20:1 VA YETS'U KOL BENEY YISRA-EL VA TIKAHEL HA EDAH KE ISH ECHAD LE MI DAN VE AD BE'ER SHEVA VE ERETS HA GIL'AD EL YHVH HA MITSPAH
וַיֵּצְאוּ כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַתִּקָּהֵל הָעֵדָה כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד לְמִדָּן וְעַד בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע וְאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד אֶל יְהוָה הַמִּצְפָּה
BN (BibleNet translation): Then all the Beney Yisra-El went out, everyone from Dan to Be'er Sheva, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, including those from the land of Gil'ad, before YHVH in Ha Mitspeh.
"From Dan to Be'er Sheva" is a cliché in Yisra-El, the equivalent of "from John O'Groats to Lands End" in England. But nonetheless an oddity here, or at the very least an irony, because the Dan is question is La'ish in the extreme north, where the Beney Dan only became established in the preceding chapter.
"From Dan to Be'er Sheva" is a cliché in Yisra-El, the equivalent of "from John O'Groats to Lands End" in England. But nonetheless an oddity here, or at the very least an irony, because the Dan is question is La'ish in the extreme north, where the Beney Dan only became established in the preceding chapter.
BE'ER SHEV'A: Regarded as the extreme south, and virtually the extreme west, as far as the cliché is concerned, though actually it is not that far south at all: from John O'Groats to Bath & Wells would be a more geographically accurate comparison; and this because south of Be'er Sheva is entirely desert, inhabited only by nomads, bandits and (today) kibbutznikim, and not terrible many of them either.
GIL'AD: See the link. The point here is that the two-and-a-half-tribes are still regarded as part of Yisra-El, though we have seen that they have largely been assimilated into Mo-Av and Amon.
Gathering the whole people at Ha Mitspeh, rather than anywhere else, now seems to be the custom. Shemu-El (Samuel) will do the same later on. Generally it is a gathering for divine endorsement before going into battle. Go back to my notes on the different roles of Gil-Gal and Shechem and Shiloh at the end of the Book of Joshua, chapter 24 in particular. The positioning of this gathering at the conclusion of the Book of Judges tells us that the tour of the tribal shrines is done, and we are now looking forward to the united nation.
HA MITSPEH: In previous instances, it has been presented without a definite article, simply the name of the place. A Mitspeh is a watchtower, though not the same as a Migdal - the former is mostly for observing the heavens, the latter for keeping a secuity eye on the surrounding land.
KJ: And the chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword.
HA MITSPEH: In previous instances, it has been presented without a definite article, simply the name of the place. A Mitspeh is a watchtower, though not the same as a Migdal - the former is mostly for observing the heavens, the latter for keeping a secuity eye on the surrounding land.
20:2 VA YITYATSVU PINOT KOL HA AM KOL SHIVTEY YISRA-EL BIK'HAL AM HA ELOHIM ARB'A ME'OT ELEPH ISH RAGLI SHOLEPH CHAREV
וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ פִּנֹּות כָּל הָעָם כֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּקְהַל עַם הָאֱלֹהִים אַרְבַּע מֵאֹות אֶלֶף אִישׁ רַגְלִי שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב
BN: And the chiefs of all the people, of every one of the tribes of Yisra-El, presented themselves at the Assembly of the People of Elohim, four hundred thousand sword-bearing foot-soldiers.
PINOT: "Chief" or "chiefs"? The root is PINAH, which means "to turn", and yields both PANIM for "face", and thence Penu-El. It is not, however, to be confused with the ancient town of Rosh Pinah, close to Zefat in northern Galilee, which takes its name from an entirely different meaning, the "capstone" or "cornerstone", which is the key stone in the foundation of a building, as opposed to the AVNEY PINAH, which are the other cornerstones. That "capstone" can be found in Psalm 118:22, where it is specifically the main cornerstone of the Solomonic Temple.
PINOT: "Chief" or "chiefs"? The root is PINAH, which means "to turn", and yields both PANIM for "face", and thence Penu-El. It is not, however, to be confused with the ancient town of Rosh Pinah, close to Zefat in northern Galilee, which takes its name from an entirely different meaning, the "capstone" or "cornerstone", which is the key stone in the foundation of a building, as opposed to the AVNEY PINAH, which are the other cornerstones. That "capstone" can be found in Psalm 118:22, where it is specifically the main cornerstone of the Solomonic Temple.
SHOLEPH CHAREV: So this is indeed a military parade, not a religious ceremony or a political rally: though in a theocratic world those two are difficult if not impossible to distinguish. What we do not know is: why are the tribes gathering for war?
ARBA ME'OT ELEPH: Surprisingly few, given the numbers we were given in the Book of Numbers - 603,550 at Numbers 1:46, 601,730 at Numbers 26:51 (a modern mathematical analysis of population growth etc based on the two censuses can be found here; a modern-style deconstruction of the numbers can be found here; both are well worth the reading)...did they lose that many fighting men in the battles to conquer the country? Has there been a problem with the fertility goddess, imposing barrenness on the women because of bad behaviour among the men? But wait a moment - or simply move on to verse 3; because we have just been told, very explicitly, that "all" the tribes gathered... (though even the absence of one tribe isn't going to explain such a diminution of the numbers).
ARBA ME'OT ELEPH: Surprisingly few, given the numbers we were given in the Book of Numbers - 603,550 at Numbers 1:46, 601,730 at Numbers 26:51 (a modern mathematical analysis of population growth etc based on the two censuses can be found here; a modern-style deconstruction of the numbers can be found here; both are well worth the reading)...did they lose that many fighting men in the battles to conquer the country? Has there been a problem with the fertility goddess, imposing barrenness on the women because of bad behaviour among the men? But wait a moment - or simply move on to verse 3; because we have just been told, very explicitly, that "all" the tribes gathered... (though even the absence of one tribe isn't going to explain such a diminution of the numbers).
pey break
20:3 VA YISHME'U BENEY VIN-YAMIN KI ALU VENEY YISRA-EL HA MITSPAH VA YOMRU BENEY YISRA-EL DABRU EYCHAH NIHEYETAH HA RA'AH HA ZOT
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן כִּי עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּצְפָּה וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל דַּבְּרוּ אֵיכָה נִהְיְתָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת
BN: Now the Beney Bin-Yamin heard that the Beney Yisra-El had gone up to Ha Mitspah. Then the Beney Yisra-El said: "Tell us, how did this wickedness come to pass?"
The syntax of this verse leads to a misunderstanding; or is there simply some missing text? The Beney Bin-Yamin do the hearing, but the Beney Yisra-El do the complaining: about what "wickedness"? We are not immediately told, and cannot assume that it has anything to do with the previous chapter, especially as the last chapter ended with a pey break, making a clear separation. So what is this wickedness? Are the Beney Yisra-El complaining that the Beney Bin-Yamin have in fact failed to turn up for a national gathering - and this despite the clear statement of universal presence in verse 1? Might it be that Bin-Yamin was not included in the invitation, and some of the people are angry with the organisers? Cliffhangers, in the Tanach!
The KJ, and many other translations, place the phrase about the Beney Bin-Yamin in brackets, which of course is a clever literary way of separating the two parts of a confusing sentence; but it also has the effect of excluding them from the main sentence, hinting at the possibility that everyone who was invited did indeed turn up, as stated, but the Beney Bin-Yamin were not invited - perhaps because of whatever the "wickedness". Which rather undermines the cliffhanger!
I think, however, that it should be read differently, and without the addition of parentheses. If indeed the "wickedness" is the incident in the previous chapter, then we can say that it was a crime against humanity by the Beney Bin-Yamin; it is they who are being discussed at this council of war, the "wickedness" being both the rape, and the killing. Quite probably the sending of the twelve parts of the woman's body was the symbolic method of summoning the national council.
But, for this to work, the Beney Bin-Yamin have to be present at the national council, in order to be asked to explain themselves in the second half of this verse. Or was the question asked rhetorically, rather than directly? We shall see in verse 4 that it is not just any member of the Beney Bin-Yamin who answers, but the very man, our protagonist, from the previous chapter. So was he summoned to explain his action, or summoned as a response to his action, because effectively he called the council of war: the sacrifice of the woman being the "wickedness" in the first case, the gang-rape in the second, rather than, pardon the pun, vice-versa?
KJ: And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge.
The syntax of this verse leads to a misunderstanding; or is there simply some missing text? The Beney Bin-Yamin do the hearing, but the Beney Yisra-El do the complaining: about what "wickedness"? We are not immediately told, and cannot assume that it has anything to do with the previous chapter, especially as the last chapter ended with a pey break, making a clear separation. So what is this wickedness? Are the Beney Yisra-El complaining that the Beney Bin-Yamin have in fact failed to turn up for a national gathering - and this despite the clear statement of universal presence in verse 1? Might it be that Bin-Yamin was not included in the invitation, and some of the people are angry with the organisers? Cliffhangers, in the Tanach!
The KJ, and many other translations, place the phrase about the Beney Bin-Yamin in brackets, which of course is a clever literary way of separating the two parts of a confusing sentence; but it also has the effect of excluding them from the main sentence, hinting at the possibility that everyone who was invited did indeed turn up, as stated, but the Beney Bin-Yamin were not invited - perhaps because of whatever the "wickedness". Which rather undermines the cliffhanger!
I think, however, that it should be read differently, and without the addition of parentheses. If indeed the "wickedness" is the incident in the previous chapter, then we can say that it was a crime against humanity by the Beney Bin-Yamin; it is they who are being discussed at this council of war, the "wickedness" being both the rape, and the killing. Quite probably the sending of the twelve parts of the woman's body was the symbolic method of summoning the national council.
But, for this to work, the Beney Bin-Yamin have to be present at the national council, in order to be asked to explain themselves in the second half of this verse. Or was the question asked rhetorically, rather than directly? We shall see in verse 4 that it is not just any member of the Beney Bin-Yamin who answers, but the very man, our protagonist, from the previous chapter. So was he summoned to explain his action, or summoned as a response to his action, because effectively he called the council of war: the sacrifice of the woman being the "wickedness" in the first case, the gang-rape in the second, rather than, pardon the pun, vice-versa?
20:4 VA YA'AN HA ISH HA LEVI ISH HA ISHAH HA NIRTSACHAH VA YOMER HA GIV'ATAH ASHER LE VIN-YAMIN BA'TI ANI U PHIYLAGSHI LALUN...
וַיַּעַן הָאִישׁ הַלֵּוִי אִישׁ הָאִשָּׁה הַנִּרְצָחָה וַיֹּאמַר הַגִּבְעָתָה אֲשֶׁר לְבִנְיָמִן בָּאתִי אֲנִי וּפִילַגְשִׁי לָלוּן
BN: And the Levite, the man connected to the woman who was slain, answered and said: "I came to Ha Giv'ah, which belongs to Bin-Yamin, I and my concubine, to spend the night...
HA GIV'AH: We have never seen it in this form before, but it has been common throughout the Book of Judges to add the definite article to town-names where none has ever been added before; indeed, we have just witnessed the same with Ha Mitspah in verse 1.
But now we know - and what an extraordinary thing. A national lynch-mob! The entire country, gathered to deal with the perpetrators; and no, not to deal with the perpetrators, but to deal with the entire tribe to which the "alleged perpetrators" are alleged to belong. And the Beney Bin-Yamin absent, so no one to present the case for any possible defense, in what appears at least to be a sort of judicial process.
HA GIV'AH: We have never seen it in this form before, but it has been common throughout the Book of Judges to add the definite article to town-names where none has ever been added before; indeed, we have just witnessed the same with Ha Mitspah in verse 1.
But now we know - and what an extraordinary thing. A national lynch-mob! The entire country, gathered to deal with the perpetrators; and no, not to deal with the perpetrators, but to deal with the entire tribe to which the "alleged perpetrators" are alleged to belong. And the Beney Bin-Yamin absent, so no one to present the case for any possible defense, in what appears at least to be a sort of judicial process.
ISH... PHIYLAGSHI: Continuing difficulty with this relationship, and still by no means certain whether she was his wife, her mistress, his priestess, his May Queen... he is her ISH here, which could be husband, boyfriend...
20:5 VA YAKUMU ALAI BA'ALEY HA GIV'AH VA YASOBU ALAI ET HA BAYIT LAILAH OTI DIMO LAHAROG VE ET PIYLAGSHI INU VA TAMOT
KJ: And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.
20:5 VA YAKUMU ALAI BA'ALEY HA GIV'AH VA YASOBU ALAI ET HA BAYIT LAILAH OTI DIMO LAHAROG VE ET PIYLAGSHI INU VA TAMOT
וַיָּקֻמוּ עָלַי בַּעֲלֵי הַגִּבְעָה וַיָּסֹבּוּ עָלַי אֶת הַבַּיִת לָיְלָה אֹותִי דִּמּוּ לַהֲרֹג וְאֶת פִּילַגְשִׁי עִנּוּ וַתָּמֹת
BN: "And the men of Ha Giv'ah attacked me, and surrounded the house at night, and they were planning to kill me, and they gang-raped my concubine, and now she is dead...
We need to go back and look again at the previous chapter, not from the mythological but from the Yisra-Elite narrative perspective, taking it as given, literally. Was she dead at the threshold, or still alive? She was clutching the lintel, and he told her to get up, and there was no answer; and he threw her over the back of the donkey and went home. We assumed she was still alive, perhaps too traumatised to speak, exhausted from her traumatic experience, and that had a huge impact on our reading of his butchery. Does this mean that he found her already dead? And cutting her up and dispatching the parts to the 12 tribes was a cry for help in justice? In which case the exclusion of the Beney Bin-Yamin may after all be logical, though not the gathering of the men of war - that needs, if it does need, to be stage three, after he has told his story, after the case for the defense has been invited and presented, after a proper judicial decision has been reached.
But maybe she wasn't dead at the lintel, and he, being a Levite, he killed her because she had become defiled, and the version of his tale, told here, is missing several key elements, is phrased decidedly self-mitigatingly? We cannot ignore that possibility. A man who can butcher his concubine into twelve pieces is surely capable of murdering her, and blaming others.
KJ: And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel.
But maybe she wasn't dead at the lintel, and he, being a Levite, he killed her because she had become defiled, and the version of his tale, told here, is missing several key elements, is phrased decidedly self-mitigatingly? We cannot ignore that possibility. A man who can butcher his concubine into twelve pieces is surely capable of murdering her, and blaming others.
20:6 VE OCHEZ BE PHIYLAGSHI VA ANAT'CHEHA VA ASHALCHEHA BE CHOL SEDEH NACHALAT YISRA-EL KI ASU ZIMAH U NEVALAH BE YISRA-EL
וָאֹחֵז בְּפִילַגְשִׁי וָאֲנַתְּחֶהָ וָאֲשַׁלְּחֶהָ בְּכָל שְׂדֵה נַחֲלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי עָשׂוּ זִמָּה וּנְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: "And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her through the whole land of inheritance of Yisra-El; for they have committed lewdness and folly in Yisra-El...
Omitting the fact that he offered her - actually the old man offered his virgin daughter too.
20:7 HINEH KULCHEM BENEY YISRA-EL HAVU LACHEM DAVAR VE ETSAH HALOM
KJ: Behold, ye are all children of Israel; give here your advice and counsel.
Omitting the fact that he offered her - actually the old man offered his virgin daughter too.
20:7 HINEH KULCHEM BENEY YISRA-EL HAVU LACHEM DAVAR VE ETSAH HALOM
הִנֵּה כֻלְּכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָבוּ לָכֶם דָּבָר וְעֵצָה הֲלֹם
BN: "Behold, you are all Beney Yisra-El; give your advice and counsel."
The difficulty with this is: however serious the offense, you cannot convene a national gathering of 400,000 armed men just like that. It takes time and organisation for one thing. People will ask what it is for, and the elders will want that answered before they set out, not when they arrive. And without an answer, how do they know to arm the men? No, either there was a gathering at Mitspeh at which this was just one item on the agenda, or there is still more to the story than we have so far deduced. (And yes,a king could summon a national gathering, armed, without needing to give an explanation - but the story began by telling us, most deliberately and expressly, that this was an epoch in which there was no king, in which each tribe was autonomous...)
KJ: And all the people arose as one man, saying, We will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn into his house.
The difficulty with this is: however serious the offense, you cannot convene a national gathering of 400,000 armed men just like that. It takes time and organisation for one thing. People will ask what it is for, and the elders will want that answered before they set out, not when they arrive. And without an answer, how do they know to arm the men? No, either there was a gathering at Mitspeh at which this was just one item on the agenda, or there is still more to the story than we have so far deduced. (And yes,a king could summon a national gathering, armed, without needing to give an explanation - but the story began by telling us, most deliberately and expressly, that this was an epoch in which there was no king, in which each tribe was autonomous...)
20:8 VA YAKAM KOL HA AM KE ISH ECHAD LEMOR LO NELECH ISH LE AHALO VE LO NASUR ISH LE VEITO
וַיָּקָם כָּל הָעָם כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד לֵאמֹר לֹא נֵלֵךְ אִישׁ לְאָהֳלֹו וְלֹא נָסוּר אִישׁ לְבֵיתֹו
BN: And all the people arose as one man, saying: "We will none of us go back to his tent, nor return to his house...
400,000 men, gathered to deal with the issue, can only lead to the logical moral conclusion, "Violent men are dangerous. Kill all violent men", and thence to civil war, dozens of people butchered into at least twelve parts, and no doubt the opportunity taken wherever no one in charge was watching, to gang-rape all the pretty women found along the way; at the end of which a war crimes trial will be arranged, all the surviving men arraigned, found guilty, and hanged or elsewise executed, and the fathers, husbands, sons of the humiliated women called upon to perform the Go'el, the act of vengeance, for which, no doubt, they will summon the whole of their nation to the sacred shrine, recount their story, and start the entire cycle yet again.
400,000 men, gathered to deal with the issue, can only lead to the logical moral conclusion, "Violent men are dangerous. Kill all violent men", and thence to civil war, dozens of people butchered into at least twelve parts, and no doubt the opportunity taken wherever no one in charge was watching, to gang-rape all the pretty women found along the way; at the end of which a war crimes trial will be arranged, all the surviving men arraigned, found guilty, and hanged or elsewise executed, and the fathers, husbands, sons of the humiliated women called upon to perform the Go'el, the act of vengeance, for which, no doubt, they will summon the whole of their nation to the sacred shrine, recount their story, and start the entire cycle yet again.
And would it be any different if 400,000 women of the tribes gathered at Mitspeh to discuss the matter?
20:9 VE ATAH ZEH HA DAVAR ASHER NA'ASEH LA GIV'AH ALEYHA BE GORAL
KJ: But now this shall be the thing which we will do to Gibeah; we will go up by lot against it;
20:9 VE ATAH ZEH HA DAVAR ASHER NA'ASEH LA GIV'AH ALEYHA BE GORAL
וְעַתָּה זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשֶׂה לַגִּבְעָה עָלֶיהָ בְּגֹורָל
BN: "...until we have dealt with this matter of Giv'ah. We shall decide by vote...
BE GORAL: A referendum, noch! Better than the lynch-mob that I at least had thought this was bound to be. Was this the first ever in history? And does this use of the word GORAL affect our understanding of the division of the tribal lands in the Book of Joshua, which was also by GORAL, and we really do not understand what processes were involved in doing that.
BE GORAL: A referendum, noch! Better than the lynch-mob that I at least had thought this was bound to be. Was this the first ever in history? And does this use of the word GORAL affect our understanding of the division of the tribal lands in the Book of Joshua, which was also by GORAL, and we really do not understand what processes were involved in doing that.
Or maybe it wasn't. Maybe GORAL really does mean by lot, and they simply put a bunch of straws in a clay jar, and whoever pulled the short straw...
LA GIV'AH: Once again with a definite article, though it isn't obvious from the writing, and depends on the pointing, which may be in error. If there were no definite article it would be LE GIV'AH, but the unpointed Yehudit would look the same.
20:10 VE LAKACHNU ASARAH ANASHIM LA ME'AH LE CHOL SHIVTEY YISRA-EL U ME'AH LA ELEPH VE ELEPH LE REVAVAH LAKACHAT TSEDAH LA AM LA'ASOT LEVO'AM LE GEV'A BIN-YAMIN KE CHOL HA NEVALAH ASHER ASAH BE YISRA-EL
KJ: And we will take ten men of an hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and an hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to fetch victual for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel.
LA GIV'AH: Once again with a definite article, though it isn't obvious from the writing, and depends on the pointing, which may be in error. If there were no definite article it would be LE GIV'AH, but the unpointed Yehudit would look the same.
20:10 VE LAKACHNU ASARAH ANASHIM LA ME'AH LE CHOL SHIVTEY YISRA-EL U ME'AH LA ELEPH VE ELEPH LE REVAVAH LAKACHAT TSEDAH LA AM LA'ASOT LEVO'AM LE GEV'A BIN-YAMIN KE CHOL HA NEVALAH ASHER ASAH BE YISRA-EL
וְלָקַחְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים לַמֵּאָה לְכֹל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֵאָה לָאֶלֶף וְאֶלֶף לָרְבָבָה לָקַחַת צֵדָה לָעָם לַעֲשֹׂות לְבֹואָם לְגֶבַע בִּנְיָמִן כְּכָל הַנְּבָלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: "So we shall conscript ten men from every hundred across the tribes of Yisra-El, and a hundred from every thousand, and a thousand from every ten thousand, to procure provisions from the people, so that, when they come to Gev'a of Bin-Yamin, they may deal with the folly that these men have wrought in Yisra-El."
GEV'A: Without its final Hey on this occasion. But we know that GEV'A is a different place than GIV'AH, so is this a textual error?
GEV'A: Without its final Hey on this occasion. But we know that GEV'A is a different place than GIV'AH, so is this a textual error?
And as to the referendum - as I suggested at verse 7, the outcome must have been decided before they armed the men and came to Ha Mitspah, and the story is being told somewhat unchronologically.
And after all, it really is a national lynch-mob! And presumably what they intend to do will be of a similar disorder to the actions of the Beney Dan when they reached La'ish in chapter 18.
KJ: So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man.
20:11 VA YE'ASEPH KOL ISH YISRA-EL EL HA IR KE ISH ECHAD CHAVERIM
וַיֵּאָסֵף כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל הָעִיר כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד חֲבֵרִים
BN: So all the men of Yisra-El gathered against the city, knit together as one man.
pey break
20:12 VA YISHLECHU SHIVTEY YISRA-EL ANASHIM BE CHOL SHIVTEY VIN-YAMIN LEMOR MAH HA RA'AH HA ZOT ASHER NIHEYETAH BA CHEM?
KJ: And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is done among you?
pey break
20:12 VA YISHLECHU SHIVTEY YISRA-EL ANASHIM BE CHOL SHIVTEY VIN-YAMIN LEMOR MAH HA RA'AH HA ZOT ASHER NIHEYETAH BA CHEM?
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנָשִׁים בְּכָל שִׁבְטֵי בִנְיָמִן לֵאמֹר מָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר נִהְיְתָה בָּכֶם
BN: And the tribes of Yisra-El sent men through all the tribe of Bin-Yamin, saying: "What wickedness is this that you have done?...
20:13 VE ATAH TENU ET HA ANASHIM BENEY VELIYA'AL ASHER BA GIV'AH U NEMIYTEM U NEVA'ARAH RA'AH MI YISRA-EL VE LO AVU VIN-YAMIN LISHMO'A BE KOL ACHEYHEM BENEY YISRA-EL
KJ: Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel.
20:13 VE ATAH TENU ET HA ANASHIM BENEY VELIYA'AL ASHER BA GIV'AH U NEMIYTEM U NEVA'ARAH RA'AH MI YISRA-EL VE LO AVU VIN-YAMIN LISHMO'A BE KOL ACHEYHEM BENEY YISRA-EL
וְעַתָּה תְּנוּ אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי בְלִיַּעַל אֲשֶׁר בַּגִּבְעָה וּנְמִיתֵם וּנְבַעֲרָה רָעָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא אָבוּ (בְּנֵי ק) בִּנְיָמִן לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקֹול אֲחֵיהֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: "Hand the men over to us, these Beney Veliya'al who are in Giv'ah, so that we may put them to death, and drive such evil out of Yisra-El." But the Beney Bin-Yamin refused to listen to the calls of their brethren the Beney Yisra-El.
Again the lynch-mob mentality - why have they not simply sent a group of tribal elders as a diplomatic mission, to encourage the elders of Bin-Yamin to deal with the matter properly themselves, and then report back? And then, if nothing happens...
VELIYA'AL: Is this a variant form of Belial? See my note on this in the previous chapter (verse 22). And if so, should it be written as Veli-Ya'al?
BA GIV'AH: As per my note to LA GIV'AH at verse 9.
NEMIYTEM: No suggestion here of a fair trial, nor a "police" investigation; they have taken the word of the Levite - but how do they know he isn't a Biblical Hannibal Lecter, deceptively covering his tracks?
AVU: The third time this verb has been used in the past three chapters, and each time with a slightly different meaning. It is also made more complicated here by its being an introductory verb to a second verb: LO AVU...LISHMO'A.
The root is AVAH (אבה) and there are multiple meanings: "to be inclined", "to be willing". "to be prone", "to wish", though, as Gesenius rightly points out, these are almost invariably followed by negatives (cf Exodus 10:27, Leviticus 26:21, Deuteronomy 2:30, 10:10 and 25:7, et al). The Arabic is even stronger, not simply a disinclination but a positive loathing, a stubborn refusal.
KJ: But the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together out of the cities unto Gibeah, to go out to battle against the children of Israel.
Again the lynch-mob mentality - why have they not simply sent a group of tribal elders as a diplomatic mission, to encourage the elders of Bin-Yamin to deal with the matter properly themselves, and then report back? And then, if nothing happens...
VELIYA'AL: Is this a variant form of Belial? See my note on this in the previous chapter (verse 22). And if so, should it be written as Veli-Ya'al?
BA GIV'AH: As per my note to LA GIV'AH at verse 9.
NEMIYTEM: No suggestion here of a fair trial, nor a "police" investigation; they have taken the word of the Levite - but how do they know he isn't a Biblical Hannibal Lecter, deceptively covering his tracks?
AVU: The third time this verb has been used in the past three chapters, and each time with a slightly different meaning. It is also made more complicated here by its being an introductory verb to a second verb: LO AVU...LISHMO'A.
The root is AVAH (אבה) and there are multiple meanings: "to be inclined", "to be willing". "to be prone", "to wish", though, as Gesenius rightly points out, these are almost invariably followed by negatives (cf Exodus 10:27, Leviticus 26:21, Deuteronomy 2:30, 10:10 and 25:7, et al). The Arabic is even stronger, not simply a disinclination but a positive loathing, a stubborn refusal.
20:14 VA YE'ASPHU VENEY VIN-YAMIN MIN HE ARIM HA GIV'ATAH LATSET LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY YISRA-EL
וַיֵּאָסְפוּ בְנֵי בִנְיָמִן מִן הֶעָרִים הַגִּבְעָתָה לָצֵאת לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: Instead, the Beney Bin-Yamin gathered their troops at Giv'ah from every tribal city, to go out and fight against the Beney Yisra-El.
HA GIV'ATAH: Not only the definite article, but now the "inconsistent dative" as well. We have seen this with Timna-Timnatah on several occasions (see Judges 14:1), and we will see that same transformation of the name in verse 31. The inference here is that Giv'ah isn't a place (we wouldn't describe somebody going to "the London") so much as a specific location ("the bank", "the palace", "the garrison"; in this case, probably, "the shrine") within the place. In the same way we might describe a Moslem pilgrim making pilgrimage to "the Ka'aba" rather than the generality of Mecca, or a Jew to "the Western Wall", rather than the generality of Yeru-Shala'im, though of course it is still Mecca, still Yeru-Shala'im. In this case, however, it seems almost to indicate that the town took its name from the shrine, rather than the shrine from the town, which then leads us to look at the root of Giv'ah and ask, as we have previously, whether that root is Yehudit GEV'A, which is a low hill, or Egyptian Geb, the father of all the gods, whose shrines were tumuli (or did the Yehudit "low hill" derive from the Egyptian "tumulus"?).
KJ: And the children of Benjamin were numbered at that time out of the cities twenty and six thousand men that drew sword, beside the inhabitants of Gibeah, which were numbered seven hundred chosen men.
20:15 VA YITPAKDU VENEY VIN-YAMIN BA YOM HA HU ME HE ARIM ESRIM VE SHISHAH ELEPH ISH SHOLEPH CHAREV LEVAD MI YOSHVEY HA GIV'AH HITPAKDU SHEV'A ME'OT ISH BACHUR
וַיִּתְפָּקְדוּ בְנֵי בִנְיָמִן בַּיֹּום הַהוּא מֵהֶעָרִים עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה אֶלֶף אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב לְבַד מִיֹּשְׁבֵי הַגִּבְעָה הִתְפָּקְדוּ שְׁבַע מֵאֹות אִישׁ בָּחוּר
BN: And the number of Beney Bin-Yamin conscripted from their cities at that time was twenty-six thousand, all foot-soldiers carrying swords, in addition to the inhabitants of Giv'ah, who had brought an élite troop of seven hundred men.
ISH BACHUR: "Chosen men", in the sense of "conscripts"? Or an "élite corps"? I have used both words in my translation, but it remains slightly speculative. BACHUR generally means "young man", so it could simply be infantry. Not to be confused with BACHUR with a Chaf (בְּכוֹר), which means "first-born" or "eldest".
20:16 MI KOL HA AM HA ZEH SHEV'A ME'OT ISH BACHUR ITER YAD YEMIYNO KOL ZEH KOL'E'A BA EVEN EL HA SA'ARAH VE LO YACHAT'I
KJ: Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss.
ISH BACHUR: "Chosen men", in the sense of "conscripts"? Or an "élite corps"? I have used both words in my translation, but it remains slightly speculative. BACHUR generally means "young man", so it could simply be infantry. Not to be confused with BACHUR with a Chaf (בְּכוֹר), which means "first-born" or "eldest".
20:16 MI KOL HA AM HA ZEH SHEV'A ME'OT ISH BACHUR ITER YAD YEMIYNO KOL ZEH KOL'E'A BA EVEN EL HA SA'ARAH VE LO YACHAT'I
מִכֹּל הָעָם הַזֶּה שְׁבַע מֵאֹות אִישׁ בָּחוּר אִטֵּר יַד יְמִינֹו כָּל זֶה קֹלֵעַ בָּאֶבֶן אֶל הַשַּׂעֲרָה וְלֹא יַחֲטִא
BN: Included in this muster were seven hundred men, their right hands bound with cloth; each of them could sling stones with hair-breadth accuracy, and not miss.
SHEV'A ME'OT: Are these the same seven hundred from Giv'ah, or just coincidence that the slingers happen to number 700 too?
ITER: Every translation insists that the ITER YAD YEMINO makes these men "left-handed", when it is perfectly plain that YAMIN is the right, and that a pun is intended with the BENEY YAMIN, who are in the wrong on this occasion, though their name means "right" (the word puns the same way in Yehudit as it does in English). Where does the left-handedness come from? It is not as such, by any obvious root, in any dictionary that I have yet found, and I have never come across it with this meaning in modern Ivrit (SMO'LI - שמאלי - is the usual word for "left-handed"); unless by some obscure grammatical device the ITER turns its appended word into its opposite?
SHEV'A ME'OT: Are these the same seven hundred from Giv'ah, or just coincidence that the slingers happen to number 700 too?
ITER: Every translation insists that the ITER YAD YEMINO makes these men "left-handed", when it is perfectly plain that YAMIN is the right, and that a pun is intended with the BENEY YAMIN, who are in the wrong on this occasion, though their name means "right" (the word puns the same way in Yehudit as it does in English). Where does the left-handedness come from? It is not as such, by any obvious root, in any dictionary that I have yet found, and I have never come across it with this meaning in modern Ivrit (SMO'LI - שמאלי - is the usual word for "left-handed"); unless by some obscure grammatical device the ITER turns its appended word into its opposite?
I wonder if the translators are picking up the fact that we have encountered this issue of left-handedness before, with Ehud ben Gera in Judges 3:15 ff (and he too was from the Beney Yamin); in his case being left-handed was an expediency which he was able to employ as a ruse to kill Eglon. There is also an allusion to it in Judges 5:26, when Ya-El puts the nail into her left hand, in order to hammer it through Siysra's head with her right; but that actually confirms her right-handedness.
And why would the left-handedness be significant anyway? Could they not just as well throw stones with their right hands? Presumably the translators have assumed that they will throw the stones with the left hand, leaving the right hand free to use the sword; in which case they should translate ITER YAD YEMINO as "ambidextrous"?
But alas all this is entirely irrelevant, because wrong. The root is ATER, and it means "bound" or "closed". In that previous instance, in Judges 3:15, it was ITER in the sense of "closed", because Ehud's hand had been the victim of some previous war-wound, which had incapacitated it. Here we are talking about slingsmen, who would have wrapped their hand in flaxen cloth to prevent it from either blistering, or reducing their capacity to throw by sweating - wicket-keeping gloves in cricket, or catchers' gloves in baseball, have the same thinking behind them.
But alas all this is entirely irrelevant, because wrong. The root is ATER, and it means "bound" or "closed". In that previous instance, in Judges 3:15, it was ITER in the sense of "closed", because Ehud's hand had been the victim of some previous war-wound, which had incapacitated it. Here we are talking about slingsmen, who would have wrapped their hand in flaxen cloth to prevent it from either blistering, or reducing their capacity to throw by sweating - wicket-keeping gloves in cricket, or catchers' gloves in baseball, have the same thinking behind them.
pey break
20:17 VE ISH YISRA-EL HITPAKDU LEVAD MI BIN-YAMIN ARB'A ME'OT ELEPH ISH SHOLEPH CHAREV KOL ZEH ISH MILCHAMAH
וְאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הִתְפָּקְדוּ לְבַד מִבִּנְיָמִן אַרְבַּע מֵאֹות אֶלֶף אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב כָּל זֶה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה
BN: And the men of Yisra-El, not including Bin-Yamin, were numbered four hundred thousand men who drew sword: all these were men of war.
ISH MILCHAMAH: Appears to make a distinction between an army of conscripts and a professional fighting force.
Versus the 26,700 of verse 15, which leaves the Bene Yamin rather outnumbered.
20:18 VA YAKUMU VA YA'ALU VEIT EL VA YISH'ALU VE ELOHIM VA YOMRU BENEY YISRA-EL MI YA'ALEH LANU VAT'CHILAH LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY VIN-YAMIN VA YOMER YHVH YEHUDAH VAT'CHILAH
KJ: And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first.
ISH MILCHAMAH: Appears to make a distinction between an army of conscripts and a professional fighting force.
Versus the 26,700 of verse 15, which leaves the Bene Yamin rather outnumbered.
20:18 VA YAKUMU VA YA'ALU VEIT EL VA YISH'ALU VE ELOHIM VA YOMRU BENEY YISRA-EL MI YA'ALEH LANU VAT'CHILAH LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY VIN-YAMIN VA YOMER YHVH YEHUDAH VAT'CHILAH
וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ בֵית אֵל וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ בֵאלֹהִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ בַתְּחִלָּה לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה יְהוּדָה בַתְּחִלָּה
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El arose, and went up to Veit-El, and asked counsel of Elohim, and said, "Which of us shall lead the army into battle against the Beney Bin-Yamin?" And YHVH said, "Yehudah shall go up first".
VEIT EL: Is this Beit-El (Bethel), which is also known as Luz, or simply a baetyl somewhere, a wayside shrine based on a standing stone?
VEIT EL: Is this Beit-El (Bethel), which is also known as Luz, or simply a baetyl somewhere, a wayside shrine based on a standing stone?
We have questioned previously whether the Beney Yamin were ever a Yisra-Eli tribe, rather than either an Egyptian, through Ben-Oni his mother's name for him, or... is this double-chapter perhaps the story of how the original Bene Jamun or Ben Oni became assimilated into the tribal confederacy, following the similar account of the Beney Dan in the previous chapter. Needs more thinking about. But there is a strong case to be made that the tribes were an artificial structure imposed at some later stage, as a means of amalgamating all the multitudes of different peoples into a single nation, just as Ezra and Nechem-Yah would do at the return from exile in the 5th century BCE; or quite possibly it wasn't even a tribal structure at first, but simply a geographical one, like the naming of counties.
YEHUDAH VAT'CHILAH: What a surprise! We are obviously back in Yehudan history-telling, rather than the Ephrayimite versions of most of the other tales in Judges. (There is a school of Bible scholarship that would argue that this also helps explain why Elohim predominates over YHVH in these tales; they believe that E is generally Ephrayimite, J Yehudan; I have argued against this foolishness at the link, and shall not trouble you with it now).
ELOHIM...YHVH: They go up to ask "the gods", but it is specifically YHVH who answers. Which rather adds weight to my counter-argument, as per the parenthesis above.
KJ: And the children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah.
ELOHIM...YHVH: They go up to ask "the gods", but it is specifically YHVH who answers. Which rather adds weight to my counter-argument, as per the parenthesis above.
20:19 VA YAKUMU VENEY YISRA-EL BA BOKER VA YACHANU AL HA GIV'AH
וַיָּקוּמוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל הַגִּבְעָה
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El got up the following morning, and made camp against Ha Giv'ah.
pey break
pey break
20:20 VA YETS'E ISH YISRA-EL LA MILCHAMAH IM BIN-YAMIN VA YA'ARCHU ITAM ISH YISRA-EL MILCHAMAH EL HA GIV'AH
וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם בִּנְיָמִן וַיַּעַרְכוּ אִתָּם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִלְחָמָה אֶל הַגִּבְעָה
BN: And the men of Yisra-El went out to battle against Bin-Yamin; and the men of Yisra-El put themselves in array to fight against them at Ha Giv'ah.
ISH YISRA-EL: Interesting grammatical variation here, using the singular ISH (man) as a plural.
ISH YISRA-EL: Interesting grammatical variation here, using the singular ISH (man) as a plural.
20:21 VA YETS'U VENEY VIN-YAMIN MIN HA GIV'AH VA YASHCHIYTU VE YISRA-EL BA YOM HA HU SHENAYIM VE ESRIM ELEPH ISH ARTSAH
וַיֵּצְאוּ בְנֵי בִנְיָמִן מִן הַגִּבְעָה וַיַּשְׁחִיתוּ בְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיֹּום הַהוּא שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף אִישׁ אָרְצָה
BN: And the Beney Bin-Yamin came out of Ha Giv'ah, and reduced twenty-two thousand men of Yisra-El to dust that day.
I wonder which side YHVH was on. A query that sounds cynical and even sarcastic, but is actually meant entirely seriously. YHVH supports his people when they follow his laws, and turns against them when they disobey; but here both sides are his people; and here it appears to be the bad boys who emerge victorious. What moral then are we supposed to deduce from the analogy? That YHVH approved the gang-rape of the concubine?
The answer to my query appears to lie in verse 23; but that still does not explain why, let alone how, the Beney Yamin won the first round.
KJ: And the people the men of Israel encouraged themselves, and set their battle again in array in the place where they put themselves in array the first day.
I wonder which side YHVH was on. A query that sounds cynical and even sarcastic, but is actually meant entirely seriously. YHVH supports his people when they follow his laws, and turns against them when they disobey; but here both sides are his people; and here it appears to be the bad boys who emerge victorious. What moral then are we supposed to deduce from the analogy? That YHVH approved the gang-rape of the concubine?
The answer to my query appears to lie in verse 23; but that still does not explain why, let alone how, the Beney Yamin won the first round.
20:22 VA YITCHAZEK HA AM ISH YISRA-EL VA YOSIPHU LA'AROCH MILCHAMAH BA MAKOM ASHER ARCHU SHAM BA YOM HA RISHON
וַיִּתְחַזֵּק הָעָם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּסִפוּ לַעֲרֹךְ מִלְחָמָה בַּמָּקֹום אֲשֶׁר עָרְכוּ שָׁם בַּיֹּום הָרִאשֹׁון
BN: And the people, the men of Yisra-El, called for reinforcements, and set their army in the field, in the same place where they had set it on the previous day.
YITCHAZEK: literally "strengthened themselves", which might be psychological, as per KJ, or military, which is my preference (remember there was a GORAL at verse 9, a drawing of lots, to see who would do the fighting, and Yehudah got the straw; so it may well be that this was only Yehudah v Bin-Yamin, while the others watched). It is also liturgical (not here, but that is no reason for not mentioning it: click here)
20:23 VA YA'ALU VENEY YISRA-EL VA YIVCHU LIPHNEY YHVH AD HA EREV VA YISH'ALU VA YHVH LEMOR HA OSIPH LAGESHET LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY VIN-YAMIN ACHI VA YOMER YHVH ALU ELAV
KJ: (And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.)
KJ: And the children of Israel came near against the children of Benjamin the second day.
YITCHAZEK: literally "strengthened themselves", which might be psychological, as per KJ, or military, which is my preference (remember there was a GORAL at verse 9, a drawing of lots, to see who would do the fighting, and Yehudah got the straw; so it may well be that this was only Yehudah v Bin-Yamin, while the others watched). It is also liturgical (not here, but that is no reason for not mentioning it: click here)
20:23 VA YA'ALU VENEY YISRA-EL VA YIVCHU LIPHNEY YHVH AD HA EREV VA YISH'ALU VA YHVH LEMOR HA OSIPH LAGESHET LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY VIN-YAMIN ACHI VA YOMER YHVH ALU ELAV
וַיַּעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּבְכּוּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַד הָעֶרֶב וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ בַיהוָה לֵאמֹר הַאֹוסִיף לָגֶשֶׁת לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן אָחִי וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה עֲלוּ אֵלָיו
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El went up and wept before YHVH until the evening, and asked counsel of YHVH, saying: "Shall I go out again to battle against the Beney Bin-Yamin my brothers?" And YHVH said: "Go up against them".
Why do translations put this in brackets where Yehudit has no brackets?
pey break
Why do translations put this in brackets where Yehudit has no brackets?
pey break
20:24 VA YIKREVU VENEY YISRA-EL EL BENEY VIN-YAMIN BA YOM HA SHENI
וַיִּקְרְבוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן בַּיֹּום הַשֵּׁנִי
BN: And the children of Yisra-El formed ranks against the Beney Bin-Yamin for a second day.
20:25 VA YETS'E VIN-YAMIN LIKRA'TAM MIN HA GIV'AH BA YOM HA SHENI VA YASHCHIYTU VIVNEY YISRA-EL OD SHEMONAT ASAR ELEPH ISH ARTSAH KOL ELEH SHOLPHEY CHAREV
KJ: And Benjamin went forth against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed down to the ground of the children of Israel again eighteen thousand men; all these drew the sword.
20:25 VA YETS'E VIN-YAMIN LIKRA'TAM MIN HA GIV'AH BA YOM HA SHENI VA YASHCHIYTU VIVNEY YISRA-EL OD SHEMONAT ASAR ELEPH ISH ARTSAH KOL ELEH SHOLPHEY CHAREV
וַיֵּצֵא בִנְיָמִן לִקְרָאתָם מִן הַגִּבְעָה בַּיֹּום הַשֵּׁנִי וַיַּשְׁחִיתוּ בִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹוד שְׁמֹנַת עָשָׂר אֶלֶף אִישׁ אָרְצָה כָּל אֵלֶּה שֹׁלְפֵי חָרֶב
BN: And Bin-Yamin marched out against them from Ha Giv'ah for a second day, and reduced another eighteen thousand men of the Beney Yisra-El to dust, every one of them a swordsman.
So I return to my query in verse 21. Verse 23 told us that YHVH was on the side of Yisra-El against the Beney Yamin, and yet, for the second time, he has denied them victory; indeed, severely punished them.
So I return to my query in verse 21. Verse 23 told us that YHVH was on the side of Yisra-El against the Beney Yamin, and yet, for the second time, he has denied them victory; indeed, severely punished them.
20:26 VA YA'ALU CHOL BENEY YISRA-EL VE CHOL HA AM VA YAVO'U VEIT-EL VA YIVKU VA YESHVU SHAM LIPHNEY YHVH VA YATSUMU VA YOM HA HU AD HA AREV VA YA'ALU OLOT U SHELAMIM LIPHNEY YHVH
וַיַּעֲלוּ כָל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל הָעָם וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵית אֵל וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וַיָּצוּמוּ בַיֹּום הַהוּא עַד הָעָרֶב וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹות וּשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהוָה
BN: Then all the Beney Yisra-El, and all the people, went up, and came to Veit-El, and wept, and sat there before YHVH, and fasted that day until the evening, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before YHVH.
Ah but civil war can be a desperately heart-breaking affair (for those who didn't die in it).
Ah but civil war can be a desperately heart-breaking affair (for those who didn't die in it).
20:27 VA YISHALU VENEY YISRA-EL BA YHVH VE SHAM ARON BRIT HA ELOHIM BA YAMIM HA HEM
KJ: And the children of Israel enquired of the LORD, (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days
וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיהוָה וְשָׁם אֲרֹון בְּרִית הָאֱלֹהִים בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El enquired of YHVH, for the Ark of the covenant of Elohim was there in those days.
This is questionable. We have been told quite clearly, and repeatedly, that the Ark was at Shiloh; though "in those days" could simply mean the days of this particular war, and that the Ark was brought from Shiloh to Beit-El as part of the muster (cf the other Mitspeh war-story, in 1 Samuel 4). Or that it was there as a stage in its annual pilgrimage.
Note yet again the apparent mixing-up of YHVH and Elohim; unless we regard YHVH as merely one of, perhaps the chief of, a pantheon of gods, the latter phrase an English rendering of Elohim. If so, we might render this verse as:
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El enquired of YHVH, their chief god, for the Ark of the Covenant with all of the gods was there in those days...
KJ: And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days,) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the LORD said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into thine hand.
This is questionable. We have been told quite clearly, and repeatedly, that the Ark was at Shiloh; though "in those days" could simply mean the days of this particular war, and that the Ark was brought from Shiloh to Beit-El as part of the muster (cf the other Mitspeh war-story, in 1 Samuel 4). Or that it was there as a stage in its annual pilgrimage.
Note yet again the apparent mixing-up of YHVH and Elohim; unless we regard YHVH as merely one of, perhaps the chief of, a pantheon of gods, the latter phrase an English rendering of Elohim. If so, we might render this verse as:
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El enquired of YHVH, their chief god, for the Ark of the Covenant with all of the gods was there in those days...
20:28 U PHINCHAS BEN EL-AZAR BEN AHARON OMED LEPHANAV BA YAMIM HA HEM LEMOR HA OSIPH OD LATSE'T LA MILCHAMAH IM BENEY VIN-YAMIN ACHI IM ECHDAL VA YOMER YHVH ALU KI MACHAR ETNENU VE YADECHA
וּפִינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן עֹמֵד לְפָנָיו בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם לֵאמֹר הַאֹוסִף עֹוד לָצֵאת לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן אָחִי אִם אֶחְדָּל וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה עֲלוּ כִּי מָחָר אֶתְּנֶנּוּ בְיָדֶךָ
BN: And Pinchas ben El-Azar ben Aharon stood before it at that time, and said: "Shall I go out to battle one more time against the Beney Bin-Yamin, my kinsmen, or shall I cease?" And YHVH said: "Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into your hand".
A test of faith perhaps, YHVH having been wrong twice and now telling them to go a third time? Or the need for the number three? That number being connected with Bin-Yamin, "the son of the right hand", which is to say "the child of the moon-goddess", which is to say "himself the earth-god" (and don't forget that Geb of Ha Giv'ah may well have been Geb the Egyptian Earth-god), should not surprise us; should even remind us, if we need it, that, as with every other tale in the Book of Judges, this one should be read as a cosmological analogy, as a myth, and not as history. In the continuing battle of this book between the sun and the moon, the young moon is strong enough to hold her own against the sun, as is the full moon; but the old crone, the waning moon, will not be able to do so, and must die, in order to be reborn.
A test of faith perhaps, YHVH having been wrong twice and now telling them to go a third time? Or the need for the number three? That number being connected with Bin-Yamin, "the son of the right hand", which is to say "the child of the moon-goddess", which is to say "himself the earth-god" (and don't forget that Geb of Ha Giv'ah may well have been Geb the Egyptian Earth-god), should not surprise us; should even remind us, if we need it, that, as with every other tale in the Book of Judges, this one should be read as a cosmological analogy, as a myth, and not as history. In the continuing battle of this book between the sun and the moon, the young moon is strong enough to hold her own against the sun, as is the full moon; but the old crone, the waning moon, will not be able to do so, and must die, in order to be reborn.
Odd to find Pinchas ben El-Azar still alive (but neither of the two in this link is him!). We were told of his death a while ago - about three hundred years actually; he was a son of Aharon, Mosheh's brother. And in a generation or two's time he will be the son of Eli, the High Priest of the Shemu-El story (the second Pinchas in the above link). So obviously this is just a namesake; but does it also presume that he was a tribal descendant? I ask only because we continually hear about priests, including Leviyim and Kohanim, from other tribes than Levi, and yet Mosaic law has stated quite explicitly that the priestly caste is exclusively Levitical.
According to Gesenius, Pinchas (פינחס) is an amalgamation of PEH = "mouth" and NECHAS = "brass" (as in Nechushtan, Mosheh's banner), but Nechushtan has a Sheen (ש), not a Samech (ס); he defends himself by claiming NECHAS with a Samech was an unused root. Nice though it would be in the context, I'm afraid it doesn't work.
But note also that his name is El-Azar = "El will aid us". El, not YHVH. The grandfather of the pantheon.
20:29 VA YASEM YISRA-EL OREVIM EL HA GIV'AH SAVIV
וַיָּשֶׂם יִשְׂרָאֵל אֹרְבִים אֶל הַגִּבְעָה סָבִיב
BN: And Yisra-El set liers in wait round around Ha Giv'ah.
OREVIM: That word again - the evening, which is the moon's time; the crow, which is the black bird of darkness; and these men who will form the secret second-wave, to attack the city when it is empty (verse 32). Type the word OREV into the search bar at the top left of this page, and you will find dozens of occasions when the triple-variant has come up.
OREVIM: That word again - the evening, which is the moon's time; the crow, which is the black bird of darkness; and these men who will form the secret second-wave, to attack the city when it is empty (verse 32). Type the word OREV into the search bar at the top left of this page, and you will find dozens of occasions when the triple-variant has come up.
Are we about to witness, yet again, what appears to be the only effective military strategy known to the Beney Yisra-El at this time? (e.g the Battle of Ai in Joshua 8).
pey break
20:30 VA YA'ALU VENEY YISRA-EL EL BENEY VIN-YAMIN BA YOM HA SHELIYSHI VA YA'ARCHU EL HA GIV'AH KE PA'AM BE PA'AM
וַיַּעֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן בַּיֹּום הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וַיַּעַרְכוּ אֶל הַגִּבְעָה כְּפַעַם בְּפָעַם
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El went out to fight the Beney Bin-Yamin for a third day, and set themselves in battle array against Giv'ah, as previously.
20:31 VA YETS'U VENEY VIN-YAMIN LIKRA'T HA AM HANTEKU MIN HA IR VA YACHELU LEHAKOT ME HA AM CHALALIM KE PHA'AM BE PHA'AM BA MESILOT ASHER ACHAT OLAH BEIT-EL VA ACHAT GIV'ATAH BA SADEH KISHLOSHIM ISH BE YISRA-EL
KJ: And the children of Benjamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and they began to smite of the people, and kill, as at other times, in the highways, of which one goeth up to the house of God, and the other to Gibeah in the field, about thirty men of Israel.
20:31 VA YETS'U VENEY VIN-YAMIN LIKRA'T HA AM HANTEKU MIN HA IR VA YACHELU LEHAKOT ME HA AM CHALALIM KE PHA'AM BE PHA'AM BA MESILOT ASHER ACHAT OLAH BEIT-EL VA ACHAT GIV'ATAH BA SADEH KISHLOSHIM ISH BE YISRA-EL
וַיֵּצְאוּ בְנֵי בִנְיָמִן לִקְרַאת הָעָם הָנְתְּקוּ מִן הָעִיר וַיָּחֵלּוּ לְהַכֹּות מֵהָעָם חֲלָלִים כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם בַּמְסִלֹּות אֲשֶׁר אַחַת עֹלָה בֵית אֵל וְאַחַת גִּבְעָתָה בַּשָּׂדֶה כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And the Beney Bin-Yamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and they began to cut down some of the people, and kill them, as at other times, about thirty men of Yisra-El, on the highways, one of which goes up to Veit-El, and the other to Ha Giv'ah, through the fields.
The syntax here is horrible, but I think the translation just about unravels it.
The syntax here is horrible, but I think the translation just about unravels it.
Given the numbers killed in the previous battles, thirty seems small in the context of the phrasing, and the statement in the next verse, and therefore suggests a symbolic number.
As always with these tales, the intention appears to have been mythological, long before it became [pseudo]-historical, and Bin Yamin is always associated with the moon, his name denoting him as "the son of the right hand", which is the seat adjacent to the throne where the heir-apparent always sits when his father the king is giving courtly audience - the same seat that Jesus ascended to sit in after his Resurrection (click here).
GIV'ATAH: See my notes to verses 4 and 14. Previously we have seen BA GIV'AH and LA GIV'AH, both grammatically correct; this is also technically correct, but it has the potential effect of transforming the name, as happened previously to Timna.
20:32 VA YOMRU BENEY VIN-YAMIN NIGAPHIM HEM LEPHANEYNU KE VA RI'SHONAH U VENEY YISRA-EL AMRU NANUSAH U NETAKNUHU MIN HA IR EL HA MESILOT
KJ: And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways.
GIV'ATAH: See my notes to verses 4 and 14. Previously we have seen BA GIV'AH and LA GIV'AH, both grammatically correct; this is also technically correct, but it has the potential effect of transforming the name, as happened previously to Timna.
20:32 VA YOMRU BENEY VIN-YAMIN NIGAPHIM HEM LEPHANEYNU KE VA RI'SHONAH U VENEY YISRA-EL AMRU NANUSAH U NETAKNUHU MIN HA IR EL HA MESILOT
וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן נִגָּפִים הֵם לְפָנֵינוּ כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמְרוּ נָנוּסָה וּנְתַקְּנֻהוּ מִן הָעִיר אֶל הַמְסִלֹּות
BN: Then the Beney Bin-Yamin said: "We have beaten them, just like we did last time". But the Beney Yisra-El said: "Let us flee, and draw them out of the city onto the highways".
MESILOT: I am uncomfortable translating this as "highways", because of the modern connotation of four-lane asphalt with traffic jams and pollution. However, it is precisely accurate: the root is SALAL (סלל), which means "elevated", and in those days to "take the highway" literally meant to take the road over the hills, rather than what is never called "the low-way", through the valleys.
I have not bothered to go back and count the how-manyth time this strategy has been employed, from Mosheh through Yehoshu'a until now (and several more examples in the Books to follow) but it does seem to be the only one they knew, so it is rather surprising that the Beney Yamin, who had been trained to use it, should also fall for it now.
MESILOT: I am uncomfortable translating this as "highways", because of the modern connotation of four-lane asphalt with traffic jams and pollution. However, it is precisely accurate: the root is SALAL (סלל), which means "elevated", and in those days to "take the highway" literally meant to take the road over the hills, rather than what is never called "the low-way", through the valleys.
I have not bothered to go back and count the how-manyth time this strategy has been employed, from Mosheh through Yehoshu'a until now (and several more examples in the Books to follow) but it does seem to be the only one they knew, so it is rather surprising that the Beney Yamin, who had been trained to use it, should also fall for it now.
20:33 VE CHOL ISH YISRA-EL KAMU MIMKOMO VA YA'ARCHU BE VA'AL TAMAR VE OREV YISRA-EL MEGIYACH MIMKOMO MI MA'AREH GAV'A
וְכֹל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָמוּ מִמְּקֹומֹו וַיַּעַרְכוּ בְּבַעַל תָּמָר וְאֹרֵב יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵגִיחַ מִמְּקֹמֹו מִמַּעֲרֵה גָבַע
BN: And all the men of Yisra-El rose up from their places, and set out their battle-array at Ba'al Tamar: and the Yisra-Eli liers-in-wait came out of their hiding-places, which were in the meadows of Gav'a.
BA'AL TAMAR: The Lord of the date palms. Every goddess has a male consort. In this case however Ba'al is the title, not the specific god, while Tamar is definitely the goddess.
GAV'A: The third variation on the name, but also the naming of a third known shrine. This one lacks a final Hey (ה). Are all three connected to the Egyptian Geb?
KJ: And there came against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore: but they knew not that evil was near them.
BA'AL TAMAR: The Lord of the date palms. Every goddess has a male consort. In this case however Ba'al is the title, not the specific god, while Tamar is definitely the goddess.
GAV'A: The third variation on the name, but also the naming of a third known shrine. This one lacks a final Hey (ה). Are all three connected to the Egyptian Geb?
20:34 VA YAVO'U MI NEGED LA GIV'AH ASERET ALAPHIM ISH BACHUR MI KOL YISRA-EL VE HA MILCHAMAH KAVEDAH VE HEM LO YAD'U KI NOGA'AT ALEYHEM HA RA'AH
וַיָּבֹאוּ מִנֶּגֶד לַגִּבְעָה עֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ בָּחוּר מִכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַמִּלְחָמָה כָּבֵדָה וְהֵם לֹא יָדְעוּ כִּי נֹגַעַת עֲלֵיהֶם הָרָעָה
BN: And ten thousand élite soldiers from across Yisra-El came against Giv'ah, and the battle was intense, and they had no idea what a terrible disaster was about to befall them.
BACHUR: Confirmation that YITCHAZEK meant "reinforcements" in verse 22.
GIV'AH: The Yehudit returns to calling it by this name; so should we read the one in the last verse simply as a scribal error?
HA RA'AH: Yes, it means evil, but we have seen that anything good that happens is attributed to YHVH and anything bad to human sin; so they are about to receive, from YHVH, the deserved retribution for their sin, and theologically this cannot be described as "evil" without risking censure by the clerical authorities - indeed, I can only assume that the editors of the King James, and their successors, have only gotten away with it because nobody has realised their error, including, quite possibly, YHVH himself.
But the distinction is also in the choice of vocabulary. In verse 32, and again in 35, the "smiting" is from the root NAGAPH, and yes it does indeed mean "smite" (see my notes to Leviticus 26:17 especially, but also Deuteronomy 28:7; and 1 Samuel 4:10, where my link translates it as "routed"); but it is also the word used for the consequence of the plagues, particularly in Exodus 7:27, and is actually used as the noun itself (NEGEPH, or sometimes NAGEPH - נגף) in Exodus 12:13 and 30:12, and in Numbers 8:19 and 17:11.
pey break
BACHUR: Confirmation that YITCHAZEK meant "reinforcements" in verse 22.
GIV'AH: The Yehudit returns to calling it by this name; so should we read the one in the last verse simply as a scribal error?
HA RA'AH: Yes, it means evil, but we have seen that anything good that happens is attributed to YHVH and anything bad to human sin; so they are about to receive, from YHVH, the deserved retribution for their sin, and theologically this cannot be described as "evil" without risking censure by the clerical authorities - indeed, I can only assume that the editors of the King James, and their successors, have only gotten away with it because nobody has realised their error, including, quite possibly, YHVH himself.
But the distinction is also in the choice of vocabulary. In verse 32, and again in 35, the "smiting" is from the root NAGAPH, and yes it does indeed mean "smite" (see my notes to Leviticus 26:17 especially, but also Deuteronomy 28:7; and 1 Samuel 4:10, where my link translates it as "routed"); but it is also the word used for the consequence of the plagues, particularly in Exodus 7:27, and is actually used as the noun itself (NEGEPH, or sometimes NAGEPH - נגף) in Exodus 12:13 and 30:12, and in Numbers 8:19 and 17:11.
pey break
20:35 VA YIGOPH YHVH ET BIN-YAMIN LIPHNEY YISRA-EL VA YASHCHIYTU VENEY YISRA-EL BE VIN-YAMIN BA YOM HA HU ESRIM VA CHAMISHAH ELEPH U ME'AH ISH KOL ELEH SHOLEPH CHAREV
וַיִּגֹּף יְהוָה אֶת בִּנְיָמִן לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּשְׁחִיתוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּבִנְיָמִן בַּיֹּום הַהוּא עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה אִישׁ כָּל אֵלֶּה שֹׁלֵף חָרֶב
BN: And YHVH smote Bin-Yamin before Yisra-El: and the Beney Yisra-El slaughtered that day twenty-five thousand, one hundred men of Bin-Yamin: everyone a swordsman.
BIN-YAMIN: There is a sudden change in the narrative at this point; no longer the BENEY BIN-YAMIN, but now just BIN-YAMIN. Much less awkward, but odd as it is still BENEY YISRA-EL. Have we switched from one historical narrative to another? The next verse actually manages to use both.
Isn't it wonderful how YHVH always manages to be on the winning side! I must ask him to buy my lottery ticket next time around.
KJ: So the children of Benjamin saw that they were smitten: for the men of Israel gave place to the Benjamites, because they trusted unto the liers in wait which they had set beside Gibeah.
BIN-YAMIN: There is a sudden change in the narrative at this point; no longer the BENEY BIN-YAMIN, but now just BIN-YAMIN. Much less awkward, but odd as it is still BENEY YISRA-EL. Have we switched from one historical narrative to another? The next verse actually manages to use both.
Isn't it wonderful how YHVH always manages to be on the winning side! I must ask him to buy my lottery ticket next time around.
YASHCHIYTU: Has to be translated as "slaughtered" - the verb here is the one that yields SHOCHET, for the person who carries it out, and SHECHITAH for the ceremony, of "ritual slaughter".
20:36 VA YIR'U VENEY VIN-YAMIN KI NIGAPHU VA YITNU ISH YISRA-EL MAKOM LE VIN-YAMIN KI VAT'CHU EL HA OREV ASHER SAMU EL HA GIV'AH
וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי בִנְיָמִן כִּי נִגָּפוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל מָקֹום לְבִנְיָמִן כִּי בָטְחוּ אֶל הָאֹרֵב אֲשֶׁר שָׂמוּ אֶל הַגִּבְעָה
BN: So the Beney Bin-Yamin saw that they were beaten. For the men of Yisra-El had strategically retreated, yielding the open plain to Bin-Yamin, confident of the ambushmen who they had set beside Ha Giv'ah.
MAKOM: "Gave place to". As per my note at verse 32, a tactical retreat, allowing the Beney Yamin to think they have occupied the best fighting-space, but in fact they have been lured into an ambush. See the next verse.
20:37 VE HA OREV HECHIYSHU VA YIPHSHETU EL HA GIV'AH VA YIMSHOCH HA OREV VA YACH ET KOL HA IR LE PHI CHAREV
KJ: And the liers in wait hasted, and rushed upon Gibeah; and the liers in wait drew themselves along, and smote all the city with the edge of the sword.
MAKOM: "Gave place to". As per my note at verse 32, a tactical retreat, allowing the Beney Yamin to think they have occupied the best fighting-space, but in fact they have been lured into an ambush. See the next verse.
20:37 VE HA OREV HECHIYSHU VA YIPHSHETU EL HA GIV'AH VA YIMSHOCH HA OREV VA YACH ET KOL HA IR LE PHI CHAREV
וְהָאֹרֵב הֵחִישׁוּ וַיִּפְשְׁטוּ אֶל הַגִּבְעָה וַיִּמְשֹׁךְ הָאֹרֵב וַיַּךְ אֶת כָּל הָעִיר לְפִי חָרֶב
BN: Then the ambushers moved quickly, rushing into Ha Giv'ah; and the ambushers went street by street, and struck down the entire city with the edge of the sword.
HECHIYSHU: From the root CHUSH (חוּשׁ), which means "to hurry", and yields both CHUSHAM and CHUSHIM, though it is not obvious why, in either case, the root should yield the name.
YIPHSHETU: The root on this occasion is PASHAT (פָשַׁט), and its general meaning is said to be "to spread out". But 1 Chronicles 14:9 and 13 have the Pelishtim "raiding" the valleys, which infers colonisation, which I guess is a form of spreading out; Job 1:17 has a gang of camel thieves literally camelnapping (should that be cameltrafficking?) the entire herd, so the herd will no doubt get spread out across Chaldea eventually, but that isn't what the verb intends in the immediate; Judges 9:33 uses it for the sunrise (the spreading out of the light as the sun rises?); while the infestation of grubs in Nahum 3:16 is sloughing its skin rather more than swarming: a form of "spreading out" by mass-hatching, I suppose, which is also a form of colonisation, in the world of primitive cells.
YIMSHOCH: The root here is MASHACH (מָשַׁךְ), which has the general sense of "drawing out", and also yields the name MESHECH, a son of Yaphet in Genesis 10:2. In what way are the ambushers "drawing out" here? Surely it is the non-liers in wait who have drawn them out, so that the liers-in-wait can then steal in? But Judges 4:6 used the same verb, Devorah telling Barak to "Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the Beney Naphtali and the Beney Zevulun?"; in my translation I changed "draw" on that occasion to "move your troops". So it would seem that YIPHSHETU and YIMSHOCH are synonyms here, both describing the methodology of city-capture: street-by-street, even house-by-house.
YACH: From NACHAH (נָכָה), meaning "to strike" or "to smite".
One oddity of this verse that I cannot explain, however: all four verbs are attached to HA OREV, which is one of those compound nouns that can be treated as either singular or plural, but not, as is the case here, variably both. HECHIYSHU and YIPHSHETU are both 3rd person plural, YIMSHOCH and YACH 3rd person singular.
20:38 VE HA MO'ED HAYAH LE ISH YISRA-EL IM HA OREV HEREV LEHA'ALOTAM MAS'AT HE ASHAN MIN HA IR
KJ: Now there was an appointed sign between the men of Israel and the liers in wait, that they should make a great flame with smoke rise up out of the city.
HECHIYSHU: From the root CHUSH (חוּשׁ), which means "to hurry", and yields both CHUSHAM and CHUSHIM, though it is not obvious why, in either case, the root should yield the name.
YIPHSHETU: The root on this occasion is PASHAT (פָשַׁט), and its general meaning is said to be "to spread out". But 1 Chronicles 14:9 and 13 have the Pelishtim "raiding" the valleys, which infers colonisation, which I guess is a form of spreading out; Job 1:17 has a gang of camel thieves literally camelnapping (should that be cameltrafficking?) the entire herd, so the herd will no doubt get spread out across Chaldea eventually, but that isn't what the verb intends in the immediate; Judges 9:33 uses it for the sunrise (the spreading out of the light as the sun rises?); while the infestation of grubs in Nahum 3:16 is sloughing its skin rather more than swarming: a form of "spreading out" by mass-hatching, I suppose, which is also a form of colonisation, in the world of primitive cells.
YIMSHOCH: The root here is MASHACH (מָשַׁךְ), which has the general sense of "drawing out", and also yields the name MESHECH, a son of Yaphet in Genesis 10:2. In what way are the ambushers "drawing out" here? Surely it is the non-liers in wait who have drawn them out, so that the liers-in-wait can then steal in? But Judges 4:6 used the same verb, Devorah telling Barak to "Go and draw toward Mount Tabor, and take with you ten thousand men of the Beney Naphtali and the Beney Zevulun?"; in my translation I changed "draw" on that occasion to "move your troops". So it would seem that YIPHSHETU and YIMSHOCH are synonyms here, both describing the methodology of city-capture: street-by-street, even house-by-house.
YACH: From NACHAH (נָכָה), meaning "to strike" or "to smite".
One oddity of this verse that I cannot explain, however: all four verbs are attached to HA OREV, which is one of those compound nouns that can be treated as either singular or plural, but not, as is the case here, variably both. HECHIYSHU and YIPHSHETU are both 3rd person plural, YIMSHOCH and YACH 3rd person singular.
20:38 VE HA MO'ED HAYAH LE ISH YISRA-EL IM HA OREV HEREV LEHA'ALOTAM MAS'AT HE ASHAN MIN HA IR
וְהַמֹּועֵד הָיָה לְאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם הָאֹרֵב הֶרֶב לְהַעֲלֹותָם מַשְׂאַת הֶעָשָׁן מִן הָעִיר
BN: Now there was an agreed signal between the men of Yisra-El and the ambushers, that they would send up a huge bonfire of smoke out of the city.
This hardly counts as "an agreed signal" - "when we set the city on fire, and you can see it smouldering, this will be our signal to you that we have taken it". D'uh!
HA OREV...HEREV: Ever more word-games! I'm just surprised they didn't light the bonfire in the evening, so that we could have HA EREV in the sentence too; and maybe sacrifice a crow or two in the flames.
This hardly counts as "an agreed signal" - "when we set the city on fire, and you can see it smouldering, this will be our signal to you that we have taken it". D'uh!
20:39 VA YAHAPHOCH ISH YISRA-EL BA MILCHAMAH U VIN-YAMIN HECHEL LEHAKOT CHALALIM BE ISH YISRA-EL KISHLOSHIM ISH KI AMRU ACH NIGOPH NIGAPH HU LEPHANEYNU KA MILCHAMAH HA RI'SHONAH
וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּבִנְיָמִן הֵחֵל לְהַכֹּות חֲלָלִים בְּאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים אִישׁ כִּי אָמְרוּ אַךְ נִגֹּוף נִגָּף הוּא לְפָנֵינוּ כַּמִּלְחָמָה הָרִאשֹׁנָה
BN: So when the men of Yisra-El made their tactical retreat from the battle, Bin-Yamin began to strike and wound about thirty of the men of Yisra-El. For they said: "Looks like they've been routed by us, just like last time."
Again that symbolic number thirty.
HECHEL: rather than HIT'CHIL. Ditto in the next verse. Deliberately, because HECHEL leads on to CHALALIM here, and again to CHELIL in the next verse - still more word-games.
CHALALIM: If YIPHSHETU and YIMSHOCH both mean "spread out", then CHALALIM turns that on its head (the verb for "to turn something on its head" would be LAHAPHOCH, and really it was grammatically a curiosity placed at the beginning of this verse; so the love of word-games must be why); CHALAL means "to make open", and is normally used for cuts, whether a wound in the skin or a tunnel through the mountain or the splicing open of two parts of an army. How it came to mean "profanity", as in Chas ve Chalilah, is not obvious, but see Ezekiel 21:30 anyway.
20:40 VE HA MAS'ET HECHELAH LA'ALOT MIN HA IR AMUD ASHAN VA YIPHEN BIN-YAMIN ACHARAV VE HINEH ALAH CHELIL HA IR HA SHAMAYEMAH
KJ: But when the flame began to arise up out of the city with a pillar of smoke, the Benjamites looked behind them, and, behold, the flame of the city ascended up to heaven.
Again that symbolic number thirty.
HECHEL: rather than HIT'CHIL. Ditto in the next verse. Deliberately, because HECHEL leads on to CHALALIM here, and again to CHELIL in the next verse - still more word-games.
CHALALIM: If YIPHSHETU and YIMSHOCH both mean "spread out", then CHALALIM turns that on its head (the verb for "to turn something on its head" would be LAHAPHOCH, and really it was grammatically a curiosity placed at the beginning of this verse; so the love of word-games must be why); CHALAL means "to make open", and is normally used for cuts, whether a wound in the skin or a tunnel through the mountain or the splicing open of two parts of an army. How it came to mean "profanity", as in Chas ve Chalilah, is not obvious, but see Ezekiel 21:30 anyway.
20:40 VE HA MAS'ET HECHELAH LA'ALOT MIN HA IR AMUD ASHAN VA YIPHEN BIN-YAMIN ACHARAV VE HINEH ALAH CHELIL HA IR HA SHAMAYEMAH
וְהַמַּשְׂאֵת הֵחֵלָּה לַעֲלֹות מִן הָעִיר עַמּוּד עָשָׁן וַיִּפֶן בִּנְיָמִן אַחֲרָיו וְהִנֵּה עָלָה כְלִיל הָעִיר הַשָּׁמָיְמָה
BN: But when the flame began to rise out of the city as a pillar of smoke, Bin-Yamin looked behind them, and, behold, the flame in the city was climbing to the heavens.
YIPHEN BIN-YAMIN: Is the word ISH missing? The next verse reinstates it.
We cannot possibly have an AMUD ASHAN, a pillar of smoke, and not think of Mosheh in the desert; simply a piece of word association; even if there is no other significance.
But in fact it is a false association. See for example Exodus 13:21, where it is a "pillar of cloud" (עַמּוּד עָנָן - AMUD ANAN) by day, and a "pillar of fire" (עַמּוּד אֵשׁ - AMUD ESH) by night, and never a "pillar of smoke" (עַמּוּד עָשָׁן - AMUD ASHAN) at all.
KJ: And when the men of Israel turned again, the men of Benjamin were amazed: for they saw that evil was come upon them.
YIPHEN BIN-YAMIN: Is the word ISH missing? The next verse reinstates it.
We cannot possibly have an AMUD ASHAN, a pillar of smoke, and not think of Mosheh in the desert; simply a piece of word association; even if there is no other significance.
But in fact it is a false association. See for example Exodus 13:21, where it is a "pillar of cloud" (עַמּוּד עָנָן - AMUD ANAN) by day, and a "pillar of fire" (עַמּוּד אֵשׁ - AMUD ESH) by night, and never a "pillar of smoke" (עַמּוּד עָשָׁן - AMUD ASHAN) at all.
20:41 VE ISH YISRA-EL HAPHACH VA YIBAHEL ISH BIN-YAMIN KI RA'AH KI NAGAH ALAV HA RA'AH
וְאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הָפַךְ וַיִּבָּהֵל אִישׁ בִּנְיָמִן כִּי רָאָה כִּי נָגְעָה עָלָיו הָרָעָה
BN: And when the men of Yisra-El turned again, the men of Bin-Yamin were amazed: for they saw that disaster had befallen them.
ISH: is generally singular, but being used here as a compound noun.
HA RA'AH: Further to my note at verse 34, RA does indeed mean "evil", but there are levels of badness, from "o my god they're burning the town", which is unquestionably not a good thing, all the way to "demons from She'ol have come upon us and dragged us down into the netherworld and we've done nothing to deserve it", which would be a description of evil in this context, but also something of an exaggeration. We have to be very careful how we use the word "evil"; here it is being used as a noun, rather than as an adjective.
ISH: is generally singular, but being used here as a compound noun.
HA RA'AH: Further to my note at verse 34, RA does indeed mean "evil", but there are levels of badness, from "o my god they're burning the town", which is unquestionably not a good thing, all the way to "demons from She'ol have come upon us and dragged us down into the netherworld and we've done nothing to deserve it", which would be a description of evil in this context, but also something of an exaggeration. We have to be very careful how we use the word "evil"; here it is being used as a noun, rather than as an adjective.
20:42 VA YIPHNU LIPHNEY ISH YISRA-EL EL DERECH HA MIDBAR VE HA MILCHAMAH HIDBIYKAT'HU VA ASHER ME HE ARIM MASHCHIYTIM OTO BETOCHO
וַיִּפְנוּ לִפְנֵי אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר וְהַמִּלְחָמָה הִדְבִּיקָתְהוּ וַאֲשֶׁר מֵהֶעָרִים מַשְׁחִיתִים אֹותֹו בְּתֹוכֹו
BN: And so they turned their backs on the men of Yisra-El, taking the road towards the desert. But the battle overtook them; and those who came fleeing out of the cities were slaughtered alongside them.
A horribly awkward sentence in the Yehudit - the second in this same chapter. Translating is always challenging, but translating really bad writing is not even pleasurable. And so odd, this inconsistency; verses with richly sophisticated, complex word-games, homophones and homonyms, literary allusions, mythological metaphors; and then scribal sloppiness, spelling and grammar errors, syntactical nonsenses. The next verse begins in the same manner, missing either a noun or a pronoun, let alone a conjunction; I have added what is missing, in square brackets, to my transliteration.
20:43 [VE HEM] KITRU ET BIN-YAMIN [VE] HIRDIYPHUHU MENUCHAH [VE] HIDRICHUHU AD NOCHACH HA GIV'AH MI MIZRACH SHAMESH
KJ: Thus they inclosed the Benjamites round about, and chased them, and trode them down with ease over against Gibeah toward the sunrising.
A horribly awkward sentence in the Yehudit - the second in this same chapter. Translating is always challenging, but translating really bad writing is not even pleasurable. And so odd, this inconsistency; verses with richly sophisticated, complex word-games, homophones and homonyms, literary allusions, mythological metaphors; and then scribal sloppiness, spelling and grammar errors, syntactical nonsenses. The next verse begins in the same manner, missing either a noun or a pronoun, let alone a conjunction; I have added what is missing, in square brackets, to my transliteration.
20:43 [VE HEM] KITRU ET BIN-YAMIN [VE] HIRDIYPHUHU MENUCHAH [VE] HIDRICHUHU AD NOCHACH HA GIV'AH MI MIZRACH SHAMESH
כִּתְּרוּ אֶת בִּנְיָמִן הִרְדִיפֻהוּ מְנוּחָה הִדְרִיכֻהוּ עַד נֹכַח הַגִּבְעָה מִמִּזְרַח שָׁמֶשׁ
BN: Thus they surrounded Bin-Yamin, and chased him, and rode him down with ease towards Ha Giv'ah as the sun was rising.
MI MIZRACH SHEMESH: Unclear if that is a statement of the where or the when of the defeat: "from the east", or "when the sun came up". It could be either. But mythologically it can only be the latter, despite the fires of Hell that are burning in the destroyed pagan shrine - or actually, mostly, because of them (and now see verse 45).
As an exercise in story-telling, this verse is worth a much more detailed study than can be offered here. In conflict with my comment in the previous verse, note the deliberate absence of conjunctions, pronouns, etc, keeping everything to a dramatic minimum. A literal translation would read, like a telegram:
MI MIZRACH SHEMESH: Unclear if that is a statement of the where or the when of the defeat: "from the east", or "when the sun came up". It could be either. But mythologically it can only be the latter, despite the fires of Hell that are burning in the destroyed pagan shrine - or actually, mostly, because of them (and now see verse 45).
As an exercise in story-telling, this verse is worth a much more detailed study than can be offered here. In conflict with my comment in the previous verse, note the deliberate absence of conjunctions, pronouns, etc, keeping everything to a dramatic minimum. A literal translation would read, like a telegram:
"enclosed Bin-Yamin, chased him, resting-place overtook him, until reached Giv'ah, from sunrise."
Biblical Twitter!
20:44 VA YIPLU MI BIN-YAMIN SHEMONAH ASAR ELEPH ISH ET KOL ELEH ANSHEY CHAYIL
וַיִּפְּלוּ מִבִּנְיָמִן שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף אִישׁ אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה אַנְשֵׁי חָיִל
BN: And eighteen thousand men of Bin-Yamin were killed, every one of them a professional soldier.
How many thousand dead is that in total, on both sides? Scores of thousands, and all because some ruffians gang-raped a woman. Much the same consequence when Paris abducted Helen!
ANSHEY CHAYIL: Does that really mean "men of valour", or is it simply a definition of professional soldiers?
How many thousand dead is that in total, on both sides? Scores of thousands, and all because some ruffians gang-raped a woman. Much the same consequence when Paris abducted Helen!
ANSHEY CHAYIL: Does that really mean "men of valour", or is it simply a definition of professional soldiers?
SHEMONAH ASAR ELEPH: All numbers are symbolic in mythological tales, but we need to be careful how we deconstruct this one, because modern Judaism has come up with a piece of nonsense, based on an error, which regards the number 18 as the numerical symbol for Life itself, and people now wear necklaces with the letters Chet-Yud dangling from them like Jesus on his crucifix, and entire organisations have adopted the name. Sadly Chet-Yud is not the number 18, though it does spell the word Life. 18 is written Yud-Chet, which would spell Yuch.
KJ: And they turned and fled toward the wilderness unto the rock of Rimmon: and they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men; and pursued hard after them unto Gidom, and slew two thousand men of them.
20:45 VA YIPHNU VA YANUSU HA MIDBARAH EL SEL'A HA RIMMON VA YE'OLELUHU BAMSILOT CHAMESHET ALAPHIM ISH VA YADBIYKU ACHARAV AD GID'OM VA YAKU MIMENU ALPAYIM ISH
וַיִּפְנוּ וַיָּנֻסוּ הַמִּדְבָּרָה אֶל סֶלַע הָרִמֹּון וַיְעֹלְלֻהוּ בַּמְסִלֹּות חֲמֵשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וַיַּדְבִּיקוּ אַחֲרָיו עַד גִּדְעֹם וַיַּכּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַלְפַּיִם אִישׁ
BN: And they turned and fled toward the desert, to Rimmon Rock: and they casme upon five thousand of them along the highways; and pursued hard after them to Gid'om, and slew two thousand of them.
VA YIPHNU: The fourth time that verb has been used in as many verses!
YE'OLELUHU: The root is ALAL (עָלַל), which means "to act severely", and the form here is Hitpa'el, which is reflective. But in this form it adds to our long list of words whose meaning is rather difficult to pin down, because it makes several appearances in the Tanach, and all of them very different. In Exodus 10:2, for example, the various translators have offered everything from "the things I have done" to "the ways that I have mocked", both being YHVH's description of his plaguing of the Egyptians - neither of these translations seems to apply here.
And we have seen the verb already in this tale, the key moment of this tale indeed, the gang-rape of the young woman which is the cause of this war; in Judges 19:25, VA YITALELU (וַיִּֽתְעַלְּלוּ), and they were definitely mocking her, but only as a figure of speech for what they really did.
But then there is Leviticus 19:10, where the instruction is given not to glean a vineyard, but to leave the gleanings for the poor - the phrase here is וְכַרְמְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תְעוֹלֵ֔ל - VE CHARMECHA LO TE'OLEL. KJ translates it here as "gleaned" - were they understanding this to mean that the Beney Yisra-El "picked up five thousand stragglers and refugees and deserters", which is the human "gleanings" from the rout? I quite like that, but I don't think that is what it means; because they didn't rescue them, they killed them.
The gleaning of a vineyard is restricted to a very short period of time, the month of August, and maybe early September, which is the month of Elul (but the month of Elul is spelled with an Aleph - אֱלוּל - not an Ayin, as here), the month of preparation for the New Year (Rosh ha-Shanah) and the twenty-three days of repentance and atonement that also include Sukot, the corn harvest. In trying to determine the cosmological significance of this tale, is this act of gleaning providing us with a verbal clue? And if so, do we now know which festival the "concubine" was being trained for - not the May Queen, but Our Lady of the Vine Harvest? Possible. I am merely speculating,
VA YIPHNU: The fourth time that verb has been used in as many verses!
YE'OLELUHU: The root is ALAL (עָלַל), which means "to act severely", and the form here is Hitpa'el, which is reflective. But in this form it adds to our long list of words whose meaning is rather difficult to pin down, because it makes several appearances in the Tanach, and all of them very different. In Exodus 10:2, for example, the various translators have offered everything from "the things I have done" to "the ways that I have mocked", both being YHVH's description of his plaguing of the Egyptians - neither of these translations seems to apply here.
And we have seen the verb already in this tale, the key moment of this tale indeed, the gang-rape of the young woman which is the cause of this war; in Judges 19:25, VA YITALELU (וַיִּֽתְעַלְּלוּ), and they were definitely mocking her, but only as a figure of speech for what they really did.
But then there is Leviticus 19:10, where the instruction is given not to glean a vineyard, but to leave the gleanings for the poor - the phrase here is וְכַרְמְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תְעוֹלֵ֔ל - VE CHARMECHA LO TE'OLEL. KJ translates it here as "gleaned" - were they understanding this to mean that the Beney Yisra-El "picked up five thousand stragglers and refugees and deserters", which is the human "gleanings" from the rout? I quite like that, but I don't think that is what it means; because they didn't rescue them, they killed them.
The gleaning of a vineyard is restricted to a very short period of time, the month of August, and maybe early September, which is the month of Elul (but the month of Elul is spelled with an Aleph - אֱלוּל - not an Ayin, as here), the month of preparation for the New Year (Rosh ha-Shanah) and the twenty-three days of repentance and atonement that also include Sukot, the corn harvest. In trying to determine the cosmological significance of this tale, is this act of gleaning providing us with a verbal clue? And if so, do we now know which festival the "concubine" was being trained for - not the May Queen, but Our Lady of the Vine Harvest? Possible. I am merely speculating,
RIMMON (רמון) was yet another of the hill shrines, probably the one identified by Edward Robinson in 1892: "Rammun...located on a lofty rock or conical chalk hill c. six m. NNE of Jeba' (Gibeah) and three m. E of Bethel. This hill is visible in all directions, protected by ravines from the N, S, and W and contains many caves."
A Rimmon (Mem medugash - with a dot in it to denote that there should be two of them - which is why on this occasion I have empoyed a double-letter in English) is a pomegranate, symbol of the lord of the underworld (cf Persephone), and an Assyrian deity (2 Kings 5:18 and Zechariah 14:10), known by the title "Ba'al" though the Ashurim (Assyrians) called him Rammânu, ("the Thunderer"). Not at all surprising to find that it was Ba'al Rimmon, at this precise point of this precise tale (though the pomegranete does take us back to the spring festival, countering my speculation in the previous verse).
However, there is another link that needs to be made here, because Rimmon is connected by a gate to the Beney Yamin in Zechariah 14:10:
All the land from Gev'a to Rimmon south of Yeru-Shala'im will be turned into a plain, but Yeru-Shala'im will be raised up and will remain in her place, from the Bin-Yamin Gate to the site of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Chanan-El to the royal wine-presses.Just as this tale in Judges appears to recount the final victory of YHVH over the pagans, so does the vision of Zechar-Yah in that chapter of his book, the ultimate Messianic "sunrise", and well worth reading in the context of this tale. Indeed, it may very well be a part of the same tale, mythologically speaking.
GID'OM (גדעם) from the root GAD'AH = "to prune" or to "cut down". The name of Gid'on (Gideon) comes from the same root (see my note at Judges 6:32), as does the tribal name of Gad, and the god of fortune.
20:46 VA YEHI CHOL HA NOPHLIM MI BIN-YAMIN ESRIM VA CHAMISHAH ELEPH ISH SHOLEPH CHEREV BA YOM HA HU ET KOL ELEH ANSHEY CHAYIL
וַיְהִי כָל הַנֹּפְלִים מִבִּנְיָמִן עֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֶלֶף אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חֶרֶב בַּיֹּום הַהוּא אֶת כָּל אֵלֶּה אַנְשֵׁי חָיִל
BN: So the total number of those from Bin-Yamin who fell that day was twenty-five thousand, each one a swordsman, each one a professional soldier.
But we also had a significant number in flight from the city, who were likewise surrounded and slaughtered, so that number cannot be correct.
The repeating of the statement in successive verses sounds more like a patriotic lament than a government statistic: this was a civil war after all, and at a time when the surrounding states were hostile. Psychologically, the loss is doubled.
20:47 VA YIPHNU VA YANUSU HA MIDBARAH EL SEL'A HA RIMMON SHESH ME'OT ISH VA YESHVU BE SEL'A RIMMON ARBA'AH CHADASHIM
KJ: But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months.
But we also had a significant number in flight from the city, who were likewise surrounded and slaughtered, so that number cannot be correct.
The repeating of the statement in successive verses sounds more like a patriotic lament than a government statistic: this was a civil war after all, and at a time when the surrounding states were hostile. Psychologically, the loss is doubled.
20:47 VA YIPHNU VA YANUSU HA MIDBARAH EL SEL'A HA RIMMON SHESH ME'OT ISH VA YESHVU BE SEL'A RIMMON ARBA'AH CHADASHIM
וַיִּפְנוּ וַיָּנֻסוּ הַמִּדְבָּרָה אֶל סֶלַע הָרִמֹּון שֵׁשׁ מֵאֹות אִישׁ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְּסֶלַע רִמֹּון אַרְבָּעָה חֳדָשִׁים
BN: But six hundred men turned and fled to the desert, to Rimmon Rock, and remained at Rimmon Rock for four months.
VA YIPHNU: And now a fifth time - there must be a reason for repeating it so laboriously, and always at the opening of the verse, but I'm afraid I cannot figure out what it might be. Something cosmological, inevitably: but a day/night, a month, a season, a year, an epoch? The same root that yields Penu-El and Histir Panav...
And then, but I am sure I must be reading more into this than is really there, despite the prolixity of word-games.... and then, YIPHNU (יפן) ... does that connect, at its root, with GEPHEN (גפן), which is the vine from which all these "gleanings"....
And four months at Rimmon Rock, the same length of time that the concubine was away, the concubine whose gang-rape and death started this war in the first place... no, that has to be pure coincidence.
20:48 VE ISH YISRA-EL SHAVU EL BENEY VIN-YAMIN VA YAKUM LE PHI CHEREV ME IR METOM AD BEHEMAH AD KOL HA NIMTS'A GAM KOL HE ARIM HA NIMTSA'OT SHILCHU VA EYSH
KJ: And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to.
VA YIPHNU: And now a fifth time - there must be a reason for repeating it so laboriously, and always at the opening of the verse, but I'm afraid I cannot figure out what it might be. Something cosmological, inevitably: but a day/night, a month, a season, a year, an epoch? The same root that yields Penu-El and Histir Panav...
And then, but I am sure I must be reading more into this than is really there, despite the prolixity of word-games.... and then, YIPHNU (יפן) ... does that connect, at its root, with GEPHEN (גפן), which is the vine from which all these "gleanings"....
And four months at Rimmon Rock, the same length of time that the concubine was away, the concubine whose gang-rape and death started this war in the first place... no, that has to be pure coincidence.
20:48 VE ISH YISRA-EL SHAVU EL BENEY VIN-YAMIN VA YAKUM LE PHI CHEREV ME IR METOM AD BEHEMAH AD KOL HA NIMTS'A GAM KOL HE ARIM HA NIMTSA'OT SHILCHU VA EYSH
וְאִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁבוּ אֶל בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וַיַּכּוּם לְפִי חֶרֶב מֵעִיר מְתֹם עַד בְּהֵמָה עַד כָּל הַנִּמְצָא גַּם כָּל הֶעָרִים הַנִּמְצָאֹות שִׁלְּחוּ בָאֵשׁ
BN: And the men of Yisra-El went back to the Beney Bin-Yamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, the men of every city, the cattle, and anyone else who came to hand; they also set on fire each of the cities that they came to.
SHAVU: Cannot be translated as "turned", because that is the five-times-used LEPHANOT, and it has not been used here.
This is not the most glorious moment in Yisra-Eli history, its very first civil war, a civil war for a good reason, but not a good enough reason for a civil war, and scores of thousands massacred, cities burned that were merely in the area; and still no one has found the gang-rapists. Yet one cannot help but be impressed that the story gets told, as bluntly as it is here (albeit way too long), even using the word "evil" to describe some of the incident; this is precisely the kind of tale most nations would deny, or expurgate, or even pass laws to prohibit mention that it ever happened.
pey break
SHAVU: Cannot be translated as "turned", because that is the five-times-used LEPHANOT, and it has not been used here.
This is not the most glorious moment in Yisra-Eli history, its very first civil war, a civil war for a good reason, but not a good enough reason for a civil war, and scores of thousands massacred, cities burned that were merely in the area; and still no one has found the gang-rapists. Yet one cannot help but be impressed that the story gets told, as bluntly as it is here (albeit way too long), even using the word "evil" to describe some of the incident; this is precisely the kind of tale most nations would deny, or expurgate, or even pass laws to prohibit mention that it ever happened.
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment