וַיֶּאֱהַ֤ב שְׁלֹמֹה֙ אֶת־יְהוָ֔ה לָלֶ֕כֶת בְּחֻקּ֖וֹת דָּוִ֣ד אָבִ֑יו רַ֚ק בַּבָּמ֔וֹת ה֥וּא מְזַבֵּ֖חַ וּמַקְטִֽיר׃
At inibig ni Solomon ang Walang-Hanggan, na lumalakad sa mga palatuntunan ni David na kanyang ama; ngunit sa mga dambana sa matataas na dako siya naghahandog at nagsusunog ng insenso.
From David to Destruction
Imagine being criticized for doing something permissible. Sefer Melachim seems to do this to Shlomo HaMelech. Melachim I 3:3 records that Shlomo HaMelech loves Hashem, an accolade unique to Shlomo HaMelech among all the kings described in Sefer Melachim (Da’at Mikra). It concludes, though, by noting an exception in that he offered Korbanot on Bamot, altars outside the Beit HaMikdash.
From David to Destruction
A possible problem with this approach is its paucity of evidence. It is difficult to identify a source for Radak and the Metzudat David’s presumption that Bamot were permitted with great reluctance and reservation. Perhaps their source is Melachim I 3:3, which criticizes Shlomo HaMelech for offering Korbanot on Bamot, using the plural form of Bamah. Radak and the Metzudat David might draw their conclusion from the fact that the Pasuk condemns Shlomo HaMelech for offering Korbanot on multiple Bamot, as opposed to criticizing him for offering Kobanot on a Bamah or the Bamah Gedolah. It appears that the excessive amount of Bamot on which Shlomo HaMelech offered Korbanot is cause for criticism.
From David to Destruction
In light of the lingering questions regarding the classic explanations of Melachim I 3:3, we offer a new suggestion. Perhaps Shlomo HaMelech is criticized for not preparing Am Yisrael for the coming time when Bamot would be forbidden.