 |
| Max Liebermann's setting of verse 19 |
The final verse of the previous chapter seemed to infer an end, whether of his life, or his time as Judge; yet clearly not, as here he still is, reborn again, as is only appropriate, and quite probably deliberate, at least in the original before the Redaction. Shimshon's tales reflect those of Hera-Kles in the Greek (later Hercules in the Roman), and bear close resemblance to several tales in the Davidic myths; is it feasible then that different tribes of Kena'an had different Shimshon legends, and that this explains the variations in this chapter (or is it simply, as per "The Leprachauns of Palestine", that the Danites and the Pelishtim (Philistines) both came from the same Ionian source?)?
16:1 VA YELECH SHIMSHON AZATAH VA YAR SHAM ISHAH ZONAH VA YAV'O ELEYHA
16:1 VA YELECH SHIMSHON AZATAH VA YAR SHAM ISHAH ZONAH VA YAV'O ELEYHA
וַיֵּלֶךְ שִׁמְשֹׁון עַזָּתָה וַיַּרְא שָׁם אִשָּׁה זֹונָה וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ
BN (BibleNet official translation): Then Shimshon went to Azah, and saw there a hierodule, and went in to her.
BN: (explanatory translation): Now Shimshon served as priest-king of Azah, and when the spring rites came round, he put on the pageant-clothing of the May King, and the woman who had been chosen as the May Queen was brought to him, and they went into the Tent of Asherah together to perform the sacred fertility rite.
BN: (explanatory translation): Now Shimshon served as priest-king of Azah, and when the spring rites came round, he put on the pageant-clothing of the May King, and the woman who had been chosen as the May Queen was brought to him, and they went into the Tent of Asherah together to perform the sacred fertility rite.
AZATAH: The illustration that I have been waiting for! Many times we have witnessed what I call "the inconsistent dative", in which the name of a place is sometimes, say, Timna, in the nominative form, but Timnatah in the dative form (e.g. Judges 14:1), because the "t" (ת) has to be added to make the dative, or we would have Timna'ah, which doesn't work; and then the town finds itself rendered as Timnat, which is an error caused by that variation (Timnat Serach and Timnat Cheres in Judges 1:35 and 2:9 function exactly the same, but this time in the genitive rather than the dative). Azah is a variation of this, because it ends with a Hey (ה), and a final Hey must be changed to a final Tav (ת) to allow the dative ending (as "a" becomes "an" in English before a vowel). So Azah becomes Azatah = "to Azah"; and it is a perfect illustration because we all know the place today, by the same name that it has had throughout the last three thousand-plus years: Azah, pronounced Gaza by the English, and not Azat or Gazat or Azatah or Gazatah.
AZAH: And why is it pronounced as Gaza in English? Probably because the Egyptian-Arabic pronunciation of the letter Ayin (ע) is more deeply guttural than the Kena'ani-Yehudit (Canaanite-Hebrew); akin to the difficulty some Japanese have in pronouncing the letter R, as a result of which it comes out as L. Every language trains its users in the positioning of tongue, lips, palate, throat. (There is also a theory that there was once a letter Ghayin in the Yehudit alphabet, but there is absolutely no textual evidence of this, and the Ugaritic source does not have such a letter; there may have been an intended dagesh in the Ayin, to facilitate the variation described in this paragraph).
ZONAH: Harlot as always must be understood either as a hierodule, or as a patriarchal derogation of the goddess, or both. As we have read about Lechi becoming a shrine to [the sun-god in the form of] Shimshon, so now we are reading, in the manner of Frazer's Golden Bough, how Azah (Gaza) became a shrine to Shimshon as well. In fact, we know from multiple sources that Philistine Azah was a shrine to Hera-Kles Melkart, which is a combination of the Greek with the Phoenician, with Hera in the role of Delilah. By sleeping with the priestess of the shrine, the two become the surrogates of the deity, and he now the shrine-hero; this is identical to the marriage of Ya'akov to Le'ah, and to Rachel, and can be presumed to be the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene described in her (prohibited) gospel.
16:2 LA AZATIM LEMOR BA SHIMSHON HENAH VA YASOBU VA YE'EREVU LO CHOL HA LAILAH BE SHA'AR HA IR VA YIT'CHARSHU CHOL HA LAILAH LEMOR AD OR HA BOKER VA HARAGNU'HU
KJ: And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither. And they compassed him in, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying, In the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him.
16:2 LA AZATIM LEMOR BA SHIMSHON HENAH VA YASOBU VA YE'EREVU LO CHOL HA LAILAH BE SHA'AR HA IR VA YIT'CHARSHU CHOL HA LAILAH LEMOR AD OR HA BOKER VA HARAGNU'HU
לַעַזָּתִים לֵאמֹר בָּא שִׁמְשֹׁון הֵנָּה וַיָּסֹבּוּ וַיֶּאֶרְבוּ לֹו כָל הַלַּיְלָה בְּשַׁעַר הָעִיר וַיִּתְחָרְשׁוּ כָל הַלַּיְלָה לֵאמֹר עַד אֹור הַבֹּקֶר וַהֲרְגְנֻהוּ
BN: And it was reported to the Azites, saying: "Shimshon has come here." And they surounded him, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying: "In the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him."
If Shimshon were just an ordinary man, who had come to town and spent the night at a local brothel, the townsfolk hearing about him might be angry at fornication in their town, and have him arrested, or thrown out; but even if he were black and she white and this, say, Maycomb, Alabama...
If you want to kill the sun-god, dawn is the only time, because by night you will never find him (he is locked up in a dark tower somewhere, imprisoned there by Delilah; or gone down into the Underworld), and once he has risen he is too powerful. This is not the same, however, as Ya'akov's struggle with the man of Penu-El; that was a night-spirit, messenger of the moon-goddess.
On each occasion that he is killed, or taken for killing, it is done by binding him first (we saw this in the previous chapter). Now go back and take another look at the binding of Yitschak in Genesis 22, and when shortly he will be bound to the pillars of the Temple, take another look at the binding of Jesus to the Cross at exactly the same place as Yitschak (Matthew 27:33-50). The English folk-song John Barleycorn provides the best explanation of this yet written.
16:3 VA YISHKAV SHIMSHON AD CHATSI HA LAILAH VA YAKAM BA CHATSI HA LAILAH VA YE'ECHOZ BE DELATOT SHA'AR HA IR U VISHTEY HA MEZUZOT VA YISA'EM IM HA BERIYACH VA YASEM AL KETEPHAV VA YA'ALEM EL ROSH HA HAR ASHER AL PENEY CHEVRON
KJ: And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.
If Shimshon were just an ordinary man, who had come to town and spent the night at a local brothel, the townsfolk hearing about him might be angry at fornication in their town, and have him arrested, or thrown out; but even if he were black and she white and this, say, Maycomb, Alabama...
If you want to kill the sun-god, dawn is the only time, because by night you will never find him (he is locked up in a dark tower somewhere, imprisoned there by Delilah; or gone down into the Underworld), and once he has risen he is too powerful. This is not the same, however, as Ya'akov's struggle with the man of Penu-El; that was a night-spirit, messenger of the moon-goddess.
On each occasion that he is killed, or taken for killing, it is done by binding him first (we saw this in the previous chapter). Now go back and take another look at the binding of Yitschak in Genesis 22, and when shortly he will be bound to the pillars of the Temple, take another look at the binding of Jesus to the Cross at exactly the same place as Yitschak (Matthew 27:33-50). The English folk-song John Barleycorn provides the best explanation of this yet written.
16:3 VA YISHKAV SHIMSHON AD CHATSI HA LAILAH VA YAKAM BA CHATSI HA LAILAH VA YE'ECHOZ BE DELATOT SHA'AR HA IR U VISHTEY HA MEZUZOT VA YISA'EM IM HA BERIYACH VA YASEM AL KETEPHAV VA YA'ALEM EL ROSH HA HAR ASHER AL PENEY CHEVRON
וַיִּשְׁכַּב שִׁמְשֹׁון עַד חֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּקָם בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיֶּאֱחֹז בְּדַלְתֹות שַׁעַר הָעִיר וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹות וַיִּסָּעֵם עִם הַבְּרִיחַ וַיָּשֶׂם עַל כְּתֵפָיו וַיַּעֲלֵם אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי חֶבְרֹון
BN: And Shimshon lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them on his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of one of the hills facing Chevron.
The doors of the gate remind us of Bo'az and Yachin, but see also my note to YERECH at Judges 15:8, which is highly significant to the fact this is taking place at midnight, the apogee of the reign of the moon.
The mezuzot were not originally those little pieces of wood or metal or even occasionally plastic that people pin to their doors as a good-luck charm and a piece of superstition which the Torah officially outlaws but Judaism actually encourages. The mezuzot were the lintels of the door themselves, and the original good-luck charms were Eyes of Horus (you can still see them, in places like Malta, on the sides of every fishing boat)., or sometimes Eyes of Ra (the former is the left eye, the latter the right eye, according to some Egyptologists - click here).
Why midnight? Just as the annual sun is born at the mid-winter solstice (Christmas Day, but four days wrong now because they conveniently didn't move it when the calendar was adjusted by four days; the same is true of Hallowe'en, which was the Day of the Dead long before it had anything to do with Christian saints), so the daily sun is reborn at midnight (though he tends to be a slow riser, and needs his breakfast and a visit to the gym and then the synagogue before he sets out for his day's work!).
CHEVRON: Or Hebron if you prefer. As noted before, his 12 labours would have taken him to each of the 12 tribes in turn, because each tribe represented an astrological month, just as his labours did.
Though Chevron here is bemusing, because the 12 tribes in question were Pelishtim, not Yisra-Eli, and Chevron was never in Philistine territory - presumably the Redactor moved the tale there as part of Judaising it. It is also a long way from Azah, though a Shimshon would have had twenty league boots and could cross that distance in a few strides. But why, davka, why specifically, Chevron? Given that the tales of David being pursued by Sha'ul are also a version of the 12 Labours of Hera-Kles, and that David emerged from the Sha'ulite underworld as King of the Philistine town of Tsiklag, and then as King of... yes... Chevron; the coincidence, shall we say, needs more work.
What Shimshon does in this verse is, of course, exactly what he will do in the temple of Dagon later on: there too he seizes two of the pillars in each hand, and brings down the temple. But here, rather than dying when the roof comes down, he takes the exterior, entrance pillars, and carries them away, so that he can presumably build his own shrine with them: the moon defeated thereby, and the sun victorious. And so, again: why Chevron? The take-over of the shrine of Ephron and Yah by Av-Raham and Sarah (Genesis 23) cannot be overlooked.
pey break
16:4 VA YEHI ACHAREY CHEN VE YE'EHAV ISHAH BE NACHAL SOREK U SHEMAH DELIYLAH
KJ: And it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah.
The doors of the gate remind us of Bo'az and Yachin, but see also my note to YERECH at Judges 15:8, which is highly significant to the fact this is taking place at midnight, the apogee of the reign of the moon.
The mezuzot were not originally those little pieces of wood or metal or even occasionally plastic that people pin to their doors as a good-luck charm and a piece of superstition which the Torah officially outlaws but Judaism actually encourages. The mezuzot were the lintels of the door themselves, and the original good-luck charms were Eyes of Horus (you can still see them, in places like Malta, on the sides of every fishing boat)., or sometimes Eyes of Ra (the former is the left eye, the latter the right eye, according to some Egyptologists - click here).Why midnight? Just as the annual sun is born at the mid-winter solstice (Christmas Day, but four days wrong now because they conveniently didn't move it when the calendar was adjusted by four days; the same is true of Hallowe'en, which was the Day of the Dead long before it had anything to do with Christian saints), so the daily sun is reborn at midnight (though he tends to be a slow riser, and needs his breakfast and a visit to the gym and then the synagogue before he sets out for his day's work!).
CHEVRON: Or Hebron if you prefer. As noted before, his 12 labours would have taken him to each of the 12 tribes in turn, because each tribe represented an astrological month, just as his labours did.
Though Chevron here is bemusing, because the 12 tribes in question were Pelishtim, not Yisra-Eli, and Chevron was never in Philistine territory - presumably the Redactor moved the tale there as part of Judaising it. It is also a long way from Azah, though a Shimshon would have had twenty league boots and could cross that distance in a few strides. But why, davka, why specifically, Chevron? Given that the tales of David being pursued by Sha'ul are also a version of the 12 Labours of Hera-Kles, and that David emerged from the Sha'ulite underworld as King of the Philistine town of Tsiklag, and then as King of... yes... Chevron; the coincidence, shall we say, needs more work.
What Shimshon does in this verse is, of course, exactly what he will do in the temple of Dagon later on: there too he seizes two of the pillars in each hand, and brings down the temple. But here, rather than dying when the roof comes down, he takes the exterior, entrance pillars, and carries them away, so that he can presumably build his own shrine with them: the moon defeated thereby, and the sun victorious. And so, again: why Chevron? The take-over of the shrine of Ephron and Yah by Av-Raham and Sarah (Genesis 23) cannot be overlooked.
pey break
16:4 VA YEHI ACHAREY CHEN VE YE'EHAV ISHAH BE NACHAL SOREK U SHEMAH DELIYLAH
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי כֵן וַיֶּאֱהַב אִשָּׁה בְּנַחַל שֹׂרֵק וּשְׁמָהּ דְּלִילָה
BN: And it came to pass afterward, that he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Deliylah.
Actually the same woman as before. Each month he remarries her, at the end of each month she kills him. This is allegory, remember, not journalism.
SOREK: (שרק): with a Seen not a Sheen (the dot above the left prong, not the right). Interesting name, given the story that will follow. The word means "to intertwine" or "to plait", and is used both for the tendrils and shoots of plants, and for the hair. SERAK in Syrian meant a comb, and MASREYKAH, in Yehudit, is yet another word for a vineyard, generally of superior quality. But MASREK, with a Samech (מסרק), is also used for a comb; the Samech usually denotes a foreign word assimilated into Yehudit, so we can guess that it came in as "comb" from the Syrian, and the two variants, because they sound identical, became confused into a single word, the way "curb" and "kerb" (inter alia) have in modern American (or Sibolet and Shibolet, as per chapter 12). Nonetheless, we can translate Sorek as "the valley of binding", or even "the valley of hair-cutting". Metaphors and symbols; always metaphors and symbols.
DELILAH: LAILAH in Yehudit means "night"; the DE is the standard Aramaic equivalent of the Yehudit HA, which is the definite article. The Masoretic pointer has placed a Chirik (a single dot) under the Lamed (ל), but I wonder if that shouldn't have been a Patach (a flat line) - LAILAH rather than LIYLAH. I have transliterated her as the full DELIYLAH on this occasion, but intend to revert to the customary DELILAH from now on, as I believe this was the original, and correct, form.
KJ: And the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and said unto her, Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lieth, and by what means we may prevail against him, that we may bind him to afflict him: and we will give thee every one of us eleven hundred pieces of silver.
Actually the same woman as before. Each month he remarries her, at the end of each month she kills him. This is allegory, remember, not journalism.
SOREK: (שרק): with a Seen not a Sheen (the dot above the left prong, not the right). Interesting name, given the story that will follow. The word means "to intertwine" or "to plait", and is used both for the tendrils and shoots of plants, and for the hair. SERAK in Syrian meant a comb, and MASREYKAH, in Yehudit, is yet another word for a vineyard, generally of superior quality. But MASREK, with a Samech (מסרק), is also used for a comb; the Samech usually denotes a foreign word assimilated into Yehudit, so we can guess that it came in as "comb" from the Syrian, and the two variants, because they sound identical, became confused into a single word, the way "curb" and "kerb" (inter alia) have in modern American (or Sibolet and Shibolet, as per chapter 12). Nonetheless, we can translate Sorek as "the valley of binding", or even "the valley of hair-cutting". Metaphors and symbols; always metaphors and symbols.
DELILAH: LAILAH in Yehudit means "night"; the DE is the standard Aramaic equivalent of the Yehudit HA, which is the definite article. The Masoretic pointer has placed a Chirik (a single dot) under the Lamed (ל), but I wonder if that shouldn't have been a Patach (a flat line) - LAILAH rather than LIYLAH. I have transliterated her as the full DELIYLAH on this occasion, but intend to revert to the customary DELILAH from now on, as I believe this was the original, and correct, form.
16:5 VA YA'ALU ELEYHA SARNEY PHELISHTIM VA YOMRU LAH PATI OTO U RE'I BA MEH KOCHO GADOL U VA MEH NUCHAL LO VA ASARNUHU LE ANOTO VA ANACHNU NITAN LACH ISH ELEPH U ME'AH KASEPH
וַיַּעֲלוּ אֵלֶיהָ סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָהּ פַּתִּי אֹותֹו וּרְאִי בַּמֶּה כֹּחֹו גָדֹול וּבַמֶּה נוּכַל לֹו וַאֲסַרְנֻהוּ לְעַנֹּתֹו וַאֲנַחְנוּ נִתַּן לָךְ אִישׁ אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה כָּסֶף
BN: And the lords of the Pelishtim came to her, and said to her: "Entice him, and find out where his great strength lies, and by what means we might prevail against him, to bind him, so that we can afflict him; and every one of us will give you eleven hundred pieces of silver."
SARNEY: Why is it not SAREY (שרי), and with a Seen (ש) not a Samech (ס)? Again the Samech is probably the indicator of a foreign word, and in this case likely a word from the language of the Pelishtim, a suggestion first made by Gesenius, who noted, entirely correctly, that SARNEY is only ever used in the Tanach in relation to the lords of the Pelishtim (Joshua 13:3, Judges 3:3, 1 Samuel 6:4 and 29:6 - this latter has the variant SERANIM - and here).
"Entice him" and "bind him" repeat both of the earlier tales (14:15 and 15:10), as is only right, because each month repeats each other. The vocabulary is also the same. PATI... suggests a PITARON (פתרון), which is the "solution" to a riddle. Does "entice" and "great strength" also include a sexual innuendo?
If this were not a mythological tale, we would wonder about a woman who could be so despicable as to sell the man she loves for cash (although Av-Raham and Yitschak both did the same with their wives). More interesting though is the amount offered. Why eleven hundred? And how many men? Eleven hundred in Yehudit is Eleph Me'ah (אלף מאה), and the Eleph roots in Aleph, which is also the word for an antelope-ox - the same Eleph that Shimshon killed in the episode of the lion in the first of his labours (Judges 15:15). Yet one more coincidence?
16:6 VA TOMER DELILAH EL SHIMSHON HAGIYDAH NA LI BA MEH KOCHACHA GADOL U VA MEH TE'ASER LE ANOTEYCHA
KJ: And Delilah said to Samson, Tell me, I pray thee, wherein thy great strength lieth, and wherewith thou mightest be bound to afflict thee.
SARNEY: Why is it not SAREY (שרי), and with a Seen (ש) not a Samech (ס)? Again the Samech is probably the indicator of a foreign word, and in this case likely a word from the language of the Pelishtim, a suggestion first made by Gesenius, who noted, entirely correctly, that SARNEY is only ever used in the Tanach in relation to the lords of the Pelishtim (Joshua 13:3, Judges 3:3, 1 Samuel 6:4 and 29:6 - this latter has the variant SERANIM - and here).
"Entice him" and "bind him" repeat both of the earlier tales (14:15 and 15:10), as is only right, because each month repeats each other. The vocabulary is also the same. PATI... suggests a PITARON (פתרון), which is the "solution" to a riddle. Does "entice" and "great strength" also include a sexual innuendo?
If this were not a mythological tale, we would wonder about a woman who could be so despicable as to sell the man she loves for cash (although Av-Raham and Yitschak both did the same with their wives). More interesting though is the amount offered. Why eleven hundred? And how many men? Eleven hundred in Yehudit is Eleph Me'ah (אלף מאה), and the Eleph roots in Aleph, which is also the word for an antelope-ox - the same Eleph that Shimshon killed in the episode of the lion in the first of his labours (Judges 15:15). Yet one more coincidence?
16:6 VA TOMER DELILAH EL SHIMSHON HAGIYDAH NA LI BA MEH KOCHACHA GADOL U VA MEH TE'ASER LE ANOTEYCHA
וַתֹּאמֶר דְּלִילָה אֶל שִׁמְשֹׁון הַגִּידָה נָּא לִי בַּמֶּה כֹּחֲךָ גָדֹול וּבַמֶּה תֵאָסֵר לְעַנֹּותֶךָ
BN: And Delilah said to Shimshon, "Tell me, I beg you, where does your great strength lie, and how might someone bind you, to afflict you?"
The way she asks is simply absurd, unless she is inviting him to some kind of sado-masochistic bondage activity; she might try to wile it out of him, but to ask him directly like this? This can only be liturgical or allegorical.
Each of the three tales (the three versions of what is really the same tale) has details that are missing; each of those details can be found in the other two.
KJ: And Samson said unto her, If they bind me with seven green withs that were never dried, then shall I be weak, and be as another man.
The way she asks is simply absurd, unless she is inviting him to some kind of sado-masochistic bondage activity; she might try to wile it out of him, but to ask him directly like this? This can only be liturgical or allegorical.
Each of the three tales (the three versions of what is really the same tale) has details that are missing; each of those details can be found in the other two.
16:7 VA YOMER ELEYHA SHIMSHON IM YA'ASRUNI BE SHIV'AH YETARIM LACHIM ASHER LO CHORAVU VE CHALIYTI VE HAYIYTI KE ECHAD HA ADAM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ שִׁמְשֹׁון אִם יַאַסְרֻנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה יְתָרִים לַחִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא חֹרָבוּ וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּאַחַד הָאָדָם
BN: And Shimshon said to her, "If they bind me with seven green withs that have never been dried, then I shall be as weak as any other man".
Is he simply toying with her? Or is this dramatic irony? Note that he says "they" and not "you", because he knows what lies behind her question.
In the previous version, they wanted her to find out the solution to his riddle; on this occasion he answers with the riddle.
Note the number seven; note the connection to vegetation - the sun-hero is always the vegetation god, and the number seven. Why? Because Zayin - ז - in Yehudit is both the number 7 and the penis, so here is one answer to their question, and the first solution to the riddle, assuming that we accept the "sexual innuendo" option (and also an explanation of why, in some ancient cultures, the priest-king was immolated by castration, rather than merely laming his heel - as with Achilles, Oedipus and Ya'akov, or binding his toes, as with the Japanese geisha).
YETARIM: There is YETER which means "remainder", and there is YETER which is the root of YITRO, Mosheh's father-in-law, but probably neither of these are the YETER in use here (I used to play a homophone-based spelling game with my KS3 class, where I gave them a word to spell, and whatever answer they came up with, it was always wrong: YOUR, YORE, YAW, YOU'RE, URE for example, THERE, THEIR, THARE and THEY'RE; every language has dozens of these)...
YETARIM in Psalm 11:2 are the strings of a bow; in Job 30:11 a horse's bridle, in Isaiah 38:12 the cords that hold up a tent. Strong anyway, by whatever definition; the root in this case means "hanging over", which probably is the same as "remainder", if you think about it: but the only tree capable of producing vegetation from which strong bridles or bows could be made is the weeping willow, which I presume is why KJ offers "withs" as its translation. The weeping willow, like the weeping oak, is associated with burial sites and graveyards; so we can begin to decipher the second part of his riddle too - see my note on CHAMOR at the end of the last chapter.
Nevertheless, by going along with her (by pretending to go along with her, as we shall see), he is collaborating with his binding - because it is part of his role, like Jesus being crucified, that he has to be bound and killed in order to be reborn, each day, each month, each week, each year.
Can we deduce which month each version of the tale belongs to, from the precise detail that each includes: "green withs that were never dried" for example? The withs have to have been cut, for drying to be an option. When did that take place? (Try here for a possible answer).
Oh, and one last thing, picking up the Psalmic reference above, and many thanks to Paul Kendall, the author of my link to "weeping willow". In Greek mythology the willow Muse was called Heliconian, after Helice (really Heliké), and was sacred to poets. Orpheus carried willow branches with him when he went down into the Underworld - and Orpheus, as we have seen repeatedly in these texts, is a variation of King David, and they share a star, the Oreph (Vega) in constellation Lyra. Orpheus was given his lyre by Apollo, and it may be pure coincidence that until modern times, and the introduction of industrial technology, the sound boxes of harps were always carved from solid willow wood.
And if you still don't believe me, look at Psalm 137:
By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down,
Yea, we wept,
When we remembered Zion.
Upon the willows in the midst thereof
We hung up our harps,
for there they who led us captive required of us songs.
So now, I believe, we have the full PITARON, the full "solution" to Shimshon's riddle, and we at least only had to journey through the metaphorical underworld of exile to obtain it.
16:8 VA YA'ALU LA SARNEY PHELISHTIM SHIV'AH YETARIM LACHIM ASHER LO CHORAVU VA TA'ASREHU BA HEM
KJ: Then the lords of the Philistines brought up to her seven green withs which had not been dried, and she bound him with them.
Is he simply toying with her? Or is this dramatic irony? Note that he says "they" and not "you", because he knows what lies behind her question.
In the previous version, they wanted her to find out the solution to his riddle; on this occasion he answers with the riddle.
Note the number seven; note the connection to vegetation - the sun-hero is always the vegetation god, and the number seven. Why? Because Zayin - ז - in Yehudit is both the number 7 and the penis, so here is one answer to their question, and the first solution to the riddle, assuming that we accept the "sexual innuendo" option (and also an explanation of why, in some ancient cultures, the priest-king was immolated by castration, rather than merely laming his heel - as with Achilles, Oedipus and Ya'akov, or binding his toes, as with the Japanese geisha).
YETARIM: There is YETER which means "remainder", and there is YETER which is the root of YITRO, Mosheh's father-in-law, but probably neither of these are the YETER in use here (I used to play a homophone-based spelling game with my KS3 class, where I gave them a word to spell, and whatever answer they came up with, it was always wrong: YOUR, YORE, YAW, YOU'RE, URE for example, THERE, THEIR, THARE and THEY'RE; every language has dozens of these)...
YETARIM in Psalm 11:2 are the strings of a bow; in Job 30:11 a horse's bridle, in Isaiah 38:12 the cords that hold up a tent. Strong anyway, by whatever definition; the root in this case means "hanging over", which probably is the same as "remainder", if you think about it: but the only tree capable of producing vegetation from which strong bridles or bows could be made is the weeping willow, which I presume is why KJ offers "withs" as its translation. The weeping willow, like the weeping oak, is associated with burial sites and graveyards; so we can begin to decipher the second part of his riddle too - see my note on CHAMOR at the end of the last chapter.
Nevertheless, by going along with her (by pretending to go along with her, as we shall see), he is collaborating with his binding - because it is part of his role, like Jesus being crucified, that he has to be bound and killed in order to be reborn, each day, each month, each week, each year.
Can we deduce which month each version of the tale belongs to, from the precise detail that each includes: "green withs that were never dried" for example? The withs have to have been cut, for drying to be an option. When did that take place? (Try here for a possible answer).
Oh, and one last thing, picking up the Psalmic reference above, and many thanks to Paul Kendall, the author of my link to "weeping willow". In Greek mythology the willow Muse was called Heliconian, after Helice (really Heliké), and was sacred to poets. Orpheus carried willow branches with him when he went down into the Underworld - and Orpheus, as we have seen repeatedly in these texts, is a variation of King David, and they share a star, the Oreph (Vega) in constellation Lyra. Orpheus was given his lyre by Apollo, and it may be pure coincidence that until modern times, and the introduction of industrial technology, the sound boxes of harps were always carved from solid willow wood.
And if you still don't believe me, look at Psalm 137:
By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down,
Yea, we wept,
When we remembered Zion.
Upon the willows in the midst thereof
We hung up our harps,
for there they who led us captive required of us songs.
So now, I believe, we have the full PITARON, the full "solution" to Shimshon's riddle, and we at least only had to journey through the metaphorical underworld of exile to obtain it.
16:8 VA YA'ALU LA SARNEY PHELISHTIM SHIV'AH YETARIM LACHIM ASHER LO CHORAVU VA TA'ASREHU BA HEM
וַיַּעֲלוּ לָהּ סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים שִׁבְעָה יְתָרִים לַחִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא חֹרָבוּ וַתַּאַסְרֵהוּ בָּהֶם
BN: Then the lords of the Pelishtim brought up to her seven green withs which had not been dried, and she bound him with them.
YA'ALU: It's almost like watching a seesaw in motion: YARAD-ALAH-YARAD-ALAH, he comes up and goes down, she goes up and comes down, and now they go up to her so that she can go down to him...
YA'ALU: It's almost like watching a seesaw in motion: YARAD-ALAH-YARAD-ALAH, he comes up and goes down, she goes up and comes down, and now they go up to her so that she can go down to him...
LO CHORAVU: Double-pun on this occasion. These are still in their natural state, as was the jawbone in Judges 15:15; TERIYAH there, LO CHORAVU here, so there is a distinction, and it may be because one is vegetation and the other bone, or it may be because CHORAVU is the root of both CHOREV, Mount Horeb in its English pronunciation, and CHEREV, which is not just a sword, but very famously the swastika (the Persian fire-wheel) in its manifestation as the "flaming sword" of Genesis 3:24. Realms of holiness in both cases.
TA'ASREHU: She can only do this if he permits it. His strength would be too much if he did not. Or she does it at night, when he has no power and she has all the power.
Am I alone in hearing distant echoes of Yoseph responding to Pharaoh's dreams in these verses? More on that later in the chapter.
The other echo that I cannot resist pointing out is the second verse of Leonard Cohen's "Halleluyah", which plays with Psalmic references, and Davidic references, throughout, but also includes Shimshon and Delilah: "she tied you to her kitchen chair, she broke your throne, she cut your hair..." More on that later in the chapter too.
And one last question: how many thorns were there, on the crown the Roman soldiers put on Jesus?
16:9 VE HA OREV YOSHEV LAH BA CHEDER VA TOMER ELAV PELISHTIM ALEYCHA SHIMSHON VA YENATEK ET HA YETARIM KA ASHER YINATEK PETIL HA NE'ORET BA HARIYCHO ESH VE LO NOD'A KOCHO
וְהָאֹרֵב יֹשֵׁב לָהּ בַּחֶדֶר וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשֹׁון וַיְנַתֵּק אֶת הַיְתָרִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יִנָּתֵק פְּתִיל הַנְּעֹרֶת בַּהֲרִיחֹו אֵשׁ וְלֹא נֹודַע כֹּחֹו
BN: Now there were men lying in wait, secreted away with her in the chamber. And she said to him: "The Pelishtim are upon you, Shimshon". And he broke the withs, as a thread of tow is broken when it touches the fire. So his strength was not known.
OREV: "Liers-in-wait", yes, but the word is continually played with in these pages: cf Joshua 8 for multiple uses, Judges 7:25 for a man named Orev, and the link on his name for further background. It is the Yehudit word for "a raven" or "a crow" (Ted Hughes has some fascinating things to say about her; click here for a good starting-point), which are sacred birds, connected to the mother-goddess in her role as female ruler of the darkness in the Underworld: the raven is key to the tale of No'ach in Genesis 6-9 (and of course the tale of No'ach is really a mythological account of the daily journey of the sun across the heavens); crows tend to hang around in trees, looking for potential prey, which presumably is why the name is attached to people setting up an ambush, or spying. But there is also a homophone in play here. Orev has an Aleph (ארב), but Erev has an Ayin (ערב) - Erev being the evening, that mid-way point between his waning power and hers not yet fully waxed.
Having seen his woman do the deed of betrayal quite this blatantly, he should logically abandon her now, as he did on the previous occasion. That he does not confirms the mythological tale.
OREV: "Liers-in-wait", yes, but the word is continually played with in these pages: cf Joshua 8 for multiple uses, Judges 7:25 for a man named Orev, and the link on his name for further background. It is the Yehudit word for "a raven" or "a crow" (Ted Hughes has some fascinating things to say about her; click here for a good starting-point), which are sacred birds, connected to the mother-goddess in her role as female ruler of the darkness in the Underworld: the raven is key to the tale of No'ach in Genesis 6-9 (and of course the tale of No'ach is really a mythological account of the daily journey of the sun across the heavens); crows tend to hang around in trees, looking for potential prey, which presumably is why the name is attached to people setting up an ambush, or spying. But there is also a homophone in play here. Orev has an Aleph (ארב), but Erev has an Ayin (ערב) - Erev being the evening, that mid-way point between his waning power and hers not yet fully waxed.
Having seen his woman do the deed of betrayal quite this blatantly, he should logically abandon her now, as he did on the previous occasion. That he does not confirms the mythological tale.
Should we then read the OREVIM as the stars, lying in wait in the darkness of the night, surrounding her in her bedchamber?
16:10 VA TOMER DELILAH EL SHIMSHON HINEH HETALTA BI VA TEDABER ELAY KEZAVIM ATAH HAGIYDAH NA LI BA MEH TE'ASER
KJ: And Delilah said unto Samson, Behold, thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: now tell me, I pray thee, wherewith thou mightest be bound.
16:10 VA TOMER DELILAH EL SHIMSHON HINEH HETALTA BI VA TEDABER ELAY KEZAVIM ATAH HAGIYDAH NA LI BA MEH TE'ASER
וַתֹּאמֶר דְּלִילָה אֶל שִׁמְשֹׁון הִנֵּה הֵתַלְתָּ בִּי וַתְּדַבֵּר אֵלַי כְּזָבִים עַתָּה הַגִּידָה נָּא לִי בַּמֶּה תֵּאָסֵר
BN: And Delilah said to Shimshon: "Behold, you have mocked me, and told me lies. Now, please, tell me, how might you be bound."
He may have mocked her, but in real life a man would not stay too long with a woman who sought out his "Achilles Heel", told his enemies, conspired with them to destroy him, and then complained that he had lied to save himself. Clearly we are not in the territory of normal marriage (feel free to add your own addendum to that sentence). This is the war of the sun and the moon to rule the universe. (Though, of course, that is also true of some marriages.)
KJ: And he said unto her, If they bind me fast with new ropes that never were occupied, then shall I be weak, and be as another man.
He may have mocked her, but in real life a man would not stay too long with a woman who sought out his "Achilles Heel", told his enemies, conspired with them to destroy him, and then complained that he had lied to save himself. Clearly we are not in the territory of normal marriage (feel free to add your own addendum to that sentence). This is the war of the sun and the moon to rule the universe. (Though, of course, that is also true of some marriages.)
16:11 VA YOMER ELEYHA IM ASUR YA'ASRUNI BA AVOTIM CHADASHIM ASHER LO NA'ASAH VA HEM MELA'CHAH VE CHALIYTI VE HAYIYTI KE ACHAD HA ADAM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אִם אָסֹור יַאַסְרוּנִי בַּעֲבֹתִים חֲדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לֹא נַעֲשָׂה בָהֶם מְלָאכָה וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּאַחַד הָאָדָם
BN: And he said to her: "If they bind me tight, with new ropes that have never been used, then I shall be as weak as any ordinary man".
AVOTIM: The YETARIM in verse 7 were the foliage of the weeping willow; AVOTIM can be any tree whose foliage is thick enough that it can be intertwined (cf Leviticus 23:40, Ezekiel 6:13 and 20:28) for the making of ropes (Psalm 2:3), or wreaths (Exodus 28:14).
As the green withs had to be undried, so the ropes have to be unused; newness, and/or perhaps his renewal, are central to this myth (though it also insinuates that things must be in their natural state, not human-modified: the same law that applies when only unhewn stones may be used to buld the Temple; the same principle that applies to milk and honey). But these are stronger than the YETARIM: those were fresh foliage, these are the ropes made by intertwining the thick branches, which would be done in the early spring when the new branches were still full of sap. So we can follow the passage of the solar year through the very choice of images.
MELA'CHAH: Odd choice of word, and not even clear what it means here, though the context suggests "usage"; but this is the same word as MAL'ACH - "messenger" or "angel"; and yes, also the same word as MELA'CHAH, which refers to the thirty-nine actions prohibited on the Sabbath.
AVOTIM: The YETARIM in verse 7 were the foliage of the weeping willow; AVOTIM can be any tree whose foliage is thick enough that it can be intertwined (cf Leviticus 23:40, Ezekiel 6:13 and 20:28) for the making of ropes (Psalm 2:3), or wreaths (Exodus 28:14).
As the green withs had to be undried, so the ropes have to be unused; newness, and/or perhaps his renewal, are central to this myth (though it also insinuates that things must be in their natural state, not human-modified: the same law that applies when only unhewn stones may be used to buld the Temple; the same principle that applies to milk and honey). But these are stronger than the YETARIM: those were fresh foliage, these are the ropes made by intertwining the thick branches, which would be done in the early spring when the new branches were still full of sap. So we can follow the passage of the solar year through the very choice of images.
MELA'CHAH: Odd choice of word, and not even clear what it means here, though the context suggests "usage"; but this is the same word as MAL'ACH - "messenger" or "angel"; and yes, also the same word as MELA'CHAH, which refers to the thirty-nine actions prohibited on the Sabbath.
KE ACHAD HA ADAM: And this is even odder, because literally it means "like one of the humans", with the inference that he is not - and we know that he is not, that he is at the very least a Titan, or some other manifestation of the deity (but not a Mal'ach in the sense of "angel"). However, the story presents him as though he were a mere human, and this rather gives away the game.
16:12 VA TIKACH DELILAH AVOTIM CHADASHIM VA TA'ASREHU VA HEM VA TOMER ELAV PELISHTIM ALEYCHA SHIMSHON VE HA OREV YOSHEV BE CHADER VA YENATKEM ME AL ZERO'OTAV KA CHUT
וַתִּקַּח דְּלִילָה עֲבֹתִים חֲדָשִׁים וַתַּאַסְרֵהוּ בָהֶם וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשֹׁון וְהָאֹרֵב יֹשֵׁב בֶּחָדֶר וַיְנַתְּקֵם מֵעַל זְרֹעֹתָיו כַּחוּט
BN: So Delilah took new ropes, and bound him with them, and said to him: "The Pelishtim are upon you, Shimshon". And there were liers in wait hiding in the bedchamber. And he broke them from off his arms like a thread.
Are we acting a play, like a Nativity, or a pantomime? Very likely we are - doing the Purimspiel equivalent in the shrine. But which shrine, his or hers? We can imagine the little kids cheering and hollering every time he offers her a false explanation, winking at the kids as he does so, making funny gestures behind her back; and bad-guys dressed as crows hiding in the cupboard, getting booed every time they make an appearance; and then Shimshon's expression while he is letting himself be tied, and the cheers of the children as he frees himself. How would you paint the stage background? A sun and moon and twelve stars obviously.
Are we acting a play, like a Nativity, or a pantomime? Very likely we are - doing the Purimspiel equivalent in the shrine. But which shrine, his or hers? We can imagine the little kids cheering and hollering every time he offers her a false explanation, winking at the kids as he does so, making funny gestures behind her back; and bad-guys dressed as crows hiding in the cupboard, getting booed every time they make an appearance; and then Shimshon's expression while he is letting himself be tied, and the cheers of the children as he frees himself. How would you paint the stage background? A sun and moon and twelve stars obviously.
ZERO'OTAV: Does not mean really "arms", though it could mean "branches", which would make him too a tree: the story of Shimshon as the aetiology of some ancient oak or willow tree that has survived lightning, earthquake, tempest, storm and centuries: why not? ZER'A (זרע) is a seed, and verbs formed from that root include "spreading seed", as in sewing a field; this is probably how it came to be a ZERET (זרת), which is to say a "span", a measurable distance, the area over which something is spread (cf Exodus 28:16 and 39:9) like arms - though it should be pointed out that, if this is how it came about, it did so by spelling error, because there is an Ayin (ע) in Zer'a, but none in Zeret.
KA CHUT: Was an idiom, meaning "less than nothing", as we know from Genesis 14:23.
KJ: And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith thou mightest be bound. And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head with the web.
16:13 VA TOMER DELILAH EL SHIMSHON AD HENAH HETALTA BI VA TEDABER ELAY KEZAVIM HAGIYDAH LI BA MEH TE'ASER VA YOMER ELEYHA IM TA'ARGI ET SHEVA MACHLEPHOT RO'SHI IM HA MASACHET
וַתֹּאמֶר דְּלִילָה אֶל שִׁמְשֹׁון עַד הֵנָּה הֵתַלְתָּ בִּי וַתְּדַבֵּר אֵלַי כְּזָבִים הַגִּידָה לִּי בַּמֶּה תֵּאָסֵר וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אִם תַּאַרְגִי אֶת שֶׁבַע מַחְלְפֹות רֹאשִׁי עִם הַמַּסָּכֶת
BN: And Delilah said to Shimshon: "Up till now you have mocked me, and told me lies. Tell me with what you may be bound". And he said to her: "If you weave the seven locks of my head with the web".
MASACHET: "With a web" or "into a web"? This is even more complex than the Machlephot. There is MESUCHAH, which is a thorn-hedge (Micah 7:4), from the root SOCH, which would allow him to be playing with the withs and the ropes - and turning his dreadlocks thereby into a crown of thorns. No question that all this is intended. But there is also MESECH, which is wine mixed with spices (Psalm 75:9) - which goes with the razor-blade as the other prohibition of his Nazirut. That cannot be just coincidence either, in the context: he is inviting her, by riddle, to break his Nazirut vows. And then there is MASACH, from the root SACHACH, which is a covering or a veil (Exodus 26:36, 39:38, Isaiah 22:8) - remember we are trying to work out what this "web" might be, because its meaning is concealed, undisclosed, veiled behind a riddle. And finally there is MASECHAH, from the root NASACH, which is the casting of metal, and used many times for the making of images of the gods (Exodus 32:4, Deuteronomy 9:12, and in the very next chapter too, at Judges 17:3). Any one of these, or all of them.
TA'ARGI: In Job 7:6 he complains that his days "fly faster than a weaver's shuttle - יָמַ֣י קַ֭לּוּ מִנִּי אָ֑רֶג - YAMI KALU MINI AREG"; and both the weaving of spider webs and the plaiting of hair likewise derive from this root. This, I believe, is also the source of the complex wax-plaiting undertaken by many Ras Tafari, and known by them as "dreadlocks".
Seven locks, of course. We could have guessed that by now: the inevitable sacred number seven. What kind of a web though? (To which the answer is, of course, a world wide one - no, not that worldwideweb, silly! The cosmos itself.)
MACHLEPHOT: And even more word-games. In Judges 14:12 Shimshon offered "thirty changes of garment" alongside "thirty linen tunics" if they could solve his riddle, and those "thirty changes" were CHALIPHOT (חֲלִפֹת). The MACHLEPHOT here are from the same root, but in the Hiphil form, a very different configuration that is more about "interchanging" than "changing". Shimshon is a Nazir, and no razor may ever touch his head (Judges 13:5) - no contemporary audience could have failed to register that the instrument used to shave the head was a MACHALAPH (that contemporary audience knew the Yehudit that Ezra knew, and Ezra 1:9 is where we find the MACHALAPH with this meaning, though generally the MACHALAPH is the knife used by the Shochet for ritual slaughter). So the invitation to bind his hair prefigures her shaving of his "locks" in the next scene.
16:14 VA TITK'A BA YATED VA TOMER ELAV PELISHTIM ALEYCHA SHIMSHON VA YIYKATS MISHNATO VA YIS'A ET HA YETAD HA EREG VE ET HA MASACHET
וַתִּתְקַע בַּיָּתֵד וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשֹׁון וַיִּיקַץ מִשְּׁנָתֹו וַיִּסַּע אֶת הַיְתַד הָאֶרֶג וְאֶת הַמַּסָּכֶת
BN: And she fastened it with the pin, and said to him: "The Pelishtim have come for you, Shimshon". And he woke from his sleep, and went away with the pin of the beam, and with the web.
Delilah's role is pantomime too; each time she has the same line, which again the kids will adore - "Look out, Shimshon, the bad guys are coming."
And again, his binding is at night. He is powerless at night. If she only realised who he was, she would not need all these silly mockeries. She can do as she pleases with him by night (or maybe she is!).
But wait a moment. That YATED? We have come across somebody with a Yated once before, at night too, a woman with a man in her sleeping quarters who isn't her husband, and looking for an opportunity to do him harm. Ya-El and Siysra, Judges 4:21 to be precise. Is it just coincidence?
Delilah has no wish to kill him though, so she isn't going to drive the tent-pin through his head. But into what is she going to drive it. We are told in this verse that the pin belongs to the EREG, which is the same word that we encountered as TA'ARGI in verse 13, and we still don't really know what that is. I have gone for "loom", but with reservations.
KJ: And she said unto him, How canst thou say, I love thee, when thine heart is not with me? thou hast mocked me these three times, and hast not told me wherein thy great strength lieth.
Delilah's role is pantomime too; each time she has the same line, which again the kids will adore - "Look out, Shimshon, the bad guys are coming."
And again, his binding is at night. He is powerless at night. If she only realised who he was, she would not need all these silly mockeries. She can do as she pleases with him by night (or maybe she is!).
But wait a moment. That YATED? We have come across somebody with a Yated once before, at night too, a woman with a man in her sleeping quarters who isn't her husband, and looking for an opportunity to do him harm. Ya-El and Siysra, Judges 4:21 to be precise. Is it just coincidence?
Delilah has no wish to kill him though, so she isn't going to drive the tent-pin through his head. But into what is she going to drive it. We are told in this verse that the pin belongs to the EREG, which is the same word that we encountered as TA'ARGI in verse 13, and we still don't really know what that is. I have gone for "loom", but with reservations.
16:15 VA TOMER ELAV EYCH TOMAR AHAVTIYCH VE LIB'CHA EYN ITI ZEH SHALOSH PE'AMIM HETALTA BI VE LO HIGADETA LI BA MEH KOCHACHA GADOL
וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֵיךְ תֹּאמַר אֲהַבְתִּיךְ וְלִבְּךָ אֵין אִתִּי זֶה שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים הֵתַלְתָּ בִּי וְלֹא הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי בַּמֶּה כֹּחֲךָ גָדֹול
BN: And she said to him: "How can you say 'I love you' when your heart is not with me? You have mocked me these three times, and have not told me wherein your great strength lies".
Three times. Yes, we could have guessed that number too: a) ropes, in Judges 15:9-13; b) withs at the start of this chapter; c) his own hair now. Any tapes of cock-crow available for some background noises? Maybe she should offer him a glass of wine - no, he's a Nazir, he can't drink wine; but she could put some vinegar on a sponge and force him to drink it. No, that's prohibited too; see my note below (and the mention of the crown of thorns, above).
And the accusation that he doesn't love her repeats the accusation by his first father-in-law (Judges 15:2).
KJ: And it came to pass, when she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death
Three times. Yes, we could have guessed that number too: a) ropes, in Judges 15:9-13; b) withs at the start of this chapter; c) his own hair now. Any tapes of cock-crow available for some background noises? Maybe she should offer him a glass of wine - no, he's a Nazir, he can't drink wine; but she could put some vinegar on a sponge and force him to drink it. No, that's prohibited too; see my note below (and the mention of the crown of thorns, above).
And the accusation that he doesn't love her repeats the accusation by his first father-in-law (Judges 15:2).
16:16 VA YEHI KI HETSIYKAH LO VIDVAREYHA KOL HA YAMIM VA TE'ALATSEHU VA TIKTSAR NAPHSHO LAMUT
וַיְהִי כִּי הֵצִיקָה לֹּו בִדְבָרֶיהָ כָּל הַיָּמִים וַתְּאַלֲצֵהוּ וַתִּקְצַר נַפְשֹׁו לָמוּת
BN: And it came to pass, when she went on and on, day after day, the same words, urging him, until he was sick to death of her nagging...
Is the irony of "unto death" intentional? What the text actually says, grammatically, is "to the point of wanting to die" - is that a prefiguration of his final act, which presumably takes place on the last day of the old year?
Is the irony of "unto death" intentional? What the text actually says, grammatically, is "to the point of wanting to die" - is that a prefiguration of his final act, which presumably takes place on the last day of the old year?
16:17 VA YAGED LAH ET KOL LIBO VA YOMER LAH MORAH LO ALAH AL RO'SHI KI NEZIR ELOHIM ANI MI BETEN IMI IM GULACHTI VE SAR MIMENI KOCHI VE CHALIYTI VE HAYIYTI KE CHOL HA ADAM
וַיַּגֶּד לָהּ אֶת כָּל לִבֹּו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מֹורָה לֹא עָלָה עַל רֹאשִׁי כִּי נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי אִם גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּכָל הָאָדָם
BN: ...that he told her all his heart, and said to her: "There has never been so much as a razor on my head; for I have been a Nazirite to Elohim from my mother's womb: if I am shaved, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become as weak as any other man."
The Nazirite laws (remember the "angel's" instructions in 13:4) require a man to abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes and raisins - we have seen all the vineyard references above, and the rejection of the Bacchic and the Dionysic, alongside the feminine fertility cults, will be the mainstay of Prophetic abhorrence in later Yisra-El. He must also refrain from cutting his hair, and avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members. The period of Nazirut ended with immersion in the mikveh (ritual bath) - which may be what was happening at Ayn Ha Kor'e (see Judges 15:19) - and the making of sacrifices: a lamb as an olah or kurban (burnt offering), a ewe as a chatat (sin-offering), and a ram as a shelamim (peace offering), in addition to a basket of unleavened bread, grain offerings and drink offerings, to accompany the peace offering. Numbers 6:8 tells us that a Nazir is "holy to YHVH", holy meaning "separate". Particularly interesting here is the law given in Leviticus 14, which states that a Nazir recovering from leprosy (tsar'at) must cut his hair (see my note to Judges 13:2).
The Nazirite laws (remember the "angel's" instructions in 13:4) require a man to abstain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes and raisins - we have seen all the vineyard references above, and the rejection of the Bacchic and the Dionysic, alongside the feminine fertility cults, will be the mainstay of Prophetic abhorrence in later Yisra-El. He must also refrain from cutting his hair, and avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members. The period of Nazirut ended with immersion in the mikveh (ritual bath) - which may be what was happening at Ayn Ha Kor'e (see Judges 15:19) - and the making of sacrifices: a lamb as an olah or kurban (burnt offering), a ewe as a chatat (sin-offering), and a ram as a shelamim (peace offering), in addition to a basket of unleavened bread, grain offerings and drink offerings, to accompany the peace offering. Numbers 6:8 tells us that a Nazir is "holy to YHVH", holy meaning "separate". Particularly interesting here is the law given in Leviticus 14, which states that a Nazir recovering from leprosy (tsar'at) must cut his hair (see my note to Judges 13:2).
However all this is problematic, because the laws of the Nazir are not recorded until the time of Mishnah, completed around 200 CE by Yehudah ha-Nasi; and specifically in the tractate Nazir. Although the laws appear in the Torah (Numbers 6:1-21 and elsewhere), it is likely that they were appended to give them retroactive validation, and that in fact the original laws applied not to sinners, but to the priests of the sun-cult, which was Shimshon (Samson) or Tammuz, in the same way that Christian monks were required to shave their heads to make a tonsure and likewise abstain from alcohol.
KJ: And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Philistines, saying, Come up this once, for he hath shewed me all his heart. Then the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and brought money in their hand.
Note also that the solution was indeed his hair, as in the third version; but that what works is not binding it, but shaving it.
16:18 VA TER'E DELILAH KI HIGID LAH ET KOL LIBO VA TISHLACH VA TIKR'A LE SARNEY PHELISHTIM LEMOR ALU HA PA'AM KI HIGID LI ET KOL LIBO VE ALU ELEYHA SARNEY PHELISHTIM VA YA'ALU HA KESEPH BE YADAM
וַתֵּרֶא דְּלִילָה כִּי הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת כָּל לִבֹּו וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתִּקְרָא לְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ הַפַּעַם כִּי הִגִּיד [לָהּ כ] (לִי ק) אֶת כָּל לִבֹּו וְעָלוּ אֵלֶיהָ סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּעֲלוּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדָם
BN: And when Delilah saw that he had told her all his heart, she sent and called for the lords of the Pelishtim, saying, "Come up one more time, for he has shown me all his heart". Then the lords of the Pelishtim came up to her, and brought money in their hand.
ALU: Come up.
ALU: Come up.
KESEPH: Thirty pieces of silver, like Judas? KESEPH is silver, where ZAHAV (זהב) is gold - silver being the moon's colour, gold the sun's. As to the amount, see verse 5, and then work out how many multiples of eleven hundred you need to get a multiple of 30 (don't waste your time, we are in the complex realm of primes - and isn't it fascinating to discover that they knew about them so long ago). But, being the moon, thirty is her number, and the sun-hero has to be sacrificed for the world to continue in its proper path. Judas Iscariot, incidentally is really Yehudah Ish ha-Kerayot, and Kerayot is another variant on those several terms for "habitation" that have recurred throughout these tales (Zevul at 9:28, Me'onenim at 9:37); "stadtl-Jew" would get translated into Yehudit as Yehudah ish ha-Kerayot. I mention it only because so much of this tale reflects the Jesuitic, including the act of betrayal as a necessary, and therefore a holy act. But at the same time no sacrifice is kosher if the victim goes unwillingly; here Shimshon clearly knows what is going on, plays with it even, before giving away consciously the means of betrayal; so his willingness is confirmed and his sacrifice is kosher. In the same way Jesus knows, and tells Judas to go do what he must do.
LEV: As with the Shem'a, the heart is not simply the seat of passion and subjective thought, but the locus of reason and logic and intelligence as well: so telling her all his heart is telling her everything he knows. In the Shem'a, Yisra-El is instructed to "love YHVH your god 'be chol levavecha' - with all your heart", as well as "with all your soul (naphsecha) and all your strength (me'odecha)" - the triplet being thus, in modern terms, mind, spirit and body.
 |
| José Salomé Pina, "Samshon and Delilah" 1851 |
וַתְּיַשְּׁנֵהוּ עַל בִּרְכֶּיהָ וַתִּקְרָא לָאִישׁ וַתְּגַלַּח אֶת שֶׁבַע מַחְלְפֹות רֹאשֹׁו וַתָּחֶל לְעַנֹּותֹו וַיָּסַר כֹּחֹו מֵעָלָיו
BN: And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she had him shave off the seven locks of his hair; and she began to torment him, and his strength went from him.
BIRKEYHA: As with LEV in the previous verse, our translation needs to convey the cultural context as well as the meaning; and even the meaning here is complex. BERECH is a knee, so this is definitely on her knees. And it is on our knees that we offer up prayers and make petitions to the deity, and also on our knees that we pronounce blessings, which is why a blessing in Yehudit is a BERUCHAH. So, yes, he is cuddling her knees in sleep; but he is also worshipping her, or at least yielding to her divine authority. It is she who rules at this night-time moment. And mythologically, can we read this as being what the sun does when it sets at night, every night, every last one of its light-giving and warmth-giving rays shaved off, and the cold, hard rock of moon, supreme controller of the only light that he has left, "afflicting" us by afflicting him?
Though what actually she means by "afflicting" him needs more consideration (see my very last note at the end of verse 21). She is not a night demon after all, so she is unlikely to be giving him bad dreams? The same word is used in the Yom Kippur liturgy, derived from Leviticus 16:29/30:
BIRKEYHA: As with LEV in the previous verse, our translation needs to convey the cultural context as well as the meaning; and even the meaning here is complex. BERECH is a knee, so this is definitely on her knees. And it is on our knees that we offer up prayers and make petitions to the deity, and also on our knees that we pronounce blessings, which is why a blessing in Yehudit is a BERUCHAH. So, yes, he is cuddling her knees in sleep; but he is also worshipping her, or at least yielding to her divine authority. It is she who rules at this night-time moment. And mythologically, can we read this as being what the sun does when it sets at night, every night, every last one of its light-giving and warmth-giving rays shaved off, and the cold, hard rock of moon, supreme controller of the only light that he has left, "afflicting" us by afflicting him?
Though what actually she means by "afflicting" him needs more consideration (see my very last note at the end of verse 21). She is not a night demon after all, so she is unlikely to be giving him bad dreams? The same word is used in the Yom Kippur liturgy, derived from Leviticus 16:29/30:
And this is an eternal statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and refrain from undertaking any kind of work, both the home-born and the stranger who is living among you. For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before YHVH.
It is also the key term used by Yesha-Yah when he complains about the insincerity of atonement (Isaiah 58:3):
"Why," they asked, "have we fasted, and you do not see it? Why have we afflicted our souls, and you do not acknowledge it?" Because, on the same day that you are fasting, you are also running your business, and carrying out your usual work.Yom Kippur, done properly, an as act of Nazirut!
16:20 VA TOMER PELISHTIM ALEYCHA SHIMSHON VA YIKATS MISHNATO VA YOMER ETS'E KE PHA'AM BE PHA'AM VE INA'ER VE HU LO YAD'A KI YHVH SAR ME ALAV
וַתֹּאמֶר פְּלִשְׁתִּים עָלֶיךָ שִׁמְשֹׁון וַיִּקַץ מִשְּׁנָתֹו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵצֵא כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם וְאִנָּעֵר וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע כִּי יְהוָה סָר מֵעָלָיו
BN: And she said, "The Pelishtim are upon you, Shimshon". And he woke from of his sleep, and said: "I shall go out now, as I always do at this time, and shake myself". And he did not know that YHVH had departed from him.
INA'ER: Why does he "shake himself" (I hope the French translation of that does not use "branler")? See my note to ZERO'OTAV at verse 12.
VE HU LO YAD'A: This last phrase is an addition for story-telling effect by the Redactor. Of course he knew. His very phrasing implies that he knew, and that he was going along with her. As with Jesus, he understands that his "crucifixion" is necessary, in order to be able to achieve his "resurrection". So the sun dies every evening, and is reborn every morning; so the moon dies every morning and is reborn every night.
INA'ER: Why does he "shake himself" (I hope the French translation of that does not use "branler")? See my note to ZERO'OTAV at verse 12.
VE HU LO YAD'A: This last phrase is an addition for story-telling effect by the Redactor. Of course he knew. His very phrasing implies that he knew, and that he was going along with her. As with Jesus, he understands that his "crucifixion" is necessary, in order to be able to achieve his "resurrection". So the sun dies every evening, and is reborn every morning; so the moon dies every morning and is reborn every night.
YHVH: Metaphorically it is indeed YHVH who has gone from him: YHVH, from the root that gives LEHIYOT= "to be", being the essence of the cosmos, its dynamic and kinetic pulse, its elements. But in any other sesne, it is not YHVH but his "strength" that has been drained out of him; YHVH is a Hebraisation by the Redactor.
16:21 VA YO'CHAZUHU PHELISHTIM VA YENAKRU ET EYNAV VA YORIYDU OTO AZATAH VA YA'ASRUHU BA NECHUSHTAYIM VA YEHI TOCHEN BE VEIT HA ASURIM
KJ: But the Philistines took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he did grind in the prison house.
16:21 VA YO'CHAZUHU PHELISHTIM VA YENAKRU ET EYNAV VA YORIYDU OTO AZATAH VA YA'ASRUHU BA NECHUSHTAYIM VA YEHI TOCHEN BE VEIT HA ASURIM
וַיֹּאחֲזוּהוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיְנַקְּרוּ אֶת עֵינָיו וַיֹּורִידוּ אֹותֹו עַזָּתָה וַיַּאַסְרוּהוּ בַּנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם וַיְהִי טֹוחֵן בְּבֵית [הָאֲסִירִים כ] (הָאֲסוּרִים
BN: But the Pelishtim took him, and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Azah, and bound him with fetters of brass; and he was made to grind in the prison house.
Taking out his eyes is not the same as what happened to Gloucester in King Lear. The sun's eye is the source of its strength (which is why the Eye of Horus and the Eye of Ra became such central symbols in the Egyptian world not a day's camel-ride from Azah). An Ayin (ע) in Yehudit means both "an eye" and "a spring of water". As in Ayn Ha Kor'e above. There is a link to be made with the Yevarechecha prayer: "May YHVH turn his face to shine on you."
YORIYDU: In the last verse they ALU, came up, to take him; now they take him down (the police do the same!), in his case to an underground prison, but anywhere away from the light of day would do, including the other side of the globe; but they didn't know that in those days.
His time in prison echoes that of Yoseph and is really a description of a period in She'ol, the Underworld, harrowing hell like Orpheus and Jesus and David in their various versions. As sun-god the hero has to be killed, then spends a period in the Underworld, and rises again to ascend into Heaven and take his place as a god (usually three days, the period of darkness betwen the waning of the old moon and the waxing of the new); the transition from human hero to divinity. Plucking out his eyes plunges him metaphorically into the darkness of the underworld. Shaving his hair is poetically the amputation of the sun's rays, but in ritual terms it also desecrates him as a Nazir. In fact, for a Nazir, the worst you can do is cut his hair or force alcohol down his throat; in the same way that Christian anti-Semites in mediaeval Europe forced Jews to shave off their side-curls, or to eat pork, and the Romans forced Jesus to drink vinegar (wine-extract) from a sponge.
NECHUSHTAYIM: Are indeed "fetters of brass", but remember that Mosheh's banner was named Nechushtan, a completely different branch from the same root, generating (yes, I am sure that is the verb I mean) the great serpent of the Underworld, Tiamat or Tahamat or Tehom in Genesis 1 - and it was that serpent who was bound to the Cosmic Egg, preventing it from hatching, until Marduk sliced it, or bifurcated it would be a better way of phrasing it, and in the dividing of its one cell into two enabled the Cosmic Egg to hatch, and thereby engendered Creation.
YORIYDU: In the last verse they ALU, came up, to take him; now they take him down (the police do the same!), in his case to an underground prison, but anywhere away from the light of day would do, including the other side of the globe; but they didn't know that in those days.
His time in prison echoes that of Yoseph and is really a description of a period in She'ol, the Underworld, harrowing hell like Orpheus and Jesus and David in their various versions. As sun-god the hero has to be killed, then spends a period in the Underworld, and rises again to ascend into Heaven and take his place as a god (usually three days, the period of darkness betwen the waning of the old moon and the waxing of the new); the transition from human hero to divinity. Plucking out his eyes plunges him metaphorically into the darkness of the underworld. Shaving his hair is poetically the amputation of the sun's rays, but in ritual terms it also desecrates him as a Nazir. In fact, for a Nazir, the worst you can do is cut his hair or force alcohol down his throat; in the same way that Christian anti-Semites in mediaeval Europe forced Jews to shave off their side-curls, or to eat pork, and the Romans forced Jesus to drink vinegar (wine-extract) from a sponge.
NECHUSHTAYIM: Are indeed "fetters of brass", but remember that Mosheh's banner was named Nechushtan, a completely different branch from the same root, generating (yes, I am sure that is the verb I mean) the great serpent of the Underworld, Tiamat or Tahamat or Tehom in Genesis 1 - and it was that serpent who was bound to the Cosmic Egg, preventing it from hatching, until Marduk sliced it, or bifurcated it would be a better way of phrasing it, and in the dividing of its one cell into two enabled the Cosmic Egg to hatch, and thereby engendered Creation.
TOCHEN: Go back again to John Barleycorn (this link is to Steelete Span's very English-traditional version; the previous link was Fairport Convention rocking it up a bit: same words though, in both), and you will see exactly how this grinding took place. We have reached the autumn harvest ("and they have served him most barbarously" works beautifully as a translation of "afflicted"). Note also that Jesus was born amid the barleycorn on the threshing-floor at Beit Lechem Ephratah, and was winnowed, I mean crucified, on Calvary, which was the site of the threshing-floor (Yevus-Jebus) of Ornah (sometimes rendered as Araunah) which that other Shimshon King David purchased as the site for the Solomonic Temple.
16:22 VA YACHEL SE'AR RO'SHO LETSAM'E'ACH KA ASHER GULACH
וַיָּחֶל שְׂעַר רֹאשֹׁו לְצַמֵּחַ כַּאֲשֶׁר גֻּלָּח
BN: Howbeit the hair of his head began to grow again after he was shaven.
Of course. As if to say: and the sun rose again nonetheless, the very next day.
pey break
Of course. As if to say: and the sun rose again nonetheless, the very next day.
pey break
16:23 VE SARNEY PHELISHTIM NE'ESPHU LIZBO'ACH ZEVACH GADOL LE DAGON ELOHEYHEM U LE SIMCHAH VA YOMRU NATAN ELOHEYNU BE YADEYNU ET SHIMSHON OYEVEYNU
וְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים נֶאֱסְפוּ לִזְבֹּחַ זֶבַח גָּדֹול לְדָגֹון אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וּלְשִׂמְחָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ נָתַן אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּיָדֵנוּ אֵת שִׁמְשֹׁון אֹויְבֵינוּ
BN: Then the lords of the Pelishtim gathered together to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said: "Our god has delivered Shimshon, our enemy, into our hand".
PHELISHTIM: Yet again we have PHELISHTIM without a definite article, and without a dagesh in the Pey.
PHELISHTIM: Yet again we have PHELISHTIM without a definite article, and without a dagesh in the Pey.
DAGON: (דגון) from the root Dag meaning "fish"; he was regarded as the Great Fish, which is another variant of Tiamat-Tahamat-Tehom-Liv-Yatan (Leviathan); his worship was centred at Ashdod; the icon had the hands of a man but the rest of his body was a fish (yes, we are in our menagerie again). Diodorus Siculus (2:4) describes a similar icon at Ashkelon, named Derceto, which is surprising, because Derceto is usually associated with Semiramis, and Semiramis is Mesopotamian.
The figure in the illustration is undoubtedly Dagon, though in fact the Louvre, where this wall-sculpture is now housed, describes it as a "Sumerian merman", which is undoubtedly also correct, and may well resolve the conundrum at the end of my last paragraph. Though it also opens a further conundrum, because the figure is also just as undoubtedly Oannes, the principal deity of Ninveh, or Nineveh, whom the Shomronim brought with them to the Galilee when they were forced into exile there by Nebuchadnezzar around 586 BCE: and Oannes will provide the Yehudim with the Prophet Yonah, or Jonah, and the Christians with their Galilean fish-god, Jesus of Nazirut, sorry, Notserut, sorry Nazareth (more on that triplet in my commentaries on the Christian gospels - click here).
Dagon is hugely significant to the David-Sha'ul stories (cf 1 Samuel 5:2, 1 Chronicles 10:10) and appears again in 1 Maccabees 10:83 and 11:4. Archaeologists have found evidence that Dagon was Emorite as well, probably from the same Hittite source, as he also became central to the shrines of Ebla and Ugarit, both Phoenician, and was presumably carried with them to their Philistine successors in Kena'an. He also appears in Akkadian texts as Daguna or Dagana (again see the illustration), confirming his Emorite connection, and perhaps explaining thereby the Semiramis oddity. Joshua 19:27 notes a temple called Beit-Dagon in Asher, and Josephus in Antiquities (12:8:1) mentions another near Yericho.
And then, at some point, Dagon became identified with the corn-god, and the name entered the Yehudit language as DAGAN = corn. Texts from Azah speak of a god named Marnas, probably from the Aramaic MARNA = "the Lord", another denotion of Tammuz-Osher-etc, likewise corn-gods; so we can read this change too as being after 586 BCE. Marna of Azah (Gaza) appears on coinage of the time of Hadrian; he was identified with Cretan Zeus, Zeus Krētagenēs, which again confirms the passage from Ugarit via the Pelishtim. His temple, the Marneion - the last surviving great cult center of paganism - was burned by order of the Roman emperor Arcadius in 402 CE.
And one last, rather pleasing discovery: that, in his commentaries, Rashi also identifies Dagon with the fish-god Oannes, though he describes him as Babylonian, which compounds him with Semiramis and Tammuz. Robert Lowell's naming of his Shimshon-figure in "The Quaker Graveyard at Nantucket" as "Jonas Messias" indicates that he must also have known this. Semiramis, and it may just be coincidence, was married to a man named Onnes, and the first thing they did after the wedding was to move their capital to Ninveh.
What can we then conclude about the sacrifice to Dagon, if not that this was the Akeda yet again - the sacrifice of the sun-hero, the Risen Lord? But it is not entirely clear, because, despite our encounter with the Shochet's knife earlier (see the various notes to verse 13), despite his going through every stage of preparation - the Palm Sunday ass whose jawbone he used, the weeping willow for his cross, the crown of thorns, the binding; and the mockery will come in verse 25... But in the meanwhile the next verse implies that Shimshon was not himself the sacrificial victim: some other creature substituted for him, and he was simply bound: just like the ram in the Yitschak (Isaac) version.
To what extent then are Dagon and Shimshon the same god? Or Shimshon the sun-hero of the god Dagon?
And again we have to ask: if this is a Philistine story, in which the champion god is Dagon and the defeated hero is one of those pagan sun-characters the Beney Yisra-El have been expressly prohibited from worshipping, what on Earth is this tale doing in their anthology? Even with the minor and failed attempts, at times, to sort of Yehudaise it.
16:24 VA YIR'U OTO HA AM VA YEHALELU ET ELOHEYHEM KI AMRU NATAN ELOHEYNU VE YADENU ET OYEVENU VE ET MACHARIV ARTSENU VA ASHER HIRBAH ET CHALELEYNU
וַיִּרְאוּ אֹתֹו הָעָם וַיְהַלְלוּ אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם כִּי אָמְרוּ נָתַן אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְיָדֵנוּ אֶת אֹויְבֵנוּ וְאֵת מַחֲרִיב אַרְצֵנוּ וַאֲשֶׁר הִרְבָּה אֶת חֲלָלֵינוּ
BN: And when the people saw him, they praised their gods, for they said: "Our gods have delivered our enemy into our hands, the destroyer of our country, who slew many of us".
YEHALELU...CHALELEYNU: Word-games, the same sound, but the first with a Hey (ה), the second a Chet (ח).
ELOHEYNU: We know that the Pelishtim were polytheists, so there is no reason for pretending the singular here, as translators, and indeed Jewish commentators too, always insist on doing in every instance.
16:25 VA YEHI CHI TOV LIBAM VA YOMRU KIR'U LE SHIMSHON VIYSACHEK LANU VA YIKRE'U LE SHIMSHON MI BEIT HA ASURIM VA YETSACHEK LIPHNEYHEM VA YA'AMIYDU OTO BEYN HA AMUDIM
וַיְהִי [כִּי כ] [טֹוב כ] (כְּטֹוב ק) לִבָּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ קִרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשֹׁון וִישַׂחֶק לָנוּ וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְשִׁמְשֹׁון מִבֵּית [הָאֲסִירִים כ] (הָאֲסוּרִים ק) וַיְצַחֵק לִפְנֵיהֶם וַיַּעֲמִידוּ אֹותֹו בֵּין הָעַמּוּדִים
BN: And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: "Call for Shimshon, and let's have some fun with him". So they called for Shimshon out of the prison house; and they mocked him; and they set him between the pillars.
Very recently, the ancient Guildhall in London underwent major refurbishment, including digging down into the foundations beneath its courtyard; there, they found the remains of a large Roman amphitheatre, long known about by historians in every detail but its location. Capable of seating several thousand people, it was used for gladiatorial contests, bear-baiting, cock- and bull-fighting, the execution of criminals, and on any given day there could be literally dozens of dead and gored and mutilated bodies carried out of the arena at close of play (the comment after watching this, by Saint Augustine, is well worth reading - it's on the link to the Guildhall, above). We can imagine that much the same took place at the temple of Dagon.
BEYN HA AMUDIM: Again the two pillars - allowing us to recognise the gap in the story above, when he took the pillars on his shoulders and fled. That too must have been the monthly sacrifice, only the details are left out. The two pillars (Bo'az and Yachin in the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im), would have held the Mezuzot (actually they were the Mezuzot - see my notes to verse 3); with their removal, the temple is deconsecrated.
Very recently, the ancient Guildhall in London underwent major refurbishment, including digging down into the foundations beneath its courtyard; there, they found the remains of a large Roman amphitheatre, long known about by historians in every detail but its location. Capable of seating several thousand people, it was used for gladiatorial contests, bear-baiting, cock- and bull-fighting, the execution of criminals, and on any given day there could be literally dozens of dead and gored and mutilated bodies carried out of the arena at close of play (the comment after watching this, by Saint Augustine, is well worth reading - it's on the link to the Guildhall, above). We can imagine that much the same took place at the temple of Dagon.
BEYN HA AMUDIM: Again the two pillars - allowing us to recognise the gap in the story above, when he took the pillars on his shoulders and fled. That too must have been the monthly sacrifice, only the details are left out. The two pillars (Bo'az and Yachin in the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im), would have held the Mezuzot (actually they were the Mezuzot - see my notes to verse 3); with their removal, the temple is deconsecrated.
But we have also noted the sacred number Zayin (seven) for the sun-god, which is also the word for the penis; and the word for the moon, YAREYACH, which by seemingly-odd coincidence is also the word for thigh. And here we are, placing the Zayin between the two Yareyachim, and all we need to have the best chance of a fertile outcome of this sacred marriage is - with apologies to Carole King - for her to feel the earth move under her feet, and the sky to come tumbling down (click here to hear it), as it will at the end of the story, in verse 30 of all coincidental verse-numberings.
VIYSACHEK: Note that there are actually two different words here, VIYSACHEK the first time and YETSACHEK the second; though most translators fail to notice this, assume both are the same, and translate them accordingly as "sport", which obviously cannot be correct. Having said which, the differences between the two are not that easy to define, save obviously their spellings.
VIYSACHEK : From the root SACHAK = "to laugh" in Ecclesiates 3:4; "to smile upon" in Job 29:24; to do so "contemptuously" in Psalm 52:8; "to joke" in Jeremiah 15:17; "to play", in the sense of "to sport", like children, in Zechariah 8:5; or like Lev-Yatan (Leviathan) himself in Psalm 104:26; "to dance", with singing and musical accompaniment and even raucous shouting, in 1 Samuel 18:7; or simply "playful", as in Proverbs 8:30.
YETSACHEK: From the root TSACHAK - the first letter a Tsade (צ), not a Seen (ש). And its meanings: "to laugh", but scornfully, in Ezekiel 23:32; "to jest", in Genesis 19:14; "to play", as in games and sport, in Exodus 32:6; "to mock", in Genesis 21:9, and in a rather different sense in Genesis 39:14...
And then there is Genesis 21:6, where "Sarah said: 'Elohim has made a laughing-stock of me; every one who hears will laugh at my expense'." VA TOMER SARAH TSECHOK ASAH LI ELOHIM KOL HA SHOME'A YITSCHAK LI. YETSACHEK, both times, not VIYSACHEK. And from this line the derivation of the name Yitschak (Isaac), which has long puzzled the scholars: and it may well be because of this verse that Yitschak becomes Isaac in English, as though it were from SACHAK and not Tschak; though there are also, as I noted in my comments at the time, Biblical texts in which Isaac's name is indeed rendered as Yischak rather than Yitschak - see for example Genesis 21:9 and my note there.
So here is Shimshon, bound at his personal Akeda, being mocked before his sacrifice in much the way that Jesus was mocked before his crucifixion, and in the middle of a pantomime where comedy and sport have been at the heart throughout. Can we then uncover the reason for Yitschak's name from the parts of his tale that were removed, precisely because no sacrifice took place, and therefore no mockery?
Worth including here the story of what happened to the Ark at the time of Eli, when it was captured and caused such trouble in the temple of Dagon. 1 Samuel 5:2.
Also worth exploring other comparables in the Yitschak and Jesus tales: Jesus on the cross has a Bo'az and Yachin on either side of him too, in the form of the thief who was saved and the other who was not (look at Saint Augustine, especially his line - click here - which Samuel Beckett makes much sport with in "Waiting For Godot"); and Yitschak en route to Mor-Yah has the two Ne'arim (Genesis 22), one of whom reappears in the very next verse of this tale. Jesus on the cross is also sported with - I wonder if that was in the original Yitschak story, when he was actually sacrificed, but then removed in the later version, when YHVH relents and the paschal lamb is sacrificed instead?
And one last thought: "making sport with him" is exactly what one does in a pantomime - see my note to verse 27 below, as well as several observations above. An in a very public rite of sexual coition, "sporting" would serve very well as a polite euphemism.
16:26 VA YOMER SHIMSHON EL HA NA'AR HA MACHAZIK BE YADO HANIYCHAH OTI VE HAMISHENI ET HA AMUDIM ASHER HA BAYIT NACHON ALEYHEM VE ESHA'EN ALEYHEM
KJ: And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon them.
VIYSACHEK: Note that there are actually two different words here, VIYSACHEK the first time and YETSACHEK the second; though most translators fail to notice this, assume both are the same, and translate them accordingly as "sport", which obviously cannot be correct. Having said which, the differences between the two are not that easy to define, save obviously their spellings.
VIYSACHEK : From the root SACHAK = "to laugh" in Ecclesiates 3:4; "to smile upon" in Job 29:24; to do so "contemptuously" in Psalm 52:8; "to joke" in Jeremiah 15:17; "to play", in the sense of "to sport", like children, in Zechariah 8:5; or like Lev-Yatan (Leviathan) himself in Psalm 104:26; "to dance", with singing and musical accompaniment and even raucous shouting, in 1 Samuel 18:7; or simply "playful", as in Proverbs 8:30.
YETSACHEK: From the root TSACHAK - the first letter a Tsade (צ), not a Seen (ש). And its meanings: "to laugh", but scornfully, in Ezekiel 23:32; "to jest", in Genesis 19:14; "to play", as in games and sport, in Exodus 32:6; "to mock", in Genesis 21:9, and in a rather different sense in Genesis 39:14...
And then there is Genesis 21:6, where "Sarah said: 'Elohim has made a laughing-stock of me; every one who hears will laugh at my expense'." VA TOMER SARAH TSECHOK ASAH LI ELOHIM KOL HA SHOME'A YITSCHAK LI. YETSACHEK, both times, not VIYSACHEK. And from this line the derivation of the name Yitschak (Isaac), which has long puzzled the scholars: and it may well be because of this verse that Yitschak becomes Isaac in English, as though it were from SACHAK and not Tschak; though there are also, as I noted in my comments at the time, Biblical texts in which Isaac's name is indeed rendered as Yischak rather than Yitschak - see for example Genesis 21:9 and my note there.
So here is Shimshon, bound at his personal Akeda, being mocked before his sacrifice in much the way that Jesus was mocked before his crucifixion, and in the middle of a pantomime where comedy and sport have been at the heart throughout. Can we then uncover the reason for Yitschak's name from the parts of his tale that were removed, precisely because no sacrifice took place, and therefore no mockery?
Worth including here the story of what happened to the Ark at the time of Eli, when it was captured and caused such trouble in the temple of Dagon. 1 Samuel 5:2.
Also worth exploring other comparables in the Yitschak and Jesus tales: Jesus on the cross has a Bo'az and Yachin on either side of him too, in the form of the thief who was saved and the other who was not (look at Saint Augustine, especially his line - click here - which Samuel Beckett makes much sport with in "Waiting For Godot"); and Yitschak en route to Mor-Yah has the two Ne'arim (Genesis 22), one of whom reappears in the very next verse of this tale. Jesus on the cross is also sported with - I wonder if that was in the original Yitschak story, when he was actually sacrificed, but then removed in the later version, when YHVH relents and the paschal lamb is sacrificed instead?
And one last thought: "making sport with him" is exactly what one does in a pantomime - see my note to verse 27 below, as well as several observations above. An in a very public rite of sexual coition, "sporting" would serve very well as a polite euphemism.
16:26 VA YOMER SHIMSHON EL HA NA'AR HA MACHAZIK BE YADO HANIYCHAH OTI VE HAMISHENI ET HA AMUDIM ASHER HA BAYIT NACHON ALEYHEM VE ESHA'EN ALEYHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשֹׁון אֶל הַנַּעַר הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּיָדֹו הַנִּיחָה אֹותִי [וַהֵימִשֵׁנִי כ] (וַהֲמִשֵׁנִי ק) אֶת הָעַמֻּדִים אֲשֶׁר הַבַּיִת נָכֹון עֲלֵיהֶם וְאֶשָּׁעֵן עֲלֵיהֶם
BN (provisional translation): And Shimshon said to the lad who was holding him by the hand, Help me to feel the pillars that are holding up this temple, so that I may lean on them.
Oh but 'tis a very dark place in which Shimshon now finds himself, midnight in the garden of good and evil, so to speak...
Oh but 'tis a very dark place in which Shimshon now finds himself, midnight in the garden of good and evil, so to speak...
HANIYCHA: Remind me please what was Shimshon's father's name (it's in verse 31... but the explanation is in my note to Judges 13:2). I only mention it because this is a very odd way for him to ask this, so it has to be another deliberate word-play.
HAMISHENI: Most of the verbs in this verse are in the Hiphil (Causative) form. The root is... but here I have to terminate the sentence, because I honestly do not know what the root is. Strong, who usually knows his stuff, reckons YAMASH (ימש), but Gesenius, who is equally thorough, is also clear that this is the one and only occasion when the verb is used, in any form; and anyway he reckons the root is probably MAMASH (ממש), but then offers no explanation. I am tempted to offer MASHAH, which means "to draw out", and not because I think it is the meaning here, but because it would allude to the name MOSHEH, and at least that way I would have something to offer here, however irrelevant.
NACHON: Used in modern Ivrit to mean "correct", its only other appearance in the Tanach is in 2 Samuel 6:6, where a man named Nachon owns a threshing-floor; a "manger", in Christian terminology, the place where the sun-god is born, and therefore an interesting contrast with this verse.
ESHA'EN: The exception to the Hiphils of this verse is SHA'AN, which is in the Niphil or passive form.
Taking all these words together, with what we think we can make of their meanings, can we now offer a slightly different translation? I am going for
BN (revised translation): And Shimshon said to the lad who was holding him by the hand, "Let me rest where I can draw out the pillars that are holding up this temple, and let's see what happens if I then lean on them."
HA MACHAZIK: I am struggling with the stage management of this. Where exactly would his hands need to be? Shimshon has been "set between the pillars" - not "bound to one of the pillars", in which case his hands would likely have been behind his back, and presumably squashed against whichever pillar. But no, he has been "set between the pillars". Does that even mean "bound", or is he just standing there, powerless because shaved and blinded, and therefore no need to bind him? If he is going to be able to bring down the pillars, and the entire building with them, he is going to need his hands to be free when he gets enough strength back to use them.Yet every image I can find, painting or hero-cartoon or video-game (as per the illustration), has him bound by the wrists to the pillars, as in the illustration adjacent. And no sign of any young man to hold his hand. Every one, that is to say, shows "Prometheus Bound", not "Shimshon set between the pillars".
16:27 VE HA BAYIT MAL'E HA ANASHIM VE HA NASHIM VE SHAMAH KOL SARNEY PHELISHTIM VE AL HA GAG KISHLOSHET ALAPHIM ISH VE ISHAH HA RO'IM BISCHOK SHIMSHON
וְהַבַּיִת מָלֵא הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְשָׁמָּה כֹּל סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וְעַל הַגָּג כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה הָרֹאִים בִּשְׂחֹוק שִׁמְשֹׁון
BN: Now the temple was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Phelishtim were there; and in the bleachers there were about three thousand men and women, who were watching while they made sport with Shimshon.
This is so post-modern! We are witnessing Bertolt Brecht in antiquity! A play which includes the audience watching a play in which there is an audience watching the play.
GAG: Three thousand! Those same numbers keep recurring. But why would they be "on the roof"? If, as I have suggested above, it was some kind of amphitheatre used for bull-fighting or gladiatorial contests or athletics competitions, or even pantomimes, then these would have been the fixed seating, benches probably, in what used to be the "terraces" in English soccer stadiums, the "bleachers" in an American arena. Similar amphitheatres provided the "temples" of Hellenic Greece in the days when the Dionysic festival had moved on from the oestrogenic debauchery of the Mysteries to providing playhouses for Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides? The reconstruction of Shakespeare's "Globe" in London demonstrates the set-up almost to perfection; its one difference (see the illustration, adjacent) is that parts of it do have a roof, though no spectators are allowed on it.
On the other hand, among the endless word-games and riddles, the letter Gimmel (ג), which doubles here to make Gag, is also the number 3.
BISCHOK: Not TSACHEK this time. Is it in fact passive: "while Shimshon was sported with"?
KJ: And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
This is so post-modern! We are witnessing Bertolt Brecht in antiquity! A play which includes the audience watching a play in which there is an audience watching the play.
On the other hand, among the endless word-games and riddles, the letter Gimmel (ג), which doubles here to make Gag, is also the number 3.
BISCHOK: Not TSACHEK this time. Is it in fact passive: "while Shimshon was sported with"?
16:28 VA YIKR'A SHIMSHON EL YHVH VA YOMER ADONAY YHVH ZACHRENI NA VE CHAZKENI NA ACH HA PA'AM HA ZEH HA ELOHIM VE INAKMAH NEKAM ACHAT MISHTEY EYNAI MI PELISHTIM
וַיִּקְרָא שִׁמְשֹׁון אֶל יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהֹוִה זָכְרֵנִי נָא וְחַזְּקֵנִי נָא אַךְ הַפַּעַם הַזֶּה הָאֱלֹהִים וְאִנָּקְמָה נְקַם אַחַת מִשְּׁתֵי עֵינַי מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים
BN: And Shimshon called out to YHVH, and said: "O Lord YHVH, remember me, I implore you, and strengthen me, I implore you, only this once, O gods, that I may at once be avenged of the Pelishtim for my two eyes."
Calling to YHVH by his title Adonay, but then to Ha Elohim - all religious bases covered! But really this is just one more failed attempt to Yehudaise the story. (cf Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46 - and isn't it interesting that the gospel-writer bothered to note the time at which this happened: precisely 3 pm).
16:29 VA YILPOT SHIMSHON ET SHENEY AMUDEY HA TAVECH ASHER HA BAYIT NACHON ALEYHEM VA YISAMECH ALEYHEM ECHAD BI YEMINO VE ECHAD BI SMOLO
Calling to YHVH by his title Adonay, but then to Ha Elohim - all religious bases covered! But really this is just one more failed attempt to Yehudaise the story. (cf Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46 - and isn't it interesting that the gospel-writer bothered to note the time at which this happened: precisely 3 pm).
16:29 VA YILPOT SHIMSHON ET SHENEY AMUDEY HA TAVECH ASHER HA BAYIT NACHON ALEYHEM VA YISAMECH ALEYHEM ECHAD BI YEMINO VE ECHAD BI SMOLO
וַיִּלְפֹּת שִׁמְשֹׁון אֶת שְׁנֵי עַמּוּדֵי הַתָּוֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הַבַּיִת נָכֹון עֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּסָּמֵךְ עֲלֵיהֶם אֶחָד בִּימִינֹו וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלֹו
BN: And Shimshon took hold of the two middle pillars on which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, the one with his right hand, and the other with his left.
Two "middle" pillars conflicts with the architectural information that we were given previously. Unless the entrance pillars were also foundational, and therefore two of the twelve.
And taking hold of them with his hands conflicts with the chains in the illustration adjacent to verse 26, re-opening my question about the stage management of this, and the position of the young man who was holding his hand.
As to the sexual inuendo of this imagery, I leave you to do the imagining for yourself, but note my absolutely literal and accurate translation of VA YET BE CHO'ACH in the next verse.
16:30 VA YOMER SHIMSHON TAMOT NAPHSHI IM PELISHTIM VA YET BE CHO'ACH VA YIPOL HA BAYIT AL HA SERANIM VE AL KOL HA AM ASHER BO VA YIHEYU HA METIM ASHER HEMIT BE MOTO RABIM ME ASHER HEMIT BE CHAYAV
וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשֹׁון תָּמֹות נַפְשִׁי עִם פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיֵּט בְּכֹחַ וַיִּפֹּל הַבַּיִת עַל הַסְּרָנִים וְעַל כָּל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בֹּו וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּמֹותֹו רַבִּים מֵאֲשֶׁר הֵמִית בְּחַיָּיו
BN: And Shimshon said: "Let me die with the Pelishtim". And he stiffened himself with all his might; and the house fell on the lords, and on all the people who were inside. So the dead whom he slew at his death were more than those he had slain in his life.
Obviously, in the original Hera-Kles-Melkart version, Shimshon did not die, but brought the roof down, killing all inside, while himself walking out unscathed - that is what superheroes do, with or without kryptonite. Because they/he cannot die, except in the mythological sense that we have explained above: he has to be there next month to perform his next miraculous labour, just as Superman will be back for the next episode in next month's comic, and he has to go down into the Underworld in the winter so that he can be reborn in the spring and start the whole cycle all over again.
And if it is a really good pantomime-play-sporting event, well, it is supposed to bring the house down!
KJ: Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the buryingplace of Manoah his father. And he judged Israel twenty years.
Obviously, in the original Hera-Kles-Melkart version, Shimshon did not die, but brought the roof down, killing all inside, while himself walking out unscathed - that is what superheroes do, with or without kryptonite. Because they/he cannot die, except in the mythological sense that we have explained above: he has to be there next month to perform his next miraculous labour, just as Superman will be back for the next episode in next month's comic, and he has to go down into the Underworld in the winter so that he can be reborn in the spring and start the whole cycle all over again.
And if it is a really good pantomime-play-sporting event, well, it is supposed to bring the house down!
16:31 VA YERDU ECHAV VE CHOL BEIT AVIYHU VA YIS'U OTO VA YA'ALU VA YIKBERU OTO BEYN TSAR'AH U VEYN ESHTA'OL BE KEVER MANO'ACH AVIV VE HU SHAPHAT ET YISRA-EL ESRIM SHANAH
וַיֵּרְדוּ אֶחָיו וְכָל בֵּית אָבִיהוּ וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֹתֹו וַיַּעֲלוּ וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹותֹו בֵּין צָרְעָה וּבֵין אֶשְׁתָּאֹל בְּקֶבֶר מָנֹוחַ אָבִיו וְהוּא שָׁפַט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה
BN: Then his kinsmen and everyone from his father's tribe came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Tsar'ah and Eshta'ol in the burying-place of Mano'ach his father. And he judged Yisra-El twenty years.
VA YERDU...VA YA'ALU: Because he is in the Underworld, they have to "come down" in order to take him up; as the sun each night has go down, in order to come up again the next morning.
BEYN TSAR'AH: See my notes to Judges 13:2.
U VEYN ESHTA'OL: And with the above, see my note in Judges 13:25. The two together, then, confirm the significance of the names, as explained there. Using the words in their mythological sense, this translates much more accurately as:
BN (revised translation of the middle section of the verse): "...and they buried him sacrificially (Mano'ach), in one of the tombs of the moon-goddess (Tsar'ah), among the shadows (Eshta'ol) in the Underworld..."
VE HU SHAPHAT: The closing phrase also allows us to know that the tales are all variants of each other. We have already been told of his death and the fact that he judged 20 years, at the end of the previous chapter. But mostly it allows the Beney Yisra-El to pretend that this was one of their own heroes, in the same way that Ishtar and Marduk are now Esther and Mordechai. He clearly was not.
pey break
VA YERDU...VA YA'ALU: Because he is in the Underworld, they have to "come down" in order to take him up; as the sun each night has go down, in order to come up again the next morning.
BEYN TSAR'AH: See my notes to Judges 13:2.
U VEYN ESHTA'OL: And with the above, see my note in Judges 13:25. The two together, then, confirm the significance of the names, as explained there. Using the words in their mythological sense, this translates much more accurately as:
BN (revised translation of the middle section of the verse): "...and they buried him sacrificially (Mano'ach), in one of the tombs of the moon-goddess (Tsar'ah), among the shadows (Eshta'ol) in the Underworld..."
VE HU SHAPHAT: The closing phrase also allows us to know that the tales are all variants of each other. We have already been told of his death and the fact that he judged 20 years, at the end of the previous chapter. But mostly it allows the Beney Yisra-El to pretend that this was one of their own heroes, in the same way that Ishtar and Marduk are now Esther and Mordechai. He clearly was not.
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment