I Samuel 6

Sugya Map

The return of the Ark of the Covenant from the fields of Philistia I Samuel 6:1 serves as the locus classicus for a profound halachic and theological inquiry: How does the physical world—and the legal frameworks governing it—respond to the unmediated, intrusive presence of the Divine? This narrative raises several critical issues:

• The Halachic Status of the Asham of the Philistines: Are the golden hemorrhoids and mice categorized as tashmishei kedushah (accessories of holiness) requiring genizah, or are they avodah zarah (idolatry) requiring destruction?
• The Legality of the Bamah at Beth-shemesh: How could the Levites offer the cows as an olah (burnt offering) on a makeshift stone altar during a period when bamot were subject to strict regulatory constraints?
• The Gender of the Olah: How could female cows (parot) be offered as an olah, violating the explicit biblical canon requiring male animals Leviticus 1:3?

Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications)

1. Acceptance of Non-Jewish Devotional Gifts: Can the Temple treasury accept symbolic or figurative gold representations of disease or pagan motifs as temple donations?
2. Emergency Derogation of Halacha (Horat Sha'ah): Does the spontaneous movement of a sacred object override standard sacrificial restrictions (issur bamot, gender of sacrifices)?

---

Text Snapshot

Let us isolate the key operational verse in I Samuel 6:10:

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים כֵּן וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁתֵּי פָרוֹת עָלוֹת וַיַּאַסְרוּם בָּעֲגָלָה וְאֶת־בְּנֵיהֶם כָּלוּ בַבָּיִת׃ "The men did so; they took two nursing cows and tied them to the wagon, and they shut their calves at home."

Dikduk and Leshon Nuance

The word kalu (כָּלוּ) is highly anomalous.

• Rashi's Etymology: Rashi on I Samuel 6:10:1 asserts that kalu is an expression of kele (כֶּלֶא), meaning imprisonment or confinement.
• Radak's Grammatical Synthesis: Radak on I Samuel 6:10:1 identifies a morphological fluidity between the roots lamed-he (כלה - to finish/consume) and lamed-aleph (כלא - to imprison). He compares this to other instances where these roots intermingle, such as milo (מלו) for mal'u (מלאו).

The psychological tension of the narrative is etched directly into this grammatical hybrid: the Philistines physically imprisoned (kela'u) the calves to test whether the cows' natural maternal instincts would be completely consumed and nullified (kalah) by the metaphysical pull of the Ark.

---

Readings

1. Malbim: The Epistemology of Providence vs. Chance

In his commentary on I Samuel 6:1, the Malbim addresses the philosophical-halachic problem of mikreh (chance) versus hashgachah (divine providence):

ויהי ספד כי ארכו הימים עד ז' חדשים ולא סרו המכות מהם ומזה ראו שאינו מקרה, כי המקרה לא יתמיד "It tells that the days dragged on for seven months, and the plagues did not depart from them. From this they saw that it was not chance, for chance does not persist."

The Malbim introduces a structural proof for Divine intervention based on temporal duration. Under normal circumstances, a plague or epidemiological anomaly is viewed as a statistical fluctuation—a mikreh. However, the Malbim establishes a philosophical axiom: hamikreh lo yatmid (chance occurrences do not exhibit consistency over time).

By remaining in the Philistine territory for seven months without respite, the affliction transitioned from a statistical outlier to an established chazakah (legal-empirical presumption) of Divine retribution. The seven-month delay was not merely a historical detail; it was the empirical control period required to convert the Philistine doubt (safek) into absolute epistemological certainty (vaday).

2. Radak: The Mechanics of the Supernatural Test

Radak on I Samuel 6:10:1 analyzes the design of the experiment set up by the Philistine diviners:

וטעם להשיב את בניהם מאחריהם ולכלוא אותם בבית לפי שלולי דבר הארון היו שבות אל בניהם אחר שלא היו בניהם הולכים אחריהם "And the reason they returned their calves from behind them and confined them in the house was that, were it not for the matter of the Ark, they would have returned to their calves, since their calves were not following them."

Radak highlights the extreme measures taken to isolate the variable of Divine agency. The cows chosen were parot alot—nursing cows who had never borne a yoke. Naturally, a wild cow unaccustomed to labor, separated from its young, will turn back to its offspring.

By locking the calves indoors, the Philistines created a biological vacuum. The straight path of the cows toward Beth-shemesh, without human guidance, served as an undeniable demonstration of the Ark's unique cheftza (inherent object-sanctity) acting as a gravitational pull that overrode the laws of nature.

3. Metzudat David: The Nature of the Philistine Tribute

On I Samuel 6:11, the Metzudat David explains the exact nature of the gold replicas:

טחוריהם. הם העפולים שהיו דומים בצד מה לטחורים "Their hemorrhoids: these are the tumors (afolim) which resembled hemorrhoids in some way."

The offering of these golden shapes raises a profound conceptual question: What is the halachic taxonomy of these golden artifacts?

In Jewish law, a guilt offering (asham) must be an animal sacrifice offered on the Altar Leviticus 5:15. The Philistines, however, brought physical representations of their affliction. This was not a korban in the liturgical sense, but rather a kofer—a ransom or tribute designed to acknowledge the source of their suffering.

The Metzudat David clarifies that by replicating the very form of their degradation (afolim), the Philistines performed a physical act of submission, materializing their pathology in gold to transfer the plague back to the domain of the Divine.

4. Metzudat Zion and Steinsaltz: "Sadeh" as Territorial Desolation

On I Samuel 6:1, the Metzudat Zion notes:

בשדה פלשתים. כמו בארץ פלשתים "'In the field of the Philistines': like 'in the land of the Philistines.'"

Steinsaltz, in his commentary, notes that the Ark remained in the Philistine territory for seven months. Why does the text employ the term sadeh (field) rather than eretz (land)?

In the conceptual world of Tanakh, a sadeh denotes an open, uncultivated, and unprotected space. After the collapse of Dagon's temple in Ashdod I Samuel 5:4, the Philistines were terrified to house the Ark within their urban centers.

Thus, the Ark was relegated to the "fields," exposed to the elements, indicating a state of temporary exile and abandonment. The Ark, even while captive, transformed the open fields of Philistia into a locus of Divine wrath, demonstrating that its sanctity was not dependent on a physical sanctuary.

---

Friction

The Halachic Dilemma of the Beth-shemesh Sacrifice

The sacrifice of the cows at Beth-shemesh I Samuel 6:14 presents a severe halachic difficulty:

וַיְבַקְּעוּ אֶת־עֲצֵי הָעֲגָלָה וְאֶת־הַפָּרוֹת הֶעֱלוּ עֹלָה לַה' "...They split up the wood of the cart and presented the cows as a burnt offering to God."

This event directly challenges two fundamental halachic principles:

1. The Prohibition of Female Burnt Offerings: The Torah explicitly states that an olah must be a male animal: zachar tamim yaktivenu Leviticus 1:3. How could the Levites offer female cows (parot) as an olah?
2. The Prohibition of Officiating on a Temporary Altar (Issur Bamot): While the Tabernacle at Shiloh had been destroyed, and the status of bamot (private altars) during the Nob and Gibeon periods was subject to complex legal permissions, offering a sacrifice on a random "large stone" (even gedolah) in the middle of a agricultural valley seems to bypass the structured laws of the priesthood and sanctified spaces.

                  [The Ark Returns to Beth-shemesh]
                                 |
         +-----------------------+-----------------------+
         |                                               |
[Halachic Challenge 1]                          [Halachic Challenge 2]
Female Cows offered as Olah                     Sacrifice on a makeshift stone
(Violates Leviticus 1:3)                        (Violates Altar Regulations)
         |                                               |
         +-----------------------+-----------------------+
                                 |
                       [Proposed Solutions]
                                 |
         +-----------------------+-----------------------+
         |                                               |
[Gemara Avodah Zarah 24b]                       [Brisker Conceptualization]
"Horat Sha'ah" (Emergency Decree)               No standard Altar dedication;
The Divine Spirit overrode the law.             Sacrifice was an extension of the
                                                Ark's self-sanctifying return.

Terutz 1: The Gemara's Resolution (Avodah Zarah 24b)

The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 24b addresses this contradiction:

וכי תימא פרות עולה מי קריבין? אמר רבי יוחנן: הוראת שעה הייתה. "And if you say: Are female cows offered as a burnt offering? Rabbi Yochanan said: It was a temporary emergency decree (horat sha'ah)."

According to Rabbi Yochanan, the sacrifice was an ad-hoc suspension of biblical law. However, this raises a secondary difficulty: Who authorized this horat sha'ah?

Normally, a temporary suspension of Torah law requires the explicit directive of a recognized prophet Deuteronomy 18:15. Yet, Samuel was not present at Beth-shemesh.

The Gemara implies that the horat sha'ah was communicated not by a human prophet, but by the miraculous circumstances themselves. The unnatural behavior of the cows—lowing and singing as they walked directly to Beth-shemesh—was a non-verbal Divine directive, indicating that these specific animals had been designated by Heaven for this singular sacrificial purpose.

Terutz 2: The Brisker Conceptualization of "Kelei Kedushah"

To deepen the resolution, we can apply a Brisker distinction regarding the nature of the sacrifice. We must distinguish between two distinct forms of consecration (kedushah):

• Kedushat Mizbeach (Altar Sanctity): A standard sacrifice brought by an individual to achieve personal atonement. This category is bound by all the rigorous structural laws of the Torah, including the requirement for male animals for an olah.
• Tashmishei Kedushah / Accessories of the Ark: The parot and the cart were not dedicated as standard personal offerings. Rather, they became physically integrated into the transport of the Ark. They were, in effect, temporary liturgical vessels (kelei sharet).

Once the Ark arrived at its destination, these animals and the wooden cart could not be returned to mundane use (chullin), as this would constitute a desecration of their association with the Ark.

Therefore, their destruction was required. Because this was an act of decommissioning holy instruments rather than a standard altar-consecration, the standard disqualification of female animals did not apply. The sacrifice on the "large stone" was not an initiation of a new altar, but a final, respectful disposal of the vehicles of the Divine return.

---

Intertext

1. The Singing Cows of Avodah Zarah 24b

The anomalous movement of the cows is described in I Samuel 6:12:

וַיִּשַּׁרְנָה הַפָּרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ עַל־דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית שֶׁמֶשׁ... גָּעוֹ וְלֹא־סָרוּ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל "The cows went straight ahead along the road to Beth-shemesh... lowing as they went, and turning off neither to the right nor to the left."

The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 24b homiletically reads the word vayisharnah (וַיִּשַּׁרְנָה) not merely as "they went straight" (from the root yashar), but as "they sang" (from the root shir):

מאי אמרו? אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר"מ: "קומי קומי ציוני..." "What did they sing? Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: 'Arise, arise, O Zion...'"

This midrashic reading points to a profound halachic-philosophical concept: when the physical world is forced to bend to the spiritual reality of the Ark, even mute beasts become conduits of liturgy. This parallels the donkey of Balaam Numbers 22:28, but with a critical difference: Balaam's donkey spoke to rebuke a human, whereas the cows sang to praise the Creator, demonstrating that the presence of the Ark elevates the entire ecological sphere surrounding it.

2. The Tragedy of Beth-shemesh and the Law of Gazing

The narrative ends in tragedy when the people of Beth-shemesh look into the Ark:

וַיַּךְ בְּאַנְשֵׁי בֵית־שֶׁמֶשׁ כִּי רָאוּ בַּאֲרוֹן ה' "He struck at the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark of God..." I Samuel 6:19.

This tragic event is the primary biblical source for the halachic prohibition against gazing at sacred objects. The Rambam codifies this in his laws of the Sanctuary:

...וכל המסתכל באחד מן הכלים בשעה שמוליכין אותן... חייב מיתה בידי שמים, שנאמר 'ולא יבאו לראות כבלע את הקדש ומתו' "...And anyone who gazes at any of the vessels at the time they are being transported... is liable for death at the hand of Heaven, as it is said: 'But they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die' Numbers 4:20."[^1]

The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin 10:2 explains that the sin of the people of Beth-shemesh was one of casual familiarity. They were harvesting their wheat and simultaneously bowing down to the Ark, treating its arrival as a common spectacle rather than an encounter with the transcendent.

This highlights a fundamental halachic principle: physical proximity to the Divine demands a corresponding psychological distance.

[^1]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 6:12.

---

Psak/Practice

1. Acceptance of Non-Jewish Offerings

The halachic precedent of accepting the gold tribute (the asham) from the Philistine lords is codified in the Talmud and subsequent halachic codes. The Shulchan Aruch rules that we accept voluntary offerings (nedarim and nedavot) from gentiles for the upkeep of the Temple (bedek habayit), provided they do not contain explicitly idolatrous symbols.[^2]

The gold mice and hemorrhoids, despite their association with a pagan narrative, were permitted because they were offered to the God of Israel as an acknowledgment of His sovereignty, rather than as objects of worship.

               [Gifts from Gentiles to the Temple]
                               |
         +---------------------+---------------------+
         |                                           |
 [Idolatrous Objects]                        [Tribute / Ransom]
(e.g., Figures for worship)                 (e.g., Philistine Gold Mice)
         |                                           |
     REJECTED                                    ACCEPTED
(Violates Avodah Zarah)                    (Acknowledges God's Sovereignty)

2. The Prohibition of Gazing at Holy Objects

In contemporary practice, although the Ark is hidden, this halacha manifests in several rabbinic safeguards:

• The Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim): The custom of not looking at the hands of the Kohanim while they bless the congregation is based on the concept that the Shechinah rests upon their fingers, referencing the biblical prohibition of looking at the Divine service.[^3]
• The Torah Scroll: The practice of covering the Torah scroll between readings and not gazing directly at the writing without reading it reflects the same principle of maintaining boundaries around sacred objects.

[^2]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 254:2; see also Zevachim 116a. [^3]: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 128:23.

---

Takeaway

The return of the Ark demonstrates that while human ritual requires structured, legal frameworks to manage sanctity, the cheftza shel kedushah (the inherent object of holiness) possesses an independent, transcendent force that can override both natural laws and standard halachic restrictions to assert its own purity.