Figure 1. Red chest from the tomb of Tutankhamun, equipped with carrying poles, shown with poles extended. Burton photograph 1557. From Malek, Tutankhamun.
The Poles of the Ark and Tutankhamun’s Chest
The description of what is to be done with the ark’s carrying poles (בַּדִּים) seems to differ between Exodus ch. 25 and Numbers 4. Medieval Jewish commentators offered many different solutions to this contradiction, but the best answer lies in what we learn from the construction of ancient Egyptian portable chests.
Published February 27, 2016
This essay is based on research that is presented in greater detail in my article, “The Poles of the Ark: On the Ins and Outs of a Textual Contradiction,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135.4 (2016): 733–741.
The same action, with the same words, is prescribed for the table (v. 8), the incense altar (v. 11), and the bronze altar (v. 14), though these three objects pose no problem since nowhere does the Torah require the poles to remain in the rings at all times. It is highly unlikely that the author of Num 4 was adhering heedlessly to a rigid formula, however. On the contrary, he included two peculiarities in the instructions for the ark vis-à-vis the other objects, suggesting that the use of …וְשָׂמוּ בַּדָּיו is not formulaic here: it was to be wrapped in the tabernacle’s own screening curtain (v. 5), as opposed to a generic dyed cloth (vv. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13), and its leather covering was to be wrapped again in a “pure blue” cloth (v. 6).
He continues with two further suggestions.
George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 2–3, 34–35; Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; trans. James D. Martin; London: SCM Press, 1968), 41–42.
It is also paralleled in v. 33 by וַיָּקֶם, “erect.”
To these we should probably add two parallel occurrences in vv. 5 and 28, which pertain to the entrance screen, though in these instances the word לַמִּשְׁכָּן might be understood as an indirect object rather than part of the name of the screen.
Indeed, these occurrences of שִׂים are listed in BDB under the definition “put in position,” and in DCH they appear under “set, put in position.”
Pace Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 301 n. 8.
R. Saadia b. Joseph Gaon, in Mordechai L. Katzenelnbogen (ed.), Torat Chaim: Numbers(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1991; Hebrew), 22; R. Eliakim b. Meshullam of Speyer, in Dov Genachowski (ed.), Commentarius in Tractatum Yoma: Auctore R. Eliaqim (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1964; Hebrew), 222; Rashi, in a gloss published in Menachem Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Numbers (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press 2011; Hebrew), 18–19; Ramban, in ibid., 19; R. Meir of Rothenburg, in Tosafot on b. Yoma 72a, s.v. כתיב, published e.g. in Gellis, Tosafot, 41–43 par. 6; R. Isaac b. Judah Halevi, ibid., 41 par. 5; anonymous tosafist, ibid., 43–44 par. 10; R. Menachem Meiri, in Haim B. Ravitz (ed.), Beit Habhira on Tractate Yoma (Bnei Brak: Ktavim, 1969–1970; Hebrew), 214–5; R. Hezekiah b. Manoah, in Chaim D. Chavel (ed.), Hizkuni: The Torah Commentaries of Hezekiah b.R. Manoah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981–1982; Hebrew), 289, 431.
Raanan Eichler, The Ark and the Cherubim (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2016).
Object no. 32 in Howard Carter’s system. See: Jaromir Malek (dir.), Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation, n.p. [cited 15 February 2017]; online: http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/gri/carter/032.html.
Eichler, “Ark.”
Raanan Eichler, “The Zer,” TheTorah.com (2015), itself based on my academic article, “The Meaning of zēr,” Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 1–15.
Treasures of Tutankhamun (no credited author or editor; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1972), Exhibit 14.
Oddly, the question of how many poles the ark and the other objects of the tabernacle have is almost never directly addressed by commentators. Meiri (Ravitz, Beit Habhira, 214–5) explicitly wrote that the ark had two poles as described above. Other medieval Jewish scholars did not say so explicitly, but it can be inferred from their comments that they thought the same.
The Tutankhamun chest actually has a pair of adjacent rings at each corner, eight rings in all. In this feature it differs from the ark, which, according to any view of its poles, has one functioning ring at each of its four corners. The purpose of the ring doubling is presumably to keep the poles straight. This aim could be achieved using only one ring for each pole either by ensuring a tight fit or by giving the bands that form the rings substantial width.
Treasures, Exhibit 14.
Geoffrey Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture II: Boxes, Chests and Footstools(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994), 20, fig. 40.
Henry Fischer comes to this conclusion from the evidence adduced above. See, Henry G. Fischer, “Möbel,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4:180–9 at 182.
The most attractive explanation for the requirement in the first place is that it is a measure to prevent people from touching the body of the ark, an action which, according to a tradition in 2 Sam 6:6–7, is fatal (See Bekhor Shor on Exod 25:15, in Cohen, Exodus, 73). However, the priestly Num 4:15 indicates that it would be fatal even for a designated porter to touch the body of any of the major tabernacle objects; so, by the same token, the table and altars should have permanently attached poles as well.
