Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood/2

Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Shemot 20 and 27 appear to be at odds regarding the materials from which the altar was constructed, and commentators disagree as to how to reconcile the two accounts. The Mekhilta attempts to synthesize them by suggesting that the altar was made of wood, but filled with earth. Many later exegetes, though, understand that the two texts speak of different altars. Ibn Ezra explains that Shemot 20 speaks of the one-time altars at Mt. Sinai and Mt. Eival, while R. D"Z Hoffmann posits that Shemot 20 refers to altars built for private use rather than for the entire nation. Finally, the Hoil Moshe suggests that the two chapters reflect a change in plans which occurred as a result of the sin of the Golden Calf.

Two Aspects of the Same Altar

This approach harmonizes the two sets of verses, suggesting that both refer to the altar of the Tabernacle, and the command in Shemot 20 is merely presenting additional aspects which are not mentioned in Shemot 27.

Sources: Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro BaChodesh 11About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Mekhilta DeRashbiShemot 20:20About Mekhilta DeRashbi, Bavli ZevachimZevachim 58aZevachim 61bZevachim 61b-62aAbout the Bavli, TargumimTargum Yerushalmi (Neofiti) Shemot 20:20Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) Shemot 27:8Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary) Shemot 20:20About Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti)About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)About Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary), R. Saadia GaonTafsir Shemot 20:20Tafsir Shemot 27:8Ibn Ezra Shemot Long Commentary 20:20About R. Saadia Gaon, RashiShemot 20:20Shemot 20:21Shemot 20:22Shemot 27:5Shemot 27:8Shemot 30:3About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamShemot 27:8About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 27:8About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambamHilkhot Beit HaBechirah 1:13About R. Moshe Maimonides, ChizkuniShemot 27:8About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 20:20About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanShemot 20:20Shemot 20:21About R. Moshe Nachmanides, RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 20:20-21Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 27:8About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemot 27About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SfornoShemot 27:8Shemot 30:1About R. Ovadyah Sforno, NetzivShemot 27:1Shemot 27:8About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin

"מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה" – The earthen altar is identical to the wooden altar in the Tabernacle, and it is called an "earthen altar" in Shemot 20 either because the wooden altar was connected to the earth, or because it was filled with earth. Thus, the verse in Shemot 20 is read as if it said: "a [wooden] altar [connected to or filled with] earth you shall make for me".¹ The Netziv attempts to support this position by noting that the definite article ("הַ") affixed to the word "מִּזְבֵּחַ" in Shemot 27 hints to the reader that this altar is already known from the earlier verse in Shemot 20.

"מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – R. Eliezer b. Yaakov in the Bavli associates this stone altar with the Tabernacle altars in Shiloh, Nov, and Givon,² as well as the Temple altar,³ which were all built from or filled with stones.⁴ The Mekhilta, though, suggests that it refers to the stone altar built on Mt. Eival. Ralbag explains that a wooden altar filled with earth was appropriate for a nation in transit in the desert,⁵ and it was replaced by more permanent stone structures upon their entry and settling of the land of Israel.

"וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – R. Yishmael in the Mekhilta contends that this is one of three cases in which the word "וְאִם" should be construed as mandating an obligatory action,⁶ rather than merely providing an option.

"נְבוּב לֻחֹת" – These commentators explain this phrase to mean that the altar was made of wooden boards with a hollow inside (which was filled with earth).

Would a wooden altar not burn? According to RashiShemot 30:3About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, the wooden altar was hollow and filled with earth to its top, and was thus less flammable.⁷

No steps for modesty The Mekhiltas reinterpret this prohibition to refer to taking large steps. The priests are not to use stairs so that they do not approach Hashem with a "haughty step" ("פסיעה גסה"). Rashi, though, maintains that there is some immodesty in walking up stairs, even though the priests are wearing pants, and that therefore a ramp (כבש) was used also in the Tabernacle.

Location of command in Shemot 20 – It is unclear why only some limited aspects of the altar would be mentioned already in Parashat Yitro, separate from the main commandment.⁸

Different Altars

The commands to build an earthen or stone altar in Shemot 20 refer to altars which were distinct from the wooden altar of the Tabernacle in Shemot 27. Commentators divide regarding the identities of the altars mentioned in Shemot 20:

One-time National Altars

The commandments to build earthen and stone altars refer to the building of a special altar for each of two unique covenantal ceremonies, one of which took place at the foot of Mt Sinai, and the other on Mt. Eival.

Sources: Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 20:20Shemot Long Commentary 20:21Shemot Long Commentary 21:1Shemot Long Commentary 27:8Shemot Short Commentary 27:8Yesod Mora 2:8About R. Avraham ibn Ezra

"מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה" – Ibn Ezra identifies the earthen altar with the altar Moshe built at Mt. Sinai in Shemot 24.⁹ This altar is referred to by this name because it was actually made from earth.¹⁰

"מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – Ibn Ezra identifies this stone altar with the only altar which the Torah explicitly states was to be made of stone, the altar to be built on Mt. Eival described in Devarim 27.¹¹

The Altar in the Tabernacle – The altar in the Tabernacle was made of copper plated wood, rather than earth or stone, and is thus unconnected to the altars discussed in Shemot 20.

One time commands for Moshe himself – According to Ibn Ezra, the commands of Shemot 20 were one time instructions which were each to be fulfilled on a single occasion, and they were not intended for all generations. Ibn Ezra in Yesod Mora further clarifies that the directive was issued to Moshe himself, and was not a mitzvah incumbent upon the nation.¹²

"נְבוּב לֻחֹת" – Ibn Ezra understands this phrase to mean that the Tabernacle's altar was hollow, and filled with earth. He emphasizes, though, that this is not sufficient reason to call such an altar an "earthen altar", and thus the altar of the Tabernacle cannot be the subject of the command in Shemot 20.

Would a wooden altar not burn? As the wooden altar was filled with earth, there was less concern of it burning.

No steps for modesty – Since the altars in Shemot 20 were not part of the Tabernacle and the regular priestly rites, it was necessary to include a warning not to use steps, so as to prevent immodest exposure if their service was performed in robes (without pants).

"בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי" – Ibn Ezra explains that this refers to all the places in which Hashem chooses to have his glory reside, such as Shiloh and Nov. The verse is saying that if people visit (and presumably sacrifice at) such places, then Hashem will visit and bless them in return. According to Ibn Ezra, though, it is not clear why this is mentioned in Shemot 20, as it is unrelated to the altars being discussed there.

"...וְאִם מִזְבַּח" – Ibn Ezra understands the word "וְאִם" to mean "and if" and explains that Hashem is telling Moshe that he presently needs to build an earthen altar, and if he merits to enter the Land of Israel, he will then build a stone one.¹³

Location of the command in Shemot 20 – Ibn Ezra suggests that the command to build the earthen altar appears here because these verses open the unit that will climax with the Sinai covenant of Chapter 24, for which this very altar is being built.¹⁴ According to Ibn Ezra, Hashem opens the unit by telling Moshe that they are about to make a covenant which will necessitate an altar, and He then proceeds to relay the content of the covenant. It is not clear, though, why Hashem also relayed the command to the build the stone altar here, given that the covenantal ceremony at Mt. Eival takes place only much later.¹⁵

Chronology of Chapter 24 – Ibn Ezra must maintain that the events of Chapter 24 occur in their chronological place, and not, as others suggest, in Chapter 19 and before the giving of the commandments in Chapter 20.¹⁶

Private Altars

The verses which speak of earth and stone altars refer to private altars (במות), used by non-priests outside of the Tabernacle and Temple, for both private sacrificial worship and the ritual slaughtering of meat for personal consumption (בשר תאווה).

Sources: Karaite exegetesBinyamin Nahawandi (cited by Yefet Vayikra 17:1-9)Yefet b. Eli Shemot 20:20-21Yefet b. Eli Shemot 20:21Yefet b. Eli Vayikra 17:1-9Yefet b. Eli Shemuel I 14Yehuda Hadassi, Eshkol HaKofer 227About Binyamin NahawandiAbout Yefet b. EliAbout Yehuda Hadassi, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 20:20About R. D"Z Hoffmann

"מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה" – According to Yefet the Karaite and R. D"Z Hoffmann, the command regarding the earthen altar refers to the building of altars for private sacrificial worship outside the sanctuary.¹⁷ Both limit such altars to places sanctified by Divine revelation ("בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי"),‎¹⁸ and to restricted time periods (see below). According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, earth was chosen as the building material to symbolize the temporal nature of these altars.

"מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – These commentators differ regarding the function of stone altars and how they relate to the earthen ones of the previous verse:¹⁹

• Bamot for private sacrificial worship – Yefet asserts that the altars for private sacrifice could be made from either earth or stone and that this verse, too, comes to permit such temporary altars.
• Slaughtering בשר תאווה – Two other Karaites, Nahawandi and Hadassi, maintain that this verse is referring to building stone altars for the slaughtering of non-sacrificial meat. They point to Shemuel I 14:32-35 as evidence,²⁰ as there Shaul commands his soldiers to slaughter their sheep and cattle on a large stone, instead of pouring the blood on the ground.²¹
• Permanent altars – R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that this command refers to the permanent and centralized altars of Mt. Eival, Shiloh, and the Beit HaMikdash.²² According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the earthen altars were allowed during periods of insecurity and unrest, but during eras of peace, only one centralized altar was used. As it was meant to be a permanent structure, it was made of stone.²³

When and why were private altars allowed?

• According to Yefet, sacrificing on a private altar was allowed only during periods in which the Ark was separated from the Tabernacle. This is perhaps related to the idea that in such periods the Divine presence was diffused among various locations.
• In contrast, R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that private altars were allowed during periods when a lack of peace and security impeded travel to one centralized location.²⁴

The Altar in the Tabernacle – The command to build the altar of the Tabernacle is unrelated to the commands in Shemot 20.²⁵

"בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי" – According to Yefet and R. D"Z Hoffmann, this phrase limits the permission for sacrificial worship on a private altar to sites in which Hashem reveals himself.²⁶ Such a dispensation also ceased to exist entirely once Hashem selected a single location for his presence ("‏הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'‏").

"וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – According to Yefet, the verse is providing two equally valid options for the material from which one might build private altars. One can build from earth, or, if one prefers, from stone.²⁷ R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, understands the word "אִם" to mean "when", and the verses to refer to two different time periods.²⁸

"נְבוּב לֻחֹת" – R. D"Z Hoffmann follows the Midrash in explaining that the altar of the Tabernacle was hollow and filled with earth. It is not clear how the Karaite commentators explain the phrase.

Would a wooden altar not burn? According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the center of the altar was filled with earth, so there was no concern of it burning.

No steps for modesty – Hadassi explains that the verse is directed at individual Israelites who would not necessarily be wearing pants, rather than at the priests.²⁹

Change in Plans

The commands in Shemot 20 and 27 each refer to different time periods. Before the sin of the Golden Calf, there were private altars which were made out of earth or stone. However, after the sin of the Golden Calf, worship became centralized, and the lone sacrificial altar situated in the Mishkan was constructed of wood and copper.

Sources: Hoil MosheShemot 20:20About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

"מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה" and "מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – According to the Hoil Moshe, until the Sin of the Golden Calf, anyone was allowed to build an altar wherever they chose. The verses in Shemot 20 delineate the requirements for these altars: they must be made of either earth or uncut stones, and cannot have steps.

The Altar in the Tabernacle – Once the Israelites sinned with the Golden Calf, Hashem prohibited personal worship, and required all sacrifices to be made in one centralized location, on the altar of the Tabernacle. The altar specifications in Shemot 20 were not applicable to this later altar.

"בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי" – The Hoil Moshe suggests that this verse should be read as if written "בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי".³⁰ Before the sin, one was allowed to build an earthen or stone altar in any place that one desired to call out in the name of Hashem.

"וְאִם מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים" – This approach views the earthen and stone altars as two equal options given to the private sacrificer. He can choose to build either an earthen one or a stone one.³¹ The word "וְאִם" is understood simply to mean "and if".

No steps for modesty – Since the command in Shemot 20 applies to all private individuals (and not just the priests who wore pants), it was necessary to include a warning not to use steps so as not be immodestly revealing when clothed in robes.

"נְבוּב לֻחֹת" – The Hoil Moshe does not explain this term.

Would a wooden altar not burn? This position could simply suggest that since the Tabernacle's altar was coated with copper, it would not burn. Further, the Hoil Moshe suggests that the "כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" was a copper top for the wooden altar which might have further separated the fire from the wood.

The altars at Mt. Sinai and Mt. Eival – These two altars are unconnected to the commands of either Shemot 20 or Shemot 27.

Changes in plans – This position assumes that sacrificial worship in the Tabernacle was not Hashem's original plan.³² Originally, Hashem did not want to limit sacrifices to any individual group or place, as His glory is found all over and is accessible to all. After the nation's sin, though, Hashem decided that the nation was not worthy of such worship and needed limitations and safeguards. The Hoil Moshe does not explain why the sin required that different materials be used when building the centralized altar in the Tabernacle. One might propose that once there was to be just one centralized altar, Hashem desired it be built with more precious materials.³³

Location of command in Shemot 20 – The command of Shemot 20 is found in its chronological place.

Chronology and the Tabernacle – This position assumes that the chapters discussing the command to build the Tabernacle are recorded out of chronological order, as they were commanded only after the sin of the Golden Calf (and the atonement for it).

¹ Ibn Ezra notes the difficulty in this reading – see below.

² His position is thus parallel to the earlier understanding of "מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה".

³ See also Rambam and Ramban.

⁴ There is no Biblical evidence regarding the materials used in the construction of these altars. The Talmud Bavli derives this from the triple repetition of the word "stones" in Shemot 20 and Devarim 27.

⁵ Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor who emphasizes the need for a lightweight model which would be easier to transport. See also Chizkuni who thus accounts for the holes in the altar ("מִכְבָּר מַעֲשֵׂה רֶשֶׁת") through which the dirt would pour out when the people would travel.

⁶ According to him, the verse refers to the altar at Mt. Eival which was obligatory.

⁷ This is explicitly noted by Abarbanel; cf. Sforno Shemot 30:1. For alternative approaches see TanchumaTerumah 11About the Tanchuma, and also see Raavyah who suggests that the top of the altar was, in fact, made of wood.

⁸ See R. Avraham Maimonides and Ramban who attempt to address this question.

⁹ He points out how in both places the verses mention the sacrificing of burnt and peace offerings.

¹⁰ Ibn Ezra asserts that all Biblical altars are referred to by the material from which they were constructed, and not based on with what their interior was filled. He thus suggests that the verse in Shemot 20 can merely serve as an "אסמכתא" (textual hook) to teach that the Tabernacle's altar needed to be filled with earth, but is not actually referring to that altar. See above for the Rabbinic interpretation.

¹¹ The stone altar on Mt. Eival was also used for both burnt and peace offerings, as per Shemot 20.

¹² This could perhaps also account for the switch to the singular forms of "תַּעֲשֶׂה". Ultimately, because of the delay in entering the land, the stone altar on Mt. Eival was built only by Yehoshua, and thus, before his death, Moshe transmits the instructions regarding the stone altar to the next generation.

¹³ Since Ibn Ezra views the two altars not as two potential options, but rather as two separate obligations, he is forced into this somewhat more difficult read of the verse.

¹⁴ While the division of the parashot might suggest that the section of Shemot 20:18-23 concludes the story of the Decalogue, Ibn Ezra instead suggests that it really introduces the new unit of Parashat Mishpatim which details the laws which will form the basis for the covenant with Hashem at the end of the Parashah. [The laws begin with the acceptance of Hashem as their sole God ("לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף") and extend through Parashat Mishpatim.] Cf. Cassuto who points out that this section opens with an introductory formula "וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה" whereas Parashat Mishpatim begins with a mere conjunction ("וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים"), suggesting that it is merely a continuation and not a new beginning.

¹⁵ In addition, when the full ceremony is commanded in Devarim, the instruction to build a stone altar is repeated, making the command in Shemot 20 seemingly redundant. Yet, Ibn Ezra could potentially respond that the initial plan (were it not for the sin of the Golden Calf) was for the nation to enter the land of Israel immediately after Moshe received the Tablets of the Law. He might also explain that the need for repetition in Devarim was because Moshe himself was no longer going to be fulfilling the command, and thus he needed to transmit the command (he had been previously given) to the next generation of leadership.

¹⁶ He claims that the words, "We will do and we will hear" of Chapter 24 are not identical to the nation's response in Chapter 19 of "We will do". The latter simply implied that the nation was ready to listen to Hashem, whereas their statement in Chapter 24 implied a willingness to actually perform the various commandments given after the Decalogue and in Parashat Mishpatim. Ibn Ezra (as opposed to those who hold that Chapter 24 is earlier) is, thus, able to maintain that the command to build the earthen altar preceded the covenant of Chapter 24.

¹⁷ Yefet stresses that this refers only to non-obligatory and non-permanent sacrifices, and that this is permitted only during periods in which the Ark is separate from the rest of the Tabernacle. R. D"Z Hoffmann similarly asserts that such altars can only be built at certain times, when there is a lack of peace or security in Israel. See below for elaboration.

¹⁸ According to Yefet, this includes: (a) any place in which there was a direct command to sacrifice (such as the altar on Mt. Eival mentioned in Devarim 27:5-6 and Yehoshua 8:30-35, or the altar built by Gidon in Shofetim 6:26-27), (b) any site in which the Shekhinah or an angel appears, and (c) any site where the Ark or another vessel from the Tabernacle or Temple is present. Cf. the similar analysis of R. D"Z Hoffmann.

¹⁹ While verse 20 specifies that the earthen altars are for sacrifices ("וְזָבַחְתָּ עָלָיו אֶת עֹלֹתֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלָמֶיךָ"), this is not explicit regarding the stone altars of verse 21.

²⁰ See R. Yosef KaraShemuel I 14:32-34About R. Yosef Kara who also proves from the story that an altar is necessary when slaughtering בשר תאווה. Unlike the Karaites, though, he limits this obligation to eras in which private bamot were permissible. According to him, the leniency of slaughtering one's own meat without an altar is only applicable when such altars are "at a distance", such as when there is only one centralized altar. In a period when everyone could build their own altar for sacrifices, though, one had an altar readily accessible, and thus one was obligated to sprinkle the blood of non-sacrificial meat there as well.

²¹ Yefet disagrees with this reading of the story and instead explains it in a way that aligns with his understanding of the command to build stone altars. He suggests that Shaul was not simply slaughtering regular meat to eat, but was rather sacrificing burnt or peace offerings, and thus needed an altar.

²² Thus, according to R. D"Z Hoffmann only the previous verse of "מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה" refers to private altars. Hadassi's position may be the exact opposite (but this requires additional clarification).

²³ Thus, upon the nation's arrival in Israel, with the hope that tranquility was imminent, a stone altar was built on Mt. Eival. Similarly, in Shiloh, the altar was built from stone, and finally, in Shelomo's time, too, the copper altar was filled, not with earth (like the Tabernacle), but with stones. According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, then, the command regarding earthen altars in 20:20 relates to the era in which private altars were permitted (היתר במות), while the command regarding stone altars in the following verse (20:21) relates to the period in which bamot were prohibited.

²⁴ R. D"Z Hoffmann also discusses the status of the forty years in the wilderness, during which the nation was in close proximity of the Tabernacle, but were frequently in transit (see above that the altar was filled with earth because of this state of transience). He raises the possibility that private altars were allowed while the nation was traveling, and were prohibited only while they were encamped. R. D"Z Hoffmann also opines that the entire prohibition of such bamot arose only (in Sefer Vayikra) as a response to the sin of the Golden Calf, due to the concern that a plurality of worship sites would lead to further idolatry. Thus, he asserts (presumably based on Devarim 12:8) that by Sefer Devarim, the prohibition had already been nullified.

²⁵ R. D"Z Hoffmann disassociates these commands, but still asserts that the altar of the Tabernacle in the wilderness was also filled with earth to symbolize that it too lacked permanence.

²⁶ See the note above for what this encompasses.

²⁷ He asserts that both are valid unless a Divine command specifies which to use.

²⁸ Since he understands that the verses refer to two separate obligations and relate to two different eras (rather than being one command which can be fulfilled in two ways), it is difficult to explain the "אִם" as "if".

²⁹ According to Hadassi, the verse refers to non-sacrificial slaughter. The Karaite commentary Keter Torah of Aharon b. Eliyahu rejects this possibility since the verse specifies "מִזְבְּחִי", but according to Nahawandi and Hadassi even altars for regular slaughter (מזבח שערים) could be termed "מִזְבְּחִי".

³⁰ See the extensive discussion of this possibility in R. D"Z Hoffmann's commentary and the array of sources cited there.

³¹ The Torah then elaborates on the extra requirements for one who opts for the stone option.

³² For other cases in which the Hoil Moshe employs a similar methodology, see About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi and see the discussion of his position in An Eye for an Eye.

³³ For a private individual building his own altars, this would have been cost prohibitive and impractical.