Why Was the Ark Taken/2

Why Was the Ark Taken?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators struggle to understand what sin was so grievous that it caused not only a defeat in battle, but also the taking of the ark captive and destruction of Shiloh.  Rashi and others assume that the punishment must relate to the crime and conclude that if the ark was taken captive, the sin must have been that it should never have been taken to war.  Others question if this is really prohibited and focus instead on the nation's problematic worship of Hashem.  Radak claims that the people were mired in idolatry, worshiping other gods.  Abarbanel instead suggests that they placed too much trust in the capabilities of the ark, assuming it had the power to save them.  In this they came close to another form of idolatry. Finally, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah posits that the sons of Eli were to blame for the disaster.  Since the nation took no steps to prevent their actions, they were collectively responsible for their misdeeds.

Taking the Ark to Battle

The Children of Israel were punished for taking the Ark to battle.

Sources: RashiDevarim 10:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Abarbanel #3Shemuel I 4:41About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹ Malbim #3Shemuel I 4:3-4About R. Meir Leibush Weiser²

Was this forbidden? There are many verses in Tanakh which imply that it is permitted to take the ark to battle,³ making this approach difficult. These commentators respond to this argument in one of two ways:

• Wrong ark – Rashi, following R. Yehuda b. Lakish in the YerushalmiShekalim 6:1About the Yerushalmi, claims that there were two arks, only one of which was permitted to be taken to war, while the other was supposed to stay in the Mishkan.⁴ The people sinned in that they took the wrong ark to battle.
• No Divine permission – Abarbanel and Malbim suggest that the people were only allowed to take the Ark to war with explicit Divine permission.  In our chapter this was lacking.

"וַיִּשְׁלַח הָעָם שִׁלֹה וַיִּשְׂאוּ מִשָּׁם אֵת אֲרוֹן" – Malbim attempts to prove from this phrase that the decision to take the Ark was that of the nation alone (וַיִּשְׁלַח הָעָם) and that they did not consult either Shemuel or Eli, as they were required.

"אֲרוֹן בְּרִית י"י צְבָאוֹת יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרֻבִים" – When the Ark is taken to battle during the conquest of Yericho it is referred to simply as  "הָאָרוֹן".‎⁵  Here in contrast, it is give the special title, "אֲרוֹן בְּרִית י"י צְבָאוֹת יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרֻבִים", perhaps suggesting that this is a different ark, the golden one with cherubs atop and the full tablets inside.⁶ This distinction could support Rashi's contention that the wrong ark was taken.⁷

Initial defeat in battle – This approach has difficulty explaining the deaths which occurred in the first stage of the battle before the Ark was brought.  At that point the nation had not yet sinned, so they should not have been deserving of defeat.

Taking the Ark – The singular punishment of the Ark being captured by the Philistines can be viewed as a measure for measure punishment for the nation's having wrongfully taken it to war.

References to Shiloh's destruction – In later references back to the destruction of Shiloh, the verses never blame the nation's taking of the Ark to battle as the reason for Hashem's decision.  This position might claim that though the nation suffered defeat and the Ark was taken, Shiloh as a whole was not yet destroyed during this war.⁸  As such, its later destruction might have been for entirely different reasons (as enumerated in Yirmeyahu and Tehillim).

Wrong Worship

The severe defeat resulted from the nation's sinning in the area of religious worship.  These sources differ regarding the specific nature of the sin:

Worship of Foreign Gods

The nation was punished for their idolatrous ways.

Sources: RadakShemuel I 4:4About R. David Kimchi,⁹ Abarbanel #1Shemuel I 4:41About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Malbim #1Shemuel I 4:3-4About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Evidence of idolatry – Though the opening chapters of Sefer Shemuel do not speak of idolatry,¹⁰ these sources find evidence for it elsewhere:

• Shofetim 18 – Abarbanel and Malbim point to the idol of Michah as evidence of idolatry during this era, as Shofetim 18:31 notes that Mikhah's idol existed for as long as the Mishkan was in Shiloh.
• Shemuel I 7 – Abarbanel also points to Chapter 7 which speaks of Shemuel's calling on the nation to rid itself of foreign gods, telling them that if they do so they will be victorious over the Philistines.  This suggests that until that moment, they had been worshiping idolatry and that it was the reason for the defeat described in Chapter 4.
• Yirmeyahu 7 – Yirmeyahu compares the destruction of Shiloh to that of the impending destruction of the Mikdash, implying that the reason for both was one and the same. Among the sins listed as causes for the latter's destruction is treachery against Hashem and straying after foreign gods, suggesting that this was prevalent in Shiloh as well.
• Tehillim 78 – The psalmist also explains that Shiloh was destroyed due to the worshiping of idols ("יַּכְעִיסוּהוּ בְּבָמוֹתָם וּבִפְסִילֵיהֶם יַקְנִיאוּהוּ").

"וַיְהִי דְבַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל" – Radak claims that this verse teaches that the nation went to battle at the behest of Shemuel,¹¹ and that Hashem intentionally urged them to war in order to punish them.¹²  This would support the idea that the people sinned not during the battle itself (as claimed by the above approach) but beforehand.

Taking of the Ark – While subjugation to an enemy is often the punishment for idolatry¹³ it is not clear why the Ark was also taken.  Abarbanel attempts to address this by citing Vayikra 26:19 which says that the punishment for continuously not listening to Hashem's commandments¹⁴ is that He will shatter the "pride of the nation".  He claims that this "pride" might refer to the Ark.

The Ark by the Philistines – In allowing the Philistines to capture the Ark, there was a danger lest the nation conclude that the event occurred because the Philistine gods were more powerful than Hashem.  If so, the punishment would have backfired, leading the nation not to repent but to instead turn to even more idolatry.  Hashem, thus, dispelled any such notion by proving the Philistine gods worthless and having Dagon fall and break.

Mistaken Cultic Beliefs

The Children of Israel believed that the Ark would ensure their victory, forgetting that only Hashem controls their destiny, and He does so according to their merits.

Sources: Abarbanel #4Shemuel I 4:41About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Malbim #2Shemuel I 4:3-4About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Prof. Yehuda Elitzur¹⁵

Evidence of mistaken attitude

• "וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ מִכַּף אֹיְבֵינוּ" – The nation's mistaken attitude towards the Ark is apparent in their decision to bring it to battle so that "it" might save them ( "נִקְחָה אֵלֵינוּ מִשִּׁלֹה אֶת אֲרוֹן בְּרִית י"י... וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ מִכַּף אֹיְבֵינוּ").  They do not pray to Hashem that He save them, but assume that the Ark itself will provide victory. 
• Contrast to Philistines – The error is highlighted when the nation's reaction to the Ark is contrasted with that of the Philistines.  Upon the Ark's arrival in the camp, the Philistines cry out: "בָּא אֱ-לֹהִים אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה... אוֹי לָנוּ מִי יַצִּילֵנוּ מִיַּד הָאֱ-לֹהִים הָאַדִּירִים הָאֵלֶּה".  Ironically, only they recognize that behind the Ark stands Hashem, and it is Hashem whom one must fear, not the Ark itself.¹⁶
• Allusions to the Exodus – In Chapters 4:8 and 6:6 the Philistines explicitly warn each other of Hashem's wondrous punishment of the Egyptians, recalling the plagues and their goal: "so that you shall know that I am your God".¹⁷  This is the same message that needs to be taught here: recognition of Hashem (and not his symbols) as the supreme power.

Later references to Shiloh's destruction – Much of Yirmeyahu 7 focuses on the nation's wrong belief that the Mikdash was invincible and would always protect the people regardless of their actions.¹⁸ To prove his point, Yirmeyahu points to the destruction of Shiloh.  The comparison suggests that in both stories the nation's sin was identical: forgetting that cultic objects are purely symbolic and power lies not in them but Hashem.  It is one's actions which will lead to Hashem's salvation, not possession of a holy building or artifact.

Victory in Shemuel I 7 – The many points of contact between the wars of Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 might further support this reading of the sin. Both involve battles between Israel and the Philistines that take place at the site Even Ha'ezer.¹⁹  However, while in the former the people say "let us take the Ark and it will save us ("נִקְחָה ... אֶת אֲרוֹן... וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ") in the latter, they pray to Hashem that He may save them ("אַל תַּחֲרֵש... מִזְּעֹק אֶל י"י "אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ).  As such, in place of the Israelites being defeated ("וַיִּנָּגֶף יִשְׂרָאֵל"), it is the Philistines who lose in Chapter 7 ("וַיִּנָּגְפוּ לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל").²⁰  Chapter 7, thus, provides a model of correct worship to rectify the corrupted worship of Chapter 4.

Initial defeat – This approach might account for the deaths of the first four thousand people (before binging the Ark to battle) by saying that the nation's hopes in the Ark merely reflected a problem that already existed. Chapters 1-3 of the book already hint to corrupt cultic practices.  Eli's oblivion to the fact that Channah was praying might imply that prayer had become secondary in people's relating to Hashem, while the power of cultic acts had risen.²¹  His sons go further to corrupt the cultic practices themselves, as they imitate Canaanite worship, scorning proper sacrificial procedures, and taking of sacrifices for their own benefit.

Taking the Ark – The capture of the Ark served as an apt measure for measure punishment, but also as a lesson to correct the people's misconceptions. As the nation believed the Ark to be all powerful, Hashem taught them that not only did it not have the power to save them, it could not even save itself.

The need for Shiloh's destruction – According to this approach, Shiloh as a whole needed to be destroyed since the whole site was corrupt.

The Ark by the Philistines – As above, this position might suggest that although it was necessary to have the Ark taken so as to teach the Israelites an important lesson, Hashem wanted to ensure that His name was not desecrated among the nations who might have concluded from its capture that their gods were more powerful than Hashem.  He therefore had Dagon fall, and plagued the Philistines.

Parallel to Sin of the Golden Calf – This view of the sin matches certain understandings of the sin of the Golden Calf as well. There, too, the people looked to worship a physical symbol of Hashem, rather than Hashem Himself. For details, see Sin of the Golden Calf.

Sins of Eli's Sons

The nation as a whole was punished for the sins of Chofni and Pinchas, the sons of Eli.

Sources: Seder Eliyahu Rabbah12About Seder Eliyahu, RadakShemuel I 4:1,4About R. David Kimchi, Abarbanel #2Shemuel I 4:41About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Malbim #4Shemuel I 4:3-4About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Evidence of Sin – As the actions of Chofni and Pinchas are the only sins explicitly mentioned in the opening chapters of the Book,²² it is logical that it was their misdeeds that might have caused the punishment..

Prophecies of Chapters 2-3 – These commentators point to the prophecies to Eli in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 which speak of his sons' upcoming death, together with an unheard of catastrophe that was to befall Israel, as evidence that the nation's defeat was due to the sins of Eli's sons.

"וַיְהִי דְבַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּצֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל" – Abarbanel claims that this opening phrase means that the prophecy of the previous chapter regarding Eli's sons was known throughout Israel, and came true when the nation went to battle.²³ As such, the chapter itself links the events of the war with the sins of Eli's sons further suggesting that they were the cause of the defeat.

"וְשָׁם שְׁנֵי בְנֵי עֵלִי עִם אֲרוֹן בְּרִית הָאֱ-לֹהִים" – Radak²⁴ asserts that the mention of Eli's sons being next to the Ark hints to the fact that they were the ones to cause the disaster. He even suggests that Hashem orchestrated that the elders would request the Ark, so as to ensure that Chofni and Pinchas would join the battle.

Why this specific punishment? According to this approach, it is not clear why Hashem did not suffice by punishing the nation through defeat in battle, but decided to also have the Ark be taken captive:

• Abarbanel asserts that this was simply a consequence of the punishment of Chofni and Pinchas.  Since they were holding the Ark when they were killed it was captured.
• Eliyahu Rabbah implies that this was a punishment for the people's not safeguarding the Mikdash and its vessels when they saw them being desecrated by the actions of the sons of Eli.

Collective punishment – This position must explain why the entire nation was punished for the sins of just two people:

• Blameworthy – Radak asserts that they were actually punished for their own sins of idolatry,²⁵ while Eliyahu Rabbah blames them for not rebuking the sons of Eli for their misdeeds.
• Collective responsibility – Alternatively, these sources could simply suggest that collective punishment is part of Hashem's mode of justice and sometimes innocents suffer together with the guilty.  For a full discussion of the issue, see Collective Punishment.

Later references to Shiloh's destruction – None of the later discussions of Shiloh's destruction blame it on the sons of Eli specifically.

¹ Abarbanel brings five different reasons why the ark was taken.  This is the third on his list.

² Malbim also brings five reasons, all drawn from Abarbanel.

³ For example, in Bemidbar 10:35-36, Moshe speaks of the ark traveling in front of the camp and vanquishing Israel's enemies and in Bemidbar 31:6 Pinchas takes the "holy vessels" to war against Midyan.  Similarly, in Yehoshua 6, the ark plays a role in the battle of Yericho, and in Shemuel II 11:11, Uriyah tells David that he feels uncomfortable sleeping in his home while the ark is at battle.  In addition the very name, "אֲרוֹן בְּרִית י"י צְבָאוֹת" might further suggest that it was meant to play a military role.

⁴ Rashi explains that the ark which went to battle was the wooden one made by Moshe when he went to get the Tablets, as described in Devarim 10.  The other ark was the golden one made by Bezalel when he constructed all the vessels of the Tabernacle.  It was supposed to remain in the Mishkan.  R. Yehuda b. Lakish says that the former held the broken tablets, while the latter housed the full ones.

⁵ See also Bemidbar 10:33-36 which also links the Ark and war and refers to it as simply "הָאָרוֹן".

⁶ See Radak who explicitly makes this point to prove that this ark contained the full tablets.  He brings further proof from the fact that it is the one later taken by David to Yerushalayim (the only other place where it gets the full title "אֲרוֹן הָאֱ-לֹהִים אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא שֵׁם שֵׁם י"י צְבָאוֹת יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרֻבִים עָלָיו"). However, he does not agree that it was a problem to bring it to war.  Those who maintain that there was only one ark, with cherubs atop, might suggest that the different titles are not significant, and that the text is simply brief  in some places and lengthy in others.

⁷ According to him, the ark which was permitted to be taken to battle was the wooden made by Moshe, which would not have had cherubs on top and as such would not be called "יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרֻבִים".

⁸ See Shemuel I 14:3 which mentions Achiyah the priest wearing the Efod "in Shiloh", suggesting that Shiloh was still a center of priestly activity during Shaul's reign.  See, though, Radak and Ralbag who maintain that the words "in Shiloh" in the verse refer not back to Achiyah who is mentioned at the beginning of the verse, but only to the immediately preceding word, Eli. As such the verse would just be saying that Eli had presided in Shiloh, but nothing about Ahiyah's abode, allowing for the possibility that Shiloh indeed had been destroyed in our chapter.

⁹ Radak combines this approach with that below, saying that both the nation and Eli's sons were guilty.

¹⁰ In contrast to the Books of Shofetim and Melakhim, Sefer Shemuel only speaks of the nation worshiping foreign gods once, in Shemuel I Chapter 7.

¹¹ Cf. Ralbag who disagrees and even suggests that the fact that the nation did not ask Hashem before fighting is what caused their defeat. See also Abarbanel who argues against Radak that it is not possible that Shemuel's first prophecy and directive to the nation would be one that led to national disaster.  It would have led the people never to listen to him or believe that he truly heard the word of Hashem.

¹² Radak compares it to the battle of Givah in Shofetim 20 where the people also ask Hashem before fighting, are answered, but nonetheless suffer defeat. There too, Hashem pushed them to battle only in order to punish them.

¹³ See, for example, the cycle of Sefer Shofetim in which every time the nation turns to foreign gods, Hashem hands them over to a different foreign power.

¹⁴ Throughout the period of the judges until now the nation returned to idolatry over and over, leading to a more severe (and shocking) punishment than subjugation alone.

¹⁵ See "אבן העזר", Yisrael VeHamikra (Jerusalem, 2000): 96-102.

¹⁶ One could instead read these verses to suggest that the Philistines' beliefs were worse than those of Israel and that they saw the Ark itself as a god.

¹⁷ This idea serves as a refrain throughout the opening chapters of Sefer Shemot.  See, for instance, Shemot: 6:7; 7:1-5; 7:17; 8:18; 10:2; and 14:18.  For elaboration, see Purpose of the Plagues.

¹⁸ Yirmeyahu tells the people not to rely on their false belief in the security of the Temple (אַל תִּבְטְחוּ לָכֶם אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַשֶּׁקֶר לֵאמֹר הֵיכַל י"י הֵיכַל י"י הֵיכַל י"י הֵמָּה), thinking that they can steal, murder and swear falsely, and then come to the Mikdash and be saved ("וַאֲמַרְתֶּם נִצַּלְנוּ"). He compares the Mikdash to a robber's den where thieves come to hide after committing their crimes. See the similar message relating to the Ark specifically in Yirmeyahu 3:16.

¹⁹ Commentators disagree if the two אֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר's refers to identical sites or to distinct places with the same name. Radak identifies the two, but claims that the site only got its name after the second battle, since in the original battle, אֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר (lit. Stone of Salvation) had really been an "אבן נגף" (Stone of Plague).  Prof. Elitzur disagrees, suggesting that the text is not implying geographic overlap, but rather prophetic identity.   The text is intentionally calling on the reader to compare the two battles and question why in one case the site is really a "stone of salvation" and in the other it is not.

²⁰ There are other literary allusions as well. Compare 4:6-7 "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים... וַיִּרְאוּ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּים" with 7:7, "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּרְאוּ מִפְּנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים", and 4:5 "וַיָּרִעוּ ... תְּרוּעָה גְדוֹלָה וַתֵּהֹם" with 7:10 "וַיַּרְעֵם י"י בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל...וַיְהֻמֵּם ".  For a full list of parallels and analysis of them see M. Garsiel, ספר שמואל: עיון ספרותי במערכי השוואה באנאלוגיות ובמקבילות, (Ramat Gan, 1983): 42-44.

²¹ Contrast this situation with Shelomo's words upon building the Mikdash where he requests that the Mikdash be a place or prayer, never mentioning sacrifices. See, though, Bavli Berakhot 31 which points to Channah as an innovator from whom we learn laws of silent devotion.

²² See Shemuel I 2:12-17.

²³ See RalbagShemuel I 4:1About R. Levi b. Gershom who is not explicit but might understand the opening in the same way.

²⁴ See also Abarbanel and Malbim in his wake.

²⁵ See position above.