The History of the Divine Service at Altars (38) – The Prohibition of Bamot (15)

In the past several shiurim we analyzed Mikha's idol with respect to its time, location, the service performed there, relationship to the Mishkan in Shilo, and the characters connected to it. Now, we will consider Scripture's attitude toward the idol.

 

Why is there no explicit condemnation of Mikha's idol in scripture?

 

One of the questions that arises from our study of Mikha's idol is why Scripture does not explicitly condemn the worship of the idol. The text simply describes what took place at Mikha's shrine and how his idol was stolen and transferred to Dan in the north. It is surprising that Scripture makes no mention of any punishment that was administered for over 350 years of the idol’s existence.[1]

 

Even if we accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in his Kuzari that Mikha’s idol was meant to worship the God of Israel, the idol was still a violation of a severe prohibition. The second of the Ten Commandments reads: "You shall not make for yourself any carved idol, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath" (Shemot 20:4).

 

Furthermore, the Kuzari understands the sin of the golden calf as involving a parallel, similar offense. The consequences of that sin were exceedingly severe, changing the nature of the Shekhina’s resting in the Mishkan and impairing Israel’s relationship with God into future generations. We would expect some kind of parallel reaction to Mikha’s idol.

 

Chazal present an implied condemnation of Mikha's idol in tractate Sanhedrin (101b): "Nevat, Mikha, and Sheva the son of Bikhri are one and the same," but the critique is only by allusion.

 

On the other hand, the Mishna in Sanhedrin (90a) that excludes Yarav’am from the World to Come, does not say the same for Mikha. Chazal clearly distinguish between their different fates, perhaps because of Mikha's hospitality, as we shall see below.[2] Why the lack of explicit biblical condemnation of Mikha and the distinction between the punishments for the sin of his idol, the golden calf, and Yarav’am’s idolatry?

 

To answer these questions let us return to the beginning of the passage in Sanhedrin:

 

It was taught [in a Baraita]: Rabbi Natan said: “From Garev to Shilo is a distance of three mils, and the smoke of the altar and that of Mikha's idol intermingled.” The ministering angels wished to thrust Mikha away, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: “Let him alone, because his bread is available for travelers.”

And it was on this account that the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Giv'a were punished. For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: “You did not protest for My honor, but you protested for the honor of a woman of flesh and blood.”

 

Mikha's hospitality is his redeeming quality, explaining why God did not unequivocally reject him.

 

Mikha's most virtuous fulfillment of a mitzva between man and his fellow overcomes the serious transgression of setting up an idol, a sin that directly impairs man's relationship with God. God waived His dignity, as it were, in favor of one whose bread was available to travelers.

 

Rashi (ad loc.) explains the words of Chazal, who said: "And it was on this account that the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Giv'a were punished."

 

And it was on this account – On account of Mikha's idol, against which Israel did not protest, the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Giv'a were punished. Due to this, they fell into the hands of the people of Binyamin who killed forty thousand of them.

 

            According to Rashi, the terrible price of forty thousand dead was a direct result of the lack of protest against Mikha's idol. This is a harsh statement that failure to condemn idolatry exacts a horrifying punishment.

 

"because His bread was available to travelers" – the power of a Mitzva

 

Rav Israel Rosen[3] offers an alternative to Rashi's interpretation. In his comment, Rashi connected the Gemara’s words "And it was on this account" to the sentence that follows: "You did not protest for My honor." In Rashi’s view, the failure to protest led to forty thousand casualties.

 

Rav Rosen suggests that the words: "And it was on this account," should be connected to the previous sentence: "Because his bread was available to travelers." The people involved in the incident relating to the concubine at Giv'a were punished due to their glaring lack of hospitality. Thus, according to Rav Rosen, from God's perspective, Mikha's hospitality outweighs God’s own honor and overcomes his responsibility for worship through a carved idol, molten idol, an efod and terafim, for centuries.[4]

 

The Maharal, in his Chiddushei Aggadot in Sanhedrin offers an interesting explanation of the relationship between the availability of bread to travelers and idol worship. He writes as follows:

 

"Let him alone, because his bread is available for travelers." This stood against his practice of idol worship. With his bread that was available to travelers, he fulfilled: "You shall walk after the Lord your God" (Devarim 13:5). For thus Chazal expounded (Sota 14a): "'You shall walk after the Lord your God.' Just as He performs acts of kindness, so you must you perform acts of kindness." For God is called 'a fountain of living waters,' whereas idols are called 'broken cisterns, that can hold no water.' As it is written: 'They have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and have hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water' (Yirmeyahu 2:13)." For even after God created them and put them into the world, they only exist because God causes everything to exist. Therefore, because his bread was available to travelers, in this way he provided bounty to all, just as God provides bounty to all. In this way he cleaved to God in a small sense, and distanced himself from idol worship, which is called "broken cisterns, that can hold no water," and does not provide bounty to others.

 

The Maharal beautifully explains that "because his bread is available to travelers" means that he fulfilled the mitzva of walking after God (Devarim 13:5). Included in this mitzva is that “just as He performs acts of kindness, so must you perform acts of kindness.”[5] One aspect of God's kindness is that He provides bounty to all creatures. Hence, one whose bread is available to travelers imitates God.

           

When the prophet Yirmeyahu describes the people's abandoning of God, he says: "They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewn them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water" (Yirmeyahu 2:13). By definition, idols, e.g., the sun and the moon, cannot exist independently, because it is God who causes everything to exist. For this reason, idols are likened to broken cisterns that cannot hold water in the passage quoted by the Maharal.

 

According to the Maharal, that fact that Mikha's bread was available to travelers teaches that Mikha cleaved in a small way to God, and that he distanced himself from idol worship. Perhaps this can explain why Scripture does not record any direct critique of Mikha's idol in, by way of punishment or destruction.

 

The Merit of the community

 

Mikha’s redeeming trait is reminiscent of the Midrash that compares the generation of the flood to the generation of the dispersion:

 

No remnant remained of the generation of the flood, but a remnant did remain of the generation of the dispersion. The generation of the flood was steeped in robbery, as it is stated: "Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away the flocks, and feed them" (Iyyov 24:). Therefore no remnant remained of them. But a remnant remained of them [the generation of the dispersion], because they loved one another, as it is stated: "And the whole earth was of one language" (Bereishit 11:1). (Bereishit Rabba 38, 6)

 

The generation of the dispersion rebelled against God by building the tower of Bavel. However, a remnant remained of their generation because they loved each other. In contrast, the generation of the flood was entirely destroyed, because they were steeped in robbery.

 

Here too, we see that despite a serious sin between man and God, the generation of the dispersion is shown some level of forgiveness. Their virtuosity in the realm of interpersonal relations was their redeeming quality.

 

The Meshekh Chokhma explores the distinction between mitzvot rooted in revelation, governing the relationship between man and God, and "intuitive" mitzvot, which govern interpersonal relationships between fellow human beings. The decisive principle is that even if a community is corrupt in its relationship with God, God remains with them. However, if the community is corrupt in its interpersonal relations, God removes His Shekhina from among them.

 

The Meshekh Chokhma discusses this issue at length, bringing many proofs to his position. He writes:

 

When we consider the ways of the Torah, it seems that with respect to the revelational mitzvot, such as idolatry and forbidden sexual relations, there is [the punishment of] excision and stoning and other modes of execution and lashes. This is not the case with the intuitive mitzvot, such as strife, slander, gossip, robbery, regarding which there are no lashes, as this is a prohibition for which compensation can be made, or a prohibition that does not involve an action (Sifrei Devarim 25, 2).

This is only true about an individual, but if the community is corrupt, we find the opposite. The Yerushalmi (Pe'a 1:1) writes: "The generation of David were all righteous people, but since they were informers, they fell in war… On the other hand, the generation of Ach'av were idol worshippers, but because there were no informers among them, they went out to war and won." For if the community is corrupt in idol worship or forbidden sexual offenses, it says: "Who [God] remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness" (Vayikra 16:16). But with respect to the intuitive mitzvot, such as slander and strife, it is written: "Be You exalted, O God, above the heavens" (Tehilim 57:6). As it were, the Shekhina departs from them.

More than this they said (Yoma 9a) that in the first Temple period, they [Israel] sinned with idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed, whereas in the second Temple period, they occupied themselves with the Torah and with acts of kindness. Why then was the Temple destroyed? Because of groundless hatred. This teaches you that groundless hatred corresponds to the three [cardinal] sins: idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed. Set your eyes on the palace[6]that was returned to the first ones, but not to the latter ones. We see then that if the community is morally corrupt, it is worse than if they are corrupt in their mitzvot.

Therefore Rabbi Yochanan said in chapter Chelek in Sanhedrin 108a: "Come and see how great is the power of robbery. For lo, though the generation of the flood transgressed all laws, their decree of punishment was sealed only because they stretched out their hands to rob, as it is written: 'For the earth is filled with violence through them, and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth' (Bereishit 6:13)." For regarding the sexual transgressions, the laws of society govern them, and He would have had compassion for them. But for the intuitive mitzvot this is not possible. Therefore, for the desecration of Shabbat, which owing to our many sins has become prevalent, their punishment will be delayed, because they are a community.

So too, with regard to idol worship. They said in Sifrei: "'And the soul will be cut off' – but a community is not cut off." But when they breach the intuitive mitzvot, going with their swords and arrows to rob and steal, and they are corrupt in their moral qualities, like wild beasts, then God will take revenge and not delay. For how should we treat them? If as individuals, for the [revelational] mitzvot they are liable to excision. If as a community, they are to be consumed on account of the intuitive mitzvot.

Similarly, with regard to the generation of the flood. For robbery alone they would have been treated as individuals. However, since "all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth" (Bereishit 6:12), if each individual had been judged separately, each would be liable to excision. Perforce, God judged them together as a community, but He still judged them to be destroyed for the robbery.

We therefore find that for the golden calf, a sin of idolatry, the Holy One, blessed be He, pardoned them [Israel] and was appeased by them (Shemot 32:14). But for the sin of the spies, which involved slander and ingratitude, he did not pardon them, and it was decreed: "In this wilderness they shall be consumed" (Bemidbar 14:29-35).

According to this, we may understand the Midrash cited in the Yalkut (234): "'And the water was for them a wall' (Shemot 14:29) – This teaches that Sama’el stood up and said: Master of the universe, did Israel not worship idols like the Egyptians, and yet You perform miracles for them?” He sounded His voice to the angel of the sea, who filled with anger and wished to drown them. Regarding the miracles that God performed for them when He took them out of Egypt, he [Sama’el] raised no objections.  Though they worshipped idols and broke the covenant of circumcision, nevertheless they were strong in their ethical traits, as there was no slander among them, and they loved each other… Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, performed miracles for the community. But at the sea, when they divided into four groups, and some said: Let us return to Egypt, he [Sama'el] spoke against them and said that they must be judged as individuals, and they should be cut off for idol worship. How then do You perform miracles for them? … May God allow Israel to return to Him out of comfort, Amen. (Shemot 14:29, s.v. ve-ha-mayim)

 

The Meshekh Chokhma adduces several proofs to support his position:

 

1. He contrasts the generation of David, who fell in battle because of the informers among them, and the members of the generation of Ach'av. The latter worshipped idols, but since there were no informers among them, they emerged victorious.

2. The first Temple was destroyed because of the sins of idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed, and after seventy years the second Temple was built. In contrast, the second Temple was destroyed because of groundless hatred and has yet to be rebuilt.

3. The decree issued against the generation of the flood was sealed only because of robbery.

4. God pardoned Israel for the sin of idolatry involving the golden calf, but He did not pardon them for the slander and ingratitude of the spies.

5. In Egypt, Israel worshipped idols and failed to undergo circumcision. Nonetheless, God performed miracles on their behalf because there was no slander among them. At the time of the splitting of the Sea of Suf, however, when the Israelites were fighting amongst themselves, Sama’el suggested that they be judged as individuals and that God should not perform miracles for them.

 

These various proofs indicate that communal moral corruption is treated more severely than a breach of Israel's connection to God.

 

Rabbi Kuperman, in his edition of the Meshekh Chokhma, explains that when the community transgresses the intuitive mitzvot God no longer treats them like a community, because they no longer treat each other as part of the same community. Therefore, they no longer enjoy the merits and protection of the community, which are still available to those who transgress only the revelational mitzvot.

 

The violation of the intuitive mitzvot in of itself causes the community to crumble. Each and every person is then judged as an individual without the protection provided by the merits of the community, from which they removed themselves.

 

Mikha's Idol - a private matter or a national issue?

 

Of course, the Meshekh Chokhma does not relate to Mikha's idol. We must examine whether we are dealing with a private matter or with a community issue.

 

The story begins as a personal matter pertaining to a man named Mikha from Mount Efrayim and the shrine in his house. Nonetheless, Mikha’s shrine also provided hospitality to the general public. Should his shrine be considered in the domain of a private individual or is there more of a public dimension to the matter?

 

This question also arises after the idol is stolen by members of the tribe of Dan and set up in the north to serve that entire tribe. After this relocation, is worship of the idol still a private matter, or, is it now a public issue?

 

Regardless of the answers to these questions, the approach of the Meshekh Chokhma is instructive. In general, it accords with the understanding of Rashi's comment in Sanhedrin that good interpersonal relations can overcome breaches in the relationship between man and God.

 

THE MOTIVATION FOR MIKHA’S IDOL

 

            In previous shiurim, we cited the Midrash brought in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (103b), that Mikha's idol crossed the Sea of Suf together with the people of Israel. Another Midrash describes God's forgiving attitude regarding that incident:

 

If a child has a stone in his hand on Shabbat, what is the law about carrying him? Our Rabbis taught: A person may carry his son and the stone in his hand. You learn the law regarding a basket that has a stone in it from the generation of the wilderness. For the Holy One, blessed be He, carried them [the Israelites] in the wilderness, as it were, as a father carries his son, and there were idols in their hands… When they crossed the sea, Mikha's idol crossed with them… and the Holy One, blessed be He, did not leave them. (Bemidbar Rabba 16, 26)

 

The Yerushalmi in Berakhot (9:2) also presents a somewhat forgiving, albeit mocking, view of Mikha, who used idol worship to provide a livelihood for himself:

 

Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachman was asked by his colleagues: He [Mikha] was a priest for idol worship, and yet he lived a long life. How so? He said: Because he was selfish about his idol. How so? A person would come to sacrifice a bull or a kid or a lamb to the idol, and he would say to him [Mikha]: Pacify him for me. And he [Mikha] would say to him [the visitor]: How will it help you? It [the idol] does not see, or hear, or eat, or drink, or do good, or do evil, or talk. He [the visitor] said to him [Mikha]: What should I do? He [Mikha] said to him: Bring meal and prepare ten eggs with it and I will offer it before it. When he [the visitor] left, he [Mikha] ate them. One day an important person came, and he spoke to him in this way. He said to him: If it [serving the idol] does not help, what are you doing here? He [Mikha] said to him: For my livelihood.

 

In multiple places, Chazal view the worship of the idol as financially motivated. The Midrash says that the Mikha’s idol stood until the days of David. Then continues to write regarding the young Levite who served with Mikha:

 

When King David arose he sent for him [the young Levite] and he was brought before him. He said to him: “You are a descendant of that righteous man (Moshe), and yet you practice idolatry?”

He said to him: “I have the following tradition from my grandfather's family: One shall [rather] hire himself out to avoda zara (lit., "strange work or service") than be in need [of the help] of [his fellow] creatures.”  He [David] said to him: “Heaven forfend, he only said: One shall [rather] hire himself out for work that is strange to him than be in need [of the help] of [his fellow] creatures.” When David saw that he had a liking for money, what did he do? He put him in charge over his treasuries. This is what is written: "Shevuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moshe was ruler over the treasuries" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 26:24). [He was called [Shevuel because he returned to God [shav el El] with all his heart and all his might.

 

According to the Midrash, both Mikha and his Levite assistant were involved with the idol purely for financial gain, not because they believed in its power.

 

According to at least one view in Chazal, Mikha's idol existed at the time of the crossing of the Sea of Suf. Thus, the question arises as to why Moshe did not destroy the idol.

 

It says in Bemidbar 11:1: "And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it, and His anger was kindled. And the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed those who were in the uttermost parts of the camp." Yonatan renders the verse as follows: "And consumed the wicked people at the uttermost parts of the camp of the house of Dan, as they had an idol in their possession."

 

It would appear that Yonatan is referring to Mikha's idol, which was in the hands of the tribe of Dan. If so, why did Moshe immediately destroy the golden calf, while Mikha's idol lasted throughout the forty years in the desert?[7]

 

Presumably, Moshe thought that Mikha's idol was not actual idolatry, as opposed to the golden calf. Instead, he thought it was a monument highlighting the national and material aspects of Israel that are identified with the Messiah, who will be a descendant of Yosef.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, In this shiur we discuss the lack of Scriptural condemnation of Mikha's idol. Why is no punishment mentioned explicitly for the idolatry?