Location of the Aron

Yoma (5:2) | Yisrael Bankier | a year ago

Yom Kippur was the only time that the kohen gadol entered the kodesh ha'kodashim. The Mishnah (5:1) teaches that the kohen would enter first with the coals and incense, place the shovel between the poles in front of the aron and then burn the incense there. The next Mishnah (5:2) explains that in the time of the second Beit HaMikdash when there was no aron, the kohen gadol would place the shovel one the stone known as the even ha'shetiya.

The Tosfot Yom Tov cites the Gemara Megillah (10) that explains that the aron miraculously did not take up any space. Even though the size of the kodesh ha'kodashim was twenty by twenty amot, there was ten amot space on either side of the aron. The Gemara implies that the aron was centred in the kodesh ha'kodashim. The Tosfot Yom Tov therefore finds the position of the Rambam difficult, who rules that the aron was set deeper inside the kodesh ha'kodashim -- westward (Hilchot Beit HaBechira 4:1).¹ The Tosfot Yom Tov is unsure of the source of this position.²

The Rashash (Bava Batra 2:9) however directs our attention to the Rashbam in Bava Batra (99a, s.v. aron) who writes that indeed the aron stood miraculously. It had ten amot space on either side -- to the left and right -- and before it was twenty amot. In other words, Rashbam understands that when the Gemara explains that aron was centred with equal space on either side, it was only referring to the north and south sides. The Rashbam however explains like the Rambam that he aron was indeed set deeper inside towards the west. Why however was it indeed off-centre in one direction?

The Chasdei David notes that this Mishnah implies, that during the time of the second Beit HaMikdash in the absence of the aron, the shovel was placed on the even ha'shetiya. In the previous Mishnah however, we learnt that during the time of the first Beit HaMikdash, the kohen gadol placed the shovel between the poles, which would be in front of the aron. Furthermore, the Gemara (53b) explains that even during the time of the second Beit Hamikdash, the shovel was placed in between where the poles would have been - the same location. Finally, the Tosefta (2:12) explains that when they had the aron it was placed on top of the even ha'shetiya. It would seem then that if the shovel was placed on the stone, then it was not placed between where the poles would have been.

The Chasdei David however directs our attention to the Midrash Tanchuma (Kedoshim 10), that explains that the aron was in the center of the heichal³, and the even ha'shetiya was before it. The Chasdei David therefore understands that the even ha'shetiya extend out eastward, before the aron. Consequently, it was possible for the shovel to be placed both on the even ha'shetiya and between the poles of the aron.

Perhaps we can suggest that according to the Rambam, the necessity of offsetting the aron further to the West was due to the consideration of the Chasdei David. In other words, it was westward so that some of the even ha'shetiya was exposed between the poles of the aron.

¹ The Tosfot Yom Tov similarly finds the Tosfot (Bava Batra 25a) difficult who explain that the aron was placed closer to the east side. This article however will focus on understanding the Rambam.

² The achronim also attempt to find the source for the Rambam. See for example the Minchat Chinnuch [(]{.underline}95:13).

³ Considering that the heichal included both the kodesh and kodesh ha'kodashim, it is possible that when the midrash says the aron was in the centre it was only referring to the north-south direction -- exactly like the Rashbam explained. If it was indeed centred in the east-west direction, it would place the aron in the kodesh and not the kodesh ha'hakodashim. That said, the Midrash might not be meant to be understood literally, considering that it also taught that Beit HaMikdash was in the centre of Yerushalaim and the heichal was in the centre of the Beit HaMikdash.

⁴ Initially I was tempted to suggest a different understanding of the Rambam. The Rambam writes, that "There was a stone in the kodesh hakodashim to the west, and on it the aron was placed." Reading the Rambam this way would indeed place both the even ha'shetiya and aron to the west of the kodesh ha'kodashim like the Rashbam explained. Alternatively, one could read the Rambam as follows: "There was a stone in the kodesh hakodashim. To the west and upon it the aron was placed." In other words, the Rambam is describing the location of the aron relative to its position upon the even ha'shetiya. There are several difficulties with this suggestion. The first is that this suggestion only works according to those that have the version "and upon it" rather than "that upon it" (see Minchat Chinnuch 95:13). Furthermore, if the suggested novel reading was correct, one would have expected to Rambam to write "on it and to the west" instead. Finally the term alav should have been aleiha if was indeed meant to be read that way.

Download