The latter section of the first aliyah in Parshas Re'eh (Devarim 12:1-14) features the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah from Eretz Yisroel, concomitant with the prohibitions to destroy any part of the Beis Ha-Mikdash or to erase the name of Hashem, and it also features the mitzvah to offer korbonos exclusively in the Mishkan and Beis Ha-Mikdash, along with the prohibition to offer korbonos anywhere else.

The mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah, which applies only when there is full Jewish sovereignty and complete, independent Jewish control (referred to as “yad Yisroel tekifah”), mandates that avodah zarah structures in Eretz Yisroel be actively sought out for demolition and uprooting, but that such structures outside of Eretz Yisroel only be demolished and uprooted when they are located in regions that are under total Jewish autonomy. (V. Rambam Hil. A.Z. 7:1 and Sefer Ha-Chinuch m. 436.)

Despite the mitzvah to offer korbonos exclusively in the Mishkan and Beis Ha-Mikdash, there were specific periods when Bamos, meaning private altars, were permitted, prior to the construction of the Beis Ha-Mikdash. This exception is alluded to in the parshah (12:8 - v. Rashi) and is elaborated upon in the Mishnah and Gemara (Zevachim 112b, 119a).

It is quite interesting that the mitzvos of eradicating avodah zarah and offering korbonos exclusively in the Mishkan and Beis Ha-Mikdash are presented together in one combined textual section of Parshas Re'eh, with no paragraph break in between. Why is this? These two mitzvos do not appear to be closely related (as the former is an enactment against idolatry and the latter is a regulation of korbonos), and it is puzzling that they are featured in the same unbroken textual flow.

The Meiri (on Megillah 9b) explains that the instances specified by the Mishnah in Zevachim (112b) in which korbonos were permitted to be offered on Bamos correlate with the absence of the Aron (Holy Ark) in the Mishkan. The Mishnah states that there was a Heter Bamos, a state of permissibility to sacrifice on Bamos, during the 14-year period in which B’nei Yisroel were conquering Eretz Yisroel upon their entry to the Land at Gilgal, as well as during the periods of the Mishkan being stationed at Nov and Givon. (V. Rashi on Devarim 12:8, from Sifri.) During these periods, the Aron was not housed in the Mishkan, either because the Aron accompanied B’nei Yisroel in battle, as was the case during the 14-year period of conquest of the Land, or because the Aron had been captured and held by the Pelishtim (Philistines), as was the case in the latter period of Heter Bamos. Only in the Midbar and at Shiloh, when the Aron was housed in the Mishkan, and from the time that the Beis Ha-Mikdash was erected in Yerushalayim, where the Aron was likewise housed, has the prohibition against Bamos been in force.

What is the correlation between the Aron’s presence or absence in the Mishkan and the prohibition or permissibility of Bamos?

There is a general principle that one is obligated to offer a korbon when he encounters the Shechinah. The is evident from the narratives of the Avos (Patriarchs) offering korbonos when they received communication from Hashem or perceived that they were before Him, as well as from the narrative of Ma'amad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Sinai), when korbonos were thereupon offered, as well as from numerous cases of individuals in Tanach (Scripture) who offered korbonos when they encountered the Shechinah. It is for this reason that the Mishkan and Beis Ha-Mikdash are the central locus for korbonos, as the Mishkan and Beis Ha-Mikdash are epicenters of Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah, the manifestation of God’s Presence.

The Shechinah is manifest in this world principally through Torah, as Torah is Hashem’s form of ongoing and permanent communication with Man. The precedent for this is Ma'amad Har Sinai, at which Hashem gifted the Torah to B’nei Yisroel and taught the Aseres Ha-Dibros (Ten Commandments), in the context of the grandest display of Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah. The Ramban (on Shemos 25:1) explains that this ultimate Revelation was perpetuated for eternity through the Mishkan (and the Beis Ha-Mikdash), where Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah became permanent. The Ramban writes that the Aron is the primary article of the Mishkan, as the Aron is the vehicle for Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah, for from upon the Aron did Hashem speak with Moshe Rabbeinu (Shemos 25:22). It is no coincidence that Hashem revealed His Presence to Moshe from upon the Aron, for the Aron contained the Luchos (the Tablets) and symbolizes Torah. (V. Rashi on Shemos 25:11,16, from Tanchuma.) 

It is clear that the absence of the Aron from the Mishkan signals a lacking of complete Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah, and that the Shechinah is fully manifest only when the Aron is present. Thus, the permissibility of Bamos when the Aron was absent was due to the lack of complete Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah during such periods. When the Shechinah is manifest in full, the Torah proscribes the offering of korbonos on Bamos, as one may offer korbonos exclusively at the locus of Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah; only when there is a lacking of complete Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah were Bamos permissible. This is the correlation between the permissibility of offering korbonos on Bamos and the presence or absence of the Aron.

Let’s now return to our question as to why the issur (prohibition) of offering korbonos on Bamos appears in Parshas Re'eh in conjunction with the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah. As mentioned above, there is a special requirement to seek out and destroy idolatrous structures in Eretz Yisroel. The simple reading of the Torah's presentation of the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah would indicate that the primary focus of this mitzvah is Eretz Yisroel; hence does the Or Ha-Chaim (on Devarim 12:3) note the unique character of the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah from Eretz Yisroel above all other locations.

Why is this mitzvah focused principally on Eretz Yisroel?

The Torah implies (v. Vayikra 18:28, 20:22 et al) that certain sins are of particular offense when committed in Eretz Yisroel. This is due to the kedushah of the Land, such that aveiros (sins) of extreme desecration cannot be tolerated there. It would appear that this axiom is related to the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah from Eretz Yisroel, for Kedushas Ha-Aretz, the holiness of the Land, cannot tolerate idolatry and abomination.

We can now understand the connection between the issur of Bamos and the mitzvah to eradicate avodah zarah, for just as one who offers a korbon on a Bamah when there is complete Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah in the Mishkan demonstrates that he does not perceive or appreciate the significance of Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah, and he actually offends the concept of Hashra’as Ha-Shechinah due to his failure to recognize and pay homage to it, so too does the presence of avodah zarah in Eretz Yisroel reflect a negation of Kedushas Ha-Aretz and represents a most serious offense to the character of Eretz Yisroel as the locus where Hashem's Presence is manifest. The neglect and offense to the special holiness of the Mishkan/Beis Ha-Mikdash and Eretz Yisroel, as engendered by the manifestation of Hashem's Presence in these places, that is precipitated by the existence of avodah zarah and the offering of korbonos on Bamos, is the common theme of these two topics, and it is the reason that they are presented by the Torah in conjunction with each other.

Let us appreciate and be in awe when we stand in mekomos kedoshim, in holy venues. Whereas nonchalant, mundane and certainly profane conduct therein constitutes a serious offense, respectful and reverent comportment therein in the spirit of "Da lifnei Mi atah omaid" ("Know before Whom you stand") fulfills Hashem's desire and brings us ever closer to Him.