Jerusalem During the Period of Conquest and Settlement (I)
Jerusalem in the Bible
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur
#20:
Jerusalem
During the Period of Conquest and Settlement (part I) The Status of Jerusalem
and of the Temple During this Period
By
Rav Yitzchak Levi
We encounter
Jerusalem for the first time with its full name during the period of the
conquest and settlement of the land (Yehoshua 10:1). For the purposes of
this shiur, we shall define the period of conquest and settlement as
lasting from the days of Yehoshua until the end of the reign of Shaul [1]. We
shall address the following issues:
- the status of
Jerusalem and the Temple during this period
- to which
tribe did Jerusalem belong?
- The
Binyamin-Yehuda border in the Jerusalem region according to the literal text and
according to rabbinical sources
- Why did Bnei
Yisrael not conquer Jerusalem until the time of David?
A. The city of
Jerusalem
The city
remained a Jebusite, Gentile city called Yevus up until the end of this period,
as we see quite clearly from the descriptions of the borders in the Book of
Yehoshua (chapters 15 and 18) and other sources (Ibid. 15:63;
Shoftim 1:21; Ibid. 19:10-12). Only in the time of David was
Jerusalem conquered from the Jebusites (II Shemuel 5:6-9). In other
words, there was no Israelite settlement of Jerusalem until the time of David
[2]. There are two significant events related to Jerusalem during this
period:
- the war of
the alliance of kings of the south, headed by Adoni-Tzedek King of Jerusalem,
against the Giv'onim (Yehoshua 10)
- the conquest
of the city by the Tribe of Yehuda (Shoftim 1:8).
1. The war of
the alliance of kings of the South (Yehoshua 10)
In the wake of
the covenant that the Giv'onim make with Yehoshua, Adoni-Tzedek, King of
Jerusalem [3] forges a counter-alliance with another four Canaanite kings: the
king of Hebron, the King of Yarmut, the King of Lakhish, and the King of Eglon.
These five kings encamp against Giv'on and wage war against it. Yehoshua comes
up during the night from Gilgal, smites them and pursues them via the ascent to
Beit Choron [4], slaughters their armies up until Azeka and Makeda, and at the
end of the pursuit he slaughters these five Emorite kings.
But the
continuation of the story is quite unexpected. Killing the king represented, in
biblical times, a most significant element in war against the city-state.
Indeed, further on we find a description of the conquest of Hebron, Lakhish and
Eglon (within the framework of the brief war of conquest in the region of Yehuda
and the South) but not of Jerusalem and Yarmut. Admittedly, the kings of these
cities are mentioned in the list of those kings of the land that Yehoshua
conquered (Yehoshua 12:10), but that is a list of kings, not of cities
[5].
At the same
time, some opinions maintain that Jerusalem, too, was conquered, on the basis of
the verses summarizing the conquests of this war (Yehoshua 10:40-42):
"Yehoshua smote all the country of the hills and of the Negev and of the plain
and of the slopes, and all their kings; he left none alive, but annihilated all
that breathed as the Lord God of Israel had commanded him. And Yehoshua smote
them from Kadesh Barne'a to Gaza, and all the land of Goshen as far as Giv'on.
And Yehoshua took all of these kings and their land at one time, because the
Lord God of Israel fought for Israel."
Similarly, we
find in the verses summarizing the conquest of the land as a whole: "These are
the kings of the land whom Yehoshua and Bnei Yisrael smote on this side of the
Jordan on the west
And Yehoshua gave them to the tribes of Israel as an
inheritance according to their divisions. In the mountain and in the plain and
in the Arava and in the slopes and in the wilderness and in the Negev, the
Hittites, the Emorites and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites and the
Jebusites" (Ibid. 12:7-8).
These sources
include all parts of the land, including Jerusalem, and on this basis there are
certain commentators who conclude that Jerusalem, too, was conquered
[6].
To summarize
the problem: following the slaughter of the five kings we find a description of
the conquest of the entire southern region; specifically the text mentions the
cities of Makeda, Livna, Lakhish, Eglon, Hebron and Devir. The question is, what
happened to Jerusalem and Yarmut? Were they, too, conquered and simply omitted
from any mention in the text, being subsumed in the general description of the
conquest of the South, or were they left unconquered, remaining as Gentile
islands in the midst of conquered territory?
We wish to
posit that Jerusalem was not conquered at this stage at all, and therefore no
tribe settled there. The following proofs (aside from the fact that there is no
explicit mention of the conquest of the city) support this
view:
-
Yehoshua 15:63: "But the Yevusi, inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children
of Yehuda were unable to drive out, and the Yevusi dwelled with the children of
Yehuda to this day." In other words the Yevusi dwelled in Jerusalem, on the
northern border of the inheritance of Yehuda [7].
- If Jerusalem
had indeed been conquered and settled, why was there any need to conquer it anew
following the death of Yehoshua (as described in Shoftim
1:8)?[8]
- If there were
Israelites living in even just a part of the city, why does the man in the story
of the concubine in Giv'a (on his way from Bethlehem in Yehuda to the foot of
the mountain of Ephraim) refrain from passing through it because it is "a
Gentile city not of the children of Israel" (Shoftim 19:12)?
[9]
- If the city
was in the hands of Bnei Yisrael, why was there any need to conquer it in the
days of David? [10]
From all of the
above it would appear, to our humble view, that Jerusalem/Yevus remained an
entirely Gentile city from the time of the conquest of the land by Yehoshua up
until the city's conquest in the days of David. [11] It is possible that the
population of the city was originally Emorite (Adoni-Tzedek, King of Jerusalem,
is an Emorite king) and afterwards became Jebusite (as suggested by the name,
Yevus, and from the sources stating explicitly that the Jebusites dwelled
there); either way, it remained a Gentile city throughout this period,
sandwiched in between the Tribe of Yehuda to the south (Yehoshua 15:63)
and the Tribe of Binyamin to the north (Shoftim
1:21).
The problem
with this view is the obvious question: why was the conquest of the city whose
king had already been killed! not completed as part of the commandment of
conquering the land? This question has no simple answer on the literal level
[12]; the only suggestion that we may propose on this level is that it was a
well-fortified city and very difficult to attack. This assumption has been
confirmed by archaeological excavations conducted during recent years in the
City of David, proving that from the Middle Bronze Age II the period of the
forefathers the city had massive fortifications, with an impressive wall and
towers, a protected water system, etc.
2. The conquest
of the city by the Tribe of Yehuda (Shoftim 1:8)
At the
beginning of Sefer Shoftim we find a description of the battles
waged by the Tribes of Yehuda and Shimon against the Canaanite nations,
following the death of Yehoshua:
"God gave the
Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hands, and they smote them in
Bezek
And Adoni-Bezek fled, and
they pursued after him and seized him
and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he
died there. And the children of Yehuda fought against Jerusalem, and they took
it and smote it by the sword, and set the city on fire. Afterwards the children
of Yehuda went down to wage war against the Canaanites who dwelled in the
mountain and the Negev and the plain. And Yehuda went to the Canaanites living
in Hebron
and from there he went to the inhabitants of Devir
and they smote
the Canaanites dwelling in Safed
and Yehuda took Gaza and its border, and
Ashkelon with its border, and Ekron and its border. And God was with Yehuda, and
he drove out [the inhabitants of] the mountain, but could not drive out the
inhabitants of the valley, for they had chariots of iron."
The text gives
rise to several questions: Firstly, what are THE CHILDREN OF YEHUDA doing in
Jerusalem? We shall address this question later on, when we come to discuss the
tribal identity of Jerusalem.
Secondly, in
light of the fact that this is the first explicit mention of the conquest of the
city, why does the text make no mention of its settlement? The answer would
appear to be simple: the children of Yehuda did not settle the city at all. They
conquered it after the conquest of Bezek, as part of their southward progress
toward the mountain of Hebron, but they did not stay on to settle it [13]. The
simple proof that the city was not settled by Bnei Yisrael as mentioned above
is that it is described as a Jebusite city ("a Gentile city, not of the
children of Israel" (Shoftim 19:12)) in the story of the concubine in
Giv'a [14].
After finally
succeeding in overcoming the mighty fortifications that had prevented the
conquest of the city during the time of Yehoshua, after "smiting the city by the
sword" and setting it on fire, why does the Tribe of Yehuda not settle Jerusalem
and fulfill the commandment of taking possession of the
land?
This question,
too, has no satisfying answer.
3. The
significance of the late attainment of Jerusalem
The issue of
the conquest of the city during Yehoshua's time and after his death leaves us
with some questions requiring further study, but in any event it serves only to
strengthen our assumption that the city remained a pagan one during the period
between the conquest of the land by Yehoshua and the conquest of this city by
David.
A key to
calculating the period that the city remained in Gentile hands is to be found in
I Melakhim 6:1 "And it was, in the 480th year after the Exodus of Bnei
Yisrael from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv which
is the second month of the reign of King Shelomo over Israel, that he built
the House for God."
Four hundred
and eighty years passed from the Exodus until the beginning of the building of
the Temple by Shelomo. David reigned in Jerusalem, following its conquest, for
33 years (II Shemuel 5:5); Shelomo began to build the Temple in the
fourth year of his reign. In order to calculate how many years there were
between the conquest of the land and the conquest of Jerusalem, we must deduct
from 480 the 40 years spent in the desert as well as the 37 years that passed
from the conquest of the city by David until the beginning of the construction
of the Temple by Shelomo. Thus we conclude that Jerusalem was finally settled a
full 403(!) years after the entry into the land in the time of
Yehoshua.
This is
unquestionably a long time, including various different periods: the period of
conquest and settlement under Yehoshua, hundreds of years under the judges,
followed by the leadership of Eli, Shemuel and Shaul; seven and a half years of
David's rule over the Tribe of Yehuda in Hebron before installing himself in
Jerusalem as king over all of Israel. The nation of Israel therefore dwelled in
the land for a very long time [15] before starting to take an active interest in
Jerusalem, to conquer it and settle it.
What is the
spiritual significance of this historical fact?
Let us start
with a point that takes us back to the first hint at Jerusalem in the Torah
[16]. As part of his travels upon reaching the land, Avraham passes by Jerusalem
on several occasions, but does not stop there. This occurs in his first journey
from the region of Beit-El and Ai to the Negev and Egypt (Bereishit
12:8-9); again upon his return from Egypt and the Negev to the region of Beit-El
and Ai (Ibid. 13:1-3); and again when he parts from Lot and leaves the
Beit-El/Ai region for Hebron (Ibid. 13:18).
Furthermore, as
we recall from the first shiurim in the series, even when Avraham does
finally reach the city itself the "Valley of Shaveh, which is the king's
valley" this is not the result of any prior intention to settle there, as part
of his coverage of the land. In this sense it is different from his stays in
Shekhem, in the place between Beit-El and Ai, and in Hebron all of which are
places to which Avraham traveled intentionally, and in which he dwelled for some
time. Jerusalem, in contrast, is a stop that Avraham makes on his return journey
from the war against the kings of the north, for the sake of the welcome
organized for him by Malki-Tzedek and the King of Sodom in honor of his victory.
After this honorary reception he returns to Hebron the city of his
residence.
The journey to
Mount Moriah a planned journey, in accordance with God's command takes place
only at a much later stage in Avraham's life [17]. Like his descendants in the
future, Avraham does not come to Jerusalem at the beginning of his stay in the
land; he goes there only after a prolonged period of residence
[18].
Avraham passes
through many places before he sets off for Jerusalem. This teaches us that what
is needed in order to attain and reach Eretz Yisrael is not sufficient in
order for us to attain and reach Jerusalem and the Temple. The fact that
Jerusalem and the Temple are situated in the heart of the country is not a mere
geographical fact [19]. They are, in all senses, the climax - the point that may
be reached only after national and spiritual maturation and only when certain
conditions have been fulfilled.
One of these
conditions one of the elements of that national maturity is eloquently
formulated by the Radak (in his commentary on II Shemuel
5:6):
"'The king and
his men went' but in Divrei Ha-yamim we read, "David and all of Israel
went
" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 11:4) because all of Israel were now "his
men." Now that he ruled over all of Israel, he went to Jerusalem to take the
citadel of Zion, for it was axiomatic to them that Zion would be the capital of
the Kingdom of Israel, and that it would be taken only by the one who was to be
king over all of Israel. Until this point no kingship had been established over
Israel, since the kingship of Shaul was not permanent.
Assuming that
Jerusalem is indeed the capital of the kingdom of Israel, and connected to the
place of God's Kingship, it follows that it may be attained only through a king
who rules over ALL OF ISRAEL, IN UNITY. This situation came about for the first
time only under David's rule. As we shall see below, until his reign there was
no central kingship that unified all of Israel.
The time of
Yehoshua was a period of conquest and division of inheritances, with each tribe
receiving its portion and beginning to settle it. Yehoshua, from the Tribe of
Ephraim, established no capital city. The Mishkan existed in Shilo, within the
borders of his tribal inheritance, but there was no
capital.
During the
hundreds of years under the leadership of the various judges, each tribe
established itself in its inheritance. This was a period of profound division,
in every sense. The leadership of the judges was tribal in nature: the judge
from this or that tribe would deliver Israel from their enemies (whose attacks
were a punishment for their evildoing, and especially for their idolatry), lead
and judge Israel for a certain period, and then the leadership would pass to
another tribe, another judge, another deliverance. In this reality there was no
chance of establishing a capital city for all of Israel
[20].
In the last
days of the period of the Mishkan in Shilo, Eli the kohen was leader of
Israel - all of Israel. But no central capital had been established, and the
nation kept its distance from the corrupt Mishkan in Shilo (see I Shemuel
2-3) and engaged in idolatry (Ibid. 7:3-4).
The first
significant attempt at central leadership took place in the time of Shemuel a
leader born at God's word who appears to have fulfilled all of the functions of
leadership: he was the leader, judge, prophet and also the kohen [21]. In
this sense Shemuel served as a sort of "super-judge" who, while not a king
himself, prepared the ground for real kingship.
During
Shemuel's time there was no central capital. The Mishkan in Shilo lay desolate,
and the Divine Presence and Divine service were divided between the Mishkan
located in Nov (the city of the kohanim) and Kiryat Ye'arim (where the
Ark of God's covenant was situated following its return from the Philistines and
from Beit Shemesh). In this reality there could be no central sovereignty;
indeed, Shemuel's leadership was popular rather than official. This fact is
reflected most accurately in the following verses:
"Shemuel judged
Israel all the days of his life. He would go every year and circuit Beit-El and
Gilgal and Mitzpeh, and he judged Israel in all of these places. Then he would
return to Rama, for there was his home and there he judged Israel, and he built
an altar there to God" (I Shemuel 7:15-17). Shemuel performed an annual
circuit of the main cities and judged Israel; in between these travels he
returned home.
Shaul, the
first King of Israel, established his capital in the city of Giv'a, which would
appear to have been Giv'at Binyamin or Giv'at Shaul [22]. His kingship was an
preliminary one, an embryonic kingship; it is difficult to regard this period as
one of all-inclusive Israelite sovereignty. We shall note here, very briefly,
some points that serve to illustrate this contention. Shaul's capital, Giv'at
Shaul, is located in the portion of Binyamin (in contrast to Jerusalem, David's
capital, which sits on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin). Shaul's
government consisted mainly of men from Binyamin (see I Shemuel 22:7),
and we find no evidence that Shaul took steps aimed at unifying the nation.
Moreover, as a result of his sins, Shaul soon loses Divine approval for his
reign. When David appears, Shaul undertakes his terrible pursuit of this
successor, investing most of his energy in this jealous endeavor, while
neglecting the war against the external, true enemy. Shaul languishes in this
state until his death.
When Shaul
dies, Ish-Boshet rules over all of Israel in Machanayim, while David rules over
the Tribe of Yehuda in Hebron. It is only after the death of Ish-Boshet, son of
Shaul, and the coronation of David over all of Israel, that the conditions are
ripe for the selection of a capital for the Kingdom of Israel, which will unify
all the tribes under a single sovereign leadership. Hence, David's first act
after his coronation over the entire nation is to conquer Jerusalem and erase
the Emorite/Jebusite hold over the city for the first time in hundreds of years.
This step becomes possible within the reality of the nation united under a
single kingship. One of the main expressions of this unity is the very fact of
the establishment of the capital city in Jerusalem, located on the
Yehuda-Binyamin border i.e., the border between the children of Leah and the
children of Rachel.
We have
attempted to show why the institution of a capital city, uniting all of the
tribes, took so long to accomplish. It will be recalled that the Radak hints at
the royal character of Jerusalem: "It was axiomatic to them that Zion would be
the capital of the Kingdom of Israel, and that it would be taken only by the one
who was to be king over all of Israel." Since we had difficulty finding answers,
on the literal level, to the questions posed above (why Jerusalem was not
captured during the time of Yehoshua - or at least why the text gives no
explicit description of any such event, and why the Tribe of Yehuda did not
settle the city following its eventual conquest), it would seem that the Radak
provides a profound and genuine answer. Jerusalem can be attained only through a
king over all of Israel a definition which neither Yehoshua nor the Tribe of
Yehuda could fulfill for this purpose. In other words, Jerusalem cannot be
attained through a tribal, partisan conquest that does not represent all of
Israel. The level of Jerusalem is a national, all-encompassing one; therefore,
for reasons quite inexplicable on the literal level, the city could not be
settled until a king "whose heart was the heart of all the congregation of
Israel" (Rambam, Laws of Kings, 3,6) would conquer it, install himself in it and
turn it into the capital city of the Kingdom of Israel - not a tribal, private
city, but a general, national one.
B. The
place of the Temple Mount Moriah
A look at the
literal text from the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua up until the Ark is
brought up by David to Jerusalem (II Shemuel 6; I Divrei
Ha-yamim 13:6-15) (his intention being to try to build the Temple
immediately thereafter) reveals that at no point throughout this 400 year period
is there any leader who engages in a search and quest for "the place" and an
attempt to find it.
We emphasize
here the need to seek out the place, for our assumption is that the exact
location of Mount Moriah the place of the Akeda was not known after the time
of Avraham. The Akeida was a one-time experience that was shared only by
Avraham, Yitzchak, and God; afterwards we find no sign of any interest in the
place whatsoever neither on the part of Avraham or Yitzchak themselves, nor on
the part of Yaakov [23] or any of his sons the twelve
tribes.
Even after the
return to the land in the days of Yehoshua, there is no evidence of anyone
knowing the place of the Akeida or engaging in a search for the site of the
future Temple. Moreover, we cannot imagine that the tribes would have known
about the place of the Akeida without wanting to settle in proximity to it [24].
During the period of the Judges, likewise, we find no sign of interest in the
place, and at least according to the literal text this remained the
situation during the time of Eli, Shemuel and Shaul.
Although during
certain periods the Mishkan occupied a central place, it appears that for most
of this lengthy period it enjoyed no special importance [25], especially after
the destruction of Shilo, at which point the division between the great altar in
Giv'on and the seat of the Ark in Kiryat Ye'arim brought about a significant
drop in the status of both places [26].
In this
context, the resounding silence of the first part of Sefer Shemuel
(I Shemuel) with regard to the Mishkan is most interesting: the
destruction of the Mishkan in Shilo is not described at all [27], nor is the
move from Shilo to Nov. We learn of the presence of the Mishkan in Nov only
incidentally, in the course of the story of David's flight from Shaul (I
Shemuel 21:9-10). There is likewise no description of the Mishkan's
transition to Giv'on after the destruction of Nov, nor any mention throughout
the Sefer of Giv'on as the site of the great altar. The literal
text offers no hint of any significant search undertaken by Shemuel or Shaul for
the site of the future Temple. At the same time, it should be noted that in
Divrei Ha-yamim, mention is made of Shemuel the Seer and of David in
relation to the establishment of the shifts for the Temple (I Divrei
Ha-yamim 9:22); also, Shemuel the Seer, Shaul son of Kish, Avner son of Ner,
and Yoav son of Tzeruya are mentioned as having contributed to the building of
the Temple (I Divrei Ha-yamim 26:28).
Chazal and the
Rishonim offer several insights into this matter; we shall quote two of
them.
A.
Hiding of the place of the Akeda
- In his
commentary on Sefer Devarim (12:5), Rabbeinu Bechaye
writes:
"This place is
Mount Moriah, and it was known and recognized among the nations, for it was
legendary in status, and there was no need to tell Israel in the desert, for
they knew this from the forefathers that the 'Akeida' had taken place there
And therefore the text conceals this place and does not reveal it. Not only the
nations, but even Israel did not know it, for even though everyone knew the
special status of Mount Moriah, they did not know that that was the place that
God had chosen."
In other words,
the special status of Mount Moriah was associated only with the Akeida; it was
not known as the place that God had chosen.
- Rambam (Laws
of the Temple, chapter 2, law 2) writes:
"It was
traditionally known that the place where David and Shelomo built the altar, on
the threshing floor of Aravna, was the place where Avraham had built the altar
and bound Yitzchak upon it, and that this was the place where Noah had built
[his altar] when he emerged from the ark, which was the same altar upon which
Kayin and Hevel had offered their sacrifices, and where Adam had sacrificed, and
that he had been created from there. The Sages taught: 'Adam was created from
the place of his atonement.'"
This would
appear to contradict what the Rambam himself teaches in Moreh Nevukhim
(part III, chapter 45), to the effect that the text conceals the place
deliberately. The easiest way of solving the contradiction is to suggest that
there was knowledge of a clear connection between the sacrificial sites of Adam,
Kayin and Hevel, Noach, and Avraham in the Akeda, and the Temple, but the exact
place was not known.
- Radak
(commenting on Tehillim 132:2) comments:
"Even though
Yaakov saw the place of the Temple in a dream [28], it is possible that he did
not know it consciously. And if he did know it, he did not reveal it, for God
did not want the place to be known until the time of David [29]. Therefore David
mentions Yaakov in this regard, when he says, 'He vowed to the Mighty One of
Yaakov' (Tehillim 132:2) because it was to him that God first revealed
it. Although He hinted at it to Avraham, by commanding him to offer up Yitzchak,
his son, as an offering at that place, it is still not clear whether Avraham
knew that that place would be the site chosen for the Temple for all
generations." [30]
In other words,
God wanted the place to be revealed only in the time of King
David.
B.
Connection to the Temple
In this regard
we shall look at two rabbinical sources. The first relates to the building of
the Temple itself:
"The plan for
the Temple, which the Holy One gave over to Moshe when he stood [atop Mount
Sinai] was conveyed by Moshe, standing, to Yehoshua; Yehoshua conveyed it,
standing, to the elders; the elders stood and conveyed it to the prophets; the
prophets stood and passed it on to David; David stood and passed it on to
Shelomo." (Yalkut Shimoni I Divrei Ha-yamim siman 1081;
Midrash Shemuel parasha 15).
According to
this Midrash, the plan of the Temple was handed over from generation to
generation, from Moshe until David. But attention should be paid to the fact
that the Midrash makes no mention of the site of the Temple; it concerns only
its structure.
The Gemara
(Zevachim 54b) recounts:
"Rabba taught:
Concerning that which is written, 'David and Shemuel went and dwelled in Noyot,
in Rama' (I Shemuel 19:18) what has Nayot to do with Rama? The answer
is that they dwelled in Rama and engaged in the beautification (noyo) of
the world." [Rashi comments: "They sought the biblical source for the site of
the Temple.]
In other words,
according to Chazal, the prophet Shemuel also busied himself, together
with David, with the search for the site of the Temple
[31].
Summary
We have
attempted here to show that from the time of Yehoshua up until the time of
David, Jerusalem remained a pagan city. It was not conquered because Jerusalem
cannot be attained within the tribal framework; it requires a king who reigns
over all of Israel. We also showed that none of the leaders of Israel, from
Yehoshua to Shaul, engaged in a search for the site of the
Temple.
Having examined
the status of Jerusalem during the period of conquest and settlement, we shall
turn our attention in the next shiur to the question of which tribe
Jerusalem belongs to.
Notes:
[1] This era
includes all the days of Yehoshua, the period of the Judges, and the days of
Shemuel and Shaul. The next significant period that we shall address is the
reign of David.
[2] Among the
Rishonim and in the midrashim, opinions vary on this issue. Some maintain
that there was partial settlement of the city during the period of Yehoshua or
of the Judges. These opinions are complicated and are not easily reconciled with
the literal text.
[3] The name
Adoni-Tzedek is related to the names Malki-Tzedek and Tzidkiyahu, and to the
concept of righteousness ("tzedek"), as discussed in shiur no.
6.
[4] Along
today's route 443, via Maccabim, Re'ut and Modi'in, up to Emek
Ayalon.
[5] It is
difficult to posit that killing the king of the city automatically implies
conquest of his land, because the conquests of Hebron, Lakhish and Eglon are
described explicitly even though their kings were
slaughtered.
[6] This is the
position of the Radak, for example, in his commentary on Yehoshua (15:63
and elsewhere) and Shoftim that the Tribe of Yehuda conquered its share
of Jerusalem (which, according to his view, was called Jerusalem already during
Yehoshua's time), and that from the time of Yehoshua up until the time of David
there was a small Jewish settlement in that portion of the
city.
[7] It is
important to note that the northern border of the inheritance of Yehuda the
region of the Ben-Hinnom Valley lay very close (just a few dozen meters) to
the settlement of the Jebusites in Yevus.
[8]
Commentators who disagree with this approach explain that the city comprises
several parts; the Tribe of Yehuda conquered only one part of the city, while
the Jebusites dwelled in a different part of it (see note no.
6).
[9] The Radak
addresses this problem in his commentary on Shoftim 17:1 "It appears
that Jerusalem was not settled to a significant extent by Israelites, even
though it had been conquered, because the Jebusites were still there. When the
Levite and his attendant passed by Yevus it was evening, and it seems that they
were headed for the Jebusite [area] rather than [the area of] Jerusalem settled
by Israelites. If he had gone to stay over there, they would have first
encountered the Jebusite cities." In other words, the Israelite settlement at
the time represented a small minority in the city, and the road to it passed
through Jebusite territory, and therefore the man did not want to
enter.
[10] See note
no. 8
[11] One of the
proofs enlisted by the commentators who adopt the dissenting approach is the
verse describing David after his victory over Goliat: "David took the head of
the Philistine AND BRORUGHT IT TO JERUSALEM, and placed his vessels there in his
tent" (I Shemuel 17:54). To this view, this verse proves that Bnei
Yisrael already dwelled in Jerusalem at that time, and David brought Goliat's
head to that part of the city that was inhabited by Bnei Yisrael apparently
the region of the western hill (today's Jewish and Armenian Quarters Mount
Zion). To our view, this verse provides no support at all: it is not logical to
assume that the verse represents part of the chronological course of events (for
what would be the point of bringing Goliat's head to Jerusalem at this point,
before the city had attained its special status?!), and it seems quite clear
that the text deviates here from the course of events to describe something that
would happen later on a phenomenon that occurs many times in Tanakh
so as to complete the narration of the event until the
end.
To prove this
fundamental literary device in the biblical narrative, I quote here an excellent
example that was pointed out to me by my rabbi and teacher, Rav Yaakov Medan. At
the end of the section describing the manna, after the detailed description of
the miraculous daily provision, we are told: "Moshe said to Aharon: take a jar
and place a full omer of manna inside it, and place it before God for a
keepsake for all your generations. As God had commanded Moshe, so Aharon placed
it before the Testimony, as a keepsake. And Bnei Yisrael ate the manna for forty
years, until they reached inhabited land; they ate the manna until they reached
the border of the land of Canaan. And an omer is a tenth of an eifa."
(Shemot 16:33-36). Moshe commands Aharon to place a jar of manna "before
God" i.e., in the Ark of the Covenant. This appears in Parashat
Beshalach before Moshe was commanded to build the Mishkan (according to
all opinions), and before he could have had any idea of the possibility of its
existence. It is therefore not possible that this scene took place as soon as
the first manna fell; there can be no doubt that it represents a complementary
conclusion to the story of the manna as becomes clear from the continuation;
"And Bnei Yisrael ate the manna for forty years
." The same principle applies in
our situation: the head of Goliat was brought to Jerusalem only after David had
conquered it and made it his capital (II Shemuel 5), to symbolize the
submission of the Philistines before Israelite rule in the capital of the
Kingdom of Israel.
[12] a. Our
position is that Tanakh must be studied with careful attention to what
the text says and what it does not say. Even if there is some logic to the view
that Jerusalem was conquered during the period of Yehoshua, there must be some
significance to the fact that the text makes no mention of it, while detailing
the conquest of many other cities. This is especially meaningful in light of the
fact that Adoni-Tzedek's position at the head of the covenant of the southern
kings testifies to the importance of the city at that time a fact that is
affirmed by external sources, too (e.g. in the letters of Al-Amarna, discovered
in an archive in Egypt dating back to this period. See N. Ne'eman, "Te'udot
mi-Arkhi'onei Alla ve-Al-Amarna, Jerusalem 5737, pp.
57-60.)
b. We prefer to
leave the question open, rather than deciding on a wrong or weak
answer.
c. At this
stage we have addressed the question only on the level of the literal text. We
shall relate further on to what Chazal teach in this
regard.
[13] There is
no exact identification for the city of Bezek. Prof. Elitzur, in his commentary
Da'at Mikra locates it in the north-eastern part of the inheritance
of Yehuda, perhaps in the region of Abu-Dis.
[14] Several
commentators early and later maintain that the narratives at the end of
Sefer Shoftim (the idol of Mikha and the concubine in Giv'a) happened
earlier, at the beginning of the period of the Judges (Seder Olam Rabba,
for example, claims in chapter 12 that these events took place during the time
of Kushan Rish'atayim, mentioned in Shoftim 3) i.e., close to the time
of Jerusalem's conquest by the Tribe of Yehuda.
[15] Let us
keep in mind that according to Chazal, the First Temple period consisted
of 410 years (Yoma 9a).
[16] We hinted
to this in our first three shiurim ("The Path to Jerusalem in the
Torah").
[17] We shall
not, in the present context, get into the details of the dates. Suffice it to
note that Avraham, who reached Canaan at the age of about 75 (see
Bereishit 12:4) was already 137 years old when Sara died (see
Ibid. 17:17; 23:1) which, based on the biblical text and on
Chazal, was about the same time as the
Akeida.
[18]
Homiletically we may propose that this reality parallels, in certain respects,
the topographical-geographical fact that Jerusalem is not on the main highway,
on the watershed line, but rather at some distance from it. Jerusalem is not
approached immediately and automatically; it must be sought out, one has to head
there specifically, only at the end does one get there.
[19] The
spiritual significance of this geographical reality is reflected in Mishna
Kelim (1:5-9), where we find a list of ten concentric circles of
sanctity: the innermost (and holiest) is the site of the Temple; around it is
the wider circle of Jerusalem, and surrounding that all of Eretz
Yisrael.
[20] The failed
attempt at sovereign rule by Avimelekh in Shekhem (Shoftim 9)
demonstrates eloquently that conditions were not yet ripe for the establishment
of a central, royal capital that would unify all of
Israel.
[21] The Zohar
(part II 148b) teaches that Shemuel served as a kohen.
[22] In the
"Encyclopedia Mikra'it" vol II p. 411, under "Giv'a Giv'at Binyamin,
Giv'at Shaul," Prof. Mazar identifies all of these sites as the same
place, known as Tel Al-Pul, alongside the pool to the west of Pisgat Ze'ev
today, where Hussein began building his villa prior to the Six-Day
War.
[23]
Chazal maintained a different view in this regard, and some
midrashim identify the place of Yaakov's revelation in Beit-El as Mount
Moriah. In shiur no. 2 we touched on this
discussion.
[24] a. In this
context we are reminded of the Rambam's assertion, in Moreh Nevukhim
(part III, chapter 45) that one of the main reasons for the concealment of the
place in the Torah was to prevent strife and conflict among the tribes over
inheritance of the place (like the rebellion of Korach and his company
concerning the priesthood).
b. The Gemara
(Bava Batra 122a) raises the possibility that the value of the
inheritances rose proportionately to their proximity to Jerusalem, and the
tribes that settled nearer paid a monetary compensation to the others who were
located further away. The Rashbam explains (ad loc.): "But anyone whose
lot was close to Jerusalem paid a fee to someone else whose lot was far from
Jerusalem, since the distance was a disadvantage for two reasons: firstly,
because it was far from the Temple, and secondly, because it was closer to
foreign countries, and therefore carried a greater security risk." The Chatam
Sofer (Responsa Orakh Chaim siman 29) questions the Rashbam, recalling
that at the time of the division of the land, "Neither the site of the Temple
nor the location of Mount Moriah was known; hence the degree of proximity or
distance should have been measured from the Mishkan in Shilo, not from Mount
Moriah, which was not known." As noted in the body of the shiur, the text
gives no indication whatsoever of any knowledge of the future significance of
Jerusalem.
[25] An
instructive example as to the neglect of the Mishkan is the fact that the
principal appearance of the Mishkan of Shilo in all of Sefer Shoftim
(other than the story of the dances in chapter 21) is in 18:31 "They installed
the idol of Mikha, which he had made, for all the time that God's house was in
Shilo" a description that is elaborated upon in Sanhedrin 103b:
"The smoke from the [altar]
sacrifices, and smoke from the [sacrifices to the] idol, were intermingled.
Thus, the House of God in Shilo is mentioned, as it were, only as a contrast to
the idol of Mikha, rather than as a place with its own independent
importance
[26] When David
brings the Ark up to the city of David, after it had dwelled for twenty years in
Kiryat Ye'arim, he declares: "Let us bring back the Ark of our God to us, for we
did not seek it out during the days of Shaul" (I Divrei Ha-yamim
13:3).
[27] This is
expressed explicitly in Yirmiyahu 7:12 and in 26:6, as well as in
Tehillim 78:59-67.
[28] Let us
recall that to our humble view Yaakov's dream took place in Beit-El, and not at
Mount Moriah (as opposed to the Radak's view quoted
above).
[29] It is very
interesting that the Radak notes a certain connection between the concealment of
the place of the Temple up until the time of David, and the conquest of the city
of Jerusalem by virtue of sovereignty over all of Israel i.e., the reign of
David.
[30] This
question may depend on our understanding of the verse, "Avraham called the name
of that place Hashem Yir'eh, CONCERNING WHICH IT IS SAID THIS DAY on the
mountain God will see" (Bereishit 22:14). What is "this day"? The Vilna
Gaon, for example, writes in Aderet Eliyahu: "Moshe Rabbeinu, who wrote
the Torah, added 'concerning which it is said this day' in other words, in the
days of Moshe, when the Torah had already been given down below." According to
this understanding, Avraham did not know that the site of the Akeida was
destined to become the site of the Temple. There are also several other
commentators who adopt this view. The Seforno, on the other hand, writes (ad
loc.): "For it was told to him in a prophecy why God had chosen this
mountain because his descendants were destined to offer their sacrifices
there."
[31] For a more
general view of the subject see Rav Eitan Shendorfi's thorough and comprehensive
study "Hadar ha-Olam," which addresses various issues related to our
discussion. In this specific matter we have adopted a different approach from
the one he presents.
Translated by
Kaeren Fish
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!