Repairing the Destroyed Altar/2

Repairing the Destroyed Altar

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The presence of a destroyed private altar on Mt. Carmel has been explained in varying ways by commentators. Malbim posits that the altar was a new one, built not by a lay Israelite, but by Eliyahu himself as part of the face-off against the Baal prophets. It was permitted as a special one-time dispensation, so that Eliyahu could bring the people back to belief. Rashi, in contrast, suggests that the altar was very old, built in an era when such altars were still permitted. According to him, the ban against private altars to Hashem was not violated in the era of Eliyahu, but it is possible that this stemmed not from a desire to obey Hashem's commandments, but from a lack of desire to worship Him.

An alternative approach suggests that the altar was erected by laymen after the general prohibition against private altars was in effect.  Some claim that this action involved no sin, as those residing in the Northern Kingdom had a unique exemption from the prohibition due to the inaccessibility of the Mikdash.  Others claim that the populace simply ignored the prohibition, just as many in the Judean Kingdom had. According to both, though, the building of such altars points to the people's continued desire to worship Hashem, albeit together with other gods.

New Altar

The altar had been erected by Eliyahu himself earlier in the day, but was intentionally destroyed by the Baal prophets as they called upon their god to accept their offering.

Sources:MalbimMelakhim I 18:26Melakhim I 18:30-31About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

"וַיְפַסְּחוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" – Malbim finds support for his reading from this verse, suggesting that it teaches that the Baal prophets trampled an altar built by Eliyahu (hence the singular "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה").  Malbim assumes that at the beginning of the contest, both sides erected altars, and when the false prophets failed to get a response from the Baal, they blamed the presence of Eliyahu's altar and set out to destroy it.

Private altars after the building of the Mikdash – According to this approach, the nation as a whole had not been making private altars after the prohibition was in effect.  It is not clear if this was because they respected the ban or because they had no relationship with Hashem regardless.

Was not Eliyahu transgressing? Eliyahu's action was a one time event which was sanctioned by Hashem (a הוראת שעה), as he later says, "‎‏[וּבִדְבָרְךָ] (ובדבריך) עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה".

Fixed or built? Malbim claims that verses 30 and 31--32 do not contradict, but are rather a "כלל ופרט" (a general statement followed by details).  The text first shares that Eliyahu repaired his altar, and then details how that was done: via taking twelve new stones etc.  The assumption is that the stones originally used to build the altar had been dispersed by the Baal prophets.¹

"עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים" – When Eliyahu challenged the people's dual belief, he questioned: "עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים".  In using the same verb to convey the prophets' trampling on Eliyahu's altar, the text might be highlighting the irony of the situation. Eliyahu tells the people not to waver between two sides, and the prophets echo him, trampling Hashem's altar in an attempt to eliminate Hashem from the picture.  Despite their best efforts, however, their god remains absent while Hashem shows Himself in full force.

Nature of the contest – Malbim's reconstruction adds an element of violence to the competition, which is not evident at first glance.

"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ" – According to this approach, though Eliyahu's complaint against the people is phrased in the plural (מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ) he might be referring only to his own altar that had been ruined by the Baal prophets. If so, of the three misdeeds listed by Eliyahu (abandoning Hashem's covenant, killing Hashem's prophets and destroying the altars), only one was actually committed by the nation of Israel.  The others were actions done by Izevel and her prophets.

Recent Altar

The altar was built after the Beit HaMikdash was constructed, when the general prohibition against private altars was already in effect. This position subdivides regarding whether this prohibition applied to residents of the Northern Kingdom of Israel or not.

Permitted in Israel

The prohibition against private altars did not apply to those living in the Northern Kingdom because the Mikdash was inaccessible to them.

The prohibition of private altars – This position might understand the prohibition to be in effect only when the nation had access to a centralized place of worship. R. D"Z HoffmanShemot 20:20About R. David Zvi Hoffmann, for example, suggests that private altars were allowed when the Mishkan was in Gilgal, Nov, and Givon because in these eras conditions of war impeded the nation from traveling to/constructing a permanent site of worship.²  This position would take his stance one step further and claim that even after the construction of the Mikdash, if circumstances were such that the nation could not access the Mikdash (as was true of those living in the Northern kingdom) , they would be allowed to build private altars.

Eliyahu's building of the altar – As a resident and prophet of the North, it was totally permitted for Eliyahu, too, to build private altars.

"אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ" – With regards to many of the Judean kings, we are told that despite their upright ways, there was still one area in which the nation transgressed; they continued to build private altars (הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ). Interestingly, this transgression is never mentioned in relationship to any of the Israelite Kings.  According to this position, this is perhaps because in the North this was not a transgression.

Idolatry vs.Worship of Hashem – The existence of such private altars suggests that the nation had not forsaken Hashem when turning to the Baal, but rather worshiped both gods simultaneously. This is exactly Eliyahu's challenge, "עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים".

When and why was the altar destroyed? It is possible that during the reign of Achav, when Baal worship was sanctioned and encouraged by Izevel, the Baal prophets sought out all places of worship to Hashem and destroyed them.

"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ" – Eliyahu's later complaint on Mt. Chorev that he is zealous for Hashem because "אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ" refers to the destruction of altars such as that on Mt. Carmel.  Even though Eliyahu attributes the destruction to laymen from Israel, it is possible that most of it was done by Baal prophets.³

Prohibited in Israel

Though the prohibition applied equally to those living in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, like their Judean counterparts, the nation of Israel had never stopped building private altars despite the ban.

The prohibition of private altars – This approach assumes that once the Mikdash was built, all private altars were prohibited with no special dispensations for those who might find it difficult to travel to Yerushalayim due to political unrest or the like.

"אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ" – Despite the ban, however, many people continued to build such private altars.  This is explicit in Sefer Melakhim regarding residents of the Judean kingdom, as verses repeatedly point out: "‏."אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ‎⁴  The transgression might not be mentioned in relationship to the Israelite kingdom, even though it happened there as well, since such an offense paled in comparison to their accompanying idolatry.

Idolatry vs.Worship of Hashem – According to this position, the presence of such private altars proves that the people had not totally abandoned Hashem, but simply combined His worship with idolatry.  Thus, Eliyahu tells them that it is time to choose between Baal and Hashem.

When and why was the altar destroyed? As above, the altars to Hashem were likely destroyed by the Baal prophets in their attempts to sway the nation to worship the Baal.

Eliyahu's building of an altar – This position could explain that Eliyahu was acting according to a one time command (הוראת שעה) which allowed him to override a Biblical commandment so as to return the people to Hashem.

Old Altar

The altar had been made much earlier, in one of the eras in which it was permitted to erect private altars.

Sources:RashiMelakhim I 18:30-31Melakhim I 19:10About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki #2, RadakMelakhim I 18:26Melakhim I 18:30-31Melakhim I 19:10About R. David Kimchi,

Whose altar?

• According to this approach, there might have been many altars remaining in the Northern kingdom from earlier permitted eras and this one need not have had any special significance.
• Rashi and Radak ("על פי הדרש"), nonetheless, identify the altar with that erected by Shaul after the war with Amalek, as Shemuel I 15:12 shares, "בָּא שָׁאוּל הַכַּרְמֶלָה וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד".  However, it is doubtful whether the Carmel spoken of is identical to the Mt. Carmel of our verse for Eliyahu was in the North, while Sefer Shemuel suggests that Shaul was close to Gilgal.

Private altars after building the Mikdash – This position assumes that the ban against private altars was not transgressed, and that no new altars were built after the prohibition was in effect. Eliyahu's action was a one time-event, sanctioned by Hashem, as he later says, "‎‏[וּבִדְבָרְךָ] (ובדבריך) עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה".

"אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ" – No such statement is found in relationship to the Northern Kingdom because they did not engage in building such altars.  It is possible, however, that the reason for the lack of new private altars was not so much a desire to obey the law as much as a lack of desire to worship Hashem.

"עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים" – According to this reading, the nation might not have been engaged in syncretism, worshiping both the Baal and Hashem simultaneously, but rather might have alternated in their belief between the two. Though originally they worshiped Hashem, when the Baal prophets gained strength during the reign of Izevel, they forsook Him totally.⁵  Eliyahu tells them not to worship one god today, and another tomorrow, but to choose who is the true God.

When and why was the altar destroyed? The altar could have been destroyed either by the Baal prophets or any laymen who was zealous to follow the Baal and forsake Hashem.⁶

"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ" – Eliyahu's complaint might refer to misdeeds of the people themselves who, under the influence of the Baal prophets, had abandoned Hashem and destroyed any remnant of His worship.

"וַיְפַסְּחוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" – Radak explains that the singular form of "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" is not significant, and simply refers to the collective of prophets. Ralbag, in contrast, maintains that Achav had built the altar to the Baal.   If so, Achav was not a neutral bystander waiting to see the outcome of the contest, but an active participant on the side of the false prophets.

No Altar

The verse's description of Eliyahu fixing the destroyed altar is simply a metaphor for repairing the nation's relationship with Hashem.  In reality, there had not been a destroyed altar on the mountain.

Sources:Tanchuma (Buber), RashiMelakhim I 18:30-31Melakhim I 19:10About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki #1, R. Yosef KaraMelakhim I 18:30-31About R. Yosef Kara, RalbagMelakhim I 18:26-29About R. Levi b. Gershom #1

Mizbeach as metaphor – Tanchuma suggests that the altar represents the nation itself, who needed to repair its wayward actions. Rashi and R. Yosef Kara, in contrast, maintain that it symbolizes the nation's service of Hashem.⁷ Both readings, however, are somewhat difficult, as there is no indication that the verse is not meant to be taken literally.  The phrase is found in the midst of a prose account which contains no other symbolic language, but is rather replete with concrete actions.⁸

Private altars after building the Mikdash – According to this position, those in the Northern Kingdom did not build private altars after the ban was in effect.  As above, it is possible that this did not stem from their righteousness, but rather from a lack of desire to worship Hashem.

Fix or build? According to this position, there is no contradiction between the verses.  If verse 30 is metaphoric, then Eliyahu did not physically fix anything; he constructed a new altar, from scratch, in an effort to cure the nation from its spiritual ills.

Eliyahu's actions – These sources assume that Hashem had approved Eliyahu's decision to build a private altar due to the great benefit it was to have on the people's belief.  They even suggest that the event was foretold already in the time of Yaakov (see Bereshit Rabbah 82:5).

"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this position, as it assumes that there were in fact altars for Hashem present in the Northern kingdom.

¹ See Prof. U. Simon, "" who

² For elaboration on his position, see When Were Private Altars Prohibited.

³ This would be similar to the blaming of Israel for the killing prophets, even though it was Izevel, rather than individual Israelites who was responsible for the killings.

⁴ See, for example, Melakhim I 15:14 and 22:44, and Melakhim II 14:4 and 15:4.

⁵ Alternatively, as Malbim suggests, Eliyahu is referring to the people's consistent worship of idolatry but their hypocritical turning towards Hashem in times of distress, such as the drought brought by Eliyahu.

⁶ This approach could also suggest that the altar had simply been ruined over time, and was not intentionally destroyed by anyone.

⁷ According to all, then, the verse serves to introduce Eliyahu's attempts to bring the people back to worship of Hashem.

⁸ Had the image been a common one, used throughout Tanakh as a metaphor, there might be room to suggest that here, too, it should be understood as such, but this is not the case.