The History of the Divine Service at Altars (28) – The Prohibition of Bamot (5)

 

The spiritual significance of the Sacrificial service performed at Bamot

 

In the previous shiurim, we completed our survey of the various stages of the prohibition and allowance of bamot across the generations. We also brought the explanation offered by the Meiri and the Meshekh Chokhma, based on the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta, concerning the guiding principle that whenever the ark is located inside the Mishkan or Mikdash, bamot are forbidden, and whenever it is located outside, bamot are permitted. I now wish to consider the overall spiritual significance of the sacrificial service performed at bamot as opposed to such service performed in the Mishkan or Mikdash.

 

In the three previous shiurim, we painted a general picture of the history of the prohibition of bamot. We saw that bamot were forbidden for the first time with the building of the Mishkan (the prohibition of "animals slaughtered outside"; Vayikra 17), but it would seem that this prohibition differs from the prohibition that applies for future generations (Devarim 12), and that its primary purpose was to distance people from demon worship that is characteristic of life in the wilderness.[1]

 

With Israel's entry into the Promised Land - and perhaps even earlier, already in the fortieth year to the exodus from Egypt, when Israel camped in the plains of Moav – bamot were permitted. They were once again forbidden in the days of Shilo, and then permitted again when the Mishkan or great bama stood in Nov and in Givon, apart from the ark (see I Shemuel 7:1-2; II Shemuel 6). After the Temple was built in Jerusalem, bamot were permanently prohibited, with no further allowance. In the last shiur, we tried to formulate the reasons why bamot were never again permitted after the Temple was built.

 

In this shiur, we will consider the nature of and reason for the prohibition of bamot for all generations (we will not deal with the issue of sacrificing to the demons), and we will examine the reasons given for why the allowance of bamot is problematic. We will also encounter opinions that recognize the possible advantage of building bamot in all places.

 

I. The allowance of Bamot – Defective reality

 

1. The relationship between service at bamot and idol worship: Bamot constitute an impairment of the unity of God

 

We mentioned briefly in the previous shiur that even though service at bamot and idol worship are two entirely different prohibitions, there seems to be a connection between the two. This connection clearly arises from Scripture, both in the book of Vayikra and in the book of Bamidbar. In the book of Vayikra, we read:

 

Whatever man there be of the house of Israel who kills an ox, or lamb, or goat in the camp or who kills it outside the camp and brings it not to the door of the Ohel Mo'ed, to offer an offering to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord - blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood, and that men shall be cut off from among his people. To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the door of the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings to the Lord. (Vayikra 17:3-5)

 

The baraita in Zevachim (106b) learns from these verses that "he who sacrifices [at bamot] when bamot are forbidden, Scripture regards him as though he offered in the open field." Rashi (ad loc.) explains: "As though he offered in the open field – not for the sake of Heaven." In other words, it is considered as though he sacrificed in order to worship idols.

 

An even clearer connection emerges from the passage in Devarim 12, which links service "in all places" to the practices of idol worshippers:

 

You shall utterly destroy all the places in which the nations whom you are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree…

This you shall not do to the Lord your God. But to the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of your tribes to put His name there, there shall you seek Him, at His dwelling, and there shall you come, and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices… You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes…

Take heed to yourself that you offer not your burnt-offerings in every place that you see. But only in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt-offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you. (Devarim 12:2-14)

 

As Rashi explains (ad loc., v. 4): "'This you shall not do' – to raise offerings to Heaven everywhere."[2]

 

In light of all of this, the Abravanel explains (Vayikra 17:1) that offering sacrifices outside the Mishkan is forbidden because it can be interpreted as service directed to a false god. The exclusivity of the altar and the Mishkan is testimony to the unity of God – God is one and His name is one:

 

One should not think of slaughtering an animal in the field, building a bama there, and offering his sacrifice there… Because the exclusivity of the altar and the Mishkan indicates the unity of God, who leads the people and oversees them. But when they offer a burnt-offering or some other sacrifice at a bama or some other altar, it is as if they believe in multiple gods, and that God, blessed be He, is not one.

 

The Radak writes:

 

"Shelomo loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father; but he sacrificed and burnt incense at bamot." This was before the Temple was built. Why then does it says "but"? Surely bamot were permitted until the Temple was built!

Because it says, "In the statutes of David his father," and David only offered sacrifices at the altar that stood before the ark in Jerusalem or at the great bama in Givon. We do not find that he offered sacrifices or burnt incense at other bamot, because excessive use of bamot brings a person to idol worship, as it is the way of the heathen nations, who build an altar on every mountain and hill and under every leafy tree. (I Melakhim 3:3)

 

The Abravanel in Melakhim writes similarly:

 

For excessive use of bamot brings a person to sin, as it is like the way of the heathen nations who build a bama on every mountain and hill and under every leafy tree.

 

The Radak and the Abravanel both attempt to explain the puzzling formulation found in the verse dealing with Shelomo: "But he sacrificed and burnt incense at bamot." The verses are dealing with the period of time during which the Mishkan stood in Givon, when the offering of sacrifices at bamot was permitted. Why qualify the verse with the word "but," indicating that this was a flaw on Shelomo’s part? Both commentators argue that excessive use of bamot leads to idol worship. This is the way of the heathen nations. Given the reality that idol worship is found on every mountain and hill and under every leafy tree, the addition of bamot will only add to idol worship.

 

2. Sacrificial service at bamot impairs the unity of the people

 

R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook understood that the prohibition of bamot bears significance not only in the context of concern about idolatry, but also as an expression of the unity of the people:

 

Even the assembly of small groups for the sake of Heaven at bamot impairs the principle of the general unity of the people in its great center. It is only through that unity that the desire of God will be revealed and fulfilled….

For this reason, once the site of the general sanctity was established in Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden. (Olat Ra'aya I, pp. 227-228)

 

R. Kook further expresses this idea in connection with the private bamot that existed during the Second Temple period:

 

When we were on our land and the Temple was built, it was the center and the site of unity of the entire nation. Therefore, private bamot were forbidden. Even though it would have been possible to assemble in small groups at the bamot, the small groups bring division to the great center and cancel the unity of the people, which is the sole conduit of the full will of God. (Ein Aya, Berakhot I, p. 76)

 

The Keli Yakar writes in his commentary:

 

"But to the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, there shall you seek Him, at His dwelling, and there shall you come." "There shall you seek Him" (tidreshu) is in the plural, whereas "and there shall you come" (u-vata) is in the singular. For this verse is a warning to groups of people and a warning to the individual that they should not offer sacrifices at a bama. Neither a large group of people, regarding whom there is concern that they wish to separate themselves from the congregation of Israel, nor even an individual, about whom there is no such concern - nevertheless, he must not offer sacrifices on a bama. )Devarim 12:5)

 

According to the Keli Yakar, offering a sacrifice at a bama reflects a desire to separate from the congregation of Israel.

 

Continuing along this line of thought, it may be suggested that a bama, even if it draws a person closer to the service of God close to his home, by its very nature challenges the idea of a single place intended from the outset for the totality of the people of Israel.

 

3. A place that is open to all without restrictions or distinctions

 

The Temple is located in one defined place, surrounded by walls and endowed with sanctity. Only the people of Israel may enter into it, different classes of people into different places, and only in a state of purity. R. Kook addresses the difference between a matzeva (a pillar) and a building serving as a temple:

 

And it is fitting to examine the line that divides between a center around which people assemble for service, which was rejected, and a building into which people assemble for service, which remained loved. In tractate Pesachim (88a), the Sages said: "What is meant by the verse: 'And many people shall go and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Yaakov' (Yeshaya 2:3) – [the God of Yaakov, but not the God of Avraham and Yitzchak? But the meaning is this: We will] not [be] like Avraham, who called it a 'mountain,' and not like Yitzchak, who called it a 'field,' but rather like Yaakov, who called it a 'house.'"

What this means is: At first when Avraham began to call in the name of the Lord, the call was not detailed, with a particular mode of service and an order of laws. Rather it was meant to turn people's hearts in general to the name of God, the eternal God, Creator of heaven and earth. This does not allow for a difference between one nation and the next; all of humankind can assemble together to serve God.

This is the meaning of a matzeva - a central sacred point, around which all gather for service with no distinctions.  But such an assembly serves merely as training. The higher purpose is that desired service should enter into the world, service that is organized in the spirit of God and unique for Israel, the chosen people. Not all people are fit to participate equally in the service at this level.

When Yaakov saw the special quality that would eventually appear among the seed that would sprout from him, he said: "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar" shall no longer be a free pillar, where the service is centered around it with no partitioning walls. But rather it "shall be God's house" – a distinct house surrounded by partitions, into which only those who are fitting may enter. (Iggeret 5746)

 

R. Kook formulates his words in relation to a matzeva, but there is no reason to think that he views an altar in a different light. The essential point is that the place is open to all without partitions and restrictions.

 

With regard to the nature of the service itself, there are great differences between an altar and a matzeva. It is not by chance that the Torah prohibited a matzeva for all future generations but permitted altars during periods during which bamot were permitted. The similarity noted here between an altar and a matzeva relates exclusively to the absence of partitions and boundaries, as opposed to a building serving as the house of God, not the nature of the service itself.

 

R. Kook considers two factors here: whether the place is open or closed and whether it is one place or many places. It is possible that there is a connection between these two factors. We do not find closed structures that were used as sites of service in all places. An altar and a matzeva are similar with respect to both factors, and it is with respect to them, and not the nature of the service itself, that we drew a comparison between them.

 

4. A place that impairs the selection and the sanctity of Jerusalem

 

In the previous shiur, we saw among the explanations suggested for the fact that there was no further allowance of bamot once the people of Israel reached Jerusalem the idea of the Divine selection and the sanctity of the city. The building of a bama when the Mikdash stands detracts from the eternal Divine selection of Jerusalem and from the sanctity of the place.

 

The idea of God's resting in Jerusalem - "This is My resting place forever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it" (Tehillim 132:14) - means that there is a constant and everlasting relationship between God and the place in which He chose to rest His name. Building a bama at the same time that the Mikdash stands in Jerusalem impairs the eternal Divine selection and the sanctity of the city.

 

II. Sacrificial service at Bamot – Keeping away from idol worship

 

Despite what we have learned thus far, the Netziv, in his commentary to Shir Ha-Shirim, titled Meitav Shir, views the sacrificial service at bamot as a means of keeping away from idol worship and its prohibition actually as a prod toward it:

 

About King Shelomo it is written: "Shelomo loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father, but he sacrificed and burnt incense at bamot" (I Melakhim 3:3). Rashi explains: "Scripture speaks here to his discredit, that he delayed the building of the Temple for four more years."

There would seem to be a difficulty. Why does Scripture speak to Shelomo's discredit in that he offered sacrifices at bamot, which at the time were permitted, rather than spell out the primary condemnation that he was lazy in building the Temple? Rather, it was certainly not out of laziness that Shelomo reached this sin that he delayed building the Temple. Rather it was because he knew that after building the Temple it would be forbidden to offer sacrifices at bamot and the love of God would therefore diminish in Israel. For offering sacrifices before God leads to love and cleaving…

When bamot were permitted, it was convenient for one who wished to cling to the love of God to offer a sacrifice at a bama wherever he wished. This was not the case after the building of the Temple, when it was impossible to do so until a Festival arrived and he went to Jerusalem. For this reason, Shelomo delaying building the Temple for four years. This is the condemnation of Shelomo – that he was so immersed in the love of God to the point that he was negligent about the building of the Temple, so that he could offer sacrifices and burn incense at bamot. (6:5)

 

In his commentary Ha'amek Davar to Devarim, the Netziv goes even further and asserts that the prohibition of bamot pushed the nation to idol worship:

 

One should reflect upon what we that the people came to… idol worship during the time of Shilo and the Temple, more so than in the time of Gilgal, Nov, and Givon.

… But the idea is that the masses of Israel were ardent about the sacrificial service since the sacrifices were known to be good for ensuring a livelihood…

It was, however, difficult for an individual to come specifically to Shilo or to the Temple, and bamot were prohibited. Therefore, they sought the worship of other gods. This was not the case when bamot were permitted, and they never reached such a desire at all. (4:21)[3]

 

However, in light of everything we have seen so far, the Netziv's explanation seems to be exceedingly novel.[4] As we have explained, in our opinion, the plain sense of Scripture indicates that in a world of idol worship, multiple places for serving God is likely to lead to idolatry. As the Radak writes in connection with the verse in Melakhim, Shelomo is condemned for the use of bamot, as excessive bamot lead to idol worship.

 

As we saw in the previous shiur, the connection between sacrificial service at bamot and idolatry stands out also in the historical dimension. Over almost the entire course of the First Temple period, Israel worshipped God at bamot, and parallel to that they worshipped idols during a significant portion of that period. On the other hand, over the course of the Second Temple period, already from the outset we find neither bamot nor idol worship.

 

Chazal interpreted this relationship not only as a technical connection, resulting from the similarity in the mode and nature of the worship, but also as a deeper connection, stemming from what they called "the evil desire for idol worship." Perhaps the most explicit illustration of this force is the story brought in tractate Sanhedrin:

 

In the school of R. Ashi, the lecture [one day] terminated at "Three Kings" [who do not have a share in the World-to-Come: Yerava'am, Ach'av, and Menashe]. He said to the Sages: Tomorrow, we will commence with our colleagues. [That night,] Menashe came and appeared to him in a dream. He said to him: You have called us your colleagues and the colleagues of your father. Now, from what part [of the bread] is [the piece for reciting] the Ha-Motzi blessing to be taken? He answered: I do not know. He jibed: You have not learned this, and yet you call us your colleagues! He begged: Teach it to me, and tomorrow I will teach it in your name at the session. He answered: From the part that is baked into a crust.

He then questioned him: Since you are so wise, why did you worship idols? He replied: Were you there, you would have caught up the skirt of your garment and sped after me. The next day, he observed to the students: We will commence with our teachers [referring to the Three Kings]. (Sanhedrin 102b)

 

Along these lines, Chazal also explain that the Men of the Great Assembly at the beginning of the Second Temple period succeeded in entirely abolishing the evil desire for idol worship, which they saw as the principal cause of the destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylonia:

 

"And they cried with a great loud voice unto the Lord" (Nechemia 9:4). What did they cry? Rav said, and some say it was R. Yochanan who said: Woe, woe! This [the evil desire for idol worship] is what destroyed the Sanctuary, burned the Temple, killed all the righteous, driven all Israel into exile, and is still dancing around among us! You have surely given it to us so that we may receive reward through it [for overcoming it]. We want neither it nor reward through it! Thereupon, a tablet fell down from heaven for them, whereupon the word "truth" was inscribed. [Rashi: That is to say, I agree with you]…

They ordered a fast of three days and three nights, whereupon it was surrendered to them [from heaven]. It came forth from the Holy of Holies like a young fiery lion. Thereupon the Prophet said to Israel: This is the evil desire of idolatry, as it is stated: "And he said, This is wickedness" (Zekharya 5:8). (Yoma 69b)

 

In both stories, the term "evil desire for idol worship" refers to actual idol worship. However, it stands to reason that we are dealing with a broader force, and not a force that is directed specifically at idol worship.

 

This is the way the matter was understood by R. Kook. He understands that "a burst of desire for faith" brings a person to a "ritual frenzy," which can find expression not only in the loss of a distinction between "fitting and unfitting faith" (i.e., idol worship), but also in the worship of God in an unfitting manner, i.e., service at bamot, rather than in the place chosen by God.[5]

 

This desire operated in full strength during the First Temple period, but in the early days of the Second Temple period, it was nullified. In this way, the Men of the Great Assembly spared the people of the need to struggle with idol worship and worship at bamot.[6]

 

            In continuation of the words of the Netziv, it is fitting to mention the position of the Seforno concerning the resting of the Shekhina. According to the Seforno, the ideal situation is what the Torah describes in Parashat Yitro regarding the building of an altar: "An altar of earth you shall make to Me… in all places where I cause My name to be pronounced, I will come to you, and I will bless you" (Shemot 20:21). Building an altar everywhere involves supernal revelation. You can encounter God everywhere; "there is no place empty of Him." The worship of God is relevant to the entire nation, and there is no need for a temple of silver and gold so that God should rest His Shekhina upon it. Far superior is a popular altar in all places.

 

The Mishkan involves a contraction of the Divine Presence in two senses:

 

1. A contraction to one place, rather than many places.

2. A contraction of the Divine service to the priesthood, rather than the firstborns of every family.

 

The similarity between the Netziv and the Seforno is in the understanding that there is a certain advantage to Divine worship in all places over worship in a single place. However, their reasoning is different:

 

1) According to the Netziv, the advantage of bamot in all places lies in the very close connection of each individual to the site of worship, compared to the difficulty created by the individual's great distance from the Temple.

 

2) According to the Seforno, the advantage of bamot in all places lies in the more popular dimension of the service, which finds expression in the many places of worship, rather than the grandeur of the gold and silver of a single Mishkan, and in the service performed by the firstborns of every family, rather than by one priestly family.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, In this shiur, we will consider the nature of and reason for the prohibition of bamot for all generations (we will not deal with the issue of sacrificing to the demons), and we will examine the reasons given for why the allowance of bamot is problematic. We will also encounter opinions that recognize the possible advantage of building bamot in all places.