Difference between revisions of "Repairing the Destroyed Altar/2"
m |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<point><b>"וַיְפַסְּחוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"וַיְפַסְּחוּ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Private altars after the building of the Mikdash</b> – 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".</point> | <point><b>Private altars after the building of the Mikdash</b> – 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".</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Fixed or built?</b> Malbim claims that verses 30-32 do not contradict, but are rather 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.</point> | + | <point><b>Fixed or built?</b> Malbim claims that verses 30 and 31--32 do not contradict, but are rather 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.</point> |
<point><b>"עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Nature of the contest</b> – Malbim's reconstruction adds an element of violence to the competition, which is not evident at first glance.</point> | <point><b>Nature of the contest</b> – Malbim's reconstruction adds an element of violence to the competition, which is not evident at first glance.</point> | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<point><b>Whose altar?</b><ul> | <point><b>Whose altar?</b><ul> | ||
<li>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.</li> | <li>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.</li> | ||
− | <li>Rashi and Radak ("על פי הדרש"), nonetheless, identify the altar with that erected by Shaul after the war with Amalek, as | + | <li>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.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Private altars after building the Mikdash</b> – 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".</point> | <point><b>Private altars after building the Mikdash</b> – 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".</point> | ||
<point><b>"אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"אַךְ הַבָּמוֹת לֹא סָרוּ"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים</b> – According to this reading the nation might not have been engaged in "שיתוף," worshiping both the Baal and Hashem simultaneously, but rather | + | <point><b>"עַד מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים"</b> – According to this reading, the nation might not have been engaged in "שיתוף," 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.<fn>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.</fn>  Eliyahu tells them not to worship one god today, and another tomorrow, but to choose who is the true God.</point> |
<point><b>When and why was the later destroyed</b> – The altar could have been destroyed either by the Baal prophets or any laymen, zealous to follow the Baal and forsake Hashem.<fn>This approach could also suggest that the altar had simply been ruined over time, and was not intentionally destroyed by anyone.</fn></point> | <point><b>When and why was the later destroyed</b> – The altar could have been destroyed either by the Baal prophets or any laymen, zealous to follow the Baal and forsake Hashem.<fn>This approach could also suggest that the altar had simply been ruined over time, and was not intentionally destroyed by anyone.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ"</b> – Eliyahu'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.</point> | <point><b>"אֶת מִזְבְּחֹתֶיךָ הָרָסוּ"</b> – Eliyahu'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.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>No Altar | <category>No Altar | ||
− | <p> | + | <p>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.</p> |
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RashiMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18:30-31</a><a href="RashiMelakhimI19-10" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 19:10</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> #1, <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18:30-31</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink></mekorot> | + | <mekorot><a href="TanchumaBuberVayishlach30" data-aht="source">Tanchuma (Buber)</a>, <multilink><a href="RashiMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18:30-31</a><a href="RashiMelakhimI19-10" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 19:10</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> #1, <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraMelakhimI18-30-31" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18:30-31</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink></mekorot> |
+ | <point><b>Mizbeach as metaphor</b> – 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. 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Private altars after building the Mikdash</b> – 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.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Fix or build</b> – 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 an altar from scratch in an effort to cure the nation from its spiritual ills.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Metaphors and prose</b></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
</approaches> | </approaches> | ||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> |
Version as of 02:00, 16 April 2018
Repairing the Destroyed Altar
Exegetical Approaches
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.
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.
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.
Old Altar
The altar had been made much earlier, in one of the eras in which it was permitted to erect private altars.
- 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.
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.