The History of the Divine Service at Altars (49) – The Prohibition of Bamot (26)

Why Wasn't the Ark Returned to the Mishkan?

Over the course of the last few shiurim we considered the various stations of the ark and the Mishkan and the connections between them. In light of this, the question arises why wasn't the ark returned to the Mishkan as soon as it reached Beit-Shemesh, after it had been captured by the Pelishtim and moved about among their cities? Moreover, it seems that this question should be asked with respect to every movement of both the Mishkan and the ark: After the Mishkan in Shilo was destroyed, and it was moved to Nov the city of the priests, why wasn't the ark moved to Nov as well? The same question can be raised after the ark was moved to Kiryat-Ye'arim: Why is it kept there for twenty years (I Shemuel 7:2), and not moved first to Nov, and afterwards to the great bama in Giv'on?

According to what we have learned, the significance of leaving the ark in some place other than at the great bama is the allowance of bamot, i.e., the allowance to offer sacrifices in all places. Had they returned the ark and moved it to Nov or Giv'on, the Mishkan would once again have returned to full functioning, and not only as the great bama, and thus bamot would have become forbidden, so that even the sacrifices of individuals could only have been offered in the Mishkan itself.

This also seems to underlie David's decision to bring the ark to the City of David. It is quite clear that David refrained from returning the ark to Giv'on, with the conscious intention to join Jerusalem the city of royalty to the resting of the Shekhina, i.e., the ark, and with the hope and prayer that the Temple would indeed be built in Jerusalem.

The Attitude of Shemuel and Shaul to the Ark and the Mishkan

This question is asked in relation to the leadership of Israel during that period: Shemuel the prophet and Shaul the king. Of the twenty years that the ark was in Kiryat-Ye'arim, David ruled as king for seven years in Hebron only over the kingdom of Yehuda. Since he did not rule over all of Israel, it was not in his power to decide about the ark; and the fact is that as soon as he acquired kingship over all of Israel and conquered Jerusalem, he brought the ark up to Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note that we find no connection whatsoever between the prophet Shemuel and the ark. When the ark was captured by the Pelishtim at the battle in Even-ha-Ezer, when it was returned to Beit-Shemesh, and when it was brought to Kiryat-Ye'arim – we never find Shemuel relating to the ark.

Similarly, we do not find the prophet Shemuel in the Miskhan at Nov or Giv'on, and regarding his public oration in the wake of Shaul's anointment as king it says: "And Shemuel called the people together to the Lord in Mitzpa" (I Shemuel 10:17).

Shemuel gathers the people for public assemblies to Mitzpa (I Shemuel 10:17), and Scripture describes his governance as follows: "And Shemuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went from year to year in circuit to Beit-El, and Gilgal, and Mitzpa, and judged Israel in all those places. And his return was to Rama; for there was his house; and there he judged Israel; and there he built an altar to the Lord" (I Shemuel 7:15-17). Mention is made of Beit-El, Gilgal, and Mitzpa, but there is no reference to Nov, Giv'on, or even Kiryat Ye'arim.

Following the victory over Nachash the Amonite, it says: "Then said Shemuel to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there" (I Shemuel 11:14)[1] – to Gilgal, and not to Nov. The same is true after the battle of Mikhmas in chapter 13, and after the war with Amalek in chapter 15.

Similarly with respect to Shaul, in addition to David's explicit statement when he moves the ark from Kiryat-Ye'arim to the City of David: "And let us bring back the ark of God to us; for we did not inquire at it in the days of Shaul" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 13:3), we do not find that Shaul himself ever came to the Mishkan in Nov or to Kiryat Ye'arim for any public national assembly in the wake of his various victories.

From all that was said above, it follows that neither Shemuel nor Shaul showed any particular interest in the ark or the Mishkan. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the people of Israel should expect a different attitude from its leaders.

Why Didn't Shemuel and Shaul See Fit to Bring the Ark to Nov or Giv'on?

The verses themselves do not explicitly address this question. We will propose several solutions, and adduce support from the words of the Rishonim.

1. The people of Israel did not yet correct their attitude toward the ark. We have demonstrated that the plague and the rout at Even-ha-Ezer stemmed in part from the attitude of Eli and his sons toward the ark, and the understanding that the ark is some kind of talisman that can rescue Israel in a time of trouble. This might have required a big change which needed a lot of time. Shemuel brought about a tremendous revolution with his removal of idolatry (I Shemuel 7:3-4). This was an exceedingly great reform that wiped out centuries of idol worship during the period of the Judges, and this was certainly the most necessary reform at the time. Nevertheless, changing the mental and spiritual attitude toward the ark might have required more time, and Shemuel was of the opinion that as long as the people have not yet fully corrected their distorted perception, no action should be taken in regard to the ark, and that it was preferable to leave it where it was in Kiryat-Ye'arim, and not deal with it.

Yehuda Kil[2] formulates this differently: "It should be noted that we do not find that Shemuel inquired at the ark of the covenant of the Lord in its temporary location in Kiryat-Ye'arim. He may have wanted to teach the people thereby that deliverance lies not in the ark of the covenant of the Lord, but in He who rests His glory upon it." According to this understanding, when Shemuel saw that the people of Israel were putting their trust in the ark, rather than improving their ways and repenting, he decided to leave the ark in Kiryat-Ye'arim apart from the Mishkan in Nov, in the hope that the separate location of the ark would stop the people of Israel from putting their trust in it.

2. Fear of the ark's power – In addition to the previous consideration, it is very possible that Shemuel understood that the people were still not "cured" of their great fear of the ark. In the end the ark had not prevented Israel's rout in the battle of Even-ha-Ezer, or the great plague in which thirty-four thousand soldiers were killed. It turned out that the ark caused great death among the Pelishtim and led to severe blows. With the return of the ark to Beit-Shemesh, its inhabitants are smitten because of it, "seventy men, fifty thousand men" (I Shemuel 6:19), because they saw it. At this stage the people felt that the ark is dangerous and lethal, and it was Shemuel's assessment that this being the situation the ark should not be returned to the Mishkan in Nov.

3. Waiting for Divine guidance – It is possible that with the continued separation between the ark and the Mishkan, the idea developed that the ark should not be returned to its place in the Mishkan without Divine instruction. Since such instruction was not received, they preferred to leave the ark in its place, in accordance with the rule that in a case of doubt, do nothing.

4. Expectation of a permanent Temple – They may have thought that since the Mishkan stood in Shilo for 369 years, which is an exceedingly long period of time, the next stage is a permanent Temple. They may have relied on what it says in the Torah: "But when you traverse the Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God gives you to inherit, and when He gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there; there shall you bring all that I command you; your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes and the offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow to the Lord" (Devarim 12:10-11). The stage has arrived to build the permanent Temple, but God has still not given them peace from all their enemies round about, and they are still not dwelling in safety, and therefore they are waiting for rest from the enemies which will allow them to begin building a permanent Temple. This state of waiting, where the ark is in one place and the great bama in another, is an intermediate stage, and there is no reason to reunite them.

5. The aspiration for "between his shoulders" with respect to Binyamin[3] - Included in the list of cities of Binyamin (Yehoshua 18:28) is "Kiryat." Yehuda Kil explains that Kiryat is a city in itself, and it would seem that it full name is Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim, this being the hill where the people of Kiryat-Ye'arim rested the ark of the Lord in the house of Avinadav (I Shemuel 7:1). This hill was located within the borders of Kiryat-Ye'arim which is in the tribal territory of Yehuda (as is stated explicitly in Yehoshua 18:14: "And the border was drawn, and turned about at its western corner to the south, from the hill that lies before Bet-Choron southward; and its terminations were at Kiryat-Ba'al, which is Kiryat-Ye'arim, a city of the children of Yehuda: this was the west quarter"), but the hill itself – Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim – was in the tribal territory of Binyamin.[4]  They may have brought the ark to this hill in the tribal territory of Binyamin, along the border of Yehuda, because they thought that the time arrived for the fulfillment of Moshe's prophecy: "And of Binyamin he said, The beloved of the Lord; he shall dwell in safety by Him; He shall cover him all the day long, and He shall dwell between his shoulders" (Devarim 33:12), and for this reason no attempt was made to return the ark to its place in Shilo. When David conquered Jerusalem, he moved the ark from the slope of Mount Ye'arim to the slope of the Yevusi.

However, according to this explanation, it is still not clear why the ark was left in Kiryat-Ye'arim, separated from the Mishkan, when even the cities of Nov and Giv'on are located it the tribal territory of Binyamin, and it would seem appropriate to bring it over to them. The matter requires further study.

6. The allowance of bamot – The author of the commentary to the book of Shemuel, Nachalat Avot,[5] writes that following the destruction of the Mishkan in Shilo the Mishkan was erected in Nov. On the other hand, the ark was moved to Kiryat-Ye'arim, and it seems that the people of Israel had a tradition that this was a period during which time bamot are permitted, and therefore they did not return the ark to the Mishkan. According to this, leaving the ark in Kiryat-Ye'arim apart from the Mishkan is what permitted the continued offering of sacrifices on private bamot. Thus we find in the Yerushalmi (Megilla 1:12), in the Tosefta at the end of tractate Zevachim, and in the Meshekh Chokhma (Devarim 12:8). On the other hand, we learned in the Bavli: "'For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, [which the Lord your God gives you' – 'to the rest' alludes to Shilo, 'inheritance' alludes to Jerusalem. Why does Scripture separate them? In order to grant permission between one and the other" (Zevachim 119a).

The question is whether there is a disagreement between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Rav Shlomo Shapira suggests that there is no dispute; the Bavli learned from the verses that there must be an allowance of bamot between Shilo and Jerusalem, whereas the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi explain how this works in practice. If indeed they learned that following the destruction of Shilo bamot must be permitted until the building of the Temple, and the allowance depends on the ark being separated from the Mishkan, it turns out that the ark should not be brought to the Mishkan, and therefore the ark remained in Kiryat-Ye'arim, while the Mishkan was brought to Nov and Giv'on.

Consequently, a fascinating question arises: Did the people of Israel know that the Mishkan in Nov was temporary?[6]

• The Radak in his commentary asks: "Why didn't David bring the ark to Giv'on which was the site of the Mishkan?… Because he knew that the Ohel Mo'ed would eventually come to Jerusalem, and he thought that this would happen in his life, and that he would build the Temple. Therefore, after he brought the ark to Jerusalem, he asked Natan the prophet whether he would build a house for God (II Shemuel 6:17)." And later: "Because they had a tradition that Jerusalem is the holy city, and that the Temple would be built there." And similarly: "He knew by tradition that the house of God would be built on Mount Moriya" (II Shemuel 15:30). It is clear that according to the Radak, the Mishkan at Nov was temporary.[7]
• It may be suggested that if we see the Mishkan in Nov as temporary, there is more reason to think that there should be an allowance of bamot, and therefore the ark should not be brought into the Mishkan, and so the ark was intentionally kept apart from the Mishkan. Some argue[8] that David did not want to bring the ark to Giv'on so as not to prohibit offering sacrifices on bamot. Rav Sandorfi tries to explain this in accordance with the view of the Netziv[9] that the geographical independence of worship at bamot leads to heightened communion with and love of God. In any event, this position is exceedingly novel; was there really a tradition that following the destruction of Shilo they must wait until they come to Jerusalem, and in the meantime it is fitting in an essential way that bamot be permitted.

The conventional view, unlike that of the Netziv, is that which is expressed by the Radak: "Multiple bamot brings a person to idolatry, as this is the practice of the nations who build a bama on every hill and mountain and under every green tree" (I Melakhim 3:7). According to the Radak, there is real concern that a period during which bamot are permitted will lead to increased idolatry, and therefore this is not the preferred situation, but rather it is preferable to reunite the ark with the Mishkan.

Therefore another question that requires further study is how long after the destruction of Shilo did they deliberately wait for the selection of Jerusalem, and was it clear to Shemuel, and to Shaul after him, that there is no reason to reunite the ark and the Mishkan, and that there should be a period during which the ark and the Mishkan are separated and bamot are permitted. Or perhaps there is reason to reunite them, but for various reasons this was not possible, and this led to the allowance of bamot, despite the fact that in and of itself this was not the preferred alternative.

7. The people of Israel feared the Pelishtim – Rabbi Yehonatan ha-Kohen of Lunel in his novellae to tractate Megilla writes that when the ark returned from the land of the Pelishtim, "the people of Israel did not bring the ark into the Mishkan of Moshe, because they were afraid, and the Judges of Israel put it in their fortified cities, because they feared their enemies… And King David brought it up to the city of Zion, the site of his fortress" (9b, s.v. ein bein bama gedola; see also Meiri, ad loc.). It is interesting that in connection with the signs that Shemuel gives Shaul after he anoints him as king, it says: "After that you shall come to the hill of God, where the garrisons of the Pelishtim are, and it shall come to pass, when you are come there to the city, that you shall meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with a lute, and a timbrel, and a pipe, and a lyre, before them; and they shall prophesy" (I Shemuel 10:5), and Targum Yonatan renders this as: "After that you shall come to the hill where the ark of God is." That is to say, the "hill of God" is Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim.[10] 

Thus writes the Radak (ad loc.):

Targum Yonatan writes: "To the hill where the ark of God is," this being Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim, because the ark was there from the day that it was returned by the Pelishtim until David brought it up from there… As the Pelishtim ruled in Israel, and they put garrisons there. And similarly in Geva Binyamin, as David said when he ruled over Edom: "And he put garrisons in Edom" (II Shemuel 8:14). And Shemuel said to him that there the spirit of God would rest upon him for two reasons. First because there was the ark, and second, because there were the garrisons of the Pelishtim. Thus he alluded to him that that He would remove them from there and deliver Israel from their hands.  (s.v. Giv'at ha-Elokhim)

According to this explanation Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim, where the ark rested, was under Pelishti control. In that region, sits the Pelishti garrison, and owing to their fear of the Pelishtim, the people of Israel do not return the ark to the Mishkan in Nov. 

It is difficult to accept this explanation, both because of Shaul's route, and because of the fact that the Pelishtim themselves wanted to rid themselves of the ark, and because when David moves the ark from Kiryat-Ye'arim, there is no indication that there were Pelishtim in the place. In his article, Rav Sandorfi brings additional reasons, which we will mention without discussing them in detail: The Pelishtim prevented the transfer of the ark to the Mishkan; Shemuel thought that the Temple would be built in Kiryat-Ye'arim; the ark had to remain near the king; a concern for danger to life; the ark must not be found near the sons of Eli; the ark may not be brought into the Mishkan when the tablets do not rest inside it; and David wanted to teach the people that the Temple would be built in Jerusalem.

In this shiur we have tried to explain that the ark was deliberately left in Kiryat-Ye'arim, and not reunited with the Mishkan, neither in Nov, nor in Giv'on.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, Over the course of the last few shiurim we considered the various stations of the ark and the Mishkan and the connections between them. In light of this, the question arises why wasn't the ark returned to the Mishkan as soon as it reached Beit-Shemesh, after it had been captured by the Pelishtim and moved about among their cities?