The History of the Divine Service at Altars (60) - The Prohibition of Bamot (37)

In this shiur we wish to complete our study of the battle at Mikhmash and Shaul's actions in its regard, and continue our examination of the Divine service during the period that the great bama stood at Nov.

The Inquiry Made of God After the Eating with the Blood and the Building of the Altar[1]

Scripture states:

And Shaul said, Let us go down after the Pelishtim by night, and spoil them until the morning light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do whatever seems good to you. Then said the priest, Let us draw near here to God. And Shaul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Pelishtim? Will You deliver them into the hand of Israel? But He answered him not that day. (I Shemuel 14:36-37)

Shaul tries to exploit his success and pursue the Pelishtim at night, and the people give him their blessings. The priest – Achiya the son of Achitov[2] - suggests that they inquire of God about continuing the campaign, but he is not answered, in contrast to the position of the people which accorded Shaul's judgment.

Achiya's initiative to consult with God might be seen as an expression of the principle of "measure for measure," in relation to Shaul's conduct earlier in the chapter: "And Shaul said to the priest, Withdraw your hand." Shaul planned, as recommended by the people, to attack the Pelishtim without first consulting with the Urim and Tumim, and the priest proposes to Shaul that he act in a manner different than the way he had acted before, but he was not answered.

It should be noted that Shaul asks two questions, and that God answers neither one of them. It might be that Shemuel was referring to this when he said to the people after they requested a king: "And you shall cry out that day because of your king which you shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you on that day" (8:18). In any case, Shaul understands that the absence of a Divine response was rooted in a general sin of Israel.

Lots were used here to locate and reveal the source of the sin; as Scripture states: "Therefore Shaul said to the Lord God of Israel, Give a perfect lot (goral tamim)" (14:41). The Radak explains the words "goral tamim" (s.v. hava tamim): "a perfect and truthful lot." Similarly Yonatan explains: "Give a lot in truth."

Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer describes the inquiry made by way of the Urim and Tumim as follows:

Know the power of a ban, and the proof is from Shaul the son of Kish, who issued a ban that all the people should fast, from the youngest to the oldest, as it is stated: "Cursed be the man that eats any food until evening" (14:24). But Yehonatan did not hear this and he ate a little honey, and his eyes were brightened, as it is stated: "And his eyes were brightened" (14:27). Shaul saw that the Pelishtim were returning to [attack] Israel, and he understood that Israel had violated the ban. And he saw in the twelve stones that every tribe that performed a mitzva, its stone cast light, and that every tribe that performed a sin, its stone did not cast light, and he understood that the tribe of Binyamin had violated the ban.

He then cast lots and Shaul and Yonatan were picked, as it is stated: "And Shaul and Yonatan were picked" (14:41). And Shaul took his sword to kill his son, as it is stated: "God do so and more also: for you shall surely die" (14:44). The people then said to him: Our lord the king, this was an unintentional sin, and they sacrificed a burnt-offering for his unintentional sin, and he prayed on his behalf, and the people rescued him from death, as it is stated: "So the people rescued Yonatan that he die not" (14:45). (Chapter 38)

The Radak brings in the name of Rav Saadya Gaon another reason for the absence of a response on the part of the Urim and Tumim:

It may be asked: Seeing that Yehonatan sinned unintentionally, as Scripture attests about him: "But Yehonatan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath" (14:27), why then was Shaul not answered with the Urim and Tumim? Rav Saadya Gaon explains: To show the people that [Yehonatan's sin] was unintentional. For they might have said that favoritism was being shown here, for the king's son violated the ban and was not punished, but were it someone else, he would have been punished. For not all the people knew that Yehonatan was not there when the oath was sounded. So when Shaul was not answered with the Urim and Tumim, they had to cast lots to see who was the sinner, and it fell on Yehonatan, and they examined the matter and discovered that he had not been there at the time of the oath, and all the people defended him saying that he had acted unintentionally, and does not deserve to die.

In contrast to our proposal that the lack of response was rooted in the principle of "measure for measure," Rav Saadya explains that Shaul was not answered in order to demonstrate that Yonatan had acted unintentionally. The absence of a response made it necessary to cast lots, and after further examination it became evident that Yehonatan had not been present when the oath was sounded, and all the people understood that he had acted unintentionally. 

At the end of the chapter we are told: "Then Shaul went up from following the Pelishtim: and the Pelishtim went to their own place" (14:46). Because his inquiry was not answered, Shaul stopped pursuing the Pelishtim, and ultimately the campaign remained undecided.

War with Amalek[3]

At the beginning of chapter 15, Shaul receives an order:

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (15:3)

After Shaul fails to fulfill God's command as required, Shemuel says to Shaul in wonderment:

And Shemuel said, What means then this bleating of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear? And Shaul said, They have brought them from the Amaleki: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen.

In the continuation, Shemuel asks: "Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord, but did fly upon the spoil, and did do evil in the sight of the Lord?" (15:19). Shaul once again explains:

And Shemuel said, Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is like idolatry and terafim. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord He has also rejected you from being king. (15:22-23)

First of all, it should be emphasized that Shaul consistently claims that he had pity on Agag and on the best of the sheep and of the oxen. In its narration of what happened Scripture states: "But Shaul and the people had pity on Agag, and on the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs" (15:9). There are two differences between this account of what happened and the words of Shaul in his answer to Shemuel: First, Scripture adds: "But Shaul and the people had pity on Agag, and on the best of the sheep." It could be understood that Shaul had pity on Agag and the people had pity on the best of the sheep, but it is simpler to understand that both are mentioned, Shaul and the people, in relation to both Agag and the sheep. Second, there is no mention in the account of what happened that the sheep were spared so that they could be offered to God.

In his response, Shemuel draws an inverted comparison between offering sacrifices and obeying the words of God. And he repeats this again later in his words: "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (15:22). Shemuel's main claim against Shaul is that he did not obey the voice of God, and the essence of Shaul's response is: "Indeed, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone along the road which the Lord sent me" (15:20). The idea of shemi'a – hearing and obeying – runs throughout the chapter: Shemuel hears the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the oxen, the argument whether Shaul obeyed the voice of God, and Shaul's response that he had to obey the voice of the people. From here it is evident that Shaul feared the people and obeyed them. This obedience is directly related to the fact that he does not fear God or obey His voice, in contrast to the minimal expectation that Shemuel has of a fitting king.

The tension that rises between the two arguments: "in order to sacrifice to the Lord" and "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord" (15:22), brings to mind the two aspects of the structure of the Temple:

1. On the one hand, the Temple serves as the site of the resting of the Shekhina, as the house of God, and as the place where He reveals Himself in the Holy of Holies. The vessels that are connected to this aspect of the Temple are the ark, the kaporet, and the keruvim: "And when Moshe was gone into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, then he heard the word speaking to him from off the covering that was upon the ark of Testimony, from between the two keruvim; and it spoke to him" (Bemidbar 7:89).

2. On the other hand, the Temple is the place where the people of God come to worship God. The service inside, in the Holy, involves lighting the lights of the candelabrum, burning the incense and setting the shewbread in its place. The service outside, in the Temple courtyard, involves the offering of sacrifices on the burnt-offering altar.

It seems that the outer service mentioned by Shaul in this context is the offering of sacrifices to God, while the inner service is what obligates obeying the voice of God, obeying that voice that issues forth from between the keruvim. It is clear that there can be no contradiction whatsoever between the obedience and the service, and it is equally clear that the service itself cannot in any way substitute for obedience to the voice of God. The correct relationship is obedience to the word of God which enables and invites serving God by way of the sacrifices. When the prophet says to Shaul: "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams," he establishes the relationship between these two components.

It seems, however, that this tension is not what stands at the heart of the matter. In this case, obeying the voice of God involves destroying everything connected to Amalek, and so the sacrifice itself is forbidden. The people's pity impairs the demand that the destruction be carried out in absolute manner, entirely for the sake of God. By deciding to obey God's command in a manner that is not absolute, Shaul exploits the situation for his own personal interests. In this context, it is astonishing to see the comparison conducted by Chazal between Shaul's defective obedience in the matter of wiping out Amalek, and his destruction of Nov the city of priests:

When Shaul said to Doeg: "Turn you, and fall upon the priests" (I Shemuel 22:18), a heavenly voice issued forth and said to him: "Be not overmuch wicked." Rav Huna said: How little does he whom the Lord supports need to grieve or trouble himself! Shaul sinned once and it brought [calamity] upon him, David sinned twice and it did not bring evil upon him. What was the one sin of Shaul? The affair with Agag. But there was also the matter with Nov, the city of the priests? [Still] it was because of what happened with Agag that Scripture states: "I regret that I have set up Shaul to be king" (15:10). (Yoma 22b).

An Assessment of Shaul's View on the Relationship between Kingship and Prophecy, Priesthood, the Mishkan and Standing Before God

Even if we cannot offer a comprehensive explanation for Shaul's conduct and explain what prevented him from obeying God's command (beyond what it says in the verses themselves: "Because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice"), I wish to examine whether there is a common denominator between the various sins committed by Shaul.

At the battle at Mikhmash, contrary to the order issued by Shemuel, Shaul himself offers a sacrifice. Later, in the midst of the war, Shaul says to the priest: "Withdraw your hand," and when the priest suggests that he should inquire of God, he agrees, but God does not answer him. In the war with Amalek, Shaul does not obey God, but rather he obeys the people. In the wake of Doeg the Edomite's slander, Shaul suspects that Achimelekh is collaborating with David, and so he destroys the Mishkan in Nov and kills eighty-five priests wearing linen efods.

It is clear that unique motives might lie behind each of the above-mentioned acts, but it may be possible to point to a certain perception regarding kingship. In all of these instances, expression is given to the king's attitude toward the prophet (offering a sacrifice at Gilgal without Shemuel, and the battle with Amalek), toward the priesthood (inquiring by way of the Urim and Tumim and the killing of the priests of Nov), and toward the Mishkan (the destruction of Nov).

As for his attitude toward the prophet, we might add Shaul's appealing to the woman who was a medium (chapter 28). There too, when Shemuel appears to him, he reminds him: "Because you would not obey the voice of the Lord nor would execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore has the Lord done this thing to you this day" (28:18).

When Shemuel asks Shaul why he raised him from the dead, he answers him: "I am greatly distressed; for the Pelishtim make war against me, and God has departed from me, and answers me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I shall do" (28:15). The fact that God departed from him makes it impossible for there to be communication with Him, not through prophets or the Urim and Tumim, nor through dreams, and therefore, Shaul is forced, according to his understanding, to raise Shemuel from the dead, and to hear from him what he must do to contend with the Pelishtim.

It seems that with his continued reign, Shaul perceives the institution of monarch as the supreme ruler who decides all matters on his own, without considering the position of the prophet and with disregard of the priesthood and the Mishkan. It may be possible to find a hint to this perception in two seemingly unrelated matters:

1. Giv'a, Shaul's capital city, is commonly identified with Tel-al-Pul (in the north-western part of Pisgat Ze'ev). One of the suggested identifications of Nov is Tel-Shu'afat, which is located a short distance south west of Tel-al-Pul. Beyond the fact that Shaul's capital city was removed from the site of the Mishkan, the fact that it ruled over it from a topographical perspective hints at a perception of the superiority of the monarchy.[4]

2. The argument between Mikhal the daughter of Shaul[5] and David regarding the matter of bringing the ark to Jerusalem. Without going into the details of the story, it seems that the argument was about the proper expression of human kingship before the people as the king stands before God. Must he maintain his standing and the dignity of his kingship before the people, as held by Mikhal, or does his lowliness before God bar him from highlighting his royal standing and personal honor? This disagreement relates to Shaul's perception of the monarchy (which Mikhal expresses at the time of the transport of the ark to Jerusalem).[6]

With this we conclude this year's series of shiurim that dealt with the worship of God from the period of the Judges and on, both with respect to the destruction of the Mishkan and the stations that followed it, and with respect to the different expressions of Divine service outside the Mishkan – the great bama in Nov during the period when bamot were permitted.

With God's help, we will continue to deal with these issues next year.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, In this shiur we wish to complete our study of the battle at Mikhmash and Shaul's actions in its regard, and continue our examination of the Divine service during the period that the great bama stood at Nov.