The History of the Divine Service at Altars (37) – The Prohibition of Bamot (14)

In previous shiurim we dealt with Mikha's idol, its location, its religious significance, and comparison to the Mishkan in Shilo. In this shiur, we will examine the characters mentioned in connection to the idol, especially as Chazal understood them.

 

Who was Mikha?

 

Scripture provides no identifying information regarding Mikha apart from his hailing from Mount Efrayim. Beyond the description of the service in his house and his relationship with his mother, nothing else is said about him or his family in the text.

 

A number of statements and identifications made by Chazal provide us with insights into Mikha's character and roots. These offer a partial explanation of how he came to build a shrine in his house.

 

In the course of our examination of Mikha's idol, we saw midrashim that placed Mikha's initial appearance at the time of Israel's bondage in Egypt and at the time of the splitting of the Sea of Suf. We will summarize the main points and attempt to uncover the meaning of these midrashim.

 

I.

Mikha first appears in a Midrash that discusses the origin of his name. The gemara in Sanhedrin (101b) states that he was called Mikha, "Because he was crushed (nitmakhmekh) in the building." As Rashi explains, in order to supply the quantity of material needed for building in Egypt, Jewish children were pushed into the walls in place of bricks. The Midrash cites an argument between Moshe and God. Moshe argues: "Why have you done evil to this people?" and God answers that these children would have grown up to become absolutely wicked had they survived. God suggests to Moshe that he remove one of them, and Moshe removes Mikha.

 

According to this Aggada, Moshe rescued Mikha despite God’s assurance that he would grow up to become a wicked person.

 

II.

Mikha next appears in a Midrash discussing Moshe's effort to take Yosef’s bones out of Egypt. Rashi in Sanhedrin (103b, s.v. zeh pislo) relates that Moshe was told that the Egyptians had sunk a metal coffin containing Yosef's bones in the Nile. Moshe wrote the explicit name of God, the Tetragrammaton, on a tablet, and threw it into the river in order to raise the coffin to the surface. Mikha then came secretly, and stole the tablet containing the name. Years later, at the foot of Mount Sinai, Mikha cast that name into the fire, creating the golden calf.

 

According to Rashi's second explanation, Mikha fashioned an idol in Egypt and then took it with him when Israel crossed the Sea of Suf. The difference between the two explanations is whether the golden calf was Mikha’s first idol, or whether Mikha had already prepared an idol for himself in Egypt. In both of these occurrences, Mikha exploited a divine force in an inappropriate manner for personal gain.

 

III.

The third midrashic appearance of Mikha identifies him with two other well-known biblical figures. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (101b) states: "A Tanna taught: Nevat, Mikha, and Sheva the son of Bikhri are one and the same. [He was called] Nevat, because he beheld (nibat) but did not see; Mikha, because he was crushed (nitmakhmekh) in the building; and what was his real name? Sheva the son of Bikhri.”

 

What is the connection between Mikha and Sheva the son of Bikhri? The verse in Shemuel II (20:1) reads: "And there happened to be there a worthless man, whose name was Sheva, the son of Bikhri, a Binyaminite. And he blew the shofar and said, ‘We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Yishai: every man to his tents, O Israel.’"

 

The Rambam indicates that rebellion against the kingdom of the house of David is considered a form of idolatry. As he says in his twelfth principle of faith: "Included in this principle is the idea that kingship in Israel is exclusively from David and his son Shlomo, and anybody who challenges this family is considered as if he denies God."

 

As for the connection between Mikha and Sheva the son of Bikhri, R. Yisrael Rosen[1] proposes another understanding. The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni Shemuel 1, 106) says: "Three things will they [Israel] reject in the future: the kingdom of Heaven, the kingdom of the house of David, and the building of the Temple. When did they reject all three of these? In the days of Yarav'am."[2]

 

Mikha could not have rebelled against the kingdom of the house of David because it wasn’t established until after his death. However, he can be seen as rebelling against the kingdom of Heaven and against the building of the Temple. The three rejections can be divided up as follows: Mikha rejected the kingdom of Heaven, Yarav'am rejected the Temple and Sheva the son of Bikhri rejected the kingdom of the house of David.

 

IV.

The fourth association with Mikha is Nevat, the father of Yarav'am. When the kingdom is divided after Rechav'am accepts the counsel of his young friends, the prophet says (I Melakhim 12:15-16): "So that the king hearkened not to the people; for it was so brought about from the Lord, that He might perform His saying, which the Lord spoke by Achiya the Shiloni to Yarav'am the son of Nevat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not to them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Yishai: to your tents, O Israel: now see to your own house, David. So Israel departed to their tents."

 

There is a clear parallel to the words of Sheva the son of Bikhri. In both cases, there is an attempt to break away from the Davidic dynasty and establish an alternative regime. Sheva the son of Bikhri was unsuccessful in this attempt because the people of Evel-Bet-Ma'akha were able to decapitate him. This turn of events promptly ended the campaign, with Yoav returning to Jerusalem, and all of Israel to their tents. In the case of Yarav'am, the kingdom was divided, the northern kingdom was established, and the prophecy of Achiya the Shiloni was fulfilled.

 

The Ralbag gives an interesting interpretation for the end of the verse: "Now see to your own house, David." He writes: "That is to say: See the house that remains for you to rule over, what is it, for in truth, you will not rule over Israel, and they turned away from him and left." Rechav'am saw that only the tribe of Yehuda remained in his kingdom. Thus, the reference to “the house” is to the division of the kingdom. Rashi, on the other hand, explains that it refers to, "The Temple which you built for yourself will be only for you." In other words, not only will the kingdom be divided, but the Temple will only serve the tribe of Yehuda, and not the kingdom of Israel.

 

In addition to the nearly identical statements of Sheva the son of Bikhri and of the people‘s response to Yarav'am's proposal, both stories feature an explicit reference to the division of the kingdom, and an allusion to a split concerning the central place of worship.

 

Regarding the calves set up by Yarav'am, the verse reads: "The king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said to them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (Melakhim I 12:28). This language is identical to the exclamation of the people following the creation of the golden calf in the wilderness.

 

Here too, with Yarav'am the son of Nevat (whom the Gemara identifies with Mikha), we see a political split and division (as with Sheva the son of Bikhri), and a corresponding presentation of a deviant religious alternative. Mikha similarly created a new form of religious worship, either using God's name to create the golden calf or to form his idol. Yarav'am’s calf thus repeated the original incident involving the golden calf and paralleled Mikha’s creation of a shrine on Mount Efrayim as an alternative to the Mishkan.

 

Chazal recognize the threads that tie all these incidents and characters together, and identify them with Mikha.[3] Indeed, the Margaliyot ha-Yam cites the Ein Eliyahu who writes that wherever Chazal say: "So-and-so is So-and-so," they don't mean that the two characters are literally the same person, but rather that they share the same traits or performed the same actions.

 

V.

Mikha’s fifth appearance in midrash is connected to the false prophet at Bet-El.[4] Let us preface with some background. The book of Melakhim (chap. 13) tells of a man of God who came from Yehuda and prophesied to Yarav'am about a future king from the house of David. According to the man of God, this king will slay the priests of the bamot on the altar in Bet-El, and burn men's bones upon it. The prophet then gave a sign for his words.

 

When Yarav'am heard the words of the man of God, he stretched out his hand as if to order the man of God seized, but it froze. When Yarav’am realized he couldn’t move his hand, he asked the man of God to pray that his hand be restored to him. The man of God prayed and Yarav'am's hand was healed. Yarav'am then invited the man of God to come to his house to eat with him, but the man of God declined, explaining that God had commanded him not to eat or drink there.

 

In Bet-El there lived a false prophet, who ran after the man of God when he heard this story from his sons. He too invited the man of God to come and eat and drink with him. Once again the man of God refused, saying that God had commanded him not to eat or drink in Bet-El. The false prophet then lied to him, telling him that he too was a prophet, and that an angel had told him in the name of God that he should bring the man of God with him, and give him food and drink.

 

The man of God trusted the false prophet, went with him to his house, and ate and drank. Then, the false prophet received a true prophecy in which he was told that since the man of God violated his own prophecy, his corpse will not be buried. The Radak (v. 11) writes: "'Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bet-El' – Yonatan translates this as: 'an old false prophet.' And some versions read: 'and his name was Mikha.' And so too according to the words of Chazal, he was Mikha."  

 

According to this view, Mikha, at the end of his life, is a false prophet who merits a true prophecy. As is stated at the end of Melakhim II (23:18), his bones were saved and not burned by Yoshiyahu on the altar. Why did this false prophet merit a true prophecy? Because of the hospitality that he offered to travelers.[5]

 

We may suggest that this phenomenon of false prophecy alongside true prophecy is consistent with the earlier deeds of Mikha. He both served God and built a shrine that housed a carved idol, a molten idol, terafim and an efod. This incident reinforces the image of Mikha as a mixture of different worlds.

 

Who is the young Levite?

 

Scripture presents the young Levite in Shoftim as follows (17:7): "And there was a young man of Bet-Lechem-Yehuda of the family of Yehuda, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there. And the man departed out of the city, from Bet-Lechem-Yehuda to sojourn where he could find a place: and he came to Mount Efrayim to the house of Mikha, as he journeyed."

 

The story of the concubine in Giv'a opens in a very similar manner (Shoftim 19): "And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the far side of Mount Efrayim, who took to him a concubine out of Bet-Lechem-Yehuda. And his concubine was faithless to him, and went away from him to her father's house to Bet-Lechem-Yehuda… And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak kindly to her, and to bring her back."

 

The two stories both mention a connection between Bet-Lechem-Yehuda and Mount Efrayim, while featuring a wandering Levite.

 

Beyond these details, the text does not supply any further information.

 

The Gemara in Bava Batra (110a) identifies the young Levite with Yonatan the son of Gershom the son of Moshe:

 

And they turned aside there, and said to him, “Who brought you here? And what do you in this place? And what have you here?" They said to him: “Are you not a descendant of Moshe of whom it is written: ‘Draw not near here’ (Shemot 3:5)? Are you not a descendant of Moshe of whom it is written: ‘What is this in your hand’ (Shemot 4:2)? Are you not a descendant of Moshe of whom it is written: ‘But as for you, stand you here by Me’ (Devarim 5:28)? Would you be made a priest for idol-worship?” He said to them: “I have the following tradition from my grandfather's family: At all times shall one [rather] hire himself out to avoda zara (lit., "strange work or service") than be in need [of the help] of [his fellow] creatures.” He thought that avoda zara [meant] actual [idol worship], but it is not so, [the meaning being,] "work which is strange to him."… When David saw that he had an exceptional liking for money, he put him in charge over the treasuries, for it is said: "Shevuel the son of Gershom, the son of Menashe was ruler over the treasuries" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 26:24). But was his name Shevuel? Surely his name was Yonatan! Rabbi Yochanan said: [He was called Shevuel] because he returned to God with all his heart.

 

Money exerted a profound influence on the young Levite's life. On account of money, he joined Mikha's shrine, served there as a priest, and, ultimately, repented.

 

The Jerusalem Talmud states (Berakhot 9):

 

They asked R. Shemuel bar Nachman: Surely it is written: "Until the day of the captivity of the land" (Shoftim 18:30). He said to them: When David died, Shlomo arose and changed his officers [firing Yehonatan the son of Gershom], and he went back to his initial sinning. This is what it says: "Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bet-El" (I Melakhim 13:11).

 

Thus, money causes the Levite to return to his life of sin.

 

The connection between Mikha's Idol and Moshe[6]

 

            I.

According to Rashi on the Gemara in Sanhedrin cited above, the connection begins when God tells Moshe that the children who were placed in the walls would have grown up to become absolutely wicked people. Moshe, with God’s approval, removed Mikha from among the walls. Thus, Moshe was Mikha’s rescuer.[7]

 

II.

Chazal ask in Bava Batra (109b) about Yehonatan the son of Gershom the son of Menashe, who served as a priest at Mikha's shrine: "Was he the son of Menashe? Surely he was the son of Moshe, as it is written: "The sons of Moshe: Gershom, and Eliezer" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 23:15). But [you must say that] because he acted [wickedly] as Menashe, Scripture ascribed his descent to Menashe." The hanging nun in the word Menashe implies that the real meaning of the verse is, “Yehonatan the son of Gershom the son of Moshe.”

 

III.

The Gemara in Bava Batra 110a cited above identifies the young Levite as Moshe’s grandson and explains that he misinterpreted a family tradition to justify serving in Mikha’s shrine.

 

Such a gross misunderstanding is hard to believe. How is it possible that a grandson of Moshe served as a priest at a shrine where the God of Israel was worshipped alongside idols?[8]

 

The Mekhilta in Parashat Yitro implies that the root of the matter traces back to what happened before the birth of Moshe's son:

 

When Moshe said to Yitro: Give me your daughter, Tzipora, as a wife, Yitro said to him: Accept one thing that I tell you and I will give her to you as a wife. Moshe said to him: What is that? He said to him: Your first son will be dedicated to idol worship; from then on, to the worship of God. He accepted this. He said to him: Swear to me, and he swore to him, as it is stated: "And Moshe was content (vayo'el) to live with the man" (Shemot 2:21). Ala is a term of swearing, as it is stated: "For Shemuel adjured (vayo'el) the people" (Shemuel I 14:24).    

 

This Midrash indicates that Moshe took an oath that his son would be dedicated to idol worship.

 

The Mekhilta may have learned this by way of the parallel between "And the Levite was content to dwell with the man" (Shoftim 17:11) and "And Moshe was content to live with the man" (Shemot 2:21). Just as the Levite man worshipped idols so too Moshe was connected to idolatry through his descendant.

 

The author of the Turim (Shemot 2:16) writes that Moshe knew that he would succeed in bringing Yitro to repent if he lived with him, as indeed happened. Therefore, he agreed to take the oath that he would dedicate his son to idol worship, since he knew Yitro himself would abandon idol worship and he would never have to fulfill his oath.

 

Yalkut Me'am Lo'ez (Shoftim 18:31) writes that Moshe and Yitro engaged in an educational debate. Moshe contended that a child must be raised insulated from negative influences, whereas Yitro argued that a child must be exposed to all perspectives and allowed to decide for himself. This is what Yitro meant when he said: "Your first son will be dedicated to idol worship," that is, he would be open even to idol worship. Moshe consented, as he was confident that his son would choose the right path, even after being exposed to the ways of idolatry.

 

Additionally, Moshe was intended to be a priest, but he forfeited the priesthood due to his refusal to accept God's mission (Zevachim 102a, and Rashi, Shemot 4:13). The Ibn Ezra in Parashat Korach (Bemidbar 16:28) writes: "There is a question here, the answer to which is in Parashat Vayelekh." The Meshekh Chokhma explains these enigmatic words of the Ibn Ezra as follows. The question is, why didn't God remove the priesthood from Aharon as a consequence for his participation in the sin of the golden calf, and give it to Moshe instead? The explanation, from Parashat Vayelekh lies in the verse: "And this people will rise up, and go astray after the gods of the strangers of the land" (Devarim 31:16). Since God knew that Yehonatan the son of Gershom the son of Moshe would be a priest for idol worship, the priesthood was not given to Moshe.

 

Moshe's grandson’s role as a priest for the worship of Mikha's idol had another effect. At the end of the Torah it says: "And the Lord showed him all the land of Gil'ad, to Dan, and all Naftali, and the land of Efrayim" (Devarim 34:1). The Sifrei, later brought by Rashi, explains the words "to Dan," as referring to Mikha's idol that was set up at Dan. The Meshekh Chokhma (ad loc.) expounds upon this in light of the view that "to" means "up until" but is not inclusive. God did not show Mikha's idol at Dan to Moshe, because Yehonatan the son of Gershom would serve there in the future as a priest to the idol.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, This shiur analyzes the various characters identified with Mikha and the young Levite in chazal and the significance of those identifications.