Chapter 19 in Sefer Shoftim is the chapter known as "the Concubine in Givah." This is an incomparably tragic story, one that is very hard to take in and accept, and were the words not written we would not believe that such a thing happened among the people of Israel. It is an episode that began with a small local incident, continued with a horrific act in its own right, and ended with the killing of hundreds of thousands. This is one of the darkest periods in the history of the Jewish people.
וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וּמֶלֶךְ אֵין בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיְהִי אִישׁ לֵוִי גָּר בְּיַרְכְּתֵי הַר אֶפְרַיִם, וַיִּקַּח לוֹ אִשָּׁה פִילֶגֶשׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה׃ - And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the far side of the hill country of Ephraim, and he took to himself a concubine from Beit Lechem in Yehudah.
The chapter opens and describes for us already in the first pasuk how we arrived at the terrible story we are about to hear. It is as if the text is telling us: you are about to see a difficult event, take into account, this is what happens when there is no king in Israel. Since in those days there was no king in Israel, therefore each man's sword was against his brother, and therefore all these things could already occur, as we shall see further on.
Why is this matter placed next to the previous story of the idol of Michah? There are commentators who bring that the three final stories in the book are stories at whose center stands a woman, and in her wake a great calamity comes about. Shimshon's story ended in a very difficult manner as a result of Delilah's act, for she was the one who handed him over to the Philistines. The entire matter of the idol of Michah began with his mother - "I had set apart the silver" for the purpose of an ephod and terafim, at first a quarter and then it continued, and we saw what came out of it. And our story too, everything began as a result of the concubine's flight, and this is what caused the deterioration of events.
What is a pilegesh (concubine)? Chazal disagreed about this. Some say that a pilegesh is a woman whom a man designates for himself without a ketubah and without kiddushin, and some say it is with kiddushin but without a ketubah. The opinion that a pilegesh is without a ketubah fits very well with the novel teaching of the Vilna Gaon. The Gaon asks: the word "ketubah" is a strange word; seemingly it should have been called "ketav" (writing). What is the meaning of "ketubah"? Rather, a man and woman who merit it - the Shechinah dwells between them. "Ish" (man) has a yud, "ishah" (woman) has a heh. Where are the vav and the heh? For a man and woman without a ketubah are forbidden to one another like a niddah, and a ketubah is required. Take, then, the man and the woman - that is yud, heh, and take the writing they write between them - that is the ketav, vav, heh. The Name Y-H-V-H is completed, and therefore the Shechinah dwells between them.
And according to this, if this woman is without a ketubah, is the Name completed? No. This is "peleg shem," half a Name. And this is what Chazal say, that pilegesh is the letters of "peleg shem" (half a Name). One could explain that it is half a Name because the act of kiddushin was not completed here, but according to the way of the Vilna Gaon it is very beautiful: it is indeed only half, there is the yud, heh here and there is not the vav, heh of the ketubah.
וַתִּזְנֶה עָלָיו פִּילַגְשׁוֹ, וַתֵּלֶךְ מֵאִתּוֹ אֶל בֵּית אָבִיהָ אֶל בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה, וַתְּהִי שָׁם יָמִים אַרְבָּעָה חֳדָשִׁים׃ - And his concubine was unfaithful against him, and she went away from him to her father's house, to Beit Lechem in Yehudah, and she was there for a period of four months.
The Malbim says: the correct expression should have been "and she was unfaithful from behind him." For when it is written "against him" (alav) - the expression is always in relation to the adulterer, as in "and she was unfaithful against Egypt," that Israel were unfaithful, as it were, with Egypt. If so, "and she was unfaithful against him" would be fitting to say about another man with whom she was unfaithful, and not about her husband. And if the intention is that she left him, it should have written "and she went off from behind him," that is, she went away from following him.
From here, says the Malbim, you have a proof for the opinion of Chazal that this was not a case of adultery in its plain sense, but rather that she did something against his will. And another proof: it is written that she went to her father's house. A woman who was unfaithful with another man - does she go to her father's house? She goes to the adulterer's house. And here this woman did not go to any man but to her father's house, and from this you understand that this was not adultery in its plain sense.
What, then, actually happened there? Our Sages bring two opinions on this: one says he found a fly in her food, and one says he found a hair. "He found a fly in her food" - that he found a fly in the drink she poured him or in the soup. "He found a hair in her food" - a strand of hair. Simply understood, the meaning is that he found a hair on her in that place, for it is written that the daughters of Israel have no hair in the armpit or in the pubic area, and he found a hair on her, meaning that she had not properly groomed herself, and about this he was strict.
The Gemara relates that they met Eliyahu the Prophet and asked him what the truth was: did he find a fly in her food or a hair? He said to them: both these and those are the words of the living God - he found a fly in her food and was not strict, and he found a hair on her and was strict. That is, both things happened, only that about the fly he was not strict, while about the hair he was.
From here our Sages learn: a person should never impose excessive fear within his household. For look, as a result of the excessive fear he imposed upon her, she fled, and as a result of this thousands of the people of Israel died, as we shall see further on.
"וַתְּהִי שָׁם יָמִים אַרְבָּעָה חֳדָשִׁים" - this is a somewhat strange expression. Some want to say the meaning is a year and four months. Some want to say that she was there for days within the four months, meaning that four months were not completed but rather days close to four months. And there are several other explanations of this, and this is enough.
וַיָּקָם אִישָׁהּ וַיֵּלֶךְ אַחֲרֶיהָ לְדַבֵּר עַל לִבָּהּ (להשיבו) [לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ], וְנַעֲרוֹ עִמּוֹ וְצֶמֶד חֲמֹרִים, וַתְּבִיאֵהוּ בֵּית אָבִיהָ, וַיִּרְאֵהוּ אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה וַיִּשְׂמַח לִקְרָאתוֹ׃ - Her husband arose and went after her to speak to her heart, to bring him back [to bring her back], and his lad was with him and a pair of donkeys; and she brought him into her father's house, and the young woman's father saw him and rejoiced to greet him.
The written form is "to bring him back" and the read form is "to bring her back." The verse comes to tell you that he went to perform an act of appeasement - that is, he went to bring himself back to her, and consequently, when I bring myself back to her, she will return to me. Therefore the written form is "to bring him back," but we read "to bring her back," because the ultimate goal is to bring her back home.
From here too you see that this was not simple adultery: for if she had committed adultery against him she would be forbidden to him, so how could he go to bring her back? Rather, certainly there was no actual adultery here. So too the Malbim infers precisely from the language "her husband arose" - if the verse calls him "her husband," it is a sign that he is still her husband; and if she had committed adultery against him he would no longer be her husband, for she would be forbidden to him.
"וְנַעֲרוֹ עִמּוֹ וְצֶמֶד חֲמֹרִים" - he goes to her father's house to speak to her heart, and takes with him a pair of donkeys, so that she would be able to ride back on the second donkey. "וַתְּבִיאֵהוּ בֵּית אָבִיהָ" - she brought him home, and the young woman's father rejoiced to greet him.
The Ralbag says an interesting thing: it appears that this Levite man was very distinguished, and for this reason his father-in-law made an effort to honor him greatly and showed him that his parting was difficult for him. And indeed we shall immediately see how difficult it was for his father-in-law to part from him, as he urges him again and again to stay. All this is because he was a very distinguished man, and therefore the effort of the host to please and appease his son-in-law was above and beyond.
וַיַּחֲזֶק בּוֹ חֹתְנוֹ אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה, וַיֵּשֶׁב אִתּוֹ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים, וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיָּלִינוּ שָׁם׃ - And his father in law, the girl's father, prevailed upon him, and he stayed with him three days; they ate and drank and lodged there.
The Malbim notes the change in wording: at times "the girl's father" and at times "his father in law." If they mean the same thing, let him be called by the same name! Rather, when the verse describes the father's joy at his arrival, that joy is from the standpoint of being her father: this man is married to my daughter, and if they were to divorce and she would return home to me, I would suffer grief and heartache. The very fact that he came to bring her back gladdens me as her father, since now my daughter will not return to my house but to her husband's house. And the fact that he pressed him to stay is from the standpoint of being his father in law: come, eat, stay a bit longer.
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ בַבֹּקֶר וַיָּקָם לָלֶכֶת, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל חֲתָנוֹ: סְעָד לִבְּךָ פַּת לֶחֶם וְאַחַר תֵּלֵכוּ׃ - And it was on the fourth day, they rose early in the morning and he got up to go, and the girl's father said to his son in law: Sustain your heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward you may go.
After three days of proper meals, on the fourth day the father in law tells him: no problem, you want to go, gladly, but first sit and eat breakfast. And when your father in law invites you, you do not make things complicated.
וַיֵּשְׁבוּ וַיֹּאכְלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם יַחְדָּו וַיִּשְׁתּוּ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה אֶל הָאִישׁ: הוֹאֶל נָא וְלִין וְיִיטַב לִבֶּךָ׃ - So they sat and the two of them ate together and drank, and the girl's father said to the man: Please be willing to lodge, and let your heart be merry.
After a person eats and drinks and lingers, and the drinking causes the vapors and fumes to rise to his head, setting out on the road in such a state is not advisable, and one does not travel with those who have been drinking. Therefore he says to him: please be willing to lodge, sleep here, it is not worthwhile for you to go. "וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ לָלֶכֶת וַיִּפְצַר בּוֹ חֹתְנוֹ, וַיָּשָׁב וַיָּלֶן שָׁם" - And the man got up to go, but his father in law urged him, and he turned back and lodged there. And so he lingered on the fourth day as well.
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר בַּיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי לָלֶכֶת, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה: סְעָד נָא לְבָבְךָ, וְהִתְמַהְמְהוּ עַד נְטוֹת הַיּוֹם, וַיֹּאכְלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם׃ - He rose early in the morning on the fifth day to go, and the girl's father said: Please sustain your heart, and they tarried until the day declined, and the two of them ate.
Note, says the Malbim, that here it does not say what was said in the previous verse. There it says "and the two of them ate together and drank," while here it says only "and the two of them ate." Today he is no longer taking risks: he has plans to set out on the road, so he sits and eats in honor of his father in law but does not drink, for as the Malbim puts it, the road confuses one who has drunk wine. He does not want to become confused on the way. The only problem was that the eating dragged on until the day declined.
וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ לָלֶכֶת הוּא וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וְנַעֲרוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ חֹתְנוֹ אֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה: הִנֵּה נָא רָפָה הַיּוֹם לַעֲרוֹב, לִינוּ נָא הִנֵּה חֲנוֹת הַיּוֹם, לִין פֹּה וְיִיטַב לְבָבֶךָ, וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם מָחָר לְדַרְכְּכֶם וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶךָ׃ - And the man got up to go, he and his concubine and his servant, and his father in law, the girl's father, said to him: Behold now the day has weakened toward evening, please lodge; behold, the day has drawn to its end, lodge here and let your heart be merry, and tomorrow you will rise early for your journey and go to your tent.
"רָפָה הַיּוֹם" - when the sun is at the center of the sky it is at its full strength, and when it begins to set a weakening begins: its heat diminishes and its light diminishes. So the Radak explains. Therefore, since the day has already weakened, come and stay here.
What is not clear is "הִנֵּה חֲנוֹת הַיּוֹם." There are several explanations of this. First explanation: Night is the "encamping of the day" - during the day a person goes here and there, and at night he encamps. In other words: night has arrived, the time to encamp has come.
Second explanation: "The encamping of the day" refers to the sun. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and as it appears to our eyes it is active from the morning until night (we know that in reality the sun is fixed and the earth revolves around it, but the verses speak according to what appears to us). From our perspective, the sun has entered its encampment, as if it has encamped and rested. "To encamp" is a term of rest. And since this is so, why should you set out at such an hour?
Third explanation, which is the Malbim's explanation based on the Abarbanel: The father in law reckons that he will not manage to reach home. Since this is so, he will inevitably be forced to encamp and lodge in a place that is not his home - in a field or in some city he happens upon along the way. He says to him: "Behold, the encamping of the day" - the encampment that you will necessarily be forced to make today, "lodge here." If you were telling me that tonight you will sleep at home, I would understand the haste. But if in any case you will not sleep at home tonight, is it not better to sleep in a place you know than in a place you do not know? And if you rise early tomorrow, you will manage to reach your tent and will not need to lodge along the way.
וְלֹא אָבָה הָאִישׁ לָלוּן, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּבֹא עַד נֹכַח יְבוּס הִיא יְרוּשָׁלִָם, וְעִמּוֹ צֶמֶד חֲמוֹרִים חֲבוּשִׁים וּפִילַגְשׁוֹ עִמּוֹ׃ - But the man was not willing to lodge, and he rose and went, and came opposite Yevus, which is Yerushalayim, and with him were a pair of saddled donkeys, and his concubine was with him.
Under no circumstances would he agree any longer. One extra day was already too much, and he decided to set out come what may. Here the verse explains to us why he did not simply lodge in the field - why not spread out a mat and lie down? Two reasons: First, "a pair of saddled donkeys" laden with all good things, and he feared bandits who would come and rob the donkeys along with all that was on them. Second, "and his concubine was with him" - the Malbim says, the woman was too delicate to lodge in the field. She was refined and pampered, one could not tell her to sleep on thorns and briars. For these reasons they understood that they had to find a proper lodging place.
הֵם עִם יְבוּס וְהַיּוֹם רַד מְאֹד, וַיֹּאמֶר הַנַּעַר אֶל אֲדֹנָיו: לְכָה נָּא וְנָסוּרָה אֶל עִיר הַיְבוּסִי הַזֹּאת וְנָלִין בָּהּ׃ - They were near Yevus and the day was far spent, and the young man said to his master: Come, let us turn aside to this city of the Yevusi and lodge in it.
"They were near Yevus" - close to Yevus. "And the day was far spent" - the sun was already setting. The young man says to his master: here is a city of the Yevusi, let us turn off the road, enter it, and we can rest there.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲדֹנָיו: לֹא נָסוּר אֶל עִיר נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵנָּה, וְעָבַרְנוּ עַד גִּבְעָה׃ - And his master said to him: We will not turn aside to a city of foreigners who are not of the Children of Yisrael, but we will pass on to Givah.
This verse simply sends a chill. He does not want to turn aside to a city of foreigners, for the foreigners are not of the Children of Yisrael. I want to stay specifically among Jews - they will receive us differently, they will honor us differently. If you go to sleep among foreigners, who knows what will come of it in the end. And one of the reasons he did not want to go to a city of foreigners is because his concubine was with him, and who knows, perhaps they would abuse his concubine. For this reason he insisted specifically on a city of Yisrael - and we will see later what this insistence brought upon him, to our shame.
The Malbim makes a precise observation: what is the meaning of "a city of foreigners who are not of the Children of Yisrael"? If they are foreigners, then surely they are not of the Children of Yisrael, so what is the point? Rather, there were foreigners who were subjugated to us as tributaries. A city of foreigners could still be tolerated if our hand held sway over them, but a city of foreigners "who are not of the Children of Yisrael" - over whom Yisrael has no control at all, who pay no tribute and are not subjugated - is far more dangerous. There we will not turn aside.
וַיֹּאמֶר לְנַעֲרוֹ: לְכָה וְנִקְרְבָה בְּאַחַד הַמְּקֹמוֹת, וְלַנּוּ בַגִּבְעָה אוֹ בָרָמָה׃ - And he said to his servant: Come, let us draw near to one of the places, and let us lodge in Givah or in Ramah.
"Come, let us draw near" - let us go quickly and draw near to one of the places where we can enter a city of Israel. And why "in Givah or in Ramah" - decide, which one? The Malbim says: he did not yet know which city was closer. We will have to draw near and then decide; from a distance it is still unclear which is closer, Givah or Ramah. And it is interesting: the word "לְכָה" is written here with a final kaf, and the Malbim notes that this is one of three places in Tanach where an expression of going is written without a final heh.
וַיַּעַבְרוּ וַיֵּלֵכוּ, וַתָּבֹא לָהֶם הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֵצֶל הַגִּבְעָה אֲשֶׁר לְבִנְיָמִן׃ וַיָּסֻרוּ שָׁם לָבוֹא לָלוּן בַּגִּבְעָה, וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בִּרְחוֹב הָעִיר, וְאֵין אִישׁ מְאַסֵּף אוֹתָם הַבַּיְתָה לָלוּן׃ - And they passed on and went, and the sun set on them near Givah which belongs to Binyamin. And they turned aside there to go in and lodge in Givah, and he came and sat in the open square of the city, and no one took them into his house to lodge.
This too shows a very lowly state: where is the hospitality? A person arrives and there is no one who takes them into his house to lodge. He sits in the open square of the city and waits, and there is no one who does kindness with him.
וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ זָקֵן בָּא מִן מַעֲשֵׂהוּ מִן הַשָּׂדֶה בָּעֶרֶב, וְהָאִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרַיִם וְהוּא גָר בַּגִּבְעָה, וְאַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם בְּנֵי יְמִינִי׃ - And behold, an old man came from his work in the field in the evening, and the man was from Mount Ephraim and he was living in Givah, and the men of the place were Benjaminites.
But there is still one righteous man in Givah. The Malbim says: as against what the verse told us about the disgrace of the men of Givah, that no one takes in guests, it comes here and tells the praise of this old man, and there are four things in his praise:
1. "an old man" - an old man could say: am I going to start setting up beds for them and arranging things? There are younger people to do that. And yet he volunteers. 2. "came from his work in the field" - I have just arrived, let me rest a bit at home and relax, and afterward we will talk about hospitality. No, the moment he comes he takes them and brings them into his house. 3. "from his work" - and perhaps you will say that he only wandered around there a little? The verse tells you that he did hard labor that day, and yet he brings them into his house. 4. "and the man was from Mount Ephraim and he was living in Givah" - this man is part of the men of Givah, and no obligation of hospitality rests upon him more than upon the others; he is like every one of them. And even so he went and volunteered for this act.
וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הָאִישׁ הָאֹרֵחַ בִּרְחֹב הָעִיר, וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן: אָנָה תֵלֵךְ וּמֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא׃ - And he lifted his eyes and saw the wayfaring man in the open square of the city, and the old man said: Where are you going, and where do you come from?
The moment he saw him - "and he lifted his eyes and saw", and immediately "and he said". The Malbim says: he did not delay and did not think twice. And why did he ask "where are you going"? Because he was uncertain: perhaps this man wants to continue on his way, and that is why he is standing here in doubt as to which direction to continue, in which case there is nothing for me to host. But if he intends to remain here, there is reason to offer that he come and lodge with me.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו: עֹבְרִים אֲנַחְנוּ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה עַד יַרְכְּתֵי הַר אֶפְרַיִם, מִשָּׁם אָנֹכִי, וָאֵלֵךְ עַד בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה, וְאֶת בֵּית ה' אֲנִי הֹלֵךְ, וְאֵין אִישׁ מְאַסֵּף אוֹתִי הַבָּיְתָה׃ - And he said to him: We are passing from Beit Lechem in Yehudah to the far end of Har Ephraim, from where I am, and I went to Beit Lechem in Yehudah, and I am going to the house of Hashem, and no man takes me into his house.
He answers him: We are traveling from Beit Lechem in Yehudah to the far end of Har Ephraim, and I can no longer reach there while it is still day, so I have no choice but to lodge here. And so that the old man should not think he is one of the peddlers who go from town to town, he stresses "and I went to Beit Lechem in Yehudah" - I have a home, I am not one of those men who make the rounds of the towns. And so that he should not suspect him, Heaven forbid, of being one of the worshippers of Michah's idol, he adds "and I am going to the house of Hashem" - I am not going to worship Michah's idol. And with all this, "no man takes me into his house," and therefore I am forced to sit outside.
וְגַם תֶּבֶן גַּם מִסְפּוֹא יֵשׁ לַחֲמוֹרֵינוּ, וְגַם לֶחֶם וָיַיִן יֶשׁ לִי וְלַאֲמָתֶךָ וְלַנַּעַר עִם עֲבָדֶיךָ, אֵין מַחְסוֹר כָּל דָּבָר׃ - There is both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and there is also bread and wine for me and for your handmaid and for the young man who is with your servants; there is no lack of anything.
Do not worry that you are taking on a serious expense - a man arrives with a concubine, with a young man and with two donkeys, and surely he needs a whole budget of provisions. He tells him: You have nothing to worry about, we have everything. Even straw and fodder for the donkeys - even that you will not need to provide. Bread and wine - and even wine, which is a luxury, you need not provide either. And my young man eats together with me. And the rest of the things too - "there is no lack of anything," everything we need is with us.
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאִישׁ הַזָּקֵן: שָׁלוֹם לָךְ, רַק כָּל מַחְסוֹרְךָ עָלָי, רַק בָּרְחוֹב אַל תָּלַן׃ - And the old man said: Peace be to you; only let all your needs be upon me; only do not lodge in the street.
"Peace be to you" - you shall have peace, says the Metzudat David: do not worry that you will have to sleep in the street. Be at ease, you are taken care of, I am here.
And in the words "only let all your needs be upon me" there are two opposite explanations. The Metzudat David explains: since you have food and drink with you, I need not provide for you, for you have as you say. But if something should be missing for you - are you missing salt? Tell me and I will bring it to you. Whatever is lacking, I will supply. The Malbim, by contrast, explains the opposite: the old man said to him, I am willing to host you on the condition that all your needs be upon me - all that you have on the donkeys will stay on the donkeys, and you will eat everything at my place from beginning to end, I will take care of your food.
This recalls what is told about the Chazon Ish. In his youth he kept himself hidden and people did not recognize his greatness. Once he went to speak with the local rabbi about a matter of learning, and the rabbi was so impressed with him that he wished to appoint him as rabbi in his place, even then, while he was still a young man. But the Chazon Ish concealed himself. The gabbai, the rabbi's attendant, asked him: Who are you, sir? He answered: Avraham Yeshayahu. The gabbai saw him as somewhat odd according to his dress and appearance, and asked him: Tell me, do you also learn a little? He answered him: "Only whenever possible." The gabbai understood: I have a day or two free during the week, and I sit and learn for an hour. But the Chazon Ish meant: every moment that is possible - I learn. And so it truly was. The very same words, and two opposite understandings. So too here: "all your needs be upon me" - only whatever is lacking for you, or: everything that is needed, I take upon myself.
וַיְבִיאֵהוּ לְבֵיתוֹ (ויבול) [וַיָּבָל] לַחֲמוֹרִים, וַיִּרְחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ׃ - And he brought him to his house and gave provender to the donkeys, and they washed their feet and ate and drank.
"Vayavol" - they would mix grain and fodder together and prepare it at night for the donkeys to eat. And note the order: first "he gave provender to the donkeys," and only afterward "they ate and drank." Says the Malbim: from here you see that he was a man who feared Heaven, as it is written "and I will give grass in your field for your cattle" and only afterward "and you shall eat and be satisfied."
הֵמָּה מֵיטִיבִים אֶת לִבָּם, וְהִנֵּה אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל נָסַבּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת מִתְדַּפְּקִים עַל הַדָּלֶת, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הַזָּקֵן לֵאמֹר: הוֹצֵא אֶת הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּא אֶל בֵּיתְךָ וְנֵדָעֶנּוּ׃ - As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base men, surrounded the house, pounding on the door, and they said to the old man, the master of the house: Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.
"That we may know him" means for intimacy, as the Radak explains. And since he later said to them "take my daughter," you understand what they were after: not money.
וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם: אַל אַחַי אַל תָּרֵעוּ נָא, אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר בָּא הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה אֶל בֵּיתִי אַל תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת׃ - And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them: No, my brothers, do not act wickedly, please, since this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing.
He says to them: since this man has come into my house, have regard for my honor and do not do this vile thing, to take my guests and treat them in such a way.
הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשֵׁהוּ, אוֹצִיאָה נָּא אוֹתָם וְעַנּוּ אוֹתָם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם, וְלָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ דְּבַר הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת׃ - Behold, my virgin daughter and his concubine, let me bring them out, and afflict them and do to them what is good in your eyes, but to this man do not do this vile thing.
To satisfy their lust he offers them his daughter and the concubine. This too is a vile thing, says the Malbim, except that, as the Gemara states, their shame is not as great: for a woman this is her way, for a man it is not his way.
And one must realize that this act was not proper at all. Where have we heard of a man handing over his daughter to save another person? Especially since the halacha is that even if they said "give us one of them and we will defile her" - even if they would defile them all, one may not hand over even one by one's own hand. So how could you push aside one soul for another and take your daughter and hand her over? Surely this is not a proper act. But in any case we see that this man was distinctive in his character, for even though he acted here contrary to halacha, the very fact that he so protected his guest and gave himself over to him utterly is a great thing.
וְלֹא אָבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים לִשְׁמֹעַ לוֹ, וַיַּחֲזֵק הָאִישׁ בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וַיֹּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הַחוּץ, וַיֵּדְעוּ אוֹתָהּ וַיִּתְעַלְּלוּ בָהּ כָּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר, וַיְשַׁלְּחוּהָ כַּעֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר׃ - But the men would not listen to him, so the man took hold of his concubine and brought her out to them outside, and they knew her and abused her all night until the morning, and they sent her away as dawn was rising.
"But the men would not listen to him" - they did not want the disgrace of the daughter of the master of the house. The master of the house is one of ours, of the men of Givah, and we do not wish to harm him, and therefore his offer to give his daughter was not accepted by them. Then "the man took hold of his concubine" - he sends his concubine outside, since she is not one of the local people. And from here you see that their whole intent was only to satisfy their lust, for when they saw that the concubine was suitable for satisfying their lust, they were content with her.
"And they knew her and abused her" - Chazal say: this one in the natural way and this one not in the natural way, and therefore the language is doubled. And he seized her against her will in order to save himself. This too is a terrible and dreadful thing to see, how a man takes and hands over his concubine against her will to save himself, something very hard to accept with human reason.
וַתָּבֹא הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנוֹת הַבֹּקֶר, וַתִּפֹּל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֲדוֹנֶיהָ שָּׁם עַד הָאוֹר׃ - And the woman came toward morning and fell down at the entrance of the man's house where her master was, until it was light.
The woman returns from that terrible abuse, arrives toward daybreak, and falls at the entrance of the house where her master is staying, until the light of day. Apparently she had no strength left to knock on the door, or she knocked and no one heard, and she lay there at the entrance until dawn.
וַיָּקָם אֲדֹנֶיהָ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּפְתַּח דַּלְתוֹת הַבַּיִת וַיֵּצֵא לָלֶכֶת לְדַרְכּוֹ, וְהִנֵּה הָאִשָּׁה פִילַגְשׁוֹ נֹפֶלֶת פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת וְיָדֶיהָ עַל הַסַּף׃ - Her master arose in the morning, opened the doors of the house, and went out to go on his way, and behold, the woman, his concubine, was fallen at the entrance of the house, with her hands upon the threshold.
This too is astonishing: it says he went out to go on his way. It does not say he went out to look for her. His concubine had been taken, and he simply continues on his way. Then suddenly he sees her fallen at the entrance of the house with her hands upon the threshold.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ: קוּמִי וְנֵלֵכָה, וְאֵין עֹנֶה, וַיִּקָּחֶהָ עַל הַחֲמוֹר, וַיָּקָם הָאִישׁ וַיֵּלֶךְ לִמְקֹמוֹ׃ - He said to her: Get up and let us go, but there was no answer. So he took her upon the donkey, and the man arose and went to his place.
The Metzudat David explains: at this stage he still did not sense that she was dead, and therefore he said to her "Get up and let us go" - he thought she was lying there exhausted, and so he was still speaking to her. Only when he lifted her onto the donkey did he realize that she had died.
וַיָּבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וַיְנַתְּחֶהָ לַעֲצָמֶיהָ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר נְתָחִים, וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ בְּכֹל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - He came to his house, took the knife, took hold of his concubine, and cut her limb by limb into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel.
What is the idea behind such a horrifying and shocking act, taking a person's body and dismembering it? The Malbim explains: he wanted to hint to them - know this, our unity, the unity of the tribes, exists only when we are joined one to another. If we are like a dismembered body, split and scattered into twelve parts, in such a state there is no spirit in the corpse, no spirit in the people of Israel. The entire spirit of the people of Israel exists when the twelve parts are joined one to another, and if we are so fragmented that we are capable of such an act, the Shechinah does not rest in so terrible a condition.
And further: just as a single limb of the body in which decay sets in ultimately causes the whole body to become infected and die, so must we know that if one tribe committed a terrible and dreadful act, do not think it is a minor problem. This rot will ultimately affect the entire nation. This is what he wanted to express through this horrifying form, for when a person sees such a thing he is shaken, and the whole purpose was to rouse the people to action. They had to act against the terrible deed: either to bring the offenders to repentance or to destroy them, but something had to be done. One cannot remain calm and quiet when seeing such a horrifying act.
וְהָיָה כָל הָרֹאֶה וְאָמַר: לֹא נִהְיְתָה וְלֹא נִרְאֲתָה כָּזֹאת לְמִיּוֹם עֲלוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, שִׂימוּ לָכֶם עָלֶיהָ עֻצוּ וְדַבֵּרוּ׃ - And everyone who saw it said: Nothing like this has happened or been seen from the day the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, take counsel, and speak.
And indeed it accomplished its purpose. "Nothing like this has happened" - and if it never happened, what is meant by "or been seen like this"? Rather, if you should say that perhaps such a thing did once occur, at any rate it was not done in public. Even if someone did such a thing in secret, as the men of Giveah did, at any rate nothing like this had ever been seen.
Therefore there are three calls: "Consider it" - investigate and inquire whether the matter is true. "Take counsel" - deliberate about how to correct the wrong; for one who takes counsel examines all the possibilities, perhaps this way and perhaps another is better. "And speak" - this is now the determination and the practical decision, what we must do, and that we all come out with one resolution.
The great difficulty here, one that the commentators have already raised and that the Malbim himself mentions, is this: the deep thinkers have already discussed the matter. What is the difference between the episode of Giveah and the sin of Sedom, upon whom Hashem rained down sulfur and fire and overturned the cities from their very roots, while these people acted just as Sedom did and yet the hand of Heaven did not touch them to punish them? An enormous question. This story reads like a transcript of the Sedom episode, and when you read it you cannot understand: the people of Sedom were punished so severely, yet here the ground did not shake, the cities were not overturned, and nothing terrible happened in the wake of the deed. What is the difference?
The first explanation: there is a difference between the wicked person and the one who sins. The sin of the people of Sedom, says the Malbim, stemmed from the intellect. They enacted evil laws: that one must steal, that one must kill, that giving charity is forbidden. There is a great difference between a person who made himself a law to commit a transgression and a person who stumbles on a single occasion. A failure is a failure, but if I turned it into a law, that is dreadful and terrible.
The masters of mussar speak about this at length, for this is a person's downfall. How does a person's heresy begin? He stumbles once, it becomes permitted in his eyes, he transgresses again; he stumbles a second time; the third time it is already a mitzvah, the fourth time it is a sanctification of Hashem's name. But on the other hand he does not feel good about himself, and his conscience tells him: you have become a criminal, look at the things you are doing. What does he do? He begins to sew an ideology around his transgression: know that in truth this is how one ought to act. And this is the worst stage of all. This is the difference between chet and avon: a chet is a person's failure, while an avon is a distortion of the intellect, for you have already distorted your mind and brought it to think that this is the proper conduct.
And this is essentially the difference: here we are speaking of people whose evil inclination momentarily overcame them and who committed an abominable act, whereas among the people of Sedom it was a system, a way of life, a method.
And by way of a witticism they say about Lot: when was Sedom overturned? On the very day they appointed him a judge over them. And they ask, davka when they appointed Lot as judge? After all, Lot was still a "righteous" man in Sedom, in quotation marks, and he was far less extreme than they were! And they explain: the people of Sedom knew how to work around the law, for the names of their judges were Shakrai (Liar) and Nachlulai (Trickster), all of them men of falsehood and deceit, and even though the law said such and such, they always knew how to get around it. But when a rigid stickler like Lot arrives, who, if the law says such and such, follows it to the very end, and the laws there were horrific, Sedom could no longer survive even a single day, for he would go and apply everything written in its terrible book of laws. And therefore on that very day it was decreed that Sedom must be overturned. As long as there were those who knew how to smooth things over and not act exactly according to the law, Sedom still had a right to exist.
It emerges, then, that the men of Giveah were men of lust whose desire overcame them, whereas the people of Sedom had a law, a statute, and a halachah that it was forbidden to take in guests, and that anyone who took in guests was liable to death. One who goes and enacts laws against the Creator, blessed be He, and against the Torah, is surely deserving of destruction.
Proof one: Lot took in the angels in secret, because there was a law there that woe to anyone who takes in guests. Whereas the old man in Giveah takes them in publicly, without fear. From here we see that there was no law there forbidding the taking in of guests; they were selfish people who followed their evil traits, but they did not enact such laws.
Proof two: regarding Sedom it says "וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן - and the men of the city, the men of Sedom, surrounded the house, from young to old" - they all came, because this was against their law. And here it says "אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי בְלִיַּעַל - the men of the city, base men" - who are they? The thugs of the neighborhood. In every city and every neighborhood there are base men, and here we are speaking of the underworld, not all the men of the city. Says the Malbim: the rabble in its midst lusted a lust, not all of them, and not out of the law, but on the contrary, against the law: "benei belial" - those who bear no yoke.
Proof three: regarding Sedom it says "נָסַבּוּ עַל הַבַּיִת - they surrounded against the house" - meaning they came to do battle against the master of the house, that you transgressed the law and did an improper deed. And here it says "נָסַבּוּ אֶת הַבַּיִת - they surrounded the house" - to make sure the guest would not escape. They do not come to fight with the master of the house, but to ensure that the guest does not flee, for their designs are with regard to the guest. And here it says "מִתְדַּפְּקִים עַל הַדֶּלֶת - they knocked at the door," and the Malbim has a rule in Tanach that the hitpael form indicates an imagined action: "יֵשׁ מִתְעַשֵּׁר וְאֵין כֹּל - there is one who makes himself rich yet has nothing" - did he really become rich? After all it says "yet has nothing," rather he is as though making himself rich. "יֵשׁ מִתְרוֹשֵׁשׁ וְהוֹן רָב - there is one who makes himself poor yet has great wealth" - he is not truly poor, but appears poor. So too here: "mitdapkim" - they appear to be knocking, but they are not truly knocking, they do not come by way of war. This is unlike Sedom, where it says "וַיִּגְּשׁוּ לִשְׁבֹּר הַדָּלֶת - and they approached to break the door" - thus comes a man of war.
And following from this: in Sedom, Lot closed the door behind him when he went out, because he feared them and was afraid of them. And here it does not say that he closed the door - on the contrary, he went out and spoke with them, because he knew that they would not dare enter his house. Lot knew that he was a criminal and that they would enter his house, and therefore he locked it. Again you see that the old man saw no reason to be concerned. And for this reason too they did not want his daughter: they did not want to harm the old man, who was one of the men of their city, and they felt uncomfortable toward him.
Proof 4: The old man tells them that what they seek to do is a "disgrace." But could one speak in such terms with the people of Sodom? For them, hospitality was the disgrace and the crime, while what they did seemed proper in their eyes. From the very fact that this is the vocabulary the host uses with the men of Giveah, you understand that this was language they could hear, that they too agreed it was a disgrace. With Sodom you could not speak this way. It is like catching someone driving a car on Shabbat, with all the suitcases, already on the way to a trip, and saying to him "this is desecration of Shabbat." Thank you very much. Is that a language that speaks to him? Therefore with Lot the first argument was "do not act wickedly... for they have come under the shadow of my roof," and he did not say to them "disgrace."
Proof 5 - a further distinction brought by the Rama miPano: in Sodom the matter persisted regularly over years, whereas here the sin was a one time occurrence. This too explains the difference between the deed of Sodom and the deed of the concubine at Giveah.
Now that we have finished the chapter, let us see who the characters are and what became of them in their transmigrations, according to the Rama miPano.
The Gemara tells of Rav Acha bar Yaakov, who sent his son Yaakov to study before Abaye. When he returned, the father saw that his learning was not sharp. He said to him: I see that you are not studying properly. And since both the father and the son needed to study Torah, and the father was sharper than the son, the father would go and study Torah. He said to him: you return home, and I will go.
Abaye heard that Yaakov was returning home and that Rav Acha the father was coming. Now Rav Acha was known for his righteousness. There was in that study hall a most terrifying demon, one that would harm even two people entering together (whereas normally it does not harm two), and even by day (whereas normally it does not harm by day). It was so dreadful a demon that it could cause harm even under such conditions. Abaye saw that Rav Acha bar Yaakov was about to arrive, and said: we are going to be rid of this demon. What did he do? He announced to the entire neighborhood that no one should take him into his home and no one should host him. And the Gemara relates: having no choice, he went to sleep in the study hall, for he had nowhere else to sleep. The demon appeared to him as a serpent with seven heads. Rav Acha began to bow, and with each bow he bowed, one of the serpent's heads fell off. He prayed and bowed, prayed and bowed, and each bow uprooted one of its heads. The next day he met Abaye and said to him: had a miracle not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.
There is substance to this matter, says the Rama miPano, and see how everything connects to our story. Abaye is the transmigration of the old man who took the guests under his roof. Rav Acha is the husband of the concubine. And the serpent is the concubine at Giveah herself. And since the incident occurred in the home of the old man, therefore with Abaye, in his study hall, the incident now recurs: the demon comes to take revenge and exact retribution for what was done to it. That same concubine returns in the form of a serpent and harms many students, and the students are the transmigration of the men of Giveah, and the demon exacts retribution from them.
Abaye understood the whole matter, and he also understood that he himself could not repair it, for all the damage began with him, and if so the rectification did not depend on him but had to come from an external factor. And it is known that it all began with the men of Giveah who did not want to take in guests. Therefore, when Rav Acha came, who is the husband of the concubine, Abaye said: had I not taken him into my home back then, nothing would have happened; I took him in and then the men of Giveah came. If so, now we will not host him. In the previous incarnation I hosted, and troubles resulted; now I will not host, and no one will host. And then what happened happened: he went and slept there, and through this he ultimately succeeded in overcoming the serpent.
Says the Rama miPano: it is known that retribution is exacted from the cause just as from the effect, that is, both from the one who did the deed and from the one who caused him to do it. And come and see that now they were all punished and rectified. Rav Acha was in tremendous fear and nearly died, and why? Because he is the husband, and he was among those who caused the death: why did you have to go out at such an hour? Had you not gone out at such a late hour, there would have been no danger at all. The claim is against him, and therefore now he has terrible fear and stands truly before danger. And the fact that the serpent had seven heads comes to hint at the several thousands and myriads who fell from Israel in that matter. And all those students who were harmed are the transmigration of those who abused her all night, and keep this and understand it.
A further matter belonging here is brought in the Gemara in Tractate Shabbat. It was taught in the school of Eliyahu: there was an incident with a certain student who studied much and learned much and served Torah scholars greatly, and yet died in the middle of his days. His wife would take his tefillin and go around with them in the synagogues and study halls, saying to them: it is written in the Torah "for it is your life and the length of your days," my husband who studied much and learned much and served Torah scholars greatly, why did he die in the middle of his days? And no one would answer her a word. Who could reply to her? A bitter, grieving widow, what could one say to her?
Once I was a guest at her home, relates Eliyahu, and she was recounting that whole affair. I said to her: my daughter, during your days of niddah, how did he conduct himself with you? She said to me: Heaven forbid, he did not touch me even with his little finger. During your days of libun, the seven clean days, how did he conduct himself with you? She said: he ate with me and drank with me and slept with me with bodily closeness, but it did not enter his mind to do anything more, that is, there was no actual act Heaven forbid, only that there was no separation. I said to her: blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him, for he did not show favoritism to the Torah, for the Torah said "and to a woman in her menstrual impurity you shall not draw near" - not only the act itself but any closeness is included. When Rav Dimi came he said: it was a single bed that they were on. In the West they say, Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef said: a sinar apron separated between him and her.
And what is the story here? The Rama of Fano says: "one student" (talmid echad) has the same numerical value as "a concubine in Givah" (pilegesh baGivah) together with the two words. She died then on his account, so that he would not be taken for relations, for it was him they wanted, and she was handed over as a substitute in his place. And now he dies on her account: you handed her over for your sake, now you shall be handed over for her sake. And on her account, because of the deed he did, for she was in her days of purification and forbidden to be approached. And now she takes the tefillin and goes around among the sages, just as then he took the limbs and went throughout the whole territory of Israel; so now she goes around throughout the whole territory of Israel, among the sages, to ask why such a thing happened.
One last matter on this subject, also from the Rama of Fano. The Gemara brings that it was Rabbi Evyatar and Rabbi Yonatan who disagreed whether he found a hair on her or a fly on her, and the Gemara says that Rabbi Evyatar prevailed and Heaven agreed with him: the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with his words, that he said he found a fly on her.
The Rama of Fano explains: Rabbi Evyatar and Rabbi Yonatan are in the secret of the father of the concubine in Givah, and both of them are his rectification. For in all that we have seen until now we have seen the rectification of the students, and the rectification of the husband, and the rectification of the old host; but the one who dragged them out day after day and did not tell his son in law in the morning "today you are leaving here," but rather kept him another day and another day, his rectification we have not seen. About this the Rama of Fano says that the father is now Rabbi Evyatar and Rabbi Yonatan, and they are his rectification, for they came to reveal the matter of the negligence that occurred there and to rectify what had been.
And Chazal say: a person should never impose excessive fear within his household, for here you will see a great man who imposed excessive fear within his household and they fed him something grave. And who was it? The Gemara tells of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel who imposed excessive fear within his household, and once an animal's leg went missing and there was nothing to give him. And they feared: he will come and make a commotion, where is the second leg of the animal? They went and cut a leg from a live animal, a limb from a living creature, and prepared it for him. And the Gemara says: he almost ate it.
The Rama of Fano says: Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel is the rectification of the husband of the concubine in Givah. And come and see that Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel was saved. For the Gemara asks: could it enter one's mind that they fed it to him? Behold, with the animals of the righteous the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a mishap through them, and how could you say that Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel ate a limb from a living creature? Rather, the Gemara said "almost": they sought to feed him and did not succeed, for at the last moment the matter became known to him. And what do you see from here? Since he came to rectify his earlier deeds, when he imposed excessive fear within his household and as a result she fled, and from there the story rolled to where it reached, certainly here he took care not to eat, and thereby rectified what he had done then. And the Gemara says that a limb from the slaughtered animal was lost by his wife and his servants, and because of the fear they gave him a limb from a living creature so that he would not notice the matter.
Chapter 19 opens with "and there was no king in Israel," and thereby gives us the key to understanding all the terrible things that will unfold: when there is no leadership, everything falls apart. From a husband's excessive strictness with his concubine, through the father in law's pleas that delayed the departure, to the insistence on lodging specifically in a city of Israel, a chain of small details leading to a terrible disaster. Against them stands the figure of the old man, a single man of kindness in a city of cruel people, whose entire praise is derived from four precise inferences in a single verse. The difference between Givah and Sedom teaches us the great principle: a sin (chet) is a failure, and an iniquity (avon) is a distortion of the mind that turns the sin into a system and a law, and therein lies the severity of Sedom. And the dividing of the concubine into twelve pieces comes to cry out that there is no spirit in a body torn apart, that one afflicted limb rots the entire body, and that the unity of Israel is a condition for the resting of the Shechinah. And above all echoes the teaching of Chazal: a person should never impose excessive fear within his household, for from a small strictness within the home disasters beyond measure can roll forth.