The History of the Divine Service at Altars (53) – The Prohibition of Bamot (30)

 

This shiur is dedicated to the refua sheleima of our alumnus

Rabbi Daniel ben Miriam Chaya Rut Beller.

 

In this shiur, we will complete our examination of the various views of the Tannaim regarding the relationship between "the rest" and "the inheritance." We will then consider the structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv'on, whether it was temporary in nature like the Mishkan in the wilderness, or it had permanent elements as in Shilo.

The Opinions of the Tannaim Regarding the Rest and the Inheritance

The Opinion of Rabbi Shimon that “The Inheritance” is Shilo

Let us start by finishing out discussion regarding the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that "the inheritance" is Shilo. The verses make no connection between inheritance and Shilo. The Gemara in Zevachim (119b) suggests that the connection between inheritance and Shilo can be understood if we explain that "the inheritance" refers to the division of the land into the tribal territories that took place in Shilo, as it is stated: "And Yehoshua cast lots for them in Shilo before the Lord: and there Yehoshua divided the land to the children of Israel according to their divisions" (Yehoshua 18:10).

The Opinion of the Tanna of the School of Rabbi Yishmael that Both “The Rest” and “The Inheritance” Refer to Shilo

According to this opinion, the allowance of bamot extended only until the period of Shilo, and no verse teaches that bamot were permitted during the intervening period between Shilo and Jerusalem.

Nevertheless there was an allowance afterwards, for according to this opinion, "inheritance" is not to be understood in the sense of something that has no termination (like those who say that after the destruction of the Temple bamot were once again permitted because the initial sanctification of the land was for its time and not forever; Megila 10a, Rashi).[1]

The Opinion of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai that Both “The Rest” and “The Inheritance” Refer to Jerusalem

According to this opinion, the entire time until the building of the Temple, and even during the period of Shilo, bamot were permitted.

The Explanation of this Dispute[2]

Perhaps the divergent views can be explained as follows:[3]

Rabbi Yehuda ("the rest" is Shilo, and "the inheritance" is Jerusalem) locates Shilo and Jerusalem on one historical continuum, Shilo being the intermediate step towards Jerusalem. Let us illustrate this:

1. This is true in terms of the structure of the Mishkan. Shilo was built of "stones below and curtains above," a more advanced stage in relation to the curtains and boards of the Mishkan, and a stage before the Temple which was built of stone and covered with wood.

2. This is true with respect to the period of the Judges in general – an intermediate period of tribal, rather than national leadership; partial Divine revelation; and apart from Devora the prophetess, there is no prophecy. This period is a time of preparation for the period of the monarchy – of central leadership that unites all of the tribes together.

3. From a spiritual perspective as well, during the period of Shilo there is idol worship, worship of the God of Israel together with other gods, and worship of God through invalid modes of worship.

In all these respects Shilo is "the rest," an intermediate step towards the next floor - Jerusalem, which is the permanent floor. Jerusalem as "the inheritance" is the second, higher, and more perfect floor, with respect to the centralized, monarchical regime, with respect to the Divine revelation (the prophecy of Shemuel, and afterwards that of Gad and Nathan), and with respect to arriving at the Temple, the permanent house of God, after which there is no further allowance of bamot.

In contrast to this opinion, it is possible that Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that "the rest" is Jerusalem and "the inheritance" is Shilo, does not see the relationship between the two cities in a historical perspective, but rather he relates to each place independently in accordance with each one's essential nature. Shilo, which is located in the tribal territory of Yosef, and which is connected in its very essence to the person of Yosef, represents the temporary, impermanent and primal reality, while Jerusalem, which is located in the tribal territory of Binyamin on the border of the territory of Yehuda, represents the permanent reality.

It might be that the word "rest" assumes a prior journey, and that the rest is the end of that journey, whereas the word "inheritance" relates to a situation of permanent hold on a place.

The two other opinions express two opposite states. According to the Tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, fundamentally, from the time of Shilo and on bamot were forbidden. Already the building of the Mishkan barred the possibility of worship outside of it, and therefore fundamentally there was no room for sacrificial service even outside the temporary Mishkan.

According to the radically opposite opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, only upon arriving in Jerusalem was there permanence, and whatever there was on the way was only temporary, which allowed for sacrificial service at private bamot, even during the period of Shilo.

Let us sharpen this understanding. It is possible that even for future generations there is an element in the Temple that is temporary and not permanent. According to this opinion, Shilo, which was built with stones below and curtains above, despite the extended duration of the Mishkan's presence there (369 years according to Seder Olam Rabba), expresses temporary reality through its curtains. But still it is called "the inheritance" because there the land was parceled into tribal territories.

We noted the great danger of viewing the site of the resting of the Shekhina as a permanent place, a sort of guarantee that God is with us in every situation, both in the attitude of the sons of Eli toward the ark, and in the manner in which Yirmeyahu turns to the people of Israel at the end of the First Temple period, and presents the destruction of Shilo as a result of the spiritual perception: "The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, are these" (Yirmeyahu 7:4) – the people relying on the very existence of a permanent Temple for protection, without any connection, responsibility or commitment to their actions.

The temporary nature of the Temple might find expression in the Temple itself – in the poles of the ark in the house of God: "And they drew out the poles, so that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place, before the sanctuary, though they were not seen outside, and there they are to this days (I Melakhim 8:8).[4] According to one understanding of this verse, the poles that served to carry the ark were extended as an expression of the desire for permanence, the opposite of mobility. It is not by accident that unlike all the other vessels with poles (the table, the golden altar, and the bronze altar), only regarding one vessel does the Torah state: "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it" (Shemot 25:15). The prohibition to remove the poles from the ark is in fact counted by some of the Rishonim as a negative commandment.

On the deeper level, it might be argued that the poles are an integral part of the ark, and not just an accessory that helps in its transport, as is the case with the poles of the table, the golden altar, and the bronze altar. They must be inseparably connected to the ark in order to emphasize the ark's impermanence, the need for preparedness for leaving the Holy of Holies at any given moment. The fact that the keruvim are in the form of birds also comes to emphasize flight and the lack of permanence.

Accordingly, Shilo comes to express the essence of temporariness itself, an aspect that should be preserved even in the permanent house of God, whereas Jerusalem expresses the essence of permanence in the fact that it was chosen for eternity, and after it was chosen there is no further allowance of bamot, and in the fact that the Temple was built of stone with walls and a ceiling that express its permanence, and in the idea of "the rest," the understanding that the Shekhina arrived, as it were, at its final destination, the supreme and eternal station: "This is My resting place forever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it" (Tehilim 132:14).

What was the Form of the Structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv’on?

In the Biblical Sources

As for the other stations of the Mishkan, the facts are clear: The Mishkan in the wilderness and apparently in Gilgal as well was the structure familiar to us from Parashat Teruma – boards and above them curtains. On the other hand, it is explicitly stated both in Melakhim and in Divrei ha-Yamim that the Temple in Jerusalem was built of stone and covered with wood. The Mishkan in Shilo was built of stones at the bottom and of curtains above.

Did the situation in Shilo continue in Nov and Giv'on until the house of God was dedicated in Jerusalem, or did they go back to the boards and curtains used in Gilgal? Scripture does not relate to this issue,[5] but nevertheless we find several designations of the sanctuary in Giv'on: "the Mishkan of the Lord in the bama" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 16:39); "the Mishkan of the Lord, which Moshe made in the wilderness" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 21:29); "the Tent of Meeting of God, which Moshe the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness" (II Divrei ha-Yamim 1:3); "the Tent of Meeting" (II Divrei ha-Yamim 1:13); "the Mishkan of the Tent of Meeting" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 6:17); "the great bama" (I Melakhim 3:4).

There are three other verses which do not explicitly mention Giv'on, and can be understood in different ways: "the house of the Lord" (II Shemuel 12:20); "the Mishkan of the house of God" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 6:33); "the house of the Lord, the house of the tent" (I Divrei ha-Yamim 9:23).

None of these designations hint at a permanent structure, but apparently to a temporary Mishkan. If these terms refer to the bama in Giv'on, they might allude to a structure, but it is exceedingly difficult to decide based on the verses whether in Giv'on there was a structure like in Shilo, or boards and curtains like in the wilderness. In the absence of any clear indication from the verses, let us try to understand Chazal's position on the matter.

In the Words of Chazal[6]

The Mishna in Zevachim says about the Mishkan in Shilo: "[The Mishkan] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a stone edifice ceiled with curtains, and that was the 'rest': most holy sacrifices were eaten [there] within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices and second tithe [were eaten] wherever [Shilo] cold be seen" (14:6-7). And in the continuation: "When they came to Nov and to Giv'on, bamot were [again] permitted: most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [and second tithe] in all the cities of Israel." Here there is no reference to the structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv'on.

The Gemara in Zevachim states:

Our Rabbis taught: The duration of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness was forty years less one; the duration of the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal was fourteen years, [viz.,] the seven [years] of conquest and the seven of division. The duration of the Tent of Meeting at Nov and Giv'on [combined] was fifty-seven years. Thus for Shiloh was left three hundred and seventy less one. (118b)

The place is defined as the Tent of Meeting, and the plain meaning is that we are dealing with a tent similar in its structure to the Mishkan in the wilderness, that is to say, one made of boards and curtains.

The Seder Olam Rabba states: "At the beginning of these twenty years they brought the Tent of Meeting to Nov, and even though the ark of the Lord was in Kiryat-Ye'arim, they offered sacrifices in Nov all thirteen years and seven years in Giv'on" (chapter 17). And it is further stated there: "When David fled from Avshalom, they returned the ark to its place. But the Tent of Meeting that Moshe fashioned in the wilderness, and the bronze altar that Betzalel made, and the candlestick, and the table, and the fire that came down in the days of Moshe, were at the bama in Giv'on" (chapter 14). The same tradition is found in Yalkut Shimoni (I Shemuel 28, no. 139). From here it seems that in Nov and Giv'on there was a Tent of Meeting, and not a Temple.

In the Rishonim

The author of the Sefer Mitzvot ha-Gadol (Semag) writes: "When Eli died Shilo was destroyed and they came to Nov and built there a Temple (Mikdash). And when Shemuel died Nov was destroyed and they came to Giv'on, and from Giv'on they came to the eternal House" (positive commandment 163). This implies that in Nov there was a Temple, but it does not specify what was in Giv'on. The Rambam[7] in Hilkhot Beit ha-Bechira (1:2) rules: "When Eli died, it was destroyed. [Afterwards,] they came to Nov and built a Temple (Mikdash). When Shemuel died, it was destroyed. And they came to Giv'on and built a Temple (Mikdash)." Both imply that we are dealing with a stone edifice, as is explicit in Rashi in Pesachim (38b): "They came to Nov, where there was no Mishkan, but rather a stone building."

On the other hand, the Tosafot Yeshanim in Yoma state: "In Nov and Giv'on there was the original Mishkan, as we do not find that there was there a building with stones below" (44a, s.v. Shilo). The Ramban in his commentary to the Torah (Shemot 23:19) understands that only in Shilo and in Jerusalem was there a stone building, but not in Nov or in Giv'on. So too the Radak (I Shemuel 7:5) and Rabbi Ovadya of Bartenura (Zevachim 14:10).

It turns out that there is a fundamental disagreement regarding the structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv'on. It seems that fundamental meaning can be attached to this disagreement if we consider the time period between Shilo and Jerusalem, between the "rest" and the "inheritance."

            It is possible that the Rishonim who maintain that the structure in Nov and Giv'on was like that in the wilderness understand that Shilo was an exceedingly important station, but it was followed by a significant fall that found expression in the absence of the ark from the Mishkan, and in the fact that the people did not relate to the great bama as a public bama on the national level (no mention is made of any significant national assemblies conducted at the bama at Nov or at Giv'on).

The Rishonim who maintain that the structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv'on was like that in Shilo (with stones at the bottom and curtains above them),[8] understand that from Shilo to Jerusalem there was spiritual continuity and progress that found expression in the permanence of the structure. It is difficult for us to understand how this idea expressed itself in practice.

The essential difference between Nov and Giv'on, on the one hand, and Gilgal, on the other, lies in the leadership. At the time of Gilgal the people of Israel were still engaged in conquest and settlement, while in the period of Nov the leaders were Shemuel and Shaul, and in the period of Giv'on the leader was David. In the next shiur we will examine the ideas of lesser bama and great bama and the differences between them, and we will continue to describe the actual spiritual reality as described in the verses referring to the period of Nov and Giv'on.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html, In this shiur, we will complete our examination of the various views of the Tannaim regarding the relationship between "the rest" and "the inheritance." We will then consider the structure of the Mishkan in Nov and in Giv'on, whether it was temporary in nature like the Mishkan in the wilderness, or it had permanent elements as in Shilo.