Repairing the Destroyed Altar/2

Repairing the Destroyed Altar

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

New Altar

The altar had been erected by Eliyahu himself earlier in the day, and was 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.

Prohibition against private altars – According to this approach, the nation as a whole had not been making private altars 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".

Fixed or built? Malbim claims that verses 30-32 are a "כלל ופרט"(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.

"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 atempt 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 speaks in the plural 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, after 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 has access to a centralized place of worship.  See, for instance, R. D"Z Hoffman, who explains that private altars were prohibited during the peaceful eras of Shiloh and Yerushalayim, but were allowed during the period of the conquest and judges because conditions of war impeded the nation from traveling to/constructing a permanent site of worship.  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 o 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 still maintained 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.¹

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 seems to attribute the destruction to laymen from Israel, it is possible that most of it was done by Baal prophets.²

Prohibited in Israel

Though the prohibition applied equally to those living in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, like their Judean counterparts, the natio of Israeln 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 סָרוּ‎³  The fact might not be mentioned with relationship to the Israelite kingdom, even though it happened there as well, since such a transgression paled in comparison to the accompanying idolatry.

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

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.

"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ"

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 the verse 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.  Eliyahu as in the North, while Sefer Shemeul 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 such 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 "שיתוף," worshiping both the Baal and Hashem simultaneously, but rather alternating in their belief between the two. When the Baal prophets gained strength during the reign of Izevel, the nation had forsaken Hashem totally.  Eliayhu tells them not worship one god today, and another tomorrow but to choose who is the true God.

When and why was the later destroyed – The altar could have been destroyed either by the Baal prophets or any laymen, zealous to follow the Baal and forsake Hashem.⁴

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

No Altar

Eliyahu's fixing of the destroyed altar is a metaphor for repairing the nation's relationship with Hashem.

Sources:RashiMelakhim I 18:30-31Melakhim I 19:10About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki #1, R. Yosef KaraMelakhim I 18:30-31About R. Yosef Kara

¹ Others might claim that building private altars to Hashem paled in comparison to the idolatry committed in the North, so there was no reason for the text to point out such minor transgressions.

² 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.

³ See, for example, Melakhim I 15:14 and 22:44, and Melakhim II 14:4 and 15:4.

⁴ This approach could also suggest that the altar had simply been ruined over time, and was not intentionally destroyed by anyone.