Lecture 52: The Stations of the Mishkan in Eretz Yisrael (Part II)
Mikdash
Lecture
52: THe stations of the mishkan in eretz yisrael (part
iI)
Rav Yitzchak
Levi
INTRODUCTION
In the previous lecture, we began to discuss the stations of the
Mishkan in Eretz Yisrael. To our great surprise, we saw
that following Yisrael's entry into the Land, the Mishkan is
hardly ever mentioned and, apparently, rarely visited. In this lecture, we will
continue to survey the Mishkan's stations, and we will also examine the
wanderings of the ark in Eretz Yisrael.
NOV
Following a period of 369 years during which the Mishkan stood in
Shilo, it moved to Nov, the city of priests. Just as there is no description of
the destruction of Shilo in the book of Shmuel, however, there is no
account of the transfer of the Mishkan from Shilo to Nov.[1]
The Mishkan in Nov is first mentioned in the verses describing David's
flight from Shaul. David arrives in Nov, where he finds Achimelekh the priest,
from whom he takes the sword of Golyat (I Shmuel
21:1-11).
The second and last mention of Nov is connected to Shaul's anger at the
priests and the slaying of eighty-five people wearing a linen efod:[2]
And Nov, the city of
the priests, he smote with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children
and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword. (I
Shmuel 22:19)
Shaul destroys the city and kills eighty-five priests. The verses
themselves do not explicitly mention the Mishkan, but it would seem that
in the wake of this incident the Mishkan moves from Nov.
Apart from these two references, there is no further mention of the
Mishkan in Nov in the book of Shmuel. There is also no mention of
any assembly or communal activity in the Mishkan in Nov, nor is an
account given of the transfer of the Mishkan from Nov to Giv'on.[3]
GIV'ON
The book of Shmuel makes no reference to the Mishkan in
Giv'on. Giv'on is, indeed, mentioned in connection with several events that are
important in themselves; it is reasonable to assume that their importance stems
in part from their proximity to the Mishkan, but this is not stated in
Scripture. Thus, for example, the battle between Yoav ben Tzeruya and Avner ben
Ner is conducted at the pool at Giv'on (II Shmuel 2:12 and on), and the
encounter between Yoav ben Tzeruya and Amasa ben Yeter, wherein Yoav kills
Amasa, similarly takes place at the great stone at Giv'on (II Shmuel
20:8-10).
The fact that the Mishkan is found in Giv'on is mentioned for the
first time in the book of Melakhim in connection with
Shlomo:
And the king went to
Giv'on to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. A thousand burnt
offerings did Shlomo offer upon that altar. (I Melakhim
3:4)
It is interesting that in the books of Shmuel and Melakhim
there is not even a single reference to King David going to the great bama
in Giv'on. Following David's sin with Bat-Sheva and the death of their
child, it is stated: "Then David arose from the ground, and washed, and anointed
himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and bowed
down" (II Shmuel 12:20). To what place is the verse referring? Did David
go to Giv'on, or this perhaps a reference to the city of
In contrast to what was described above, the parallel chapters in
Divrei Ha-yamim offer a different picture. We will now cite the verses in
Divrei Ha-yamim that mention the Mishkan during the period in
which it stood in Giv'on, and we will try to understand the various designations
by which it is described:[4]
And they ministered
before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting with singing, until Shlomo
had built the house of the Lord in
And their brethren
the Levites were appointed to all manner of service of the tabernacle of the
house of God. (ibid. v. 33)[5]
And Tzadok the priest
and his brethren the priests before the tabernacle of the Lord in the high
place that was at Giv'on. (ibid. 16:39)
But the tabernacle of
the Lord, which Moshe made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt
offering were at that time in the high place at Giv'on. And David could
not go before it to inquire of God, for he was terrified because of the sword of
the angel of God. (ibid. 21:29-30)
So Shlomo and the
entire congregation with him went to the high place that was at Giv'on; for
there was the Tent of Meeting of God, which Moshe the servant of the Lord
had made in the wilderness… Moreover, the copper altar that Betzalel the son of
Uri the son of Chur had made he put before the tabernacle of the Lord, and
Shlomo and the congregation sought to it. And Shlomo went up there to the copper
altar before the Lord, which was at the Tent of Meeting, and offered a thousand
burnt offerings upon it. (II Divrei Ha-yamim 1:3-6)
Then Shlomo came
to the high place that was at Giv'on to Jerusalem, from before the Tent
of Meeting, and reigned over Yisrael. (ibid. v. 13)
In addition to the fact that the Mishkan in Giv'on is repeatedly
mentioned in Divrei Ha-yamim and not at all in the book of
Melakhim, regarding Gilgal, Shilo and Nov, the situation is the very
opposite. These places are mentioned in Shmuel and in Melakhim,
but there is no reference to them at all in Divrei
Ha-yamim.
It is possible that Divrei Ha-yamim wishes to emphasize the last
station that immediately precedes the transfer of the Mishkan to the
Mikdash. In this manner, it highlights the selection of
To summarize this point, we have seen that apart from the verses
regarding Giv'on in Divrei Ha-yamim, Scripture does not relate to the
transfer of the Mishkan from one place to the next. In the books of
Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel, and Melakhim, there is
almost no mention of the Mishkan, and there is no testimony to the
attitude of the people of Yisrael toward the Mishkan, neither on
the individual nor on the communal level. The sole exception relates to the
transfer of the Mishkan to Shilo.
A specific explanation can be given for each
station:
·
In Gilgal the people
of Yisrael are involved in conquest and settlement.
·
In Shilo, in addition
to the explanation given with respect to Gilgal that pertains to Shilo as well,
mention should be made of the prevalence of idol worship (and alien worship of
the God of Yisrael, as explained in the previous lecture), and of the
deteriorated state of the Mishkan in the days of Eli and his
sons.
·
As for Nov and
Giv'on, it may be that during the period that the ark was separated from the
great bama, and in consideration of the fact that bamot were then
permitted, personal worship was conducted at private altars and only communal
worship was conducted at the great bama. Therefore, people did not go on
pilgrimages to the Mishkan.
Beyond these local
explanations, however, is it possible to offer an overall explanation of
Yisrael's attitude toward the Mishkan?
Rav Eitan Sandorfi[6]
argues that the ark is the most important element in the Mishkan, and
when the ark is found elsewhere, the Mishkan's sanctity is lessened.
During the periods of Gilgal, Nov, and Giv'on the ark became separated from the
great bama, and this fact may serve as an answer to the question raised
above.
It seems that the
primary ramification of this argument pertains to the allowance of bamot.
In other words, the fact that every individual could build an altar in his
courtyard and offer his personal sacrifices there is relevant. While it is true
that communal sacrifices could only be brought at the great bama in
Gilgal, Nov, or Giv'on, everyday life could continue without going to the
Mishkan.
It seems, however,
that this answer does not provide an answer to our question. The argument
regarding the lesser sanctity of the Mishkan when the ark is absent seems
to be an after-the-fact halakhic explanation. It is difficult to imagine that
this is what influenced Yisrael's going to the Mishkan. Thus, for
example, this explanation does not account for Yisrael's almost total
ignoring of the Mishkan in Shilo over the course of hundreds of years of
the period of the Shoftim¸ while the ark was in the Mishkan and
while, according to Chazal, the Mishkan enjoyed full sanctity and
was regarded as "the place which the Lord shall choose."
We argued above that
Bnei Yisrael hardly related to the Mishkan at all. There
are, however, three exceptions to this rule:
First, the attitude
toward the Mishkan in Shilo during the days of Yehoshua - the allocation
of the territories to the seven tribes, the division of the Levitical cities,
and the assembly regarding the altar built by the two and a half tribes all took
place there.
Second, we find
Elkana's pilgrimage to Shilo (I Shmuel 1:1).
Third, we find Shlomo
going to Giv'on (I Melakhim 3).
Our overall
conclusion is that during the 440 years that the Mishkan stood in
Eretz Yisrael until the beginning of the building of the
One cause of this
situation seems to be the transition from life in the wilderness to life in
Eretz Yisrael. The transition from life in the wilderness when the
entire people encamped around the Mishkan, and journeyed together with
the Mishkan, to the situation in Eretz Yisrael, where each
tribe settled in its own territory far away from the Mishkan, is a very
sharp transition. This transition is also connected to the transition from
miraculous governance in the wilderness to natural governance in Eretz
Yisrael. One of the expressions of this transition, as mentioned above,
is the allowance of non-consecrated meat throughout the Land (Devarim
12:20-28), as opposed to the eating of peace offerings in the wilderness. It
is very possible that following the conquest and division of the Land, each
tribe was occupied with the settlement of its own territory, and therefore the
worship of God on the communal level was far from its consciousness. (To a
certain degree, this parallels the fact that during this period there are few
national efforts; rather, each tribe acts on its own[8]).
THE
ARK
Thus far, we have examined what is written about the various stations of
the Mishkan. With the destruction of the Mishkan in Shilo, the ark
was separated from the great bama, and was captured by the Pelishtim in
the battle of Even-ha-Ezer. Scripture offers a detailed description of the
stations of the ark: After being captured in battle, it remained in the hands of
the Pelishtim in Bet-Dagon for seven months (I Shmuel 5). It was then
moved to Bet-Shemesh, where it caused a great plague (ibid. 6). From there, it
was transferred to Kiryat-Ye'arim for twenty years (I Shmuel 7),
and from there to the city of
It seems that we can speak of two periods with respect to the ark, the
period until the time of David and the period from the time of David and
on.
During the period of Eli, Chofni, Pinchas and Eli relate to the ark as if
it were responsible for bringing salvation. The belief in the independent powers
of the ark irrespective of the people's actions leads to the ark's falling into
the hands of the Pelishtim.
The Pelishtim also understand that the ark causes them great damage and
that it has unique powers, and they therefore send it back to
Bet-Shemesh.
After the ark arrives in Bet-Shemesh, Scripture
states:
And He smote the men
of Bet-Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the Lord,[9]
smiting fifty thousand and seventy men of the people. And the people lamented,
because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter. (I
Shmuel 6:19)
In the wake of the plague that descended upon the inhabitants of
Bet-Shemesh, the people decide to move the ark to Kiryat-Ye'arim. Regarding this
twenty-year period, Scripture states:
And David said to all
the congregation of Yisrael: "If it seems good to you, and that it be the
will of the Lord our God, let us send abroad to our brethren everywhere who are
left in all the land of Yisrael, and with them also to the priests and
Levites who are in their cities that have pasture lands that they may gather
themselves to us. And let us bring back the ark of our God to us, for we
did not inquire of it in the days of Shaul." And all of the congregation said
that they would do so, for the thing seemed right in the eyes of all the people.
(I Divrei Ha-yamim 13:2-4)
In other words, during the period of Shaul, after the transfer of the ark
to Kiryat-Ye'arim, Bnei Yisrael did not interest themselves in the
ark, nor did they make any efforts to return the ark to the
Mishkan.
Assuming that the situation in which the ark and the great bama
are separated is inferior to that in which the two are found in the same place,
why didn't Bnei Yisrael return the ark to the great bama in
Nov or later in Giv'on? As stated above, this issue only arises in I Shmuel
4 and on, but not before.
Scripture does not
address this question at all. Yehuda Kil[10]
proposes that Shmuel was trying to teach the people that deliverance does not
come by way of the ark, but by way of the One who rests His glory in it.
According to this understanding, leaving the ark in Kiryat-Ye'arim and not
returning it to the Mishkan was part of a plan designed by Shmuel and had
an educational objective. The reality of the Mishkan in Shilo in the days
of Eli was that his sons Chofni and Pinchas were treating the sacrifices in a
sacrilegious manner and relating to the ark as an instrument that could
independently deliver Bnei Yisrael. Shmuel thought that in order
to wean Yisrael from the perverted relationship toward the ark that had
taken root among the priesthood and in the Mishkan service,
Yisrael had to be detached from the ark. In this way, in the future they
would relate to the ark in an appropriate and fitting manner and not believe in
it as a magical instrument through which Bnei Yisrael can be
delivered in times of distress.
This argument is a logical one, but practically speaking it is valid
primarily with respect to the period following the destruction of Shilo, which
roughly corresponds to the periods of Shmuel and Shaul (when the Mishkan
was in Nov, according to Chazal, for 13 years). In reality, the ark
remained in Kiryat Ye'arim for 20 years, including the 7 years during which
David ruled as king in
Rav Eitan Sandorfi suggests that Shmuel was familiar with Chana's
prophecy, in which she said:
The adversaries of
the Lord shall be broken in pieces; out of heaven shall He thunder upon them.
The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength to His
king, and exalt the horn of His anointed. (I Shmuel 2:10)
The medieval commentators understand that Chana's words allude to the
possibility of a monarchy, and that once there is a monarchy, the Mikdash
will be built. Shmuel left the ark outside the Mishkan in order to
intensify the yearning for it, and thereby bring about the building of the
Mikdash.
This explanation resolves the difficulty arising from Shmuel's conduct,
but the question remains regarding the extent to which this influenced
Bnei Yisrael.
Even if we don't accept Rav Sandorfi's explanation, it can at least be
argued that David saw his bringing the ark up to Jerusalem as part of his
seeking the Mikdash and his desire to bring the ark closer to the future
site of the Mikdash, and thus to fulfill the obligation of "there shall
you seek Him, at His dwelling, and there you shall come."
Rav Sandorfi[12]
brings additional explanations for why the ark was not returned to the
Mishkan for so many years. These explanations
include:
Security
rationales:
·
Bnei Yisrael
feared that the Pelishtim would once again take the ark.
·
The Pelishtim did not
allow Bnei Yisrael to return the ark to the
Mishkan.
Rationales connected
to the building of the Mikdash:
·
Bnei Yisrael
wanted the ark to be "between the shoulders" of Binyamin, and therefore they
left it in Kiryat Ye'arim.
·
Bnei Yisrael
wanted the ark to remain close to the king.
He also cites
Halakhic arguments: Bnei Yisrael knew that this was supposed to be a time
during which bamot are permitted; the ark is not supposed to be brought
into the Mishkan when the tablets of the law do not rest in it.[13]
SUMMARY
In this lecture, we have examined the various stations of the Mishkan
in Eretz Yisrael.
After examining the time frame, we tried to understand what the plain
sense of Scripture says regarding the move from one place to the next and the
use of and attitude toward the Mishkan at each
station.
We were surprised to learn that apart from the period of Yehoshua, from
the days of the Shoftim and until David's seeking out the site of the
Mikdash almost no interest is shown in the Mishkan or in what is
going on there. There are few descriptions of the workings of the
Mishkan, its move from one place to the next, or incidents illustrating
Yisrael's practical relationship to the
Mishkan.
The conclusion that seems to follow from this is that over the course of
over 420 years, the Mishkan did not play a major role in the life of the
people (as is evidenced by what is written in the books of Shoftim and
Shmuel, and to a lesser degree in Divrei Ha-yamim). The primary
reason for this seems to be that the transition from a camp in the wilderness
concentrated around the Mishkan to settlement throughout Eretz
Yisrael brought the tribes to focus on settling the land. This led to a
certain disregard of the central ritual site, both during the period of Shilo,
when alien forms of worship were practiced alongside it, and during the periods
of Nov and Giv'on, when the allowance of bamot lessened Yisrael's
connection to the Mishkan.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] In contrast,
Scripture describes the wanderings of the ark in great detail, as we will see
below.
[2] The only person who
manages to escape from Shaul is Evyatar the son of Achimelekh, who runs away to
David and whom David will make use of in the future.
[3] In the book of
Divrei Ha-Yamim, there is no mention whatsoever of the Mishkan in
Nov.
[4] It is difficult to
draw conclusions from the various names of the Mishkan in Giv'on, but one
important point is worthy of our attention: Chazal do not relate in any
way to the structure of the Mishkan in Giv'on. The mishna states
that the Mishkan in Shilo was made of stone at the bottom and of curtains
at the top, but it does not describe the Mishkan in Giv'on; was it a
continuation of the Mishkan in Shilo or a different entity entirely? The
fact that the Mishkan is described here as "the house of the Lord" may
indicate that the Mishkan in Giv'on was, in a certain sense, a
continuation of the Mishkan in Shilo.
[5] The term, "the house
of God," requires further study. How can that name be applied to a great
bama, when the ark is not found there?
[6] Rav Eitan Sandorfi,
in his book, Hadar Olam (Sifriyat Bet-El, Jerusalem, 5755), pp. 384-415,
raises the question of why Bnei Yisrael did not return the ark to
the Mishkan. He cites many sources relating to this issue, some of which
we will bring below.
[7] A question that
hovers over the entire discussion relates to the extent to which Bnei
Yisrael were aware of the prohibition to offer sacrifices outside the
Mishkan during the period when bamot were forbidden. It stands to
reason that following the covenant at Mount Eival and the giving of the
blessings and curses and after the assembly at the end of the book of
Yehoshua (chapter 24), which was sort of a reenactment of the giving of
the Torah, the people were indeed familiar with this law.
On the other hand,
the gemara in Zevachim 119a brings a Tannaitic disagreement
regarding the question of what "the rest" and "the inheritance" mentioned in
Devarim 12:8 are. The gemara cites the view of Rabbi Shimon bar
Yochai, who says that they both refer to Jerusalem. Based on this, Rashi
explains (ad loc.) that until the building of the Temple, bamot were
never forbidden. According to this opinion, bamot were permitted even
during the period of Shilo.
In any event, the
plain sense of Scripture implies that the people understood that it was
forbidden to offer sacrifices on bamot, even to God, while the Mishkan
stood at Shilo.
[8] To the exclusion of
the war against Binyamin in the wake of the incident involving the concubine in
Giv'a, during which all the tribes united against Binyamin to eradicate the
injustice.
[9] Many explanations
have been given for this event. Without going into detail, this incident clearly
attests to the fact that Bnei Yisrael had not yet achieved the
proper attitude toward the ark, and that they failed to approach it with
appropriate caution and sanctity.
[10] Introduction to
Da'at Mikra, Shmuel (Mossad Ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem, 5741), p. 107,
note 29.
[11] We already dealt
with this issue in our lectures on the period of David, and we will deal with it
again in future lectures.
[12] See Rav Sandorfi's
article, note 18.
[13] We have not expanded
upon these arguments, for they do not seem to be the principal
reasons.