Our ancestors grappled with this very feeling as they transitioned between eras in ancient Israel. Today, we're diving into a fascinating passage from the Yalkut Shimoni on Torah, specifically section 881, that wrestles with the meaning of "resting place" and "inheritance" in the Torah, and how that affects the rules around offering sacrifices.
The verse in question is from Deuteronomy (Devarim) 12:9: “For you have not yet come…” The Yalkut Shimoni uses this verse to discuss the permissibility of private altars during a time of transition. Why? Because, the text suggests, this verse hints at a period between the establishment of a central sanctuary at Shiloh and its later move to Jerusalem. During this in-between time, private altars were, apparently, allowed.
But here's where it gets interesting: what exactly are the "resting place" and the "inheritance" mentioned in the verse?
We have a bit of a rabbinic debate on our hands! Rabbi Yehudah argues that the "resting place" refers to Shiloh, the initial site of the Tabernacle after the Israelites entered the land, and the "inheritance" is Jerusalem, the future site of the Temple. To support this, he quotes Jeremiah (Yirmiyahu) 12:8-9, which describes Jerusalem as God’s inheritance, “My inheritance was to Me like a lion in the forest… Is My inheritance to Me a speckled bird of prey?” The separation in the verse, according to Rabbi Yehudah, is precisely to permit private altars between these two sacred locations.
Now, Rabbi Shimon flips the script. He believes the "resting place" is actually Jerusalem, citing Psalms (Tehillim) 132:13-14: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; here I shall dwell for I desired it.” And, according to Rabbi Shimon, the "inheritance" is Shiloh.
The Yalkut Shimoni immediately raises a challenge: if Jerusalem is the "resting place" and Shiloh the "inheritance," why does the verse say "resting place" before "inheritance"? Shouldn't it be the other way around chronologically? It’s a good question!
Another opinion suggests both terms refer to Shiloh. Why? Because Shiloh was both the place where the Israelites ceased their conquests (the "resting place") and where Joshua divided the land among the tribes (the "inheritance"), as we see in Joshua (Yehoshua) 18:10: “And Joshua cast lots at Shiloh before the Lord; and there Joshua divided the land…”
But, the text asks, if both terms refer to Jerusalem, what does "resting place" even mean? The answer offered is that it refers to the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, as mentioned in II Chronicles (Divre HaYamim II) 6:41: “And now, arise, O Lord God to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might…”
The Yalkut Shimoni then considers the implications for private altars. If both terms refer to Jerusalem, it makes sense that private altars were permitted while the Tabernacle was in Shiloh. We even have an example in Judges (Shoftim) 13:19, where Manoah offers a sacrifice on a rock: “And Manoah took the kid goat and the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord…”
But if both terms refer to Shiloh, then private altars should have been forbidden during the time the Tabernacle was there. So how do we explain Manoah's actions? The text suggests it was a temporary measure, an exception to the rule.
Finally, we learn that the House of Rabbi Yishmael taught according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, that both terms refer to Jerusalem. The Yalkut Shimoni even offers a mnemonic device – "one man pulled many to him" – to help remember this association. It’s a classic rabbinic technique, using wordplay or imagery to aid memorization.
So, what does all this mean for us today? Perhaps it reminds us that even within our traditions, there can be multiple interpretations and perspectives. That grappling with these different viewpoints is itself a sacred act. And maybe, just maybe, it gives us permission to find our own "resting place" and "inheritance" in the ongoing story of Judaism.