Sefer Shoftim, chapter 11, brings before us the story of Yiftach the Gileadite - a well known story, yet through an in depth study with the Malbim great depth is revealed within it: a sophisticated diplomatic negotiation between Yiftach and the elders of Gilad, a fascinating legal debate opposite the king of Ammon, and finally that tragic mistake of a vow that brought disaster. We will follow the order of the pesukim and see how each word receives new light.
Yiftach the son of a harlot woman - three explanations
וְיִפְתָּח הַגִּלְעָדִי הָיָה גִּבּוֹר חַיִל וְהוּא בֶּן־אִשָּׁה זוֹנָה וַיּוֹלֶד גִּלְעָד אֶת־יִפְתָּח׃ - And Yiftach the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor, and he was the son of a harlot woman, and Gilad begot Yiftach.
Who is Yiftach? The navi presents him as a mighty man of valor, and immediately adds: "and he was the son of a harlot woman." What does this mean? The Ralbag explains that a man who married a woman not from his own tribe - she is called a "zonah." It would have been fitting for her to marry one of the men of her tribe, so that an inheritance would not pass from tribe to tribe if she received a portion in the inheritance, and here such a situation could have arisen. "Zonah" means one who strayed - who deviated from the path fitting for her.
The Radak explains differently: Yiftach was the son of a pilegesh (concubine). The official wife is with a ketubah and kiddushin, whereas the pilegesh is without a ketubah and without kiddushin (there is an opinion that she is with kiddushin but without a ketubah, but according to the plain meaning she is without both), and she is designated for him alone - he set her apart for himself and she lived with him permanently. Such a woman is called a pilegesh, and since there is no ketubah and kiddushin she is called an "ishah zonah."
A third explanation: an innkeeper. As it is said of Rachav, "Rachav the zonah," and there some of the commentators explained it from the term "one who provides food and sustenance" - she had a place where she sold food.
And with all this the pasuk emphasizes "and Gilad begot Yiftach." Says the Malbim: the emphasis comes to reject the thought that perhaps because of the title "zonah" there is no certainty as to who the father is. The pasuk testifies that everyone knew - this woman did not stray with other men, and when the son was born it was clear to all that Gilad had fathered him. Yiftach was not a nameless son whose father is unknown.
Two wrongs done by the brothers
וַתֵּלֶד אֵשֶׁת־גִּלְעָד לוֹ בָּנִים וַיִּגְדְּלוּ בְנֵי־הָאִשָּׁה וַיְגָרְשׁוּ אֶת־יִפְתָּח וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ לֹא־תִנְחַל בְּבֵית־אָבִינוּ כִּי בֶּן־אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת אָתָּה׃ - And the wife of Gilad bore him sons, and the woman's sons grew up and drove out Yiftach, and they said to him: You shall not inherit in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman.
Gilad also had an official wife, whom he married with a ketubah and kiddushin according to law, and from her sons were born to him. Those sons have a brother of an unpleasant status, a kind of half stepbrother, who perhaps even harms them in matchmaking - "the son of a harlot woman," and he is our brother. What do they do? They drive him out.
Says the Malbim: two things were done here unlawfully. First, "You shall not inherit in our father's house" - but the son of a pilegesh does inherit! It is the same father, and therefore an inheritance is due him. This is the first wrong. Second, "and they drove out Yiftach" - they drove him out of the entire city. If you do not want me to inherit with you, I will not inherit, but I will live here nearby. No and no - leave the city entirely. And in the words of the Malbim: "and this is clear violence," meaning an absolute wrong.
וַיִּבְרַח יִפְתָּח מִפְּנֵי אֶחָיו וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ טוֹב וַיִּתְלַקְּטוּ אֶל־יִפְתָּח אֲנָשִׁים רֵיקִים וַיֵּצְאוּ עִמּוֹ׃ - And Yiftach fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tov, and idle men gathered to Yiftach and went out with him.
"The land of Tov" - the lord of that land was named Tov, as we find in Megillat Rut, "If he will redeem you, good (Tov), let him redeem," where that man's name was Tov. The expression "and he fled" teaches us, says the Malbim, that not only did they fail to cherish him, but he was actually threatened by them, and therefore he was forced to flee. And there is an additional wrong here on the part of the people of the city: it would have been proper for them to render justice and prevent the brothers from treating him this way, and they did not do so.
Around Yiftach gathered "empty men," and he set up for himself a sort of small army, some companies. Empty men - as we find with David: men who were bitter of soul, debtors, men wandering from place to place with no obligation to anyone. When they found a place to attach themselves to and do something, they joined Yiftach.
The Elders of Gilad Come Out of Self Interest
וַיְהִי מִיָּמִים וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ בְנֵי־עַמּוֹן עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And it came to pass after a time that the children of Ammon made war against Israel.
Here we connect to the previous chapter. "And it came to pass after a time" comes to tell us that the oppression and the wrong continued for many days, until the children of Ammon made war against Israel, and then the people of Gilad found Yiftach to be someone fit and able to help them.
וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר־נִלְחֲמוּ בְנֵי־עַמּוֹן עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּלְכוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד לָקַחַת אֶת־יִפְתָּח מֵאֶרֶץ טוֹב׃ - And it was so, that when the children of Ammon made war against Israel, the elders of Gilad went to fetch Yiftach out of the land of Tov.
It has already been said, "the children of Ammon made war against Israel," and it would have been enough to say "the elders of Gilad went." Rather, the verse emphasizes that this was a matter of pure self interest: only because they were being fought against, and they had no choice, did they go to fetch him. There is no regret here over the past, no recognition that they had treated him unjustly and had failed to render him justice - they go only out of necessity, only because they need him.
The Negotiation: Officer or Head
Let us read the verses and consider the difficulty in them. They offer him, "and you shall be our officer," he replies, "Did you not hate me," and they answer, "Therefore we have now returned to you" - what kind of answer is that? Furthermore: at first they spoke of an officer and now of a head - what changed in the offer? Afterward Yiftach repeats the very same things, and they in turn say, "As you have said, so we will do." A threefold repetition of the same matter, and seemingly without understanding what is being added at each stage.
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְיִפְתָּח לְכָה וְהָיִיתָה לָּנוּ לְקָצִין וְנִלָּחֲמָה בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - And they said to Yiftach, Come and be our officer, that we may fight against the children of Ammon.
The Malbim says: in order to understand the whole negotiation, one must understand what an "officer" (katzin) is and what a "head" (rosh) is. Katzin comes from the word katzeh (edge), as we know from the Torah, "as officers" - he is the one who stands at the edge of the camp. He is placed at the edge of the camp because of his importance and distinction: he may be a mighty man, he may be a wealthy man. He is not a head over us, but he goes at the front, he has importance and standing.
And note: at first they do not speak at all of reward. They tell him what they want: you will stand at the edge of the camp, you will go at the front, you are the mightiest of us all - but you are not a head over us, you are an officer. And therefore they say, "that we may fight against the children of Ammon" - all of us will fight together. Had he been a head, he would be the one who fights, who conquers, who is victorious, who receives - as is the way of a king who goes at the head of the troop. But here: you are only an officer, because you are important in our eyes, and all of us will fight together.
וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח לְזִקְנֵי גִלְעָד הֲלֹא אַתֶּם שְׂנֵאתֶם אוֹתִי וַתְּגָרְשׁוּנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמַדּוּעַ בָּאתֶם אֵלַי עַתָּה כַּאֲשֶׁר צַר לָכֶם׃ - And Yiftach said to the elders of Gilad: Did you not hate me and drive me out of my father's house? So why have you come to me now, when you are in distress?
Yiftach answers them: A commander is appointed from among the important men, someone whom people want to lead the battle at their head. Is it because of my importance that you call me? Surely it is not out of importance and not out of love, for "you hated me and drove me out of my father's house." I was lowly and despised in your eyes, so how have I suddenly become important? Moreover: had you come in a time of tranquility, I might have said that perhaps feelings of regret are stirring within you. But "why have you come to me now, when you are in distress"? What drives you is not regret but necessity. There is no importance of mine in your eyes here, there is no regret over your deeds here, there is only self interest. You are people motivated by advantage, wanting to extract from me what I can provide and then cast me aside. Such an offer is not acceptable to me.
וַיֹּאמְרוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אֶל־יִפְתָּח לָכֵן עַתָּה שַׁבְנוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ עִמָּנוּ וְנִלְחַמְתָּ בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְרֹאשׁ לְכֹל יֹשְׁבֵי גִלְעָד׃ - And the elders of Gilad said to Yiftach: Therefore we have now returned to you, that you go with us and fight against the children of Ammon, and you shall be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilad.
They admit: True, you are right, we did indeed hate you and wrong you. "Therefore we have now returned to you" - we do not come with a claim of great love, but with an offer of give and take: a salary. That already sounds different. I need not be your friend, I am hiring a professional to tend to my needs, without the bounds of love and without selling you stories. At first they did not offer a salary but the position of "commander," which comes from love and importance. He said to them: I am not important to you and I am not beloved by you. They said to him: You are right, let us talk business, let us talk brass tacks. We need someone to conduct the war, and we promise you: wage the war, and we will appoint you as head. You will be king over us. That is already a worthwhile offer, that is already a real salary.
וַיֹּאמֶר יִפְתָּח אֶל־זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אִם־מְשִׁיבִים אַתֶּם אוֹתִי לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי עַמּוֹן וְנָתַן יְהֹוָה אוֹתָם לְפָנָי אָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם לְרֹאשׁ׃ - And Yiftach said to the elders of Gilad: If you bring me back to fight against the children of Ammon, and Hashem delivers them before me, shall I be your head?
Ostensibly he is repeating their words. But Yiftach is rejecting the offer, says the Malbim. What are you offering me: that I come, win, and become head? If I win, I am head in any case! This was the accepted practice in their times: a man who went out, won, and waged the battle became the leader, as we saw with Gideon, to whom they said "rule over us, both you and your son and your son's son." And this is what he said: "shall I be your head" - I will be your head anyway. You are not promising me anything and you are not giving me anything, this is something that follows of itself. If so, what salary are you giving me? What does he want? A salary in advance: you want me to go and fight - appoint me now as head. Then you have given me something. But that you tell me that after the victory I will be head, that I know even without you.
וַיֹּאמְרוּ זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד אֶל־יִפְתָּח יְהֹוָה יִהְיֶה שֹׁמֵעַ בֵּינוֹתֵינוּ אִם־לֹא כִדְבָרְךָ כֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה׃ - And the elders of Gilad said to Yiftach: Hashem shall be witness between us, if we do not act according to your word.
They accept his offer: from this moment you become head over us. And from this it becomes clear why afterward, when Yiftach turns to the king of the children of Ammon, he says "what have I to do with you, that you have come to me to fight in my land" - this is how a king speaks, not how a commander speaks and not how one who does not feel himself to be the owner speaks. They indeed appointed him as head and leader, and therefore he speaks as one who represents and is not a private individual.
וַיֵּלֶךְ יִפְתָּח עִם־זִקְנֵי גִלְעָד וַיָּשִׂימוּ הָעָם אוֹתוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם לְרֹאשׁ וּלְקָצִין וַיְדַבֵּר יִפְתָּח אֶת־כָּל־דְּבָרָיו לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה בַּמִּצְפָּה׃ - And Yiftach went with the elders of Gilad, and the people set him over them as head and as commander, and Yiftach spoke all his words before Hashem in Mitzpah.
They set him as head immediately, and also as commander - for once you are head, and since the important and honored men are placed at the head of the camp, you are also fit to be the one who goes at the front of the camp. And what is "and Yiftach spoke all his words before Hashem in Mitzpah"? The Malbim explains that he stipulated with them the terms of authority: you have appointed me as head - what does this mean, what rights and powers do I have. For elsewhere the Malbim explains that there were various types of heads over a people: a head who cannot legislate, a head who holds all the laws in his hands, and a head who is subordinate to a constituent assembly or to a house of representatives through which the laws pass. (The Malbim elaborates on this in his explanation of the kingdom of Achashverosh, and whoever wishes may listen to our recording on Megillat Esther.) Here too Yiftach sat down to clarify with them exactly what his headship includes and how far his powers reach - similar to what we saw with Shmuel, who spoke the law of kingship when he made Shaul king.
The Appeal to the King of the Children of Ammon and His Claim
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִפְתָּח מַלְאָכִים אֶל־מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן לֵאמֹר מַה־לִּי וָלָךְ כִּי־בָאתָ אֵלַי לְהִלָּחֵם בְּאַרְצִי׃ - And Yiftach sent messengers to the king of the children of Ammon, saying: What have I to do with you, that you have come to me to fight in my land?
The Malbim explains: a war that breaks out between two kings, according to the conventions of kings, must be accompanied by a cause and a claim. Unless a mad king comes along and decides to seize another country because there is oil there and I want Kuwait, in which case there are no claims and nothing at all, for in the jungle the laws of the jungle prevail. But normally, a king who comes to declare war on another king needs a justification. And when one comes with a claim, it is also possible to compromise: I will give you money or gold whose value will satisfy you, or a certain territory over which we will reach a compromise. Therefore the first question is: what is between me and you?
וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן אֶל־מַלְאֲכֵי יִפְתָּח כִּי־לָקַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־אַרְצִי בַּעֲלוֹתוֹ מִמִּצְרַיִם מֵאַרְנוֹן וְעַד־הַיַּבֹּק וְעַד־הַיַּרְדֵּן וְעַתָּה הָשִׁיבָה אֶתְהֶן בְּשָׁלוֹם׃ - And the king of the children of Ammon said to the messengers of Yiftach: Because Israel took my land when it came up from Egypt, from the Arnon as far as the Yabok and as far as the Jordan; now therefore restore those lands peaceably.
His claim concerns the land: the land you dwell in belonged to Ammon and Moav in ancient days. And we know that "Ammon and Moav became permitted through Sichon" - Sichon conquered the land of Ammon and Moav, and this served to make the ground permissible for us. For the Holy One, blessed be He, warned us not to provoke them to war, because He had good doves to bring forth from Ammon and Moav: Naamah the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabite. If so, how could the Holy One, blessed be He, make permissible for us a land that I am forbidden to conquer? He gave it to us not directly but secondhand: Sichon came and struck Ammon and Moav, and it is no longer the land of Ammon and Moav; Israel came and struck Sichon, and we received the land on a silver platter without transgressing the prohibition of provoking them. I did not fight you, someone else drove you out, and I came and drove him out. Very wonderful. Except that for Ammon this is not satisfactory, and he claims: you took from Sichon a land that belongs to me. And as it is written in Yehoshua, "from Aroer as far as the border of the children of Ammon... and their border was Yaazer and half the land of the children of Ammon" - we see that the land we took is land that belongs to the children of Ammon. And if so, I want my land back.
Yiftach's Four Claims
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה אָמַר יִפְתָּח לֹא־לָקַח יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־אֶרֶץ מוֹאָב וְאֶת־אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - And he said to him: Thus says Yiftach: Israel did not take the land of Moav or the land of the children of Ammon.
First, what is meant by "thus says Yiftach"? The Ralbag explains: from here we see that Yiftach was famous among them for his might. "Thus says Yiftach" is a statement with a very strong and serious backing; it is not "thus says some nobody," but a name that was a brand able to make an impact on the children of Ammon. And the Malbim explains: Yiftach makes four claims here, which pull the ground out from under his rights and from under his justification for war.
The first claim: we did not take anything from you. Had I taken something from you, you would come to me with a claim, but I took nothing from you. On the contrary, when we sent messengers to the king of Edom and to the king of Moav and they did not allow us to pass through their border, we went around and did not enter.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל־מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם לֵאמֹר אֶעְבְּרָה־נָּא בְאַרְצֶךָ וְלֹא שָׁמַע מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם וְגַם אֶל־מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב שָׁלַח וְלֹא אָבָה וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקָדֵשׁ׃ - And Israel sent messengers to the king of Edom, saying: Let me pass, I pray you, through your land; but the king of Edom would not listen. And it also sent to the king of Moav, but he would not consent; so Israel remained in Kadesh.
וַיֵּלֶךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיָּסָב אֶת־אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם וְאֶת־אֶרֶץ מוֹאָב וַיָּבֹא מִמִּזְרַח־שֶׁמֶשׁ לְאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב וַיַּחֲנוּן בְּעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן וְלֹא־בָאוּ בִּגְבוּל מוֹאָב כִּי אַרְנוֹן גְּבוּל מוֹאָב׃ - Then it went through the wilderness and went around the land of Edom and the land of Moav, and came from the east of the land of Moav, and encamped on the far side of the Arnon; but they did not come within the border of Moav, for the Arnon was the border of Moav.
They did not allow us, so we did not pass, we made a detour, and we did not even come near the border.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל מַלְאָכִים אֶל־סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ־הָאֱמֹרִי מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעְבְּרָה־נָּא בְאַרְצְךָ עַד־מְקוֹמִי׃ - And Israel sent messengers to Sichon king of the Emori, king of Cheshbon; and Israel said to him: Let us pass, we pray you, through your land to my place.
וְלֹא־הֶאֱמִין סִיחוֹן אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבֹר בִּגְבֻלוֹ וַיֶּאֱסֹף סִיחוֹן אֶת־כָּל־עַמּוֹ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּיָהְצָה וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - But Sichon did not trust Israel to pass through his border; and Sichon gathered all his people together, and they encamped at Yahatz, and he fought against Israel.
This is the second argument: the lands you claim we took from you - we took them from Sichon, for they were under his rule. And do not say that we captured Sichon unlawfully, for we did not initiate war against him at all. We merely passed by on the outside, and it was Sichon who provoked us and started the war. Not only did he refuse to let us pass through his land, but he would not even let us "pass along his border" - I am not entering your land, I am only passing next to the border, what is the problem? Yet he gathered all his army, and Hashem delivered him into the hand of Israel, and then we took his land, which is the land of the Emori and not the land of Moav, for at that time the lands belonged to the Emori.
וַיִּתֵּן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־סִיחוֹן וְאֶת־כָּל־עַמּוֹ בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכּוּם וַיִּירַשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל־אֶרֶץ הָאֱמֹרִי יוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא׃ - And Hashem, the God of Israel, delivered Sichon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them, and Israel took possession of all the land of the Emori, the inhabitants of that land.
וְעַתָּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹרִישׁ אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי מִפְּנֵי עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַתָּה תִּירָשֶׁנּוּ׃ - And now Hashem, the God of Israel, has dispossessed the Emori from before His people Israel, and you would take possession of it?
הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר יוֹרִישְׁךָ כְּמוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אוֹתוֹ תִירָשׁ וְאֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מִפָּנֵינוּ אוֹתוֹ נִירָשׁ׃ - Is it not so that whatever Kemosh your god causes you to possess, that you take possession of, and all that Hashem our God has dispossessed from before us, that we take possession of?
This is the third argument: the war was a divine war. All the nations of that time knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the land to Israel, and that is why Rachav describes how the hearts of all the inhabitants of the land melted before Israel's wars and before the God of Israel. Yiftach tells him: why do you come to complain about the wonders of God? By divine providence we received this portion, do you wish to argue with the Master of the world?
The Ralbag adds that there is also a jab and a mockery here: what Kemosh your god gives you - good health to you, and what our God gives us - that is ours. His intent: Kemosh did not manage to save you from the hand of Sichon, "Woe to you, Moav, you are lost, people of Kemosh" - your Kemosh withered, wilted, and saved nothing at all. With such a god you are wasting your time, one does not go out to battle with him, you had best lay down your weapons.
וְעַתָּה הֲטוֹב טוֹב אַתָּה מִבָּלָק בֶּן־צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב הֲרוֹב רָב עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִם־נִלְחֹם נִלְחַם בָּם׃ - And now, are you any better than Balak son of Tzippor, king of Moav? Did he ever contend with Israel, or ever wage war against them?
And this is the fourth argument: Balak was king at that time and kept silent. After him came many kings, three hundred years passed and Israel still holds the land - and how did you remain silent? Says the Malbim: this is a chazakah accompanied by a claim.
Anyone who has studied Bava Batra knows what a chazakah is: a person who dwelt in a piece of land or a house for three years, or worked a field, while the owner saw and did not protest - now it falls upon the owner to prove that the place is his, for since the man dwelt there and you did not protest, it is as if it is his. But there are conditions to this, and the central condition is that it must be a chazakah accompanied by a claim. That is, if you are asked what you are doing here, and you answer "I have already been here for three years" - that is not enough. From where is it yours? "I do not know, I saw an abandoned house and I moved in, but I have been here three years." What do you mean, a protected tenant? There is no such thing. That is a chazakah without a claim. To say "you did not protest for three years and this proves I am right," you must have a claim: I bought it from you; and if they ask for a document - I had a document and it was lost; or my father bequeathed it to me. Then it is a chazakah with a claim. But a person cannot settle in his friend's house and say "there was no one here, so I have possession."
And this is Yiftach's argument: our chazakah over the land is a chazakah accompanied by a claim. First, it is not three years and not thirty but three hundred years. And not merely holding, but I conquered it justly and honestly, and not even from you but from Sichon, and I did not even initiate the war against him, rather he against me. In simple terms: you have no claim whatsoever against me. So the Malbim explains, and so too the Abarbanel explains.
בְּשֶׁבֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן וּבִבְנוֹתֶיהָ וּבְעַרְעוֹר וּבִבְנוֹתֶיהָ וּבְכָל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר עַל־יְדֵי אַרְנוֹן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא־הִצַּלְתֶּם בָּעֵת הַהִיא׃ - While Israel dwelt in Cheshbon and its towns, in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities along the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them during that time?
You had more than enough time to come and make your arguments, and to demand your land if it truly belonged to you.
"May Hashem the Judge decide" - Leaving the Verdict to Heaven
וְאָנֹכִי לֹא־חָטָאתִי לָךְ וְאַתָּה עֹשֶׂה אִתִּי רָעָה לְהִלָּחֶם בִּי יִשְׁפֹּט יְהֹוָה הַשֹּׁפֵט הַיּוֹם בֵּין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבֵין בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - And I have not sinned against you, yet you are doing me wrong to make war against me. May Hashem, the Judge, decide today between Bnei Yisrael and Bnei Ammon.
Since you have no claim, only one possibility remains: that you have something personal against me, that once I harmed you, wronged you, insulted your honor, perhaps I seated your ambassador on a low chair. To this he says: "And I have not sinned against you" - there was never any dealing between me and you, and therefore there is also no personal reason to hold a grudge against me. And if so, your war is unjustified, it is evil, it is unlawful, it runs contrary to the law of kingdoms and to the conventions of nations.
But how does he say "May Hashem, the Judge, decide"? A person is forbidden to hand over his case to Heaven! The Gemara says: a person is forbidden to hand over his case to Heaven when there are judges on earth - why hand your case to Heaven, go to a court and let them clarify the law. But when there are no judges on earth, it is permitted. So too with David, who said "May Hashem judge between me and you" - for who would judge Shaul, seeing that he is king? So too Yiftach: who would judge between us? The court in The Hague? There it is well known that Justice is merely the name of a star. Assad has already slaughtered two hundred thousand people and they are silent; we killed some eighteen hundred, perhaps that is not enough, and immediately a great uproar arises throughout the world. Is it justice you seek? There is no one in the world capable of doing justice between us. Therefore: "May Hashem, the Judge, decide today."
The Spirit of Hashem and the Stratagem in Battle
וְלֹא שָׁמַע מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן אֶל־דִּבְרֵי יִפְתָּח אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח אֵלָיו׃ - But the king of Bnei Ammon did not heed the words of Yiftach that he had sent to him.
וַתְּהִי עַל־יִפְתָּח רוּחַ יְהֹוָה וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת־הַגִּלְעָד וְאֶת־מְנַשֶּׁה וַיַּעֲבֹר אֶת־מִצְפֵּה גִלְעָד וּמִמִּצְפֵּה גִלְעָד עָבַר בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - Then the spirit of Hashem came upon Yiftach, and he passed through the Gilad and Menashe, and he passed through Mitzpe Gilad, and from Mitzpe Gilad he passed on to Bnei Ammon.
"The spirit of Hashem" means that a spirit of strength and might is placed within him so that he can go and fight. For a person who naturally stands facing a great army is seized by fear and dread, and here it is not someone who has an organized national army, but a man to whom empty men have gathered. Therefore he needs a spirit of might from Hashem in order to be able to enter the battle.
And the Malbim says: Yiftach acted with wisdom. Bnei Ammon were settled in the Gilad, and Yiftach understood that fighting them face to face would not succeed, and that he had to outflank them and encircle them. Therefore he did not go by the direct route through the Gilad, but rather by way of Mitzpe Gilad, and he encircled them toward the land of Bnei Ammon: I will strike Bnei Ammon in their cities, and when they return to defend their cities I will attack them on their return. This was the plan. But here we are exposed to a tragic mistake that Yiftach made in that battle, for which he paid a heavy price.
The Vow
וַיִּדַּר יִפְתָּח נֶדֶר לַיהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר אִם־נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן בְּיָדִי׃ - And Yiftach made a vow to Hashem and said: If You will indeed deliver Bnei Ammon into my hand,
וְהָיָה הַיּוֹצֵא אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִדַּלְתֵי בֵיתִי לִקְרָאתִי בְּשׁוּבִי בְשָׁלוֹם מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וְהָיָה לַיהֹוָה וְהַעֲלִיתִיהוּ עֹלָה׃ - then whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from Bnei Ammon shall be Hashem's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.
Yiftach makes his vow in good faith, out of goodwill and a desire to thank Hashem for the salvation, but he erred in his words. On the surface this is puzzling: "and it shall be to Hashem, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering" - to whom else would he offer a burnt offering, to the Baal? Obviously to Hashem! The Malbim explains that his intention was: if what comes out is not fit to be a sacrifice, its value will go to Hashem; and if it is fit to be a sacrifice, I will offer it upon the altar.
וַיַּעֲבֹר יִפְתָּח אֶל־בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן לְהִלָּחֶם בָּם וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהֹוָה בְּיָדוֹ׃ - And Yiftach crossed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them, and Hashem delivered them into his hand.
וַיַּכֵּם מֵעֲרוֹעֵר וְעַד־בֹּאֲךָ מִנִּית עֶשְׂרִים עִיר וְעַד אָבֵל כְּרָמִים מַכָּה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד וַיִּכָּנְעוּ בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And he smote them from Aroer until you come to Minnit, twenty cities, and up to Avel Keramim, a very great slaughter; and the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
His daughter comes out to meet him
וַיָּבֹא יִפְתָּח הַמִּצְפָּה אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וְהִנֵּה בִתּוֹ יֹצֵאת לִקְרָאתוֹ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלוֹת וְרַק הִיא יְחִידָה אֵין־לוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בֵּן אוֹ־בַת׃ - And Yiftach came to Mitzpah, to his house, and behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dances; and she was his only child; he had no other son or daughter besides her.
Yiftach returns victorious, and the one who comes out to meet him is his daughter, something he had not imagined at all and had made no plans for. And what is meant by "and she was his only child"? The Malbim says: the term "only" (yachid) is sometimes used even when the thing is not literally the only one, but because there is none as special as it. So too with Avraham: "take now your son, your only one" - yet he has Yishmael and he has the sons of the concubines! Rather "your only one" means "your special one": you have none as special as him, unique in his virtues. If so, one might have interpreted here too that "only" means special, and that there are other sons and daughters who are not of such stature. Therefore Scripture adds "he had no other son or daughter besides her" - Yiftach had no other sons or daughters at all.
The Radak explains differently: "besides him" (mimenu) is like "besides her" (mimenah) - he had no son or daughter from her, meaning that if she dies Yiftach has no continuity, for she is an only child and had not yet married and borne children. The difficulty is that the text writes "from him," and they explain that a son or daughter from her is considered as from him, that is, from me, since they are attributed to me and in them lies my continuity. One may add that it wrote "from him" because a female bears children and a male does not, and it comes to say that she was like a male, in that she bore no children, and therefore it used the wording "from him."
"I have opened my mouth" - can the vow be annulled?
וַיְהִי כִרְאוֹתוֹ אוֹתָהּ וַיִּקְרַע אֶת־בְּגָדָיו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲהָהּ בִּתִּי הַכְרֵעַ הִכְרַעְתִּנִי וְאַתְּ הָיִית בְּעֹכְרָי וְאָנֹכִי פָּצִיתִי פִי אֶל־יְהֹוָה וְלֹא אוּכַל לָשׁוּב׃ - And it was, when he saw her, that he tore his garments and said: Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are among those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Hashem, and I cannot turn back.
The matter is astonishing: "I cannot turn back"? You made a vow, and a vow has an opening and there is regret - go and annul your vow and solve the problem! And in any case, says the Malbim, this is not a vow at all: is there such a thing as vowing to offer one's own child as a burnt offering? Such a thing cannot be vowed in the first place. So what then, did they forget the law of annulling vows? These are explicit verses in the Torah!
The Malbim explains that Yiftach indeed wanted to regret and seek release from his vow, for he has an opening and regret, and all his words were said in the form of a question: "Alas, my daughter, have you brought me low?" - is it you who brought me down? "And are you among those who trouble me?" - are you among the people who troubled and harmed me? And if not, how could I do such a thing to you? "And I have opened my mouth to Hashem, and can I not turn back?" - is it that because I have opened my mouth to Hashem the matter is sealed and it is impossible to turn back, to rectify and to regret? After all, vows can be annulled through an opening and through regret, and surely this is possible. There are further explanations of this, but according to the Malbim everything was said in the form of a question. And who misled him? His daughter.
וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אָבִי פָּצִיתָה אֶת־פִּיךָ אֶל־יְהֹוָה עֲשֵׂה לִי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָצָא מִפִּיךָ אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ יְהֹוָה נְקָמוֹת מֵאֹיְבֶיךָ מִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - And she said to him: My father, you have opened your mouth to Hashem; do to me according to what has come out of your mouth, seeing that Hashem has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, on the children of Ammon.
She says to him: Father, this vow is not like other vows. In other vows, the sage uproots the vow from its very inception through charatah de'ikara, that is, "had I known this from the start I would not have vowed." I regret the very act of vowing in the first place. In contrast, charatah dehashta is: I am glad that I vowed and it was good that I vowed, only that now something has arisen that causes me to regret. And she argues: Can you regret the vow from the outset? Impossible, for "after Hashem has taken vengeance for you upon your enemies," through the vow you were victorious! The vow proved itself and produced results, so how can you regret it retroactively? If so, all you have is charatah dehashta, and how then can a sage release your vow, since a sage uproots the vow from its very inception?
The Malbim says: This is what misled Yiftach so that he did not go to the sages to inquire about his vow. But in truth this was a baseless argument, for even charatah dehashta is effective to uproot, if not from the inception, then at least from now onward. Her words are not halachic at all, yet they misled Yiftach into understanding that such was the law, and therefore he gave up from the outset on the possibility of going and inquiring of the sages.
Two Months in the Mountains
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־אָבִיהָ יֵעָשֶׂה לִּי הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה הַרְפֵּה מִמֶּנִּי שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים וְאֵלְכָה וְיָרַדְתִּי עַל־הֶהָרִים וְאֶבְכֶּה עַל־בְּתוּלַי אָנֹכִי וְרֵעוֹתָי׃ - And she said to her father: Let this thing be done for me. Leave me alone for two months, that I may go and descend upon the mountains and weep over my virginity, I and my companions.
Since you have vowed, there is no choice but to fulfill, so do this thing for me, but first leave me alone for two months. And what is "and I will descend upon the mountains"? The Radak brings that some explain it from the expression "I moan in my complaint and I wail," a term of weeping and sorrow. But it is more correct to explain that Yiftach's house was in Mitzpah, in a place higher than the mountains, and when one descends from his house one descends to the mountains. Another possibility: between Mitzpah and the mountains there was a valley, and she says that she will descend to that valley. And the Radak brings the Midrash: "and I will descend upon the mountains," to the Sanhedrin, perhaps we will go to the Sanhedrin and they will find an opening for your vow. And "I will weep over my virginity," I will weep that I will remain a virgin, that I will not marry.
וַיֹּאמֶר לֵכִי וַיִּשְׁלַח אוֹתָהּ שְׁנֵי חֳדָשִׁים וַתֵּלֶךְ הִיא וְרֵעוֹתֶיהָ וַתֵּבְךְּ עַל־בְּתוּלֶיהָ עַל־הֶהָרִים׃ - And he said: Go. And he sent her away for two months, and she went, she and her companions, and wept over her virginity upon the mountains.
וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁנַיִם חֳדָשִׁים וַתָּשָׁב אֶל־אָבִיהָ וַיַּעַשׂ לָהּ אֶת־נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָדָר וְהִיא לֹא־יָדְעָה אִישׁ וַתְּהִי־חֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And it came to pass at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he did to her his vow that he had vowed, and she had not known a man. And it became a custom in Israel.
What is "and he did to her his vow"? Two explanations. One explanation: he made her a house and brought her in there, and she was there separated from people and from the ways of the world, in the sense of "and she shall be to Hashem," set apart for Hashem: she does not marry, does not establish a home, does not live among people but is set apart. And a second explanation, which is the explanation of Chazal: he actually offered her up as a burnt offering, so Chazal expounded.
And what is "and it became a custom in Israel"? According to Rashi: they made this into a custom that no person would ever do such a thing again, and they established that a person should never let such a thing leave his mouth. Another explanation in Rashi: "and it became a custom in Israel" is connected to the following verse.
מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה תֵּלַכְנָה בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְתַנּוֹת לְבַת־יִפְתָּח הַגִּלְעָדִי אַרְבַּעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה׃ - From year to year the daughters of Israel would go to lament for the daughter of Yiftach the Gileadite, four days in the year.
"From year to year," from one year to the next. And what is "letanot"? This depends on the two explanations: if we explain that he confined her in a house as one secluded, they would go from year to year to visit her, to lament with her, to share her sorrow and to be in her company, four days in the year. And if we explain that he offered her as a burnt offering, it was a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel would go to lament and weep over the resting place of the daughter of Yiftach, year by year.
The Words of Chazal: A Vow That Was No Vow
Chazal ask: was this really a valid vow? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree. Rabbi Yochanan said: he owed money value. A person is not offered as a korban, and therefore he had to give her worth, he assesses her and gives that to the korban. Reish Lakish said: he did not even owe money, for we learned: one who says about an impure animal or a blemished one "these shall be an olah" has said nothing; but if he said "these shall be for an olah" they are sold and an olah is brought with their value. That is, if you say "I will offer up this ox or this donkey as an olah" you have spoken empty words and owe not even money; but if you said "for an olah," that something derived from it should bring about an olah, you owe money. And here he said that she herself would be an olah, and so there is nothing to it. It emerges that according to Rabbi Yochanan he owed money, and according to Reish Lakish he owed nothing at all.
The Gemara asks: was Pinchas not there to release him from his vow, to tell him that a monetary payment suffices and with that the matter is concluded? Pinchas said: he needs me, let him come to me; whoever wants the Rav comes to him. And Yiftach said: I am the head of the chieftains of Israel, and I should go to him? He should come to me. And between one and the other, the girl was lost. Between the honor of this one and the honor of that one, that poor unfortunate girl was lost.
And both of them were punished, say Chazal. Yiftach died through the falling off of his limbs: wherever he went a limb fell from him, and as we will see further on he was buried "in the cities of Gilad." And from Pinchas the ruach hakodesh departed, as it is written "and Pinchas son of Elazar the Kohen was leader over them." It does not say "is leader over them" but "was over them," to tell you that in the past Hashem was with him and now Hashem is no longer with him.
It emerges that everything Yiftach did, he did by mistake. He thought there was a valid vow here, and his daughter misled him; and she herself thought there was a vow, and therefore was prepared to fulfill it and said "do to me as came out of your mouth." But in truth the whole thing was a mistake, and see how far such a mistake and such games of honor brought a terrible calamity upon that poor wretched girl.
The Rama miPano: The Chain of Reincarnations
We have finished the chapter, but it is worthwhile to see the words of the Rama miPano in his work "Gilgulei Neshamot." He writes that the daughter of Yiftach is the wife of Cham. The wife of Cham was pregnant in the ark, pregnant from the illicit union of Sichon, the brother of Og. And Cham is the only one who cohabited in the ark, he and the raven. And why did he cohabit? Because he knew that his wife was destined to appear pregnant, and if she became pregnant they would say she had conceived from another, so he was with her in order that they would attribute her pregnancy to him. And on account of this corruption they return in reincarnation: the wife of Cham is the daughter of Yiftach, and many troubles pass over her, and in order to rectify her, some say she was slaughtered, and some say, as we mentioned, that she was only removed from human company, corresponding to what happened with her then.
But the matter did not end there. The Rama miPano says: it has a continuation, and she is reincarnated and returns to be the daughter of Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon.
And what happened with Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon? The Gemara brings that he was among those executed by the government, and they decreed burning upon him, killing upon his wife, and upon his daughter that she sit in a brothel. And for what? Because he would pronounce the Name with its letters. And the Gemara asks: but does one who pronounces the Name with its letters not have a portion in the World to Come? And it answers: regarding this it is said "you shall not learn to do" but you may learn to understand and to instruct. That is, he did not do it in order to profit from it, but in order to understand and to instruct and to know the halachot connected with it. If so, why was he punished? Because he did it in public. And why was his wife punished? Because she did not protest against him: she saw him doing so and should have protested and did not, and anyone who has the ability to protest and does not protest is punished. And the daughter to a brothel, for what? Because once she was walking before the great ones of Rome and they said: how lovely are the steps of this maiden, and she immediately paid attention to her steps, that is, she took greater care to step lovely steps. (Some say that "she paid attention to her steps" means that she ceased to walk that way, but the plain meaning is not so.)
Beruria the wife of Rabbi Meir was the daughter of Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon, and it emerges that she was the sister of the one who sat in the brothel. She said to Rabbi Meir: how long shall I be disgraced that my sister is in a brothel? Rabbi Meir went to redeem her. He took a tarkeva of dinars, a basket of dinars, and said: if she has not committed a transgression there, I will succeed in redeeming her. He arrived there, disguised himself as another man and tried to solicit her to transgression. She said to him "I am in the way of women" and tried to evade him, and when he pressed her she said to him: there are women here better than me and prettier than me. He understood that she does not yield to transgression, and said: if so she has committed no forbidden act, and he decided to redeem her. He came to the guard and said to him: give her to me. He said: I am afraid of the government. He said to him: take the tarkeva of dinars, half for you, and if they come to question you bribe them with the other half. He said to him: and when the money runs out what will be? He said to him: say "the God of Meir answer me." And who says this will help? A pack of dogs came, he said "the God of Meir answer me" and saw that the saying was effective and they all fled. And in the end he took her out and redeemed her. (The Gemara continues that afterward they searched for Rabbi Meir, and that is already less to our topic.)
The Rama miPano says: Yiftach is Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon. Yiftach opened his mouth, "and I have opened my mouth," and he returns in reincarnation, and here too he opens his mouth and pronounces the Name with its letters. The wife of Yiftach did not protest against him, for she should have said to him: how can you do such a thing? Set aside your honor, go to Pinchas and have the vow released. And since she did not protest then, she too returns in reincarnation and is punished and killed, for now too she did not protest against him at the time he pronounced the Name with its letters. And the daughter, she is the daughter of Yiftach. The whole family returned, in simple terms. And now, says the Rama miPano, come and see: since she was not guilty in that story, therefore she was saved by Rabbi Meir and in the end was saved for a good life; whereas her father and mother, in both of whom there was actual sin, were punished. And the Rama adds that the guard who acted according to Rabbi Meir's words also had a connection to that rectification, with her first husband, but he does not explain how or what.
In summary:
Chapter 11 opens with an injustice: brothers who drive their brother from his inheritance and from the city, and townspeople who do not enforce justice. Yiftach flees, gathers empty men around him, and once things become dire for Gilad, its elders come to him out of pure self-interest. Their negotiation, in the Malbim's explanation, is a precise debate between "katzin" - an appointment of honor and importance, and "rosh" - an appointment of reward and authority; and Yiftach, who is unwilling to be a tool of convenience, extracts from them an immediate appointment to leadership and settles with them the laws of authority. Facing the king of Bnei Amon he conducts an exemplary legal argument in four claims: we took nothing from you, we took from Sichon who began the war, Hashem gave us the land as an inheritance, and we hold a presumption of ownership of three hundred years that carries a claim - and when there is no judge in the land, Hashem the Judge shall judge. But at the peak of victory comes the mistake: a vow that is no vow, a daughter who misled through the reasoning of retroactive regret, and two great ones who stood opposite one another in their honor - and between one and the other the girl was lost. From here we learn how far a mistake in halacha and games of honor can bring a terrible calamity, and how fitting it is to ask a sage and not to rely on the reasoning of one's own heart.