The Significance of the Mishkan's Locations (II)

The Significance of the Location of the Stations of the Mishkan (II) The Uniqueness of Shilo 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

            In the previous lecture, we began to discuss the significance of the various stations of the Mishkan in Eretz Yisrael.  We dealt primarily with the Mishkan's time in Gilgal, and we tried to understand the meaning of the various events connected to Gilgal and the fact that the Mishkan was erected in that particular place.

 

            In this lecture, we will move on to the next stop of the Mishkan – in Shilo – and we will briefly relate to several characteristics of the place that will allow us to form a comprehensive picture of its nature.[1]

 

SHILO'S HISTORY[2]

 

            Shilo is first mentioned when the Tent of Meeting is erected there:

 

And the whole congregation of Bnei Yisrael assembled at Shilo and set up the Tent of Meeting there.  And the land was conquered before them.  (Yehoshua 18:1)

 

            Afterwards, Shilo is mentioned in the books of the Prophets in connection with several public events.  Let us briefly review the instances that the city is mentioned:

 

*           In connection with the lottery of the seven tribes (Yehoshua 18:8-9) and the lottery of the Levites (Yehoshua 21).

 

*           In connection with the building of an altar by the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half the tribe of Menashe; Yisrael assembled in Shilo in preparation for fighting a war against them.

 

*           Shilo is mentioned in the book of Shoftim in contrast to Mikha's idol (Shoftim 18:31), and mention is made of the yearly feast that was celebrated in Shilo wherein the girls of Shilo were snatched up for marriage (Shoftim 21:19-20).

 

*           The book of Shmuel describes the pilgrimage made by Elkana and Chana to the Mishkan in Shilo and what they did there, in contrast to the functioning of the sons of Eli in the Mishkan (I Shmuel, chapters 1-2).

 

*           Following God's revelation to Shmuel (I Shmuel, chapter 3), the ark of the covenant is taken from the house of God in Shilo.

 

*           Achiya serves as a priest in Shilo, and he is always referred to as Achiya the Shilonite.

 

*           During a later period, Yirmiyahu relates to the Temple in Jerusalem, warning that it will be destroyed in the same way that the Mishkan in Shilo had been destroyed.

 

*           And lastly, explicit mention is made in the book of Tehillim (78) of the destruction of Shilo.

 

We see that the two most important periods in the history of Shilo are the period of Yehoshua and the period of Elkana.  Other than that, there is hardly any mention whatsoever of Shilo or of the Mishkan erected there.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLACE

 

            In 1838, Robinson identified ancient Shilo with Khirbet Silon, in the northern portion of a valley, in the center of which stands the Arab village of Turmus Aya.  It is slightly east of the road leading from Jerusalem to Shekhem, in the northwestern section of the modern settlement of Shilo.  This identification is based in part on the fact that the site was still identified with Shilo during the Middle Ages.  Furthermore, this identification accords with the verse in Shoftim:

 

Behold, there is a yearly feast of the Lord in Shilo which is on the north side of Bet-El, on the east side of the highway that goes up from Bet-El to Shekhem, and on the south of Levona.  (21:19)

 

            While there is room to discuss whether the verse describes the location of the Mishkan or the location of the dancing in the vineyards (the latter possibility fitting in better with the plain sense of Scripture), the identification of the place described in the verse is almost positive.  Since the location of Bet-El (the village of Bitin, northeast of Ramalla), Levona (next to the village of Laban Sharkiya, which is near Shilo), and the ancient highway (which almost coincides with the present day Jerusalem-Shekhem road) are all known, it is easy to locate Shilo.

 

            Eusebius (a fourth-century bishop from Caesaria) identifies Shilo "… in the twelve mils (from Neapolis) in Akravtani." Neapolis is Shekhem and Akravtani is the name of the region named after the city which is preserved in the Arab village of Akrava, situated to the northwest of Shilo.  This corresponds with the preservation of the name Khirbet Silon.  Accordingly, the identification of the place as the site of ancient Shilo has been widely accepted.  The archeological finds uncovered in the digs conducted there confirm this identification.

 

SHILO AS A "PLACE WHICH THE LORD SHALL CHOOSE"[3]

 

            R. David Tzvi Hoffman writes that it is possible that the reason for the selection of Shilo is found already in the book of Bereishit (49:10): "The staff shall not depart from Yehuda, nor the scepter from between his feet, until Shilo comes, and the obedience of the people be his." According to R. Hoffman, just as there is a connection between the selection of Jerusalem and the act of the akeida, there is a connection between the selection of Shilo and the actions of Yaakov.

 

            On his way from Shekhem to Bet-El, Yaakov fights a miraculous war against the Emori with his sword and bow:

 

And they journeyed; and the terror of God was upon the cities that were around about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Yaakov.  (Bereishit 35:5)

 

            According to R. Hoffman, Yaakov's miraculous victory over the Emori is the foundation for the selection of Shilo as the future resting place of the Mishkan at the site where Yaakov rested from this war.

 

            Why is this not explicitly stated during the days of Yaakov? The answer seems to be that this selection was only temporary.  The Mishkan in Shilo was later abandoned, indicating that its selection was transient, and Scripture therefore did not want to mention Shilo by name.

 

SHILO AS A PLACE WHERE THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF BAMOT

 

            Another unique characteristic of the Mishkan in Shilo stems from the fact that only there was the ark found in the Mishkan.  The Yerushalmi (Megilla 1:12, as well as the Tosefta, end of Zevachim 13:8) notes that "whenever the ark is inside [the Mishkan], bamot are forbidden, but when the ark is outside, bamot are permitted." In this sense, Shilo is different from the other stations, Gilgal, Nov, and Giv'on, where the ark was found outside the Mishkan, and similar to Jerusalem.

 

AFTER SHILO, BAMOT WERE ONCE AGAIN PERMITTED

 

            Another comparison may be drawn between the sanctity of Jerusalem and the sanctity of Shilo relating to the possibility of a subsequent allowance of bamot.  The mishna in Zevachim that compares the sanctity of Shilo to that of Jerusalem records a fundamental difference between them:

 

Regarding the sanctity of Shilo, afterwards there is an allowance [of bamot]; regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem, afterwards there is no allowance [of bamot].  (Zevachim 112b)

 

            The fundamental difference between the sanctity of Shilo and the sanctity of Jerusalem depends upon the nature of the revelation in each of the two places.  In Shilo, the sanctity was the sanctity of the Mishkan, which was a continuation of the sanctity of Mount Sinai, where the sanctity depended upon the revelation.  When the revelation terminated, the sanctity also terminated, and therefore the sanctity was temporary, in accordance with God's revelation in actual practice.

 

            In contrast, the sanctity of Jerusalem depends on Divine selection, and it therefore exists at all times.  Man's sole role is to reveal and expose this sanctity, in the sense of "there you shall seek Him, at His dwelling, and there shall you come." According to Chazal, the sanctity of Jerusalem was found there from the time of creation, through the sacrifices offered by Adam, Kayin, Hevel, Noach, and Avraham, each of whom revealed the intrinsic sanctity of the place.

 

            The revelation of this sanctity, however, takes place in the manner of selection only in the days of David and Shlomo.  Only then is this sanctity exposed, but this sanctity lay hidden in the place from the time of its creation.  According to those who maintain that the first sanctification of the Temple was valid for its own time as well as for the future, this sanctity exists to this very day, completely independent of any structure standing on that site.  As opposed to Shilo, the sanctity of Jerusalem is sanctity of place, unconnected to the structure built there.

 

"SHILO – STONES AT THE BOTTOM AND CURTAINS AT THE TOP"

 

            The mishna in Zevachim cited above (Zevachim 14:6) states that the Mishkan in Shilo was built of stones at the bottom and curtains at the top.  This assertion presents Shilo as representing an intermediate stage between the Mishkan of the wilderness and the permanent Mikdash in Jerusalem.  This intermediate state stems from Shilo's definition as the Tent of Meeting, on the one hand, and the House of God, on the other.

 

            This similarity between the Mishkan in Shilo and the Mikdash in Jerusalem finds expression in several terms that distinguish Shilo from the Mishkan's other stations in Eretz Yisrael.  These expressions are similar to those used in connection with the permanent Mikdash in Jerusalem, and some of them will be discussed below:

 

*           The expression, "House of the Lord," is mentioned solely in connection with the Mishkan in Shilo (I Shmuel 7:24; 3:15; Shoftim 18) and the Temple in Jerusalem (I Melakhim 3:1; 6:37; 7:2, 12, 40, 45, 48).

 

*           The term "heikhal" is mentioned in connection with Shilo (I Shmuel 1:9; 3:3).  In general, this term is used in connection with the permanent Temple in Jerusalem (I Melakhim 6:33; 7:21).

 

*           The term "mezuza" is mentioned in connection with Shilo (I Shmuel 1:9), and in connection with the Temple in Jerusalem (I Melakhim 6:33; Yechezkel 45:9).  Mention is also made of the doors of the Mishkan in Shilo (I Shmuel 3:16), similar mention being made with respect to the Temple in Jerusalem (I Melakhim 7:40; II Divrei Ha-yamim 28:24).  These terms clearly refer to a built edifice with all that this implies.

 

On the other hand, Shilo is also called a "tent" (I Shmuel 2:22; II Shmuel 7:5; I Divrei Ha-yamim 17:5-6; Tehilim 78:60, 67, 69),[4] a term that expresses the spiritual state of Yisrael's settlement of the Land during the period of the Shoftim, when there was still a lack of permanence regarding the resting of the Shekhina and the monarchy.  On the other hand, it does not express the temporariness of the Mishkan in Gilgal, which seems to have been built in the manner of the Mishkan in the wilderness.

 

This situation accords with the words of the mishna in Zevachim (14:6), according to which Shilo is "the rest." Why does the mishna refer to the Mishkan in Shilo as "the rest" when we are still dealing with a temporary "Mishkan"? The answer to this question seems to lie in this very point.  On the face of it, one might have thought that the situation of "curtains on top" is a deficiency, in contrast to the stone ceiling of the Temple in Jerusalem.  On the other hand, it can be argued that it is an indication of superiority, for the curtains of the Mishkan never wore out.  The curtains were part of the handiwork of Moshe and they were therefore everlasting – they were never subject to the wear and tear of years of use.  This is clearly the dimension of the curtains that must be joined to the stones at the bottom, which characterize the permanence of the first Temple.

 

To summarize, our principal argument regarding Shilo is that, according to the plain sense of Scripture, Shilo is not regarded as a "place which the Lord shall choose." On the other hand, some statements of Chazal relate to Shilo as the "place which the Lord shall choose," an attitude that is supported by the verses in Yirmiyahu (7:12) and Tehillim (78, 59, 67).

 

It is possible that the main question here is whether a place in which the Shekhina rested in a temporary manner can be regarded as a "place which the Lord shall choose." The verses imply that the answer is that such a place cannot be regarded as having been chosen by God, whereas Chazal tend to say that it can, in fact, be so regarded.

 

KODSHIM KALIM (SACRIFICES OF LESSER SANCTITY) AND MA'ASER SHENI (SECOND TITHE) MAY BE EATEN ANYWHERE THAT THE MISHKAN IS VISIBLE

 

            Following its description of the Mishkan in Shilo, the mishna states (Zevachim 14:6) that in Shilo, kodshim kalim and ma'aser sheni could be eaten anywhere from which the Mishkan was visible.  This formulation is different from the halakha relevant in Gilgal and that of Jerusalem:

 

*           Gilgal/Nov/Giv'on – kodshim kalim could be eaten in any of the cities of Eretz Yisrael.

 

*           Shilo – kodshim kalim could be eaten anywhere that the Mishkan was visible.

 

*           Jerusalem – kodshim kalim could only be eaten inside the city walls.

 

This comparison once again shows the unique status of Shilo, between Gilgal, Nov and Giv'on, on the one hand, and Jerusalem, on the other hand - an intermediate stage.

 

When the Mishkan was in Gilgal, there was no limitation whatsoever on the eating of kodshim kalim.  The offering of these sacrifices at the great bama imposed no limits on where they could be eaten.  As was noted in the previous lecture, the Mishkan's stay in Gilgal expressed the primacy of Yisrael's settlement of the Land, and therefore, every place is a possible option for eating kodshim.

 

After the Mishkan stood in Shilo, when it stood in Nov and Giv'on, kodshim kalim could once again be eaten in all the cities of Yisrael.  It seems that following the state of permanence in Shilo, the eating of kodshim kalim was permitted in all settled areas.

 

In Jerusalem, the parameters were narrower and much clearer – the city walls, which in essence defined the camp of Yisrael, marked off the area in which the eating of kodshim kalim was permitted.

 

Shilo was an intermediate stage: Kodshim kalim could be eaten any place from which the Mishkan was visible (according to some opinions, both the city and the Mishkan had to be visible, but we will ignore this disagreement for now).  While kodshim kalim could not be eaten in places out of the field of vision, their consumption was not limited by city walls.

 

What is the significance of the different halakhot relevant to Shilo and Jerusalem? Perhaps the different standards were a function of the sanctity of the sites.  The selection of Shilo was made by man (as we saw above, this is the implication of the plain sense of Scripture).  There, the sanctity depended on physical, human sight, so that wherever a person was able to see the Mishkan, he could eat kodshim kalim.  The area spanning from the last point that man could view the Mishkan and inward toward the Miskan itself were considered sanctified.

 

When the sanctity depends on Divine selection, however, the direction is from the most sanctified place outwards; when man makes the selection, the sanctity moves inwards.  The mishna in tractate Keilim defines ten circles of sanctity from the Holy of Holies outwards to all of Eretz Yisrael.  This applies to our context as well, but the definition of inside the walls includes the area of the camp of Yisrael.

 

A second possibility is that Shilo represents the period of the Shoftim, a period of temporary rule when Yisrael's hold on the Land was constantly being put to the test.  "Seeing" does not express holding onto the Land, but only a relationship to the place.  Jerusalem, in contrast, represents permanent royal rule.  The wall symbolically defines the permanent hold on the royal city, and therefore the sanctity is contained inside the walls.[5]

 

A third possibility is connected to tribal affiliations.  Shilo is located in the territory of Efrayim the son of Yosef.  Yosef is called "ben porat alei ayin" (Bereishit 49:22).  The gemara in Zevachim states:

 

When they came to Shilo… kodshim kalim and ma'aser sheni were eaten anywhere that the Mishkan was visible… From where is this derived? Rabbi Abahu said: The verse states: "Yosef is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well (alternatively: 'alei ayin,' 'above the eye')" (Bereishit 49:22) – an eye that did not want to enjoy anything that was not his own will eventually eat as far as the eye can see.  (Zevachim 118b)

 

            A more detailed explanation is found in the midrash:

 

He did not cast his eyes upon her or upon the Egyptian women when he ruled, as it is stated: "Yosef is a fruitful bough, a fruitful bough by a well ('alei ayin')" (Bereishit 49:22), for he ignored ('alam eino') Potifar's wife and the Egyptian women, "whose branches ('banot'; alternatively, 'daughters') run over the wall" (ibid.), and therefore "over the wall." Rabbi Reuven said: What is "over the wall ('alei shur')"? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I must reward that eye.  How so? Our Rabbis taught (Zevachim 112b): In the Mikdash they ate kodshim kalim inside the wall, inside the wall of Jerusalem.  But in Shilo which was in the portion of Yosef, they ate them anywhere that the Mishkan was visible.  This is "over the wall ('alei shur'; alternatively, 'in sight')," as it is stated: "The eye of he who sees me shall see me ('teshureini') no more" (Iyov 7:8).  (Bamidbar Rabba, Nasa 14, 6)

 

            Because Yosef did not cast his eyes upon Potifar's wife and the Egyptian women when he ruled, he merited, measure for measure, that kodshim kalim would be eaten in his portion anywhere that the Mishkan was visible.

 

            In this way, Yosef merited a spiritual reality detached to a certain degree from the chains of materiality.  Therefore, the eating of kodshim kalim was not limited in place and was permitted anywhere that the Mishkan was visible.  The Maharal in his Chiddushei Aggadot to the gemara in Zevachim explains as follows:

 

In accordance with Yosef's withdrawal from materiality, kodshim kalim could be eaten in Shilo anywhere that the Mishkan was visible.  This is indicative of a separate level where the sanctity of the Mishkan [in Shilo] spreads out wherever the Mishkan is visible.  (Chiddushei Aggadot Zevachim 118b)

 

            In contrast, the essence of Yehuda is the connection between spirituality and materiality, and therefore the sanctity of Jerusalem is inside the wall.  It is precisely by virtue of this limitation that the sanctity can spread out and impact upon wider circles of sanctity.

 

SHILO AND JERUSALEM

 

            It is interesting that the midrash sees the fundamental difference between Shilo and Jerusalem not only in the differences between Yosef and Yehuda, but also in the differences between Rachel and Leah.

 

            Bereishit Rabba says as follows:

 

"The name of the elder (gedola) was Lea" (Bereishit 29:16) – greater (gedola) in her gifts – everlasting priesthood and everlasting monarchy.  As it is written: "But Yehuda shall remain forever" (Yoel 4:20), and it is written: "This is My resting place forever" (Tehillim 132:14).  "And the name of the younger (ketana) was Rachel" – smaller (ketana) in her gifts – Yosef temporarily, Shaul temporarily, and Shilo temporarily.  "And He rejected the tabernacle of Yosef, and chose not the tribe of Efrayim" (Tehilllim 78:67).  (70, 15)

 

            The fundamental distinction is between temporariness and permanence, between something for the hour and something everlasting:

 

*           Shilo symbolizes temporariness, impermanence, for the time being.

 

*           Jerusalem symbolizes permanence, eternality, "foreverness".

 

The book of Shmuel opens with Elkana and Chana's pilgrimage to Shilo and it ends with the revelation of the site of the future Mikdash in the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi.  The book describes the process of turning temporary rule and monarchy into something permanent, and a similar process regarding the resting of the Shekhina.

 

There is a connection between the various dimensions of Shilo, its temporariness, on the one hand, and the eating of kodshim kalim anywhere that the Mishkan was visible, on the other.  There is no hold on a defined area.  According to what was explained above, this stemmed from contemplation through eyes not rooted in the material world, similar to the eyes of Yosef and Rachel.  This point also finds expression in the fact that there were still curtains on top of the Mishkan in Shilo (although there were stones below), and this connects us to the temporariness of the Mishkan in the wilderness.

 

As opposed to Shilo, Jerusalem is marked by permanence and the eating of kodshim kalim inside the wall, in a well-defined and permanent area, in which the spiritual world is grounded in the material world.  This permanence is also expressed in the fact that the Mikdash is completely stone.  This is similar to Yehuda, whose monarchy rules over and organizes worldly reality, and to Leah, who laid the groundwork for the material building of the nation.

 

This distinction also explains the fact that bamot were permitted after the destruction of Shilo but not after the destruction of Jerusalem.  Shilo was endowed with importance and meaning during its time, but not afterwards, as opposed to Jerusalem, which, owing to its sanctity, will not be followed by a different place.

 

Many of these differences stem from the fundamental difference regarding the sanctity of the site.  The sanctity of Shilo was similar to the sanctity of Mount Sinai – temporary both in the nature of the revelation and regarding its status after the revelation was over.  In contrast, the sanctity of Jerusalem is eternal, a consequence of the original Divine selection of the place.

 

This situation is alluded to in Tehillim 78.  Following the account of the destruction of Shilo beginning in verse 59, verses 67-69 state:

 

And He rejected the tabernacle of Yosef, and chose not the tribe of Efrayim, but chose the tribe of Yehuda, the Mount Zion which He loved.  And He built His sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth which He has established for ever.

 

And He built His sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth which He has established forever.

 

            In the next lecture, we will deal with Nov and Giv'on, the sites of the great bama after Shilo, and with Kiryat-Ye'arim, the place where the ark was brought from Bet-Shemesh following the great plague.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

 

 

[1] Some of the points discussed in this lecture, as well as additional points, were discussed in lecture no.  43, "The Place that The Lord Shall Choose."

[2] We will relate only to the main sources, and not to all of them.

[3] Some of the characteristics discussed here were already mentioned in previous lectures.  We bring here all of Shilo's distinctive features in order to present a full picture of Shilo.

[4] All of these sources are brought by Ch.  Chevrayahu in his "Mishkan Shilo," Machanayim 116 (5728), pp.  152-161.

[5] Let us remember the spiritual significance that was attached to the placing of a siege around and breaching of the city walls during the first Temple period.

, full_html