Shelomo's Monarchy in Jerusalem (VII)
Jerusalem in the Bible
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #16: Shelomo's
Monarchy In Jerusalem (VI)
The
Milo
Rav Yitzchak
Levi
To complete our study of the period of Shelomo, we wish today to discuss
the issue of the Milo, one of the most important structures during this period.
We shall begin with its identification, continue with an examination of the
events connected to it the building of the royal complex and the house of the
daughter of Pharaoh and the rebellion of Yarovam - and conclude with an
examination of the significance of the building in the context of Shelomo's
overall outlook.
I.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MILO
1.
THE SOURCES:
In order to understand
the meaning of the term Milo, we must first examine all the sources in which the
term is mentioned. The Milo is mentioned during the days of David,
Shelomo and Chizkiyahu. The verses which describe David's hold on Jerusalem
following its conquest state:
So David dwelt in the
stronghold and called it the City of David, And David built round about from the
Milo and inward. (II Shemuel 5:9)
And David dwelt in the
stronghold; therefore they called it the City of David. And he built the city
round about, even from the Milo round about. (I Divrei Ha-yamim
11:7-8)
During the days of Shelomo, in the framework of the description of the
royal buildings, it is stated:
And this is the manner
of the levy which King Shelomo raised; to build the house of the Lord, and his
own house, and the Milo, and the wall of Jerusalem. (I Melakhim
9:15)
But Pharaoh's daughter
came up out of the City of David to her house which he had built for her. Then
did he build the Milo. (Ibid. v. 24)
In the account of Yarovam's rebellion, it is
stated:
And Yarovam the son of
Nevat, an Efrati
he lifted up his hand against the king. And this was the cause
that he lifted up his hand against the king: Shelomo built the Milo, and
repaired the breaches of the City of David his father. (Ibid. 11:
26-27)
Regarding King Chizkiyahu, it is stated:
And he strengthened the
Milo in the City of David. (II Divrei Ha-yamim 32:5)
In addition, the Milo is mentioned in two places in the expression, "the
house of Milo." Regarding the murder of King Yehoash, it is
related:
And his servants rose,
and made a conspiracy, and slew Yoash in the house of Milo, on the way that goes
down to Sila. (II Melakhim 12:21)
And in the story of Avimelekh (there we are dealing with the area of
Shekhem!), it is stated:
And all the men of
Shekhem gathered together, and all the House of Milo, and went, and made
Avimelekh king
But if not, fire will come out from Avimelekh and devour the men
of Shekhem, and the House of Milo; and fire will come out from the men of
Shekhem, and the House of Milo, and devour Avimelekh. (Shoftim 9:6,
20)
These are all the biblical references to the Milo.
2.
THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS OF THE WORD "MILO" AND ITS
IDENTIFICATION
Various explanations
have been offered regarding the word "Milo." It is commonly understood in the
sense of "filled in" with earth and stones, but there are a number of
possibilities regarding the nature of this filling. According to one
possibility, we are talking about the filling in and topographical elevation of
a certain area. According to another possibility, we are dealing with some type
of fortification based on support walls that strengthen and raise a certain area
(e.g., an incline), and thus improve the military defense conditions and allow
for stable construction above it (which also improves the defense
possibilities). It is also possible that it refers to a fortified building
an actual stronghold.
Is it possible to decide
between these three possibilities based on the sources? The expression, "house
of Milo," suggests that we are dealing with an especially fortified structure
which was raised with a filling of earth and stones. From the context of the
verse regarding Chizkayahu preparing the city for Sancheriv's siege it
stands to reason that we are dealing with the fortification of a particular
area. The Milo built by Shelomo is mentioned between his house and "the wall of
Jerusalem," and therefore it could be a fortification of a certain area filled
in with earth. Regarding the other sources, the first possibility is the most
appropriate: the filling in of a certain area.
In the Rishonim
and in modern scholarship, we find various suggestions similar to the basic
explanations presented above. Rashi, Rabbeinu Yeshaya and Mahari Kra all explain
that we are dealing with supporting fortifications adjacent to the
wall:
A low wall filled in
with earth, the high point of the mound being in the middle and sloping in all
directions this is called Milo. Upon it David constructed buildings and that
Milo surrounded the stronghold. (Rashi, II Shemuel
5:9)
Milo refers to the earth
that is put next to the wall from the inside up to the height of the wall, so
that it will be easy for them to climb from the city to the wall. And on that
very mound of earth on the inside of the wall he built towers all around.
Similar to this is "And they filled them with earth" (Bereishit 26:15).
(Rabbeinu Yeshaya, ibid.)
There was a place in
Jerusalem in the City of David called Milo because it was surrounded by a low
wall and filled in with earth. (Mahari Kra, I Melakhim 9:15)[1]
A similar approach was taken by the archeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who
excavated the steep eastern slope of the City of David. Kenyon discovered along
the length of a large part of this slope a series of boxes filled with earth and
stones, which served as large supporting walls that raised the slope and
strengthened it, thus allowing for stable construction above it. According to
her, this was the Milo.[2]
Radak (and in his wake also the author of the Metzudat David)
understood that the Milo was an open square. He suggests the novel
interpretation that the word Milo denotes a gathering of people:
The Milo was a place
adjacent to the wall, wide enough for the people to assemble there
and from
there and further in he built. (Radak, II Shemuel 9:5)[3]
Prof. Ben-Zion Luria suggests[4]
that the Milo refers to a strong fortification that served as the residence of
the officers and soldiers of a certain class (according to this, it is possible
that the Milo is the "house of the warriors" mentioned in Nechemya
3:16).
An intermediate possibility might also be suggested that the Milo was a
stronghold built on an area that had been raised by a landfill of earth and
stones.
Today, however, one of the most widely accepted understandings (see, for
example, the Olam ha-Tanakh commentary on II Shemuel,
ibid.) and we too shall follow in its path is that the Milo refers to
a landfill of earth and stones in the saddle between Mount Moriah to the north
and the City of David to the south. It is possible that in an ancient period
perhaps in the days of Shelomo the king filled in this area with earth in
order to turn the eastern ridge into one consecutive entity, and also in order
to raise the king's house above the city.[5]
II. THE
SIGINIFICANCE OF THE MILO IN THE DAYS OF SHELOMO
As we have seen, the
Milo is mentioned in the days of David, but the intensive royal construction
only began in the period of Shelomo. It is possible then that the reference to
the Milo in David's days is based on something that would only be built in the
future.[6]
During the days of Shelomo, the Milo played a significant role in two
contexts: Shelomo's marriage to Pharaoh's daughter and Yarovam's rebellion. We
shall try to demonstrate the connection between the roles played by the Milo in
these two incidents.
As it may be remembered, following his marriage to the daughter of
Pharaoh, King of Egypt, Shelomo brought his wife to the City of David, "until he
had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the
wall of Jerusalem round about" (I Melakhim 3:1). Later, after having
completed his two greatest building projects the house of God and the house of
the king Shelomo built his wife a house as part of the royal complex
(Ibid. 7:8). For our purposes, what is important is the next verse,
which attests to the connection between the times of the building the house of
Pharaoh's daughter and the Milo:
But Pharaoh's daughter
came up out of the City of David to her house which he had built for her; then
did he build the Milo. (I Melakhim 9:24)[7]
The nature of the connection seems to be clear. We have already
demonstrated (in Shiur no. 14) that the royal complex was situated
between the house of God to the north and the city to the south precisely in
the area where the Milo was found according to our understanding! It may be
concluded then that the royal buildings, including the house of Pharaoh's
daughter, were built on the Milo, and that the Milo, the house of God, the royal
palace, and the wall of Jerusalem were effectively a single construction
project. Therefore, Pharaoh's daughter had to wait until the project was
completed (which, according to our understanding, took place in the twenty-forth
year of Shelomo's monarchy) in order to move from the City of David to her
house.
Now we can move on to discuss Yarovam's rebellion. Scripture says about
him as follows:
And Yarovam the son of
Nevat, an Efrati, of Tzereda, Shelomo's servant, whose mother's name was Tzerua,
a widow woman, he lifted up his hand against the king. And this was the matter
that he lifted up his hand against the king. Shelomo built the Milo and repaired
the breaches of the City of David his father, And the man Yarovam was a mighty
warrior. And Shelomo seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him
ruler over all the labor of the House of Yosef. (I Melakhim
11:26-28)
Why is the statement,
"Shelomo built the Milo and repaired the breaches of the City of David his
father," regarded as a lifting up of a hand against the king? The Gemara in
Sanhedrin (101b) connects this directly to the daughter of
Pharaoh:
Rabbi Yochanan said: Why
did Yarovam merit the kingdom? Because he rebuked Shelomo. And why was he
punished? Because he rebuked him in public. As it is stated: "And this was the
matter that he lifted up his hand against the king: Shelomo built the Milo and
repaired the breaches of the City of David his father." He said to him: Your
father David made breaches in the wall so that Israel would make pilgrimage
visits. But you have closed them in order to make a levy (anagriya)
for Pharaoh's daughter!
Rabbi Yochanan's statement takes us back in a most interesting manner to
the difference that we already noted in the past between the house of David and
that of Shelomo. David's house was situated in the middle of the city.
Therefore, the breaches that he left in the wall apparently the northern wall
allowed for a direct connection between the city and the Mikdash. This
direct approach was closed off by Shelomo, when he built the royal complex to
the north of the wall, and this, according to Rabbi Yochanan, in order to make a
levy for Pharaoh's daughter. The term used by Rabbi Yochanan, "anagriya,"
refers to a levy that must be paid to the ruling authority in personal service
or the service of one's animal (Ibn Shoshan Dictionary). But what is the idea of
an "anagriya" in the context of the daughter of Pharaoh? Rashi (ad
loc.) offers three possible understandings:
And you fenced them in
to raise a levy so that they should enter through the gates, and you should
know who came in, in order to collect a tax for Pharaoh's
daughter
Another explanation: He
closed the gates and made a tower for Pharaoh's daughter above one of the gates,
and all pass through there so that they should be near her to show her honor and
serve her. All service of the royal house is called
"anagriya."
Another explanation:
Shelomo was accustomed to close the gates of the Temple courtyard and keep the
keys to himself. And it is the manner of the king to sleep the first three hours
of the day, and Israel had to stand outside the Temple courtyard until the king
arose. And Yarovam said to him: "Do you want them to give you an angriya
for your wife the daughter of Pharaoh, so that you should give them the
keys!"[8]
The Milo he sealed one
of the breaches, and filled the hole in the wall and built there a tower for the
daughter of Pharaoh and the men who served her.
In effect, Rashi in his commentary continues the midrashic tendency that
we discussed in the previous shiur to contrast Shelomo's connection to
the daughter of Pharaoh with his connection to God in the Temple. The repair of
the breaches was meant to allow for the collection of a tax from those making a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the daughter of Pharaoh (a tax upon which the
pilgrimage was conditioned!) and force them to honor and serve her. Thus,
Shelomo turned the journey undertaken to appear before God into sort of a tool
in the service of Pharaoh's daughter, a situation expressed by Yarovam in his
cynical remark, "Do you want them to give you an angriya for your wife
the daughter of Pharaoh, so that you should give them the
keys!"
Rabbi Yochanan's statement aptly portrays what is described according to
the plain sense of the text. Yarovam, the mighty warrior, was put in charge
"over all the labor of the House of Yosef," that is to say, over the forced
labor the anagriya cast upon the House of Yosef. Shelomo's grand
construction projects continued for decades, and included not only Jerusalem,
but the entire kingdom (Chatzor, Gezer, Megido, and other places as well), and
the House of Yosef, so it seems, bore a considerable share of the work. The
people were ready to bear the burden of building the Temple and the necessary
government buildings. But the demand that they continue to invest such great
energy into royal palaces and especially the house for Pharaoh's daughter,
regarding whose marriage to Shelomo the people apparently had reservations
(together with the serious spiritual significance of the timing of the marriage
and the standing of Pharaoh's daughter in general, as was discussed at length in
the previous shiur) this demand stirred up great resentment among the
people. Thus explains the Radak (I Melakhim 11:27):
"Shelomo built the Milo"
the Milo was a place in the city of Jerusalem near the wall, a square where
the people could gather
And Shelomo built that place because he needed it when
he built a house for the daughter of Pharaoh. It seems, however, that the people
did not look favorably upon Shelomo's actions, but they feared to say, Shelomo
did such and such. It was the arrogant Yarovam who dared to say, "Shelomo built
the Milo," that is to say: "See the evil that he did." And furthermore, he said
"Shelomo," and not "the King." This was his rebellion against the
king.
The Milo (which, in our opinion, was a grand construction project)
represented for the people decades of forced labor and the injustice of the
continuation of this suffering in favor of construction projects, the whole
purpose of which was to glorify Shelomo's kingdom with his foreign wife. This
criticism, which the people kept to themselves owing to their fear of Shelomo,
was voiced openly and bluntly by Yarovam, who daringly broke the
silence.
Thus far we have dealt with the significance of the sealing of the
breaches of the City of David according to Rabbi Yochanan, and the connection
between the construction of the Milo and the daughter of Pharaoh according to
this explanation. The Radak (ibid.) suggests another understanding of
Shelomo's sealing of the breaches of the City of David:
David made a breach in
the wall of Zion, so that if Israel rebels against him, he would leave through
there and flee without their knowledge, as is the custom today among the kings
of Yishmael to make a breach in their fortifications, so that if the people of
the city rise up against him, he can run away through there, and they call it,
"the Gate of Treachery." And Shelomo sealed this breach. And so Yarovam said:
See his arrogance, for he sealed the breach. That is to say, he is confident,
having no fear of rebellion.
This explanation as well sharpens the difference between David and
Shelomo: David, in his modesty and humility, was unsure of himself and felt
constant dependence on the tribes, and therefore he left himself an escape hatch
in case of a rebellion, whereas Shelomo in his arrogance, had no fear of
rebellion, and therefore he sealed the breaches. According to this, the
rebellion expressed itself in Yarovam's bringing Shelomo's arrogance to the
public's attention.
The Ralbag (ad loc.) proposes a third
explanation:
There was a place where
the wall was breached so that Israel could come to the king when they wished to
present him with their quarrels.
The Ralbag's explanation also emphasizes the difference between David's
extreme closeness to the people, including the easy and direct access that he
provided them in order that they should be able to present their complaints
before him, and Shelomo's distance and sense of superiority that did not allow
for such availability.
We can summarize then that the issue of the Milo well exemplifies
Shelomo's outlook regarding the standing of the kingdom, so different from that
of David, both with respect to his attitude toward the people and with respect
to his attitude to God and the Temple. On the one hand, Shelomo felt detached
from the people and superior to them, and in his great arrogance, he sealed the
breach made by his father David and erected a barrier between him and the
nation. The special status that this sealing gave to Pharaoh's daughter is
another expression of this idea. On the other hand, the sealing of the breach
put an end to the direct passage to the Temple and allowed for the imposition of
a tax upon those who arrived for the pilgrimage festivals. In this way the
monarchy turned into a barrier between the people and the Mikdash, rather
than a bridge between them. Like other issues that were discussed earlier, the
issue of the Milo also illustrates the terrible price exacted by turning the
eternal status of the monarchy into a goal of its own: the creation of a barrier
before the people on the one hand, and before God on the
other.
III. THE NATURE
OF THE PLACE
The location of the Milo
between the city and Mount Moriah above the city but below the Temple Mount
dictated its nature as a passageway between the city and the
Temple.
In the early periods
this region was outside the fortified area of the city. During the days of
David, this region was not settled, and it separated between the northern part
of the city and the residence of Arvana, the Yevusi king, on Mount Moriah (Yo'av
may have spared the lives of those living in the area, outside the wall, as part
of his sparing "the rest of the city"; see I Divrei Ha-yamim
11:8).
The acquisition of Mount
Moriah from Arvana the Yevusi and the building of the altar on the threshing
floor on the mountain created a connection between the city and Mount Moriah,
and bestowed new meaning upon the area in between: From now on this was the
place through which one would go up from the city to the altar on the mountain
the area that connected the city to Mount Moriah.
During the days of
Shelomo there was a change in the way that the area was used. Shelomo built up
the area (apparently after artificially raising it with landfill), and encircled
it with a wall, and from that time on, it was included, together with Mount
Moriah, within the city, serving as the house of the king: a royal compound
surrounded by its own wall, connected to the house of God above it, and
including both the public royal buildings (the house of the Levanon, the porch
of the throne, the porch of justice, and the porch of pillars) and the private
royal buildings (the house of the king, the house of the daughter of Pharaoh).
While during the period of David, the area connected the city to Mount Moriah,
during the period of Shelomo it comprised an independent unit located between
them.
The location of the
house of the king between the city and the house of God above the city and at
the foot of the Temple raises in the sharpest form the question regarding the
relationship between the people, the king, and God. Does the king properly lead
the people, who live in the city below him; does he serve as a bridge between
the people and God; and is he indeed subject to the kingdom of God, at the foot
of whose Temple he resides?
In their words
concerning Yarovam's rebellion, Chazal emphasize the second possibility.
Shelomo used the house of the king and the Milo as a tool to glorify his kingdom
in and of itself. Thus the place through which the people had been accustomed to
go up to the house of God turned into a barrier zone between the people and the
house of God, on account of the sins of the king who resided there with his
wife, the daughter of Pharaoh.
The location of the Milo
determines its duel nature. The geographic and topographic conditions of the
place can emphasize the close connection between the people, headed by the king,
and the house of God, as was the case in the days of David; but they are also
liable to negatively emphasize the king's feelings of superiority over the
people, and his independent standing, as it were, and thus break the natural
connection between the people and their God, as in the days of Shelomo. The
region of the Milo symbolizes the great opportunity afforded by the unmediated
connection between the king and the house of God, through self-nullification and
subjugation to Him, but also the great danger that in his arrogance, the king
will impair the connection between the people and the house of God. As Yechezkel
stated:
And He said to me, Son
of man, behold the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet,
where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the
House of Israel shall no more profane My holy name, neither they, nor their
kings, by their harlotry, nor by the carcasses of their kings in their high
places, In their setting of their threshold by My thresholds, and their doorpost
by My posts, and only the wall between Me and them, they have defiled My holy
name by their disgusting deeds which they have committed: and so I have consumed
them in My anger. Now let them put away their harlotry, and the carcasses of
their kings, far from Me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.
(Yechezkel 43:7-9)
***
With this shiur, we have completed our study of the period of
Shelomo. In next week's shiur, we will move on to the days of Achaz and
Chizkiyahu.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1]
Mahari Kra's description is not sufficiently detailed and clear, but it
certainly fits in with archeological findings familiar to us from other places
in Israel: wall supports that are found inside the wall of a city and that
strengthen it.
[2]
K.M. Kenyon, Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History, Thames &
Hudson, 1967, pp. 49-50.
[3]
In support of his interpretation regarding the word Milo, the Radak cites the
verse, "Cry, gather together (mil'u) and say, Assemble yourselves, and
let us go into the fortified cities" (Yirmiyahu 4:5). By referring to
this verse, the Radak may be suggesting that he understands the Milo as a
fortified square, the purpose of which was to protect the masses during times of
war.
[4]
B.Z. Luria, "Beit Milo," Pirkei Yerushalayim Mehkarim be-Kadmoniyot
Yerushalayim ve-Yosheveha, Ha-Chevra le-Cheker ha-Mikra be-Yisra'el,
Kiryat Sefer, 1980, pp. 70-74.
[5]
Indeed, in the excavation in area M (between the Giv'ati parking lot of today
and the southern Turkish wall, namely, the southwestern edge of the Milo
according to this proposal), Kenyon found a series of ancient landfills that
could be attributed to the times of Shelomo.
[6]
The expression, "from the Milo and inward
(va-vaita, lit. 'toward the house')," which implies that there is
some "house" adjacent to the Milo, strengthens the possibility that we are
dealing with an area outside the city and north of it. The parallel term in
Divrei Ha-yamim, "even from the Milo round about," requires further
study.
[7]
The formulation of the parallel verse in II Divrei Ha-yamim 8:11, is very
interesting, for it implies that the daughter of Pharaoh was brought to her
house not in order to place her in the house of the king, but rather to distance
her from the house of David on account of the sanctity of the Ark that sat
therein. It seems that this is yet another allusion in Scripture itself to the
problematic nature of Shelomo's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh and her
dwelling in the City of David.
[8]
The narrative in the third explanatin is very similar to that which appears in
Midrash Vayikra Rabba (12, 5) that we cited in the previous shiur:
"Rabbo Chunya said: That night, the daughter of Pharaoh danced eighty kinds of
dances, and Shelomo slept until the fourth hour of the day, and the keys to the
Temple were under his head
" And indeed, the Midrash there concludes: "His
mother went in and rebuked him. And some say: Yarovam ben Nevat went in and
rebuked him."
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!