The Destruction of Shiloh, Pt. 2

So, life got in the way (more on that in a future post) and I was not able to create the second post until now. Apologies to anyone who may have been waiting.

To recap, the destruction of Shiloh and the apparent subsequent removal of the Tabernacle from there are never explicitly mentioned in the Book of Shmuel. We only have some later hints to this in Yirmiyahu and Tehillim. That question is: This seems to have been a moment of great tragedy to Am Yisrael, according to the two instances in which the event is hinted at. Why then was this not recounted explicitly?

Last time I offered my own idea. This time I'll offer up an idea by Rabbi Eitan Shandorfi in his book "הדר הנביאים" - "Hadar Ha'Nevi'im" (the Splendor of the Prophets). Rabbi Shandorfi dedicated an entire chapter of his book to discussing the matter. He finally concluded that the primary purpose of the Tabernacle was to serve as a dwelling for the Holy Ark of the Covenant. No Ark in the Tabernacle means that the Tabernacle is not serving its purpose, and is thus no longer a Mishkan (Tabernacle), a place of dwelling. As such, it is no longer important to refer to it. It is nothing more than an empty husk, devoid of purpose.

If you're sputtering angrily that "It's the Tabernacle, how can you call it an empty husk!!!" it's useful to remind ourselves that the Tanach is not merely a history book, but every verse, or lack thereof, comes to teach us something. In this case, the teaching is a Mishkan is not a Mishkan if it doesn't serve its purpose. The Mishkan's purpose was to hold the Ark. No Ark means no Tabernacle. As a reminder, the Ark had been taken as a spoil of war by the Plishtim.

Back to Rabbi Shandorfi. He bases his explanation on a number of sources which include evidence from verses coupled with Talmudic sources and Talmudic commentators. One of the verses he brings is "Then Solomon, and all the assemblage with him, went to the shrine at Gibeon, for the Tent of Meeting, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness, was there." (Chronicles 2:1:3) The question he raises is: Why was it necessary to refer to the Mishkan, which was situated in Giv'on at the time, as "the shrine"? Would it not have been simpler to say "Then Solomon, and all the assemblage with him, went to Gibeon, for the Tent of Meeting, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness, was there"? Given that the Tent of Meeting is already mentioned, why was it necessary to refer to the same place as a shrine?

Rabbi Shandorfi explains that this was necessary to emphasize that the Tabernacle at Giv'on was not truly a Tabernacle. It was, in spiritual-holiness terms, a lesser construct. It was only a shrine, being that the Ark, at the time, was in Yerushalayim (having been brought there during the time of David). It incorporated the physical Tent of Meeting but was not actually a place of dwelling.

To strengthen this understanding, he brings Rashi on Zevachim 61b:

"נוב וגבעון - חד חשיב להו דשניהם במה ואינן קדושים"

Translation: "Nov and Giv'on - They are considered one place (and not two distinct places) because both were shrines and not holy" (!!!)

(it should be noted that Rashi likely meant that they were of lesser holiness and not entirely devoid of holiness, for later on in the same tractate, the Talmud explicitly says that the Shechinah dwelled in Nov and Giv'on. However, in that passage the Talmud once again considers Nov and Giv'on a single location, evidently because of their lower level).

I think this answer is simple and beautiful. Upon reading the answer, I found that it tied well into something I heard earlier that Shabbat from one of the rabbis in my yeshiva. He was talking about why the sages stated that the First Temple had been destroyed because of the three cardinal sins - idolatry, murder and sexual immorality - if the emphasis in the prophets was always more about societal injustices? Sure, there were mentions of the three cardinal sins, but much more talk about other stuff. He brought something in the name of the Maharal in Netzach Yisrael ch. 4, where the Maharal explains that what made the First Temple holy was the Shechinah that dwelled there - whilst the Second Temple had no Shechinah and instead was holy because of the unity of Am Yisrael. Unfortunately I no longer remember how this source explained the question of the societal injustices vs the three cardinal sins, but the core idea here is that the moment there was no core holiness in the First Temple - due to sins that caused the exile of the Shechinah - then the Temple was no longer truly a Temple, a dwelling place for the Shechinah. Therefore it ceased to exist (i.e., it came to be destroyed).

Likewise, with the Second Temple - what made it holy was the unity of Am Yisrael. No unity meant it was no longer a Temple, a place that unites the people, it ceased to exist (i.e., it came to be destroyed).

In short, holy structures are only relevant if they fulfill their purpose. If they don't, they are essentially worthless. Just a pile of rocks, sticks and/or tent clothes.