Musings about the Ark of the Covenant

 On the first night of Rosh Hashanah 5781, a friend who shares my fascination with Tanach gave me as a gift an old copy of Werner Keller's The Bible As History translated into Hebrew. Later that night I skimmed the book. The first page that opened up had the following picture on the bottom:

For some reason, I was captivated (and I knew the book was definitely a keeper, if for nothing else but having access to this picture :)). I still can't quite explain why it interests me so much. Some about how it never occurred to me that the styling of the Ark could be Egyptian of all things. Don't get me wrong, I think Egyptian wings are awesome, but there's always a feeling that if the Mishkan was merely a copy & paste of a classical Egyptian temple, then what's the point?

Therefore, it was a head-scratcher for a couple of weeks: Who would draw an Egyptian-style Ark and why? Nobody is credited in the book, at least not in my edition. Finally, earlier this evening, I googled 'Egyptian ark of the covenant', and lo and behold, some interesting discoveries. Though I've yet to find who made this specific image (if anyone knows, I'd be happy to hear!), it turns out that ancient Egyptian "arks" were discovered in pieces of Egyptian art. Just some examples:

One of the first sites I found was that of a certain Jewish scholar. Unclear what denomination. In any case, he was quick to assert that since Bnei Yisrael clearly copied the ark from the Egyptians, they were transgressing two of Hashem's laws: a. Making an image of God. b. Following the ways of the gentiles. To fix these issues, he brought Rambam explaining that the Mishkan and later the Temple were commanded by Hashem as a means of weaning of Bnei Yisrael from the Egyptian idolatry.

Okay, okay, legit, I hear you.

My issue with this particular Rambam is a point raised by one of my rabbis from yeshiva. He wasn't speaking about this specific piece from the Rambam but a general approach many secular scholars have with the Rambam: They ignore the existence of his magnum opus, his halachic codex, the Mishneh Torah, and focus only on Moreh Nevuchim, making him out to seem like one of their own secular philosophers. But when confronted, they too, must admit that the Rambam kept mitzvot. The Rambam also wrote extensively on the subject of the Temple, more specifically, the laws of the Temple, something few prior and since have done. No doubt, the Rambam expected a return to a fully-operational Temple במהרה בימינו אמן. In Rambam's time, however, the majority of the known world had not only been weaned off of classical idolatry (without getting into the question of whether Christianity is idolatry or whether Allah is the same entity as Hashem in the conceptual manner) but had been weaned off of making sacrifices. Yet Rambam still expected a fully-operational Temple, with all the different sacrifices (and not just the plant-based ones)! It seems that if Rambam thought that the Temple was to simply wean off Israel from idolatry, then the 3rd Temple should have been completely different from the Mishkan and the 1st and 2nd Temples.

...No, I don't have a magical solution to this conundrum. As the post title says, these are my musings on the topic.

Going back to this scholar, it seemed clear to him that the Holy Ark was a copy of the Egyptian arks, created by Bn"Y simply to wean them off of Egyptian idolatry.

This brings up another question: If this was, indeed, the sole reason for the styling and for the entire concept of the Temple, why wasn't this strategy implemented when Israel sinned with idolatry in the land of Canaan? I can see it now: human-sacrifices to Hashem in Yerushalayim, making Markolis stone piles near the altar, Ashera-style trees from the four minim in a special garden on the Temple Mount, etc, etc. Seriously, why stop at Egyptian idolatry, especially considering we have no textual evidence (and certainly no archaeological as of yet) that Bn"Y even committed idolatry in Egypt, at least not in clear pshat? 

I once wrote a vort on the subject of the structure of the Mishkan:

Prat U'Klal in the Mishkan (officially parshat Pekudei, but can be said on various parshiyot)

Our parasha summarizes the process of the building of the Mishkan, and so we may ask a question: The Mishkan on all of its various sections and parts was described in great detail. Why, if so, was a special person- Betzalel - needed to be in charge of the building, so much so that Hashem rested upon him chochma, bina v'daat (a double load of wisdom topped with more wisdom)? After all, it seems that any sort of person with a bit of sense in his skull and a head on his shoulders could have organized the building of the Mishkan per Hashem's greatly detailed instructions!

I know of two answers on the subject:

1. From my grandfather a"h:

The only temples that Am Yisrael were familiar with were gigantic and way too fancy. The Mishkan that Hashem commanded to be built was much smaller, much more humble. The precise measurements were needed in order to teach Betzalel and the nation that what was being talked about here was something on a much smaller scale, something that needed humility. The wisdom of Betzalalel and Ohaliav came to be expressed in two ways: a. They knew how to conserve the small measurements, the humility of the Mishkan and b. Knew how to beatify the Mishkan within the small details.

2. My own answer:

 It's true that the Mishkan is described in great detail - but only about its general structure and shape. Meaning, we know of the shapes and measurements of the Mishkan and its vessels, but only precious few details of the actual decorations (kaftorim, prachim, etc). It would be hard to imagine that the vessels, bases of the columns, etc, were merely solid blocks of wood and metal without any detailing.

Hashem appointed Betzalel to design the Mishkan, but He knew that the only temples Betzalel had seen in his life were those of the Egyptian gods. For this Hashem described the Mishkan in a general fashion - so Betzalel and Yisrael would understand that what was being discussed here was something different, by contrast to what was in Egypt. Per this understanding, that there's a vast difference between the temples of Egypt and Hashem's Mishkan, Betzalel was able to design the smaller, finer details of the Mishkan: the decorations of its various parts.

 Either way, I think the Mishkan was inherently different from Egyptian temples, in more than one way.

Sometimes I wonder, when does one cross the line? Some of the more "rational" Jewish scholars can point at a multitude of different aspects of Judaism and say: FOR SURE THIS WAS COPIED FROM THE GOYIM AND HERE'S THE PROOF.

Okay, great. And? whaddya want to say? That Hashem is unoriginal in His ideas? That "the rabbis" were just plain ol' human beings who wanted to control the populace? These are some of the thoughts that brought upon the great Orthodox-Reform-Conservative split. Now we have Jews who are saying that every second halacha was copied from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Christians, Muslims, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, etc. So it turns out that Judaism is merely a pick-and-choose mixed-bag, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none religion. How sad.

And slowly but soundly, Judaism loses all meaning.

So, seriously, where does one draw the line?

Back to the Ark, Professor Yehoshua Meir Grintz wrote in his book מחקרים במקרא (roughly, "Studies into the Bible") that various Mishkan-related words are actually Egyptian in origin. For example, "Kaporet". I'll raise him a Rabbi Ahron Marcus and ask: Why the assumption that this word originated in Egyptian and not in proto-Hebrew? We know of a number of related roots in Egyptian and Semitic languages. Why can the originators never be the Hebrews? Why must it always be some other nation, some other language, some other culture? Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Prof. Grintz has to say. He was one of the few academic proponents of the truth of the Tanach (Biblical Maximalism). But come on...he makes out many words in the Torah to not be Hebrew in origin. This can be more easily said about the Nach, but it's harder to say about the Torah. Not simple, no...

So where do we draw the line?

First, I think we have to have a lot of yir'at shamayim. And to not keep changing our theology based on various assumptions made by archaeologists, which keep changing as more discoveries are made every day.

That's where I am at, for the moment.