The History of the Divine Service at Altars (50) – The Prohibition of Bamot (27)

********************************************************************************
Dedicated in memory of Matt Eisenfeld z"l and Sara Duker z"l on their 20^th yahrzeit.
Though their lives were tragically cut short in the bombing of Bus 18 in Jerusalem, their memory continues to inspire.
Am Yisrael would have benefitted so much from their contributions. Yehi zikhram barukh. – 
Yael and Reuven Ziegler
********************************************************************************

 

The spiritual meaning of the separation of the Ark from the Great Bama from the time of the Destruction of Shilo to the dedication of the Temple

 

I. A realistic explanation: Fear of an Ark that kills

            The practical significance of the separation is seemingly clear. Since the ark that was taken by the sons of Eli to the second battle at Even-ha-Ezer was captured by the Pelishtim, it is returned to Bet-Shemesh.

            Bet-Shemesh is counted among the cities of the priests – the cities of refuge (I Divrei Ha-yamim 6:44; Yehoshua 21:16), but because the ark was gazed upon in a disrespectful manner, there is a plague, and the people of Bet-Shemesh turn to the people of Kiryat-Ye'arim sitting on the border between the tribal territories of Yehuda and Binyamin, and ask them to take the ark, and the ark is then brought to the house of Avinadav on the hill, and his son Elazar is appointed to watch over it.

In light of the verses, it seems that the people of Kiryat-Ye'arim did not house the ark in their city, but rather on Giv'at-Kiryat-Ye'arim (in the tribal territory of Binyamin; Yehoshua 18:28). It is possible that the house in which the ark was placed was the house of a priest, as is implied by the name of the owner of the house, and by the names of his sons.

Leaving the ark in Kiryat-Ye'arim and not bringing it to its rightful place at the great bama, teaches that the attitude toward the ark had not yet been repaired – the people are still afraid that the ark of the Lord kills (at Even-ha-Ezer, in various cities of the Pelishtim, and among the people of Bet-Shemesh).

David notes that during the days of Shaul the ark was not inquired after – "And let us bring back the ark of our God to us; for we did not inquire at it in the days of Shaul" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 13:3), and only after he is crowned king and he conquers Jerusalem, does he bring the ark to the City of David.

II. The understanding that it is not the Ark but rather God who brings salvation

In the opposite direction it may be proposed that the prophet Shemuel succeeded in elevating the people to a higher spiritual level – the people no longer believe that the ark will save them (as they believed at the battle at Even-ha-Ezer: "Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shilo to us, that, when it comes among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies"; I Shemuel 4:3), but rather that God Himself rescues them (Scripture testifies regarding the battle at Mitzpa: "Cease not to cry to the Lord our God for us, that He will save us out of the hand of the Pelishtim" (I Shemuel 7:8).

The ark is left in Kiryat-Ye'arim, and not in its natural place at the great bama, because the people believe that God Himself will save them.

III. The separation between the Ark and the Great Bama – The absence of rest

In II Shemuel (7:6) God explains that prior to the building of the Temple: "I have walked in a tent and in a Mishkan." The ark's absence from the Mishkan expresses restlessness, impermanence and imperfection. In a situation of restlessness, it is not possible to build the Temple.

• The separation expresses temporariness and lack of permanence. This is true not only regarding the Shekhina, but also regarding the people of Israel, spiritually and governmentally. There is no central place for the worship of God.

• On the practical level, not returning the ark to the great bama in Nov or in Giv'on is what allows service at the bamot. Anyone can offer his own sacrifice on an altar that he builds for himself. This reality as well expresses temporariness.

The house of God in a fixed place expresses rest and permanence. After we clarify the connection between a fixed Temple in one place and rest, we will be able to better understand the period between the destruction of Shilo and the dedication of the Temple.

IV. Nov and Giv'on – Between the rest and the inheritance, between Shilo and Jerusalem

The Mishna in Zevachim states: "When they came to Nov and to Giv'on, bamot were permitted." The Gemara explains:

How do we know it? As our Rabbis taught: "For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, [which the Lord your God gives you]" – "to the rest" alludes to Shilo, "the inheritance" alludes to Jerusalem. Why does Scripture separate them? In order to grant permission between one and the other. (119a)

The separation between Shilo and Jerusalem teaches that between these periods (the time that the great bama was in Nov and in Giv'on), sacrifices may be offered on bamot. This is a new explanation of the allowance of bamot – separating between the rest and the inheritance.

The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna explains:

When the sanctuary in Shilo was destroyed for the sins of our fathers, they erected the Ohel Mo'ed that was fashioned in the wilderness in Nov. Afterwards they were wicked at Nov, and they erected it in Giv'on. And it stood in Nov and Giv'on for fifty-seven years, and during this time one was permitted to offer sacrifices at the bamot, because Shilo is "the rest" alluded to in Scripture, and Jerusalem is "the inheritance," as will be explained.

And it says about the prohibition of bamot: "For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance." Were the intention of the verse that once they come to the rest, bamot would be forbidden forever, it would not say: "and to the inheritance." Rather the meaning is that if you come to the rest, bamot are forbidden, and similarly when you come to the inheritance, they will be forbidden. This implies that they are permitted between the rest and the inheritance. This is what they said: "Why does Scripture separate them? In order to grant permission between one and the other." Between the time that the sanctuary was in Shilo and the time is was in Jerusalem, the Shekhina was in Nov and in Giv'on.

V. The meaning of the allowance of Bamot while the Mishkan was in Gilgal, in Nov and in Giv'on

The Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishna in Zevachim, explains as follows:

At Gilgal there was no building, but rather there was the Mishkan itself that was in the wilderness. But since the wording of the prohibition of bamot makes it dependent upon the camp, as the verse states: "That kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp" (Vayikra 17:3), and it states the reason: "To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field" (Vayikra 17:5); with the end of the camp and their entry into the land, that is, the land of Canaan, and this was when they were in Gilgal, this prohibition was removed and the allowance remained that if someone wanted to offer a sacrifice at a bama he could sacrifice it, as before there was a Mishkan, since the prohibition applied only in the wilderness, where there were camps. (14:5)

The Rambam connects the prohibition of bamot to the existence of a camp, based on the verse: "That kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp," and the reason that is stated: "To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord," which is the prohibition of bamot.

With Israel's entry into the land, the camps were dismantled, and therefore bamot were permitted. Since there was no camp, sacrifices of lesser sanctity could be offered in all places.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch relates in his commentary to the substance of the prohibition of bamot, and to the period during which bamot are permitted and its significance:

We have tried to work out in Shemot… the concept of bama in contrast to an altar, and we have tried to explain the sin that lay in offering on bamot at the time when it was prohibited to do so. We found that only at the place of the national sanctuary of God, erected to His Torah, is the assurance given that the one who brings his offering places his consciousness of God on the basis of the revelation of God at Sinai being guaranteed for the whole nation, as well as the conviction that nearness to God can only be sought by devotion to all the traditional laws handed down from God to the nation.

For both of these the private bama lacks any expression of definite acceptance. The God to whom he dedicates his offering can be the One unique and only God of Judaism, but He can be at the same time coincident with the "demons in the field," the physical life of nature, the deepest erroneous conception of heathenism. But, above all, the bama lacks all relation to the Torah, and an offering brought to God outside at the time when bamot are prohibited becomes just a defection from the Torah which God has set for all time as the one medium between us and Himself.

How deeply the sin of a bama when bamot are prohibited undermines the faithful attachment to duty of the members of the nation and opens wide the gate to the most pernicious subjectivity… After all this one has not got to go far to see the reason for the absolute prohibition of bamot…

The Mishkan, erected by the nation in the wilderness at God's behest retained, wherever it happened to be, the character of the national sanctuary, in which, at the times fixed by God, the nation was to express in the deeply significant prescribed procedures of the prescribed offerings again and again…

But so that this sanctuary shall fulfill its purpose of sanctifying the whole life of the people, so that it, and with it the Torah which forms its essential content, becomes the center point elevated above the nation and its individuals, drawing everything and everybody up to it, uniting everything and everybody in equal obligation to dutifulness, and affecting everything and everybody with equal responsibility…

Of this place God has said: "Here will I dwell; for I have desired it" (Tehilim 132:14), from which He wishes the sanctifying force of His sanctuary of the Torah to go forth. Every member of the nation must know that the Torah did not go forth from the nation, or from part of the nation, but rather it was given by the hand of God to the entire nation.

Quite in the same trend of thought could the permission to use a private bama when bamot are permitted be understandable. Just because the Mishkan also only bore the character of a bama, and God had not yet appointed the place where His "Name" – which fundamentally is equivalent to His "Torah" (see I Divrei Ha-yamim 13:6) – was to be found, and individuals also could go there only to God and not specifically with his relationships to the Torah, God, so to speak, can be found anywhere and everywhere and the private bama is allowed to be used for free-will offerings.

The very permission itself keeps the consciousness alive in the minds of the whole nation that the contemporary place of the sanctuary is still not the one chosen by God, that not yet have they come "to the rest and to the inheritance," and that it is still the task for all ranks of the nation "to enquire for the place of God" and to wait for the manifestation of the Presence of God, by which God will just indicate the place as "His place." (Devarim 12:8)

We will relate to several points:

During the time that bamot are prohibited, there is an obligation to offer sacrifices only in the national sanctuary erected for the Torah, for only there is there a guarantee that the individual bringing a sacrifice will ground his consciousness of God on the basis of the revelation of God attested to by the entire nation, and there he will seek nearness to God only through devotion to the Torah.

One who sacrifices to God outside the sanctuary when bamot are prohibited is considered as if he abandoned the Torah. Therefore, when bamot are permitted, one is only allowed to offer on a bama free-will offerings, but one is forbidden to offer there sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, because those offerings which come in the wake of sin are especially connected to the Torah's commandments.

The permission to offer sacrifices on a private bama when bamot are permitted stems from the fact that God has not yet made known the place where He will rest His name. It is clear that the temporary site of the Mishkan is not the place chosen by God, as the people of Israel have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, and the task still falls upon them "to enquire for the place of God."

This is what characterizes the period between the destruction of Shilo and the dedication of the Temple, between the rest and the inheritance. In the next shiur we will examine the concepts of rest and inheritance, Shilo and Jerusalem.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, The spiritual meaning of the separation of the Ark from the Great Bama from the time of the Destruction of Shilo to the dedication of the Temple