Introduction: How to Approach the Account of Shimshon
With Hashem's help we begin the account of Shimshon, and I say at the outset: this section requires study and reflection. There will be things in it that arouse our wonder, and at first we will not deal with them. First we want to read and study the entire subject, to see everything written concerning Shimshon along with the commentators, and only afterward will we come to understand the matter of Shimshon: who he was, what his rectification was, and how he does things that do not sit well with us regarding a man who judged Israel. Therefore, if we now see things that raise questions, we will leave the questions for the end, for then we will give an overall explanation of the whole matter.
"And Shimshon went down to Timnah" - Up or Down?
וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשׁוֹן תִּמְנָתָה וַיַּרְא אִשָּׁה בְּתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים׃ - And Shimshon went down to Timnah, and he saw a woman in Timnah from the daughters of the Pelishtim.
The commentators ask: is Timnah a high place or a low place? Here it is written "And Shimshon went down to Timnah," implying that Timnah is low, while by Yehudah it is written "Behold, your father in law is going up to Timnah." There are two explanations for this. According to the plain meaning: Timnah lay on the slope of the mountain, in the middle, so that one who lived above went down to it, and one who lived below went up to it. And according to a conceptual approach: by Yehudah, who through the incident with Tamar had an ascent, since Peretz and Zerach came from him and from there the dynasty of the House of David began, it says "going up to Timnah." But by Shimshon, who through that woman would have a descent as we will see, it says "And Shimshon went down to Timnah" - he was disgraced through her and descended by means of her.
The Malbim says: the verse informs us here that all of this was from Hashem, as will be stated explicitly later on. Notice that there is no speaking with her here at all, only "and he saw" - he saw her with his eyes and did not speak with her at all. Seemingly in such a situation a person should say to himself: I saw her, but let me speak with her, and it may be that I will not even look at her again. What reason is there to decide that this will be my wife when I have merely seen her? But if you understand that Heaven set the matter in motion, it is understandable that there is no need at all for a mental agreement, rather it is enough that he saw her, because in Heaven a match was already made here.
"Take her for me as a wife" - the Language of Taking
וַיַּעַל וַיַּגֵּד לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אִשָּׁה רָאִיתִי בְתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְעַתָּה קְחוּ־אוֹתָהּ לִי לְאִשָּׁה׃ - And he went up and told his father and his mother and said: I have seen a woman in Timnah from the daughters of the Pelishtim, and now take her for me as a wife.
Again the Malbim is precise: "I have seen a woman" - I did not speak, I only saw, and it is already decided for me. "Take her for me" - every expression of taking means to lift and take the thing, except when it refers to human beings, in which case the taking is with words, as in "take Aharon your brother" - take him with words. Here too, "take her for me as a wife" means: speak with her that she agree to marry me.
And let us note that the expressions here are expressions of taking: "take her for me as a wife," "you are going to take a wife from the Pelishtim." And taking is always a term of kiddushin according to the law of Moshe and Israel. This means that Shimshon intends to convert her and take her with a complete taking, a full marriage according to the law of halachah.
The Parents' Protest and Shimshon's Reply
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ הַאֵין בִּבְנוֹת אַחֶיךָ וּבְכׇל־עַמִּי אִשָּׁה כִּי־אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ לָקַחַת אִשָּׁה מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים הָעֲרֵלִים וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל־אָבִיו אוֹתָהּ קַח־לִי כִּי־הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי׃ - And his father and his mother said to him: Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren and among all my people, that you are going to take a wife from the uncircumcised Pelishtim? And Shimshon said to his father: Take her for me, for she is right in my eyes.
"האין בבנות אחיך" - this is the natural starting point, for when a match is proposed one begins with the family. And if not there, then "ובכל עמי" - suppose you found no one among your brothers' daughters, but among the whole nation there is no woman? "כי אתה הולך לקחת אישה מפלשתים" - the Philistines are our enemies and we are at war with them. And furthermore: "הערלים" - and the foreskin is repugnant.
"אותה קח לי" - her and no other, meaning: I am not interested in anything else. Let us note: at first it says "ויעל ויגד לאביו ולאמו," and likewise "ויאמר לו אביו ואמו," and suddenly "אותה קח לי" - he turns to the father alone. One could simply say that the father was the one who actually carried out the process. But I saw commentators who explain that he did not have the courage to turn to his mother, for his mother had suffered so much on his behalf: throughout her pregnancy she abstained from everything the prophet warned her about, and she cared so deeply that he grow up in holiness, that it was hard for him to grieve her and say to her forcefully: Mother, go and take her for me. He had the boldness to say such things to his father, but not to his mother.
"כי תואנה הוא מבקש" - the partial salvation
וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לֹא יָדְעוּ כִּי מֵיְהֹוָה הִיא כִּי־תֹאֲנָה הוּא־מְבַקֵּשׁ מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים וּבָעֵת הַהִיא פְּלִשְׁתִּים מֹשְׁלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - But his father and his mother did not know that it was from Hashem, that He was seeking a pretext against the Philistines; and at that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.
His father and mother did not know "כי מה' היא" - his desire for this woman came from an inner drive that Hashem set in motion within him. "כי תואנה הוא מבקש מפלשתים" - the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted a quarrel to arise here between Shimshon and the Philistines, so that Shimshon could take vengeance upon them. And if you ask why, the answer is: "ובעת ההיא פלשתים מושלים בישראל."
Here the Malbim offers an introduction that will help us understand the entire process that follows. Shimshon's salvation was a partial salvation. The situation was that the Philistines ruled over Israel, and the people of Israel did not merit to be completely freed from the hand of the Philistines. But the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy on them and wished to weaken and lighten the Philistine rule over Israel. Now, had one of Israel risen up and waged all out war against them, a conflict would have arisen between us and the Philistines, and the Philistines would have struck us, and we would have had difficulty standing against them, for in truth we were not worthy of complete salvation. So what does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He arranges that Shimshon should have personal disputes with the Philistines, and so it goes all along the way. And the advantage of these personal disputes is that we can wash our hands in innocence and say to the Philistines: this has nothing to do with us, there is a problematic individual here, deal with him. You harassed him and grieved him, and he took vengeance on you. We as a nation do not suffer from what Shimshon does, because Shimshon is perceived as a private individual with private quarrels with the Philistines. This resembles a very clear distinction that exists even today: when a Palestinian causes harm, there is a sharp distinction whether it is on a criminal basis or on a nationalistic basis. So too here: you have criminal disputes with Shimshon, solve your problems, but the people of Israel as a whole do not suffer from what goes on between Shimshon and the Philistines. And we will see further on that there is a certain stage at which the matter does spill over onto the people of Israel as well.
The young lion in the vineyards of Timnah
וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשׁוֹן וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תִּמְנָתָה וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד־כַּרְמֵי תִמְנָתָה וְהִנֵּה כְּפִיר אֲרָיוֹת שֹׁאֵג לִקְרָאתוֹ׃ - And Shimshon went down, with his father and his mother, to Timnah, and they came to the vineyards of Timnah, and behold, a young lion roared toward him.
Shimshon and his father and mother go to Timnah in order to meet the woman's family, and upon reaching the vineyards of Timnah, behold, a young lion comes toward him.
וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהֹוָה וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי וּמְאוּמָה אֵין בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא הִגִּיד לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה׃ - And the spirit of Hashem came mightily upon him, and he tore it apart as one tears apart a kid, with nothing in his hand; but he did not tell his father and his mother what he had done.
The spirit of Hashem comes mightily upon him and he tears the lion apart "כשסע הגדי," and this expresses the magnitude of his strength. Note: regarding David it says "גם את הארי ואת הדוב הכה עבדך" (your servant struck both the lion and the bear), and regarding Benayahu ben Yehoyada, "אשר הכה את הארי בתוך הבור ביום השלג" (who struck the lion in the pit on a snowy day) - struck, not tore apart. To tear apart signifies immense might. And not simply to tear apart, but in the manner one tears apart a kid, a domestic animal that is very easy to rend. Furthermore, "ומאומה אין בידו" - with bare hands. All this shows the tremendous might of Shimshon.
"שואג לקראתו" - why alone?
"ולא הגיד לאביו ולאמו את אשר עשה" - the matter is puzzling. In the previous pasuk it says "וירד שמשון ואביו ואמו תמנתה", the three of them walking together, so what does he have to tell them? Are they blind, did they not see him tear the lion apart? Rather, the Gra says, and so the Malbim explains: "ויבאו עד כרמי תמנתה" - they reached the vineyard, and regarding a vineyard the Sages said: to a nazir we say, go around, go around, do not approach the vineyard. Shimshon is a nazir, and he is forbidden to enter the vineyard, but his parents are not nazirim and could cross through the vineyard. Since this was so, Shimshon was forced to go around the way, and when he went around, "והנה כפיר אריות שואג לקראתו", toward him and not toward them. And why? Because the Gemara says: it is a tradition, a lion does not attack against several people, but generally only against a lone individual. And since here Shimshon was alone because he had gone around the vineyard, the lion came to attack him.
Why the lion was arranged for him: to become aware of his strength
Why was this actually arranged for him from Heaven? So that Shimshon would be aware of his strength. And understand: Shimshon was not a muscular man, he was not some graduate of a Shimshon institute, absolutely not in those terms. Shimshon was a spiritual man, as we will see later, judging Israel, and his strength was not from his muscles at all. The proof: when they shaved the hair of his head, he became like any other man. Where do we find a muscular, mighty man whose hair is shaved and he returns to being like any other man? Where did the muscles disappear to? Rather, Shimshon in himself was not a man of might, but it had to be shown to him from Heaven that there were pent up powers within him that were beyond nature. Therefore note the expression "ותצלח עליו רוח ה'": when Shimshon performs feats of might it is through the spirit of Hashem rushing upon him, to teach that this is spiritual might and not natural physical strength.
And from Heaven they wanted him to be aware of his powers. Consider: a man who is like any other man is told that he is a mighty champion. What champion? I am an ordinary man. When he lifts loads he lifts them like anyone else, and only when he goes to act against the Pelishtim does he receive immense powers. From where would he come to be aware of this might? Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, arranged this incident for him. And precisely so we find later with David: when he came to convince Shaul to let him fight Golyat, he said "גם את הארי ואת הדוב הכה עבדך", meaning that until this day I did not understand why the Holy One, blessed be He, arranged such a thing for me, and apparently He wanted me to be aware of my might, so that when the day came I would stand against Golyat and know that I am capable. Heaven arranged for me an opportunity of a trial run, so that I would truly see that I can.
The humility of Shimshon
From here we also see his humility. Shimshon returns from behind the vineyards of Timnah, meets his father and mother, "ולא הגיד לאביו ולאמו את אשר עשה". He could have boasted: do not ask what I just went through, what a lion I tore apart! And nothing, he told them nothing. And I have seen it explained wittily: "ומאומה אין בידו" in its plain sense means without a weapon, but one can also expound that he simply did not feel that he had done any feat of might here. "ומאומה אין בידו" - as if what did I do? He came and I dismantled him, I did not feel that I had anything in hand, that I had done a wondrous thing.
"וידבר לאישה" - the first time
וַיֵּרֶד וַיְדַבֵּר לָאִשָּׁה וַתִּישַׁר בְּעֵינֵי שִׁמְשׁוֹן׃ - And he went down and spoke to the woman, and she was pleasing in the eyes of Shimshon.
The Malbim says: only here is the first time that Shimshon speaks with her. And when he spoke with her, he saw that from the standpoint of her intellect too he could form a dialogue with her, and thus, from the standpoint of her intellect and her character traits as well, he saw fit to marry her.
"ויסר לראות את מפלת האריה" - a blessing over the miracle
וַיָּשָׁב מִיָּמִים לְקַחְתָּהּ וַיָּסַר לִרְאוֹת אֵת מַפֶּלֶת הָאַרְיֵה וְהִנֵּה עֲדַת דְּבוֹרִים בִּגְוִיַּת הָאַרְיֵה וּדְבָשׁ׃ - And he returned after some time to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion, and behold, a swarm of bees was in the body of the lion, and honey.
Their custom was to betroth the woman and to return after a period in order to marry her, and therefore "וישב מימים לקחתה". And behold "ויסר לראות" - he turned aside from the road in order to see the carcass of the lion. The Malbim says: this time there were no grapes in the vineyard, and he did not need to detour because of them, but rather he could enter through the vineyard. Therefore the navi emphasizes "ויסר לראות" - here he went deliberately in order to see, and not because he had no choice and was forced to go around.
But what was the point of going to see the fallen lion? Is a lion's carcass so fascinating to look at? Perhaps to recall what a mighty deed he had done? That hardly fits, since we said that he did not tell his parents, which implies that he did not regard it as an especially heroic act, and he certainly did not come to boast. The Malbim explains it very simply: a person who sees a place where a miracle was done for him must recite a blessing, and Shimshon went in order to give thanks and to bless: Blessed is He who did a miracle for me in this place, where a young lion roared at me and I tore it as one tears apart a kid. And then he saw that in the lion's carcass the bees had made a hive, and there was honey there.
The Honey from the Lion's Carcass - the Hint to Shimshon
וַיִּרְדֵּהוּ אֶל־כַּפָּיו וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְאָכֹל וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל־אָבִיו וְאֶל־אִמּוֹ וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם וַיֹּאכֵלוּ וְלֹא־הִגִּיד לָהֶם כִּי מִגְּוִיַּת הָאַרְיֵה רָדָה הַדְּבָשׁ׃ - He scooped it out into his hands and went along, eating as he went, and he came to his father and mother and gave to them and they ate, but he did not tell them that he had scooped the honey out of the lion's carcass.
Shimshon scoops the honey into his hands, goes along eating, and comes to his father and mother, gives them some, and they eat. He did not tell them that the honey came from the lion's carcass, for here too he does not wish to boast and relate that something supernatural had happened and that a miracle had been done for him.
And Chazal say: Shimshon goes to take a wife from the Pelishtim, that is, he seeks someone from an impure source, and now he has stumbled into eating something that comes from an impure place, from the lion's carcass. And even though this is not actually a forbidden act, still it comes from an impure source. Something similar appears afterward regarding the donkey as well. And by way of hint, it is as though they came to signal to him from Heaven: You are going to take a wife, she found favor in your eyes by sight, she found favor in your eyes by her speech, she is sweet to you as honey, but take into account that there is a swarm of bees around her, beware, they too are capable of stinging. And in a little while Shimshon will sense this himself.
Two Feasts - an Important Introduction
וַיֵּרֶד אָבִיהוּ אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה וַיַּעַשׂ שָׁם שִׁמְשׁוֹן מִשְׁתֶּה כִּי כֵּן יַעֲשׂוּ הַבַּחוּרִים׃ - His father went down to the woman, and Shimshon made a feast there, for so the young men used to do.
Here we need to preface an introduction that will resolve a difficulty for us later on. In their time it was their custom to make two feasts: a first feast of seven days, "which the young men make," whose cost was borne by the man's side, and at the end of the seven days he would take her as his wife. And afterward there was an additional feast of seven days, which the bride's father made, and this was the wedding feast after they were already married.
"His father went down to the woman" - the father goes down first to the woman in order to prepare and arrange the feast, for Shimshon is going to make a feast there. And what feast? "For so the young men used to do" - it is the way of the young men to make a feast at their own expense, the seven days of feasting that precede the wedding, and at their end they marry, and then come the seven days of the wedding feast.
The Thirty Companions and the Riddle
וַיְהִי כִּרְאוֹתָם אוֹתוֹ וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים מֵרֵעִים וַיִּהְיוּ אִתּוֹ׃ - When they saw him, they brought thirty companions, and they were with him.
Shimshon came alone, the fellows from the yeshiva did not come, apparently the mashgiach did not allow traveling to the Pelishtim, a place where one can be corrupted. And since he arrived alone, and one needs young men, one needs people to make merry, they brought thirty companions from among the Pelishtim so that they would be with him and rejoice with him.
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשׁוֹן אָחוּדָה־נָּא לָכֶם חִידָה אִם־הַגֵּד תַּגִּידוּ אוֹתָהּ לִי שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וּמְצָאתֶם וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִפֹת בְּגָדִים׃ - And Shimshon said to them: Let me pose a riddle to you. If you can tell it to me during the seven days of the feast and figure it out, I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing.
Shimshon wants to pass the time with something, and here too this is a pretext from Hashem, in order to create a quarrel between him and them. "The seven days of the feast" means the end of the last seven, that is, in simple terms fourteen days: if you tell me by the end of the last seven days of the feast, I will give you thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. "Linens," says the Radak, are sheets of flax that a person lies in at night or wraps himself in during the day, and "changes of clothing" are garments that a person wears. And the Malbim says that in essence he told them: during the first seven days of the feast you will investigate and search, and during the last seven days of the feast you may begin to tell me the solution.
וְאִם־לֹא תוּכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד לִי וּנְתַתֶּם אַתֶּם לִי שְׁלֹשִׁים סְדִינִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים חֲלִיפוֹת בְּגָדִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ חוּדָה חִידָתְךָ וְנִשְׁמָעֶנָּה׃ - And if you cannot tell me, then you shall give me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. And they said to him: Pose your riddle, and let us hear it.
And if you cannot, you commit to bringing me thirty linen garments and thirty changes of clothing. And they say: Gladly, "pose your riddle and let us hear it." And I have seen it explained regarding "let us hear it": even if we do not know, at least we will have a riddle in hand to ask others, and perhaps we will gain from someone else. That is, even if you reveal the solution to us because we do not know it, at least from now on we will have a riddle.
"Out of the eater came forth food"
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל וּמֵעַז יָצָא מָתוֹק וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לְהַגִּיד הַחִידָה שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים׃ - And he said to them: Out of the eater came forth food, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not tell the riddle for three days.
The solution here is not agreed upon. "Out of the eater came forth food" - from a living creature that eats came forth food. One can explain that the intent is the lion, which eats and tears prey, and from it came food, for in its carcass was the honey. But the Malbim, as we will see further on, explains that the intent is the bees, which eat nectar and produce food, namely the honey. "And out of the strong came forth sweetness" - the lion, which is the strongest of the beasts, from it came forth the sweet honey. And during the first three days of the feast they ponder, investigate and search and do not find an answer, and after three days they reach the conclusion that there is no choice and they must take a different approach.
How did Shimshon think they would solve such a riddle?
What is most astonishing: how did Shimshon think they could solve such a riddle? After all, he is describing a situation that happened to him. How would I know what happened to you with a lion, and where you found honey? One would need to be a prophet to solve such a riddle.
The Malbim says: True, the riddle is difficult, but pay attention to Shimshon's wording, for he hinted to them how to solve it. Let us be precise: "Let me pose a riddle to you. If you can tell it to me during the seven days of the feast and figure it out." Shimshon hints to them: Gentlemen, here field work is needed. Go out and roam the area, "and figure it out" - there is something here that must be found. And had they roamed and seen the carcass of a lion with honey inside it, the solution would immediately be understood and they would have hit upon it. This is the first point: Shimshon gave them a hint how to find it, and this is not a riddle in which you are required to imagine things that happened to someone else.
A second point the Malbim makes: the riddle is indeed difficult, but the wager too is not in equal proportion. First of all, you are thirty men, thirty directions of investigation and thirty possibilities of thought. Second, what is required of you if you do not know? A change of clothing and a linen garment. And what is required of me if I do not know? Thirty. The proportion is entirely different: each of you is required to bring one, while I am required to bring thirty. And a third point, the length of time: he gave them fourteen days, and in fourteen days there is more than enough time to unravel even complicated investigations. And if so, go out and do field work "and figure it out," and you will find the details that will help you arrive at the correct conclusion.
"Chalifat" and "chalifot" - the Netziv's precision
Notice an interesting point that the Netziv addresses. Shimshon says: if you find the answer to the riddle, I will give you thirty "chalifos" (garments), without a vav. But conversely, if you do not know the solution, "unesatem atem li sheloshim chalifos begadim" (you shall give me thirty changes of garments), with a vav. What is the difference?
The Netziv explains: when there is a vav, it hints at plurality and variety, and when it is written without a vav, the meaning is one or a single type. When it says "basukos" (in booths) without vavs, we learn one wall, and when it says "basukkos" we learn two walls. It says the "luchos" (tablets) of the covenant, and Chazal learn that it is one. The absence of the vav hints at a lessening of plurality, whereas the vav hints at plurality.
So too with Yosef: when he gave garments to his brothers, what kind of garments did he give, of different types and sizes or of the same type? Certainly of different sizes, for each of the brothers had a different measurement, and therefore he gave them garments with a vav, an expression of plurality, to tell you that each garment differed from the next. But to Binyamin he gave five "chalifos" (changes), because Binyamin had one size, one measurement.
And if you understand the principle, you will understand it here as well. Shimshon says to them: I will give you thirty "chalifos" of garments, for I am giving you a size of my own, one size, a single size, not different sizes. But what are they obligated to give him? Each one his own garment, he will take off his garment and give it to him - and are they of a uniform size? Surely these are different sizes, and therefore "you shall give me thirty changes of garments."
"Entice your husband" - the threat
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְאֵשֶׁת־שִׁמְשׁוֹן פַּתִּי אֶת־אִישֵׁךְ וְיַגֶּד־לָנוּ אֶת־הַחִידָה פֶּן־נִשְׂרֹף אוֹתָךְ וְאֶת־בֵּית אָבִיךְ בָּאֵשׁ הַלְיׇרְשֵׁנוּ קְרָאתֶם לָנוּ הֲלֹא׃ - And it came to pass on the seventh day that they said to Shimshon's wife: Entice your husband that he may tell us the riddle, lest we burn you and your father's house with fire. Did you invite us here to impoverish us?
Notice the precision: they do not ask her to tell them the solution. They did not even have the boldness to ask that: why would I reveal the solution to you so that you can go and tell Shimshon as if you solved the riddle? Would I go against my own husband? Is there any logic to that? Rather: you will not tell us the solution, but at least "that he may tell us the riddle" - speak with Shimshon so that he himself will come and solve it for us, that is, end the wager. If we do not win, at least let us not lose. Let him come and say: I see that this is too hard, so I will reveal the solution to you and there is no need for you to pay. This was their demand, and we will soon see that her cunning benefited them far more than they expected.
And then they threaten: "lest we burn you and your father's house with fire." The commentators note an interesting point here: later we will see that they will indeed burn her and her father's house with fire, as a result of what unfolded from this whole matter, and as it were they opened their mouths to the Satan and the thing came to pass. And by the way, we will see later that the Philistine behavior strongly resembles Palestinian behavior: in all the behavior, in every form, in every method of deceit and schemes and cunning and cleverness to do evil. And in this point too: if there is a problem, we will burn you with fire, they have no problem at all, killings are a trivial matter to them. And "did you invite us here to impoverish us" - why did you bring us here, to rejoice with you at the feast, or to dispossess us? Suddenly you want thirty sheets and garments from us?
"You only hate me and do not love me"
וַתֵּבְךְּ אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשׁוֹן עָלָיו וַתֹּאמֶר רַק־שְׂנֵאתַנִי וְלֹא אֲהַבְתָּנִי הַחִידָה חַדְתָּ לִבְנֵי עַמִּי וְלִי לֹא הִגַּדְתָּה וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הִנֵּה לְאָבִי וּלְאִמִּי לֹא הִגַּדְתִּי וְלָךְ אַגִּיד׃ - And Shimshon's wife wept before him and said: You only hate me and do not love me. You put a riddle to the children of my people and have not told me. And he said to her: Behold, I have not told my father or my mother, and shall I tell you?
One who hates presumably does not love, so what is meant by "you hate me and do not love me"? The Malbim explains: it is quite possible that a person loved someone with a great love, and afterward, as a result of what happened, that love turned into hatred, as with Amnon and Tamar, where the hatred that followed was greater than the love that preceded it. That is, there was love, the love departed and hatred came in its place. And she says to him: with us it is not so, it is not that there was love and now you hate, but rather you hate me now and you never loved me at all, for I see that you do not reveal the riddle to me.
And the Malbim explains: after all this was a cause brought about by Hashem, in order to stir up hatred and enmity between Shimshon and the Philistines, she wept that he tell her the riddle, meaning that he reveal the solution to her. And he says to her: how can I tell you, when I did not even reveal it to my parents?
Resolving the Difficulty: How Did She Weep for Seven Days?
וַתֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר־הָיָה לָהֶם הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיַּגֶּד־לָהּ כִּי הֱצִיקַתְהוּ וַתַּגֵּד הַחִידָה לִבְנֵי עַמָּהּ׃ - And she wept upon him the seven days that their feast lasted, and it came to pass on the seventh day that he told her, because she pressed him hard, and she told the riddle to the children of her people.
The pasuk is very puzzling: you say that on the seventh day of the feast they approached her and said "entice your husband," and then you tell us that she wept over him for all seven days of the feast. How is this possible, if only on the seventh day did they approach her? But according to what we introduced earlier, the matter becomes wonderfully clear: they approached her on the seventh day, which is the last day of the young men's feast, and why specifically then? Because now they are getting married, and when you get married you have a means of pressure, you are already his wife, so pressure him. And for how long does she pressure him? For the seven days of the feast that follow the wedding. According to this, what we said becomes wonderfully clear, that there were fourteen days of feasting here: seven of the young men and seven after the marriage.
And why did he reveal it to her specifically on the seventh day? He made a good calculation: this is it, we are on the last day, for one day she will manage to guard the solution and not reveal it, for one day she will hold out. "And he told her, because she pressed him hard" - he had no choice. "And she told the riddle to the children of her people" - and notice, in her great impudence she does not even try to pressure Shimshon to go and solve the riddle for them himself because it is difficult for them, but rather goes and reveals to them the solution, so that in the end her husband will have to pay them. This is completely contrary to logic. And the reason: because she is closer to the children of her people than to Shimshon, who is not part of the family and is not one of her people. Logic would say that she would not want her husband to lose money, but for her the closeness to the children of her people was greater, and as we shall see further on that she also had a prior relationship with one of the young men, and therefore she saw no great find in this marriage, and being that this was so, she was more attached to the children of her people and revealed to them the solution.
"Before the Sun Set" - The Cleverness of the Pelishtim
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּטֶרֶם יָבֹא הַחַרְסָה מַה־מָּתוֹק מִדְּבַשׁ וּמֶה עַז מֵאֲרִי וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לוּלֵא חֲרַשְׁתֶּם בְּעֶגְלָתִי לֹא מְצָאתֶם חִידָתִי׃ - And the men of the city said to him on the seventh day before the sun set: what is sweeter than honey, and what is stronger than a lion? And he said to them: had you not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found out my riddle.
"The charsah" is the sun, as we find that Yehoshua was buried in Timnat Cheres, meaning that they set up for him an image of cheres, that is, a sun, on his grave, to say that this man made the sun stand still. "Before the sun set" means a few minutes before sunset. And why? The commentators say: because they wanted to draw him along. When a person has already reached the very end and says this is it, we are done, the thirty changes of clothing are in my pocket, and then a moment before the finish they tell him we have found the solution, they let all the air out of his sails. And this is what they wanted: to grieve him as much as possible, that he should be certain he is about to take the pot, and then they would inform him that they have a solution.
And see how clever they were. They come and say: listen, we thought about this, and what you say is logical, it is a simple solution by reasoning. "What is sweeter than honey" - what thing is sweeter than honey? You surely mean honey. "And what is stronger than a lion" - what is stronger than a lion? So you surely mean the lion. This is simple logic. And this is because they do not have a solution based on findings in the field, for if they did he would ask them: what did you find, and where did you find it, and where exactly is it, come show me - and what would they answer him? Therefore they emphasize that they arrived at the solution through simple logic.
The Malbim says: the riddle had two elements. The first, "out of the eater came forth food," and in the Malbim's view this means that from the bee came forth food, which is the honey. This is easy to solve by logic: in all other animals the food they eat becomes part of their bloodstream, and what they produce as food, such as the milk a cow produces, comes from the body of the animal itself. But here from the food itself came forth food, it is not something that became part of it, it is not food that entered the body and the body expels waste and the rest as food, but rather from the food itself food came forth immediately, and only in the bee do we find this. This part is a logical and simple solution. But the second part, "and out of the strong came forth sweetness," cannot be known without seeing the findings on the ground. And since this is so, Shimshon knows that they did not find the findings, for if they had they would have brought them to him. And about this he said to them: "you would not have found out my riddle" - see how precise the language is. And if you did not find it, and one cannot know such an answer without finding it, then from where do you know it? From my wife. For my wife is a heifer untrained in plowing, and with her you plowed. And what is "you plowed"? She too failed to keep silent - she should have kept silent, and instead of keeping silent you plowed with her, and through this you found in the end the solution.
"He Went Down to Ashkelon" - The Garments and the Linen Sheets
וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהֹוָה וַיֵּרֶד אַשְׁקְלוֹן וַיַּךְ מֵהֶם שְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ וַיִּקַּח אֶת־חֲלִיצוֹתָם וַיִּתֵּן הַחֲלִיפוֹת לְמַגִּידֵי הַחִידָה וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַיַּעַל בֵּית אָבִיהוּ׃ - And the spirit of Hashem came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck down thirty men of them, and took their garments and gave the changes of clothing to those who had told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father's house.
Again strength, and again "the spirit of Hashem came upon him" - his acts of strength were through the power of a divine spirit that was upon him. Shimshon says: thirty changes of clothing are coming to you? I will not bring them to you from what is mine, for your solution was not a solution of victory but rather by cunning, that you extracted it from my wife. I will give you from you and out of your own. Changes of clothing? No problem, I will bring them to you according to the Pelishti fashion. He went and killed thirty Pelishtim, and gave their garments to them.
And see how wonderful this is: "and he gave the changes of clothing" is written with a vav, "חליפות". Shimshon had obligated himself to give "חליפֹת" (without the vav), and here he gives "חליפות" (with the vav). The explanation: at first he thought they would solve the riddle, and then he would give them thirty changes of his own, one size, a single size, and therefore "חליפֹת". But in practice, when he killed thirty Pelishtim and brought their garments, were they all one size? Each was a different measure, so it turns out he brought various sizes, and therefore in the end he gave "חליפות" with a vav, to express the plurality, the plurality of types.
What is puzzling here is: where are the linen garments? He had also obligated himself to give thirty linen garments. There are two explanations for this. The Radak says it is quite possible that he gave the linen garments and the verse saw no need to mention it, for it mentioned the changes of clothing which are the main point, and the linen garments are included in that. Another possibility the Malbim brings in the name of the Abarbanel: he had a claim against them, that they did not solve it on their own but through his wife. Do you have proof, Shimshon? There is no proof, no witnesses to it, but I am certain of it. And since there is no proof, money in doubt is divided, and if so what is due to you? Half. I gave you half, he gave the changes of clothing but not the linen garments, since there is no clear proof for either side.
"And his anger burned" - why only at the end?
Following this, "and his anger burned and he went up to his father's house." Why does the burning of anger come only here? Seemingly it should have come immediately when he saw that his wife revealed the riddle: and his anger burned, and the spirit of Hashem came upon him, and he struck down thirty men from Ashkelon. Yet it is written that first he struck thirty men, and only afterward "his anger burned and he went up to his father's house."
The Malbim says: Shimshon thought his wife was on his side, and that she did not understand what damage she was causing. He thought that when she saw she was forcing him to go and bring the changes of clothing, she would confess and release him from the matter and tell them: no, you did not solve the riddle, I will tell you the truth, I revealed it. And suddenly he sees that he is bringing them the garments and she continues to keep silent. She has no problem with my spending money, no problem with my paying for something I am not obligated to pay, meaning there is nothing to expect from her. Therefore precisely after he struck them, his anger grew, because until then he was sure that at some point she would come to her senses and confess and release him. And then he already begins to raise suspicions, "his anger burned," because he understands that if it is so easy for her to hand me and my money over to them, apparently she has a connection with one of them, and since this is so, she has no regard for me at all.
וַתְּהִי אֵשֶׁת שִׁמְשׁוֹן לְמֵרֵעֵהוּ אֲשֶׁר רֵעָה לוֹ׃ - And Shimshon's wife was given to his companion, who had been a friend to her.
And just as he feared, so exactly it was. Shimshon's wife is given "to his companion, who had been a friend to her," that is, to that same one who had been a friend to her earlier. And what do you see from this? That there was a man here with whom she had a connection even before the connection with Shimshon.
In summary:
In this chapter the prophet opens the account of Shimshon, and informs us in advance that the entire course of events "is from Hashem," a pretext from Hashem to create a private quarrel between Shimshon and the Pelishtim, for Israel had not merited a complete salvation, and the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy and chose to weaken the rule of the Pelishtim through personal disputes for which the entire nation would not bear responsibility. We saw his might, which was not the might of muscles but "and the spirit of Hashem came upon him," and the miracle prepared for him in the vineyards of Timnah so that he would be aware of his powers, like David with the lion and the bear. We saw his humility, that he did not tell his parents either about the tearing of the lion or about the honey he scooped from its carcass, and he went to recite a blessing at the place where a miracle had been done for him. And we saw the riddle, the hint "and you shall find" that he gave them, the precise distinctions between "חליפֹת" and "חליפות", the cunning of the Pelishtim and their threats, the betrayal of the wife who preferred her own people over her husband, and finally the burning of Shimshon's anger when he understood that her heart was not with him. The great questions about Shimshon's path we will leave, as we noted at the outset, for the comprehensive explanation at the end of the account.