When Were Private Altars Prohibited/2
When Were Private Altars Prohibited?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Exegetes differ in their understanding of the scope of the ban on private altars in the land of Israel. Some view it as a direct continuation of the similar prohibition in the desert which was integrally related to the struggle against idolatry. Thus, the students of R. Yishmael maintain that the injunction began immediately after the construction of the Mishkan and never ceased except for a brief period during which the Tabernacle did not exist or was inaccessible. R. Shimon b. Yochai, in contrast, suggests that the original proscription was limited to the circumstances in the wilderness and was discontinued upon entry into the Land of Israel. He suggests that the prohibition was renewed only much later, when the Beit HaMikdash was built, as Hashem's choosing of a permanent home precluded worship elsewhere. Finally, the majority opinion in Chazal (and of many commentators in their wake) distinguishes between the peaceful eras of Shiloh and Yerushalayim and the unrestful periods of Gilgal, Nov, and Givon. It maintains that centralization of worship could be expected of the nation only when they were living in relative security and could travel freely.
Immediately After the Conquest
Altars for individual sacrifice were permanently prohibited as soon as the Israelites inherited the land of Israel in the time of Yehoshua.
- Prevent idolatry – This position might connect the prohibition to the practice's similarity to idolatrous worship.3 If so, it is only logical that there should be no periods of permissibility.4
- Limit sacrifices to Hashem's dwelling – Alternatively, this approach might posit that the establishment of the Tabernacle itself precluded worship outside of its domain, and the ban began with its completion and continued thereafter.5
- Site of Shiloh – R. Yishmael's school asserts that both terms refer to the city Shiloh, the site in which the nation rested ("הַמְּנוּחָה") after the conquest and in which the inheritances ("הַנַּחֲלָה") were given out.7
- Era of Peace – According to Yefet, the terms do not refer to a specific place but to the era of peace and inheritance which followed the conquest.8
- הוראת שעה – The Bavli explicitly discusses only the case of Manoach, suggesting that he was acting upon a one time command (הוראת שעה) which overrode the prohibition against private altars.13 This position would likely maintain that all the other cases of private altars were similarly mandated by Hashem as one time exceptions to the rule.14
- Special dispensations in Hashem's presence – Yefet suggests that the ban on private altars had several general exceptions which are derived from Shemot 20:20. According to him,15 the verse states that one can build a stone or earthen altar "בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי" ("in any place where I will mention My name") which would include: (a) any site in which there was a direct command to sacrifice,16 (b) any place in which God's presence or an angel appears,17 and (c) any site where the Ark or another vessel from the Tabernacle or Temple is present.18
Only Once the Beit HaMikdash was Built
Private altars were completely permitted until the period of the monarchy. Only with the building of the Beit HaMikdash were they no longer allowed.
Intermittent Periods
Private altars were prohibited when the Mishkan was in Shiloh and after the Beit HaMikdash was established, but were permitted during the conquest and while the Mishkan was located in Nov and Givon.
- One God, one temple – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor relates the prohibition to a fear of idolatry,28 while Ralbag and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert, inversely, that the unitary nature of Hashem mandates a single place of worship.29 R. Hoffmann emphasizes, though, that such centralized worship, could only take place in an era of security.
- Altars only in Hashem's dwelling – Others might suggest, like the first approach above, that with the building of a dwelling place for Hashem (Tabernacle/Mikdash), individual worship outside on private altars was forbidden.30 To be considered such a dwelling place, though, the structure needed to house the ark, for a Tabernacle without its ark is missing its main raison d'être.31
- Permanent dwelling – Alternatively, it is only the building of a permanent dwelling of Hashem which mandates an exclusive worship site.32 More temporary houses are perhaps not all that different from the temporary altars built by private individuals and so, in those eras, both could be allowed.
- Era of peace – R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that centralization of worship could only take place in times of peace, when wars would not impede the nation from traveling to/constructing a permanent site of worship. Thus, only during the relatively quiet era of Shiloh and the peaceful reigns of the Davidic monarchy was the nation expected to serve solely in the Mikdash. At other times, private altars were allowed out of necessity.33
- Presence of a complete Tabernacle – R. Yosa in the Yerushalmi Megillah34 and the Meshekh Chokhmah posit that whenever the ark resided in the Mishkan/Mikdash (as it did in Shiloh and Yerushalayim) outside altars were prohibited; otherwise they were permitted.35
- Permanence – A third distinction might relate to the relative levels of permanence of each of the structures. The Tabernacle of Shiloh and the Mikdash both existed for about 400 years, while the other sites were much more temporary.
- Shiloh and Yerushalayim – R. David Zvi Hoffmann claims that the verse can refer to the periods of both Shiloh and Yerushalayim. Though full security was only attained with the Davidic monarchy, there was relative peace in the period after the conquest as attested to by the very name Shiloh, or tranquility.40 Both these eras are described later, using language which is almost identical to that in Devarim, as ones in which Hashem gave the nation rest from their enemies.41The periods in between, in contrast, were plagued by wars against the Philistines and other enemies.
- Only Yerushalayim – Rashi, in contrast, asserts that this verse refers only to the era of David and Shelomo, in which full peace reigned. Shiloh is referred to only in the earlier verses (which make no mention of security) .42
- Doing as one pleases in Gilgal – The Sifre, Rashi, and Ralbag maintain that the phrase refers back to the time period mentioned in Devarim 11:31, the crossing of the Jordan. Thus, the verse is contrasting the era of the desert when one brought all sacrifices to the Mishkan, with the period of Gilgal when one could "bring what he pleased" on private altars.43 The verse would read: "Don't do [in Gilgal] as we do today [in the desert, where all sacrifices are brought to the Mishkan], [but rather] each man can do as he pleases."
- Doing as one pleased in the 40th year
- R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that after the conquest of the eastern side of the Jordan, the original desert prohibition on private altars was nullified.44 Thus, Moshe contrasts the practice of the nation in his present time who "did as they pleased" (establishing private altars at will) with the renewed prohibition in Israel, where they would no longer be able to do so.
- R. Yosef Bekhor Shor explains like Yefet above that the verse is not speaking about altars at all, but rather contrasting the period in the desert where the nation was not obligated (אִישׁ כׇּל הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו) in commandments that were conditional to the land, with the era in Israel where they would be.
- Altars in Sefer Yehoshua – The anger of the nation at the 21/2 tribes for building an altar on the Jordan might support the idea that at this time, when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh, such private altars were forbidden.
- Altars in Sefer Shofetim – The altars built by Gidon, Manoach, and the nation (both in Bochim and in Beit El) are problematic as these were all constructed in the era when private altars were not allowed. Bavli Zevachim asserts that Manoach acted upon a one time commandment (הוראת שעה). This explanation can be used to explain the other cases as well. Alternatively, the Meshekh Chokhmah asserts that while the nation was in Bochim and Beit El, the ark was temporarily outside of the Mishkan,45 thus allowing for the building of private altars.46
- Altars in Sefer Shemuel – The altars of Shaul and Shemuel are not an issue as they were built during a period in which private altars were allowed.47
- Altars of Sefer Melakhim – As above, Eliyahu's altar on Har HaCarmel can be explained as being a one-time exception mandated by Hashem or the prophet himself.