|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Introduction To The Prophets Yeshivat Har Etzion
*********************************************************
Dedicated by Paul and Diana Appelbaum
in honor of the first wedding anniversary of Yoni and Emily Appelbaum
*********************************************************
Shiur #09: Chapter 11 Conclusion
Yiftach's Vow
By Rav Michael Hattin
INTRODUCTION
Last time, we considered the account of Yiftach's crushing
victory against the Ammonites. Recall that the tribes of Israel, having strayed
once again from God, were subjected to eighteen years of harsh oppression, this
time at the hands of the Ammonites. These Ammonites, centered around their
Transjordanian capital of Rabbat Benei Ammon, had not only terrorized the
Israelite tribes east of the River Yarden but had also crossed the river and
subjugated Yehuda, Binyamin, and Efraim.
Providence selected an unlikely hero to rescue a chastened
Israel: Yiftach of Gil'ad, a well-liked local brigand – the son of a prostitute!
– who had earlier been expelled by his legitimate half-brothers from the family
homestead. As the war clouds gathered, the elders of Gil'ad unexpectedly
approached Yiftach to lead the people, and he was summoned from the
otherwise-unknown "land of Tov." This region, literally "the land of goodness,"
is surely more than a geographic location. It is also an ironic commentary on
the curious reversal of fortunes: those who had earlier countenanced Yiftach's
unfair expulsion with studied indifference or even active malice now found
themselves in the land of dire straits, while the object of their scorn – whom
they had forced to lead the life of an outlaw – had yet found a land of goodness
for himself.
Yiftach secured a pledge from the elders that he would not be
deposed after he had secured victory, thus exposing for all to see the venal and
insincere nature of their well-timed request of him that he now return to lead
the people. After all, prior to the Ammonite build-up, had any of the elders
ever been troubled by Yiftach's unfair treatment at the hands of his brothers?
Had any of them made even a minimal effort to restore him to his former life?
But constrained by the exigencies of the hour, the elders agreed, and after he
had rallied the people and sent reasonable entreaties to the Ammonite king that
were rebuffed, Yiftach led the tribes into battle. Miraculously, his force of
irregulars handily defeated the Ammonite hordes on the battlefield and went on
to reduce twenty of their towns, and thus it was that Yiftach returned Israelite
hegemony to the disputed lands.
A TIME FOR VOWING
On the eve of his departure to battle, Yiftach made a vow with
the intent of securing Divine favor, namely, that he would offer sacrifice to
God upon his triumphant return. Such conduct is itself unremarkable and should
not necessarily be misconstrued as a mercenary attempt to "bribe" the Deity. In
fact, there are a number of other Biblical episodes that employ the vow motif in
a similar fashion. Recall, for instance, that after Ya'akov our forefather had
fled from home and hearth into the uncertainty of exile because of the murderous
wrath of his brother Esav, he eventually came to a place that he himself would
later call Beit El. Resting his weary head within a protective cordon of stones,
Ya'acov was soon awakened from his fitful sleep by a heavenly vision of Divine
concern and care. On the morrow, Ya'acov took one of the larger stones and
poured oil upon it, in order to set it up as a marker of the place where he had
encountered God. Then, he pronounced a vow to be fulfilled if God would only
preserve him on his journey, sustain him, and return him one day in peace to the
land of Canaan: "…this very stone that I have set up as a marker shall be a
place of worshipping God, and from all that You shall give me I will offer a
tithe to You" (Bereishit 28:10-22).
Much later, and in a situation more similar to our context, the
people of Israel collectively undertook a vow on the eve of their battle with
the Canaanite king of Arad, as they neared the Promised Land at the conclusion
of wilderness peregrinations:
The Canaanite King of Arad who dwelt in the Negev heard that
Israel had traversed by the way of the Atarim. He made war with Israel and
captured captives from them. Israel undertook a vow to God and said: 'if You
will allow me to wholly prevail against this people, then I shall utterly
dedicate their cities (and the victory to You, by not taking from the spoils)'.
God hearkened to the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanite to them, so
that Israel utterly destroyed them and their cities. They therefore called that
place Chorma. (Bemidbar 21:1-3)
In both of these situations, one taken from the world of
worship and the other from the world of warfare, the vow is utilized as an
incentive, spurring on the supplicant to undertake superhuman effort against an
adversarial situation. Through exercising the vow, one's trust in God becomes
the means by which resolve in the face of difficult odds is yet maintained and
devastating despair is overcome. The vow becomes an expression of steadfast
faith that God will not disappoint, even when the situation may seem less than
sanguine. We may even go so far as to argue that a vow undertaken in such
circumstances demonstrates humility on the part of the one who so affirms, as if
they themselves recognize that they do not possess sufficient merit to deserve
Divine favor, if not for the power of the pledge to "secure a loan."
A QUESTION OF CONTENT
What is remarkable concerning Yiftach's vow, however, relates
to its content, for while the warrior indicates that he will sacrifice to God
upon his triumphant return from battle, he is (intentionally?) vague concerning
the thing to be sacrificed:
Yiftach declared a vow to God and he said: 'if you will
completely surrender Benei Amon into my hands, then that which (literally "he
that") shall go forth from the portals of my house to greet me when I return in
peace from Benei Amon will be for God, and I shall offer it (literally "him") as
a burnt offering!' (Shoftim 11:29-31).
The Rabbis, in commenting upon this episode, declared:
Said Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:
Four Biblical figures initiated vows. Three of them asked inappropriately but
God nevertheless responded appropriately, while the fourth asked inappropriately
and God responded in kind. The first was Eli'ezer the servant of Avraham, for he
stated that "the maiden to whom I shall say 'tilt please your pitcher so that I
might drink' and she shall respond 'drink! And I will also water your camels',
You have proven her to be the one for Yitzchak…" (Bereishit 24:14). And what if
she would have been a Canaanite maidservant or a prostitute? Nevertheless, God
brought about that it was Rivka.
The second was Calev, for he stated that "I shall give my
daughter Achsa in marriage to the one who shall capture Kiryat Sefer…" (Yehoshua
15:16). And what if he would have been a Canaanite or else a slave?
Nevertheless, God brought about that it was Otniel.
The third was King Shaul, for he stated that "the one who
strikes him (Goliath) down shall be given great wealth by the king and he (the
king) shall also give him his daughter" (Shemuel 1:17:25). And what if he would
have been an Ammonite, a Canaanite or a mamzer (the offspring of an
adulterous or incestuous relationship)? Nevertheless, God brought about that it
was David.
The fourth was Yiftach, for he stated "that which shall go
forth from the portals of my house to greet me when I return in peace from Benei
Amon will be for God, and I shall offer it as a burnt offering!." And what if it
would have been a camel, a donkey or a dog? Would he still have offered it? This
time, however, God responded by bringing about that it was his own daughter!
(Cited with variations in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta'anit 4a,
Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 37:4, Yalkut Shim'oni Yehoshua 25)
EXERCISING CARE WITH ONE'S WORDS
In three of the pivotal examples quoted above, the protagonists
in question made ambiguous commitments that related to marriage and that
concerned the identity of potential mates or suitors. Eli'ezer the loyal steward
of Avraham should have been more specific about the qualities of the woman that
he was seeking as a match for Yitzchak, Avraham's son. Old Calev should have
more careful to indicate what other traits ought to characterize a potential
suitor for his daughter, over and above valor and courage. Shaul, in attempting
to encourage someone to step forward in order to battle the Philistine giant
Goliath, should have stipulated more in his challenge to the people of Israel,
so that mighty but otherwise inappropriate individuals would not apply to become
sons-in-law. Nevertheless, in all these situations, Divine providence smiled
upon these leaders and their rash words did not come back to haunt them. But
Yiftach, alone among them all in dedicating his vow to God's glory exclusively –
"that which shall go forth from the portals of my house…will be for God, and I
shall offer it as a burnt offering" – lived to regret his impulsive offer, for
it was his own daughter that came out to greet him.
The Rabbis, truth be told, could not imagine that Yiftach
intended anything other than to offer an animal as a sacrifice to God. When they
wished to characterize the impetuousness of his vow, they stated that Yiftach
should have exercised more caution, for instead of being met upon his return by
an animal from the permitted species fit for sacrifice such as a sheep, goat or
cow, he could just have easily been greeted by "a camel, a donkey or a dog." But
why should this lack of specificity have aroused so much Divine displeasure?
After all, didn't Yiftach undertake the vow in the best tradition of meeting
adversity with a call to piety, and with God's glory alone in mind?
CONSIDERING THE AKEIDA
The answer, I believe, is to be found in noting a striking
series of parallels between this episode, that culminates in the sacrifice of
Yiftach's daughter, and its only (almost only!) analog in all of Tanakh – the
Akeida (see Bereishit Chapter 22). While it is beyond the scope of this
essay to analyze the Akeida, we may nevertheless note the following
similarities as well as some of the telling differences. In both situations, it
is the relationship with God that is highlighted – Avraham is called upon to
demonstrate his absolute loyalty, while Yiftach seeks to show his dedication and
gratitude. In both episodes, the one singled out by God for immolation is an
only child described in the original text as "yachid" (Bereishit 22:2) or
"yechida" (Shoftim 11:34). In both passages, there is an anxious period
of dreadful anticipation between the pronouncement and the fulfillment – three
days journey separate God's command to Avraham from the building of the altar
upon Mount Moriah, while two months pass between Yiftach's return from battle
and the sacrifice of his daughter. In both circumstances, it is the parent-child
bond that is so sorely tried, with the parent showing superhuman preparedness to
carry out the terrible act and the child demonstrating Herculean resignation,
staggering acceptance and extraordinary trust. At the same time, as the awful
moment draws closer, there are words of affection that pass between the parent
and the child, with the child invariably addressing the parent as "avi"
or "my father" (Bereishit 22:7; Shoftim 11:36) while the father in turn refers
to "my son" or "my daughter" (Bereishit 22:7; Shoftim 11:35).
There are, as well, a number of glaring differences. At the
Akeida, it is God who demands the unthinkable of Avraham as a trial of
faith, while in our chapter it is Yiftach who initiates the challenge in order
to secure victory upon the battlefield. At the Akeida, God specifically
selects Yitzchak as the intended sacrifice, while it is serendipity that
apparently singles out Yiftach's daughter. At the Akeida, Yitzchak's
words are not recorded (could his response have been anything other than awesome
silence?), while in our passage, Yiftach's daughter not only fails to discourage
her father from carrying out the act, but actually ENCOURAGES him to do so: "She
said to him: 'Father, you have made a vow to God, therefore do to me what you
did declare, since God has performed great vengeance upon your enemies, Benei
Amon!'" (Shoftim 11:36). And, most tragically, at the Akeida God stays
Avraham's hand at the last moment, while here there is no Divine intervention to
save Yiftach's daughter from her father's fulfillment of his reckless vow.
AN INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION
The startling conclusion of the matter and the shocking
explanation for all of the above Akeida analogs is therefore the
following: Yiftach DID NOT intend at all to offer an animal as sacrifice to God
upon his return, but rather another HUMAN BEING! When he states that 'if you
will completely surrender Benei Amon into my hands, then that which (literally
"he that") shall go forth from the portals of my house to greet me when I return
in peace from Benei Amon will be for God, and I shall offer it (literally "him")
as a burnt offering!' he is not referring to a lower creature, but rather to a
person. The first person, says Yiftach, that shall come forth from my home,
passing the threshold of the doorway, shall be dedicated to God as a burnt
offering!
There is no reference in this passage to gates or to barns, to
fields or to sheepfolds, but rather only to "the portals of my house." And
animals, though in ancient times they may have lived in close quarters with
their human masters, nevertheless did not share with them the actual living
space implied by "house." The reference to "the portals of my house" may
therefore be a poetic way of saying "the first member of my household that I
encounter." That person whom Providence would fatefully select could conceivably
be a servant or slave, a cousin or clan member, a loyal supporter or else a
casual visitor, but Yiftach surely did not expect it to be "his only child"! His
stunning surprise relates not the fact that a person has come forth to greet him
(for that was his intent), but rather that it was, tragically, his own beloved
daughter.
LEXICOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE
The idiom used, both in Yiftach's vow as well as in its
aftermath, to describe the act of going forth to greet – "latzeit likrat"
(11:31,34) – occurs almost 40 times in the Tanakh. Sometimes it is used to
describe a hostile encounter such as going forth to meet the enemy on the
battlefield (for example in Bemidbar 20:18,20; Shoftim 20:31; Divrei Ha-yamim
2:35:20), often it is used in the more neutral sense of rendezvousing or else
the friendly sense of greeting (for example in Shemot 18:7; Shoftim 4:18;
Yeshayahu 7:5), but it is NEVER used to describe anything but an encounter
between two or more human beings. In fact, the term "likrat" by itself,
though it occurs well over 100 times, only once refers to a meeting with a
non-human (see Shoftim 14:5, concerning Shimshon's unexpected encounter with the
young lion).
The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that Yiftach's vow
was a repugnant and twisted act of piety that constituted an absolute antithesis
to the Akeida. It was met by God's own ironic and thundering response of
disapproval, in the guise of Yiftach's own daughter who unexpectedly (but not
arbitrarily) went forth to meet him "with drums and with dances" (11:34). It is
for this reason that Yiftach did not merit a Divinely orchestrated turn of
events for the good, as did the other three impulsive avowers, for though God
may be forgiving concerning imprecise language, He will not forego the monstrous
crime of pledging murder in His name. There must be consequences for such
villainy, and let them fall upon the head of the perpetrator in the most
unexpected but forceful fashion! And in the larger context, what this episode
corroborates is that which we have sorrowfully suspected: Israel and its
leaders, in this horrible culmination of the insidious process that we have seen
underway since the book began, have become indistinguishable from their
Canaanite nemeses!
RECALLING THE INFAMY OF THE CANAANITES
Now the Canaanites, it will be recalled from our earlier
studies, were technologically more advanced, politically more astute, and
culturally more aware than their Israelite neighbors, but none of that
"enlightenment" seems to have been translated into a heightened moral
sensitivity (is it ever?). Over and over again, the Torah wages a war of words
against the Canaanite infatuation with idolatry, sexual immorality, magic, and
cruelty, but the most serious indictment against their societies is stated in
the following passage, and it concerns, of all things, the act of worship:
When God your Lord extirpates from before you these nations
(whose land) you go in to possess, and you shall drive them out and dwell in
their land, then be very careful lest you be ensnared by them after they have
been destroyed from before you. Do not inquire after their gods saying: "just as
these nations served their gods, so too shall I"! Do not do so to God your Lord,
FOR ALL THE ABOMINATIONS THAT GOD HATES THEY PERFORM FOR THEIR GODS, FOR EVEN
THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS THEY BURN IN THE FIRE TO THEIR GODS! (Rather) you shall
observe all of the things that I command you, do not add to it nor take away
from it…(Devarim 12:29-13:1)
The above text from Sefer Devarim clearly links devotion to the
gods with human or child sacrifice, while making it abundantly clear that the
God of Israel abhors such conduct. The Akeida/Yiftach matrix is thus
reinforced: to Avraham, God demonstrates that what He truly desires is utter
devotion and trust but He WILL NOT countenance the sacrifice of Yitzchak. The
drama is not only an exploration of the makings of profound faith, but also,
simultaneously, a harsh polemic against prevailing Canaanite practice. And as
for Yiftach, though he is a self-styled leader of Israelite tribes and a seeming
servant of all that is just and holy, he is at the same time a product of the
terrible effects of corrosive Canaanite culture that seeks to guarantee victory
upon the battlefield by vowing to immolate an innocent human being!
ANOTHER EXAMPLE
Lest the reader object to this reading by disagreeing with the
fundamental premise that Canaanites were capable of such things, consider the
following episode from the second Book of Kings, Chapter 3. While the historical
specifics are not relevant to our discussion, the context concerns a battle that
takes place between a confederacy composed of the King of Yehuda, the king of
Yisrael and the king of Edom, against the king of Moav. While the Moavites
prepare to resolutely defend their border, they are routed and overrun,
prompting their king to do a desperate (but not unthinkable) act:
He took his firstborn son, who would have ruled after him, and
he offered him as a burnt offering upon the ramparts, so that there might be
great fury upon Israel…(2:3:27).
There is more than a passing similarity here to our own
passage, for in both situations it is defeat on the battlefield that is meant to
be averted. Could not Yiftach, who preceded this king of Moav by some three
centuries, not have been thinking similar thoughts, that God desires desperate
acts in order to provide solutions to desperate situations? Could Yiftach not
have believed that he would secure Divine favor by offering that which is most
precious and dear to the Deity, namely inviolable human life?
THE RESPONSE OF YIFTACH'S DAUGHTER
Perhaps the most telling indication that our reading is
inescapably correct is provided by Yiftach's own daughter, for her response to
the turn of events is unexpected to say the least. Should she not cry out
against her father's monstrous vow, should she not engage God Himself in heated
and desperate debate? Her explicit approval of her father's pledge and
willingness to become his sacrifice (11:36) can only mean one thing: she herself
regarded his vow of killing another human being for the sake of God as a pious
pronouncement that (unfortunately?) had found her as its unintended target. Like
her own father as well as the morally corrupt Israelite society around her, she
had imbibed only too deeply cherished Canaanite beliefs, at first making those
twisted practices "fit for consumption" and then transforming them into acts of
blind and utter devotion by grotesquely transposing them from molten fetishes
and gods of fertility to the God of Israel Himself! What else could one of the
later prophets have meant when he solemnly declared:
With what shall I approach God and show deference to the Lord
of heaven? Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings or with one-year-old
calves? Shall God desire thousands of rams or tens of thousands of rivers of
oil, SHALL I OFFER MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY WOMB TO
ATONE FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL? Man may have declared to you what he thinks is
good, but what does God require of you, except to perform justice, to love
compassion and to walk humbly with your Lord! (Mikha 6:6-8, 8th
century BCE)
So vile was the notion that Yiftach could have been initially
considering such an act that the Rabbis, in their endless and noble capacity for
exoneration of the culpable, refused to entertain the possibility. Thus Yiftach
was instead charged with the much less serious indiscretion of rash and
impulsive language. If so, however, one has to wonder mightily about the
severity of the Divine response. In similar fashion, so evil was the deed of
immolating his own daughter in the final fulfillment of the vow, that the
Biblical text itself refused to state the words, choosing instead to describe
the deed with a polite but unmistakable circumlocution: "…he did to her in
accordance with the vow that he had made" (11:39). In the end, though, the
Rabbis certainly had little positive to say concerning Yiftach, and he is not
remembered as a role model in any sense of the term. Quite the contrary. When
the Rabbis wanted to teach us that every generation suffers the leaders that it
deserves, they said: "Yiftach in his generation is like Shemuel in his
generation…even a man who is the least of men but who has been appointed as an
overseer of the community, must be accorded due respect" (see Talmud Bavli
Tractate Rosh Hashanah 25a-25b). The former became a paradigm for poor
leadership, the life and career of the latter constituted an ideal.
REVISING OUR (MIS)CONCEPTIONS
We must accordingly revise our mental image of the episode. Now
we see in our mind's eye brave Yiftach preparing to go out to battle, anxious
and uncertain but brimming with the confidence inspired by his vindication. As
he prepares to take leave of the elders of Gil'ad who had come to fetch him, and
from the assembly of the people who had apprehensively witnessed his investiture
at Mitzpah, Yiftach casts one last long look towards the verdant hills that
stretch out in the direction of his own home. His mind races with a thousand
desperate thoughts and plans, his heart pounds with the enormity of the task
that lies before him. But Yiftach, after all, though a brigand by trade, is a
servant of God in spirit. How will he appease this Deity and cause His blessing
to shower him with victory?
Taking a cue from his cultural surroundings, and still
possessed by the thought of the home and family that he fears he may never see
again, Yiftach pronounces his fateful vow: "Oh mighty God, if You will but grant
me triumph, then I will present You with the most valuable offering of all, a
member of my own household, perhaps a relative or a dear friend! He will
understand our desperate situation, He will not protest this act of extreme
devotion perpetrated upon His being, for such has been the sanctioned and indeed
hallowed practice among the peoples of this land from time immemorial!"
Remarkably, God grants Yiftach unexpected victory and he
returns home flushed with excitement. The accolades of the people are still
ringing in his ears as he expectantly retraces his path towards his beloved
homestead. In the distance he can hear the rhythmic beating of the drum and the
sound of song, and he absentmindedly wonders who might it be that has come
forth. "God was pleased with my vow", he remarks, as he draws closer, "and now I
must repay Him with joy!" But soon the figure is recognizable, her sweet voice
suddenly familiar, and Yiftach falls to the ground, doubled over in grief. How
unexpected was the victory against the Ammonites, but how unexpectedly has
merriment turned to tragic and indescribable mourning! His only daughter (how
innocent her smile was but a moment ago) attempts to raise him up, his other
family members rush to his side, but no one can make out the incoherent cries
that issue forth, now punctuated by heartbreaking sobs.
Slowly, he regains his composure and then he solemnly declares
the ineffable: the vow to God (cursed be the day that it was ever pronounced!
Cursed be the people who could countenance such things!) must be fulfilled.
Silence falls upon the family now, swelled in number by all of the concerned
onlookers who have hurriedly come in response to the commotion. All eyes are
upon Yiftach's daughter, his only child and truly his most beloved thing in the
entire world. Her drum lies in the dust where it had fallen when she had run to
greet her father as he collapsed, and her young and shapely shoulders, still
draped in the brightly colored robe that she had specially donned for her
father's return, now seem stooped and hollow. Though her eyes brim with tears,
her voice is soft and comforting: "Father, you have made a vow to God, therefore
do to me what you did declare, since God has performed great vengeance upon your
enemies, Benei Amon!"
GOD'S RESPONSE
All are struck by her sincerity and by Yiftach's steely
resolve, the people nod approvingly, and even the blue skies above seem pleased
by the outcome. But there is much consternation in heaven as God disappointingly
looks on, not at all indifferent to what has transpired but determined to let
human beings exercise their dismal choices. Later, His thoughts will be
articulated by Yirmiyahu, the Late First Temple prophet who lived to see
Yiftach's evil decision played out a thousand times around the outskirts of
Jerusalem and in the verdant valley of Hinnom just to the west of the city
wall:
…thus says God of hosts the Lord of Israel, behold I will bring
evil upon this place, so that all that hear of it their ears shall ring. This is
because they have abandoned me and have made this place unrecognizable, they
have offered incense there to other gods that neither they, nor the kings of
Yehuda, nor their ancestors knew, and they have filled this place with the blood
of the innocent. They have built high places to Ba'al upon which to burn their
children by fire as sacrifices to Ba'al. These are things that I did not
command, nor did I say, nor did I ever contemplate! (Yirmiyahu 19:3-5).
Our conception of the episode must therefore be altered. Far
from being an innocent victim of Divine capriciousness and cruelty, a casualty
of Kafkaesque circumstances that have conspired to destroy him, Yiftach himself
has chosen the course that has brought him to this terrible moment. It was not
an innocent or ill-considered slip of the tongue that condemned him to losing
his own beloved daughter, but rather a conscious and deliberate pronouncement of
iniquitous malevolence. And rather than being cast as an innocent and pure
sufferer for her only sin of loving and trusting her father too much, his
daughter ought to be regarded as an accomplice to his act of infamy.
And as for all of Israel that stood by their side in the
aftermath of that terrible moment, we ought to compare their acquiescence to
another and later instance of a rash vow pronounced in battle, this time by King
Shaul who battled the Philistines (See Shemuel 1:14:20-45). King Shaul forbade
his army, on pain of death, to partake of any food or drink until the
discomfited Philistines had been completely routed. Shaul's own son Yonatan,
however, had not been present when the vow was uttered, and tasted from the wild
honey that he found during the course of the pursuit of the enemy. Though Shaul
felt compelled to stand by his vow, "the people redeemed Yonatan so that he did
not die." But in our passage, Israel did nothing to avert the decree, thus
indicting themselves of having succumbed to the very Canaanite evil that God had
repeatedly called upon them to extirpate so that they might avoid being consumed
by it in turn.
CONCLUSION
And what of God in all of this? What was His role? As is most
often the case, God remained silent, allowing people the opportunity to make
their evil choices and to live (or die) by the consequences. It is a basic
premise of Biblical theology that human beings are free to make decisions of
destiny. Though we recoil from human acts of violence and cruelty, we
simultaneously champion our freedom to choose. The latter is truly only possible
if we are willing to accept the possibility of the former. But God's silence in
the arena of human history should not be misconstrued as absence. Patiently, He
waits, hoping that we will choose the good. And relentlessly, He makes His
expectations of us clear, through the study of the very books of Tanakh that
constitute His message to Israel and to mankind. God is therefore never silent,
for His words reverberate across the cosmos and down through the generations
until the end of time.
As we leave this chilling chapter behind, we recognize once
again the basic progress of the book: with each passing generation, with each
unfolding era of oppression, with each new leader that arises to save, the
tribes of Israel slip farther and farther away from their goal and from the
lofty challenge that God has placed before them. How well placed now seems the
rites of mourning yearly practiced by the daughters of Israel in commemoration
of the young girl's demise (Shoftim 11:40), for truly there is much to mourn as
this chapter concludes. And as for us, a nagging and uncomfortable question now
surfaces: how will the tribes of Israel ever succeed in changing the course?
Next time, we will briefly consider the end of Yiftach's public
career as outlined in Chapter 12, before moving on to introduce Shimshon the
Nazirite in Chapter 13. Readers are invited to prepare.
Shabbat Shalom
Post script: the above analysis must of course assume that
Yiftach's intention in pronouncing his vow was to carry out an act of burnt
sacrifice upon an altar, and this he did in due course to his own daughter.
Certainly the straightforward reading of the relevant verses implies this. Some
of the medieval commentaries, however, unable to countenance such an abomination
in ancient Israel, preferred to understand the actual offering of the daughter
as more of a dedication to a monastic life, so that she led a life of hermitage
and isolation, barred from marriage and separated from society. The ancient
Rabbis, however, while not willing to explain that Yiftach all along intended an
act of human sacrifice, nevertheless rejected this possibility and taught that
Yiftach's daughter suffered the terrible fate of immolation in the name of God
that is implied by the text. My analysis has gone one shocking step further by
suggesting that Yiftach's vow was from the outset much more sinister than we had
imagined. In pronouncing his words, he demonstrated that he had essentially
adopted the worldview of the Canaanites for whom human sacrifice was, if not
commonplace, at least acceptable under dire circumstances such as the fear of
imminent defeat in battle. |