Daf Ditty: Shekalim 15:The Lost Ark

Transporting the Ark of the Covenant: gilded bas-relief at the Auch Cathedral

1

Halakha 4 · MISHNA There were two special chambers in the Temple, one called the chamber of secret gifts and the other one called the chamber of vessels. The mishna explains the purpose of these chambers. In the chamber of secret gifts, sin-fearing people put money secretly and poor people of noble descent support themselves from it secretly.

2

With regard to the chamber of vessels, anyone who donates a vessel to the Temple drops it inside that chamber, and once every thirty days the treasurers open it. And any vessel that they found for it a use for Temple maintenance, they leave it for that purpose, and the rest are sold, and their monetary value is allocated to Temple maintenance.

3

Halakha 1 · MISHNA There were thirteen collection horns, narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, into which were placed the shekels that were collected for the various needs of the Temple. There were also thirteen tables for various purposes, and thirteen prostrations in the Temple.

The members of the household of Rabban Gamliel and the members of the household of Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, would prostrate themselves in fourteen places. And where was this extra location? It was facing the wood depository, as there was a tradition handed down to them from their fathers that the Ark was sequestered there.

The mishna relates that there was an incident involving a certain priest who was going about his duties and saw a certain flagstone that was different from the others. He noticed that one of the stones was slightly raised above the others, indicating that it had been removed and returned to its place. The priest understood that this was the opening to an underground tunnel where the Ark was concealed. He came and said to his fellow that he had noticed this deviation in the floor. He did not manage to conclude relating the incident before his soul left him, i.e., he died. Following this event, they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there, and that God had prevented that priest from revealing its location.

Steinzaltz

4

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: Those collection horns were asymmetrical. They were narrow at the top and wide at the bottom. Why were they shaped like that? It was due to cheaters, to prevent them from inserting their hands on the pretense of adding shekels and removing them instead.

The Gemara cites a baraita that expounds a tannaitic dispute with regard to the sequestering of the Ark, a topic mentioned in the mishna: It was taught in the name of Rabbi Elazar: The Ark was exiled with the Jews to Babylonia. When the Jews were exiled to Babylonia, they took the Ark with them. What is the source for this statement? When Isaiah prophesied about the exile before King Hezekiah, he stated:

Behold, the days come, that all that is in thy house, and 17 זי ,הֵנִּה םיִמָי ,םיִאָבּ אָשִּׂנְו לָכּ - רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ,that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day ֶתיֵבְבּ רֶשֲׁאַו וּרְצָא יֶתֹבֲא דַﬠ - םוֹיַּה םוֹיַּה shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the ,הֶזַּה :הָלֶבָבּ ֹל א - רֵתָוִּי ,רָבָדּ רַמָא .הָוהְי רַמָא ,רָבָדּ רֵתָוִּי LORD. II Kings 20:17

5

“Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; no item shall be left, said the Lord”

The item [davar] referred to in the verse can only be an item that contains the commandments [dibrot]. That is the Ark, which contains the two tablets upon which the Ten Commandments are carved.

And, so too, it says:

And at the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar 10 י תַבוּשְׁתִלְו ,הָנָשַּׁה חַלָשׁ ֶלֶמַּה ֶלֶמַּה חַלָשׁ ,הָנָשַּׁה תַבוּשְׁתִלְו sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly ,רַצּאֶנְדַכוּבְנ וּהֵאִבְיַו ,הָלֶבָב םִﬠ - יֵלְכּ יֵלְכּ vessels of the house of the LORD and made Zedekiah תַדְּמֶח תיֵבּ - ;הָוהְי ֵלְמַיַּו תֶא - וּהָיִּקְדִצ וּהָיִּקְדִצ .his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem ,ויִחָא לַﬠ - הָדוּהְי .םִָלָשׁוּריִו }פ{ II Chron 36:10

“And at the return of the year, King Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the desired vessels of the House of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem”

What is referred to by the phrase “the desired vessels of the House of the Lord”? This is the Ark, in which the Tablets of the Law were placed. The Torah is a desirable object for the Jews, as it is stated,

More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine 11 אי םיִדָמֱחֶנַּה -- ,בָהָזִּמ זַפִּמוּ זַפִּמוּ ,בָהָזִּמ .gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb ;בָר מוּ קוּתְ םיִ דִּ מ בְ ,שַׁ נְ ו פֹ תֶ פוּצ .םיִפצת ֹנ שׁ ְדּ י וְּמ Ps 19:11

“More to be desired are they than gold, indeed, than much fine gold”

6 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish differs and says: The Ark was not sent into exile, but rather was sequestered in its place, i.e., buried in the Holy of Holies. This is as it is written:

And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves 8 ח ,וּכִרֲאַיַּו ,םיִדַּבַּה וּאָרֵיַּו יֵשׁאָר יֵשׁאָר וּאָרֵיַּו ,םיִדַּבַּה ,וּכִרֲאַיַּו ;were seen from the holy place, even before the Sanctuary םיִדַּבַּה ןִמ - שֶׁדֹקַּה לַﬠ - יֵנְפּ ,ריִבְדַּה אֹלְו אֹלְו ,ריִבְדַּה יֵנְפּ but they could not be seen without; and there they are וּאָרֵי ;הָצוּחַה יַּו ִ וּיְה ,םָשׁ דַﬠ םוֹיַּה םוֹיַּה דַﬠ ,םָשׁ וּיְה .unto this day .הֶזַּה I Kings 8:8

“And the staves were so long that the ends of the staves were seen from the holy place, even before the Sanctuary; but they could not be seen without; and there they are until this day”

The phrase “until this day” means forever, as “this day” can refer to any point in time. Consequently, this verse indicates that the Ark was sequestered in its place.

Having cited this verse, the Gemara proceeds to further explain it, by pointing out an internal contradiction in the verse. Initially, it is written:

“The ends of the staves were seen,” and you say, in the continuation of the verse, “but they could not be seen.” How can that be? Rather, the verse should be understood as follows: The staves could be seen and they could not be seen, as they protruded outward through the curtain like the two breasts of a woman. The staves themselves could not be seen, but their position was discernible from the protrusion of the curtain.

7 The Gemara returns to the discussion of the location of the Ark during the Second Temple period. And the Rabbis say: The Ark was sequestered in the wood depository chamber. The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain blemished priest who was standing and splitting wood in the wood depository chamber in order to verify that the wood was not infested with worms. And he saw the flagstone that was different from the others. He came and said to his fellow: Come and see that this flagstone differs from the others. He did not manage to conclude relating the incident before his soul left him. And they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there. Rabbi Hoshaya taught a slightly different version of the story in a baraita: He tapped on the stone with a mallet [kurenas] to determine if it was hollow underneath the stone, and fire came out and burned him.

The Gemara elaborates on the topic of the Ark of the Covenant. It was taught that Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Two Arks would travel with Israel in the desert: One, in which the Torah, i.e., the second tablets that were given to Moses after he broke the first ones, was placed, and the other, in which the shards of the first tablets were placed. That in which the Torah was kept, was the Ark that was placed in the Tent of Meeting, in the Holy of Holies. This is as it is written:

;But they presumed to go up to the top of the mountain 44 דמ ,וּלִפְּﬠַיַּו תוֹלֲﬠַל לֶא - ֹר שׁא הָה ;רָ ;רָ הָה שׁא ֹר nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and ןוֹרֲאַו תיִרְבּ - הָוהְי ,הֶשֹׁמוּ אֹל - וּשָׁמ וּשָׁמ .Moses, departed not out of the camp בֶרֶקִּמ .הֶנֲחַמַּה בֶרֶקִּמ Num 14:44

“And the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and Moses, departed not out of the camp”

The one in which the shards of the tablets were placed would embark and return with them when they went to war. Consequently, there were times that it would be seen among them.

8

And the Rabbis say: There was only one Ark, not two, kept in the Holy of Holies. And one time it went out with the nation to battle in the days of Eli and it was captured. The Gemara notes that a verse supports the opinion of the Rabbis: When the Philistines who captured the Ark saw it, they said:

Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of 8 ח וֹא י ָ ל נ וּ -- יִמ ,וּנֵליִצַּי דַיִּמ םיִהֱאָה םיִהֱאָה דַיִּמ ,וּנֵליִצַּי יִמ these mighty gods? these are the gods that smote the םיִריִדַּאָה :הֶלֵּאָה הֶלֵּא םֵה ,םיִהֱאָה ,םיִהֱאָה םֵה הֶלֵּא Egyptians with all manner of plagues and in the םיִכַּמַּה תֶא - םִיַרְצִמ לָכְבּ - הָכַּמ -- .רָבְּדִמַּבּ wilderness. I Sam 4:8

“Woe unto us! Who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty gods?”

It is clear that they were very frightened, and it would seem that this was due to the fact that the Ark was something that they had never seen in all their days.

Who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judah, sequestered it. Since he saw that it is written,

The LORD will bring thee, and thy king whom thou 36 ול לוֹי ֵ והְ י הָ תֹא ,ְ אְ ו תֶ - ְכְּלַמ רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא ְכְּלַמ shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not םיִקָתּ ,יֶלָﬠ לֶא - ,יוֹגּ רֶשֲׁ א ל ֹ א - ָתְּﬠַדָי ָתְּﬠַדָי known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou הָתַּא ;יֶתֹבֲאַו ָתְּדַבָﬠְו םָשּׁ םיִהֱא םיִהֱא םָשּׁ ָתְּדַבָﬠְו ;יֶתֹבֲאַו הָתַּא .serve other gods, wood and stone רֵחֲא ,םיִ ץֵﬠ .ןֶבָאָו ץֵﬠ ,םיִ רֵחֲא Deut 28:36

“The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation that you have not known, you nor your fathers”, he arose and sequestered it, so that it would not be sent into exile with the Jews.

9 ITEMS DESIGNATED FOR ONE FORM OF HEKDESH BEING USED FOR ANOTHER FORM OF HEKDESH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Mishnah (15a) describes the special "Lishkas ha'Kelim" ("chamber of vessels") into which vessels that were donated to the Beis ha'Mikdash were placed. Once every thirty days, the treasurers would open the Lishkas ha'Kelim and survey the vessels. Any vessels in the Lishkah that were needed for service in the Beis ha'Mikdash were left there to be used later, and the rest of the vessels, for which there was no need in the Beis ha'Mikdash, were taken out and sold, and the money was used for Bedek ha'Bayis.

The Gemara asks that this Mishnah contradicts the teaching of a Beraisa. The Beraisa says that items that were sanctified for Bedek ha'Bayis (Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis) may be used instead for the Mizbe'ach (which has a higher degree of sanctity than Bedek ha'Bayis). However, items that were sanctified for the Mizbe'ach (Kodshei Mizbe'ach) may not be used for Bedek ha'Bayis. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah here does not mean that the vessels, or the money received for them, are given to Bedek ha'Bayis, but rather they are given to the Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis.

What exactly is the Gemara's contradiction, and what is the Gemara's answer to that contradiction?

RABEINU MESHULAM explains that when the Beraisa says that one may "spend" ("Motzi") Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis for the use of the Mizbe'ach, this implies that one first must redeem the Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis and only then may he use the money for the Mizbe'ach. The actual object, however, may not be used for Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

The Gemara then questions this teaching from the Mishnah, which implies that a sanctified vessel may be used itself (without first being redeemed) when it is needed for any purpose of Bedek ha'Bayis, even though the vessels in the Lishkas ha'Kelim were presumably dedicated to be used for the Mizbe'ach. This implies that an item that was dedicated for the use of Bedek ha'Bayis certainly may be used for the Mizbe'ach without redemption. This contradicts the Beraisa. (The Gemara did not have the last few words that appear in our text of the Mishnah, "u'Demeihen Noflin l'Bedek ha'Bayis," which imply that the Kelim in the Lishkah were dedicated towards Bedek ha'Bayis and not to the Mizbe'ach.)

The Gemara answers that the Lishkas ha'Kelim contained vessels that were dedicated to be used for Bedek ha'Bayis, and not for the Mizbe'ach. Indeed, the vessels in that Lishkah may not be used for the Mizbe'ach unless they are first redeemed, since they were dedicated for Bedek ha'Bayis, as the Beraisa states. (The Gemara adds the words "u'Demeihen Noflin l'Bedek ha'Bayis" to the Mishnah, to make it clear that the Mishnah is saying that the items in the Lishkah were dedicated for Bedek ha'Bayis.)

1 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-015.htm

10 RAMBAM (see RADVAZ, Hilchos Erchin 2:13) and the TALMID SHEL RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR explain that when the Mishnah states, "The value falls to Bedek ha'Bayis," it implies that one may use objects designated for Bedek ha'Bayis only for purposes of Bedek ha'Bayis. If Bedek ha'Bayis has no use for a certain object, then that object may not be used for the Mizbe'ach, and the value of that object (when it is sold) also may not be used for the Mizbe'ach. This contradicts the Beraisa that says that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis may be used for Kodshei Mizbe'ach.

The Gemara answers that when the Mishnah says that the value of the vessels goes to Bedek ha'Bayis, it does not mean that the money is used for the maintenance of the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rather, it means that the money goes to the Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis; it goes back to the Lishkah in monetary form, as coins. Once it is back in the Lishkah, it may be used like any other money of Bedek ha'Bayis, either for actual Bedek ha'Bayis or for the Mizbe'ach.2

RA'AVAD (Hilchos Erchin 2:13, Hilchos Shekalim 4:10) rules that it is forbidden to use one type of Kodesh for another. It is even forbidden to use one type of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis for another type of Bedek ha'Bayis, and certainly it is forbidden to use it for the needs of the Mizbe'ach. Accordingly, the Beraisa which says that one may use Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis for the Mizbe'ach is difficult in its own right.

The Ra'avad implies that the Gemara is not asking that the Mishnah contradicts the Beraisa. Rather, the Gemara is strengthening the teaching expressed by the Beraisa. The Gemara demonstrates that the Mishnah also implies that one type of Hekdesh may be used for another type. Even though the vessels in the Lishkas ha'Kelim presumably were dedicated for Kodshei Mizbe'ach (as Rabeinu Meshulam explains in the Gemara's initial assumption), one still is permitted to take items from there and use them for Bedek ha'Bayis.

The Gemara then explains that this teaching applies only to the "Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis," which refers to the Lishkas ha'Kelim mentioned in the Mishnah. This Lishkas ha'Kelim was different from most other Lishkos of Bedek ha'Bayis. Although most of the money or objects in it were used for Bedek ha'Bayis, the treasury instituted a clear stipulation that any object donated to this Lishkah may be used for whatever type of Hekdesh might need it -- Bedek ha'Bayis or the Mizbe'ach. The items in the other Lishkos of Bedek ha'Bayis, however, may be used only for the purpose of Bedek ha'Bayis and not for any other purpose, even for another type of Bedek ha'Bayis. 3

The VILNA GA'ON suggests a similar approach (as explained by the TIKLIN CHADTIN). The Gemara inquires how one can be permitted to use vessels which were placed into the Lishkas ha'Kelim, and thus sanctified for Bedek ha'Bayis, for other purposes. He explains that the answer of the Gemara is not that the Lishkas ha'Kelim is different (as the Ra'avad says), but that one is permitted to take the value of an object sanctified for one type of Bedek ha'Bayis and use it for

2 The text of the Gemara of RABEINU SHLOMO SIRILIYO includes in the answer that the money goes "l'Tzorech Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis." He explains that the Gemara's answer is that the Mishnah refers to a situation in which the Bedek ha'Bayis needs funds. The money, however, may be used for the Mizbe'ach if the Mizbe'ach needs it.

3 According to the Ra'avad, the Gemara's answer, "l'Lishkas Bedek ha'Bayis," does not explain the Mishnah, but it explains the Beraisa that says that one may use an object from Bedek ha'Bayis for the Mizbe'ach.

11 another type of Bedek ha'Bayis, with one condition: when the item that was sanctified for Bedek ha'Bayis is sold, the money must be placed into a Lishkah of Bedek ha'Bayis, at which point it loses whatever specific designation it previously had. It may now be used for any type of Bedek ha'Bayis.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:4

While the Gemara’s method of communicating various teachings and rulings often involves lengthy dialogues and discussions, as well as detailed interpretations, of biblical verses, there are other times when just a few short words can communicate a profound message that are already embedded in the words of the Tanach.

A case in point can be found in our daf (Shekalim 15a) where, in a discussion about the sensitivity that must be shown when giving charity, Rabbi Yona refers to Psalm 41:2 and notes that it does – יֵרְשַׁא ְשַׂמ ליִכּ לֶא לָדּ ,praised be the one who gives to the poor’, but rather‘ – יֵרְשַׁא ןֵתוֹנ לָדְל not say ‘praised be the one who contemplates the poor’. As he explains, this comes to teach us that part of carefully - לֵכַּתְּסִמ הָוְצִמַּבּ ַאיֵה הָּתוֹשֲׂﬠַל the mitzvah of giving to others requires that we should contemplate how to give while maintaining the dignity of the recipient.

Admittedly, it could be argued that Rabbi Yona did not say anything new. Ultimately, it seems in that verse to highlight ליִכְּשַׂמ לֶא that all he did was put a metaphorical line under the words of their significance. Given this, the question we should consider is how was it that only Rabbi Yona noticed what should seemingly have been clear to all people?

The answer, I believe, is found in the following lines of the Gemara when we are told that Rabbi Yona was highly sensitive to maintaining the dignity of those whom he helped, and how he found creative ways to give financial assistance to those in need, without them feel like they were in need.

Understood this way, the reason why Rabbi Yona noticed this message embedded in Psalms is being a יֵרְשַׁא ליִכְּשַׂמ לֶא לָדּ because it beckoned him and spoke deeply to him. Rather than the words quaint moral teaching whose nuanced message may have been lost on some people, these words were a form of calling to Rabbi Yona, as well as an affirmation of Rabbi Yona, concerning the way he performed his acts of lovingkindness.

We often think that since the words in our Tanach are the same, then we must obviously read them the same. Yet what is so extraordinary about the experience of learning Tanach as well as many other great works, is that different words beckon and speak to different people in different tones. And this is why Torah learning is so rewarding, because – as has been said many times – just as when we pray we talk to God; when we study Torah, God talks to us.

4 https://rabbijohnnysolomon.com/

12

The Hidden Ark

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The first Mishna of the sixth perek appears on our daf, and it teaches about 13 collection boxes – referred to as shofarot because of their shape – that were in the Temple, a number of which were for the deposit of shekalim. The Mishna continues with a description of other times there were 13 things in the, including shulhanot (tables) and hishtahavayot (times that the people bowed down). The Mishna records another tradition kept by Rabban Gamliel’s family, who bowed down fourteen times. They bowed down an extra time near the storage house for wood because of the tradition that the aron – the Ark of the Covenant – was hidden there.

During the first Temple period, there was a rock in the kodesh kodashim, called the even ha- shetiya (foundation stone), upon which rested the aron, together with a container of manna (see Ex 16:33-34) and Aharon ha-Kohen’s staff (see Num 17:16-24). During the Second Temple the Mikdash operated without an ark. When the kohen gadol (high priest) entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, the service was performed in the place of the ark, even though there was none there. The ark was hidden by King Yoshiyahu towards the end of the first Temple period. During his reign, a copy of Sefer Devarim was discovered that was interpreted by Hulda ha-nevi’ah as warning of the destruction of the kingdom (see II Kings 22-23). According to the Radak, the discovered scroll was open to the passage (Deut 28:36) that foretold of the exile, and the king, fearing that if the ark was taken into exile it would never return, chose to hide it on the grounds of the Mikdash (see II Chron 35:3).

The mishna relates that there was an incident involving a certain priest who was going about his duties and saw a certain flagstone that was different from the others. He noticed that one of the stones was slightly raised above the others, indicating that it had been removed and returned to its place. The priest understood that this was the opening to an underground tunnel where the Ark was concealed. He came and said to his fellow that he had noticed this deviation in the floor. He did not manage to conclude relating the incident before his soul left him, i.e., he died. Following this event, they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there and that God had prevented that priest from revealing its location.

It should be noted that there is an opinion that the aron was also taken into exile to Babylon, based on II Chron 36:10, which describes that the keli hemdat bet ha-Shem (goodly vessel of the house of Hashem) was taken there.

5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20015.pdf

13

The Noda B’Yehuda was asked whether it is permitted to store old and worn out Sifrei Torah which will never be used again in the same Aron HaKodesh which is designated for the useful and functional Sifrei Torah. Is this a form of disrespect for the Torah scrolls which are intact? Together with the inquiry, the questioner included a few thoughts on the matter. On the one hand, our Gemara tells us that the broken pieces of the first luchos, which were obviously dysfunctional, were included in the Aron with the second luchos, which were intact.

On the other hand, this may not be relevant to our question, for the first tablets were the very handiwork of Hashem, and this may be why the broken pieces deserved the honor of being together with the second tablets. A Sefer Torah which is worn and unreadable might not have the same stature and may not be worthy of being stored in the Aron HaKodesh. The Noda B’Yehuda answered that there is, in fact, no proof to be brought from the positioning of the broken pieces of the first luchos.

The ark which was used was originally built having in mind that the pieces of the first luchos would be placed inside, together with the second luchos. Such a condition is halachically valid, as we find in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 42:3). Therefore, he concludes that this would not be takes issue with the Noda B’Yehuda. Hashem commanded that ( ב ת )#וש ”97 יצ ו ן י ן .acceptable the broken pieces be placed in the Aron next to the second luchos. The custom throughout Klal Yisroel is to place worn-out sefarim in the Aron Kodesh, and this custom constitutes a situation as if the Aron was built in order to contain all these sefarim. Furthermore, Sefer Chasidim also writes that this custom is allowed. Based upon these considerations, storage of old Sifrei Torah is allowed in this manner.

He does note, however, that the assumption that the broken pieces were together in the same ark with the second luchos is not agreed upon. Our Gemara in the Yerushalmi brings this as a dispute, with Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish saying that there were two arks. Rashi in Chumash (Deut 10:1) even uses this approach. Yet because the Bavli (Bava Basra 14b) assumes the position that there was only one ark, we can draw our inference regarding the propriety of placing all Sifrei Torah together in the Aron HaKodesh.

Rabbi Seth Goren writes:6

Rabbi Yona said: “Happy is one who gives to the poor” is not written here, but rather “Happy is he who considers the poor” (Psalms 41:2) is written. This indicates that one must consider his actions carefully and act wisely in giving charity. This refers to one who scrutinizes the mitzvah of charity and performs it with consideration.

This principle, that charitable giving should preserve the dignity of the recipient, echoes through Jewish tradition and texts. Perhaps most famously, Maimonides (eight levels of tzedakah) regards anonymous giving and receiving as particularly commendable because this dual anonymity — both giver and receiver are unknown to one another — protects the dignity of the recipient.

6 Myjewishlearning.com

14

Protecting the dignity of others is in fact a theme throughout rabbinic literature. But sometimes the means to achieving it are complicated, as the following story illustrates:

Rabbi Hoshaya the Great was the master (i.e. teacher) of the son of a certain blind man and was accustomed to eat with the blind man every day. Once Rabbi Hoshaya had guests, and he did not invite the blind man to eat with him. In the evening, Rabbi Hoshaya went up to visit the blind man and said to him: “I request that my master not be angry with me, as I had guests today. I therefore said to myself that I will not invite you today, so as not to demean my master’s dignity. For this reason, I did not eat with my master today.”

Commentaries explain that the blind man often dropped food on himself and Rabbi Hoshaya wished to spare him the embarrassment of doing so in front of other guests. However good Rabbi Hoshaya’s intentions, I read this and cringe. Citing the blind man’s dignity as a basis for excluding him from the meal flies in the face of contemporary sensibilities of inclusion and equity. It’s difficult to accept the reasoning: I thought other people might make fun of you, so I decided not to invite you at all. He even seems to know it, which is why he approaches the blind man with repeated entreaties of “my master” and offers something between an excuse and a non-apology.

Which makes the blind man’s response surprising:

The blind man said to him: Since you appeased one who is seen but does not see, the Holy One, who sees but is not seen, should accept your appeasement.

The blind man is quite content with Rabbi Hoshaya’s actions and offers him an eloquent blessing!

If we take the blind man at his word and accept the principle that marginalized people themselves get to decide what constitutes their dignity, perhaps then it is wrong of us to find Rabbi Hoshaya’s approach so lacking. Perhaps we should not judge based on contemporary standards for inclusion. And to his credit, Rabbi Hoshaya broaches the subject directly with the blind man himself (after the fact, but still). And yet, I am still profoundly uncomfortable with Rabbi Hoshaya’s behavior, and it’s hard to see how he merits the beautiful praise that the blind man bestows.

As we reach toward greater inclusion, always keeping in view that each person is created B’tzelem Elohim, in the image of God, perhaps what we can take from this story is a reminder that we ourselves can and should do better, in part through willingness to have difficult conversations and act in ways we may find challenging so that we can be sure we are respecting the dignity of others.

Where is the Ark of the Covenant Today?7

Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld writes:8

7 Translated by Daniel Landman 8 https://www.aish.com/atr/Where-is-the-Ark-of-the-Covenant-Today.html

15 The Talmud (Yoma 52b, 53b-54a) explains that the Ark was actually removed from the Temple quite early, at the end of the First Temple era – and the Second Temple never had one.

According to one opinion it was taken to Babylonia at the time Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem and exiled King Jeconiah and the upper classes. (He then placed Jeconiah’s uncle Zedekiah on the throne for another eleven years, until the final invasion and the Temple’s destruction.) This is implied by II Chronicles 36:10 which states that King Nebuchadnezzar exiled Jeconiah to Babylonia “with the precious utensils of House of God.” (See also Isaiah 39:6.)

According to a second opinion, the righteous King Josiah, knowing that the Temple would shortly be destroyed, had the Ark hidden away. (Some of the other special items which had been kept with the Ark were also hidden – such as the jar of Manna (Exodus 16:32-34), the anointing oil (Exodus 30:22-33), and Aaron’s staff which had blossomed (Numbers 17:25).)

Where was the Ark hidden? We have no tradition that it ended up in Ethiopia (as is claimed by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church), and it certainly wasn’t placed in a warehouse in Washington D.C. Rather, the Talmud records the following incident:

A Priest was once in one of the side chambers of the Temple, designated for the storage of wood. He noticed a stone which had clearly been tampered with (and wasn’t aligned with the others). He suspected that the Ark had been hidden there. He ran over to tell his fellow but died suddenly before he could complete his account. (Thus, it became known roughly where the Ark was hidden but not precisely, and the people understood that its whereabouts was intended to remain secret.)

Another opinion in the Talmud states that the Ark was hidden in its place in the Holy of Holies, in the ground underneath it.

Some of the commentators state that King Solomon himself, knowing his Temple would ultimately be destroyed, designed a complex arrangement of tunnels beneath the Temple grounds in order to hide the Ark of the Covenant should the Temple be destroyed. It was there that Josiah later hid it. (See Radak to II Chronicles 35:3 and Maimonides Mishne Torah Beit HaBechira 4:1. See also Talmud Sotah 9a that the entire Tabernacle of Moses was likewise hidden in the tunnels beneath the Temple Mount.) There have been some efforts to excavate this area in modern times, but very few and with little success due to the politically contentious nature of the area.

A final opinion, cited in the Book of Maccabees II 2:4-10, is that the Prophet Jeremiah, knowing the Babylonians would soon invade, took the Ark and several other sacred items out of the Temple and hid them in a cave on Mount Nebo, in present-day Jordan. This is the mountain which Moses years earlier ascended to view the Holy Land just before he died.

As mentioned above, the Second Temple did not have the Ark of the Covenant. In fact, this was one of a number of items which the Talmud (Yoma 21b) states the Second Temple lacked. Others were the Divine Presence (Shechinah) and the Urim and Thummim – parchment containing God’s name which was placed inside the fold of the High Priest’s breastplate. It was still possible to do the Temple service without these, but the Temple did not have the same degree of sanctity. God

16 willing, when the Third Temple is rebuilt, it will include the Ark and all the sacred items stolen or missing since antiquity.

The Ark of the Covenant – illustration from circa 1900

Where is the Ark of the Covenant?

Prof. Yoel Elitzur writes:9

The crowning glory of the Mishkan and its vessels, the focal point that exemplifies more than anything else the presence of the Shekhina within Israel, is the Ark of the Covenant, also

9 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/parashat-vayakhel-pekudei-where-ark-covenant

17 known as the Ark of the Testimony. Located in the Holy of Holies, the Ark was plated with gold inside and out and contained both the tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed and a Torah scroll (Deuteronomy 31:26). The word of God emanated from atop the Ark, where the golden cover and cherubim were situated, as the Torah states: “There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you – from above the cover, from between the two cherubim” (Exodus 25:22). The High Priest would burn the incense between the two poles once a year (Yoma 5a). Chazal regarded the Ark and the cherubim as the pinnacle of the intimate connection between God and Israel. The Talmud describes the poles of the Ark:

They pressed forth and protruded as the two breasts of a woman, as it is said: “My beloved to me is a bag of myrrh lodged between my breasts” (Song of Songs 1:13). Rav Kattina said: “Whenever Israel came up to the Festival, the curtain would be removed for them and the cherubim were shown to them, whose bodies were intertwisted with one another, and they would be thus addressed: ‘Look! You are beloved before God as the love between a man and a woman.’” (Yoma 54a)

What happened to the Ark of the Covenant? Does it still exist?

The Ark of the Covenant Today?

The Christian residents of Ethiopia are certain that the Ark does exist there today, inside a church in the holy city of Axum in northern Ethiopia. A guardian monk is charged with the care of the Ark, and even he only enters the chamber that houses the Ark on rare occasions. According to an Abyssinian legend, the Ark was brought to Axum by Menelik, the son of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba. Solomon prepared an exact replica of the Ark for Menelik, but at the last second the original was switched with the replica. Menelik took the original Ark with him and Solomon was left with the replica… Replicas of the Ark are a central motif in Abyssinian Christianity; they are known as tabot[1] and are found in churches throughout Ethiopia. Every year, on January 19, members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church conduct large processions surrounding tabot arks. The arks are concealed from view, so that those who are “unfit” do not gaze upon it. These processions open the ceremonies of the festival of Timqat, which lasts three days. The ark in Axum is brought out as well, in a closely guarded procession; it is wrapped in cloths on all sides.

From a critical perspective, it may be speculated that this tradition of the “true” Ark of the Covenant originated with the custom of creating symbolic replicas of the Ark and distributing them during the public religious celebrations. It is only natural that in the most ancient and central church in the land, greater effort was invested into creating and preserving an accurate replica of the Ark. Over time, people likely became so convinced of this replica’s authenticity that they began to attribute it to Bezalel son of Uri and King Solomon. Note that even in the Menelik legend itself, there is uncertainty as to which ark is the original and which is the replica.

One of the most famous films of the twentieth century was dedicated to the riddle of the current location of the Ark of the Covenant. The film was Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark, which became an international sensation in 1981. In this suspense-filled action film, the brave

18 and adventurous Indiana Jones saves the beautiful daughter of his mentor from the clutches of the Nazis, who were pursuing her because she possessed the means of unlocking the Ark of the Covenant. By the end of a plot that takes its characters around the globe, traversing exotic locales and exciting landscapes, all the while battling the Nazis and their agents, the forces of good finally triumph over the forces of evil. The Nazis are prevented from obtaining the Ark and using it for their nefarious aims. The film ends with a brilliant comic twist: The American victors transport the Ark, covered in a military tarpaulin, to an enormous army warehouse, where a busy worker attaches a tag to the Ark and places it in an infinite pile of similar-looking crates. There, the Ark is seemingly lost once again – forever.

Second Temple Period

Legends attempting to solve the mystery of the fate of the Ark of the Covenant existed during ancient times as well. II Maccabees 2 cites an even earlier book, which relates that shortly before the destruction of the Temple, Jeremiah was commanded to take the Tent of Meeting, the Ark of the Covenant and the Incense Altar, and hide them in a cave in Mount Nebo. Jeremiah rebuked the people who wanted to mark the path to this cave, informing them that the location must remain hidden until the day comes when the glory of God will reveal itself in a cloud, as it did for Moses and Solomon. This story also found its way into Josippon, a Hebrew rendering of selections from Josephus’ writings, with various additions from the early Medieval period. In the version of the legend found in Josippon, the ending is slightly different:

The priests in those days chased after Jeremiah in order to find the location [of the Ark]. Jeremiah looked to his rear and saw the priests, and he became enraged, and he swore, saying: “This place will not become known until I and Elijah, the servant of God, return. Then, we will restore the Ark to its place in the Holy of Holies, under the wings of the cherubim.”

In II Baruch 6, another pseudepigraphic work,[2] a different story appears. Here, the story is attributed to Baruch son of Neriah, who speaks in the first person:

And it came to pass on the morrow that the army of the Chaldeans surrounded the city… Suddenly a strong wind raised me and bore me aloft over the wall of Jerusalem. And I beheld four angels standing at the four corners of the city, each of them holding a torch of fire in his hands. And another angel began to descend from heaven and said to them: “Hold your lamps, and do not light them until I tell you. For I am first sent to speak a word to the earth, and to place in it what the Lord the Most High has commanded me.” And I saw him descend into the Holy of Holies, and take from there the curtain, and holy ephod, and the cover, and the two tables, and the holy raiment of the priests, and the altar of incense and the forty-eight precious stones, which adorned the High Priest[3] and all the holy vessels of the Mishkan.

And he spoke to the earth with a loud voice: “Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, and receive what I deposit to you, and guard them until the end times, so that, when you are ordered, you may restore them, so that strangers may not get possession of them….” And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up.

19

A Tannaitic Dispute

Three different positions regarding the fate of the Ark can be found in rabbinic sources, one of which is based on an aggada as well. Thus, we read in Shekalim 6:

There were in the temple… thirteen prostrations. [Members] of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests used to prostrate themselves fourteen [times]. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the store of wood,[4] for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the Ark was hidden there.

It once happened that a certain priest who was busy [there] noticed that the pavement was different [there] from the others. He went and told his fellow, but before he had time to finish his words his soul departed. Then it became known with certainty that the Ark was hidden there.[5]

Despite this aggada, the other sages – including the first opinion in the same mishna, which enumerates only thirteen prostrations – either did not believe the veracity of the story or did not take it into account in their ruling. Perhaps they believed that the priest in the story simply died of a sudden heart attack, unconnected to the problem of the Ark’s location. If so, according to them, what was the eventual fate of the Ark?

The Talmud states: “Rabbi Eliezer said, ‘The Ark went into exile to Babylonia….’ Rabbi Judah son of Lakish said, ‘The Ark was hidden in its own place’” (Yoma 53b; Tosefta Shekalim 2; Baraita De-melekhet Ha-Mishkan 7). Rabbi Judah son of Lakish only appears rarely in the Talmud, and as a result, in some parallel versions his name was erroneously rendered as Rabbi Judah son of Ilai or Rabbi Simeon son of Lakish. According to one baraita in the Talmud Bavli, Rabbi Simeon son of Yohai maintained that the Ark was “hidden in its own place” as well, but according to a different baraita in the Bavli and according to the Tosefta, Rabbi Simeon actually supported Rabbi Eliezer’s position. It is interesting to note that the Tosefta opted to omit entirely the opinion that the Ark was hidden in the store of wood, despite the fact that the whole discussion of the fate of the Ark came about as a result of the dispute over the thirteen prostrations. The Bavli cites the Tannaitic dispute in connection to the passage in the mishna, “After the Ark had been taken away…,” pointing out that “the mishna does not teach ‘after the Ark had been hidden away,’ but ‘after the Ark had been taken away’ – this is in accord with him who holds that the Ark went into exile to Babylonia.”

All agree that during the Second Temple period there was no Ark: “In five things the First Temple differed from the Second: in the Ark, the cover, the cherubim,[6] the fire, the Shekhina, the Holy Spirit and the Urim Ve-Tummim (Yoma 21b and parallels). In contrast to the other vessels in the Temple, the Ark could not be constructed anew, since the most important part of the Ark is the tablets that it is meant to contain. “And even though Solomon made a pattern for all the vessels, he did not make a pattern for the Ark” (Baraita De-melekhet Ha-Mishkan 7).

The question is when and how the Ark disappeared.

20 Those who maintain that the Ark was exiled to Babylonia are supported by the words of Isaiah: “nothing will remain behind” (II Kings 20:17; Isaiah 39:6) and by the description of the exile of Jehoiachin: “At the turn of the year, King Nebuchadnezzar sent to have him brought to Babylon with the precious vessels of the House of the Lord” (II Chronicles 36:10). Those who maintain that the Ark was hidden in its own place rely on the description of the Ark in Solomon’s Temple in the book of Kings: “The priests brought the Ark of the Lord’s Covenant to its place… the cherubim shielded the Ark… the poles were long… and there they remain to this day” (I Kings 8:6-8). According to this approach, the phrase “to this day” should be interpreted to mean until the time at which the book of Kings was written and redacted following the destruction of the Temple.[7] Those who follow Rabbi Eliezer’s position must respond that “to this day” was written as a description of Solomon’s Temple during an earlier period, and the line was simply copied verbatim into the book of Kings.

According to a different baraita (Tosefta Sota 13:1; Bavli Yoma 52b; Yerushalmi Shekalim 6:2; and parallels), Josiah hid the Ark. (The baraita does not explicate whether he hid the Ark in the store of wood or in some other place.) The baraita cites a unique verse in support of this theory – part of the description of Josiah’s preparations for Passover in Jerusalem: “He said to the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel, ‘Put the Holy Ark in the House that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built; as you no longer carry it on your shoulders’” (II Chronicles 35:3).

The baraita explains: “What was his reason for hiding it? He saw the passage, ‘The Lord will drive you, and the king you have set over you’ (Deuteronomy 28:36) – therefore he hid it.” The verse in Chronicles is difficult to understand. According to the commentary attributed to Rashi, Manasseh and Amon, in their wickedness, removed the Ark and put their idols in its place. As a result, Josiah ordered that the Ark be returned to its place.[8] However, Radak (who cited this explanation) took issue with it: Why did Josiah wait? Why did he not return the Ark to its place immediately, just as he removed the idol from the House of the Lord? The words “you no longer carry it on your shoulders” have generally not been interpreted satisfactorily by both the classical and modern commentators. The baraita explains that Josiah is commanding the Levites to hide the Ark in the place that had been designated for this purpose from the time of Solomon, interpreting the words “you no longer carry it on your shoulders” to mean, “He said to them, ‘If it is exiled with you to Babylonia, you will no longer return it to its place.’”

Both Rishonim and Acharonim marshaled textual support for Chazal’s interpretation. Rosh, in his Tosafot, noted the unique emphasis in the words, “the House that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built,” explaining that this hints at a special construction commissioned by Solomon for the purpose of hiding the Ark. Tosefot Rosh goes on to explain that the words “the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel” indicate that certain exceptionally pious priests and Levites were charged with preserving the knowledge of the Ark’s secret location, transmitting this secret from generation to generation. Maharsha inferred from Josiah’s choice of the words “put the Holy Ark,” rather than “return the Holy Ark,” that the command was to move the Ark to a new location, a place where it had not been previously. Chida speculated that even those who maintain that the Ark was exiled to Babylonia agree that the verse in Chronicles indicates that the Ark was hidden during the time of Josiah, only to later be discovered by Israel’s enemies (as a result of the people’s sins) and fall into their hands.

21 Modern Scholarship

Like the early exegetes, today’s scholars are similarly divided over the question of the Ark of the Covenant’s fate. Some maintain that the Ark was looted and exiled to Babylonia. In addition to the verses that Chazal cited in support of this position, modern scholars cited the verse, “He did not remember His Footstool on His day of wrath” (Lamentations 2:1). This, however, is not a particularly strong proof that the Ark was exiled, as “His Footstool” could be a reference to the Temple as a whole, or even to the city of Jerusalem. Menahem Haran claimed, in support of the second approach, that such a valuable and symbolic object would certainly have been mentioned explicitly in the list of the spoils of Nebuzaradan (II Kings 25; Jeremiah 52) if it had been taken to Babylonia.[9] Yehuda Kiel was another scholar who maintained that the Ark was hidden. He suggested an original explanation for the verses in Chronicles, in particular regarding “the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel.” According to Kiel, during the time of Manasseh the Ark was situated in the Holy of Holies alongside a statue of Asherah that Manasseh had erected (II Kings 21:7). A group of bold god-fearing Levites entered the Holy of Holies surreptitiously in the middle of the night, smuggled away the Ark and hid it in a secret location known only to them and their close friends. The verse in Chronicles relates that Josiah instructed these Levites to move the Ark from where they had concealed it to a different secret location that had been set aside for this purpose from the time of Solomon.

My father, z”l, lectured on this topic at the 12th World Congress of Jewish Studies in 1997 (a few months before he passed away), and the lecture was later published in the Congress’s proceedings and in a collection of his articles. He focused on a prophecy that appears toward the beginning of the book of Jeremiah that is difficult to understand:

And when you increase and are fertile in the land, in those days – declares the Lord – men shall no longer speak of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, nor shall it come to mind. They shall not mention it, or miss it, or make another. (Jeremiah 3:16)

This is a prophecy of consolation, describing the ideal state of things that will be in the future. But why should the people forget the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord? Why does Jeremiah stress this so emphatically – “Men shall no longer speak… nor shall it come to mind. They shall not mention it, or miss it, or make another”?

Some commentators focused on the connection between this prophecy and Jeremiah’s rebuke in chapter 7:

Don’t put your trust in illusions and say, “The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these [buildings]”… therefore I will do to the House which bears My name… just what I did to Shiloh. (7:4, 14)

In other words, Jeremiah is denouncing the approach that held that the Temple was indestructible due to its holiness – that God would not allow it to be destroyed.

According to my father, z”l, Jeremiah’s prophecy in chapter 3 contains much more than this. If we read between the lines of the prophecy, we can discern the deep, real-life conflict that

22 existed in the nation at the time regarding the Ark. Some believed that the Temple was no longer a secure place. Since the Temple would likely fall into enemy hands, as they claimed, the prudent course of action would be to preemptively conceal the nation’s prized possession – the Ark of the Covenant – in a secret and secure location. In contrast, others believed that the Temple, and in particular the Ark, were so supremely holy that they could never be harmed. Jeremiah stresses that the Sanctuary itself is not protected simply because God’s name is invoked in connection with it. Rather, its continued existence within the nation depends on the actions of the people and considering the actions of the people at the time, this did not bode well for the Temple.

Josephus records a surprising tradition: When Hasmonean leader John Hyrcanus found himself in financial distress, he took out three thousand silver talents from the treasures of King David’s sepulcher (Antiquities 13:249). It is clear that the treasures preserved in King David’s sepulcher would not have survived Nebuzaradan’s plundering at the time of the Temple’s destruction had they not been concealed in a hiding place whose location was known to only a select few. My father points out that King Manasseh of Judah changed the official burial site of the royal house, and as a result, he, his son and apparently his grandson Josiah as well were all buried in this new site: the garden of Uzza. Paradoxically, and in contrast to other kings who were more righteous than he was, Manasseh was the only king who followed the diplomatic policies advocated by the prophets. The prophets consistently preached fealty to the dominant superpower, encouraging kings to avoid misguided pacts and adventurous foreign policy. By following the advice of the prophets in this regard, Manasseh merited fifty-five years of continuous reign. My father estimates that Manasseh began a systematic operation to hide the royal treasures, among them the Ark.[10]

These actions, my father claims, garnered blessing from Jeremiah, and Josiah continued in his grandfather’s path in this regard as well. My father cites two important archaeological findings that, according to his interpretation, reflect a policy of hiding holy sites and artifacts during the time of Josiah: the tumuli west of Jerusalem and the Israelite temple and altars in Arad. According to this approach, the verse in Chronicles refers to a temporary removal of the Ark from its hiding place by the faithful priests and Levites who were charged with preserving the secret location of the royal treasures, and its placement in the Holy of Holies for the great Passover observance in Jerusalem. All the while, however, the intent was to return the Ark to its hiding place at the conclusion of the festival.

Rambam’s Position

I will conclude this discussion with a surprising ruling found in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah:

When Solomon built the Temple, he was aware that it would ultimately be destroyed. [Therefore,] he constructed a chamber, in which the Ark could be entombed below [the Holy of Holies] in deep, maze-like vaults. King Josiah commanded that [the Ark] be entombed in the chamber built by Solomon, as it is said: “He said to the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel, ‘Put the Holy Ark in the House that Solomon son of David, king of Israel, built…’” (II Chronicles 35:3). (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira 4:1)

23 This is unusual, as Rambam generally does not rule on historical questions in Mishneh Torah, including the interpretation of texts and even halakhic questions that were only relevant in the past (such as the permissibility of the bamot), unless there is some practical halakhic implication for the present or the future, or if the question touches on a fundamental foundation of faith. In light of this, why did Rambam choose to rule with such certainty in our case, weighing in on what amounts to a Tannaitic historical dispute?

It is likely that the reason behind this ruling can be found in the Talmud Yerushalmi:

Rabbi Yassa said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “This is the rule – whenever the Ark is within [the Sanctuary], the bamot are forbidden; when it has left [the Sanctuary], the bamot are permitted.” Rabbi Ze’ira asked Rabbi Yassa: “Even [when the Ark has left the Sanctuary] temporarily, as in the case of Eli?” (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:12)

In the style of the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Ze’ira’s question that was seemingly left unanswered serves as its own conclusion: Indeed, even when the Ark leaves the Sanctuary temporarily, the bamot become permitted. Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, in his Meshekh Chokhma commentary on Parashat Re’eh, expanded on this notion, using it to explain the apparent violation of the prohibition on bamot during the Shiloh period. According to him, during the time of the Mishkan in Shiloh, the Ark would be removed regularly from its place to be present at national gatherings elsewhere, and sometimes it would even remain in those other locations for extended periods of time. During those periods when the Ark was absent from the Mishkan in Shiloh, claims the Meshekh Chokhma, the bamot were permitted.

Now we can return to Rambam’s unusual ruling. In a different, well-known statement that is accepted as the normative halakha, Rambam rules that the “first consecration” performed by Solomon in Jerusalem applied “for that time and for eternity” (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira 6:14). This ruling has several halakhic implications, both positive – we can offer sacrifices on the Temple site even without the Temple itself; we can eat the “most holy” sacrifices even without the “hangings” of the Courtyard; we can eat sacrifices of lesser sanctity and ma’aser sheni even without the wall surrounding Jerusalem (Mishna Eduyot 8:6; Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira 6:15) – and negative – the impure may not enter the area of the Courtyard; and bamot are prohibited outside of Jerusalem. In order to reconcile this ruling with the statement of the Yerushalmi, Rambam was forced to rule in accordance with Rabbi Judah son of Lakish – the Ark was hidden in its own place![11] If so, according to Rambam the Ark is still in its original location, waiting for us in the depths of the Holy of Holies, beneath the Foundation Stone in Jerusalem.

For further study:

Chida, Sha’ar Yosef on Horayot 104b [Hebrew]. (http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19259&st=&pgnum=223&hilite=)

Yehudah Elitzur, “Pulmus Aron Ha-berit Bi-yemei Yoshiyahu,” Israel and the Bible, Ramat-Gan 2000, 230-234 [Hebrew].

D. Flusser, The Josippon, 1, Jerusalem 1981, 45 [Hebrew].

M. Haran, “The Removal of the Ark of Covenant,” Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 25, Jerusalem 1961, 211-223 [Hebrew].

24

Y. Kiel, Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim II, Da’at Mikra, 917-918 [Hebrew].

Wikipedia entries: “Ark of the Covenant,” “Axum,” “Indiana Jones,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.

[1] Compare to the Hebrew teva; the Aramaic tēvōta found in Targum Onkelos, the Palestinian Targumim and the Samaritan

Targum; and the Arabic tābūt.

[2] This book was most likely written originally in Hebrew; it was preserved in Greek.

[3] This number apparently included the clappers within the bells on the robe of the ephod.

[4] This was located in the northeast section of the court of the women (Midot 2:5).

[5] A different version reads “He struck it with a hammer, and a fire came out and burned him” (Yerushalmi Shekalim 6; cf. Yoma 54a).

[6] Rashi explains that the Ark, the cover and the cherubim were all considered one “thing.”

[7] The Talmud (Yoma 54a) rejects Ulla’s position that “‘until this day’ means everywhere ‘forever,’” but cannot reject the words of the baraita that cited this verse.

[8] This interpretation does not fit Chazal’s attitude mentioned above that this verse refers to hiding the ark.

[9] It should be noted, however, that the golden vessels taken to Babylonia were mentioned in the account of the exile of Jehoiachin without naming each vessel individually, whereas Nebuzaradan’s list from the exile of Zedekiah primarily included copper vessels.

[10] It should not come as a surprise that Manasseh, who famously worshiped many gods, would show respect to the Ark and the

God of Israel, as polytheists generally do not object to worshiping an additional god.

[11] Incidentally, Rabbi Yohanan who authored the above statement in the Yerushalmi ruled explicitly in the Bavli that the prohibition on bamot applies even today, because the first consecration applies for eternity (Zevachim 107b).

25

26 HIDING AWAY THE ARK10

Rav Yitzchak Levy writes:11

Introduction What happened to the ark of the covenant after the destruction of the Temple? Was it taken into captivity to Babylonia?

II Melakhim 25 contains a list of vessels that Nevuchadnetzar's general, Nevuzaradan, took to Babylonia, but the ark is not mentioned among them. It is reasonable to assume that had the ark been taken to Babylonia, it would surely have been recorded at the top of the list of booty. It may therefore be presumed that the ark was no longer in its place when the Temple was destroyed, but rather had been removed beforehand.

When was the ark removed, by whom, and for what reason? We will try to answer these questions over the course of this shiur.

Yoshiyahu's Hiding away of the ark

The gemara in Yoma (52b) states:

Who hid it [the ark]? Yoshiyahu hid it. What was his reason for hiding it? He saw the Scriptural passage: "The Lord will bring you and your King whom you shall set over you" (Devarim 28:36). Therefore, he hid it, as it is stated: "And he said to the Levites, who taught all Israel, that were holy unto the Lord: ‘Put the holy ark into the house which Shlomo, the son of David, King of Israel did build. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders now. Serve now the Lord your God and His people Israel’" (II Divrei Ha- yamim 35:3).

According to this gemara, Yoshiyahu feared that Israel would go into exile, and he therefore hid the ark.[1]

What led the gemara to expound these verses as referring to the hiding away of the ark? The answer to this question seems be connected to a difficulty in understanding the plain sense of the verse. Yoshiyahu told the Levites, "Put the holy ark into the house which Shlomo, the son of

10 Translated by David Strauss

11 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-170-hiding-away-ark

27 David, King of Israel did build." But that was the ark's location ever since King Shlomo brought the ark there![2] Moreover, is it not clear to all that it was Shlomo who built the Temple?

The Tosafot Rosh (Horayot 12a) explains that when King Shlomo built the Temple, he knew by way of the holy spirit that it would eventually be destroyed and that Israel would be exiled from their land. He therefore prepared a space under the Temple to entomb the ark there so that it should not fall into the hands of any other nation. When Yoshiyahu found the Torah scroll and understood that the time of Israel's exile was approaching, he ordered that the ark be hidden away in that place, together with the other holy articles that were with it. This is what Yoshiyahu meant when he said: "Put the holy ark – i.e., hide it away – into the house which Shlomo, the son of David, King of Israel did build – i.e., in the hiding place which he had prepared.” According to this understanding, the location of the hiding place was not known to all; only the pious among the priests and the Levites were familiar with it by way of a tradition that had been passed down from generation to generation. Therefore, Yoshiyahu assigned the mission of hiding the ark to the Levites, who knew the hiding place's location and were holy to God.

In similar fashion, the Rambam writes in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira (4:1):

The ark was placed on a stone in the western portion of the Holy of Holies. The vial of manna and Aharon's staff were placed before it. When Shlomo built the Temple, he was aware that it would ultimately be destroyed. [Therefore,] he constructed a chamber in which the ark could be hidden below [the Temple building], in deep, maze-like vaults. King Yoshiyahu commanded that [the ark] be hidden in the chamber built by Shlomo, as it is stated: "And he said to the Levites, who taught all Israel, who were holy unto the Lord: ‘Put the holy ark into the house which Shlomo, the son of David, King of Israel did build. There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders now. Serve now the Lord your God’" (II Divrei Ha-yamim 35:3). When it was hidden away, Aharon's staff, the vial of manna, and the oil used for anointing were hidden away with it. All these [sacred articles] did not return in the Second Temple…[3]

It appears from the Rambam that already at the time that the Temple was built, Shlomo knew that it would eventually be destroyed, and he therefore prepared a special chamber in which to hide away the ark in the depths of the Temple Mount.[4]

Parallel to the gemara in Yoma and Horayot, there is a Tosefta in tractate Yoma (13:1) that adds as follows:

When Yoshiyahu came, he hid away the ark, along with the vial of manna, the vial of oil used for anointing, and the staff of Aharon… He said to them: Hide it away, so that it not go out into exile to Babylonia like the rest of the vessels.

28 According to all these sources, after King Yoshiyahu found the Torah scroll and understood that the exile to Babylonia was quickly approaching, he commanded that the ark should be hidden away so that it not go out into exile together with the people.

Menashe's Removal of the ark

In his commentary to II Divrei Ha-yamim (38:3), Yehuda Kil states as follows:

We surmise that the ark, together with the book of the Torah that was deposited alongside it, was removed by a few God-fearing (as they are called here "holy unto the Lord") priests and Levites after Menashe brought a graven image into the Sanctuary, and it was hidden away where it was hidden away. According to this, it may be suggested that after King Yoshiyahu heard Chulda's prophecy that the decree involving the destruction of the Temple could no longer be cancelled, he consulted with the wise men, the Levites, who taught all of Israel, about what to do with the ark, and agreement was reached that it should be hidden away. (note 81b)

According to this proposal, the removal of the ark from its permanent place in the Holy of Holies began not in the days of Yoshiyahu, but already in the time of Menashe, and it was done in response to Menashe's bringing a graven image into the Sanctuary. Yoshiyahu, who understood from the prophetess Chulda that the decree of the Temple's destruction was final, consulted with the Levites and final agreement was reached that the ark should be hidden away.

Prof. Menachem Haran[5] argues that the ark was hidden away during the days of Menashe. The verses in II Divrei Ha-yamim describe at length Menashe's actions in general and those concerning the house of God in particular:

For he built again the high places which Yechezkiyahu his father had broken down, and he reared up altars for the Be'alim, and made asheterot, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. Also, he built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem shall my name be forever.” And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord… And he set up a carved idol, the image which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Shlomo his son, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name forever.” (II Divrei Ha-yamim 33:3-7)

29 Scripture does not spell out the precise location at which Menashe set up an idol but suffices with the general description – "In the house of God."

Regarding this, Chazal say in Sanhedrin (103b):

Achaz set it in an upper chamber, as it is stated: "And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Achaz" (II Melakhim 23:13). Menashe placed it in the Temple, as it is stated: "And he set up the carved idol of the ashetera that he had made, in that house, of which the Lord said to David and to Shlomo his son, ‘In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name for ever’" (II Melakhim 21:7). Amon introduced it into the Holy of Holies, as it is stated: “For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself, and the cover too narrow for him to wrap himself up" (Yeshayahu 28:20). Now, what is meant by "For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself"? R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: For this bed is too short that two neighbors may rule therein together.[6]

The gemara, based on the verses, describes a process which began with Achaz in the upper chamber, continued with Menashe in the Temple, and finished in the days of Amon in the Holy of Holies. However, many verses indicate that the decree concerning the destruction of the Temple was issued because of the sins of Menashe:

Nevertheless, the Lord did not turn back from the fierceness of that great anger with which His anger burned against Yehuda, on account of all the provocations with which Menashe had provoked Him. (II Melakhim 23:26)

Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Yehuda, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Menashe, according to all that he did. And also, for the innocent blood that he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon. (II Melakhim 24:3-4)

And I will make them into a horror for all the kingdoms of the earth, on account of Menashe the son of Yechizkiyahu king of Yehuda, for that which he did in Jerusalem. (Yirmeyahu 15:4)

Chazal understood that it was on account of Menashe's setting up a graven image in the Sanctuary that the decree was sealed that the Temple would be destroyed and the people would be exiled from their land. The gemara in Zevachim (61b) says as follows:

30 The fire which descended from heaven in the days of Moshe did not depart from the copper altar until the days of Shlomo. And the fire which descended in the days of Shlomo did not depart until Menashe came and removed it.

All of these verses imply that the days of King Menashe constituted the gravest period with respect to the removal of the Shekhina. The mention of David and Shlomo in the continuation – "Of which God had said to David and to Shlomo his son, ‘In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name for ever’” – comes to teach that the days of Menashe were the very opposite of the days of David and Shlomo. In the time of David and Shlomo, Jerusalem was selected as the place that God chose to put His name there, and the Temple was built, whereas the actions of Menashe caused God to despise his earlier choice and decide to destroy Jerusalem and the house of God.

M. Haran argues that in the temples of the ancient Near East, the innermost and holiest room of the temple was reserved for the idol. That was the place where the presence of the god was most actualized. In Israel's Temple, this role was filled by the ark and the keruvim, which were understood as symbolizing God's throne and footrest. In light of this, Haran suggests that the idol that Menashe set up was in the Holy of Holies, in place of the ark and the keruvim. As proof, he cites the words of Yirmeyahu:

And it shall come to pass, when you multiply and increase in the land, in those days, say the Lord, they shall say no more, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord;” nor shall it come to mind; nor shall they remember it; nor shall they miss it; nor shall that be done any more. (Yirmeyahu 3:16)

According to Haran, these words were said at a time when there was no longer an ark. Were the ark resting at that time in the Holy of Holies, no prophet in Israel would have imagined to sound such consolations.

According to this explanation, however, the question arises as to how we are to reconcile the verses cited at the beginning of this shiur, which record Yoshiyahu's instructions to the Levites to hide the ark. One possible explanation is that Yoshiyahu ordered the Levites to return the ark to its place after it had been removed by Menashe, and that from now on it was no longer necessary to carry the ark on the shoulders. This is what Rashi says in his commentary (ad loc.):

"Put the holy ark" – According to the plain sense, Menashe and Amon had removed the ark and put their idols in its place, as is evident above with respect to Menashe: "And he set up a carved idol." Therefore, Yoshiyahu instructed that the ark be returned to its place that had built by Shlomo. And our Rabbis said that he told the Levites to hide it away there.

31 Rashi offers two explanations, first the plain meaning and afterwards the Rabbinic exposition. According to the plain understanding, Menashe and Amon had removed the ark and set their idols in its place. Rashi implies that the idols were set in the Holy of Holies.

In his commentary to Divrei Ha-yamim (35:3), Radak writes similarly:

"Put the holy ark"" – Perhaps Menashe removed it from there when he put the idol in the house of God. But it is astonishing that he did not return it there after he submitted and repented and removed the idol from the house of God. And Chazal have explained that he ordered that the ark be hidden away so that it not go out into exile with the people.

Radak also offers two explanations. According to the first explanation, Menashe removed the ark from the Holy of Holies when he set up the idol in the house of God. The Radak challenges this explanation in light of the verses (II Divrei Ha-yamim 33:15) describing Menashe's great repentance. How could it be that Menashe himself did not return the ark to its place when he removed the idol?

To summarize, thus far we have seen that the events and the relevant verses can be understood in the following ways:

1) Menashe removed the ark and the keruvim because it would have been inappropriate that at one and the same time there should be both the ark and the keruvim as well as the idol (especially if Menashe's idol was set up inside the Holy of Holies), and Yoshiyahu returned the ark to where it had permanently rested up until the time of Menashe. This explanation accords well with the plain meaning of the verses – Menashe removed and Yoshiyahu returned the ark to its place. This explanation is brought by both Rashi and Radak, but Radak notes that it does not explain why Menashe himself did not return the ark to its place as part of his great repentance.

2) According to Chazal, Yoshiyahu removed the ark in the hope that it would not go out into exile to Babylonia. This understanding accords less well with the plain sense of Scripture.

Menashe's Hiding away of the Ark

Prof. Elitzur[7] analyzes the general situation in the days of Menashe and Yoshiyahu and proposes a different explanation. The prophet Yirmeyahu says:

32 And it shall come to pass, when you multiply and increase in the land, in those days, says the Lord, they shall say no more, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord;” nor shall it come to mind; nor shall they remember it; nor shall they miss it; nor shall that be done any more. At that time, they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem; nor shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart. (Yirmeyahu 3:16-17)

Some wish to connect this prophecy to the words of Yirmeyahu in chapter 7, where he reproaches the people of Israel for being thieves, murderers, and adulterers, and thus turning the Temple into a den of robbers, while at the same time they continue to offer sacrifices there. The prophet condemns the people for their exaggerated sense of trust in the Temple and in the ark and argues that everything depends on their walking in the path of God and the actions of the people of Israel.

The ark, according to Elitzur, was hidden away in the days of Menashe; that is, it was hidden away and not removed. Elitzur argues that it may be understood from the verses in II Melakhim that Menashe is subject to absolute condemnation, but the matter is not so clear-cut.

A deeper examination of the history of the kings of Yehuda demonstrates that from Achaz to Tzidkiyahu there was no king, wicked or righteous, who obeyed the prophets who demanded of the rulers of Yehuda to refrain from political adventures. Menashe was the only king who obeyed the prophets on this matter. He was indeed an idolater, but he followed the political line of the prophets.

The verse that completes the history of Menashe states: "And Menashe slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza…" (II Melakhim 21:18). From here we see that Menashe dug a royal grave in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzza, and apparently transferred to that place all the treasures found in the royal house. It is reasonable to conclude that he also dug there a chamber to store the ark. Menashe did this not for religious purposes, but as a pragmatic ruler, he understand that he must protect the most precious and magnificent vessel in the history of Israel.

It is possible that in the days of Yoshiyahu, a disagreement arose concerning this issue, with part of the nation saying that the safest place for the ark was inside God's Temple, and Yirmeyahu countering that the safest place for it was outside the Temple and that the ark had rightfully been removed so that it does not fall into the hands of gentile looters. His position on this matter was the same as that of Yoshiyahu. According to the verses in Divrei Ha-yamim, Yoshiyahu instructs the Levites to bring the ark to the Temple in honor of the especially festive Pesach that he would be arranging for all of Israel. Yoshiyahu says to the Levites: "There shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders now." Chazal understood (Yoma 76b; Horayot 12a) this to mean that when they will return the ark to its place of storage, they will no longer have to carry it on their shoulders, because it will be permanently kept in its storage place, and it was Yoshiyahu who stored it away.

33 It is reasonable to assume that the secret location of the ark was made known to the wise men, the Levites, and this information was passed down from generation to generation to a select group of people who were fit to receive it. It seems, therefore, that the ark was hidden away for two reasons: Menashe wished to save the historic treasure (and once he brought the idol into the Holy of Holies, it was no longer fitting that the ark and the keruvim should be found there), whereas Yoshiyahu and Yirmeyahu maintained that the nation must preserve the ark of Testimony containing the two tablets of the covenant that attest to God's revelation and to the covenant entered into between God and His people.

Neither of these parties accepted the popular belief that the Temple and the ark, by their very sanctity, would protect themselves and the people. The words of Yirmeyahu close a circle that began with "And in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Bereishit 12:3) and will close with "And all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem" (Yirmeyahu 3:17), with the tablets of the covenant attesting to the central event of Israel's history, which lights up the path that leads from Avraham to the end of days.

Prof. Elitzur notes that the period of Menashe was a period of entombing things, as has become clear from the mounds discovered in west Jerusalem. About twenty man-made mounds have been discovered in the area between Ir Ganim, Givat Masua, Aminadav, and Beit Zayit. From the mounds that have been excavated it has become clear that under the huge piles of earth that became heaped up there, there is a small area surrounded by 17 ribs in the middle of which there is a pit containing soot, ashes, and vessels from the end of the First Temple period, quite possibly the period of Yoshiyahu and Menashe. These mounds are 3-10 meters in height, with diameters of 10-40 meters. No idolatrous paraphernalia have been found there, and from this Elitzur has concluded that these are bamot constructed in honor of the God of Israel.

It is possible that these bamot were built by priests who were loyal to the God of Israel during the days of King Menashe, because it was no longer possible to reach the Temple. For the benefit of the pilgrims who wished to offer sacrifices in the Temple, they constructed bamot for the service of God outside the city.

When Yoshiyahu rose to the throne, wiped out idolatry, and removed the bamot, the priests who had served at the bamot argued that they should not be destroyed, as they had been used for the worship of the God of Israel. For this reason, Yoshiyahu did not destroy them, but merely hid them away under mounds of earth.

This phenomenon of a temple dedicated to the worship of the God of Israel that was later entombed is found also in the Israelite temple in Arad. It was precisely in the days of Yoshiyahu that a wall was built over it, effectively putting it out of use, with care taken not to harm the temple itself. This ensured that a temple built not in the place chosen by God would cease to function, but at the same time, no harm would come to a temple and altars that had been constructed from the outset for the worship of the God of Israel.

34 In Jerusalem, on the other hand, the ark of the covenant of God was hidden away by Menashe – and perhaps, as suggested by Prof. Elitzur, in the area of the garden of Uzza, where the new royal palace stood.

According to Elitzur's suggestion, it turns out that two different kings, Menashe and Yoshiyahu, were both interested in the ark being hidden away, each for his own reason. In any event, it is clear that from their time on, we hear nothing more about the ark which had been hidden away. During the latter part of the monarchy, from the days of Yoshiyahu and on until the destruction of the Temple, and then throughout the Second Temple period, the ark was hidden away, and the people of Israel did not merit to find it.

Where was the ark hidden?[8] The gemara in Yoma cites several opinions regarding the question of where was the ark hidden:

R. Shimon ben Yochai said: The ark went into exile to Babylonia… R. Yehuda ben Lakish said: The ark was hidden in its own place… It was taught: And the Sages say: The ark was hidden away in the Chamber of the woodshed. R. Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Thus, were we also taught: It happened to a certain priest who was whiling away his time that he saw a block of pavement that was different from the others. He came and informed his fellow, but before he could complete his account, his soul departed. Thus, they knew definitely that the ark was hidden there. What had he been doing? R. Chelbo said: He was playing with his axe. The school of R. Yishmael taught: Two priests, afflicted with a blemish, were sorting the wood when the axe of one of them slipped from his hand and fell on that place, whereupon a flame burst forth and consumed him. (Yoma 53b-54a)

R. Yehuda ben Lakish maintains that the ark was hidden in its place. He adduces support from the verse: "The staves were seen from the holy place… and there they are to this day" (I Melakhim 8:8). There are different opinions as to the meaning of the words "to this day" – does this mean forever or until the day of the writing of this book.

"In its place" means in the Holy of Holies. It is reasonable to assume that it was near the even ha-shetiya, the foundation stone, as there is no indication anywhere that a place was dug out for the ark. Therefore, it must have been hidden away in the filling between the bedrock and the floor of the Holy of Holies.

The Sages in Yoma 53b agree with the mishna in tractate Shekalim (6:1):

35 There were thirteen prostrations in the Temple. [Members] of the household of Rabban Gamliel and of R. Chanina, chief of the priests, used to prostrate themselves fourteen [times]. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the Chamber of the woodshed, for thus they had a tradition from their forefathers that the ark was hidden there.

R. Eliezer and R. Shimon bar Yochai maintain that the ark was exiled to Babylonia. In support of their position, they adduce the verse in II Divrei Ha-yamim (36:10) dealing with Yehoyakhin:

And he had him brought to Babylonia together with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord.

The Rambam (Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 4:1) and the Meiri (commentary to the gemara in Yoma)maintain that the ark was hidden away in its place. The Semag (positive mitzva 163) and the Kaftor va-Perach (chap. 6) are of the opinion that the ark was hidden away in the Chamber of the woodshed.

The Ya'avetz on Hilkhot Beit ha-Bechira 4:1 understands that there is a connection between the Rambam's position that the first sanctification was for its own time and for the future (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 6:14-15) and the fact that the ark was hidden away in the depths of the earth on Mount Moriya, whereas according to R. Eliezer and R. Shimon bar Yochai, who say that the ark was exiled to Babylonia, the resting of God's Shekhina was cancelled, and a new sanctification during the Second Temple period was necessary.

It is possible, according to the Yerushalmi in Megilla (1:12), that there is proof to the view of the Ya'avetz from the fact that prior to the building of the Temple, the prohibition against bamot depended on the ark being in the Mishkan.

On the other hand, the Rambam's wording that "the Shekhina is not cancelled" seems to relate to some fundamental definition that does not depend at all on the reality whether the Temple is in existence. There are also additional proofs that lead to the conclusion that there is no necessary connection between the ark being hidden away in the Temple and the issue of the sanctification of the Temple being for its time and for the future.

[1] A parallel discussion is found in Horayot 12a.

36 [2] If the ark was removed from its fixed place in the Holy of Holies to enable repairs, there would be no need to command that it be returned to its place, as this would be obvious. Furthermore, Scripture does not describe the ark's fixed place in precise terms, but rather speaks of the “house that Shlomo built,” and so it must be that Scripture speaks not of the ark's removal for the sake of repair work in the Holy of Holies and its return there, but rather of its being hidden away in the house that Shlomo had built specifically for this purpose. This is the way that Yehuda Kil explains the verse in his Da'at Mikra commentary to II Divrei Ha- Yamim 35:3.

[3] At this time, we will not deal with the place where the ark was hidden away. The gemara in Yoma 53b-54a discusses several opinions on this matter.

[4] This point in itself requires examination. Shlomo's whole outlook as well as his actions indicate that he was very confident that this house was permanent and would stand forever. This being the case, preparation of a hiding place for the ark does not accord with the plain sense of the verses in the book of Melakhim.

[5] M. Haran, "Siluk Aron Ha-Berit," Yedi'ot Ha-Chevra Le-Chakirat Eretz Israel 25 (1961), pp. 211-233.

[6] The Maharsha (ad loc.) explains: "The Holy of Holies is likened to a bed where the Shekhina rests on the kaporet." We have already mentioned that the connection between God and Israel is likened to the connection between a man and his wife, and idolatry is likened to adultery on the part of the wife with another man. Here the verse uses the metaphor of a bed that is too narrow, as the midrash states (Vayikra Rabba 17:7): "'For the bed is too short for a man to stretch himself' – the bed cannot hold the woman, her husband, and her lover at once." The deeper inside the Temple that the idol was brought, the further away the Shekhina removed itself, until it was completely gone, as explained in detail in Rosh Hashana 31a. (See Sanhedrin 103b, Schottenstein edition, note 25.)

[7] Yehuda Elitzur, Pulmus Aron ha-Berit be-Yemei Yoshiyahu, Proceedings of the World Congress for Jewish Studies XII, pp. 109ff.

[8] For a fuller discussion, see Sha'arei Heikhal on Yoma, ma'arekhet 154, Genizat aron ha-berit, pp. 268-269.

37