Did the Ark Have Legs?

Parshat Terumah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The first time I learned the book of Shemos, I was fascinated by the Mishkan. We had a project in 5th grade in which groups of kids made presentations about the different vessels of the Mishkan – you could make a poster, a slide presentation, or even build a mini-model – in some cases “to scale” and in some cases “actual size.” While I remember my project being the Kerashim (the beams that make up the walls of the Mishkan), I am pretty sure I limited my presentation to posterboard and diagrams, and not a model. An actual size “Keresh” would not have fit in our small classroom! 

In my fascination, I studied at length the pictures in the book “HaMishkan/The Tabernacle” (rather pricey at that link!) for which the author had made mini models, and the book was a crossover between the black and white photos that were part of the book and the color photos that were pasted into the book throughout the progress of the building of the Mishkan (it must have been much cheaper to print and assemble the book that way as color printing then was certainly not like it is now). *

This is the Aron (Ark) I remember 

Subsequent to that I (and I’m sure many readers) watched the movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark” – Steven Spielberg’s early film demonstrating his hatred for Nazis, in which the hero, Indiana Jones, survives the superpowers of the opened Ark, while the Nazis and their sympathizers all meet a beyond-nature end. 

This is an image from that film: 

 Which one is correct? I suppose for the film they put the staves in that direction because it is a better way to distribute the weight. It also is a better image for how two men can carry it with our seeing the Ark from this angle.  

 But our understanding of how the staves were placed – as just about all commentaries explained - is more aligned with the first image shared above. And as is clear in the next image as well. 

 And yet, there are several other ways that the Ark is depicted – if you do a Google Image search you’ll find many Christian interpretations if you search “Ark of the Covenant,” and if you put in “Aron of the Mishkan” you are more likely to find Jewish interpretations. 

 I found this image on the OU website. 

 The two things which stand out most obviously are:

• the placement of the rings – note how here they are much lower than in the previous images.
• the Ark has tiny legs (as it does in “Raiders”)

As it turns out, these two points are a fascinating debate that includes reasoning of whether it is “appropriate” for the Ark to rest on the floor directly, what is the best way to distribute the weight (which brings into the equation another question of the size and therefore weight of the stone tablets that were placed inside the Ark), and whether there were one or two sets of rings all around, and whether there were one or two sets of poles for the Aron. 

For now, let’s just explore opinions regarding the legs of the Aron. 

Rashi (25:10) – it’s like a box without any legs. כמין ארונות שעושים בלא רגלים  [NO LEGS]

Ibn Ezra (25:12) – based on the rings being on פעמותיו, which he defiens as legs (based on Yeshayahu 26:6, Tehillim 85:14, and Shir HaShirim 7:2), “I must explain [the Ark] as having legs, for it is degrading for the Ark to rest directly on the ground.” על כן הוצרכתי לפרש כי רגלים היו לארון, כי דרך בזיון הוא שישב הארון בארץ [HAD LEGS]

Ibn Ezra Perush HaKatzar (25:10) - the Ark was a square (cube) standing on 4 legs. והנה היה צורת מרובע עומד על ארבע רגלים  [HAD LEGS]

Ramban quotes and thoroughly rejects Ibn Ezra (ואין דבריו נכונים כלל) as he feels the Torah knew the word רגל and would have used it to describe the Aron if the vessel actually had legs. He defines the word פעם to means “step” and agrees that there were a lower set of rings all around the Ark for decoration (near where the Kohanim step), but the rings of the Aron that were higher up were the ones that had the staves in them.  [NO LEGS]

R Chaim Paltiel – agrees with Ibn Ezra that פעם means legs: חזרנו על כל המקרא ולא מצינו פעם כמו זויות אלא הם רגלים [HAD LEGS]

Hadar Zekenim – quote Rashi and agrees with him.  [NO LEGS]

Abrabanel – seems to take it for granted, without even giving any analysis, that the Ark had legs: ויעש' ממנו ד' טבעות שיהיו לד' פעמותיו ר"ל על ד' רגליו. והיו אם כן בארון ד' רגלים לד' זויותיו ועליהם היו הד' טבעות וביאר הכתוב איך היו מונחו' שם באמרו ושתי טבעו' על צלעו הא' ושתי טבעו' על צלעו השנית. הרי שהיו שתי טבעו' לצד אחד בשתי הרגלי' מאותו צד ושתים מהצד האחר לשתי רגליו [HAD LEGS]

HaKsav V’Hakabbalah – gives a thorough analysis, quoting some of whom have already been quoted, throws Ralbag in the ring as well, but comes to the conclusion that the word פעם either means corner (per Onkelos) or steps (per Ramban) and that the bottom of the Ark was flat and contained no legs.  [NO LEGS]

Malbim – notes the Tosafos in Yoma 72 (as does RSR Hirsch) that suggests there were 4 poles (2 sets of 4 rings, upper and lower). Ultimately he rejects that, preferring to say there were altogether 8 rings, 4 being ornamental (only 2 poles/staves i.e. one set). The lower 4 rings he describes as being “close to the legs,” but it is less clear to me if he means “legs of the Ark” or the “bottom of the Ark” וארבע על פעמותיו סמוך לרגליו ששם היו הבדים קבועים בעת החניה   [UNCLEAR]

To answer the question: I don’t know. Before coming across the Ibn Ezra I hadn’t put much thought to it. Were it not for his argument about the word פעמותיו I’d probably ignore him. But I like the argument that the Ark had legs, in particular if you believe there was a second set of rings below, then the rings very much mirror where the rings for carrying the table (Shulchan) were. And that demonstrates a parallel and a consistency (and uniformity?) that makes a lot of sense to me. 

What is the truth? Until the Ark is found, or until a new Ark is made for the building of the 3rd Temple, I imagine we won’t know for sure. For many reasons (including distribution of weight and how it would be carried by those carrying it) the image I shared above found on the OU website is the one I find most compelling. 

What do you think?

*********************************************

* Many books have been made since that time including Hebrew only versions in Israel. Here are two English language works. Please note that the new Stone Artscroll Chumash has colorful illustrations in the back index which are very beautiful and well done

Find the Mishkan by Artscroll on Amazon

The Mishkan Illuminated

What the Doorway Represents

Parshat Mishpatim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Those who study Mishpatim are well aware that the first mitzvah in the parsha is Eved Ivri. Rabbis often make this the topic of their sermon because of its “leading the pack” status, and it makes for good “Drasha material” because it bespeaks of the need to look out for our fellow man, ideally so that he not come to have the need to sell himself to be the “Hebrew slave” in the first place. 

As the old Chinese proverb goes “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” [There are political jokes about if you give someone too much the person will vote for a certain political party for a lifetime…] 

The Torah’s instruction is that the Hebrew slave goes free after 6 years of service. However “if he says ‘I have come to love my master, my wife and my children, and I don’t wish to go free, then his master brings him to the court, and he is brought to the door and to the Mezuzah and hole is bored into his ear and he remains a slave forever.” The Rabbis teach us that “forever” means “until the Jubilee year.” 

The Purpose of Our Existence - Lidrosh Elokim, To Seek Out God

 Parshat Yitro

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It’s the day after Yisro has arrived, and Moshe sits down to judge the people. R Hirsch writes: 

“These and the following verses teach us of our forefathers’ way of life during their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Their food was provided for them each day by the fall of the Manna, and their other needs were also provided for (see Devarim 8:4, 29:4-5 and 2:7). Thus, meeting their basic needs was simple and easy, and did not take up much of their time. They were not engaged most of the day in those activities – labor, trade, household chores – that normally occupy the life of a people. In what, then, were they engaged most of the time? They would come to Moshe, or – as we will now her – to the men who acted as his deputies, “to seek God” (or perhaps judgment). לדרש א-לקים means: to seek instruction and help from God. It encompasses all the ways in which we are to seek God in all our activities in life and lot, ways in which we must persist if God is indeed to be our God. 

Masah U'Mrivah

Parshat B'Shalach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Before the battle with Amalek in the latter half of chapter 17, there is a story that doesn’t get as much attention as it should. There are likely several reasons for this inattention, including the following:

 1. There is so much action in the Parsha as it is

 2. There is a complaint about water, and the complaint about water that happened in Marah is so much more dramatic

 3. Moshe hits the rock to bring out water and nothing bad happens in the aftermath

 4. While the people complained, there doesn’t seem to be a negative outcome from their complaining 

Let us look at the tale in question – please note the words highlighted in bold in the Hebrew and English: 

Cell Phones in Shul

 I admit I've been on the warpath. It has gotten so ridiculously out of control. Sounds emanating from cell phones during davening are distracting and disturbing. And people laugh it off as if "There's nothing that can be done."

I've heard of shuls who "fine" people (as in a donation to the shul, money to tzedakah) when their phone disturbs the davening.

But really I just want people to be mindful, aware, and to be "an adult" about this.

Because there's a simple solution. Other than not bringing it to shul - which is a great solution too!

Train yourself to put it on airplane mode as soon as you step into the building for davening. You don't need to use your phone down to the wire until davening begins. You certainly don't need it during davening. "Siri, turn on airplane mode." "Google, turn on airplane mode." It avoids the dreaded "turn off" and it also blocks ALL notifications (except your alarm which you forgot to turn off).

Draining Egypt of Its Wealth? Honest, Dishonest, or God's Plan?

 Parshat Bo

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Many years ago I read an article (perhaps Ynet? Perhaps Times of Israel?) that had me wondering if it was satire or real. While I can’t find it online, the headline said something like “Egyptian politician claims Israel owes Egypt money for what the Israelites stole from Egypt at the time of the Exodus.” 

Many things are ludicrous about this claim, particularly in light of a number of anti-Semitic tropes which include:

  • The people of modern Israel aren’t “real Jews.” They are descendants of Khazars.

 • The people of modern Israel aren’t “real Jews” indigenous to this land, as they are European colonialists

  • The Bible is a myth. None of its stories ever happened. 

 Leaving aside the irony of people claiming the Exodus never happened then claiming that those who participated in it (but I thought it never happened!?) owe reparations for money they never took because it didn’t happen…. no one could claim that the citizens of modern Egypt are descendants of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt and its imprint on history is only that… history… and the Arabs who are now the stewards of that land have ZERO connection to events of 3,000+ years ago. 

Did Moshe Have a Speech Impediment?

Parshat Va'era

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There is no question that the person who does the most talking in all of the Torah is Moshe Rabbenu. The Book of Devarim alone comprises 3 large and several smaller speeches delivered by Moshe to the people. Combine that with all the things he says throughout the Torah, and the things we are told that he told and taught the people (all of the Mitzvot, all of his teachings, all of his presiding over court cases), and we have quite the loquacious individual. 

 And yet, because of 3 comments he makes (2 of which are essentially the same comment twice), people assume he had a speech impediment or even a physical deformity. Aside from the argument presented above, consider two more points. When Moshe is born the Torah informs us ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא – “it was seen about him that he was good.” This is hardly a description of someone born with a physical defect. Secondly, at the Burning Bush, while Moshe has many objections to why he doesn’t want to be God’s messenger, basically the last one he brings up is that he is a כבד פה וכבד לשון – that he has a “heavy mouth and a heavy tongue.” (4:10) If I had an inability to speak, and I was being tasked with being a representative whose main job was to use language of persuasion before a king, that would be my FIRST excuse for my being unfit for the job.