The History of the Divine Service at Altars (40) – The Prohibition of Bamot (17)

*********************************************************

Please daven for a refua sheleima for YHE alumnus 
Rav Daniel ben Miriam Chaya Rut

*********************************************************

This week’s shiurim are dedicated in commemoration of the yarhzeit of 
Rabbi Lipman Z. Rabinowitz, by his family

*********************************************************

In this shiur we will complete our discussion of Mikha's idol. We will examine the relationship between Mikha's idol and the concubine in Giv'a, and why these two stories are juxtaposed at the end of the book of Shoftim.

 

The Difference between Mikha's idol and the concubine in Giv'a

 

There is a clear connection between the two stories, in addition to the fact that they are juxtaposed. They are both recorded at the end of the book, separate from the account of the history of the Judges, which suggests that they belong to the beginning of the period of the Judges. Furthermore, both stories clearly emphasize that, "in those days there was no king in Israel." Both stories also feature an encounter between "a man from Mount Efrayim" and "a man from Bet-Lechem-Yehuda."

 

Crime and punishment

 

Some have explained the juxtaposition of the two stories as describing a crime and its punishment. The Radak, for example, sees the grave consequences of the war waged over the concubine in Giv'a as a punishment for Mikha's idol, and for the Israelites' failure to object to its existence. In his commentary to chap. 17, the Radak writes as follows:

 

It [Mikha's idol] is immediately followed by the story of the concubine in Giv'a, because due to the sin involving Mikha's idol, thousands of the people of Israel were killed in the war against Binyamin. Were it not for [the idol] nobody would have been killed from Israel, for they were justifiably fighting against Binyamin to eradicate evil from Israel. (17:1, s.v. va-yehi ish).

 

And in chapter 20, he writes:

 

They said that this punishment of Israel was for the sin of Mikha's idol that occurred in those days, as I have explained (Shoftim 17:1). Now they were zealous about the matter of the concubine in Giv'a, but they were not zealous about Mikha's idol. They should have been zealous [about the idol] and gone out to war to eradicate the idol from Israel, in the same way that they eradicated this evil [in Binyamin]. Therefore they were punished in this war. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You did not protest for My honor, yet you protest for the honor of [a woman of] flesh and blood. (20:21, s.v. va-yashchitu be-Yisrael)

 

Why was the sin involving Mikha's idol punished with a civil war? The Radak in his commentary mentions the Gemara in Sanhedrin which explains the punishment:

 

It was taught: Rabbi Natan said: From Garev to Shilo is a distance of three mils, and the smoke of the altar and that of Mikha's idol intermingled. The ministering angels wished to thrust Mikha away, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Let him alone, because his bread is available for wayfarers. And it was on this account that the people involved in the matter of the concubine at Giv'a were punished. For the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: You did not protest for My honor, yet you protest for the honor of a woman.

 

According to Chazal, the people of Israel should have judged the tribe of Dan as a tribe that had been drawn after idol worship because of its worshipping Mikha's idol (ir hanidachat, which warrants destruction). Instead they, in a certain sense, punished Giv'a as a city that had been drawn after idol worship.

 

Chazal's critique indicates that they viewed the calves in Dan as a continuation of Mikha's idol. The calves were the cause of the worst civil war in the history of the Jewish people – the war between Aviya king of Yehuda and Yarav'am king of Israel on Mount Tzemarim. Five hundred thousand men from Yarav'am's camp alone fell in that war (I Divrei ha-Yamim 13). It is possible that Chazal connected the civil war with Binyamin with the war on Mount Tzemarim because of the commonalities between the two.

 

It is not necessary, however, to see the war connected to the concubine in Giv'a as a direct punishment for the sin involving Mikha's idol. The incident involving the concubine in Giva itself presents both a crime and its punishment, without need to refer back to Mikha’s idol as the primary cause.

 

Mikha's idol in the battle against Binyamin (as proposed by Rav Yaakov Medan)

 

Rav Medan discusses the difference between the three inquiries made of God over the course of the campaign against Binyamin. The answers to the first two inquiries led to disappointing results. Only in the case of the third inquiry was God’s promise of success kept. Further, Scripture only notes that the ark was with them regarding the third inquiry. Rav Medan, in his article on the concubine in Giv'a: "Meh Chori ha-Af ha-Gadol ha-Zeh," Megadim (no. 3, Tamuz 5769), explains the story of Mikha's idol. We will summarize his position and analyze it.

 

Shoftim, chapter 20 describes the inquiry:

 

Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came to the house of God (Bet El), and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until evening, and offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before the Lord. And the children of Israel inquired of the Lord, (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days. And Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aharon, stood before it in those days) saying, “Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Binyamin my brother, or shall I cease?” And the Lord said, “Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into your hand.” (Shoftim 20:26-29).

 

According to Rav Medan the third inquiry was addressed to Pinchas the High Priest in the Mishkan in Shilo. Based on this assumption, Rav Medan infers that the first two questions were not asked in the Mishkan, were not addressed to the High Priest, and did not involve the Urim and the Tumim.

 

According to Rav Medan's position, we may suggest that the first two inquiries were made through the efod and terafim that were found in the shrine housing Mikha's idol in Garev. Further, the priest through whom the inquiries were made was one of Mikha's sons, and the Urim was Mikha's efod and terafim. In this sense, Mikha's idol had become a business, replacing the Urim in the Mishkan as the primary source of predicting the future in the name of God.

 

The atmosphere at Mikha's shrine during the fortune-telling was probably optimistic, as it appears from the words of the young Levite to the people of Binyamin. As a rule in the books of the Prophets, the words of the false prophets are generally optimistic. So too, in the war between Israel and Binyamin, the efod and terafim at Mikha's shrine provided optimistic answers. The results to these answers proved disappointing, so the third inquiry was taken to the Mishkan in Shilo.

 

According to this understanding, Chazal saw the Israelites’ mistake as a punishment for the very existence of Mikha's idol. Hence, there is an indirect connection between Mikha's idol and the rout of Israel including forty thousand dead.[1]

 

This is the essence of Rav Medan's view about the relationship between Mikha's idol and the incident involving the concubine in Giv'a. We will address this understanding.[2]

 

The great bama in Bet-El in the campaign against Binyamin

 

Let us first examine the places mentioned in the story. At the beginning of chapter 20, the entire congregation assembles "as one man, from Dan to Be'er-Sheva, with the land of Gil'ad, to the Lord in Mitzpe" (20:1). The assembly is made up of the chiefs of all the people, all the tribes of Israel, "four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword" (20:2). This is a huge gathering in a new place – Mitzpe, where all of Israel decides to ask the people of Binyamin to hand over the people of Giv'a for execution. The people of Binyamin refuse to accede to their request and ready for war. Following this, the people of Israel go to Bet-El to inquire of God. In the wake of their defeat and the killing of twenty-two thousand of their men, they inquire of God a second time, and, then too, another eighteen thousand men are killed.

 

After these two failures, Scripture states that all of the people of Israel go to Bet-El, fast there before God, offer sacrifices, and inquire of God a third time. The ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, and Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon inquires of God.

 

Scripture appears to be saying that all three inquiries of God took place in the same place in Bet-El. There are several differences between the first two inquiries and the third inquiry:

 

1. In the first and second inquiries, Scripture only describes the questions themselves, without mention of any other action on Israel's part (apart from the people’s crying before God before the second inquiry). However, regarding the third inquiry, they first wept and sat before God, fasting until the evening and offering sacrifices. Only afterwards, did they inquire again of God. This time, the people accept responsibility through their actions. It is very possible that this essential change led to their decisive victory.

 

2. The second difference is that regarding the third inquiry, Scripture says: "Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up" (Shoftim 20:26). Scripture emphasizes that we are dealing with all of the children of Israel, and the entire people.

 

These two changes are very significant. Only when all of the people of Israel mend their ways by fasting, praying, sitting before God and offering sacrifices, can success be achieved.

 

Scripture mentions the ark of the covenant of God and Pinchas the High Priest regarding the third inquiry, but also notes that all three inquiries occurred in Bet-El. Based on the plain meaning of the verses, it is very difficult to distinguish, as Rav Medan does, between the locations of the events in the different inquiries.

`

The place of the third inquiry is called Bet-El. It seems that this is the Bet-El that was the site of the patriarch Yaakov’s dream. Its conquest is described in Shoftim (1:22-25) and it is located on the northern border of the territory of Binyamin with the territory of Efrayim.

 

The house of Mikha did contain a house of God (the literal meaning of Bet-El), with a carved idol, a molten idol, an efod and terafim. But it is unreasonable to think that in the first two instances, Scripture refers to Mikha's idol, but calls it Bet-El as if it were the name of a place.

 

In addition, it is unlikely that the third mention of Bet-El refers to Shilo for two reasons. First, Shilo isn’t called Bet-El anywhere else in Scripture, and, second, because of the verse: "For the ark of the covenant of God was there [in Shilo] in those days" (Shoftim 20:27). What is the novelty here? The ark was permanently located in Shilo, and there was no indication that it left the Mishkan. Why then note that it was in Shilo at this stage and in this context?

 

One explanation is that Scripture wishes to explicitly specify the location of the ark. However, if this is Scripture's intention, one might have expected that after the third time that an inquiry is made in the Mishkan in Shilo, Scripture would emphasize the fact that the Mishkan in Shilo still serves as the central location where the people of Israel gather together to inquire of God by way of the Urim and Tumim, and for all matters of national and religious significance for all of Israel.

 

Instead, the text comes to tell us that the assembly took place specifically in Bet-El, and not in Shilo. Just as Mikha's idol served as a shrine for all those who came to Mount Efrayim, Bet-El was another significant place where all of Israel could assemble.

 

According to this, the story of the incident involving the concubine in Giv'a also emphasizes the fact that there is no interest in the Mishkan in Shilo at the time. Shilo is not a place that people visit, neither on the personal level, nor on the national level.

 

The next question is why does the assembly take place specifically at Bet-El? We may suggest two answers:

 

1. It is reasonable to assume that the Israelites, while deciding whether to go to war against the tribe of Binyamin, would gather in a significant place in the territory of that tribe. It is logical that Bet-El would be the chosen place because of its location (just as the first assembly, before they reached Bet-El, was in Mitzpe, which is also found in the tribal territory of Binyamin).

 

2. It is possible that Bet-El's original sanctity from the period of the patriarchs was of significance, and was therefore chosen as the place to bring the ark, inquire of God, and offer sacrifices.

 

In the book of Shemuel following Shaul's anointment as king, Scripture provides a description of the signs that were given by Shemuel to Shaul. One of the signs is Shaul's encounter with three people:

 

Then shall you go on forward from there, and you shall come to the oak of Tavor, and there shall meet these three men going up to God to Bet-El, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a bottle of wine. (I Shemuel 10:3)

 

Scripture testifies that the men are "going up to God to Bet-El," indicating that people go there because of the sanctity of the place.[3]

 

Therefore, despite Rav Medan's very original suggestion that the first two inquiries were addressed to Mikha's idol, this proposal does not seem plausible according to the plain sense of the verses. 

 

repentance in the wake of the punishment

 

The Radak understands that the forty thousand men were killed in the war between Israel and Binyamin as a consequence of the Israelites’ lack of objection to Mikha’s idol.[4]

 

In this context, the opinion of Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam is particularly interesting. He understands that, in between the two battles that Israel lost and the battle that they won, the people of Israel repented for Mikha's idol, "for after they fought against the people of Dan and wiped out the memory of Mikha's idol and fasted and cried and repented, they were promised victory, and this was later fulfilled" (Responsa Rabbi Avraham ben ha-Rambam, no. 31).

 

His words require examination because Scripture does not say that the people of Israel fought against the people of Dan. Additionally, according to the plain meaning of the baraita in Sanhedrin (103b), it is clear that the idol was still in Mikha's house close to Shilo at the time of the incident involving the concubine in Giv'a, before it was taken north by the people of Dan. The idea of repentance between the first two inquiries and the third inquiry presents an intriguing possibility. Perhaps the people of Israel interpreted the military failures and the price that they paid in casualties as a punishment for Mikha's idol, and then repented.

 

In any event, mention of the ark of God in Bet-El, inquiry of God, and offering of sacrifices there, teaches that Shilo was not a place that people visited, or the place to which people came for general national, communal and religious assemblies.

 

This reflects the reality throughout the period of the Judges: Just as there is no single national leadership, and each tribe lives for itself (both in the settlement of its territory and in conquering the land), so too the Mishkan does not serve in practice as a spiritual and national center, and there are many other places where people turn to God. The house of God on Mount Efrayim containing Mikha's idol, and Bet-El, where people inquire of the God of Israel, are both popular alternatives to the Mishkan.

 

Regarding the permissibility of offering sacrifices in Bet-El when the Mishkan was standing in Shilo, let us return to the answer proposed by the Meshekh Chokhma based on the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta. As soon as the ark leaves the Mishkan, bamot are permitted. Thus, when the ark was in Bet-El, it was permitted to offer sacrifices in all places, including Bet-El.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

 

, full_html, What was the punishment, if at all, for Mikha's idol? Is it connected to the civil war with Binyamin? In this shiur we explore multiple approaches to the end of Mikha's idol and the war with Binyamin.