15:1 VA YEHI MI YAMIM BIYMEY KETSIR CHITIM VA YIPHKOD SHIMSHON ET ISHTO BI GEDI IZIM VA YOMER AV'AH EL ISHTI HE CHEDRAH VE LO NETANO AVIHA LAV'O
וַיְהִי מִיָּמִים בִּימֵי קְצִיר חִטִּים וַיִּפְקֹד שִׁמְשֹׁון אֶת אִשְׁתֹּו בִּגְדִי עִזִּים וַיֹּאמֶר אָבֹאָה אֶל אִשְׁתִּי הֶחָדְרָה וְלֹא נְתָנֹו אָבִיהָ לָבֹוא
BN: Now it came to pass some while later, at the time of the wheat harvest, that Shimshon visited his wife with a kid goat. And he said: I shall go in to my wife in her bedroom. But her father would not allow him to go in.
Today the wheat harvest is either Shavu'ot or Sukot, depending on whether it is the spring or the summer wheat that is being harvested; in Biblical times it would have been Shavu'ot, with the corn threshed at Sukot (contemporary explanation here, Biblical explanation here).
On whichever occasion, the kid is taken for sacrifice (remember that Shimshon's dad was named Mano'ach, from the root that gives Minchah, the afternoon sacrifice - see Judges 13:19), and it may be an offering to a priestess, or it may be a bride-gift in hopes of recovering his belledame - her father refusing him access is a consequence of Judges 14:20, where Shimshon apparently divorced her, gave her a "get", and she remarried the "companion". But the technicalities of this should not concern us; in the realm of mythology, the sun and the moon can never rule the sky at the same time, but they can be in the sky at the same time (they always are; we just can't always see them), and ultimately the moon depends on the sun for light, as does the Earth.
15:2 VA YOMER AVIYHA AMOR AMARTI KI SAN'O SEN'ETAH VA ETNENAH LE ME'RE'ECHA HA LO ACHOTAH HA KETANAH TOVAH MIMENAH TEHI NA LECHA TACHTEYHA
KJ: And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairer than she? take her, I pray thee, instead of her.
 |
| Detail from Rembrandt's "The Blinding of Samson" |
On whichever occasion, the kid is taken for sacrifice (remember that Shimshon's dad was named Mano'ach, from the root that gives Minchah, the afternoon sacrifice - see Judges 13:19), and it may be an offering to a priestess, or it may be a bride-gift in hopes of recovering his belledame - her father refusing him access is a consequence of Judges 14:20, where Shimshon apparently divorced her, gave her a "get", and she remarried the "companion". But the technicalities of this should not concern us; in the realm of mythology, the sun and the moon can never rule the sky at the same time, but they can be in the sky at the same time (they always are; we just can't always see them), and ultimately the moon depends on the sun for light, as does the Earth.
15:2 VA YOMER AVIYHA AMOR AMARTI KI SAN'O SEN'ETAH VA ETNENAH LE ME'RE'ECHA HA LO ACHOTAH HA KETANAH TOVAH MIMENAH TEHI NA LECHA TACHTEYHA
וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִיהָ אָמֹר אָמַרְתִּי כִּי שָׂנֹא שְׂנֵאתָהּ וָאֶתְּנֶנָּה לְמֵרֵעֶךָ הֲלֹא אֲחֹתָהּ הַקְּטַנָּה טֹובָה מִמֶּנָּה תְּהִי נָא לְךָ תַּחְתֶּיהָ
BN: And her father said: "I rather thought that you had come to detest her; which is why I gave her to your companion. Isn't her younger sister much prettier anyway? Take her, I implore you, instead of her."
Not quite the way that Ya'akov and Lavan negotiated the matter in Genesis 29 and 30, but the outcome would be the same if Shimshon accepted. However, continuing my note to the previous verse, the problem with the sun marrying the moon is that they can never make time together; he is always busy by day, while she is always busy by night; and whatever he touches burns, whereas she is cold, hard rock.
ACHOTAH HA KETANAH: The younger sister of the moon is? The new moon. Compare the pre-Moslem Arab cult of the daughters of al-Lah. Sleeping Beauty replacing the Wicked Step-Mother. Cordelia, at odds with Goneril-Regan. Rachel as noted above, in preference to Le'ah.
So every month he marries her; and after she has come into her glory at the 15th of the month - the full moon, visibly pregnant - he leaves her; and towards the end of every month he returns to her, but finds her old and Hecate-like and takes her younger sister, the virginal new moon, instead. E=MC²
KJ: And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure.
Not quite the way that Ya'akov and Lavan negotiated the matter in Genesis 29 and 30, but the outcome would be the same if Shimshon accepted. However, continuing my note to the previous verse, the problem with the sun marrying the moon is that they can never make time together; he is always busy by day, while she is always busy by night; and whatever he touches burns, whereas she is cold, hard rock.
ACHOTAH HA KETANAH: The younger sister of the moon is? The new moon. Compare the pre-Moslem Arab cult of the daughters of al-Lah. Sleeping Beauty replacing the Wicked Step-Mother. Cordelia, at odds with Goneril-Regan. Rachel as noted above, in preference to Le'ah.
So every month he marries her; and after she has come into her glory at the 15th of the month - the full moon, visibly pregnant - he leaves her; and towards the end of every month he returns to her, but finds her old and Hecate-like and takes her younger sister, the virginal new moon, instead. E=MC²
AMOR AMARTI... SAN'O SEN'ETAH: Word-games!
15:3 VA YOMER LAHEM SHIMSHON NIKEYTI HA PA'AM MI PELISHTIM KI OSEH ANI IMAM RA'AH
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשֹׁון נִקֵּיתִי הַפַּעַם מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי עֹשֶׂה אֲנִי עִמָּם רָעָה
BN: And Shimshon said concerning them: Now I shall be more blameless than the Pelishtim, though I am about to perform a great wickedness against them.
RA'AH: The coyness and sentimentality of the translators leaves one smiling sometimes. Some prefer "mischief", others "unpleasantness", but on every other occasion that RA'AH has been used they translate it precisely: "evil", or "wickedness". Why not here? Are they trying to exonerate him because he is now a Yisra-Eli "hero". He knows that it is evil. He is not ashamed to say so. He is the sun-god, who turns his face to shine his wonderful light on us, but then leaves us with skin cancer and drought.
And what is missed by this mis-translation is the real point, at least at the historical level: that the Pelishtim are getting what they deserve for what they did over the matter of the riddle in the last chapter.
KJ: And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.
RA'AH: The coyness and sentimentality of the translators leaves one smiling sometimes. Some prefer "mischief", others "unpleasantness", but on every other occasion that RA'AH has been used they translate it precisely: "evil", or "wickedness". Why not here? Are they trying to exonerate him because he is now a Yisra-Eli "hero". He knows that it is evil. He is not ashamed to say so. He is the sun-god, who turns his face to shine his wonderful light on us, but then leaves us with skin cancer and drought.
And what is missed by this mis-translation is the real point, at least at the historical level: that the Pelishtim are getting what they deserve for what they did over the matter of the riddle in the last chapter.
15:4 VA YELECH SHIMSHON VA YILKOD SHELOSH ME'OT SHU'ALIM VA YIKACH LAPIDIM VA YEPHEN ZANAV EL ZANAV VA YASEM LAPID ECHAD BEYN SHENEY HA ZENAVOT BA TAVECH
וַיֵּלֶךְ שִׁמְשֹׁון וַיִּלְכֹּד שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאֹות שׁוּעָלִים וַיִּקַּח לַפִּדִים וַיֶּפֶן זָנָב אֶל זָנָב וַיָּשֶׂם לַפִּיד אֶחָד בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַזְּנָבֹות בַּתָּוֶךְ
BN: Then Shimshon went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned the foxes tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails.
Where they threatened to burn him with fire in 14:16, he is now planning to do the same to them.
Which Hera-Klean labour does this mirror? Most of them involved animals, and as we have seen all these tales in Judges are connected with animals, each of which has cosmological significance, each of which is the emblem of a totem-clan, and connected with one of the twelve constellations. So it doesn't need to mirror exactly. As to the fox, if you believe this stuff, click the link, here; if not, don't bother.
One of the saddest features of the Shimshon stories is that we know there have to have been many more - one for each month of the year in fact. We can guess, from the legends of Hera-Kles and other sun heroes, what they might have been, but the Redactor has chosen not to retain them (or perhaps he deliberately expurgated them, lest the Beney Yisra-El hear them, and recognise King David in them, and understand that David was never a human but only a mythological creature...)
Turned tail-to-tail, and with a flaming torch strapped to those tails, the foxes cannot move, because the forward direction of one pulls the other backwards, and it will resist. A description by metaphor of the sun-moon relationship? A cosmological analogy presumably.
LAPIDIM: We have seen these torches before, several times. In Judges 7:16, Gid'on's company is likewise three hundred strong, while the feminine equivalent, LAPIDOT, is the name of Devorah's husband in Judges 4; and Barak, whose name means "lightning", provides the cosmic equivalent of these torches. Are they perhaps comets? Or simply the burning rays of the sun?
KJ: And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.
Where they threatened to burn him with fire in 14:16, he is now planning to do the same to them.
Which Hera-Klean labour does this mirror? Most of them involved animals, and as we have seen all these tales in Judges are connected with animals, each of which has cosmological significance, each of which is the emblem of a totem-clan, and connected with one of the twelve constellations. So it doesn't need to mirror exactly. As to the fox, if you believe this stuff, click the link, here; if not, don't bother.
One of the saddest features of the Shimshon stories is that we know there have to have been many more - one for each month of the year in fact. We can guess, from the legends of Hera-Kles and other sun heroes, what they might have been, but the Redactor has chosen not to retain them (or perhaps he deliberately expurgated them, lest the Beney Yisra-El hear them, and recognise King David in them, and understand that David was never a human but only a mythological creature...)
Turned tail-to-tail, and with a flaming torch strapped to those tails, the foxes cannot move, because the forward direction of one pulls the other backwards, and it will resist. A description by metaphor of the sun-moon relationship? A cosmological analogy presumably.
LAPIDIM: We have seen these torches before, several times. In Judges 7:16, Gid'on's company is likewise three hundred strong, while the feminine equivalent, LAPIDOT, is the name of Devorah's husband in Judges 4; and Barak, whose name means "lightning", provides the cosmic equivalent of these torches. Are they perhaps comets? Or simply the burning rays of the sun?
15:5 VA YAV'ER ESH BA LAPIYDIM VA YESHALACH BE KAMOT PELISHTIM VA YAV'ER MI GADISH VE AD KAMAH VE AD KEREM ZAYIT
וַיַּבְעֶר אֵשׁ בַּלַּפִּידִים וַיְשַׁלַּח בְּקָמֹות פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּבְעֵר מִגָּדִישׁ וְעַד קָמָה וְעַד כֶּרֶם זָיִת
BN: And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Pelishtim, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives.
Confirmation, for those who needed it, that he brought the kid at Shavu'ot, not Sukot - the standing corn is still in the fields; only the wheat has been harvested.
Yet again the destruction of shrines. Sun-god versus moon-goddess. In reality, the sun-god does not need three hundred burning foxes to set corn fields ablaze; the sun can do that entirely on his own - and does, immediately after the harvest, when the last of the corn is gathered, made into an effigy of the sun-god, thrown on a bonfire, and left to send vast fireworks up into the sky: the Guy Faux, the Shimshon, the Wicker Man.
This portrait of the sun as destroyer is immensely significant, as a contrast to the Yevarechecha and the fertility myths, and in the development of monotheism as a "scientific" explanation of the cosmos. The god who "turns his face to shine on us" is also the god who "mastir panav" - hides his face behind a cloud - and here the god who leaves behind skin cancer, or sets the entire Yosemite ablaze, or simply dries out the land into an infertile desert. And they key to this, the essential difference between Judaism and Christianity: not Good versus Evil, but Adonai Echad. YHVH is One.
LAPIYDIM: Why does the Pointer insert a Yud on this occasion, but leave it out in the previous verse? I mention it only because we have variations and anomalies like these on hundreds of occasions, and large numbers of them affect our understanding; and if there are this many that we can immediately see, how many more "errors" might there be, that we cannot so obviously see?
KJ: Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire.
Confirmation, for those who needed it, that he brought the kid at Shavu'ot, not Sukot - the standing corn is still in the fields; only the wheat has been harvested.
Yet again the destruction of shrines. Sun-god versus moon-goddess. In reality, the sun-god does not need three hundred burning foxes to set corn fields ablaze; the sun can do that entirely on his own - and does, immediately after the harvest, when the last of the corn is gathered, made into an effigy of the sun-god, thrown on a bonfire, and left to send vast fireworks up into the sky: the Guy Faux, the Shimshon, the Wicker Man.
This portrait of the sun as destroyer is immensely significant, as a contrast to the Yevarechecha and the fertility myths, and in the development of monotheism as a "scientific" explanation of the cosmos. The god who "turns his face to shine on us" is also the god who "mastir panav" - hides his face behind a cloud - and here the god who leaves behind skin cancer, or sets the entire Yosemite ablaze, or simply dries out the land into an infertile desert. And they key to this, the essential difference between Judaism and Christianity: not Good versus Evil, but Adonai Echad. YHVH is One.
LAPIYDIM: Why does the Pointer insert a Yud on this occasion, but leave it out in the previous verse? I mention it only because we have variations and anomalies like these on hundreds of occasions, and large numbers of them affect our understanding; and if there are this many that we can immediately see, how many more "errors" might there be, that we cannot so obviously see?
15:6 VA YOMRU PHELISHTIM MI ASAH ZOT VA YOMRU SHIMSHON CHATAN HA TIMNI KI LAKACH ET ISHTO VA YITNAH LE ME'RE'EHU VA YA'ALU PHELISHTIM VA YISREPHU OTAH VE ET AVIHA BA EYSH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים מִי עָשָׂה זֹאת וַיֹּאמְרוּ שִׁמְשֹׁון חֲתַן הַתִּמְנִי כִּי לָקַח אֶת אִשְׁתֹּו וַיִּתְּנָהּ לְמֵרֵעֵהוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹותָהּ וְאֶת אָבִיהָ בָּאֵשׁ
BN: Then the Pelishtim said, "Who did this?" And they replied, "Shimshon, the son-in-law of the Timni, because his wife was taken, and given to his companion". And the Pelishtim came up, and burnt her and her father with fire.
TIMNI: Timnite, not Timnathite; and without an Ayin (ע). Confirmation of my note to Judges 14:1.
LAKACH: My translation is deliberately not precise on this occasion, but the verb is confusing and I want to convey what I believe the text intends, but says rather badly. LAKACH means "he took", and the sense of the KJ translation is that the "he" in question was Shimshon; and the inference that he is angry with himself, and taking it out unfairly on the Pelishtim. But verse 2 tells us that the "he" in question is his father-in-law, and that Shimshon is taking revenge for having his rights to his wife forbidden. This conflicts with the version in Judges 14.
YISREPHU: As one does! This is where the story removes itself from the realms of historical possibility and enters either Hollywood, or mythology, or both - either it is ludicrous fantasy, or it has to have a deeper meaning.
And once again the revenge by burning. But to kill the woman and her father! Can we read this as the burning of the effigies in the shrine, not the actual people? Alas, I think not. This is all about evil breeding evil and fires setting fires. And mostly this is the means by which the sun destroys - it has no other weapon but fire and drought (and did I mention skin cancer?).
Note that whoever put in the dots on this occasion (and the system known as Nekudot or Pointing is post-Roman) has left the dot (technically it's called a dagesh) out of the initial Pey of Pelishtim, so they become Phelishtim here. Which is correct? We should be able to answer that from the grammar, but unfortunately there is a second problem - the absence of a definite article before Phelishtim, on both occasions in this verse. The intention is presumably a way of saying "some Pelishtim".
KJ: And Samson said unto them, Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you, and after that I will cease.
TIMNI: Timnite, not Timnathite; and without an Ayin (ע). Confirmation of my note to Judges 14:1.
LAKACH: My translation is deliberately not precise on this occasion, but the verb is confusing and I want to convey what I believe the text intends, but says rather badly. LAKACH means "he took", and the sense of the KJ translation is that the "he" in question was Shimshon; and the inference that he is angry with himself, and taking it out unfairly on the Pelishtim. But verse 2 tells us that the "he" in question is his father-in-law, and that Shimshon is taking revenge for having his rights to his wife forbidden. This conflicts with the version in Judges 14.
YISREPHU: As one does! This is where the story removes itself from the realms of historical possibility and enters either Hollywood, or mythology, or both - either it is ludicrous fantasy, or it has to have a deeper meaning.
And once again the revenge by burning. But to kill the woman and her father! Can we read this as the burning of the effigies in the shrine, not the actual people? Alas, I think not. This is all about evil breeding evil and fires setting fires. And mostly this is the means by which the sun destroys - it has no other weapon but fire and drought (and did I mention skin cancer?).
Note that whoever put in the dots on this occasion (and the system known as Nekudot or Pointing is post-Roman) has left the dot (technically it's called a dagesh) out of the initial Pey of Pelishtim, so they become Phelishtim here. Which is correct? We should be able to answer that from the grammar, but unfortunately there is a second problem - the absence of a definite article before Phelishtim, on both occasions in this verse. The intention is presumably a way of saying "some Pelishtim".
15:7 VA YOMER LAHEM SHIMSHON IM TA'ASUN KA ZOT KI IM NIKAMTI VACHEM VE ACHAR ECHDAL
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשֹׁון אִם תַּעֲשׂוּן כָּזֹאת כִּי אִם נִקַּמְתִּי בָכֶם וְאַחַר אֶחְדָּל
KJ: And Samson said unto them, Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you, and after that I will cease.
BN: And Shimshon said to them, Because this has been done, so I shall take my revenge on you, and after that I will cease.
IM does not mean "though". It should read "because", or "if".
TA'ASUN: does not mean "you have done". It should be read passively as "it has been done".
But of course he cannot cease; any more than YHVH after the Flood can make the penitent promise of a rainbow: there will be sun again tomorrow, just as there will be rain again the following day, and another moon will be born, on the first day of the next month. Twelve labours, one per month, every year, forever.
KJ: And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam.
IM does not mean "though". It should read "because", or "if".
TA'ASUN: does not mean "you have done". It should be read passively as "it has been done".
But of course he cannot cease; any more than YHVH after the Flood can make the penitent promise of a rainbow: there will be sun again tomorrow, just as there will be rain again the following day, and another moon will be born, on the first day of the next month. Twelve labours, one per month, every year, forever.
15:8 VA YACH OTAM SHOK AL YARECH MAKAH GEDOLAH VA YERED VA YESHEV BE SE'IPH SEL'A EYTAM
וַיַּךְ אֹותָם שֹׁוק עַל יָרֵךְ מַכָּה גְדֹולָה וַיֵּרֶד וַיֵּשֶׁב בִּסְעִיף סֶלַע עֵיטָם
BN: And he smote them shin and thigh, and piled them high. And he went down and dwelt in a cleft on Falcon Rock.
I cannot resist quoting the Sefaria translation of this verse: "He gave them a sound and thorough thrashing. Then he went down and stayed in the cave of the rock of Etam" (though I think they are wrong about the cave).
SHOK: The shin, not the hip; the point is that he is butchering meat like a shochet (SHOK is actually a different root from the one that yields Shochet; but it is the root that leads to SHUK = "market", where the slaughtered meat will be sold).
YARECH: The English translators simply ignore this play on words, one that we have pointed out many times before. YERECH here, which is indeed the "thigh" (though it is also used for the hip), YERICHO or YERECHO the town elsewhere, and always YARE'ACH - the moon! (the two thighs thus making, like the two pillars at the gateway to the temple, the entrance to the ultimate sacred temple, the womb).
EYTAM (עיטם): don't you just love that image of the sun going down in a cleft in the rock on the craggy hill nearby? The root of the word infers violence. 1 Samuel 25:14 has "Va ye'at ba-hem = he raged at them"; Jeremiah 12:9 has an AYIT for a rapacious creature; Isaiah 46:11 and Job 28:7 have AYIT for a rapacious bird of prey, possibly a small vulture, more likely the falcon which I have gone for in my translation. "The cleft in the rock Eytam" is therefore a place inhabited by birds of prey; very much the sort of place where "the sun goes to hide".
VA YERED: Once the sun has done its brutal work, it goes down; the image of the rather gorgeous sunset among the clefts in the rock merits a photograph by Peter Lik - this one is actually called "Moonlight Reflections", which conveys the battle just fought even more precisely.
samech break
I cannot resist quoting the Sefaria translation of this verse: "He gave them a sound and thorough thrashing. Then he went down and stayed in the cave of the rock of Etam" (though I think they are wrong about the cave).
SHOK: The shin, not the hip; the point is that he is butchering meat like a shochet (SHOK is actually a different root from the one that yields Shochet; but it is the root that leads to SHUK = "market", where the slaughtered meat will be sold).
YARECH: The English translators simply ignore this play on words, one that we have pointed out many times before. YERECH here, which is indeed the "thigh" (though it is also used for the hip), YERICHO or YERECHO the town elsewhere, and always YARE'ACH - the moon! (the two thighs thus making, like the two pillars at the gateway to the temple, the entrance to the ultimate sacred temple, the womb).
EYTAM (עיטם): don't you just love that image of the sun going down in a cleft in the rock on the craggy hill nearby? The root of the word infers violence. 1 Samuel 25:14 has "Va ye'at ba-hem = he raged at them"; Jeremiah 12:9 has an AYIT for a rapacious creature; Isaiah 46:11 and Job 28:7 have AYIT for a rapacious bird of prey, possibly a small vulture, more likely the falcon which I have gone for in my translation. "The cleft in the rock Eytam" is therefore a place inhabited by birds of prey; very much the sort of place where "the sun goes to hide".VA YERED: Once the sun has done its brutal work, it goes down; the image of the rather gorgeous sunset among the clefts in the rock merits a photograph by Peter Lik - this one is actually called "Moonlight Reflections", which conveys the battle just fought even more precisely.
samech break
15:9 VA YA'ALU PHELISHTIM VA YACHANU BIYHUDAH VA YINATSHU BA LECHI
וַיַּעֲלוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּחֲנוּ בִּיהוּדָה וַיִּנָּטְשׁוּ בַּלֶּחִי
BN: Then the Pelishtim went up, and pitched in Yehudah, and spread themselves across Lechi.
PHELISHTIM: Again, no definite article. Is there a level at which we can say that the Redactor is using the myth to start the war between Dan and the Pelistim that will end with the defeat of Dan and their removal to La'ish - which just happens to be the tale that follows this one in the Book of Judges?
KJ: And the men of Judah said, Why are ye come up against us? And they answered, To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he hath done to us.
PHELISHTIM: Again, no definite article. Is there a level at which we can say that the Redactor is using the myth to start the war between Dan and the Pelistim that will end with the defeat of Dan and their removal to La'ish - which just happens to be the tale that follows this one in the Book of Judges?
VA YA'ALU: The opposite of "going down" is "rising up", but the word aliyah in Yehudit, as well as modern Ivrit, has many more connotations than just sunrise or moonrise, or people making ordinary journeys - click here for an alternative significance of the word (the first link covers its traditional uses; anti-Zionists should boycott the second link).
YEHUDAH: Dangerous to move into the territory of the biggest and most powerful tribe!
LECHI: We have visited Lechi before, with Hagar at Be'er Lechi Ro'i, and noted then that it was the well of an ass' jawbone. Its naming here makes clear that this is already its name, so watch out for any false attempt at aetiology. And as to that jawbone - was there not a labour of Hera-Kles.....? My notes on Lechi do not need repeating here.
15:10 VA YOMRU ISH YEHUDAH LAMAH ALIYTEM ALEYNU VA YOMRU LE'ESOR ET SHIMSHON ALIYNU LA'ASOT LO KA ASHER ASAH LANU
וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ יְהוּדָה לָמָה עֲלִיתֶם עָלֵינוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֶאֱסֹור אֶת שִׁמְשֹׁון עָלִינוּ לַעֲשֹׂות לֹו כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָנוּ
BN: And the men of Yehudah said: "Why have you come up against us?" And they answered: "We have come up to bind Shimshon, to do to him as he has done to us".
LAMAH ALIYTEM: Once again the aliyah, the rising. Presumably, in the earliest Yisra-Eli versions of these legends, Shimshon would have performed one labour in each of the twelve tribal zones (which would also have been useful in helping us determine which tribes represented which month, as well as which constellation).
As with the latter part of the tale, their goal is not to kill him, but specifically to bind him ("sun, stand still over Giv-On..." Joshua 10:12). But binding in some other sense than the one we associate with Av-Raham and Yitschak; there it was an Akeda; that word does not appear in this text at any time. What then does "bind" mean here, if it is not that meaning? LE'ESOR is in fact from the same root that found Yoseph in Poti-Phera's jail... (perhaps that sense in which magistrates use the term, of "binding him over to keep the peace"?)
And of course he will be bound (like Prometheus on his version of Falcon Rock; eagles in his case, which came to feed on his liver, which was perpetually renewed; his crime? why, teaching fire to humans, what else?) in verse 14 below, and again in the final scenes of this story, in the temple of Dagon, which he will bring down on his own head.
15:11 VA YERDU SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH MIYHUDAH EL SE'IPH SEL'A EYTAM VA YOMRU LE SHIMSHON HA LO YADA'TA KI MOSHLIM BANU PELISHTIM U MAH ZOT ASIYTA LANU VA YOMER LAHEM KA ASHER ASU LI KEN ASIYTI LAHEM
KJ: Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them.
LAMAH ALIYTEM: Once again the aliyah, the rising. Presumably, in the earliest Yisra-Eli versions of these legends, Shimshon would have performed one labour in each of the twelve tribal zones (which would also have been useful in helping us determine which tribes represented which month, as well as which constellation).
As with the latter part of the tale, their goal is not to kill him, but specifically to bind him ("sun, stand still over Giv-On..." Joshua 10:12). But binding in some other sense than the one we associate with Av-Raham and Yitschak; there it was an Akeda; that word does not appear in this text at any time. What then does "bind" mean here, if it is not that meaning? LE'ESOR is in fact from the same root that found Yoseph in Poti-Phera's jail... (perhaps that sense in which magistrates use the term, of "binding him over to keep the peace"?)
And of course he will be bound (like Prometheus on his version of Falcon Rock; eagles in his case, which came to feed on his liver, which was perpetually renewed; his crime? why, teaching fire to humans, what else?) in verse 14 below, and again in the final scenes of this story, in the temple of Dagon, which he will bring down on his own head.
15:11 VA YERDU SHELOSHET ALAPHIM ISH MIYHUDAH EL SE'IPH SEL'A EYTAM VA YOMRU LE SHIMSHON HA LO YADA'TA KI MOSHLIM BANU PELISHTIM U MAH ZOT ASIYTA LANU VA YOMER LAHEM KA ASHER ASU LI KEN ASIYTI LAHEM
וַיֵּרְדוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ מִיהוּדָה אֶל סְעִיף סֶלַע עֵיטָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשִׁמְשֹׁון הֲלֹא יָדַעְתָּ כִּי מֹשְׁלִים בָּנוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים וּמַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לִי כֵּן עָשִׂיתִי לָהֶם
BN: Then three thousand men of Yehudah climbed down to the cleft on Falcon Rock, and said to Shimshon: "Do you not know that the Pelishtim are our rulers? What is this that you have done to us?" And he said to them: "As they did to me, so have I done to them".
This has really sunk low (pun intended). The tale functions as a moral parable as much as it does an adventure story or an aetiological myth. But it is also highly comic - not so much in the sense of "funny" (though 3,000 men trying to tie a rope around the sun as it sets on a mountain-top is not without its amusing side), as in those magazines from the mid-20th century that depicted Batman and Superman and Catwoman; ubermenschnikim empowered by kryptonite, the modern equivalents of Shimshon and Gol-Yat (Goliath).
YERDU: The insistence on "going down" and "going up" in virtually every verse fails here, because you cannot go down to the top of a rock, unless you are descending from the heavens; or perhaps it isn't quite the top, but a cleft in the rock only reachable by climbing down from the summit.
PELISHTIM: A different scribe must have taken over the putting in of the dots. This time it has one. Though there is still dispute among the scholars as to whether the sheva below the pey is pronounced or not: Pelishtim or Plishtim?
Note how the numbers increase through the tale, but always rooted in the lunar triplet: 3 became 30 became 300 becomes 3000 now.
KJ: And they said unto him, We are come down to bind thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the Philistines. And Samson said unto them, Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves.
This has really sunk low (pun intended). The tale functions as a moral parable as much as it does an adventure story or an aetiological myth. But it is also highly comic - not so much in the sense of "funny" (though 3,000 men trying to tie a rope around the sun as it sets on a mountain-top is not without its amusing side), as in those magazines from the mid-20th century that depicted Batman and Superman and Catwoman; ubermenschnikim empowered by kryptonite, the modern equivalents of Shimshon and Gol-Yat (Goliath).
YERDU: The insistence on "going down" and "going up" in virtually every verse fails here, because you cannot go down to the top of a rock, unless you are descending from the heavens; or perhaps it isn't quite the top, but a cleft in the rock only reachable by climbing down from the summit.
PELISHTIM: A different scribe must have taken over the putting in of the dots. This time it has one. Though there is still dispute among the scholars as to whether the sheva below the pey is pronounced or not: Pelishtim or Plishtim?
Note how the numbers increase through the tale, but always rooted in the lunar triplet: 3 became 30 became 300 becomes 3000 now.
15:12 VA YOMRU LO LE'ESARCHA YARADNU LETIT'CHA BE YAD PELISHTIM VA YOMER LAHEM SHIMSHON HISHAV'U LI PEN TIPHGE'UN BI ATEM
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו לֶאֱסָרְךָ יָרַדְנוּ לְתִתְּךָ בְּיַד פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְשֹׁון הִשָּׁבְעוּ לִי פֶּן תִּפְגְּעוּן בִּי אַתֶּם
BN: And they said to him: "We have come down to bind you, so that we can deliver you into the hands of the Pelishtim". And Shimshon said to them: "Promise me that you won't fall on me yourselves".
YARADNU: As in the previous verse, is this an error, or a pun - or perhaps a pantomime, because in pantomimes you will always have words that are said louder than the rest, so the audience will recognise them, and shout them out, and get the point, or boo, or cheer, depending on the word? We shall see more of this as a pantomime very shortly.
LE'ESARCHA: See my note to LE'ESOR in verse 10.
YARADNU: As in the previous verse, is this an error, or a pun - or perhaps a pantomime, because in pantomimes you will always have words that are said louder than the rest, so the audience will recognise them, and shout them out, and get the point, or boo, or cheer, depending on the word? We shall see more of this as a pantomime very shortly.
LE'ESARCHA: See my note to LE'ESOR in verse 10.
LETIT'CHA: Surely it should be LATET'CHA?
HISHAV'U: Why does it matter to him who does the deed? Even if they do bind him and hand him over, he remains in his realm, where he has the power to resist and defeat anybody. Yes, but if they fall on him themselves, they being creatures from the moon-realm, he has no power to resist them.
So Guinevere bound Arthur, so Viviane bound Merlin, in the tower of Brocéliande.
So Prometheus was bound - click here for Aeschylus' version, or here for Shelley's. Click here for a rather interesting side-story, which might be called Nero Bound, or Hercules Unbound, as you prefer.
And Shimshon himself, in the final episode of this tale, "bound" to the pillars of the temple. Click here for Milton's version.
15:13 VA YOMRU LO LEMOR LO KI ASOR NE'ESARCHA U NETANUCHA VE YADAM VE HA MET LO NEMIYTECHA VA YA'ASRUHU BISHNAYIM AVOTIM CHADASHIM VA YA'ALUHU MIN HA SALAH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו לֵאמֹר לֹא כִּי אָסֹר נֶאֱסָרְךָ וּנְתַנּוּךָ בְיָדָם וְהָמֵת לֹא נְמִיתֶךָ וַיַּאַסְרֻהוּ בִּשְׁנַיִם עֲבֹתִים חֲדָשִׁים וַיַּעֲלוּהוּ מִן הַסָּלַע
BN: And they spoke to him, saying, "No; but we will bind you fast, and deliver you into their hand; but trust us, we are not going to kill you". And they bound him with two new cords, and brought him up from the rock.
A pilot version of the later denouement!
KJ: And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands.
A pilot version of the later denouement!
15:14 HU VA AD LECHI U PHELISHTIM HERIY'U LIKRA'TO VA TITSLACH ALAV RU'ACH YHVH VA TIHEYEYNAH HA AVOTIM ASHER AL ZERO'OTAV KA PISHTIM ASHER BA'ARU VA ESH VA YIMASU ESURAV ME AL YADAV
הוּא בָא עַד לֶחִי וּפְלִשְׁתִּים הֵרִיעוּ לִקְרָאתֹו וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהוָה וַתִּהְיֶינָה הָעֲבֹתִים אֲשֶׁר עַל זְרֹועֹותָיו כַּפִּשְׁתִּים אֲשֶׁר בָּעֲרוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיִּמַּסּוּ אֱסוּרָיו מֵעַל יָדָיו
BN: And when he came to Lechi, the crowd of Pelishtim booed him; but the spirit of YHVH came mightily upon him, and the cords that were on his arms turned into flax that was burnt with fire, and his ropes came loose from his hands.
LECHI: The place was mentioned, then the tale went elsewhere, leaving us to wonder why it was mentioned. Now it is mentioned again, and again no obvious reason why. Does it have some other meaning besides the jawbone? Or is it simply prefiguration?
HERIY'U: "Shouted"? This is how it is generally translated, and the same again when it appears in Ezra 3:11, but surely that initial Hey is an indication of the Hiph'il (causative), and the root is RA = "evil"? On the other hand, the Ezra is shouting in the form of cheering, so maybe there is a second root - no evidence of it in any lexicon I have scoured. Assistance please.
The Yisra-Eli version rather ruins the tale here, by introducing the "spirit of YHVH". Shimshon did this himself. Nor did the cords become "as flax that was burnt with fire"; forget the "as"; this was the real thing. Shimshon burned his way free. You cannot put ropes around the sun.
And the bonds were flax - confirmation again that we are at the sumer wheat harvest, not the autumn corn.
KJ: And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
LECHI: The place was mentioned, then the tale went elsewhere, leaving us to wonder why it was mentioned. Now it is mentioned again, and again no obvious reason why. Does it have some other meaning besides the jawbone? Or is it simply prefiguration?
HERIY'U: "Shouted"? This is how it is generally translated, and the same again when it appears in Ezra 3:11, but surely that initial Hey is an indication of the Hiph'il (causative), and the root is RA = "evil"? On the other hand, the Ezra is shouting in the form of cheering, so maybe there is a second root - no evidence of it in any lexicon I have scoured. Assistance please.
The Yisra-Eli version rather ruins the tale here, by introducing the "spirit of YHVH". Shimshon did this himself. Nor did the cords become "as flax that was burnt with fire"; forget the "as"; this was the real thing. Shimshon burned his way free. You cannot put ropes around the sun.
And the bonds were flax - confirmation again that we are at the sumer wheat harvest, not the autumn corn.
15:15 VA YIMTS'A LECHI CHAMOR TERIYAH VA YISHLACH YADO VA YIKACH'EHA VE YACH BAH ELEPH ISH
וַיִּמְצָא לְחִי חֲמֹור טְרִיָּה וַיִּשְׁלַח יָדֹו וַיִּקָּחֶהָ וַיַּךְ בָּהּ אֶלֶף אִישׁ
BN: And he found a fresh jawbone of an ass, and put out his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men with it.
 |
| "Samson slaying a Philistine", Giambologna, 1560-2 |
TERIYAH: The point is its intrinsic "freshness" - the ass having only very recently ended its life - and not its being a replacement for Shimshon's old one. See my note to verse 16 for the root of TARI.
15:16 VA YOMER SHIMSHON BILCHI HA CHAMOR CHAMOR CHAMORATAYIM BILCHI HA CHAMOR HIKEYTI ELEPH ISH
וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשֹׁון בִּלְחִי הַחֲמֹור חֲמֹור חֲמֹרָתָיִם בִּלְחִי הַחֲמֹור הִכֵּיתִי אֶלֶף אִישׁ
BN: And Shimshon said: "With the jawbone of an ass, burial-mound after burial-mound, with the jawbone of an ass have I slain a thousand men".
The word-play in this tells us that, once again, the Redactor has retained an oracular riddle, but without sufficient context to unravel it; so much of the story has been left out! We need to break this down, word by word, but also include a missing word; in the previous verse it read "lechi chamor teriyah"; "teriyah" needs to be put back. TARI means "fresh", but it is mostly used for cuts and wounds - see for example Isaiah 1:6 - and therefore it also means "putrefying", which is itself a splendid play-on-words, and one entirely apposite to this battle of life-versus-death.
This verse needs to be read out loud, in Yehudit not English, to get the full force of the multiple plays-on-words.
CHAMOR: Probably the red ass, known in Spanish as a burro or burico, though the Tanach uses the word for pretty much any breed of ass or donkey. But there is also the person Chamor, the "Paris" of the Dinah tale in Genesis 34, and it was on a piece of land purchased from Chamor that Yoseph's bones were laid to rest (the text of Joshua 24:32 is very specific in stating it that way).
"Heaps" is the only problem word here, and only a problem because we understand it in its modern usage, which is "large piles"; but if we go back to its source in English it becomes much easier, because "heaps" were "tumuli", man-made burial mounds, places filled with thousands of jawbones: taking us back to those bees that made the honey that he took from the carcase of the lion (Judges 14:8), and indirectly thence to one of our previous Judges, Devorah.
The word-play in this tells us that, once again, the Redactor has retained an oracular riddle, but without sufficient context to unravel it; so much of the story has been left out! We need to break this down, word by word, but also include a missing word; in the previous verse it read "lechi chamor teriyah"; "teriyah" needs to be put back. TARI means "fresh", but it is mostly used for cuts and wounds - see for example Isaiah 1:6 - and therefore it also means "putrefying", which is itself a splendid play-on-words, and one entirely apposite to this battle of life-versus-death.
This verse needs to be read out loud, in Yehudit not English, to get the full force of the multiple plays-on-words.
"Heaps" is the only problem word here, and only a problem because we understand it in its modern usage, which is "large piles"; but if we go back to its source in English it becomes much easier, because "heaps" were "tumuli", man-made burial mounds, places filled with thousands of jawbones: taking us back to those bees that made the honey that he took from the carcase of the lion (Judges 14:8), and indirectly thence to one of our previous Judges, Devorah.
But the use of CHAMOR in this way here is also crucial to our understanding why Sha'ul was out hunting for his father's lost donkeys (1 Samuel 9: though the word used there is ATONOT rather than CHAMORIM, asses and donkeys are the same creature - click here - ATONOT the female, CHAMORIM the male) when he met the Prophet Shemu-El and was chosen to be Yisra-El's king: the Lord of the Underworld, "heaps upon heaps" - CHAMOR CHAMOR CHAMORATAYIM.
15:17 VA YEHI KE CHALOTO LEDABER VA YASHLECH HA LECHI MI YADO VA YIKR'A LA MAKOM HA HU RAMAT LECHI
וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתֹו לְדַבֵּר וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ הַלְּחִי מִיָּדֹו וַיִּקְרָא לַמָּקֹום הַהוּא רָמַת לֶחִי
BN: And it came to pass, when he had finished speaking, that he cast the jawbone from his hand, and the name of that place is Ramat-Lechi.
From verse 19 below we have to read this jawbone as a rock that had the shape of a jawbone, and this part of the tale an attempt at an aetiological explanation of the rock.
In general, people don't name places for their actions there; they acquire the name later on, when others remember the action and associate it with the place. The grammar of the verse allows this to be read both ways.
From verse 19 below we have to read this jawbone as a rock that had the shape of a jawbone, and this part of the tale an attempt at an aetiological explanation of the rock.
In general, people don't name places for their actions there; they acquire the name later on, when others remember the action and associate it with the place. The grammar of the verse allows this to be read both ways.
15:18 VA YITSM'A ME'OD VA YIKRA EL YHVH VA YOMER ATAH NATATA VE YAD AVDECHA ET HA TESHU'AH HA GEDOLAH HA ZOT VE ATAH AMUT BA TSAM'A VE NAPHALTI BE YAD HA ARELIM
וַיִּצְמָא מְאֹד וַיִּקְרָא אֶל יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אַתָּה נָתַתָּ בְיַד עַבְדְּךָ אֶת הַתְּשׁוּעָה הַגְּדֹלָה הַזֹּאת וְעַתָּה אָמוּת בַּצָּמָא וְנָפַלְתִּי בְּיַד הָעֲרֵלִים
BN: And he was as thirsty as a drought, and he called on YHVH, saying: "You have given this great deliverance into the hand of your servant: and now will you let me die of thirst, and fall into the hands of the uncircumcised?"
YHVH: More Redactor editorialising.
TESHU'AH: From the root that yields Moshi'a, "Saviour".
He cannot both "die of thirst" and "fall into the hands..."; the former precludes the latter; so this is rhetoric and hyperbole.
KJ: But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore he called the name thereof Enhakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.
15:19 VA YIVK'A ELOHIM ET HA MACHTESH ASHER BA LECHI VA YETS'U MIMENU MAYIM VA YESHT VA TASHAV RUCHO VA YECHI AL KEN KAR'A SHEMAH EYN HA KOR'E ASHER BA LECHI AD HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיִּבְקַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַמַּכְתֵּשׁ אֲשֶׁר בַּלֶּחִי וַיֵּצְאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַיִם וַיֵּשְׁתְּ וַתָּשָׁב רוּחֹו וַיֶּחִי עַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ עֵין הַקֹּורֵא אֲשֶׁר בַּלֶּחִי עַד הַיֹּום הַזֶּה
BN: But Elohim created a hollow place in the jaw [of the rock], and water came out of it; and when he had drunk, his spirit revived, and he came back to life: and this is why the place has been called Eyn Ha Kor'e, and it is still in Lechi to this day.
ELOHIM: yet again we have a switch from YHVH to Elohim.
Confirmation that the jawbone may have been that of an ass as well, but specifically it was a jawbone-shaped rock, and this part of the story at least is an aetiological myth - and now go back to verse 8 and compare the cleft here with the one at Eytam there. In the Christian world, the same stories are usually told with the Devil at the centre, dropping rocks from his pocket, or kicking open mountain-sides, as he runs to or from some piece of mischief, rather than the sun-god (see my novels "The Land Beside The Sea" and "The Persian Fire", which record dozens of instances).
EYN HA KOR'E (עין הקורא): "the well of calling out", from "and he called on YHVH" in verse 18. But we have learned by now that these definitions are usually evasions. KOR'E is also a partridge (1 Samuel 26:20, Jeremiah 17:11), and the partridge was sacred to Athena - in fact the English word partridge comes from the Greek perdix; he was one of Athena's sacred kings, thrown into the sea from a tower (yes, another version of the bound sun!), and carried to Heaven in the form of a bird (a dove, in a certain other version). In the English version that became a Christmas Carol, he the partridge, she the pear tree: Athena was worshipped in Boeotia as Once (pronounced On-Say), the Pear Tree, the mother of all pear trees. So the "binding" of Shimshon on the rocks at Eytam is after all an Akeda (see my note to verse 10). The binding is the preparation for sacrifice, a male version of Yiphtach's daughter in chapter 11; Mor-Yah in this version is Eytam; and like Yitschak, he evades the sacrifice. Most likely they took him to the summit of Eytam, rather than him fleeing there.
For the miraculous outpouring of water, cf Mosheh at Marah and Merivah (Numbers 20). And then go back and reconsider that story, because Mosheh functions as the sun-hero on many occasions (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the golden calf, etc). In the original. Shimshon would have brought forth the water himself, needless of a god, because he was himself the god; Mosheh did the same, but YHVH punished him for it.
KJ: And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.
ELOHIM: yet again we have a switch from YHVH to Elohim.
Confirmation that the jawbone may have been that of an ass as well, but specifically it was a jawbone-shaped rock, and this part of the story at least is an aetiological myth - and now go back to verse 8 and compare the cleft here with the one at Eytam there. In the Christian world, the same stories are usually told with the Devil at the centre, dropping rocks from his pocket, or kicking open mountain-sides, as he runs to or from some piece of mischief, rather than the sun-god (see my novels "The Land Beside The Sea" and "The Persian Fire", which record dozens of instances).
EYN HA KOR'E (עין הקורא): "the well of calling out", from "and he called on YHVH" in verse 18. But we have learned by now that these definitions are usually evasions. KOR'E is also a partridge (1 Samuel 26:20, Jeremiah 17:11), and the partridge was sacred to Athena - in fact the English word partridge comes from the Greek perdix; he was one of Athena's sacred kings, thrown into the sea from a tower (yes, another version of the bound sun!), and carried to Heaven in the form of a bird (a dove, in a certain other version). In the English version that became a Christmas Carol, he the partridge, she the pear tree: Athena was worshipped in Boeotia as Once (pronounced On-Say), the Pear Tree, the mother of all pear trees. So the "binding" of Shimshon on the rocks at Eytam is after all an Akeda (see my note to verse 10). The binding is the preparation for sacrifice, a male version of Yiphtach's daughter in chapter 11; Mor-Yah in this version is Eytam; and like Yitschak, he evades the sacrifice. Most likely they took him to the summit of Eytam, rather than him fleeing there.
For the miraculous outpouring of water, cf Mosheh at Marah and Merivah (Numbers 20). And then go back and reconsider that story, because Mosheh functions as the sun-hero on many occasions (the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the golden calf, etc). In the original. Shimshon would have brought forth the water himself, needless of a god, because he was himself the god; Mosheh did the same, but YHVH punished him for it.
15:20 VA YISHPOT ET YISRA-EL BIYMEY PHELISHTIM ESRIM SHANAH
וַיִּשְׁפֹּט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּימֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה
BN: And he judged Yisra-El in the days of the Pelishtim for twenty years.
The trouble is, he didn't "judge" them in any sense that we moderns can understand; not even in any sense that the other "judges" did. Again we have to understand "judge" as being simply a description of the existence of a shrine, a cult, a deity, and the worship connected; and then the need to reduce everything to a unified national history and religion.
What is particularly intriguing (but not entirely surprising) is the fact that these stories have been removed from the Jewish calendar entirely. Judaism celebrates all its heroes with special festivals - Ester at Purim, the Maccabees at Chanukah, Mosheh at Pesach, David and Ruth at Shavu'ot, but there is no festival that retells the Shimshon story, or Devorah's, or Gid'on's. Why not? It isn't because some of those festivals are not ordained in the Torah - Purim and Chanukah, for example, are rabbinic festivals, added late BCE at most, probably early CE, and the same could have been done for any of these others. The answer is obvious - because none of these were Yisra-Eli stories in the first or even the second place; and because Judaism doesn't actually like their message!
pey break
The trouble is, he didn't "judge" them in any sense that we moderns can understand; not even in any sense that the other "judges" did. Again we have to understand "judge" as being simply a description of the existence of a shrine, a cult, a deity, and the worship connected; and then the need to reduce everything to a unified national history and religion.
What is particularly intriguing (but not entirely surprising) is the fact that these stories have been removed from the Jewish calendar entirely. Judaism celebrates all its heroes with special festivals - Ester at Purim, the Maccabees at Chanukah, Mosheh at Pesach, David and Ruth at Shavu'ot, but there is no festival that retells the Shimshon story, or Devorah's, or Gid'on's. Why not? It isn't because some of those festivals are not ordained in the Torah - Purim and Chanukah, for example, are rabbinic festivals, added late BCE at most, probably early CE, and the same could have been done for any of these others. The answer is obvious - because none of these were Yisra-Eli stories in the first or even the second place; and because Judaism doesn't actually like their message!
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment