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 wilderness 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.

Sources: perhaps R. Yishmael's school in Bavli Zevachim119a-bAbout the Bavli,¹ Yefet the KaraiteYefet b. Eli Shemot 20:20-21Yefet b. Eli Shemot 20:21Yefet b. Eli Vayikra 17:1-9Yefet b. Eli Devarim 12:8Yefet b. Eli Devarim 12:10Yefet b. Eli Devarim 12:10bYefet b. Eli Shemuel I 14About Yefet b. Eli²

Where is Hashem's "chosen place"? According to this approach, the term "הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר" includes most of the sites of the Tabernacle (Shiloh, Nov, and Givon)³ and the Mikdash in Yerushalayim.

Reason for prohibition – These sources do not address the issue directly, but they could maintain that its purpose was to either:

• Prevent idolatry – This position might connect the prohibition to the practice's similarity to idolatrous worship.⁴ If so, it is only logical that there should be no significant periods of permissibility.⁵
• 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.⁶

Multiple mentions of the obligation – This approach would likely assert that the repetition in Devarim 12 is for emphasis or other literary reasons.⁷

"אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה"

• 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.⁸
• Era of Peace – According to Yefet, the terms do not refer to a specific place but to the era of peace and inheritance which commenced following the conquest.⁹

"וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם... וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח" – Yefet maintains that the enemy mentioned refers to the seven nations. The security is the status that was achieved after the wars of conquest. As proof, he points to the parallel verse of Yehoshua 21:42.¹⁰

"וַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן" – This position would suggest that the verse is emphasizing that the prohibition applied almost immediately upon entry into the land.

"אִישׁ כׇּל הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו" – According to Yefet, this phrase does not relate to the laws of private altars at all,¹¹ but rather to other commandments that were not observed during the forty years in the wilderness due to their status as "commandments that are conditional upon the Land of Israel". Thus, in the wilderness, the people were not obligated to bring tithes and firstborns or to make pilgrimages; all they brought to the Tabernacle were voluntary offerings ("אִישׁ כׇּל הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו"). This is in contrast to the list of offerings mentioned in verse 6 which were expected of them in the Land of Israel.¹²

The altar of the 2½ tribes – The nation's anger at the 2½ tribes for setting up an alternate altar might support the fact that such private altars were already prohibited after the conquest.¹³

Private altars throughout Neviim

• הוראת שעה – The Bavli explicitly discusses only the case of Manoach, suggesting that he was acting in accordance with a one time command (הוראת שעה) which overrode the prohibition against private altars.¹⁴ 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.¹⁵
• Special dispensations in Hashem's presence – Yefet suggests that the ban on private altars had several general exceptions which are derived from Shemot 20:20.¹⁶ He interprets the verse stating that one can build a stone or earthen altar "בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי" ("in any place where I will mention My name") to refer to: (a) any site in which there was a direct command to sacrifice,¹⁷ (b) any place in which God's presence or an angel appears,¹⁸ and (c) any site where the Ark or another vessel from the Tabernacle or Temple is present.¹⁹

Altars of earth in Shemot 20 – R. Yishmael's school would likely suggest that the verse refers to the altar of the Tabernacle and is unrelated to permitting private altars. According to Yefet, in contrast, this verse points to the specific instances in which one is allowed to build private altars despite the general prohibition. See Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood for elaboration.

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.

Sources: R. Shimon b. Yochai in Bavli Zevachim119a-bAbout the Bavli

Where is Hashem's "chosen place"? This refers only to the site of the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim.

Reason for prohibition – This position might posit that it was the selection of a permanent site for Hashem's dwelling in the form of the Beit HaMikdash that created a need for exclusivity.²⁰ Once Hashem chose an eternal abode, it would be disrespectful to worship elsewhere.²¹ According to this position the peace and security mentioned in the verses do not create the prohibition but simply define the period in which Hashem chose His permanent home.²²

Multiple mentions of the obligation – This position would likely assert, as above, that the repetition is connected to literary concerns and does not connote any difference in obligation during different eras.

"אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה" – Both terms refer to Yerushalayim. The Bavli explains that the city is so described because it is an eternal inheritance and the resting place of the ark. Alternatively, the phrase is parallel to verse 10 and simply connotes an era of security.²³

"וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם... וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח" – According to this position, this peace was first achieved in the time of David and Shelomo and is attested to by the linguistically identical description of David's era as a time in which "וַה' הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב מִכָּל אֹיְבָיו"‎.²⁴ After the conquest, in contrast, the nation was still beleaguered by war as seen in the constant battles during the era of the Judges.

"וַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן" – As the Mikdash was only built many years after crossing the Jordan, this position might assert that the initial plan was to choose the site and build the Mikdash soon after entry, but due to sins or other circumstances the choice and building was delayed.

The altar of the 2½ tribes – Given that altars were permitted during this period, it is difficult to understand why the nation was angered that these tribes built an altar "מִבַּלְעֲדֵי מִזְבַּח ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ". This position could answer that they worried not about the technical legality of the deed but rather about its appearing to be a divisive act of rebellion against Hashem and the rest of the nation.

Private altars throughout Neviim – Since this position asserts that such altars were permitted until the reign of Shelomo, the altars built by anyone previously are not problematic.²⁵

Altar of Eliyahu – This approach might suggest that Eliyahu, who lived after the ban was implemented, was acting in accordance with a special one time command.²⁶

Altars of earth in Shemot 20 – This position does not address the verses in Shemot.

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.

Sources: SifreReeh 65Reeh 66Reeh 68About Sifre, Mishna Zevachim14:4-8About the Mishnah, Yerushalmi Megillah1:12About the Yerushalmi, R. Yehuda and R. Shimon in Bavli Zevachim119a-bAbout the Bavli, RashiDevarim 12:4-11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 12:4-11About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambamCommentary on the Mishna Zevachim 14:5-8About R. Moshe Maimonides, RadakShofetim 13:19Shofetim 20:26Shemuel I 13:9About R. David Kimchi, RalbagDevarim 12:4,8-9Shemuel I 13:8About R. Levi b. Gershon, SefornoDevarim 12:5About R. Ovadyah Seforno, Keli YakarDevarim 12:4About R. Shelomo Lunshitz, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 20:20About R. D"Z Hoffmann, Meshekh ChokhmahDevarim 12:8About R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk

Where is Hashem's "chosen place"? Most of the sources do not address the issue directly, but would likely suggest that it refers to both Shiloh and Yerushalayim.²⁷ R. D"Z Hoffmann asserts that the phrase does not refer to any specific place, but is simply emphasizing that Hashem's place of worship will be chosen by Him, unlike the hilltops which were chosen by human idolaters. He suggests that the first such chosen place was Shiloh, as Yirmeyahu states, "לְכוּ נָא אֶל מְקוֹמִי אֲשֶׁר בְּשִׁילוֹ אֲשֶׁר שִׁכַּנְתִּי שְׁמִי שָׁם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה"‎.²⁸

Reason for prohibition

• One God, one temple – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor relates the prohibition to a fear of idolatry,²⁹ while Ralbag and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert, inversely, that the unitary nature of Hashem mandates a single place of worship.³⁰ 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.³¹ 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.³²
• Permanent dwelling – Alternatively, it is only the building of a permanent dwelling of Hashem which mandates an exclusive worship site.³³ 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.

What distinguished Shiloh and Yerushalayim? – The commentators disagree regarding the factor which differentiated Shiloh and Yerushalayim from the other sites. The opinions match the reasons given above for the prohibition:

• 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.³⁴
• Presence of a complete Tabernacle – R. Yosa in the Yerushalmi Megillah³⁵ 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.³⁶
• 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.

Multiple mentions of the obligation – According to Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi) in the Sifre,³⁷ Rashi, and the Keli Yakar, the doubling might be explained by positing that each mention refers to a different time period. While verses 5-7 refer to the period of Shiloh, the later verses refer to the Mikdash in Yerushalayim.³⁸ R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that the doubling plays a literary function, with each mention highlighting different aspects of the prohibition.³⁹

"אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה" – Most of these sources assert that "הַמְּנוּחָה" refers to Shiloh and "הַנַּחֲלָה" to Yerushalayim⁴⁰ The choice of two distinct terms teaches that the verse is referring to two separate places and time periods. The period in the interim had its own status, and is not included in the ban on private altars.⁴¹

"וַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן" – R. D"Z Hoffman maintains that Shiloh had the potential to be the first and final "chosen place" of Hashem, in which case the prohibition would have set in soon after crossing the Jordan, and remained permanently thereafter. Due to the nation's sins, though, Shiloh was destroyed.

"וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם... וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח"

• 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.⁴² 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.⁴³The 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) .⁴⁴

"אִישׁ כׇּל הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו" – These commentators offer a variety of ways of explaining this phrase and what it refers to:

• 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 wilderness when one brought all sacrifices to the Mishkan, with the period of Gilgal when one could "bring what he pleased" on private altars.⁴⁵ The verse would read: "Don't do [in Gilgal] as we do today [in the wilderness, 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 wilderness prohibition on private altars was nullified.⁴⁶ 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 wilderness 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.

Private altars throughout Neviim

• 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,⁴⁷ thus allowing for the building of private altars.⁴⁸
• 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.⁴⁹
• 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.

Altars of earth in Shemot 20 – R. D"Z Hoffmann maintains that these refer to the private altars that were allowed in periods of unrest.⁵⁰ Thus, the verses of Shemot complement the verses in Devarim, together giving the reader a complete picture of the laws of private altars. See Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood for elaboration.

¹ The full position of this school is difficult to ascertain since the statement brought in their name in the Bavli relates only to the fact that "הַמְּנוּחָה" and "הַנַּחֲלָה" refers only to Shiloh. Nonetheless, since such an identification works well with this general approach, it is included here.

² Yefet's comments on Devarim align with this approach, but his comments on Vayikra 17 are ambiguous and might suggest otherwise. There he speaks of eras in which the ark was separate from the Mishkan, asserting that at those points private altars were not severely denigrated; only after the building of the Mikdash were they looked down upon. Nonetheless, there too he maintains that even before building the Mikdash, such altars were prohibited: "מכאן שהיה אסור הדבר לפני בניית הבית. ובעת שנבנה הבית, והיה הארון עם המזבח במקום אחד, גינה זאת האל".

³ Neither of these sources mention Gilgal, but one could also potentially include Gilgal as a place "chosen by Hashem" (as does ChizkuniDevarim 12:4,5,7-9,13About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach) and suggest that private altars were disallowed immediately upon entry (even before the conquest).

⁴ The original prohibition in the wilderness (Vayikra 17) related to the fear lest the nation come to sacrifice to demons. In Israel, this was less of a concern, but the similarity to the custom of idolaters to worship in multiple sites needed to be avoided.

⁵ The years of the conquest were the only exception either because at the time there was no Mishkan at all, or because it was inaccessible.

⁶ As above, the fourteen years of conquest were exceptional only because war prevented the building's construction. According to this, the security mentioned in the verses is the condition that allowed for the re-establishment of the Tabernacle after arrival in Israel, but is not inherent to understanding the obligation to serve Hashem solely in His chosen abode. The logical extension of this explanation would posit that in other periods where there is no Tabernacle or Temple at all, private altars should again be permitted.

⁷ The first mention (v. 5) contrasts worship in Hashem's chosen site to idolatry, while the second mention (v. 12) contrasts it to the practices of the wilderness.

⁸ If one were to take the variation of this overall position, that the prohibitions against private altars began immediately upon arrival in Gilgal, one might alternatively explain that these terms refer to the Land of Israel as a whole (and not just Shiloh), the resting place and inheritance of the nation.

⁹ Cf. Ibn EzraDevarim 12:9About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who similarly suggests that the terms are parallel to those in the next verse: וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם מִסָּבִיב וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח. [A more direct parallel would have been to the previous clause: "...אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מַנְחִיל אֶתְכֶם וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם".] See also ChizkuniDevarim 12:9About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach who explains the verse in this manner as well.

¹⁰ See also the closer parallel to our verse in Yehoshua 23:1, but see RashiDevarim 12:4-11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, who points to Shofetim 3:1 to prove that peace had actually not yet been attained and that there were many enemies left to "test" the nation in the time of the Judges.

¹¹ The assumption that the verse relates to private altars is difficult for all the positions, but it is perhaps most troubling for this approach which maintains that the laws regarding private altars in the new era basically continued without a significant break straight from the era of the wilderness.

¹² Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorDevarim 12:4-11About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and RambanDevarim 12:8About R. Moshe Nachmanides who explain the verse in the same manner.

¹³ Note their language: "אַל תִּמְרֹדוּ בִּבְנֹתְכֶם לָכֶם מִזְבֵּחַ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי מִזְבַּח ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ"

¹⁴ The Bavli might be referring to the angel's suggestion that Manoach give the food as an offering to Hashem.

¹⁵ By Gidon, Shemuel's sacrifice when anointing David and David's sacrifice by Aravna's threshing floor, there is explicit mention of Hashem or a prophet commanding the action. In the story of Eliyahu, too, one might suggest that his words "וּבִדְבָרְךָ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" hint to the fact that his actions were commanded by Hashem. Alternatively, one might posit (as does RambanDevarim 13:4About R. Moshe Nachmanides) that in his role as prophet, Eliyahu could uproot a command temporarily.

The case of Shaul's sacrifice before the battle of Michmas, though, would be difficult to explain in this manner as Shemuel is clearly upset at him for doing so. One could suggest that Shaul did in fact sin in bringing the offering and that is part of the reason for Shemuel's anger and Shaul's loss of kingship. Alternatively, Shemuel had indeed previously told Shaul, as a temporary command, to sacrifice before the battle, but Shaul erred in not waiting for Shemuel's arrival which caused the prophet's wrath.

¹⁶ Not everyone agrees. See Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood for other explanations of the verse.

¹⁷ He points to the altar on Mt. Eival mentioned in Devarim 27:5-6 and Yehoshua 8:30-35, and the altar built by Gidon in Shofetim 6:26-27

¹⁸ This would easily explain the altar made by the nation in Bokhim or by Manoach.

¹⁹ Thus, in Shofetim 20 the nation sacrifices in the presence of the ark in Beit El and in Shemuel I 14:35 Shaul sacrifices during the battle against the Philistines, as the ark was with them on the battlefield.

²⁰ According to this understanding, the ban on private altars in the wilderness had its own distinct reason, preventing worship of demons. This was not relevant after leaving the wilderness and thus the ban was no longer in effect after arrival in Israel and was only revived after Hashem chose the site of the Mikdash.

²¹ See ChizkuniDevarim 12:4,5,7-9,13About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach who points out that having the option to serve Hashem all over would have prevented the nation from making pilgrimages to the Mikdash.

²² One might suggest, though, that for theological reasons the Mikdash, a place of peace, needed to be built only in a time of peace. Thus, too, David, a "man of blood" could not be its architect.

²³ Cf. Yefet above and the explanations of Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni noted there.

²⁴ See Shemuel II 7:1 and see the similar verse in Divrei HaYamim I 22:18 when David tells the nation to aid Shelomo in building the Mikdash. The only other place where the Torah mentions "וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב" relates to the battle against Amalek. One might suggest, then, that already during the reign of Shaul such security was achieved. If so, one might posit that his sins and/or short reign precluded building the Mikdash.

²⁵ This would include the nation in the beginning of the period of the Shofetim, Gidon, Manoach, Shemuel, Shaul, David and others.

²⁶ See note in approach above.

²⁷ See below that Rashi and Keli Yakar suggest that one mention of the chosen place refers to Shiloh, and the other mention refers to Yerushalayim. Seforno, in contrast, maintains that each mention of the phrase refers to both sites together.

²⁸ He brings further support that Shiloh was considered a "מקום אשר בחר" from Yehoshua 9:27, where the verse states that Yehoshua appointed the Givonites as water carriers in "הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר" which at the time would seem to refer to the Mishkan in Shiloh.

²⁹ He speaks of the fear that they worship demons in the wilderness, but one could say that even in Israel there is a fear that multiplicity of worship sites might lead to worship of multiple gods.

³⁰ As opposed to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, R. D"Z Hoffmann views the reason for the prohibition in the wilderness as distinct from the reason for the prohibition in Israel. It was only in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf that there was a fear lest the nation worship idolatry, and only in the wilderness was there reason to think that they might sacrifice to demons. This did not apply to the new generation entering Israel, and the original law might have even been nullified already in Moav. Thus, the law established in Sefer Devarim was a new one with a positive, rather than negative motivation.

³¹ Seforno points out that humans should be the ones going to Hashem's dwelling rather than Hashem coming to a human's chosen site.

³² See below that this explains the reason for the difference in law during the various eras.

³³ Cf. the second approach above. The two positions differ in their definition of permanence as related to the Mishkan/Mikdash, with the above pointing to the final choice of Hashem, and this approach viewing it as related to its duration.

³⁴ He raises the possibility that private altars were allowed while the nation was in transit even in the wilderness, and were prohibited only while they were encamped.

³⁵ See also the printed edition of Tosefta Zevachim 13:19.

³⁶ While the Mishkan was in Gilgal, Nov and Givon the ark was separate. This approach might be based on the assumption that it was the establishment of the Tabernacle itself which precluded worship outside its walls and the exceptional periods are only those in which the Tabernacle was incomplete (such as when it did not house the ark).

³⁷ Though he is not explicit, his words (Sifre Devarim 68), "אם נאמרו למעלה למה נאמרו למטה ראשונה לענין שילה שניה לענין ירושלם" suggest such a reading.

³⁸ Keli Yakar says the opposite, asserting that Yerushalayim is referred to fist. He points to some of the differences in formulation between the two sets of verses to prove how each is most appropriate for its time period. For example, according to Rashi's understanding, the verses discussing Shiloh refer to Hashem's abode as one in which Hashem merely "placed His name" while in the verses describing the eternally holy Yerushalayim, the phrase emphasizes that Hashem's name more permanently "dwelt" there.

³⁹ The first mention warns against imitating the idolaters' worship in multiple sites while the second warns against establishing additional altars besides that in the Mikdash. Thus one highlights the problem of multiplicity while the other highlights the need for centralization.

⁴⁰ R. Shimon in the Sifre and in Bavli Zevachim says the opposite. Each side brings verses to support its claim. Yirmeyahu 12:7-9 refers to Yerushalayim as Hashem's "נחלה", while Tehillim 132:13-14, in contrast, refers to it as "מנוחה". R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests that an "inheritance" more aptly refers to the site of the Mikdash which was to be eternally holy, while a "resting place" has more of a temporary connotation. The gemara also points out that the ordering of the terms might support that the first phrase refers to Shiloh, the earlier site, while the second refers to the later chosen site, Yerushalayim.

⁴¹ The Bavli states, "למה חלקן? כדי ליתן היתר בין זה לזה".

⁴² Though this might be true of the first part of the era, this position would have to explain how the period of the Judges could be considered a peaceful one.

⁴³ See Yehoshua 23:1 and Shemuel II 7:1.

⁴⁴ See above that he maintains that each mention of the obligation of centralized worship refers to a different time period.

⁴⁵ The Sifre and Rashi understand this to refer to the fact that in Gilgal they could only bring voluntary sacrifices (אִישׁ כׇּל הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו) and not obligatory ones, while Ralbag understands it to mean that one could set up any altar that one desired, rather than using the altar in the Mishkan.

⁴⁶ Once the nation was no longer in the open wilderness, the reason behind it (potential idolatry) was no longer relevant

⁴⁷ This is explicit only in the latter case where the verse states that the ark was present in Beit El.

⁴⁸ Radak suggests an alternative solution to the building of the altar in Beit El, suggesting that the verse is really referring to Shiloh itself (in which case this is not an external sacrifice but one in the Tabernacle). It is called Beit El to connote that it it is a house of Hashem.

⁴⁹ Both Radak and Ralbag emphasize that Shemuel was not angry at shaul for building an altar, but for not waiting for him. Similarly, when R. Abba Bar Kahana in Yerushalmi Megillah lists the transgressions which were specially permitted to Shemuel when he sacrificed, he does not mention building an altar , since this was not considered a transgression at the time. [He does, in contrast, list it when speaking of Gidon's altar which was built in a period in which they were prohibited.]

⁵⁰ He points out that the transient nature of earth reflects the temporary nature of the altars.