Judges 20:27-21:25

Sugya Map: The War Against Benjamin and its Aftermath

• Issue: The catastrophic civil war initiated by the tribes of Israel against Benjamin following the atrocity in Gibeah, culminating in near-annihilation of the tribe and the subsequent halachic and communal challenges of repopulating Benjamin and upholding oaths.
• Nafka Mina:
  • The proper way to consult God in times of war and crisis.
  • The severity of collective punishment and the role of divine sanction in warfare.
  • The tension between communal oaths and the need for tribal continuity.
  • The halachic mechanisms for circumventing oaths under specific circumstances.
  • The implications of the absence of central leadership ("אין מלך בישראל") for communal decision-making and ethical conduct.
• Primary Sources:
  • Tanakh: Sefer Shoftim (Book of Judges) Chapters 20-21.
  • Mishnah: Yevamot 1:1 (on marrying a sister-in-law, relevant to the need for wives).
  • Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin 101b (on the sin of Gibeah and its consequences).
  • Midrash Rabbah: Bemidbar Rabbah (on communal responsibility and divine intervention).

Text Snapshot: The Divine Command and the Ambush

וַיֹּאמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲלֶה לָנוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה בְּבִנְיָמִן--וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, יְהוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. (Judges 20:23)

And Israel said, "Who shall go up first for us to battle against the children of Benjamin?" And the LORD said, "Judah shall go up first."

וַיַּעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל-גִּבְעָה. וַיֵּצְאוּ הָאִישִׁים יִשְׂרָאֵל לַמִּלְחָמָה, עַל-גִּבְעָה; וַיַּעַרְכוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַמִּלְחָמָה, עִם-בִּנְיָמִין--מִשְׁמָר, בְּגִבְעָה. (Judges 20:26-27)

And Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah. And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and ordered themselves in array for battle against Gibeah, [as] the first day.

וַיַּעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַמִּלְחָמָה, וַיַּעַרְכוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם-בִּנְיָמִין, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי; וַיַּעַמְדוּ הָאִישִׁים יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁמָר בְּגִבְעָה. וַיֵּצְאוּ מִן-הָעִיר, בִּנְיָמִין, לִקְרַאת הָעָם--וַיָּחִלּוּ עוֹד לְהַפִּיל לָהֶם אֲנָשִׁים--כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ, בַּשָּׂדֶה. (Judges 20:32-33)

And Israel went up to battle, and ordered themselves in array against Benjamin, the third day, as they did before. And the men of Benjamin went out of the city, and began to lay about them of Israel, and struck down, of the people, about thirty men: for they said, We are beaten down before them, as at the first.

Nuance Observations:

• וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, יְהוּדָה רִאשׁוֹנָה (20:23): The divine directive is concise and direct, indicating God's agency in strategizing. The emphasis on "first" (רִאשׁוֹנָה) suggests not just initiative but also a divinely ordained order of engagement.
• וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל-גִּבְעָה (20:26): "Encamped against Gibeah" signifies a strategic positioning, not necessarily an immediate assault.
• וַיַּעַמְדוּ הָאִישִׁים יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁמָר בְּגִבְעָה (20:32): This phrase, "for guard/station in Gibeah," in the context of the third day's battle, is crucial. It contrasts with the previous days' direct assaults and hints at the ambush strategy. The juxtaposition with the Benjaminites striking down thirty men in the field (בַּשָּׂדֶה) highlights the shift in tactics. The commentators will wrestle with the precise meaning of "לְמִשְׁמָר" here.

Readings: Divine Strategy and Communal Cry

Metzudat David on Judges 20:23

ושם ארון וגו׳. ולפי שבפעמים הראשונות לא בחנו ולא הצליחו, לא זכר לא הארון ולא הכהן השואל:

"And the Ark of God was there, etc. And because in the first times they did not test [God properly] and did not succeed, neither the Ark nor the priest who inquired was remembered [as the primary source of guidance]."

The Metzudat David points to a critical shift in the narrative's presentation of divine consultation. The first two battles were disastrous. Despite the presence of the Ark and the priest, the Israelites' success was not immediate. The Metzudat David implies that their method of inquiry might have been flawed initially, perhaps lacking the proper testing (בחינה) of God's will or the appropriate spiritual state. This leads to the explicit divine command in verse 23, bypassing the usual intermediaries and offering a direct strategic instruction. The emphasis is on God's direct involvement in military planning, not merely responding to their queries.

Steinsaltz on Judges 20:27 (as quoted in the prompt)

The children of Israel inquired of the Lord, and the Ark of the Covenant of God was there in those days;

While the provided quote is brief and observational, Rabbi Steinsaltz’s broader commentary on this section often emphasizes the interconnectedness of spiritual, communal, and military affairs. The presence of the Ark signifies the sanctity of the undertaking and the seriousness with which the Israelites approached God. However, the subsequent defeats highlight that divine presence alone is insufficient; proper strategy, humility, and perhaps a deeper understanding of God's will are paramount. His commentary would likely frame the initial defeats not as God's abandonment, but as a consequence of the Israelites' imperfect approach, necessitating a recalibration of their strategy and their relationship with the Divine. The initial failures serve as a prelude to the divinely ordained ambush, a tactic requiring both strategic brilliance and unwavering faith.

Rashi on Judges 20:32

וַיַּעַמְדוּ הָאִישִׁים יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁמָר בְּגִבְעָה.

"And the men of Israel stood as a guard/station in Gibeah."

Rashi: “עַמּוּדִים הָיוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שְׁמוֹת י״ד): 'וְהָיָה הֶעָנָן וְהָאֹפֶל' (שמות י״ד, י״ט), וְהָיוּ מַקִּיפִין הָעִיר מִצַּד אֶחָד, וְהַמַּצָּד מִצַּד אֶחָד.”

"They were pillars, as it is said (Exodus 14): 'And it was the pillar of cloud and darkness' (Exodus 14:19), and they were surrounding the city from one side, and the fortress from another side."

Rashi interprets "לְמִשְׁמָר" (le'mishmar) as "pillars" or "standing guard," drawing a parallel to the pillar of cloud and fire that guided Israel in the desert. This suggests a divinely ordained formation, a strategic encirclement rather than a frontal assault. The Benjaminites, expecting a repeat of the previous day's direct engagement, fall into the trap. Rashi’s explanation focuses on the tactical deployment of the Israelite army, emphasizing the element of surprise and the specific positioning that would facilitate the ambush. This interpretation frames the battle as a divinely orchestrated maneuver, where the Israelites' actions are guided by a celestial strategy.

Ralbag (Gersonides) on Judges 20:33

וַיֵּצְאוּ מִן-הָעִיר, בִּנְיָמִין, לִקְרַאת הָעָם--וַיָּחִלּוּ עוֹד לְהַפִּיל לָהֶם אֲנָשִׁים--כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ, בַּשָּׂדֶה.

"And the men of Benjamin went out of the city to meet the people; and they began again to strike down of the people, about thirty men in the field."

Ralbag: "והנה רצה הכתוב לומר, כי בנימין היו יוצאים לקראת ישראל, והיה זה תחילת מלחמה, והיה להם נצחון קצת, כדי שיחשבו בנימין כי עתה יגברו עליהם כמו בימים הראשונים. ואז ירדפו אחריהם, ויצאו מן העיר, והיה זה סיבה להפילם."

"And the text wishes to say that Benjamin went out to meet Israel, and this was the beginning of the battle, and they had a small victory, so that Benjamin would think that now they would prevail over them as in the first days. And then they would pursue them, and go out of the city, and this would be the reason for their downfall."

Ralbag, a philosopher and scientist, approaches the text with a keen eye for strategic causality and human psychology. He interprets the initial skirmish not as a genuine Benjaminites' victory, but as a deliberate tactic by the Israelites to feign defeat. The thirty men struck down were likely part of the planned retreat to draw the Benjaminites out of Gibeah, thus setting the stage for the main ambush. Ralbag emphasizes the rational and calculated nature of the Israelite strategy, attributing the success to human ingenuity and psychological manipulation, albeit within a framework of divine permission. He sees the Benjaminites' overconfidence as the direct cause of their undoing.

Friction: The Oath and the Maiden

The most profound friction arises from the clash between the solemn oath taken at Mizpah—"None of us must ever give his daughter in marriage to a Benjaminite" (21:1)—and the subsequent dire need to repopulate the decimated tribe. This creates a paradox: how can a community uphold a sacred vow while simultaneously ensuring the survival of one of its constituent parts, especially when that survival seems divinely ordained ("For they said, 'There must be a saving remnant for Benjamin, that a tribe may not be blotted out of Israel'" 21:17)?

The Strongest Kushya:

If the oath was binding and divinely sanctioned, how could the elders of Israel orchestrate the abduction of the daughters of Shiloh? Did they not, in essence, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of their own sworn prohibition? Furthermore, the earlier punitive expedition against Jabesh-gilead, where 400 virgins were taken, appears to be a direct attempt to circumvent the oath by procuring brides from outside the covenantal community, or at least from a segment that had failed to participate in the Mizpah assembly. This suggests a desperate measure, but one that still grapples with the implications of the oath.

The Best Terutz (or Two):

1. The "Be Generous" Clause and Implicit Divine Consent: The Benjaminites are instructed to tell the fathers and brothers of the Shiloh maidens: "'Be generous to them for our sake! We could not provide any of them with a wife on account of the war, and you would have incurred guilt if you yourselves had given them [wives].'" (21:22). This is a masterful piece of diplomatic and halachic maneuvering.

   • "Be generous" (הִתְנַדְּבוּ לָהֶם): This implies a voluntary act, not a forced one. The Benjaminites are not taking wives by force in this instance, but rather being given them, albeit under duress and with the understanding that the Israelite community is facilitating it.
   • "We could not provide… on account of the war": This is the casus belli. The war has created a situation where the oath against marrying Benjaminites is effectively impossible to fulfill without causing further communal disaster.
   • "You would have incurred guilt if you yourselves had given them": This is the crucial element. The fathers and brothers of the Shiloh maidens are presented with a dilemma: either they give their daughters to the Benjaminites, thereby violating the oath they implicitly swore to uphold by being part of the Israelite confederation, or they refrain, thus condemning Benjamin. The Israelites are essentially saying, "We have created a situation where any direct giving would be problematic. Therefore, allow the Benjaminites to take them, and this act of 'generosity' will absolve you of guilt, as it's a consequence of the broader communal crisis."
   • Divine Implication: The text states, "Now the people had relented toward Benjamin, for God had made a breach in the tribes of Israel" (21:15). This indicates a shift in divine will or allowance. The initial oath was a consequence of the collective anger; the subsequent provision for Benjamin is a reflection of God's desire for the preservation of the tribes. The orchestration of the Shiloh maidens' abduction, therefore, operates within this divinely permitted framework of communal restoration, where the strict interpretation of the oath is superseded by the greater need for tribal continuity, facilitated by a communal consensus that frames the act as one of reluctant necessity rather than outright violation.

2. The Distinction Between Direct Giving and Indirect Provision: The oath prohibited giving one's daughter. The Shiloh incident involves taking by Benjaminites from a communal festival, with the tacit approval of the elders. The elders' statement to the fathers of Shiloh creates a scenario where the daughters are essentially "found" and "taken" rather than "given" by their families. This subtle linguistic and procedural distinction allows for a loophole. The communal leadership, having sworn the oath, cannot directly provide wives. However, they can facilitate the acquisition of wives by another tribe, under the guise of a communal crisis response. The "generosity" clause is an attempt to smooth over this distinction, making it appear as though the fathers are relinquishing their daughters rather than directly giving them to a Benjaminite.

Intertext: Oaths, Absolution, and Communal Survival

1. Sefer Devarim (Deuteronomy) 7:1-2

כִּי הִנְּךָ עָמֵד לָבוֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, לְרִשְׁתָּהּ. וְהָיָה בְּבוֹא ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, וְהִצִּיתָה אֶת-גּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִפָּנֶיךָ, חִתִּי וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי--שִׁבְעָה גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וְעַצֻּמִים מִמֶּךָּ. וּנְתָנָם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְהִכִּיתָם; הָחֵרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם, לֹא-תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית, וְלֹא-תְחָנֵּם.

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are going to possess, and He drives out many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and stronger than you— and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show them no pity."

The prohibition against intermarriage and covenant-making with the Canaanite nations serves as a foundational principle of Israelite separatism and theological purity. The oath at Mizpah against marrying Benjaminites, while internal, echoes this theme of preserving the integrity of the Israelite community. However, the crisis in Judges 20-21 pushes the boundaries. While the oath was meant to punish Benjamin for the atrocity, the subsequent need to save the tribe from extinction creates a tension. The divine command to utterly destroy the Canaanites is absolute. The oath against marrying Benjaminites, however, is ultimately circumvented for the sake of communal survival. This raises questions about the relative weight of different types of prohibitions when faced with existential threats, and whether divine will can override even solemn communal oaths when tribal continuity is at stake. The "breach" made by God in the tribes of Israel (21:15) suggests a divine intervention that permits or necessitates the bending of the oath.

2. Maimonides, Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6

מִי שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּע שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַפַּרְגִּיּוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְהֵן שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ חֲבֵרוֹ: "הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְךָ, קַח וֶאֱכֹל", וְהוּא לְקָחָן וְאָכְלָן--פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּר שְׁבוּעָתוֹ. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לוֹ: "אִם לֹא תִּקָּחֶנּוּ, לֹא אֶתְנַדֵּב לְךָ כְּלוּם", וְהוּא לְקָחָן--חַיָּב, שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁבֹּר שְׁבוּעָתוֹ.

"One who swears not to eat from the paragiyot (small birds) in the house, and they are his, and his friend says to him: 'Here, these are for you, take and eat,' and he takes them and eats them—he is exempt, because he did not intend to break his oath. But if he said to him: 'If you do not take them, I will not contribute anything to you,' and he takes them—he is liable, because he intended to break his oath."

Maimonides’ principle here, concerning the intention behind breaking an oath, is highly relevant. The elders of Israel, when orchestrating the "taking" of the Shiloh maidens, carefully crafted the narrative. They instructed the Benjaminites to say, "'Be generous to them for our sake! We could not provide any of them with a wife on account of the war, and you would have incurred guilt if you yourselves had given them [wives].'" This framing is designed to demonstrate that the fathers and brothers of Shiloh were not directly giving their daughters in violation of the oath. Instead, the communal crisis, brought about by the war, necessitated a situation where the daughters were essentially "found" or "taken" by the Benjaminites, with the elders' implicit approval and explanation that any direct giving would be problematic. The intention was not to violate the oath, but to find a way to fulfill the greater imperative of tribal survival, within the constraints of the oath and the perceived divine will. The phrasing aims to negate the intent to break the oath by presenting it as an unavoidable consequence of circumstances, rather than a deliberate transgression.

Psak/Practice: The Precedent of Necessity and Communal Forgiveness

This sugya offers a powerful precedent for meta-halachic heuristics concerning communal survival versus strict adherence to oaths.

• The Principle of Pikuach Nefesh (Saving a Life) Applied to Tribal Survival: While pikuach nefesh typically refers to immediate physical danger, the near-annihilation of an entire tribe constitutes an existential crisis for the Jewish people. The narrative demonstrates that the imperative to preserve the collective, even a segment of it, can override previous communal vows, especially when the divine will appears to permit or even facilitate such a deviation.
• The Role of Communal Consensus and Divine Indication: The fact that the entire assembly repented and sought solutions, and that God's response shifted from sanctioning the war to facilitating Benjamin's restoration, is crucial. A halachic decision of this magnitude would require not just a single posek, but a communal consensus and a clear indication of divine favor or direction. The "breach" made by God in the tribes signifies this shift.
• The Mechanism of Circumvention: The Shiloh incident demonstrates a sophisticated method of circumvention, relying on:
  1. A Changed Circumstance: The devastating war created a new reality.
  2. A Shift in Divine Will: Indicated by God's intervention and the communal repentance.
  3. A Procedural Distinction: The difference between direct "giving" and indirect "taking" or "finding."
  4. A Diplomatic Framework: The "generosity" plea, framing the act as a necessity rather than a transgression.

This isn't a carte blanche to break vows, but a testament to the halachic principle that when the survival of the klal Yisrael is at stake, and when divine will appears to sanction it, established prohibitions can be navigated through careful legal reasoning and communal consensus.

Takeaway:

The survival of a people can necessitate the re-evaluation of even sacred oaths, particularly when divine will shifts towards preservation.

The halachic art lies not only in adhering to law but in navigating its application when faced with existential communal crises, guided by a blend of wisdom, strategy, and an awareness of divine involvement.