Why Does the Torah Not Mention Jerusalem by Name?
Jerusalem in the Bible
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Why
Does the Torah Not Mention Jerusalem by Name?
Rav
Yitzchak Levi
In the first three shiurim we attempted to show that there is
spiritual significance to the order of the cities visited by Avraham, Yaakov,
and Bnei Yisrael on their path to Jerusalem, and to the nature and
essence of these cities located on the road to the holy city, the site of the
Temple.
In this shiur, we shall address the question of why the Torah only
hints at while failing to make explicit mention of - Jerusalem and the site of
the Temple. The clarification of
this question will serve as the introduction to the next shiur, in which
we hope to address the substance of the hints that the Torah makes to
Jerusalem.
A. Jerusalem is only hinted at in the
Torah
Surprisingly, nowhere in the Torah is Jerusalem mentioned by its full
name. We encounter "Jerusalem"
(Yerushalayim) for the first time in Yehoshua 10:1, where mention
is made of the king of this city, Adonitzedek. However, there are several hints to the
city in the Torah.
In Sefer Bereishit, Jerusalem is hinted at twice, both times in
the story of Avraham. The first
instance is in Chapter 14, where we meet Malkitzedek, King of Shalem which is
identified with Jerusalem [1] who comes out to greet Avraham upon his return
from victorious battle against the Four Kings. The second hint is in Chapter 22, where
Avraham is commanded to offer up Yitzchak as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah, which
is also located in Jerusalem [2].
Throughout Sefer Devarim, from Parashat Re'ei
onwards, the Torah speaks over and over (21 instances in all) of "the place that
God will choose." This expression,
referring to Jerusalem [3] without mentioning it explicitly, highlights the
deliberate concealment of Jerusalem in the Torah.
In Moshe's blessing to Binyamin (Devarim 33:12), the Torah hints
that Binyamin's portion is the dwelling place of the Divine Presence: "To
Binyamin he said, the beloved of God will dwell in safety by Him; He shall cover
him all the day and He shall rest between his shoulders." Indeed, when the Land was divided into
tribal inheritances, Jerusalem was part of Binyamin's
portion.
The fact that Jerusalem is hinted at several times in the Torah without
ever being mentioned by its full name raises a problem: why is the place that is
destined to become the capital city of the Kingdom of Israel, and the place
where the Divine Presence dwells for all generations, not made explicitly clear?
This phenomenon cannot be coincidental, and we shall now attempt to understand
the reasons for the Torah's veil of mystery in this
regard.
B. Why is Jerusalem not mentioned in the
Torah by its full name? [4]
1. The Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim Part
III, 45) writes, concerning Mount Moriah:
"The
fact that the Torah does not make specific mention of it [Jerusalem], but rather
hints at it and says, "
[the place] which God will choose" etc., appears to me
to have three explanations. The
first: so that the nations would not seize the place and wage power struggles
over it, knowing that this place out of the entire Land represents the
ultimate purpose of the Torah; secondly lest whoever possessed it at the time
destroy it and devastate it to the limit of their power; and thirdly the
strongest reason of all that a situation would not arise in which every tribe
would want it included in its inheritance, so as to be able to rule over it, and
it would fall to [whichever tribe would emerge victorious] as a result of
controversy and strife, as did the quest for the priesthood. For this reason we are commanded that
the Temple not be built until after the coronation of a king, so that there is
one single ruler and all strife falls away
."
The
first two reasons concern the nations of the world, and they essentially reflect
the same idea: if the nations of the world would know the enormous value of this
place, they would demonstrate extreme opposition to it belonging to Israel [5]
whether by waging war over it or by utterly destroying it.
The third reason concerns Am Yisrael, and here the Rambam refers
us to a Beraita in Sanhedrin (20b):
"Bnei Yisrael were given three commandments upon entering the
Land: to appoint a king, to cut off the seed of Amalek, and to build the
Temple." Further on, the Beraita concludes that this order is binding. That is, the king must be appointed
before Amalek is annihilated, and the war against Amalek must precede the
building of the Temple. The Rambam
rules accordingly in his Laws of Kings (Chapter 1:1-2). According to what he writes in Moreh
Nevukhim, the reason why a king must be appointed before the Temple is built
is so that there will be no controversy in this regard; also, it reflects the
fundamental principle according to which the place belongs to all of Am
Yisrael, its conquest cannot be a tribal matter.
This teaching makes an interesting, fundamental statement. Owing to the lofty destiny of this place
as the dwelling of the Divine Presence, Mount Moriah must be approached with a
sense of unity. For this reason,
the king one of whose functions is to prevent strife and to create a united
reign must precede the building of the Temple. There is a fundamental connection
between Jerusalem in general and the Temple in particular, on one hand, and the
unity of Israel, on the other [6]. The unity of the entire nation of Israel
as the Rambam explains is a prerequisite for reaching
Jerusalem.
The fact that Jerusalem is a place that reflects the unity of all of
Israel is a central and essential fact of its existence:
-
Chazal
teach that "Jerusalem was not distributed among the tribes" [7] in other
words, this city belongs to all of Israel.
This opinion is accepted as halakha [8], and therefore there is no
private ownership in Jerusalem.
-
David
chooses this city, situated on the border between Binyamin and Yehuda, in an
attempt to unite two disputing tribes, representing the children of Rachel and
the children of Leah.
Moreover,
David's choice of this city follows immediately after his coronation over all of
Israel, and hence expresses his desire to unite all of Israel and to rule over
all of them from this new capital city.
-
On
the verse, "Jerusalem built, like a city that is all joined together"
(Tehillim 122:3), the Yerushalmi comments (Chagiga 79d), "A
city that makes all of Israel friends."
This refers to the pilgrim festivals. In other words, the regular separation
between the "friends" who eat even their regular meals in a state of sanctity
and Jews from all the rest of the country, does not apply at the time of the
pilgrim festivals, when all are considered to be pure. This halakha reflects the aspiration for
all of Israel to be unified before God.
-
The
character of the site of the Temple as an expression of the unity of Israel, is
reflected in its sale and its functioning. David purchases the site of the Temple
using the communal funding of all of Israel (six hundred shekel, fifty
shekel from each tribe) [9]; the shifts and watches during which the Temple
service was performed, include representatives of the entire nation; and the
half-shekel, that every Israelite individual is required to donate every year
for the funding of the Temple service all of these involve all of Israel in
this endeavor.
The
above are just some examples illustrating the fundamental nature of the city of
Jerusalem and the site of the Temple as places of unity, joining all of Israel
together. As noted, according to
the Rambam, it is specifically the deliberate concealment of the place that
facilitates its revelation by virtue of this unity.
It is interesting that the Radak views kingship as a condition for
something slightly different:
"And
the king went, and his men": In Divrei Ha-yamim (I 11:4) we read, "David
went, and all of Israel" because all of Israel were now "his men," and since
he ruled over all of Israel, he went to Jerusalem to capture the citadel of Zion
(Jerusalem), for it was a tradition among them that Zion was the head of the
Kingdom of Israel, and it would be captured only by one who was king over all of
Israel. Until this time there had
been no kingship in Israel, for the kingship of Shaul did not endure" (Radak on
II Shmuel 5:6).
The Radak is addressing a different question: why Jerusalem had not been
conquered from the time of the conquest of the Land, in Yehoshua's time, until
the time of David. His answer was
that it was traditionally accepted that this place would be captured only by a
king who would rule over all of Israel.
While the Rambam emphasizes the connection between kingship and unity as
a condition for achieving a Temple on Mount Moriah, the Radak focuses on the
kingship over all of Israel as a condition for the conquest of the
city.
What is common to both commentaries is the fact that making the path to
Jerusalem or the Temple on Mount Moriah conditional upon kingship and unity
is connected to the understanding that these places are themselves centers of
kingship. Jerusalem is the capital of the kingship of Israel, while the Temple
is the place of the kingship of God [10].
This connection makes it possible to address the commentaries of the
Rambam and the Radak jointly, even though each of them is talking about a
different place.
To conclude this section it should be noted that the Rambam seems to
suggest that Bnei Yisrael did not know the site of the future Temple,
even though we may have understood from the verses that the Temple would be
built on the site of the Akeida (the binding of Yitzchak). As Rabbeinu Bachyeh (in his commentary
on Devarim 12:5) writes:
"
Therefore the text conceals this place and does not make it plain. Needless to say the nations were not
aware of it, for even Israel did not know it, for even though everyone knew the
special status of Mount Moriah, they did not know that this was the place that
God would choose."
2. Sifri on Parashat
Re'ei
Concerning the verse, "But to the place that the Lord your God will
choose from all your tribes, to put His Name there, you shall seek Him there at
His dwelling, and you shall come there," the Sifri
comments:
"But
to the place which the Lord your God will choose from all your tribes': this is
to be interpreted by a prophet. Is
it possible that you will have to wait until the prophet tells you? [Surely
not,] therefore the text teaches: "You shall seek Him at His dwelling, and you
shall come there." I.e., seek it
and find it, and afterwards a prophet will confirm it. And this is what happened with David, as
it is written: "Remember, God, in David's favor all his afflictions, when he
swore to God, making an oath to the Mighty One of Yaakov: 'I shall not enter the
sanctuary of my house, nor give sleep to my eyes
until I find a place for God;
a resting place for the Mighty One of Yaakov'"(Tehillim 132:1-5)
(Sifri Devarim, piska 62).
The
Midrash is trying to explain the significance of the unusual command to seek the
place. The Torah does not contain
many commandments requiring us to seek something out, but here when it comes
to the "place that God will choose" we are commanded to seek God's dwelling
place. The Gemara (Rosh
Ha-shana 30a) finds a similar demand in the verse in Yirmiyahu
(30:17): "'This is Zion; none seeks her' implying that it requires
seeking." Jerusalem and the Temple,
defined as "the place that God will choose to make His Name dwell," are a
location unknown to Bnei Yisrael.
THE PLACE EXISTS, BUT BNEI YISRAEL DO NOT KNOW WHERE [11]; they are
obligated to seek out and search for the place, and find it. The significance of this demand which
is fulfilled in a perfect way by King David, as the Sifri testifies on
the basis of Tehillim 132 is that the Holy One wishes to make His
Presence rest in a place on condition that Bnei Yisrael desire His
Presence and closeness, and are prepared to invest effort and spiritual energy
in seeking and finding it. The
place itself expresses the greatest possible closeness between the Holy One and
the nation of Israel. God tells us,
as it were, "You want Me to be close to you? Seek out the place, look for it and
find it."
A
similar approach arises from Rashi (Bereishit
12:2):
He
[God] did not at once reveal the [name of the] land to him [Avraham], in order
to make it desirable in his eyes and to give him reward for each and every
Divine utterance [which Avraham would then follow with blind faith, not knowing
where God was leading him]. The
same applies to the command, "Your son, your only one, whom you love Yitzchak"
(Bereishit 22:2), and also "upon one of the mountains which I shall tell
you
."
In other words, the avoidance of mentioning the exact place in the story
of the Akeida is similarly meant to make the place beloved to Avraham, and to
reward him for his faith in fulfilling each and every Divine word, even though
he did not know where he was going.
In summary, we have looked at two similar approaches which posit that the
fact that the Torah does not precisely define the place (the site of the Akeida
or the place which God will choose) is meant to create a more significant
connection with it: the Sifri emphasizes the obligation of human quest,
while Rashi focuses on how this increases human longing and love for the place
and the reward that it brings - the reward for each and every Divine
utterance.
3.
The
Abarbanel, commenting on Devarim 12:4
writes:
The
holy place must be one, like the Oneness of the blessed God Who dwells there; it
cannot be many, like the places of the other nations
It is also necessary that
the choice of the place be God's, as conveyed by a prophet, and not whatever the
servants choose; this is the meaning of the phrase, "Which the Lord your God
will choose from all of your tribes."
The
Abarbanel is emphasizing two points:
a.
The
place that God will choose must be "one," not like the places of idolatry, which
are numerous; and
b.
Since
the place is to be chosen by God, there is no need to spell out its
location.
This
explanation is, in some sense, the opposite of the Sifri's explanation.
While according to the Sifri, the concealment is meant to lead to
longing, seeking and searching on man's part based on the idea that man must
be an active and central partner in revealing the Divine choice Abarbanel
claims that the Torah avoids explicit indication precisely because the Divine
choice is exclusive; man is NOT party to it.
4. The Keli Yakar, commenting on
Devarim 12:4, writes:
"It
seems that the reason God did not reveal it is so that Bnei
Yisrael would not look upon Shilo and Nov and Givon with scorn when they
found out for certain that none of these was the permanent site of the
Temple."
According
to Keli Yakar, the words "the place which God will choose" refer to Jerusalem
the permanent and final station exclusively, and the Torah refrains from
revealing this place in order to prevent any disrespect, or sense of
temporariness, concerning all the stations along the way i.e., all those
temporary sites where the Mishkan was located up until the move to
Jerusalem [12].
*
In summary: we have attempted in this shiur to address the
question of why the Torah fails to mention Jerusalem explicitly, by name. Our general conclusion is that this
concealment is deliberate, not coincidental, and we see that this phenomenon may
be interpreted in different ways: prevention of strife or destruction of the
place by the nations of the world; a desire to arrive at the place with internal
unity; arriving at the place on the strength of the person who will rule over
all of Israel; the need for Am Yisrael to seek out the place; the
exclusivity of the Divine choice, and the desire to avoid scorn of the stations
on the way to Jerusalem. Each of
these explanations emphasizes a different aspect of the significance of
Jerusalem; they do not contradict one another, but rather are mutually
complementary. All of these views
explain why Jerusalem and the Temple are to be viewed as a place of unity of all
of Israel, as a place of kingship, and as a place that must be sought [13]. Indeed, in the Torah, Jerusalem includes
all of these aspects.
Having explained why Jerusalem does not appear in the Torah explicitly,
the coming shiurim will examine what the Torah is teaching us, for all
future generations, in its hints about Jerusalem.
Notes:
[1] This
identification is based upon the parallel between "Shalem" and
"Zion" in Tehillim 76:3 "His tabernacle shall be in Shalem, and
His dwelling place in Zion." We
shall elaborate on this in future shiurim.
[2] The
identification of Mount Moriah with Jerusalem is explicit in Divrei
Ha-yamim II 3:1, in the context of the building of the First Temple on Mount
Moriah. This location is accepted
universally, except by the Samaritan sect.
We shall return to this in future shiurim.
[3] The
expression, "The place that God will choose" (as, for example, in Devarim
12:5 and onwards) refers to the whole city of Jerusalem, for it is also
mentioned in relation to "kodshim kalim" and "ma'aser sheni,"
which may be eaten anywhere within the city. However, the Rambam in his Moreh
Nevukhim (see below) refers specifically to Mount Moriah, even though he
makes mention of the same expression.
In any event, the mysterious concealment of the place applies equally to
the city of Jerusalem and Mount Moriah.
[4] The
commentators offer a wide range of answers to this question; we have chosen to
discuss here only those approaches that appear to us to represent major schools
of thought: four sources, proposing a total of six
reasons.
[5] It must be
remembered that the Rambam lived in the 12th century, and in his
lifetime Jerusalem was conquered twice, first by the Crusaders, and later by the
Moslems.
[6] The
subjects of Jerusalem and unity and the Temple and unity are extensive ones,
each deserving of a shiur in its own right. In the present framework we shall
mention only the principal points.
[7] See Bava
Kama 82b; Yoma 12a; Sota 45b.
[8] See Rambam,
Laws Concerning Idolatry Chapter 4:4; Laws of the Temple Chapter 7:14; Laws of
the Impurity of Tzara'at Chapter 14:11; Laws Concerning a Murderer and
Preservation of Life Chapter 9:4.
[9] See
Sifri Devarim, Finkelstein edition, section 352 (Ve-zot Ha-berakha
33:12).
[10] There are
several proofs for this; we shall address this issue in one of the future
shiurim.
[11] In this
regard, we must emphasize one point, and that is the relationship between the
obligation to seek and search for an actual place, and the sanctity of the
place. Concerning Mount Sinai, the
Torah teaches, "When the shofar blast is long, they may ascend the mountain"
(Shemot 19:13). In other
words, at the conclusion of the Revelation, the place loses its sanctity. The same applied, later on, to the
Mishkan, there is no evidence in any one of the dozens of stations in the
wilderness that there was a prior selection of the place for the
Mishkan. The sanctity of the
site of the Mishkan in all of the nation's journeys was dependent
upon Divine Revelation, and the moment that the Revelation (in the form of the
pillar of cloud) ceased and Bnei Yisrael journeyed to the next station,
the sanctity of the place was nullified.
In contrast to Mount Sinai and the Mishkan, the sanctity of the
site of Mount Moriah is not dependent upon Revelation; it arises, rather, from
the Divine choice of that spot at the time of the Creation, and the place that
God chose is the place where the Temple must be built. This assertion sits well with the
opinion of the Rambam and some of the Rishonim, who maintain that when it comes
to Jerusalem and the Temple, the original status of holiness with which the
place was invested by Bnei Yisrael served to sanctify it for that
time and forever afterwards. In
other words, the sanctity of this place exists even without any direct
connection to the structure that is built upon it.
This subject is a broad one, and we have merely hinted at it here in
order to emphasize that it is no coincidence that there is a place that is
destined to be the site of the Temple. The place exists, it is known and it is
chosen, and God chose not to reveal it in order that Am Yisrael would be
full partners in seeking, investigating, and revealing it as the Sifri
teaches.
[12] It should
be mentioned that according to the Seder Olam Rabba, the Mishkan
stood in Shilo for 369 years a considerable period.
[13] It should
further be mentioned, in this context, that one of the names of Jerusalem is
"Derusha" ("sought after"): "They shall be called the holy nation, God's
redeemed, and you shall be called 'Derusha' a city not abandoned"
(Yishayahu 62:12). The Radak
explains: "'Derusha' the opposite of what you used to be called: "This
is Zion; none seeks her out." The
Metzudat David comments, "'Derusha' God seeks her welfare, and she is
not abandoned by Him."
Translated by
Kaeren Fish
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!