Judges 9

Sugya Map

The tragic narrative of Avimelekh’s rise and fall in Judges 9 serves as the locus classicus for the constitutional limits of political authority, the halakhic status of regional usurpation, and the metaphysical mechanics of conditional curses. The sugya maps along the following parameters:

• The Core Issue: Does an un-nominated, non-prophetic, and factional appointment of a leader carry the halakhic status of Malchut (monarchy), or is it classified as Chamas (usurpation)?
• The Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications):
  1. Dina d'Malkhuta Dina: Does a regional warlord have the legal authority to collect taxes and impose capital punishment under Mishpat HaMelekh?
  2. Yerushat Melukhah: Does the principle of dynastic succession apply to a leader who was not appointed by the Sanhedrin or a prophet?
  3. Klalat Chacham: How does Jotham's conditional curse operate within the framework of divine justice when human courts are paralyzed?
• Primary Sources: Judges 9:1-57, Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1, Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Loss 5, Berakhot 35a, Makkot 11a.

---

Text Snapshot

The grammatical and semantic friction in Jotham’s fable reveals the deep-seated ironies of Avimelekh’s regime. Consider the response of the fig tree:

הֶחָדַלְתִּי אֶת־מָתְקִי וְאֶת־תְּנוּבָתִי הַטּוֹבָה וְהָלַכְתִּי לָנוּעַ עַל־הָעֵצִים׃ "Have I stopped yielding my sweetness, my delicious fruit, that I should go and wave above the trees?" [^1]

And the response of the vine:

הֶחָדַלְתִּי אֶת־תִּירֹשִׁי הַמְשַׂמֵּחַ אֱלֹקִים וַאֲנָשִׁים וְהָלַכְתִּי לָנוּעַ עַל־הָעֵצִים׃ "Have I stopped yielding my new wine, which gladdens God and humans, that I should go and wave above the trees?" [^2]

Grammatical Nuance: The Interrogative Heh

The word hechadalati (הֶחָדַלְתִּי) is vocalized with a Heh containing a segol and a Chet with a kamatz. This is a classic interrogative Heh (Heh HaShe'elah) before a guttural letter, signaling a rhetorical question of refusal. The verb lanua (לָנוּעַ), meaning "to wave" or "to drift," points to the essential nature of the cheftza (object) of political power: it is rootless, mobile, and superficial, contrasted with the deep, productive roots of the fruit-bearing trees.

Minchat Shai on Matki

The Minchat Shai on Judges 9:11 notes that the word matki (מָתְקִי) is written with a kamatz katan under the Mem and a chataf-kamatz under the Tav.[^3] This grammatical structure highlights that "sweetness" is not merely an external byproduct of the fig, but an intrinsic, structural characteristic. To abandon this internal matkut for the sake of political maneuvering (lanua al ha-etzim) would be a fundamental betrayal of its purpose (tzurato ha-atzmit).

---

Readings

Reading 1: The Midrashic-Rashi Identification of the Trees

Rashi, drawing from Midrashic traditions, identifies the allegorical trees not as abstract political concepts, but as specific historical figures who judged Israel before the rise of Avimelekh:

• The Olive Tree: This represents Othniel ben Kenaz, who restored the thousands of halakhot forgotten after the death of Moses.[^4] His oil "honors God and man" because Torah study brings honor to both the Creator and the student.
• The Fig Tree: Rashi explicitly writes, "This refers to Deborah." [^5] Deborah's judging under her palm tree was sweet (matki) and productive (tenuvati ha-tovah), providing Israel with the sweet solace of prophetic guidance.
• The Vine: This refers to Gideon (Jerubbaal), who brought joy (tirosh) through his miraculous defeat of Midian and steadfastly refused to establish a dynasty, declaring that only God should rule over Israel.[^6]
• The Thornbush (Atad): This represents Avimelekh, who possessed neither the Torah knowledge of Othniel, the prophecy of Deborah, nor the humility of Gideon.

The chiddush of this Midrashic reading is that legitimate leadership in Israel must be rooted in productive, spiritual fruit. The refusal of the first three trees is not a rejection of responsibility, but a halakhic assertion: one does not abandon a higher spiritual calling (avodat Hashem) to engage in political administration unless explicitly commanded by God.

Reading 2: Malbim’s Sociological and Psychological Taxonomy

The Malbim takes a highly systematic approach, analyzing the fable as a representation of different socio-political classes within the nation:

• The Intellectual Elite (The Olive): The Malbim writes that the intellectual and spiritual giants (kat hachachamim v'hatovim) refuse to rule because political office requires them to abandon their intellectual perfection.[^7] For them, ruling is merely "waving over the trees"—an empty, superficial exercise of power that diverts them from their true devotion to God.
• The Wealthy Class (The Fig): This represents the wealthy (kat ha'ashirim) who seek material comfort and physical sweetness (matki). They refuse because political responsibility threatens their private wealth and tranquil existence.[^8]
• The Honor-Seekers (The Vine): These are the aristocrats who enjoy sensory stimulation and public prestige (tirosh). They refuse because they prefer the private enjoyment of their prestige to the burdens of statecraft.
• The Thornbush (Atad): This represents the rootless demagogue (ha'ish ha-reik v'ha-nimratz). Having no assets, no virtues, and no achievements, he has nothing to lose. He demands absolute submission ("take shelter in my shade") and uses terror ("may fire issue") as his sole tool of governance.

The Malbim's chiddush is that political tyranny occurs when the productive classes of society withdraw from the public square. When the intellectuals, the wealthy, and the noble refuse to engage in governance, they leave a vacuum that is inevitably filled by the barren "thornbush."

Reading 3: Rambam vs. Abarbanel on the Legality of Avimelekh’s Monarchy

Did Avimelekh possess the legal status of a king (Melekh), or was his regime a halakhic non-entity?

The Rambam rules that there are two legitimate paths to the throne:

1. Appointment by a prophet and a Sanhedrin of seventy elders.[^9]
2. National consensus, where all of Israel accepts the leader.[^10]

Avimelekh met neither criterion. He was appointed solely by the ba'alei shekhem (the local lords of Shechem) Judges 9:6, a localized faction. Furthermore, he financed his coup with seventy shekels of silver stolen from the pagan temple of Baal-berith Judges 9:4.

The Abarbanel, in his commentary on Judges 9, argues that Avimelekh was not a legitimate king but a tyrant (tyrannus), what the Gemara refers to as a melyas or guzlal (a robber-ruler). Since his appointment lacked national consensus (kabbalat ha-am) and prophetic backing, his decrees did not carry the weight of Dina d'Malkhuta Dina. His execution of his seventy brothers "on one stone" Judges 9:5 was not an exercise of royal prerogative (Mishpat HaMelekh) but simple, unadulterated murder.

Reading 4: Steinsaltz on the Paganization of Covenantal Space

Rav Adin Steinsaltz highlights the tragic irony of the location of Avimelekh's coronation: the "terebinth of the pillar" (elon mutzab) in Shechem Judges 9:6.

Shechem was the very site where Joshua renewed the covenant between Israel and God, setting up a great stone under the oak by the sanctuary of Hashem.[^11] The citizens of Shechem took this sacred covenantal space and paganized it, transforming the covenant of God into a covenant with Baal-berith (the "Lord of the Covenant") Judges 9:4.

On this Tzom Tammuz, when we fast to commemorate the breach of the walls of Jerusalem and the placing of an idol in the Sanctuary,[^12] we can see the seeds of this tragedy in Shechem. Avimelekh's rise represents the internal spiritual breach: using the architectural and spiritual remnants of Joshua's covenant to fund a fratricidal coup with pagan temple money. The internal collapse of Jewish unity begins when the sacred covenant is cheapened into political currency.

---

Friction

Kushya A: The Theological Anthropomorphism of Wine

In the fable, the vine refuses the crown by asking:

הֶחָדַלְתִּי אֶת־תִּירֹשִׁי הַמְשַׂמֵּחַ אֱלֹקִים וַאֲנָשִׁים... "Have I stopped yielding my new wine, which gladdens God and humans..." [^13]

How can wine be said to "gladden God" (Elokim)? This sounds highly anthropomorphic, bordering on the pagan beliefs of the surrounding Canaanite cultures who offered wine to appease their deities.

Terutz 1: The Talmudic-Halakhic Resolution

The Gemara in Berakhot 35a addresses this exact question:

"מכאן שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין." "From here we learn that song [of praise] is only recited over wine." [^14]

The "rejoicing" of God does not refer to physical consumption, but to the shirah (liturgical song) sung by the Levites in the Beit HaMikdash during the pouring of the wine libations (nesakhim) upon the Altar. The wine serves as the physical catalyst for the spiritual song; thus, the pleasure is entirely spiritual, elevated through the service of the Temple.

Terutz 2: The Philological Resolution (Radak)

The Radak offers a contextual, linguistic solution. The word Elokim in Tanakh does not always refer to the Creator; it is frequently used to designate judges, rulers, or angels.[^15]

Therefore, the verse should be translated as: "which gladdens leaders and commoners." Wine is the great equalizer—it is drunk by kings in their palaces and by laborers in the vineyards, bringing joy to all strata of society.

---

Kushya B: The Legality of Fratricide and Jotham’s Curse

Avimelekh executed his seventy brothers "on one stone" Judges 9:5. Jotham, the sole survivor, does not seek a judicial remedy from the Sanhedrin or assemble an army. Instead, he climbs Mount Gerizim and issues a conditional curse:

...וְאִם־אַיִן תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מֵאֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְתֹאכַל אֶת־בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וְאֶת־בֵּית מִלּוֹא וְתֵצֵא אֵשׁ מִבַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וּמִבֵּית מִלּוֹא וְתֹאכַל אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ׃ "...but if not, may fire issue from Abimelech and consume the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo, and may fire issue from the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo and consume Abimelech!" [^16]

This raises a double difficulty:

1. The Legal Gap: If Avimelekh and the citizens of Shechem committed murder, why does the text rely on a metaphysical curse rather than standard halakhic prosecution?
2. The Operational Mechanism: How does a conditional curse (klalah al tnay) possess the power to orchestrate historical events, leading to the literal fulfillment of the fire three years later?

Terutz

Under the laws of Sanhedrin, a capital conviction requires hatra'ah (forewarning) and kosher witnesses (edim kesherim). In a lawless, paganized society where the judiciary is corrupt or non-existent, human justice is paralyzed.

Jotham’s curse was not a magical spell, but a formal legal invocation of Middat HaDin (Divine Justice). By framing the curse as a condition (im be-emet... ve-im ayin), Jotham was setting up a heavenly trial.

Because the human courts were silent, God accepted the case. The text states:

וַיִּשְׁלַח אֱלֹקִים רוּחַ רָעָה בֵּין אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּבֵין בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם... "Then God sent a spirit of discord between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem..." [^17]

The "spirit of discord" was the divine execution of Jotham’s conditional covenant. When human justice is impossible, the metaphysical law of retribution (mida k'neged mida) is triggered, turning the conspirators against one another.

---

Intertext

Parallel 1: The Covenant at Shechem

The coronation of Avimelekh at the "oak of the pillar" (elon mutzab) in Shechem Judges 9:6 directly mirrors and subverts the covenant ceremony performed by Joshua:

Joshua 24	Judges 9
Joshua gathers all the tribes to Shechem Joshua 24:1	Avimelekh gathers the citizens of Shechem Judges 9:1
He sets up a great stone (even gedolah) Joshua 24:26	Avimelekh slaughters his brothers on one stone (even echat) Judges 9:5
The stone is placed under the oak (allah) near the sanctuary Joshua 24:26	Avimelekh is crowned at the oak of the pillar (elon mutzab) Judges 9:6
The stone serves as a witness to Israel's loyalty to God Joshua 24:27	The stone becomes a monument of fratricide and betrayal

This intertextual link reveals the depth of Shechem’s degradation. The very stone that Joshua erected to witness Israel's eternal loyalty to the Torah is used by Avimelekh as a chopping block to eliminate his brothers. The sacred space of covenantal loyalty is systematically inverted into a site of political opportunism and pagan alliance.

Parallel 2: Deuteronomy 17:15 and the Halakha of "Mi-Kerev Acheikha"

The Torah commands regarding the appointment of a king:

שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ... מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃ "You shall surely set a king over you... from among your brethren you shall set a king over you; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not your brother." [^18]

The Rambam, codifying this law, rules that this exclusion applies not only to a non-Jew, but also to anyone whose maternal lineage is not fully of Jewish descent.[^19]

Avimelekh explicitly exploits and distorts this halakha. He approaches his mother’s family in Shechem and argues:

...וּזְכַרְתֶּם כִּי־עַצְמֵי וּבְשָׂרִי אָנִי׃ "...and remember, I am your own bone and flesh." [^20]

His mother was a Shechemite concubine Judges 8:31, and Jotham later disparages him as the "son of his handmaid" (ben amato) Judges 9:18. Avimelekh attempts to satisfy the requirement of "brotherhood" through a localized, maternal, and pagan clan-identity ("our kinsman") rather than the national, spiritual brotherhood of Israel. He offers a tribal counterfeit of the Torah's constitutional mandate, substituting genetic kinsmanship for covenantal character.

---

Psak/Practice

How does the tragic saga of Avimelekh land in the realm of Halakha and meta-psak heuristics?

1. The Halakhic Reality of "Klalat Chacham"

The efficacy of Jotham’s curse is codified as a psychological and halakhic reality. The Gemara in Makkot 11a states:

"קללת חכם אפילו על תנאי היא באה." "The curse of a sage, even if conditional, comes to pass." [^21]

Even though the conditional curse was meant to protect the innocent if they acted honorably, the sheer utterance of a curse by a righteous person (tzaddik) unleashes a potent spiritual reality that can manifest if even a fraction of the condition is violated. Consequently, poskim warn against uttering any form of self-curse or conditional curse, even in jest or as an oath, because of the destructive potential of the spoken word.

2. The Limits of "Dina d'Malkhuta Dina" for a Usurper

Does the tax law or decree of an illegitimate, regional ruler bind the populace? The Rambam rules:

"במה דברים אמורים במלך שהמטבע שלו יוצא באותן הארצות... אבל אם אין המטבע שלו יוצא... הרי הוא כגזלן בעל זרוע... ואין דיניו דין." "When does this apply [that the king's law is law]? With a king whose currency is accepted in those lands... But if his currency is not accepted... he is considered a powerful robber... and his laws are not laws." [^22]

Avimelekh's "reign" of three years over a fraction of Israel Judges 9:22 did not possess the halakhic status of Malchut. Because he lacked both prophetic designation and national consensus, his regime was legally classified as Chamas (robbery). His decrees carried no halakhic weight, and any citizen who resisted his taxation or authority was legally protected from the status of a Mored BeMalkhut (rebel against the crown).

---

Takeaway

Political power divorced from covenantal character is a rootless thornbush; it offers only the illusion of shade, while harboring the sparks of its own destruction.

---

Footnotes

[^1]: Judges 9:11. [^2]: Judges 9:13. [^3]: Minchat Shai on Judges 9:11 s.v. "מתקי". [^4]: Temurah 16a; see also Yalkut Shimoni on Prophets 64. [^5]: Rashi on Judges 9:10 s.v. "אל התאנה". [^6]: Judges 8:23. [^7]: Malbim on Judges 9:10 s.v. "ויאמרו העצים לתאנה". [^8]: Malbim, ibid. [^9]: Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1:3. [^10]: Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1:8. [^11]: Joshua 24:25-26. [^12]: Mishnah Ta'anit 4:6. [^13]: Judges 9:13. [^14]: Berakhot 35a. [^15]: Radak on Judges 9:13 s.v. "המשמח אלהים ואנשים"; cf. Exodus 22:8. [^16]: Judges 9:20. [^17]: Judges 9:23. [^18]: Deuteronomy 17:15. [^19]: Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1:4. [^20]: Judges 9:2. [^21]: Makkot 11a. [^22]: Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Loss 5:11.