Yehoshua Chapter 23: It's So Hard to Say Goodbye

Shoftim 20: Third Time's the Charm

Judges 20 parallels the story of the battle of Ai. After Jericho, the Israelites were overly confident. They battled Ai with a small force and were routed. They returned to Joshua distraught. God reveled that someone had stolen from the booty of Jericho. As a result, the army was doomed to failure. After the Israelites repented, God told them to go again to fight Ai and they would be victorious. They devise an ambush attack wherein one fighting force will draw out the army, and then a second group will enter the unprotected city. The signal there was a pillar of smoke rising up from the city. In chapter 20, the Israelites prepare to attack Benjamin. They approach God and ask who should go first. God responds that Judah should attack first. The Benjaminites defeat Judah despite having a much smaller fighting force. Licking their wounds, the Israelites return to God and ask, “shall we again attack the children of Benjamin our brother?” God responded yes. Once again, the Israelites are routed. The third time they “wept and sat before God and fasted that day until the evening and gave sacrifices before God.” וַיַּעֲלוּ כָל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל־הָעָם וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵית־אֵל וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיָּצוּמוּ בַיּוֹם־הַהוּא עַד־הָעָרֶב וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי ה׳ (verse 26). They ask again through Pinchas whether they should continue fighting Benjamin, and this time God says yes. They then use the same basic strategy that Joshua used against Ai: one force draws the enemy out, while another waits in ambush and attacks the exposed city. The plan works, which raises the obvious question: why does the Navi frame this civil war as a replay of Ai?Radak explains that the delay was not because God was uncertain, but because the people did not ask properly. They were not speaking to a prophet who could rebuke them, explain the situation, or give broader guidance. They were asking through the Urim V’Tumim, which answers only the question posed. The first time, they ask only which tribe should go first. The second time, they grasp more of the moral weight and ask whether they should attack “our brother Benjamin.” Only the third time do they fast, weep, bring offerings, and ask the full question: should they continue or stop? Only then do they receive the decisive answer.That is the key difference from Ai. After the first defeat at Ai, Joshua could fall before God, plead on behalf of the people, and receive a full explanation. Here, there is no Joshua. There is no national leader with that direct connection to God. The people are forced to communicate through a narrow, question-and-answer channel, almost like a broken telephone. Even their victory is depressing: they defeat Benjamin, but Benjamin is not Canaan. Benjamin is their brother. The Navi borrows the structure of Ai to show how far Israel has fallen. The same military pattern that once defeated an enemy city is now being used in a civil war, by a people who are victorious but leaderless.

Shoftim 19: Sodom Redux

Chapter 19 of Judges mimics Chapter 19 of Genesis and the story of Sodom. Visitors are taken in by someone in a city. In the middle of the night, townsfolk surround the house demanding the visitor be send out for nefarious purposes. Someone inside the house offers up another victim to the crowd. There are countless parallel word choices. For example: “Do not on any account spend the night in the square” (אַל־נָא תָלַן בָּרְחוֹב) (Verse 20) and “But they said, ‘No, we will spend the night in the square’” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹּא כִּי בָרְחוֹב נָלִין) (Genesis 19:2)/ “they bathed their feet and ate and drank” (וַיִּרְחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ) (verse 21) and “and bathe your feet; then you may be on your way early” (וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם לְדַרְכְּכֶם) (Genesis 19:2)/ “the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathered about the house” (אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל נָסַבּוּ אֶת־הַבַּיִת) (verse 22) and “They had not yet lain down, when the town council [and] the militia of Sodom, young and old alike, the whole assembly without exception—gathered about the house” (טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל־הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן כָּל־הָעָם מִקָּצֶה) (Genesis 19:4) / “Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can know him” (הוֹצֵא אֶת־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בָּא אֶל־בֵּיתְךָ וְנֵדָעֶנּוּ) (verse 22) and “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be know them” (אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם) (Genesis 19:5)/ “The owner of the house went out” (וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת) (verse 23) and “So Lot went out to them to the entrance” (וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵהֶם לוֹט הַפֶּתְחָה) (Genesis 19:6)/ “Please, my friends, do not commit such a wrong” (אַל־אַחַי אַל־תָּרֵעוּ נָא) (verse 23) and “I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong” (אַל־נָא אַחַי תָּרֵעוּ) (Genesis 19:7); “Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. Let me bring them out to you. Have your pleasure of them, do what you like with them; but don’t do that outrageous thing to this man” (הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשֵׁהוּ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אוֹתָם וְעַנּוּ אוֹתָם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ דְבַר הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת) (verse 24) and “Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to the others” (הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר) (Genesis 19:8). The Navi intentionally wrote this chapter to reference the evil of Sodom. But there is more. This time, there are no angels to save the family. The man seems completely indifferent to the plight of his concubine. She collapses on the front steps, and he only notices her when he gets up in the morning from a restful sleep and tries to open the door. There is also the added prologue of the aborted stop off in Jerusalem. The man did not want to spend the night in a non-Israelite town. The Navi piles on the messaging here. The man and his concubine would have been safer in the non-Israelite town of Jerusalem. That is how far the Israelites had fallen. On top of that, no one looks good in this story. Both the townsfolk and the man look depraved and indifferent. The message is clear- the nation had fallen so far down that they are evil as Sodom, they are worse then the nations around them.

Shoftim 18: Which Expulsion

In a throwback to the end of Joshua, the tribe of Dan is restless. They are not satisfied with their allotment and decide to go on a reconnaissance mission.  Along the way, they encounter Micha and his priest, idol, and ephod. The Danites take everything and bring it to their newfound land. That land is populated by a tribe of Phoenicians that the text emphasizes were not harming or bothering anyone. The Danites massacre the tribe and take over the land and name it after their forefather Dan. The story end with a cryptic phrase: “The Danites set up the sculptured image for themselves; and Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh and his descendants, served as priests to the Danite tribe until the land went into exile” (וַיָּקִימוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי־דָן אֶת־הַפָּסֶל וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁםבֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד־יוֹם גְּלוֹתהָאָרֶץ) (verse 30). Which exile? It would make sense that the text is referring to the exile of the ten northern tribes during the Assyrian assault. This is Rashi’s opinion. The problem is that that will not happen for hundreds of years. According to Baba Basra 14b, Samuel the prophet wrote the book of Judges. Samuel died well before David united the tried under one kingdom, which was hundreds of years before the expulsion of the northern tribes. If Samuel wrote the book, then why (or how) would he reference something that happened hundreds of years after his death? Furthermore, how would David and Shlomo have allowed this idol worship center to persist in the north during their reigns? As to the second question, the Malbim explains that David did remove the idol worship and the “priestly” line of Jonathan repented. When Jerobaam became king of the Northern tribes, he installed a new idol in Dan. He reinstalled the family of Jonathan as the priests of this idol. Radak explains that the expulsion here has to be taken in context of Samuel. Samuel would be talking about the expulsion of the Ark when it was stolen during his lifetime. That is why the text says “expulsion of the land” (גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ) and not expulsion of the tribe of Dan or the expulsion of the Northern Kingdom.  Ralbag explains that this expulsion wasspecific to this land of the Danites. This took place at the hands of Yavin theking of Canaan. And that is why Devorah referred in her song “Dan why do youtravel by ships?” (וְדָן לָמָּה יָגוּר אֳנִיּוֹת) (5:17). Neither of the Dan territories was near the water. This must refer to the northern Dan tribe fleeing over the Jordan river after they were expelled and would also mean that this story took place before the story of Devorah earlier in the book.

Shoftim 17: Carry on My Wayward Son

The last few chapters of Judges have no judges.Instead, they are stories of the utter chaos the existed in Israel. The Navi willrepeat the phrase “at that time there was no king in Israel, every one did whatthey wanted to do” over and over again. The first story involves Micha. Michaadmits to his mother that he stole silver coins from her. She is so over-joyedthat she instructs him to purchase a robe and idol with the money. Micha thensets up a little temple in his house. One day a stranger appears: “There was a young man fromBethlehem of Judah, from the clan seat of Judah; he was a Levite and he was“ger-sham” וַיְהִי נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַתיְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר־שָׁם (Judges 17:7) . This verse is very strange. The man comes fromBethlehem in Judah. That is fine. But then the verse says he is from the tribeof Judah and a Levite. How could he be both? Some commentators say that he wasa Levite who lived in the territory of Judah. The Levite cities were scatteredthroughout the land. Other commentators explain that this individual was reallya member of the tribe of Judah and not a Levite. In this reading, the best casescenario he acted as a teacher, and so he was called a Levite. Worst casescenario, which seems more likely given the context of the story, is that hewas an imposter Levite. The symbolism here is of the ruling class of Judahtaking on the priestly duties of the tribe of Levi. A thousand years later,during the Hashmonaic period, the opposite will happen. The tribe of Levi willtake over the kingship from Judah. This act will anger many members of thetribe of Judah, including Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi who compiled the Mishna and leftout the Hanukah story as a result. The last part of the verse 7 is also odd.What does “gar-sham” mean? The literal translation is that he sojourned there.This means that the man was somewhat of a nomad who happened to be living inYehudah at the time. Some commentators think that the Navi is using a play onwords to protect his real name. Gar-sham really should be Gershom from thetribe of Levi who was Moshe’s son. This is bolstered by the next chapterreferring to the priest as the grandson of “Menashe” but with the “nun”suspended revealing the name of Moshe. But if the Navi wanted to protect Moshe,why tell the story of his wayward descendant at all? Once again, the Navi istrying to send a message against the troubles of a monarchy. Yes, the officialline of these last few chapters is that monarchy can bring stability anduniformity and peace. But, Monarchy can also have a downside. Even the grandsonof the greatest leader of the Israelites can go astray.

Shoftim 16: No Strings Attached

Stop me if you heard this story before- boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl’s countrymen want to kill boy, girl’s countrymen try to get girl to get boy in a vulnerable situation. Boy narrowly escapes. The story Shimshon repeats over and over again. But this time, third times the charm for the Philistines. The first wife revealed his riddle, but she ended up being burned, literally, by her countrymen. The prostitute at the beginning of this chapter could not hold Shimshon inside the walls of the city, but Delilah finally gets him to reveal his secret. In the end, Shimshon reveals that he is nazir, and his strength is derived from his long hair. וַיַּגֶּד־לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מוֹרָה לֹא־עָלָה עַל־רֹאשִׁי כִּי־נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי אִם־גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּכָל־הָאָדָם׃ וַתֵּרֶא דְּלִילָה כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתִּקְרָא לְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ הַפַּעַם כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וְעָלוּ אֵלֶיהָ סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּעֲלוּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדָם׃ “and he revealed his heart to her. He said to her, ‘No razor has ever touched my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as weak as an ordinary man/ Sensing that he had revealed his heart to her, Delilah sent for the lords of the Philistines…’” (verse 17-18). The key phrase here is “he revealed his heart”. This is a very revealing moment for Shimshon. This is the first time in the text that Shimshon discusses his Nazirite life. His parents, who set him up for this lifestyle also disappear from the story after his first encounter with the lion and honey. The tough strong powerful Shimshon has a moment of emotional vulnerability and Delilah picks up on this immediately. She realizes that he has finally revealed the truth to her. What makes Shimshon do this? Delilah clearly was trying to trap him! Perhaps Shimshon was tired. Tired of his solitary life as a nazir. Tired of his solitary life as a judge of a wayward nation. Tired of his endless quest for companionship that kept ending in disaster. Tired of the burden placed upon him by his mother. But if he was emotionally vulnerable in the moment, then why does God leave him? The message seems backwards. Is Shimshon really punished for a moment of vulnerability? Perhaps this is yet more commentary on monarchy. Shimshon did not choose to be a judge. He was given this task from birth- like a king. Like a king he must carry this burden his whole life. Monarchy means that rulers are pushed into a lifestyle they may not want. But once crowned king, that choice goes away. As Queen Mary tells Elizabeth in the Netflix series The Crown, “Elizabeth Mountbatten… has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina… The fact is, the Crown must win. Must always win.” Shimshon’s tragedy is a darker biblical version of that same burden: he was chosen before birth, marked by the Nazirite vow before he could consent, and expected to carry a public mission that left little room for an ordinary private life. God’s people are too important for a king to allow their personal life to distract from their duty. In the end, however God does hear Shimshon’s cry. He helps him not only by restoring his strength to exact revenge, but also by allowing Shimshon’s family to bury him in his father’s tomb. Back with his family.