Lecture 73: David's Census and the Revelation of the Site of the Temple in the Threshing Floor of Aravna the Yevusi (Part I)
Mikdash
Lecture
73: David's census and the revelation of the site of the temple
in the
threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi (part
I)
Rav
Yitzchak Levi
Davids
census is described in Shmuel II 24, where it closes the book of
Shmuel,[1]
and in Divrei Ha-yamim I 21. According to our understanding, it is over
the course of this incident that the site of the Temple was first revealed to
David.
Let us first see the biblical passages. Shmuel II 24 1-25 reads as
follows:
And
again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He incited David against
them, saying: Go, number Israel and Yehuda. For the king said to Yoav the
captain of the host who was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel,
from Dan to Be'er-Sheva and number the people, that I may know the number of the
people. And Yoav said to the king, Now may the Lord your God add to the
people, as many more again, a hundredfold, and may the eyes of my lord the king
may see it. But why does my lord the king desire this thing? But the king's
word prevailed against Yoav and against the captains of the host. And Yoav and
the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king to number the
people of Israel. And they passed over the Jordan and camped in Aro'er, on the
right side of the city that lies in the midst of the wadi of the tribe Gad, and
toward Ya'azer. Then they came to Gil'ad and to the land of Tachtim-Chodshi; and
they came to Dan-Ya'an, and round about to Tzidon, and came to the fortress of
Tzor, and to all the cities of the Chivi and of the Kena'ani; and they went out
to the south of Yehuda, which is Be'er-Sheva. So when they had gone through all
the land, they came to Jerusalem, at the end of nine months and twenty days. And
Yoav rendered the sum of the census of the people to the king. And there were in
Israel eight hundred thousand warriors that drew the sword, and the men of
Yehuda were five hundred thousand men. And David's heart smote him after he had
numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that
which I have done. And now, O Lord, take away, I pray you, the iniquity of your
servant; for I have done very foolishly. And when David was up in the morning,
the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say
to David, Thus says the Lord, I offer you three things; choose the one of them,
that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said to him,
Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three
months before your enemies, while they pursue you? Or that there be three days'
pestilence in your land? Now advise, and see what answer I shall return to Him
that sent me. And David said to Gad, I am in great distress; let us fall now
into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great, and let me not fall into
the hand of man. So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning
until the time appointed. And there died of the people from Dan to Be'erSheva
seventy thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem
to destroy it, the Lord relented of the evil and said to the angel that
destroyed the people, It is enough; stay now your hand. And the angel of the
Lord was by the threshing place of Aravna the Yevusi. And David spoke to the
Lord when he saw the angel that smote the people, and he said, Lo, I have
sinned, and I have done perversely; but these sheep, what have they done? Let
Your hand, I pray you, be against me and against my father's house. And Gad
came that day to David and said to him, Go up; build an altar to the Lord on
the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi. And David, according to the saying of
Gad, went up as the Lord commanded. And Aravna looked out and saw the king and
his servants coming on towards him. And Aravna went out, and bowed himself down
before the king on his face to the ground. And Aravna said, Why is my lord the
king come to his servant? And David said, To buy the threshing floor from you,
to build an altar to the Lord, so that the plague may be stayed from the
people. And Aravna said to David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what
seems good to him; behold, here are oxen for the burnt offering, and threshing
instruments and other equipment of the oxen for wood. All these things did the
king Aravna give to the king. And Aravna said to the king, The Lord your God
accept you. And the king said to Aravna, No; but I will surely buy it of you
at a price. Neither will I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God of that
which costs me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for
fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord and offered
burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the Lord was entreated for the land, and
the plague was stayed from Israel.
This is the version found in Divrei Ha-yamim I
21-22:1:
And
an adversary angel stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel.
And David said to Yoav and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from
Be'er-Sheva to Dan, and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. And
Yoav answered, May the Lord make his people a hundred times so many more as
they are; but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then
does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
But the king's word prevailed against Yoav. So Yoav departed and went throughout
all Israel and came to Jerusalem. And Yoav gave the sum of the number of the
people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men
that drew sword; and Yehuda was four hundred and seventy thousand men that drew
sword. But he did not count Levi and Binyamin among them, for the king's word
was abhorrent to Yoav. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore, he
smote Israel. And David said to God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done
this thing: but now, I pray you, take away the iniquity of your servant, for I
have done very foolishly. And the Lord spoke to Gad, David's seer, saying, Go
and tell David, saying, Thus says the Lord, I offer you three things: choose
one of them, that I may do it to you. So Gad came to David and said to him,
Thus says the Lord: Choose either three years famine; or three months to be
driven away before your foes, while the sword of your enemies overtakes you; or
else three days of the Lord's sword, namely, pestilence in the land, and the
angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the border of Israel. Now therefore
consider what word I shall bring back to Him who sent me. And David said to
Gad, I am in great distress; let me fall rather into the hand of the Lord, for
very great are His mercies, but let me not fall into the hand of man. So the
Lord sent a plague upon Israel; and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; and as he was about to
destroy, the Lord beheld and He relented of the evil, and He said to the angel
that destroyed, It is enough; now hold your hand. And the angel of the Lord
stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Yevusi. And David lifted up his eyes
and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the heaven, with a
drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders,
who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. And David said to God, Is
it not I who commanded the people to be numbered? So that it is I who have
sinned and done very wickedly; but as for these sheep, what have they done? Let
Your hand, I pray You, O Lord my God, be on me and on my father's house, but not
on Your people, that they should be plagued. Then the angel of the Lord
commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and set up an altar to the
Lord on the threshing flour of Ornan the Yevusi. And David went up at the saying
of Gad, which he spoke in the name of the Lord. And Ornan turned back and saw
the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing
wheat. And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of
the threshing floor and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground. Then
David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshing floor, that I may
build an altar on it to the Lord; you shall give it me for the full price, that
the plague may be stayed from the people. And Ornan said to David, Take it to
you, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes. Lo, I give you
the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and
the wheat for the meal offering; I give it all. And King David said to Ornan,
No; but I will surely buy it for the full price. For I will not take that which
is yours for the Lord, nor offer burnt offerings without payment. So David gave
to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. And David built
there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and
called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of
burnt offering. And the Lord commanded the angel, and he put up his sword again
into its sheath. At that time when David saw that the Lord had answered him on
the threshing floor of Ornan the Yevusi, he sacrificed there. 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 the Lord. Then David said, This is the house of the Lord God, and this
is the altar of the burnt offering for Israel.
This story raises many questions. Why is God angry with Israel? Where
does David's guilt lie surely he was incited to conduct the census! What is
the connection between the census and the revelation of the site of the Temple?
Why does the site of the Temple become revealed through a plague? There are many
other questions as well. In this lecture, we will try to deal with the most
important issues arising from this story. We will focus on the version found in
Divrei Ha-yamim I 21 and examine the main issues in the order that they
arise in the chapter.[2]
· Verses
1-6: The incitement and the census.
· Verses
7-14: The plague that comes as punishment for the census.
· Verses
15-18: God relents of the evil, and David is commanded to build an altar for God
in the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi.
· Verses
19-30, 22:1: David buys the place and designates it for the Temple of
God.
I. THE INCITIMENT AND THE CENSUS
Scripture
explicitly states that the initiative regarding the census was not David's, but
rather it was God (according to the book of Shmuel ) or the adversary
angel/Satan (according to Divrei Ha-yamim) who incited David in
that direction. While David clearly bears part of the responsibility for the
census, as good things are brought about through the agency of good people and
bad things through the agency of bad people, nevertheless the act was the fruit
of Divine incitement.
Yoav's
opposition (which failed) indicates that the census was a negative act. The
Ramban relates to this issue in two place in his commentary. In his
commentary to Parashat Ki-Tisa (Shemot 30:12), he says that David
erred in his failure to count the people by way of shekels; he did not realize
that counting by way of shekels is a mitzva for all generations and not
only for the generation of the wilderness.
In
his commentary to Parashat Bamidbar (Bamidbar 1:2), the Ramban
offers a different explanation:
In
the case of David, Scripture states, "The sum of mifkad (the numbering)
of the people" (Shmuel II 24:9), because he knew their numbers
through the counting of [the half-shekel] ransom [that each one gave]. For it
appears to me unlikely that David should not be careful about that which
Scripture states "that there be no plague among them, when you number them"
(Shemot 30:12). And even if David did perhaps make a mistake, why did
Yoav [the captain of the host in charge of the census] not take [the census
through] shekels, for the king's word was abominable to Yoav, and Yoav [in fact]
said to the king, "Why does my Lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause
of guilt unto Israel?" (Divrei Ha-yamim I 21:3). So why did he
[Yoav] not count them through the shekels, so that he should not
sin?
But
in my opinion, the [Divine] wrath was [aroused] against him [David] because he
counted them unnecessarily, since he was not going forth to war, nor did he do
anything with them [the men he counted, so that he would need to know their
number] at that time. And [the census] was only to make him rejoice that he
ruled over a large people. Therefore,
Yoav said [to David], "Now may the Lord your God add unto the people, however
many they may be, a hundredfold, and may the eyes of my lord the king see it;
but why does my lord the king delight in this thing?" (Shmuel II
24:3). And I have seen in Bamidbar Rabba (2:17): R. Eliezer in the
name of R. Yose ben Zimra said: Whenever Israel was counted for a purpose, their
numbers did not diminish, but when they were counted for no purpose, they became
diminished. When were they counted for a purpose? In the days of Moshe and for
the [setting up of the] standards and at the division of the Land. [When were
they counted] for no purpose? In the days of David.[3]
Essentially,
in evaluating the permissibility of a census, we must relate to two central
questions: what is the purpose of the count and how is the count conducted? Even
if we count using shekels or some other means rather than counting the people
themselves, we must always examine whether the purpose of the count itself is
justified.[4]
David's
census was not conducted against the backdrop of war, even though Yoav counted
those "who draw swords." The Ramban concludes from this that the census was
intended "merely to gladden his heart that he rules over a large nation." The
size of his army provided the king with a sense of power and security. As the
matter is formulated by the Ralbag (in his commentary to Shmuel II
24:1): "David would have placed the flesh of his arm in his trust in the
great nation, but it was fitting that he place his trust in God, blessed be he,
alone." This indeed seems to be the plain sense of Scripture; David erred by
counting the soldiers and putting his trust in the might of his
army.
II. DAVID'S CHOICE OF THE PUN ISHMENT
David
becomes aware of and recognizes his sin, and the prophet proposes that he choose
between three years of famine, three months of war and three days of plague.
This is the only example in all of Scripture of a sinner being asked to choose
between a number of possible punishments, and it would seem that the purpose the
offer is to cast additional responsibility upon him. A person who must choose
his punishment better understands his responsibility for the sin and its
repair.[5]
It
is also possible to suggest that we are dealing here with a test, and not only a
choice. According to this understanding, there is a test both in the sin and in
its punishment.
Why
did David choose the plague? David himself explains: "Let us fall now into the
hand of the Lord, for His mercies are great; and let me not fall into the hand
of man." Moreover, it seems that plague is different from the other punishments
in that it involves a direct encounter with God. Unlike famine and war, which
are more indirect, in the case of plague, a person clearly feels who is striking
out at him.[6]
Similarly, plague strikes both at man and at animals.
Seventy
thousand people die in the plague, and the angel appears in the threshing floor
of Arvana the Yevusi with his sword drawn and stretched out over Jerusalem to
destroy it.[7]
Of what is Jerusalem guilty? Why does the angel wish to destroy the city that
was only recently settled and turned into the royal capital of
Israel?
The
connection between Jerusalem and David as king over all of Israel is clear;
striking out at Jerusalem implies striking out at David and his kingdom over all
of Israel. Here we encounter the famous controversy regarding the very existence
of a human kingdom, a controversy that starts in the verses of the Torah and the
Prophets, continues in the statements of Chazal, and ends in the
discussions of the Rishonim and Acharonim. This dispute focuses on
the question of whether a human kingdom is the regime that God chose for his
people le-khatchila or whether it was only bedi'eved that He
allowed them to appoint a king. Those who maintain that a human kingdom is the
ideal regime cite as proof what is stated with regard to
Shlomo:
Then
Shlomo sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and
prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. (Divrei Ha-yamim I 29:23)[8]
Those who think that a human kingdom eats away at God's kingdom bring as
proof that God says to Shmuel that Israel's request for a king is a rejection of
God and equivalent to idolatry:
And
the Lord said to Shmuel, Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they
say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I
should not reign over them. According to all the deeds which they have done
since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt and to this day, in that they
have forsaken me and served other gods, so they also do to you. (Shmuel
I 8:7-8)
Either way, the tension between human kingdom and heavenly kingdom is
clear. The solution proposed by the law of the king to relieve this tension a
solution that will allow the king to properly fill his mission is
humility:
When
you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it,
and shall dwell in it, and shall say, I will set a king over me, like all the
nations that are about me - then you may appoint a king over you, whom the Lord
your God shall choose. One from among your brethren shall you set as king over
you; you may not set a stranger over you, who is not your brother. But he shall
not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the
end that he should multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, You shall
henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives for himself,
so that his heart not turn away; neither shall he greatly multiply for himself
silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom,
and he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah in a book out of that which
is before the priests the Levites. And it shall be with him and he shall read
therein all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God,
to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them, and so
that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside
from the commandment, to the right hand or the left. To the end that he may
prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.
(Devarim 17:14-20)
The three negative precepts in this section are intended to prevent a
king from deviating from his role in three fundamental areas of rule: the
prohibition to multiply horses in the military realm; the prohibition to
multiply wives in the social realm; and the prohibition to multiply silver and
gold in the economic realm.
The nature of the positive commandment in this section "and he shall
write for himself a copy of this Torah in a book
and it shall be with him, and
he shall read therein all the days of his life" is fittingly explained by the
Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 3:1):
If
his father left him no scroll or it was lost, he must write two copies; one, the
writing of which is obligatory upon every Jew, he shall place in his treasure
house, and the other is to be with him all the time, except when he enters the
privy or the bathhouse or any other place where it is improper to read it. When
he goes forth to war, it shall be with him; when he sits in judgment, it shall
be with him; when he sits down to eat, it shall be before him, as it is said:
"And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life"
(Devarim 17:19).
The Torah scroll that accompanies the king wherever he goes reminds him
at all times that he is but the servant of the King, King of kings; wherever he
goes and in every action that he performs he must represent God, who is the true
King, and upon whose throne, the throne of God, he sits.[9]
One of the finest expressions of this idea is the aggada cited in
Chullin (60b):
R.
Shimon ben Pazi pointed out a contradiction [between verses]. One verse says,
"And God made two great lights (Bereishit 1:16), and immediately the
verse continues, "The greater light
and the lesser light." The moon said unto
the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two
kings to wear one crown? He answered: Go then and make yourself
smaller.
Why do Chazal liken kingdom and rule to the sun and the moon? The
fundamental difference between the sun and the moon is that the sun is a source
of light, whereas the moon receives its light from the sun. The illumination of
the moon at night opens the door to error one may think that the moon is itself
a source of light. Chazal likened human kingdom to the moon, and it is
not by chance that we mention David's kingdom in the blessing of the moon. If a
king of flesh and blood remembers that he is like the moon "having nothing of
himself," all of his rule and authority coming from God, then it is possible
that he will exercise his rule in a fitting manner. But if, even for a moment,
he thinks that he is the source of authority and rule, like the light of the
sun, he eats away, as it were, at the kingdom of God. In light of this, we
understand why the resolution offered by the Torah to the essential
contradiction between the kingdom of flesh and blood and the kingdom of God is
humility.
In
our story, David places his trust in himself, his strength and the size of his
army, rather than in God; he relates to himself as if he were the sun, rather
than the moon. The angel is therefore ready to destroy Jerusalem, the city that
David had chosen and turned into the capital of the kingdom of Israel. In this
situation when David puts his trust in his own might and in his army,
withdrawing thereby from God there is no room whatsoever for the kingdom of
David, and thus also not for his capital city.[10]
III.
God
relents of the evil; David's Self-Sacrifice
And
David lifted up his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the
earth and the heaven, with a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over
Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon
their faces. And David said to God, Is it not I who commanded the people to be
numbered? So that it is I who have sinned and done very wickedly; but as for
these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray You, O Lord my God, be
on me, and on my father's house, but not on your people, that they should be
plagued.
David recognizes his error, accepts responsibility for the plague,
understands that in such a situation Jerusalem can not survive, and asks that
the plague should smite him and the house of his father rather than the nation
of Israel.
David's self-sacrifice is certainly a very noble virtue. But why does he
also mention "the house of his father," namely, the entire dynasty of his family
(on the face of it, this expression includes the entire dynasty)? It would seem
that from the heavy toll extracted from the people (seventy thousand men), David
understands that what is needed here is an act of all-embracing self-sacrifice,
to the point of being ready to nullify the family dynasty the royal dynasty.
This involves readiness for total self-effacement before God, in order to repair
the severe break with Him. Only after this fundamental understanding is raised
does the angel tell the prophet to show David the site of the
Temple.
We have already seen (in Lecture 69: "Why Can't David Build the House of
God [part I]") that a permanent monarchy is a precondition for the building of
the Temple (based on Shmuel II 7). Here we see another aspect of
this issue: Locating the site of the Temple is conditioned on total effacement
of the royal dynasty before God.
And
as he was about to destroy, the Lord beheld, and He relented of the evil, and
said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, now hold your
hand.
What did God see that caused Him to relent? The gemara
(Berakhot 62b) proposes several answers to this
question:
Rav
said: He beheld Yaakov Avinu. As it is written, "And Yaakov said when he beheld
them" (Bereishit 32:3). And Shmuel said: He beheld the ashes of [the ram
of] Yitzchak. As it is stated, "God will see for Himself the lamb"
(Bereishit 22:8). R. Yitzchak Nafcha said: He saw the money of the
atonement. As it is stated, "And you shall take the atonement money from the
children of Israel (Shemot 30:16). R. Yochanan said: He saw the Temple.
As it is written, "In the mount where the Lord is seen" (Bereishit
22:14)
The more likely view is the one who says that he saw the Temple,
since it is written, "As it will be said on that day, in the mount where the
Lord is seen."
The gemara's conclusion, according to which God saw the Temple,
draws a connection between the revelation of the angel to David on Mount Moriya
and the first revelation to Avraham many generations earlier on that very
mountain.
The revelation of the site of the Temple is the climax of David's
mission, from the time that he brought the ark to Jerusalem to establish the
city from below - not only as the capital, but also as the site of the
Temple. In this incident, the construction of the earthly kingdom is completed.
The site of the Temple is revealed when a human king feels that he is absolutely
dependent upon God and that he totally belongs to Him. The establishment of the
earthly kingdom and the aspiration to build a Temple reach expression through
absolute self-effacement before the King, King of kings.
IV. PURCHASE OF THE THRESHING FLOOR
Then
the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and
set up an altar to the Lord on the threshing flour of Ornan the Yevusi.[11]
The altar is clearly intended to atone for the sin and repair it (as is
its function in the Temple itself).
Why must David purchase the threshing floor from Aravna? Even if we
assume that at the time of his conquest of Jerusalem, David left Aravna in his
threshing floor, does that mean that the threshing floor belonged to him?
Indeed, from the wording of Chazal, "Next to your palace you have not
conquered" (Sifrei, Devarim, Pesikta 51), it would seem that David
never took possession of that area at all. The Zohar (II, 214a) writes as
follows:
Aravna
was a king, and the site of the Temple was in his possession and under his
authority. When the time arrived for the place to be free of his rule, it did
not happen, save by much bloodshed and killing among Israel [i.e., through the
plague]. When the angel of destruction arrived in that place in order to kill,
his strength failed him.
This
was the place where Yitzchak was bound, where Avraham built the altar to
sacrifice his son Yitzchak
Immediately, "He said to the angel of destruction,
It is enough." What is the meaning of "enough"?
Enough has this place been in
your possession. The place was in your possession for many years, and from now
on it is enough. Return the place to its owners. Despite that, it could only be
taken from him through sacrifice of lives and money
It
is written "Aravna" and it is written "Ornan." While the place was still in his
possession, it was called "Aravna" [from the Hebrew "aron," ark],
alluding to the ark of the Sitra Achara [the Other Side]
On the side of
holiness, there is a diminution of letters, but an addition of
holiness.
We see, then, that according to the Zohar as well, the site
remained in Aravna's possession; it could only be removed from him through death
or monetary acquisition.
In this connection, mention should perhaps be made of the
Yerushalmi (Pesachim 9:1), which states that in the days of
Chizkiyahu, "the skull of Ornan the Yevusi was found under the altar" teaching
you how far-reaching were the effects of the hold on the area that David had
granted Aravna.
In contrast to these sources, the gemara (Avoda Zara 24b)
learns that Aravna was a ger toshav who remained owner of the property.
This issue arises in the Minchat Chinukh's discussion of the acquisition
of the site (commandment 284):
Now
we cannot say that when David conquered Jerusalem, he also conquered this place,
but afterwards he sold it to Aravna the Yevusi, and so it remained in his hands.
For this is difficult, for Aravna was a heathen, a descendant of Noach, though
he was a ger toshav, as is stated in Avoda Zara (chapter Ein
Ma'amidin 24b). How could they have violated the prohibition of "lo
techanem" (Devarim 7:2), it being forbidden to give them an
encampment in the land
Rather,
we are forced to say that this place had never been taken from Aravna. And the
reason that it was not taken from him it is possible that he made peace with
King David, peace be upon him, when he opened with a peace offer. As is
explained by the Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim
6:1
),
whoever makes peace and accepts upon himself the seven [Noachide] laws and the
tribute of servitude is not put to death, but becomes tributary. We are forced
to say that Aravna made peace, for if not, how did David spare his life? Surely
he was from the seven [Canaanite] nations, and it is forbidden to allow any of
their members to live, even children, even if we press ourselves [to say] that
he had been a minor at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem. Rather, we are
forced to say that he made peace with David. And if he made peace, it would
appear from the words of the Rambam that there is no obligation to take their
houses and lands, only that they should be for tribute and servitude, but it is
permissible to leave them in their places. The wording of the verse, "lo
techanem," supports this, for it seems that one is only forbidden to give
them [an encampment], but if they already have, there is no obligation to remove
it from them
.
It
is possible to say that there was a reason that he did not take it from him. And
it is reasonable to say that it was God's will, blessed be he, that this holy
place in which the Shekhina would rest forever should not be acquired by
force, even permissible [force] by way of conquest. And Shlomo did not want to
build the Temple from the spoils of King David, peace be upon him, so that the
nations not say that it was destroyed for this reason. This aggada is
also brought by Rashi in Melakhim I (7:51) and applies here as well. And
King David, peace be upon him, did not even want to receive it as a gift, but
only to purchase it at its full price. And he wanted all of Israel to have a
part in the sanctified place. Or else there is a reason that is manifest before
Him, blessed and exalted be He, and though it is concealed from us, nevertheless
this place did not come into our hands by way of conquest, but rather it was
willingly sold at its full price. Thus, this place was acquired and also
sanctified regarding terumot, tithes, and
challa
The Minchat Chinukh's point of departure is halakhic: the
prohibition of "lo techanem" (Devarim 7:2) forbids the giving of
an encampment in the land even to a ger toshav. The Minchat
Chinukh concludes from this that the place had never been taken from Aravna,
but rather had remained in his hands after he had made peace with David at the
time of the conquest of the city. This leads him to another conclusion, which is
of primary concern to us: Whatever the reason and justification for leaving the
threshing floor in the hands of Aravna, the place was not conquered in the
framework of the conquest of the city, but rather purchased at its full price.
An essential element of the Shekhina's resting place is that it
not be acquired through the sword, nor even be received as a gift, but rather it
must be bought at its full price,[12]
as a clear expression of the absolute opposition between the sword and the
Temple.[13]
Purchasing the site was also important so that the nations of the world
not be able to claim possession of it:
R.
Yudan bar Simon said: This is one of the three places regarding which the
nations of the world cannot oppress Israel saying: They are in your hands
through thievery. They are the Makhpela cave, the Temple, and Yosef's tomb
The
Temple, as it is written, "So David gave to Ornan for the place
" (Bereishit
Rabba 79:7)
The site was purchased with money belonging to all of
Israel:
Surely
it says, "So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of
silver" (Shmuel II 24:24). And elsewhere it says, "So David gave to Ornan
for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight" (Divrei Ha-yamim I
21:25). One cannot say "shekels of gold," for it already says "shekels of
silver." And one cannot say "shekels of silver," for it already says "shekels of
gold." Say then that he bought with silver and weighed out gold. One cannot say
"fifty," for it already says "six hundred." And one cannot say "six hundred,"
for it already says "fifty." Say then that when David saw a place fit for the
building of the Temple, he collected fifty shekels from each and every tribe, so
that there were six hundred shekels from all the tribes. (Sifrei,
Devarim 352)[14]
Another way to explain the discrepancy between the sums recorded in
Shmuel and in Divrei Ha-yamim[15]
is that the acquisition was executed in two stages. First, the site of the altar
was purchased for fifty silver shekels, and then later the entire Temple Mount
was purchased for six hundred gold shekels.
Another aspect of the payment of the shekels, proposed by Yehuda Kil,[16]
is that it was part of the repair of the sin. The collection of the shekels,
which represent all the tribes of Israel, to purchase the site and construct the
altar was intended to give an equal portion to all the people and to magnify the
glory of God. They are similar to the shekels collected from Israel in the
wilderness, from which were made the sockets of the Mishkan. The stopping
of the plague was a direct result of their giving ("That there be no plague
among them, when you number them;" Shemot 30:12).[17]
V. THE ALTAR
And
David built there an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and peace
offerings and called upon the Lord; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon
the altar of burnt offering.[18]
The fire from heaven that consumes the burnt offering ratifies David's
actions and endows them with Divine validity.
Our initial understanding is that the building of the altar and the
offering of the sacrifice are what achieve atonement and stop the plague.
Without a doubt, this constitutes a model according to which one of the
functions of the Temple in general and of the altar in particular is to achieve
atonement and stop the plague.
It is possible to see a connection between what is described in our
passage and what is mentioned at the end of Tehillim 51 (verses 20-21):
"Do good in Your favor to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. Then shall You be
pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offerings and whole
burnt offering; then shall they offer bullocks upon Your altar."[19]
The psalm deals with David's repentance in the wake of his sin. Part of the
repair of and atonement for David's sin involved doing good to Zion and building
the walls of Jerusalem; then the sacrifices were accepted with
favor.
One of the explanations given by Chazal for the anger with Israel
and the incitement of David is directly connected to David's sin, as is attested
to by the juxtaposition of Shmuel II 23:39 24:1, between the
mention of Uriya the Chiti, the last of David's warriors, and the anger with
Israel and the incitement of David.
Thus, we find in Pesikta Rabbati 11:
"And
again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel" (Shmuel II 24:1). Why
did the anger of the Lord burn against Israel? Rather, what did he write? When David
came to list his warriors, he was listing [them]. When he reached Uriya the
Chiti, it says "thirty seven in all." Immediately, "And again the anger of the
Lord burned against Israel." And you find that he did not count another sixteen
warriors. Go read in Divrei Ha-yamim, and you will find another sixteen.
But when he reached Uriya the Chiti, immediately, "And again the anger of the
Lord."
In other words, there is a connection between the plague and Uriya the
Chiti. According to this understanding, we can certainly understand the
connection between the revelation of the site of the Mikdash and the
atonement of all of Israel and the repair of David's sin.
In this manner, some of the commentators explain that Yoav's words to
David, "Why then does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause of
trespass to Israel?" (Divrei Ha-yamim I 21:3), were directed at
the fact that they did not raise objections against David's conduct in the
affair involving Uriya.[20]
On
the assumption that the census was conducted after David's sin, we can add this
parallelism to other allusions connecting David's sin involving Uriya to the
building of the Mikdash. We shall mention two of them. First, Radak
suggests in one of his explanations of Divrei Ha-yamim I 22:8 that
the blood that prevents David from building the Temple is the blood of Uriya the
Chiti.
Second,
there is a marvelous Talmudic passage (Shabbat 31a) that draws a
connection between the pardon of David's sin and the bringing of the ark into
the Holy of Holies.[21]
We
wish to offer two comments regarding the altar. First, the command to erect an
altar the aspect of the Temple service that expresses man's turning to God,
his dependence upon Him, and his desire for the resting of God's Shekhina
constitutes a fitting complement to David's cleaving to the ark.
Very interesting in this context is what is stated at the end of the
section:
At
that time when David saw that the Lord had answered him on the threshing floor
of Ornan the Yevusi, then he sacrificed there. 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 the
Lord.
The implication is that had David not been terrified because of the sword
of the angel of the Lord, he would have gone to the high place at Giv'on. We
have never previously encountered David in Giv'on, and it would seem that in the
wake of the revelation and the building of the altar in the threshing floor,
David felt a need to offer sacrifices to God.
Our second comment regarding the altar is that the building of an altar
constitutes the first stage of every important event: at the revelation at Mount
Sinai (Shemot 24:5-6); at Mount Eival when Israel entered the land
(Devarim 27:5-7 and Yehoshua 8:30); at the building of the first
Temple (here); and at the building of the second Temple (Ezra 3:2-3).[22]
In this context are the words of the midrash are
interesting:
Great
is the [sacrificial] service, for Scripture always opens with it: "An altar of
earth you shall make to Me, and you shall sacrifice on it" (Shemot
20:21). And so too you find in the Tent of Meeting that He opened with the
[sacrificial] service, as it is stated: "And the Lord called to Moshe and spoke
to him out of the tent of Meeting, saying, If any man of you bring an offering
to the Lord" (Vayikra 1:1-2). And so too you find when they entered the
land they opened with the [sacrificial] service, as it is stated, "Then Yehoshua
built an altar" (Yehoshua 8:30). So too in the future, they will open
with the [sacrificial] service, as it is stated, "I will go into Your house with
burnt offerings" (Tehillim 66:13). And so too you find when they came up
from the Exile that they opened with the [sacrificial] service, as it is stated,
"And they set the altar upon its bases" (Ezra 3:3).[23]
At the end of the section, David concludes as
follows:
Then
David said, This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the
burnt offering for Israel.
It
is here that the site of the Temple was first revealed to
David.
SUMMARY
We examined the significance of the Divine revelation in the threshing
floor of Aravna and the revelation of the precise site of the Temple (in the
wake of the census and the plague).
In the next lecture, we will consider the significance of the revelation,
comparing it to other revelations and conducting an overall examination of the
issue.
(Translated
by David Strauss)
[1]
It is not by chance that the book of Shmuel opens with a pilgrimage to
the temporary Mishkan in Shilo and closes with the building of the altar
on its permanent site in the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi. The theme of
the entire book is the transition, both in realm of governmental rule and in the
realm of Divine service, from the temporary to the permanent: from judges to
kings and from a temporary Mishkan to the permanent house of
God.
[2]
In this context, we will not discuss the issue of chronology when this event
occurred an issue that Scripture does not explicitly relate to. Against the
possibility that the chapter's location at the end of the book of Shmuel
alludes to the time of the events described therein stands the fact that in
Divrei Ha-yamim, the chapter is followed by eight more chapters relating
to the Temple. The fact that the chapter is found at the end of the book of
Shmuel does not allow for any conclusions, as chapters 21-24 constitute a
separate unit in the book from the chronological perspective as
well.
This
notwithstanding, there is a certain logic to the argument that the census was
conducted during the period of peace and tranquility at the end of David's life,
which allowed Yoav and his officers to devote themselves to the project for nine
months and twenty days (Shmuel II 24:8). The size of the kingdom of
Israel at the end of David's reign necessitated a redeployment of resources in
all areas economic, administrative and military and the census would have
served this redeployment.
[3]
The Ramban also brings another explanation: David wanted to count everyone from
thirteen years and up, but it is permissible only to count those above the age
of twenty. For our purposes, there is no need to discuss this option at length.
[4]
Many explanations have been offered regarding the prohibition of counting. We
will suffice with the idea that a count nullifies the uniqueness of each
individual; a person turns into a mere number. A radical example of this
phenomenon, although in a different manner, was the way people were related to
as mere numbers in the Nazi concentration camps.
[5]
This is also true regarding the education of children.
[6] It is not by chance that the Hebrew word for plague, dever, stems
from the root d-v-r, "speak." The plague of dever is, as it were,
a direct communication from God.
[7] The role of the sword in this story is interesting(Divrei
Ha-yamim I 21): David counts those who draw the sword (v. 5); two of the
punishments offered him involve a sword, "the sword of your enemies overtakes
you, or else three days of the Lord's sword, namely, pestilence in the land" (v.
12); afterwards, he sees "the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and
the heaven, with a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem" (v.
16); and following the purchase of the threshing floor, "the Lord commanded the
angel, and he put up his sword again into its sheath" (v. 27). There is an
allusion here to the idea of "measure for measure." For counting those who draw
the sword, David is punished by the sword of God held in the hand of the angel.
According to Chazal (Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 20), who
locate the entrance to the Garden of Eden in the proximity of Mount Moriah, it
is possible that the sword held by the angel alludes to the "bright blade of a
revolving sword" that guards the way to the Tree of Life (Bereishit
3:24).
[8] Rav Kook's Orot in its entirety may be seen as an expansion upon
this verse, which sees the kingdom of Israel as God's throne in this
world.
[9] The building of the king's house at the foot of God's house in the days
of Shlomo was meant to fill an identical role - to express the idea that the
kingdom of flesh and blood receives its authority and ability to operate from
its subordination to the kingdom of God. For this reason, the king's house was
built in a place from which every morning the king could see the smoke rising
from the altar, the priests blowing the trumpets, the Levites singing, and the
Israelites offering sacrifices, praying, and prostrating themselves. We shall
expand on this idea in our lecture on Shlomo, the king's house, and the
house of God.
[10] See Sota 5a: "R. Chisda said, and some say it was Mar Ukva: The
Holy One, blessed be He, said about any person marked by arrogance: He and I
cannot live together in this world."
[11] In our lecture regarding the selection of Jerusalem, we dealt
with the significance of the Divine selection of the place, and especially the
selection of the place of the altar.
[12] There is a clear similarity between the purchase of the threshing floor
and the purchase of the Makhpela cave regarding the nature of the negotiations,
the payment of the full purchase price, and the general parallel between Avraham
and David.
[13] The Minchat Chinukh also mentions the words of Chazal
(Pesikta Rabbati 6:7) that Shlomo did not want to build the Temple
with the spoils of David's wars. We shall relate to this issue when we discuss
Shlomo's building of the Temple.
[14] See also Sifrei, Bamidbar 42 and Zevachim 116b. We
cited this source in the past as a source for the importance of the
participation of all the tribes of Israel in the purchase of the
site.
[15] See Sifrei, Bamidbar 42; Zevachim 116b; and
following these sources, many of the commentaries (Metzudat David,
Radak, Ralbag, Abravanel and
Malbim)
[16] See Da'at Mikra commentary to Shemuel II 34:1, p.
551, note 8.
[17] Of course, the comparison is not total: in the wilderness, the shekels
were given by each individual in Israel, whereas in the time of David, the money
was collected from the tribes.
[18] The parallel to the fire that descended upon the altar at the time of
the dedication of the Mishkan (Vayikra 9:24) is apparent. On the
other hand, we have here a hint to the dedication of the Temple in the days of
Shlomo as it is described in Divrei Ha-yamim II
7:1.
[19] I first heard the idea that there is a parallel between our chapter and
the end of Tehillim 51 from my revered teacher, R. Yaakov
Medan.
[20] Yehuda Kil comments along these lines in the Da'at Mikra
commentary to this verse in Divrei
Ha-yamim.
[21] These sources were already brought in a previous lecture in their
original formulation, and therefore we only bring their essential contents
here.
[22]
An interesting issue that we will not expand upon here is the relationship
between human action and the resting of the Shekhina: does the building
of the altar bring about the resting of the Shekhina or the
opposite?
[23] Cited from Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, ed. Hoffman, in
Torah Shelema, Yitro 521.