemot and a lengthy treatment of the relationship between kedushat Mikdash and Torah in the Rav's Shiurim lezecher Abba Mari (vol. 1, pp. 169-174).

 

     The independent function of the Aron is the subject of a disagreement in the Tosefta (7:9; see Tosafot 42b, s.v. mipnei). Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish claims that there were two distinct arks, thus physically realizing in carpentry the conceptual duality that we have identified. If there are "tzvei dinim" (two halakhic aspects) in the Aron, he reasoned, there should also be tzvei aronos (two arks), thereby creating a division of labor between the Aron of the Mikdash and the Aron that is independent of the Mikdash. Others, however, preferred not to split the Aron into two Aronot, though recognizing its dual nature. Thus, the Sefer HaChinukh explains that the rods of the Aron were always in place, even in the Mikdash in Yerushalayim, so that it if the need arose, the kohanim would be able to dash in at any moment and grab the Aron on their way to battle. The Aron was always "on call" for emergency duty in its second capacity as an autonomous source of non-Mikdash kedusha and therefore the rods were always attached. Through one may (or should) doubt that this practical application is at root the reason for the mitzva of the badim, it does seem eminently reasonable that the symbolism evoked by the Chinukh i.e. that the Aron is inherently not stationary but mobile, is valid.

 

     This will serve to explain to us many of the points mentioned above. The need for badim after the Aron reached Yerushalayim is because the Aron serves a dual function, while the other utensils are solely components of Mikdash and sacrifice. For this very same reason, the removal of the badim is prohibited by a special commandment and is not a practical problem. The limitation of the mitzva of "masah bakatef" (transporting the object on shoulder rods) to the Aron is also due to the fact that only in regard to the Aron is mobility an inherent and necessary quality of the Aron rather than a dignified form of transportation in the desert.

 

     [Space does not permit us to enter into a discussion of the absence of Aron in Bayit Sheni. It is, however, worth mentioning in the context of this discussion that there are those who claimed, unlike our presentation, that the Aron is not a component of the Mikdash at all, but only an autonomous artifact, and therefore not necessary for the Mikdash. (see Torat HaKodesh of R. M. Ilan, vol 2, section 12 s.v. ulfi ze.)]

 

C.

     Thus it is at this point that we (finally) arrive at our sugya (if this were an oral shiur, you would probably all be in a deep sleep by now…). Our Gemara states that in three instances, the kohanim (rather than levi'im) transported the Aron. This is a perplexing statement, for the Torah seems to be quite clear that transportation of the Aron was the duty of the levi'im (from the family of Kehat) and must, therefore, be done by them and not by others.

 

     Actually, the issue of transporting the Aron, although seemingly clear in the verses, is a subject of heated debate between the Rambam and the Ramban. The Rambam, much to the Ramban's chagrin, rules that kohanim carry the Aron and not levi'im, explaining that this duty was transferred when Bnei Yisrael left the midbar and entered the land of Israel. This ruling is based on the Rambam's interpretation of a verse in parashat Ekev (Devarin 10:8) as referring to the 40^th year of the desert (unlike Rashi, who understood the verse as discussing events at the time of the egel episode). The Ramban (in his comments upon the third shoresh of the Sefer HaMitzvot) strongly objects to the Rambam's position and claims that the levi'im's role was never transferred to the kohanim and that the mitzva remains incumbent upon the levi'im. The Ramban quotes various verses, scattered throughout the Tanach, that alternately describe the Aron as being transported by levi'im or kohanim, to prove that levi'im remained entrusted with the task of carrying the Aron. The sources that indicate that kohanim carried the Aron in later times, including our Gemara, are resolved by the Ramban by means of the simple fact that all kohanim are also levi'im and as such can participate in the mitzva of nesiat HaAron as levi'im. Thus, though it is accurate that the Aron was indeed physically carried by kohanim, this was not done as a fulfillment of their kehuna, but rather by virtue of their belonging to the tribe of Levi and the family of Kehat.

 

     There are two major problems with the Rambam's opinion. The first are the textual proofs that the Ramban quotes and the second is the very fact of change. As the Ramban forcefully stated: "To state that the mitzva was transferred to the kohanim is untrue, for it cannot be that any mitzva in the Torah should change" (though cf. Yevamot 71b, Menachot 45b and the Ramban's introduction to Devarim).

 

     To solve these problems, R. Velvel refers us to the dual nature of the Aron that was mentioned above. In the desert, the Aron was transported by the levi'im as part of the Mishkan, in conjunction with the other utensils and it is in this capacity that the levi'im continued in E. Yisroel until the Aron arrived in its final abode in the Mikdash. However, the Aron has a second aspect that requires transporting it, even after the establishment of the Mikdash (remember those permanent badim). This mitzva, is incumbent upon kohanim rather upon levi'im, as it is totally unconnected to the transport system of the Mishkan which was entrusted to the levi'im. The need for kohanim may be because of the kedusha of the Aron, or it may be due to the fact that the only scenario of the Aron leaving the Mikdash is for war and may, therefore, be a function of the kohanim's role in wartime and related to the concept of Masuach Milchama. Be it as it may, the verses that speak of the kohanim as transporting the Aron, as well as our Gemara that states that kohanim carried the Aron on three occasions, are not treating them as a subspecies of the levi'im but as kohanim transporting the Aron qua kohanim in the context of the Aron's non-Mikdash role.

 

     This also solves the Ramban's second question as to the impossibility of change in a mitzva, for the mitzva did not really change; rather a latent element that was previously overshadowed by a stronger element simply came to the fore. Thus the mitzva in this form was present throughout, even though it was not expressed until after Bnei Yisroel left the desert.

 

If we examine the three cases that our Gemara mentions, the first two (crossing the Jordan and Yericho) are quite obviously due to the Aron's wartime function. The third case (when it was brought to the Temple) though is problematic, as it would seem to be a classic case of the Aron's wanderings as part of the Mishkan.

 

     Several possible answers may be suggested. One possibility is that the third example does not to conform to the other two cases, and that kohanim were necessary in this instance to enter the kodesh hakodshim (as the Ramban himself claimed). The Rambam's principle, as explicated by R. Velvel, is exemplified by the first two cases.

 

     Another alternative would be to rely upon Rashi's (s.v. ukeshehichzeruhu) emphasis of the element of RETURN implied in the phrase that the Gemara employed, and to see this as the conclusion of the episode of the Aron's capture by the Plishtim, thus diverting it to the military track.

 

     A final suggestion would be to claim that the need of transporting the ORIGINAL Aron to the Mikdash is not due to its status as a component of the Mikdash, since the utensils in the Mikdash were all new, but rather to its unique autonomous kedusha that cannot be duplicated or reproduced. Therefore, it is not being transported as part of the klei HaMikdash by the levi'im, for these are being replaced (or can be replaced), but rather independently by the kohanim.

 

     Although further reflection may yet produce a better answer, R. Velvel's basic thesis that the dual nature of the Aron is responsible for the transition from levi'im to kohanim is very convincing and based upon the solid foundation of our prior knowledge of the Aron's relationship to the Mishkan and Mikdash. Our Gemara neatly fits in with the Rambam's novel theory.

 

 

Next week:

 

The current sections of the Gemara are mostly aggada, so we will be learning at an accelerated rate (or you can simply skip a bit). The shiur next week will relate to a single section, with halakhic significance. All in all, the following shiur (in two weeks) will begin from the Mishna on 37b.

 

Next week’s shiur will focus upon the residency status of non-Jews in E. Yisroel and Yehoshou b. Nun’s policy, based upon the sugya 35b.

 

The main sources are:

1. The psukim in the Torah (Shmot 23:23-4, 32-3, 34:11-17 and Devarim 7:1-5, 20:11-20).
2.  Rashi and Tosfot in our sugya, the Ramban’s discussion of the pasuk in Devarim (20:10), Tosfot and Ramban Gittin 46a (s.v. keivan and mai tama, respectively)
3. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim (6:1-5).

 

Further background sources are the Gemara in Yevamot 23a (from "amar R. Yochanan meshum R. Shimon .…", Tosfot s.v. haho and Rambam, Hilkhot Issuri Biah (12:1,4-8, 11-14).