9:1 VA YELECH AVI-MELECH BEN YERUV-VA'AL SHECHEMAH EL ACHEY IMO VA YEDABER AL'EHEM VE EL KOL MISHPACHAT BEIT AVI IMO LEMOR
וַיֵּלֶךְ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן יְרֻבַּעַל שְׁכֶמָה אֶל אֲחֵי אִמֹּו וַיְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיהֶם וְאֶל כָּל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אֲבִי אִמֹּו לֵאמֹר
BN (BibleNet translation) Then Avi-Melech ben Yeruv-Va'al went to Shechem to his mother's family, and consulted with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother's father, saying:
AVI-MELECH: "My father is Moloch" - not a name that we would expect to find amongst the worshippers of YHVH. And yes, it could also be translated as "My father is the king", the word "king" coming from the same root, which is HALACH = "to go", but in its Hiph'il or causative form, "to lead", or "to make someone go". Hebrew liturgy allows this reading - see for example one of the great prayers of Rosh ha Shana and Yom Kippur, Avinu Malkeynu, for which my link is to a most extraordinarily magnificent rendition of the poem by Barbara Streisand.
AVI-MELECH: "My father is Moloch" - not a name that we would expect to find amongst the worshippers of YHVH. And yes, it could also be translated as "My father is the king", the word "king" coming from the same root, which is HALACH = "to go", but in its Hiph'il or causative form, "to lead", or "to make someone go". Hebrew liturgy allows this reading - see for example one of the great prayers of Rosh ha Shana and Yom Kippur, Avinu Malkeynu, for which my link is to a most extraordinarily magnificent rendition of the poem by Barbara Streisand.
YERUV-VA'AL: Rather than Yeru-Ba'al, or indeed Gid'on (Gideon). For an explanation of his two names, see my notes to chapter 6.
SHECHEM: See the link.
KJ: Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.
SHECHEM: See the link.
9:2 DABRU NA VE AZNEY KOL BA'ALEY SHECHEM MAH TOV LACHEM HAMSHOL BACHEM SHIV'IM ISH KOL BENEY YERUV-VA'AL IM MESHOL BACHEM ISH ECHAD U ZECHARTEM KI ATSMECHEM U VESARCHEM ANI
דַּבְּרוּ נָא בְּאָזְנֵי כָל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם מַה טֹּוב לָכֶם הַמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ כֹּל בְּנֵי יְרֻבַּעַל אִם מְשֹׁל בָּכֶם אִישׁ אֶחָד וּזְכַרְתֶּם כִּי עַצְמֵכֶם וּבְשַׂרְכֶם אָנִי
BN: "Please, go and speak one by one with all the men of Shechem, and ask them: 'Which is better for you, that the entire Guild of Yeruv-Va'al, which is to say seventy persons, rule over you, or that one reigns over you?' Remember also that I am your own flesh and blood."
Gid'on was himself offered, and declined, the sacred kingship, as we were told in 8:23, preferring a purely clerical role, and establishing the ruling Sanhedrin which autocratically-minded Avi-Melech wants to overthrow now.
The phrasing is interesting, especially with the last sentence, added almost as a kind of threat. The tone of the verse infers that one is bound to be better than seventy - but one is generally a despotism, and seventy at least an attempt at cooperative government.
Should we reconsider the chronology of this? Is this happening at the time when Gid'on was offered the kingship, and this his way of making his mind up? See what happens as the chapter goes on.
BENEY: As noted in the previous chapter (verse 30), these are not seventy "sons", but the seventy young priests taken on as apprentices, to train them for the priesthood, as well as other clerics, beadles, wardens, elders, etc who provide a "civil" as well as a "spiritual" service" for the town. I have translated it here as "Guild", simply because that is the word generally used in English for the similar set-up later on, in the epoch of the major Prophets.
In the previous two chapters, we noted multiple repetitions, or at least parallels, of the Ya'akov stories, and at every level from narrative to mythology. The last of those parallels left Ya'akov at Penu-El, wrestling with his alter ego, while Yeruv-Va'al (Gid'on) was likewise at Penu-El, chastising the bad folks there; after which Ya'akov went on to live in Shechem, and what a massacre that led to! And Avi-Melech now, continuing the parallels.
KJ: And his mother's brethren spake of him in the ears of all the men of Shechem all these words: and their hearts inclined to follow Abimelech; for they said, He is our brother.
Gid'on was himself offered, and declined, the sacred kingship, as we were told in 8:23, preferring a purely clerical role, and establishing the ruling Sanhedrin which autocratically-minded Avi-Melech wants to overthrow now.
The phrasing is interesting, especially with the last sentence, added almost as a kind of threat. The tone of the verse infers that one is bound to be better than seventy - but one is generally a despotism, and seventy at least an attempt at cooperative government.
Should we reconsider the chronology of this? Is this happening at the time when Gid'on was offered the kingship, and this his way of making his mind up? See what happens as the chapter goes on.
BENEY: As noted in the previous chapter (verse 30), these are not seventy "sons", but the seventy young priests taken on as apprentices, to train them for the priesthood, as well as other clerics, beadles, wardens, elders, etc who provide a "civil" as well as a "spiritual" service" for the town. I have translated it here as "Guild", simply because that is the word generally used in English for the similar set-up later on, in the epoch of the major Prophets.
In the previous two chapters, we noted multiple repetitions, or at least parallels, of the Ya'akov stories, and at every level from narrative to mythology. The last of those parallels left Ya'akov at Penu-El, wrestling with his alter ego, while Yeruv-Va'al (Gid'on) was likewise at Penu-El, chastising the bad folks there; after which Ya'akov went on to live in Shechem, and what a massacre that led to! And Avi-Melech now, continuing the parallels.
9:3 VA YEDABRU ACHEY IMO ALAV BE AZNEY KOL BA'ALEY SHECHEM ET KOL HA DEVARIM HA ELEH VA YET LIBAM ACHAREY AVI-MELECH KI AMRU ACHINU HU
וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֲחֵי אִמֹּו עָלָיו בְּאָזְנֵי כָּל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֵּט לִבָּם אַחֲרֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ כִּי אָמְרוּ אָחִינוּ הוּא
BN: And his mother's kinsmen spoke about him, one by one in the ears of all the men of Shechem, and told them everything he had said; and their inclination was to follow Avi-Melech, for they said, He is our kinsman.
BE AZNEY KOL BA'ALEY: How far does this constitute a silent conspiracy - go round, one by one, and draw them in, using the bullying threat of family loyalty as you need; whereas a general public meeting would likely have led to Avi-Melech being told to get lost?
BE AZNEY KOL BA'ALEY: How far does this constitute a silent conspiracy - go round, one by one, and draw them in, using the bullying threat of family loyalty as you need; whereas a general public meeting would likely have led to Avi-Melech being told to get lost?
ACHINU HU: To follow him as loyal and obedient subjects, but also reckoning that they will gain advantage over other equally obedient subjects, because they are family.
9:4 VA YITNU LO SHIV'IM KESEPH MI BEIT BA'AL BERIT VA YISKOR BAHEM AVI-MELECH ANASHIM REYKIM U PHOCHAZIM VA YELCHU ACHARAV
וַיִּתְּנוּ לֹו שִׁבְעִים כֶּסֶף מִבֵּית בַּעַל בְּרִית וַיִּשְׂכֹּר בָּהֶם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֲנָשִׁים רֵיקִים וּפֹחֲזִים וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו
BN: And they gave him seventy pieces of silver from the shrine of Ba'al-Berit, with which Avi-Melech hired vain and light persons, who became his toadies.
SHIV'IM KESEPH: One for each son? Is the money also the answer to his question? In the sense of Campaign Funds! Since we haven't been formally told any other answer!
SHIV'IM KESEPH: One for each son? Is the money also the answer to his question? In the sense of Campaign Funds! Since we haven't been formally told any other answer!
"Vain and light persons" is too generous a euphemism, albeit a literal translation. This is Donald Trump, not Winston Churchill. What he presumably bought with the cash was a gang of brown-tongued hangers-on and obsequious bully-boy do-whatevers. See next verse.
9:5 VA YAVO VEIT AVIV APHRATAH VA YAHAROG ET ECHAV BENEY YERUV-VA'AL SHIV'IM ISH AL EVEN ECHAT VA YIVATER YOTAM BEN YERU-BA'AL HE KATAN KI NECHB'A
KJ: And he went unto his father's house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, being threescore and ten persons, upon one stone: notwithstanding yet Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself.
וַיָּבֹא בֵית אָבִיו עָפְרָתָה וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת אֶחָיו בְּנֵי יְרֻבַּעַל שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ עַל אֶבֶן אֶחָת וַיִּוָּתֵר יֹותָם בֶּן יְרֻבַּעַל הַקָּטֹן כִּי נֶחְבָּא
BN: And he went to his father's shrine at Aphrah, and slew his "brothers" - the Guild of Yeruv-Va'al, they being seventy persons - upon a single stone; however Yotam, the youngest son of Yeruv-Va'al, survived; for he managed to hide.
APHRATAH: The dative form of Ophrah, but we hear a very different name: Ephratah. Pure coincidence, in fact. Ephratah (the Euphrates) is Perat in Yehudit; Ophrah is connected with Epher, an entirely different root (see my notes to Judges 6:11).
Where the previous chapters named him as Yeruv-Va'al, but always referred to him as Gid'on, this does the opposite; can we assume that we must have two different authors, even possibly from two different eras? And was one his actual name, the other his king-name?
EVEN: Gid'on performed his minchah on the stone at Aphrah (Judges 6:20), but then pulled down the totem-pole that was mounted on it, and used the wood to make an altar (6:25); is this the same stone that Avi-Melech is now using?
YIVATER: from the same root that gave us YETER, Gid'on's first-born son, according to Judges 8:20 (paralleling Esav in the Ya'akov version; see my note there); but how coincidental, that the firstborn should have the name, and the lastborn should survive with this verb. And not just survive, but here, as in so many of these ultimogenitural tales, and as Ya'akov did there, become the next sacred king: as if the sacrificed firstborn were somehow resurrected in the lastborn. If the killing of the seventy had been sacrificial, as appears from the "stone", Yotam as the last-born would normally have been taken first. So we can take this at face value - the slaughter of the priests as a way of destroying the shrine, and Avi-Melech's actions, throughout the previous verses, as the orchestration of a coup d'état.
YOTAM (יותם) would have been well known to the later Beney Yisra-El as a king of Yehudah, the son of Uzi-Yah (2 Kings 15:32). His name, like his father's, contains the name Yah - Yah-Tam, "the goddess is upright".
This is probably not the best place to place this statement, but I find myself wondering if, in gathering the tribal tales together, in order to invent a unified history, one version of the massacre at Shechem became the Genesis 34 story, and another this one, and they are in fact the same story.
samech break
KJ: And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.
APHRATAH: The dative form of Ophrah, but we hear a very different name: Ephratah. Pure coincidence, in fact. Ephratah (the Euphrates) is Perat in Yehudit; Ophrah is connected with Epher, an entirely different root (see my notes to Judges 6:11).
Where the previous chapters named him as Yeruv-Va'al, but always referred to him as Gid'on, this does the opposite; can we assume that we must have two different authors, even possibly from two different eras? And was one his actual name, the other his king-name?
EVEN: Gid'on performed his minchah on the stone at Aphrah (Judges 6:20), but then pulled down the totem-pole that was mounted on it, and used the wood to make an altar (6:25); is this the same stone that Avi-Melech is now using?
YIVATER: from the same root that gave us YETER, Gid'on's first-born son, according to Judges 8:20 (paralleling Esav in the Ya'akov version; see my note there); but how coincidental, that the firstborn should have the name, and the lastborn should survive with this verb. And not just survive, but here, as in so many of these ultimogenitural tales, and as Ya'akov did there, become the next sacred king: as if the sacrificed firstborn were somehow resurrected in the lastborn. If the killing of the seventy had been sacrificial, as appears from the "stone", Yotam as the last-born would normally have been taken first. So we can take this at face value - the slaughter of the priests as a way of destroying the shrine, and Avi-Melech's actions, throughout the previous verses, as the orchestration of a coup d'état.
YOTAM (יותם) would have been well known to the later Beney Yisra-El as a king of Yehudah, the son of Uzi-Yah (2 Kings 15:32). His name, like his father's, contains the name Yah - Yah-Tam, "the goddess is upright".
This is probably not the best place to place this statement, but I find myself wondering if, in gathering the tribal tales together, in order to invent a unified history, one version of the massacre at Shechem became the Genesis 34 story, and another this one, and they are in fact the same story.
samech break
9:6 VA YE'ASPHU KOL BA'ALEY SHECHEM VE CHOL BEIT MIL'O VA YELCHU VA YAMLIYCHU ET AVI-MELECH LE MELECH IM ELON MUTSAV ASHER BISHCHEM
וַיֵּאָסְפוּ כָּל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וְכָל בֵּית מִלֹּוא וַיֵּלְכוּ וַיַּמְלִיכוּ אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְמֶלֶךְ עִם אֵלֹון מֻצָּב אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁכֶם
BN: And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the men of the garrison, and they went and made Avi-Melech king, under the oak-tree that stood as a sacred pillar in Shechem.
MIL'O (מלוא - usually rendered as Millo in English): and it is not at all obvious why this should suddenly be mentioned, so there has to be a deeper significance. The name means "a rampart", in those days a mound of earth rather than a stone wall. Just as the later Beney Yisra-El, hearing this tale, would have recognised Yotam, so too Mil'o, which was part of the citadel of Yeru-Shala'im (2 Samuel 5:9, 1 Kings 9:15 and 24, 11:27, 1 Chronicles 11:8 etc); and not just any part of the citadel - click here for the archaeology. This is not just a coup, but a miitary coup.
MIL'O (מלוא - usually rendered as Millo in English): and it is not at all obvious why this should suddenly be mentioned, so there has to be a deeper significance. The name means "a rampart", in those days a mound of earth rather than a stone wall. Just as the later Beney Yisra-El, hearing this tale, would have recognised Yotam, so too Mil'o, which was part of the citadel of Yeru-Shala'im (2 Samuel 5:9, 1 Kings 9:15 and 24, 11:27, 1 Chronicles 11:8 etc); and not just any part of the citadel - click here for the archaeology. This is not just a coup, but a miitary coup.
ELON...MUTSAV: I am not sure why KJ mistranslates ELON as "plain" here, when it knows from a hundred instances of all three words, that EMEK and KIKAR are the principal words for "a plain", while an ELON is always an oak-tree. The difficult part here is the MUTSAV, which is sometimes used for a garrison (1 Samuel 13:23, 2 Samuel 23:14), sometimes for anyone holding an official position (Isaiah 22:19), sometimes for a megalithic baetyl or other type of standing stone, including the one that Gid'on cut down at Aphrah in Judges 6:25. Was this an actual oak tree, serving the sacred function, or had it been shaped into a totem pole, like Gid'on's Asherah? The answer is the former: we know this because Gid'on's Asherah is quite specifically described as an ELAH, the feminine form; feminine because it was dedicated to the goddess, Asherah - see my note to ELAH at Judges 6:11. As to the significance of anointing him beneath an oak tree, see Frazer's "The Golden Bough", and Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God", Volume 1.
YAMLIYCHU: The verb here describes a practice that is decidedly non-Yisra-Eli. First, they had no kings until Sha'ul - that, at least, has been the view of all Bible-readers since before this was ever written down. Second, the Beney Yisra-El quite specifically anointed rather than crowned, and not under an oak tree (it would have been a scarlet oak, by the way, with a symbolic crown of thorns, probably made from the mistletoe and therefore not likely to puncture the skin; exactly the method mocked with Jesus at his crucifixion, exactly the reason why - see my notes to ATAD at verse 15- the bramble is known as "Christ's-thorn).
Note that the keyword here is MALACH, not MASHAL, for which see my notes to Judges 8:22.
Note also that his name was Avi-Melech ("my father is Moloch", or "my father is the king"), even before he became the Melech, the king, himself; and then follow Yotam's tale, below, which plays word-games around the root MALACH.
So yet again we can show that this was not a Yisra-Eli story. Why is it here then? Presumably because Shechem became central to the cult, but it came with history that had to be explained, expurgated, absorbed. This was a way of doing so. As observed before, this is how most of the early Christian saints became.
9:7 VA YAGIDU LE YOTAM VA YELECH VA YA'AMOD BE ROSH HAR GERIZIM VA YISA KOLO VA YIKRA VA YOMER LAHEM SHIM'U ELAI BA'ALEY SHECHEM VE YISHM'A ALEYCHEM ELOHIM
KJ: And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.
YAMLIYCHU: The verb here describes a practice that is decidedly non-Yisra-Eli. First, they had no kings until Sha'ul - that, at least, has been the view of all Bible-readers since before this was ever written down. Second, the Beney Yisra-El quite specifically anointed rather than crowned, and not under an oak tree (it would have been a scarlet oak, by the way, with a symbolic crown of thorns, probably made from the mistletoe and therefore not likely to puncture the skin; exactly the method mocked with Jesus at his crucifixion, exactly the reason why - see my notes to ATAD at verse 15- the bramble is known as "Christ's-thorn).
Note that the keyword here is MALACH, not MASHAL, for which see my notes to Judges 8:22.
Note also that his name was Avi-Melech ("my father is Moloch", or "my father is the king"), even before he became the Melech, the king, himself; and then follow Yotam's tale, below, which plays word-games around the root MALACH.
So yet again we can show that this was not a Yisra-Eli story. Why is it here then? Presumably because Shechem became central to the cult, but it came with history that had to be explained, expurgated, absorbed. This was a way of doing so. As observed before, this is how most of the early Christian saints became.
9:7 VA YAGIDU LE YOTAM VA YELECH VA YA'AMOD BE ROSH HAR GERIZIM VA YISA KOLO VA YIKRA VA YOMER LAHEM SHIM'U ELAI BA'ALEY SHECHEM VE YISHM'A ALEYCHEM ELOHIM
וַיַּגִּדוּ לְיֹותָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲמֹד בְּרֹאשׁ הַר גְּרִזִים וַיִּשָּׂא קֹולֹו וַיִּקְרָא וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וְיִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם אֱלֹהִים
BN: And when Yotam heard all this news, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said to them: "Listen to me, you men of Shechem, that Elohim may listen to you...
Note his choice of Gerizim (my link is actually to Mount Eyval, for reasons that will become obvious when you get there). Again, this is not a Yisra-Eli tale.
ELOHIM: He is invoking the pantheon, not the One. And he is shouting into empty space, not the ears of the people of Shechem, because, from the height of that great hill, and its distance from the town, they won't hear him.
KJ: The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
Note his choice of Gerizim (my link is actually to Mount Eyval, for reasons that will become obvious when you get there). Again, this is not a Yisra-Eli tale.
ELOHIM: He is invoking the pantheon, not the One. And he is shouting into empty space, not the ears of the people of Shechem, because, from the height of that great hill, and its distance from the town, they won't hear him.
9:8 HALOCH HALCHU HA ETSIM LIMSHO'ACH ALEYHEM MELECH VA YOMRU LA ZAYIT MALCHAH ALEYNU
הָלֹוךְ הָלְכוּ הָעֵצִים לִמְשֹׁחַ עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלֶךְ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לַזַּיִת [מְלֹוכָה כ] (מָלְכָה ק) עָלֵינוּ
BN: "The trees went forth one time to anoint a king over themselves; and they said to the olive tree, 'You reign over us'...
This sounds comical at first, but in fact it should be taken seriously; this is where comparative mythology comes into its own. People brought up in British culture should recognise this (but sadly they won't, because only the Anglo-Saxon is ever taught; the rest is either ignored or suppressed): the tree alphabet in particular, known as the Ogham, and used for most of the founding works of British literature - but the link I have given you is complete and comprehensive, so I shan't waste energy repeating it myself (come back to this parenthesis here afterwards, and read the full tale of the Cad Goddeu, the Battle of the Trees; but do it before you read on in this chapter - and maybe read the full Tales of Taliesin as well, which is where the Cad Goddeu is to be found).
What I will point out is that the tree alphabet was also used for divination, each of the letters, and more importantly the names of the letters, having meanings whose symbolism was open to interpretation, serving mythologically in exactly the same way as the stars and constellations. Trees, of course, were the homes of the gods (El lived in an Elon, Devorah provided oracles beneath a sacred palm tree in Judges 4:5 and was buried beneath a sacred oak tree in Genesis 35, etc). So a tale of the trees, such as we have here, should be read in much the same way that the journey of The Fool might be told, through a reading of the Tarot cards, or the journey of the Jews might be told, through a reading of the desert shrines and caravanserai, as it is in the legends of Mosheh.
This the second time that the desire for a king has been documented; though this is the first time that a serious argument against the monarchy has been made.
And going back to the previous verse: we were told that he went up a mountain and shouted all of this, but the tone and method is of a story-teller, sitting round the camp-fire at the Bedou caravanserai, or doing assembly at the local primary school, or maybe a sermon from the pulpit on a sabbath morning.
KJ: But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
This sounds comical at first, but in fact it should be taken seriously; this is where comparative mythology comes into its own. People brought up in British culture should recognise this (but sadly they won't, because only the Anglo-Saxon is ever taught; the rest is either ignored or suppressed): the tree alphabet in particular, known as the Ogham, and used for most of the founding works of British literature - but the link I have given you is complete and comprehensive, so I shan't waste energy repeating it myself (come back to this parenthesis here afterwards, and read the full tale of the Cad Goddeu, the Battle of the Trees; but do it before you read on in this chapter - and maybe read the full Tales of Taliesin as well, which is where the Cad Goddeu is to be found).
What I will point out is that the tree alphabet was also used for divination, each of the letters, and more importantly the names of the letters, having meanings whose symbolism was open to interpretation, serving mythologically in exactly the same way as the stars and constellations. Trees, of course, were the homes of the gods (El lived in an Elon, Devorah provided oracles beneath a sacred palm tree in Judges 4:5 and was buried beneath a sacred oak tree in Genesis 35, etc). So a tale of the trees, such as we have here, should be read in much the same way that the journey of The Fool might be told, through a reading of the Tarot cards, or the journey of the Jews might be told, through a reading of the desert shrines and caravanserai, as it is in the legends of Mosheh.
This the second time that the desire for a king has been documented; though this is the first time that a serious argument against the monarchy has been made.
And going back to the previous verse: we were told that he went up a mountain and shouted all of this, but the tone and method is of a story-teller, sitting round the camp-fire at the Bedou caravanserai, or doing assembly at the local primary school, or maybe a sermon from the pulpit on a sabbath morning.
9:9 VA YOMER LAHEM HA ZAYIT HE CHADALTI ET DISHNI ASHER BI YECHABDU ELOHIM VA ANASHIM VE HALACHTI LANU'A AL HA ETSIM
וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַזַּיִת הֶחֳדַלְתִּי אֶת דִּשְׁנִי אֲשֶׁר בִּי יְכַבְּדוּ אֱלֹהִים וַאֲנָשִׁים וְהָלַכְתִּי לָנוּעַ עַל הָעֵצִים
BN: "But the olive tree said to them: 'Why would I leave the rich soil that has nurtured me, which has imparted honour to me among the Elohim and among Humankind, just to go and lord it over the trees?'...
DISHNI: The root literally means "fat", but is distinguished from SHEMEN and CHALAV, the former being "fat" obtained from oil, the latter from milk. This is specifically the fatness of the soil, which fertilises the olive so that it is able to produce Shemen, on which the cow grazes so that she can produce milk: nitrogen and compost rather more than curds. Obviously the tale is allegorical and the "fatness" a metaphor - we might call it "the Peter Principle" today: why would you take your best player off the team and make him the coach, when he is still at his peak as a player, and who knows if he is going to be any good at coaching anyway?
LANU'A: The concept of "motion" stems from this root, usually of things vacillating, swaying to and fro, staggering drunk. Its use here is not about being promoted, but the swagger in the shoulders as you strut down the red carpet, showing off how much more important you are than the mere am ha arets (hoi poloi) in the stalls.
Presumably one of Yotam's intentions is either to mock Avi-Melech for doing precisely this, or at the very least to predict that he will. A similar argument against - indeed, a prohibition of - the monarchy can be found at Deuteronomy 17:14 ff; and an even more accurate one by the prophet Shemu-El at 1 Samuel 8.
KJ: And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
DISHNI: The root literally means "fat", but is distinguished from SHEMEN and CHALAV, the former being "fat" obtained from oil, the latter from milk. This is specifically the fatness of the soil, which fertilises the olive so that it is able to produce Shemen, on which the cow grazes so that she can produce milk: nitrogen and compost rather more than curds. Obviously the tale is allegorical and the "fatness" a metaphor - we might call it "the Peter Principle" today: why would you take your best player off the team and make him the coach, when he is still at his peak as a player, and who knows if he is going to be any good at coaching anyway?
LANU'A: The concept of "motion" stems from this root, usually of things vacillating, swaying to and fro, staggering drunk. Its use here is not about being promoted, but the swagger in the shoulders as you strut down the red carpet, showing off how much more important you are than the mere am ha arets (hoi poloi) in the stalls.
Presumably one of Yotam's intentions is either to mock Avi-Melech for doing precisely this, or at the very least to predict that he will. A similar argument against - indeed, a prohibition of - the monarchy can be found at Deuteronomy 17:14 ff; and an even more accurate one by the prophet Shemu-El at 1 Samuel 8.
9:10 VA YOMRU HA ETSIM LA TE'ENAH LECHI AT MALCHI ALEYNU
וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָעֵצִים לַתְּאֵנָה לְכִי אַתְּ מָלְכִי עָלֵינוּ
BN: "Then the trees said to the fig tree: 'You come and reign over us'...
LECHI AT: A queen, on this occasion? AT is feminine, because the fig tree is feminine, and the writer is being grammatically punctilious, adding the feminine ending to what would otherwise be LECH; and yet a king is intended. The same is true with the Gaphen in verse 12, and applies to VA TOMER at the starts of both the next verse and verse 13.
LECHI AT: A queen, on this occasion? AT is feminine, because the fig tree is feminine, and the writer is being grammatically punctilious, adding the feminine ending to what would otherwise be LECH; and yet a king is intended. The same is true with the Gaphen in verse 12, and applies to VA TOMER at the starts of both the next verse and verse 13.
9:11 VA TOMER LAHEM HA TE'ENAH HE CHADALTI ET MATKI VE ET TENUVATI HA TOVAH VE HALACHTI LANU'A AL HA ETSIM
וַתֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַתְּאֵנָה הֶחֳדַלְתִּי אֶת מָתְקִי וְאֶת תְּנוּבָתִי הַטֹּובָה וְהָלַכְתִּי לָנוּעַ עַל הָעֵצִים
BN: "But the fig tree said to them: 'Should I give up my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go and lady it over the trees?'...
MATKI... TENUVATI: Matuk does indeed mean "sweetness", and Tenuvah "good fruit". The root of Tenuvah is NUV, which also happens to be the root of the name of one of the important shrines of pre-Yeru-Shala'im, destroyed by King Sha'ul and rebuilt when he became king by David. Its one surviving priest, Avi-Atar, would become one of David's joint High Priests in Yeru-Shala'im - so, like Mil'o in verse 6, and Yotam himself who is recounting this, the story-hearer in Ezra's time, when these tales were collected, would recognise another key name in the history of the nation, and be able to distinguish good kings (Yotam, David) from bad kings (Sha'ul, Avi-Melech).
Tnuvah is the name for one of modern Israel's largest agriculture businesses, the fruit of the Kibbutz system.
I am deliberating over whether or not to add this next comment, but shall do so, somewhat tentatively. Throughout the Exodus story - from the bitterness of slavery and the bitter herbs that commemorate the Ten Plagues, to the name of Mosheh's sister, Mir-Yam, and with tales of bitter waters all along the route - all the way to the building of the Temple on Mount Moriah, which is Mor-Yah in Yehudit, the "bitter tears" of "Mother Mary" as she mourns the sacrificial death of her "beloved son" (long, long before Jesus), the concept of "bitterness" fills these tales; and here it is precisely its opposite, the "sweetness" that is being invoked. Would a contemporary listener have been less tentative about making these connections?
MATKI... TENUVATI: Matuk does indeed mean "sweetness", and Tenuvah "good fruit". The root of Tenuvah is NUV, which also happens to be the root of the name of one of the important shrines of pre-Yeru-Shala'im, destroyed by King Sha'ul and rebuilt when he became king by David. Its one surviving priest, Avi-Atar, would become one of David's joint High Priests in Yeru-Shala'im - so, like Mil'o in verse 6, and Yotam himself who is recounting this, the story-hearer in Ezra's time, when these tales were collected, would recognise another key name in the history of the nation, and be able to distinguish good kings (Yotam, David) from bad kings (Sha'ul, Avi-Melech).
Tnuvah is the name for one of modern Israel's largest agriculture businesses, the fruit of the Kibbutz system.
I am deliberating over whether or not to add this next comment, but shall do so, somewhat tentatively. Throughout the Exodus story - from the bitterness of slavery and the bitter herbs that commemorate the Ten Plagues, to the name of Mosheh's sister, Mir-Yam, and with tales of bitter waters all along the route - all the way to the building of the Temple on Mount Moriah, which is Mor-Yah in Yehudit, the "bitter tears" of "Mother Mary" as she mourns the sacrificial death of her "beloved son" (long, long before Jesus), the concept of "bitterness" fills these tales; and here it is precisely its opposite, the "sweetness" that is being invoked. Would a contemporary listener have been less tentative about making these connections?
9:12 VA YOMRU HA ETSIM LA GAPHEN LECHI AT MALCHI ALEYNU
וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָעֵצִים לַגָּפֶן לְכִי אַתְּ [מָלֹוכִי כ] (מָלְכִי ק) עָלֵינוּ
BN: "Then the trees said to the vine: 'You come and reign over us'...
9:13 VA TOMER LAHEM HA GAPHEN HECHADALTI ET TIYROSHI HA MESAME'ACH ELOHIM VA ANASHIM VE HALACHTI LANU'A AL HA ETSIM
KJ: And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
9:13 VA TOMER LAHEM HA GAPHEN HECHADALTI ET TIYROSHI HA MESAME'ACH ELOHIM VA ANASHIM VE HALACHTI LANU'A AL HA ETSIM
וַתֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַגֶּפֶן הֶחֳדַלְתִּי אֶת תִּירֹושִׁי הַמְשַׂמֵּחַ אֱלֹהִים וַאֲנָשִׁים וְהָלַכְתִּי לָנוּעַ עַל הָעֵצִים
BN: "And the vine said to them: 'Must I leave my must, which provides such rousing cheers for Elohim and Humankind, and go and lady it over the trees?'...
TIYROSH: Apologies, but I really cannot resist making the word-games in English. Tiyrosh is quite specifically Beaujolais, or its Biblical equivalent, new wine, this year's fresh vintage, rather than wine that has been pressed and stored for fermentation; and the technical term in the wine-trade for such produce is "must".
Most commentaries want this to be an argument about egalitarianism, that no individual should be taken out of the commonality and raised to a higher status; but that isn't what any of the trees say. It is about staying in their natural state, the one given to them by the gods, to be fat, or sweet, or the provider of happiness, which would be surrendered and nullified if they took on a different role, one that was not natural to them. It is not the social inegalitarianism of monarchy that is being rejected, but its lack of any intrinsic validity when a socio-political structure is being built that emulates the scientific understanding (religious mythology is its primitve form) of the workings of the Cosmos (though, yes, there is also a strong hint of the dangers of promoting any human above the common herd).
TIYROSH: Apologies, but I really cannot resist making the word-games in English. Tiyrosh is quite specifically Beaujolais, or its Biblical equivalent, new wine, this year's fresh vintage, rather than wine that has been pressed and stored for fermentation; and the technical term in the wine-trade for such produce is "must".
Most commentaries want this to be an argument about egalitarianism, that no individual should be taken out of the commonality and raised to a higher status; but that isn't what any of the trees say. It is about staying in their natural state, the one given to them by the gods, to be fat, or sweet, or the provider of happiness, which would be surrendered and nullified if they took on a different role, one that was not natural to them. It is not the social inegalitarianism of monarchy that is being rejected, but its lack of any intrinsic validity when a socio-political structure is being built that emulates the scientific understanding (religious mythology is its primitve form) of the workings of the Cosmos (though, yes, there is also a strong hint of the dangers of promoting any human above the common herd).
And indeed, when Shmu-El reluctantly anoints Sha'ul as the first king of Yisra-El, he makes precisely the same case:
Shemu-El summoned the people of Yisra-El to the Lord at Mitspeh and said to them, This is what YHVH, the god of Yisra-El, says: I brought Yisra-El up out of Mitsrayim, and I delivered you from the power of Mitsrayim and all the kingdoms that oppressed you. But you have now rejected your god, who saves you out of all your disasters and calamities. And you have said, No, appoint a king over us. So now present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and clans. (1 Samuel 10:17-19)
Shmu-El then (verse 25)
explained to the people the rights and duties of kingship. He wrote them down on a scroll and set it before YHVH. Then Shemu-El dismissed the people to go to their own homes.
But sadly whatever it was that he wrote down is not recorded - unless perhaps it was Shemu-El's text that was being remembered in chapter 8 of the same book, which I referenced at verse 9. Shemu-El's prediction there is virtually a paraphrase of the divine prediction in Deuteronomy 17:14-17, which I also referenced at verse 9. Multiple examples of the fulfillment of these predictions in the Books of Kings, just as there are still with the despotic leaders of our world today - try, for an easy example, 1 Kings 11:1-5, or frankly just look at the news headlines!
9:14 VA YOMRU CHOL HA ETSIM EL HA ATAD LECH ATAH MELACH ALEYNU
וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל הָעֵצִים אֶל הָאָטָד לֵךְ אַתָּה מְלָךְ עָלֵינוּ
BN: "Then all the trees said to the bramble: 'You come and reign over us'...
Notice how we are going down the inventory of trees, from the glorious oak where Avi-Melech got himself crowned, down through the olives and the grapes, until, in desperation, we reach the thorns, the brambles, the stinging nettles, and down, down, ever lower, until some presidential wannabe will no doubt turn up in the muddy dung-heap, and trump the rest of the knaves in the pack of playing cards.
Notice how we are going down the inventory of trees, from the glorious oak where Avi-Melech got himself crowned, down through the olives and the grapes, until, in desperation, we reach the thorns, the brambles, the stinging nettles, and down, down, ever lower, until some presidential wannabe will no doubt turn up in the muddy dung-heap, and trump the rest of the knaves in the pack of playing cards.
9:15 VA YOMER HA ATAD EL HA ETSIM IM BE EMET ATEM MOSHCHIM OTI LE MELECH ALEYCHEM BO'U CHASU VE TSILI VE IM AYIN TETS'E ESH MIN HA ATAD VE TO'CHAL ET ARZEY HA LEVANON
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָטָד אֶל הָעֵצִים אִם בֶּאֱמֶת אַתֶּם מֹשְׁחִים אֹתִי לְמֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיכֶם בֹּאוּ חֲסוּ בְצִלִּי וְאִם אַיִן תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִן הָאָטָד וְתֹאכַל אֶת אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנֹון
BN: "And the bramble said to the trees: 'If in you really do intend to anoint me as king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon'...
ATAD: There are simply too many of these coincidences for them to be coincidences!
Start with the root (pardon the pun on this occasion): bramble is the common translation, though thorn might be more Yotam's intention, to judge from the tone of the verses that follow; but actually the ATAD is very specific, and the same word in Arabic - the buckthorn, which is the generic name for about 100 different species, probably Rhamnus Paliurus (Christ's-thorn), and its negative significance is that it uses high quantities of nitrogen, starving all the other plants in its locale so that they die: a highly despotic and self-serving shrub (fuller details here). Oh, and all the botanists agree, not only is buckthorn harmful to all the rest of Nature, but the only way to get rid of is... by means of fire! (click here for still more detail).
So we have the plant, and the reason for the plant. Now go back to Gid'on's story, to Judges 6:37, where he carries out his little scientific experiments with dew and damp and humidity, placing his sheepskin on the ground - the particular ground on that occasion described as a GOREN, which is a threshing-floor. And now we have a very specific thorn named an ATAD, and we also have endless parallels with those parts of Ya'akov's story that are set in the vicinity of Shechem... so perhaps it really is just a coincidence that we left Ya'akov going away from Shechem because of the shame of the massacre, after which he will live in Be'er Sheva (I wonder if that was the same Be'er that Yotam will flee to, in verse 21), and then that somewhat historically dubious period in Mitsrayim (Egypt); but the next time he will appear in this vicinity will be at his burial, and guess where they buried him: at Goren Ha Atad!
MOSHCHIM: Note that this is Mashiyach, not Moshi'a; note it because it is again making that important distinction between YHVH as heavenly king (the point in Shemu-El's statement, quoted above), and an "appointed" human as his earthly representative, which has led to such confusion in the concept of a Messiah; but also note it because the thorn expects to be "anointed", which is the way a Yisra-Eli king would be, but Avi-Melech was crowned, in the pagan manner (verse 6).
TSILI: His shadow? We have come across complex shadow metaphors before. Gid'on's conflict with the men of Sukot, when he was pursuing Zevach ("sacrifice") and Tsalmun'a ("restraining shadow"). See my notes to Judges 8:5. And given the nature of buckthorn, anointing its harmless shadow is definitely a better idea; and remembering what Yotam's father did to Tsalmun'a even better.
ARZEY HA LEVANON: The last of the word-games, for this verse anyway, and this one, clever as all the others though it may be, this one I have a problem with, because it is an anachronism, deeply meaningful to the listeners of Ezra's time, completely meaningless inside its own time-context. Like Mil'o (verse 6) and the slightly more obscure allusion to Mount Mor-Yah (see my notes to verse 11), Yotam is offering himself as YHVH's surrogate on Earth, a sacred-king, rather than the secular-temporal ruler that Avi-Melech has just put on his crown for. Yotam's version will be the one that King David fulfills, and which achieves its apogee when his son Shelomoh (same relation as Gid'on to Yotam) builds the Temple, as YHVH's palace, next door to the king's, the former on Mount Mor-Yah, the latter at Mil'o. So the circles will be joined, and Ya'akov will finally become Yisra-El, as per his blessing at Penu-El (Genesis 32:27-29). An absolutely magnificent allegory. But... But the image of "cedars of Lebanon" belongs to David and Shelomoh. No doubt Yotam would have known of the famous forests, but he could not have known of the future link to the Temple.
9:16 VE ATAH IM BE EMET U VE TAMIM ASIYTEM VA TAMLIYCHU ET AVI-MELECH VE IM TOVAH ASIYTEM IM YERUV-VA'AL VE IM BEITO VE IM KIGMOL YADAV ASITEM LO
וְעַתָּה אִם בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְתָמִים עֲשִׂיתֶם וַתַּמְלִיכוּ אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְאִם טֹובָה עֲשִׂיתֶם עִם יְרֻבַּעַל וְעִם בֵּיתֹו וְאִם כִּגְמוּל יָדָיו עֲשִׂיתֶם לֹו
BN: "Now therefore, if you have acted truly and sincerely, in that you have made Avi-Melech king, and if you have dealt properly with Yeruv-Va'al and his house, and have honoured him as his memory deserves...
TAMIM: Word-games! His name is Yotam, which, as I have explained at verse 5, is really Yah-Tam, "the goddess is upright". So a second tier of meaning in this is "If what you want is truth and sincerity - make me your king instead". And the mocking tone continues through the verse.
The YAD (hand), like the SHEM (name), always serves poetically and symbolically as well as literally in Yehudit; here, where the literal makes little sense, the poetic most certainly does: his memorial.
KJ: (For my father fought for you, and adventured his life far, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian
TAMIM: Word-games! His name is Yotam, which, as I have explained at verse 5, is really Yah-Tam, "the goddess is upright". So a second tier of meaning in this is "If what you want is truth and sincerity - make me your king instead". And the mocking tone continues through the verse.
The YAD (hand), like the SHEM (name), always serves poetically and symbolically as well as literally in Yehudit; here, where the literal makes little sense, the poetic most certainly does: his memorial.
9:17 ASHER NILCHAM AVI ALEYCHEM VA YASHLECH ET NAPHSHO MI NEGED VA YATSEL ET'CHEM MI YAD MIDYAN
אֲשֶׁר נִלְחַם אָבִי עֲלֵיכֶם וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶת נַפְשֹׁו מִנֶּגֶד וַיַּצֵּל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד מִדְיָן
BN: "For my father fought for you, and risked his life far and wide, and delivered you from the hand of Midyan"...
YAD: Again the word is used poetically, though the symbolism on this occasion is different; rather more literal than metaphorical.
YAD: Again the word is used poetically, though the symbolism on this occasion is different; rather more literal than metaphorical.
9:18 VE ATEM KAMTEM AL BEIT AVI HAYOM VA TAHARGU ET BANAV SHIV'IM ISH AL EVEN ECHAT VA TAMLIYCHU ET AVI-MELECH BEN AMATO AL BA'ALEY SHECHEM KI ACHICHEM HU
וְאַתֶּם קַמְתֶּם עַל בֵּית אָבִי הַיֹּום וַתַּהַרְגוּ אֶת בָּנָיו שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ עַל אֶבֶן אֶחָת וַתַּמְלִיכוּ אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן אֲמָתֹו עַל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם כִּי אֲחִיכֶם הוּא
BN: "But today you have risen up against my father's house, and slain his sons, seventy persons, all on one stone, and have made Avi-Melech, the son of his concubine, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your kinsman...
Like Edmund in "King Lear" (Act 1, Scene 2), like many-another in history, the illegitimate son wipes out the legitimate, in order to obtain what is not his by right.
KJ: If ye then have dealt truly and sincerely with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you
Like Edmund in "King Lear" (Act 1, Scene 2), like many-another in history, the illegitimate son wipes out the legitimate, in order to obtain what is not his by right.
9:19 VE IM BE EMET U VE TAMIM ASIYTEM IM YERUV-VA'AL VE IM BEITO HA YOM HAZEH SIMCHU BA AVI-MELECH VE YISMACH GAM HU BACHEM
וְאִם בֶּאֱמֶת וּבְתָמִים עֲשִׂיתֶם עִם יְרֻבַּעַל וְעִם בֵּיתֹו הַיֹּום הַזֶּה שִׂמְחוּ בַּאֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְיִשְׂמַח גַּם הוּא בָּכֶם
BN: "So, again, if you have acted truly and sincerely with respect to Yeruv-Va'al, and with his house, this day, then rejoice in Avi-Melech, and let him too rejoice in you...
VE IM... repeating exactly the words he used in verse 16, just in case his listeners failed to catch the second tier of meaning.
We need to know the exact date of writing to be able to know which king it was that the author (the author, not necessarily the Redactor) was really railing against. The whole poem is reminiscent of Shemu-El's onslaught against the Beney Yisra-El when they called for a king to rule them; but there were so many bad kings in the next few hundred years... and remember, there were no temporal kings in Yisra-El before Sha'ul, only sacred kings.
KJ: But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech.
VE IM... repeating exactly the words he used in verse 16, just in case his listeners failed to catch the second tier of meaning.
We need to know the exact date of writing to be able to know which king it was that the author (the author, not necessarily the Redactor) was really railing against. The whole poem is reminiscent of Shemu-El's onslaught against the Beney Yisra-El when they called for a king to rule them; but there were so many bad kings in the next few hundred years... and remember, there were no temporal kings in Yisra-El before Sha'ul, only sacred kings.
9:20 VE IM AYIN TETS'E ESH ME AVI-MELECH VE TO'CHAL ET BA'ALEY SHECHEM VE ET BEIT MIL'O VE TETS'E ESH MI BA'ALEY SHECHEM U MI BEIT MIL'O VE TO'CHAL ET AVI-MELECH
וְאִם אַיִן תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מֵאֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְתֹאכַל אֶת בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וְאֶת בֵּית מִלֹּוא וְתֵצֵא אֵשׁ מִבַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וּמִבֵּית מִלֹּוא וְתֹאכַל אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: But if not, let fire come out from Avi-Melech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Mil'o; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Mil'o, and devour Avi-Melech."
Picking up the imagery of the bramble in verse 15. The problem with devouring fire coming out in this way is that it is once again allusional, and therefore Avi-Melech has to be the god, not a man: Moloch worship was conducted precisely in the form of fire, through sacrifice, including the kind of child-sacrifice described with the seventy "sons" (see the illustration at the link to his name). We can safely assert, too (see my note at verse 1), that the word MELECH derives from the word MOLOCH, and the sacred-kingship therefore likewise.
Picking up the imagery of the bramble in verse 15. The problem with devouring fire coming out in this way is that it is once again allusional, and therefore Avi-Melech has to be the god, not a man: Moloch worship was conducted precisely in the form of fire, through sacrifice, including the kind of child-sacrifice described with the seventy "sons" (see the illustration at the link to his name). We can safely assert, too (see my note at verse 1), that the word MELECH derives from the word MOLOCH, and the sacred-kingship therefore likewise.
The inference is that Avi-Melech is both the human sacred-king and the deity who he represents on Earth, Mashiyach and Moshi'a, and that the fire will issue from the latter. But fire sufficient to destroy a city is not the fire of a sacrificial altar: this is Pompeii, not barbecue.
Or is fire too being used poetically, and what he is actually making is a call to arms: let them take up their swords and fight this one out in civil war, and destroy each other in the process, and good riddance - and the flame in question coming from those LAPIDOT, the very torches that Gid'on used (Judges 7:16)?
9:21 VA YANAS YOTAM VA YIVRACH VA YELECH BE'ERAH VA YESHEV SHAM MIPNEY AVI-MELECH ACHIV
וַיָּנָס יֹותָם וַיִּבְרַח וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּאֵרָה וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם מִפְּנֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אָחִיו
BN: Then Yotam ran away, fled indeed, and went to Be'er, and dwelt there, for fear of Avi-Melech his brother.
BE'ER (באר) is probably incomplete, and odd that it should be. Alone it simply means a well, but most wells in the Tanach are fully named (Be'er Sheva, Be'er Lechi Ro'i etc). Numbers 21:16 is the only other exception, referring to an oasis in the wilderness. But see my notes to verse 15. (And yes, I know there is a town in England simply called Wells: I said "probably" and "most").
Yotam fleeing after his great speech does not do much to convince us of his worthiness as a future leader! Though on the other hand, like David when he fled from Sha'ul, a guerilla war from the hills may be a better strategy than asking for a debate in Parliament.
pey break
KJ: Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech
BE'ER (באר) is probably incomplete, and odd that it should be. Alone it simply means a well, but most wells in the Tanach are fully named (Be'er Sheva, Be'er Lechi Ro'i etc). Numbers 21:16 is the only other exception, referring to an oasis in the wilderness. But see my notes to verse 15. (And yes, I know there is a town in England simply called Wells: I said "probably" and "most").
Yotam fleeing after his great speech does not do much to convince us of his worthiness as a future leader! Though on the other hand, like David when he fled from Sha'ul, a guerilla war from the hills may be a better strategy than asking for a debate in Parliament.
pey break
9:22 VA YASAR AVI-MELECH AL YISRA-EL SHALOSH SHANIM
וַיָּשַׂר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים
KJ: When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel
BN: And Avi-Melech reigned over Yisra-El for three years.
Avi-Melech as "king" of Yisra-El? Yet Sha'ul is regarded as the first king. Is it perhaps that Avi-Melech was not, or at least is not regarded as, being Ben Yisra-El, and therefore doesn't count? Or that the small area around Shechem that he ruled wasn't really Yisra-El at that time, and therefore doesn't count? Or are we perhaps mistranslating YASAR. A SAR in today's world is a minister in the government; previously it was a prince rather than a king, or sometimes a military commander, though generally that latter role was given because the person was already in the former role (Genesis 21:22, 47:6 et al), as with the US President who also serves as commander-in-chief. Or perhaps he doesn't count because he was a pagan, and therefore not a "proper" Mashiyach, let alone Moshi'a?
9:23 VA YISHLACH ELOHIM RU'ACH RA'AH BEYN AVI-MELECH U VEYN BA'ALEY SHECHEM VA YIVGEDU VA'ALEY SHECHEM BA AVI-MELECH
Avi-Melech as "king" of Yisra-El? Yet Sha'ul is regarded as the first king. Is it perhaps that Avi-Melech was not, or at least is not regarded as, being Ben Yisra-El, and therefore doesn't count? Or that the small area around Shechem that he ruled wasn't really Yisra-El at that time, and therefore doesn't count? Or are we perhaps mistranslating YASAR. A SAR in today's world is a minister in the government; previously it was a prince rather than a king, or sometimes a military commander, though generally that latter role was given because the person was already in the former role (Genesis 21:22, 47:6 et al), as with the US President who also serves as commander-in-chief. Or perhaps he doesn't count because he was a pagan, and therefore not a "proper" Mashiyach, let alone Moshi'a?
וַיִּשְׁלַח אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ רָעָה בֵּין אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּבֵין בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וַיִּבְגְּדוּ בַעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם בַּאֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: Then Elohim created an atmosphere of conflict and mutual accusation between Avi-Melech and the men of Shechem; and he turned the men of Shechem against Avi-Melech...
Theological phrasing! "Then the men of Shechem were no longer willing to accept the tryannical despotism of Avi-Melech, and they abandoned their fealty and rose up against him." But this is the biography of the deity, and everything must therefore have that source. I wonder if, some day, someone might like to write an alternate version of the entire Tanach, re-telling history from the human perspective, including the deity, but only as a distant external factor.
Theological phrasing! "Then the men of Shechem were no longer willing to accept the tryannical despotism of Avi-Melech, and they abandoned their fealty and rose up against him." But this is the biography of the deity, and everything must therefore have that source. I wonder if, some day, someone might like to write an alternate version of the entire Tanach, re-telling history from the human perspective, including the deity, but only as a distant external factor.
My translation of this verse, when I wrote it during the Obama years, was much closer to that of the King James; the re-write is indebted to the four years of Boss Tweet that followed.
9:24 LAV'O CHAMAS SHIV'IM BENEY YERUV-VA'AL VE DAMAM LASHUM AL AVI-MELECH ACHIYHEM ASHER HARAG OTAM VE AL BA'ALEY SHECHEM ASHER CHIZKU ET YADAV LAHAROG ET ECHAV
לָבֹוא חֲמַס שִׁבְעִים בְּנֵי יְרֻבָּעַל וְדָמָם לָשׂוּם עַל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֲחִיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הָרַג אֹותָם וְעַל בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם אֲשֶׁר חִזְּקוּ אֶת יָדָיו לַהֲרֹג אֶת אֶחָיו
BN: That he might be held to account for the cruelty done to the seventy disciples of Yeruv-Va'al, and their blood be laid upon Avi-Melech their kinsman, who slew them, and upon the men of Shechem, who aided him in the killing of his brethren.
But in that human version, precisely because it is a human version, there will still be the need to avoid neutrality, as this version does: because neutrality shares blame; because the men of Shechem are just as responsible as Avi-Melech, as the people of Poland are just as responsible as the Nazis, because collaboration in murder, forced by a bully or chosen voluntarily, is still collaboration in murder.
9:25 VA YASIYMU LO VA'ALEY SHECHEM ME'ARVIM AL RA'SHEY HE HARIM VA YIGZELU ET KOL ASHER YA'AVOR ALEYHEM BA DERECH VA YUGAD LA AVI-MELECH
But in that human version, precisely because it is a human version, there will still be the need to avoid neutrality, as this version does: because neutrality shares blame; because the men of Shechem are just as responsible as Avi-Melech, as the people of Poland are just as responsible as the Nazis, because collaboration in murder, forced by a bully or chosen voluntarily, is still collaboration in murder.
9:25 VA YASIYMU LO VA'ALEY SHECHEM ME'ARVIM AL RA'SHEY HE HARIM VA YIGZELU ET KOL ASHER YA'AVOR ALEYHEM BA DERECH VA YUGAD LA AVI-MELECH
וַיָּשִׂימוּ לֹו בַעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם מְאָרְבִים עַל רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים וַיִּגְזְלוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶם בַּדָּרֶךְ וַיֻּגַּד לַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: And the men of Shechem set men to lie in wait on his behalf at the summits of the hills, and they robbed everybody that came along that way: and Avi-Melech was kept informed.
YASIYMU LO: LO means "to him" or "for him", and in the context the "him" is definitely Avi-Melech. But the remainder of the verse undermines this. Are they valiant freedom-fighters who have turned against the despotic king, and set liers-in-wait "for him", in order to assassinate him, or overthrow him in a coup? Or are these his men, and he is running his kingdom like a Mafiosi, using them as gang of bandits. Looks like the latter.
ME'ARVIM: Elsewhere (see Joshua 8:2 for example) the liers-in-wait were OREVIM, though both words come from the same root; but here we are also reminded of the two princes of Judges 7, one oddly named Orev ("crow") and the other, even more oddly, named Ze'ev ("wolf") - though Orev in Judges 7 is spelled with an Ayin (ע), not an Aleph (א), as here - for which too see my note at Joshua 8:2.
YASIYMU LO: LO means "to him" or "for him", and in the context the "him" is definitely Avi-Melech. But the remainder of the verse undermines this. Are they valiant freedom-fighters who have turned against the despotic king, and set liers-in-wait "for him", in order to assassinate him, or overthrow him in a coup? Or are these his men, and he is running his kingdom like a Mafiosi, using them as gang of bandits. Looks like the latter.
ME'ARVIM: Elsewhere (see Joshua 8:2 for example) the liers-in-wait were OREVIM, though both words come from the same root; but here we are also reminded of the two princes of Judges 7, one oddly named Orev ("crow") and the other, even more oddly, named Ze'ev ("wolf") - though Orev in Judges 7 is spelled with an Ayin (ע), not an Aleph (א), as here - for which too see my note at Joshua 8:2.
pey break
9:26 VA YAVO GA'AL BEN EVED VE ECHAV VA YA'AVRU BISHCHEM VA YIVTECHU VO BA'ALEY SHECHEM
וַיָּבֹא גַּעַל בֶּן עֶבֶד וְאֶחָיו וַיַּעַבְרוּ בִּשְׁכֶם וַיִּבְטְחוּ בֹו בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם
BN: Then Ga'al ben Eved arrived with his men, and crossed into Shechem; and the men of Shechem put their trust in him.
GA'AL (געל) means "loathing", "rejection", "contempt"; yet another allegorical name, like those in John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Not to be confused with GO'EL, spelled with an Aleph (א) rather than an Ayin (ע), which would mean "redeemer". Though, given the number of homophones and homonyms and word-games in this tale, the aural leap from Go'el to Moshi'a was probably intentional.
EVED (עבד) can mean "a worshipper", but here it is presumably meant as "a slave", allowing another Bunyan-like anthropomorphisation, and not for the first time in this book: the man's name ends up as "contemptuous son of a slave"; from which we can now either expect treason, perfidy or somesuch, and, given that this is the Book of Judges, a Nat Turner, a Spartacus, a Jomo Kenyatta - a GO'EL, indeed, as well as a GA'AL.
YIVTECHU VO: First they hire a local mafia, which simply got them pillage. Now they "place their trust" in this "contemptuous slave-son".
9:27 VA YETS'U HA SADEH VE YIVTSERU ET KARMEYHEM VA YIDRECHU VA YA'ASU HILULIM VA YAVO'U BEIT ELOHEYHEM VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU VA YEKALELU ET AVI-MELECH
KJ: And they went out into the fields, and gathered their vineyards, and trode the grapes, and made merry, and went into the house of their god, and did eat and drink, and cursed Abimelech.
GA'AL (געל) means "loathing", "rejection", "contempt"; yet another allegorical name, like those in John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". Not to be confused with GO'EL, spelled with an Aleph (א) rather than an Ayin (ע), which would mean "redeemer". Though, given the number of homophones and homonyms and word-games in this tale, the aural leap from Go'el to Moshi'a was probably intentional.
EVED (עבד) can mean "a worshipper", but here it is presumably meant as "a slave", allowing another Bunyan-like anthropomorphisation, and not for the first time in this book: the man's name ends up as "contemptuous son of a slave"; from which we can now either expect treason, perfidy or somesuch, and, given that this is the Book of Judges, a Nat Turner, a Spartacus, a Jomo Kenyatta - a GO'EL, indeed, as well as a GA'AL.
YIVTECHU VO: First they hire a local mafia, which simply got them pillage. Now they "place their trust" in this "contemptuous slave-son".
9:27 VA YETS'U HA SADEH VE YIVTSERU ET KARMEYHEM VA YIDRECHU VA YA'ASU HILULIM VA YAVO'U BEIT ELOHEYHEM VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU VA YEKALELU ET AVI-MELECH
וַיֵּצְאוּ הַשָּׂדֶה וַיִּבְצְרוּ אֶת כַּרְמֵיהֶם וַיִּדְרְכוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ הִלּוּלִים וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵּית אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ וַיְקַלְלוּ אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: And they went out into the fields, and gathered in their vineyards, and trod the grapes, and made merry, and went into the house of their god, and ate and drank, and cursed Avi-Melech.
Another part of the tale has now come full circle; we are back at the grape-harvest (see Judges 8:2). And just as Frazer told us in "The Golden Bough", we are also back at the point where the champion of the grove, having overthrown perfidiously his predecessor, is now due to be overthrown himself.
Another part of the tale has now come full circle; we are back at the grape-harvest (see Judges 8:2). And just as Frazer told us in "The Golden Bough", we are also back at the point where the champion of the grove, having overthrown perfidiously his predecessor, is now due to be overthrown himself.
And what a coincidence that the central metaphor of the tale should turn out to have been... Yotam's trees!
KJ: And Gaal the son of Ebed said, Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that we should serve him? is not he the son of Jerubbaal? and Zebul his officer? serve the men of Hamor the father of Shechem: for why should we serve him?
9:28 VA YOMER GA'AL BEN EVED MI AVI-MELECH U MI SHECHEM KI NA'AVDENU HA LO VEN YERUV-VA'AL U ZEVUL PEKIYDO IVDU ET ANSHEY CHAMOR AVI SHECHEM U MADU'A NA'AVDENU ANACHNU
וַיֹּאמֶר גַּעַל בֶּן עֶבֶד מִי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּמִי שְׁכֶם כִּי נַעַבְדֶנּוּ הֲלֹא בֶן יְרֻבַּעַל וּזְבֻל פְּקִידֹו עִבְדוּ אֶת אַנְשֵׁי חֲמֹור אֲבִי שְׁכֶם וּמַדּוּעַ נַעַבְדֶנּוּ אֲנָחְנוּ
BN: And Ga'al ben Eved said, "Who is this Avi-Melech, and who is this Shechem, that we should serve him? Is he not the son of Yeruv-Va'al? And Zevul, his senior man? Serve the men of Chamor the father of Shechem? Why should we serve him?..
KJ: And would to God this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech. And he said to Abimelech, Increase thine army, and come out.
NA'AVEDNU: And my explanation of his name, at verse 26, now faces a challenge - the need to ask if, maybe, he wasn't Go'el ben Eved all along, and it was the other meaning of EVED: that we should translate his name as "the redeemer, begotten by the true worshipper". It all depends, of course, on whether he turns out to be the good guy or the bad guy, and that in itself depends on whether we are for him or against him.
KJ carefully sits on the fence by saying "serve" him, and I have followed suit, for the time being. We shall have to wait and see.
The tone makes him sound like an ignorant ruffian, and the temptation is to translate that tone into modern colloquial English; I have not done so, as I do not wish to lower the tone to vulgarity; but the reader can probably deduce in private how this might be more accurately translated.
SHECHEM mysteriously transformed into a man here, as he was in the Dinah story previously. Or are we mis-reading this? See below.
ZEVUL (זבל) could infer Zevulun, except that nothing in the story appears to connect; or only the use of Shechem as a name here. But Zevul also gives Jezebel (I-Zevel in the Yehudit, though it may originally have been Yah-Zevel - see 1 Kings 16:31), and now there is a conflict among scholars as to whether ZEVUL means "an exalted habitation", as in a shrine or palace (cf 1 Kings 8:13, 2 Chronicles 6:2, Psalm 49:15, Isaiah 63:15, Habakuk 3:11 and others), or whether ZEVEL always had the meaning that it has in modern Ivrit, of "rubbish" or "dirt", as in the other reading of Jezebel, as I-Zevel (אי-זבל). Probably Jezebel meant "homeless", and the epithet "dirty" stuck to her name because of the events of her story. On the other hand, the Zevel goes with the Ga'al and the Eved rather nicely as yet one more "nickname" or "sobriquet". King Scum of Maralago -something of that order.
PEKIYDO: I have translated this as "senior man" because, in verse 30, he is described as "SAR HA IR", which probably doesn't mean "mayor" in the context of Avi-Melech's tyranny. More like the "consiglieri" of the Mafia godfather.
CHAMOR: But Chamor ben Shechem, or, at least, the original Chamor ben Shechem, is the man from the Ya'akov tale, the Dinah tale, the rape, the forced circumcision by Shim'on and Levi, the massacre of the city (Genesis 34). Do we need to consider relocating these Judges tales in time, and setting them alongside the Genesis tales, as contemporaneous? (I believe I may have asked that question about this particular tale previously, indeed several times!)
9:29 U MI YITEN ET HA AM HA ZEH BE YADI VE ASIYRAH ET AVI-MELECH VA YOMER LA AVI-MELECH RABEH TSEVA'ACHA VA TSE'AH
KJ carefully sits on the fence by saying "serve" him, and I have followed suit, for the time being. We shall have to wait and see.
The tone makes him sound like an ignorant ruffian, and the temptation is to translate that tone into modern colloquial English; I have not done so, as I do not wish to lower the tone to vulgarity; but the reader can probably deduce in private how this might be more accurately translated.
SHECHEM mysteriously transformed into a man here, as he was in the Dinah story previously. Or are we mis-reading this? See below.
ZEVUL (זבל) could infer Zevulun, except that nothing in the story appears to connect; or only the use of Shechem as a name here. But Zevul also gives Jezebel (I-Zevel in the Yehudit, though it may originally have been Yah-Zevel - see 1 Kings 16:31), and now there is a conflict among scholars as to whether ZEVUL means "an exalted habitation", as in a shrine or palace (cf 1 Kings 8:13, 2 Chronicles 6:2, Psalm 49:15, Isaiah 63:15, Habakuk 3:11 and others), or whether ZEVEL always had the meaning that it has in modern Ivrit, of "rubbish" or "dirt", as in the other reading of Jezebel, as I-Zevel (אי-זבל). Probably Jezebel meant "homeless", and the epithet "dirty" stuck to her name because of the events of her story. On the other hand, the Zevel goes with the Ga'al and the Eved rather nicely as yet one more "nickname" or "sobriquet". King Scum of Maralago -something of that order.
PEKIYDO: I have translated this as "senior man" because, in verse 30, he is described as "SAR HA IR", which probably doesn't mean "mayor" in the context of Avi-Melech's tyranny. More like the "consiglieri" of the Mafia godfather.
CHAMOR: But Chamor ben Shechem, or, at least, the original Chamor ben Shechem, is the man from the Ya'akov tale, the Dinah tale, the rape, the forced circumcision by Shim'on and Levi, the massacre of the city (Genesis 34). Do we need to consider relocating these Judges tales in time, and setting them alongside the Genesis tales, as contemporaneous? (I believe I may have asked that question about this particular tale previously, indeed several times!)
9:29 U MI YITEN ET HA AM HA ZEH BE YADI VE ASIYRAH ET AVI-MELECH VA YOMER LA AVI-MELECH RABEH TSEVA'ACHA VA TSE'AH
וּמִי יִתֵּן אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּיָדִי וְאָסִירָה אֶת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ רַבֶּה צְבָאֲךָ וָצֵאָה
BN: Put this people in my hands, and I will get rid of Avi-Melech". And he said to Avi-Melech: "Raise your army, and come out".
The KJ translation is naughty here; there is no direct reference to the deity in this verse, by any name.
9:30 VA YISHM'A ZEVUL SAR HA IR ET DIVREY GA'AL BEN EVED VA YICHAR APHO
KJ: And when Zebul the ruler of the city heard the words of Gaal the son of Ebed, his anger was kindled.
The KJ translation is naughty here; there is no direct reference to the deity in this verse, by any name.
9:30 VA YISHM'A ZEVUL SAR HA IR ET DIVREY GA'AL BEN EVED VA YICHAR APHO
וַיִּשְׁמַע זְבֻל שַׂר הָעִיר אֶת דִּבְרֵי גַּעַל בֶּן עָבֶד וַיִּחַר אַפֹּו
BN: And when Zevul, the senior man in the city, heard the words of Ga'al ben Eved, he was, to put it mildly, furious.
Sorry, but I just couldn't resist joining in the word-games.
Sorry, but I just couldn't resist joining in the word-games.
If this was all really happening in the years after Yehoshu'a, what about the Ark, which was housed at Shechem at that epoch, and the fact that Shechem is a refuge city of the Leviyim?
I wonder if this story is being told, and at such length and dull detail, precisely because Shechem was effectively the capital at that time; there would have been dozens of tales, about how it came to be the capital, its history, its religion, simply by dint of it having housed the Ark for so long. And if so, and if Avi-Melech was its first sacred-king, with Zevul his "Mayor", had this fact become forgotten by the time of Sha'ul, who is clearly described as the first king in Yisra-El? Again, I believe we have to make a distinction between the Sacred King, functioning as a kind of Pope or Ayatollah or Chief Rabbi, and a totally secular king, who could only rule - and would do so right up until the destruction of the Second Temple - with the counsel and support of what the Sacred King had by then become, not the Kohen Gadol (High Priest), but the Prophet.
9:31 VA YISHLACH MAL'ACHIM EL AVI-MELECH BE TARMAH LEMOR HINEH GA'AL BEN EVED VE ECHAV BA'IM SHECHEMAH VE HINAM TSARIM ET HA IR ALEYCHA
וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בְּתָרְמָה לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה גַעַל בֶּן עֶבֶד וְאֶחָיו בָּאִים שְׁכֶמָה וְהִנָּם צָרִים אֶת הָעִיר עָלֶיךָ
BN: And he sent messengers to Avi-Melech in secret, saying: "Be aware, Ga'al ben Eved and his supporters have come to Shechem. And take note, they are fortifying the city against you...
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers, not angels. But presumably they don't tell Avi-Melech who sent them; they just bring their message.
MAL'ACHIM: Messengers, not angels. But presumably they don't tell Avi-Melech who sent them; they just bring their message.
TARMAH: Doesn't really mean "in secret"; the root is RAMAH (רמה), in the PI'EL form, and we find it in Jeremiah 8:5, 14:14 and 23:26 as TARMIYT (תרמית) - "fraud" or "deceit". It is all a matter of tone. The word "treachery" was introduced earlier (verse 23), and now we shall see what it was intended to foreshadow.
9:32 VE ATAH KUM LAILAH ATAH VE HA AM ASHER ITACH VE EROV BA SADEH
KJ: Now therefore up by night, thou and the people that is with thee, and lie in wait in the field
BN: "If I were you, I would get up in the night, you and the people who are with you, and lie in wait in the field...
OREV: as above
וְעַתָּה קוּם לַיְלָה אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתָּךְ וֶאֱרֹב בַּשָּׂדֶה
BN: "If I were you, I would get up in the night, you and the people who are with you, and lie in wait in the field...
OREV: as above
9:33 VE HAYAH VA BOKER KIZRO'ACH HA SHEMESH TASHKIM U PHASHATETA AL HA IR VE HINEH HU VE HA AM ASHER ITO YOTS'IM ELEYCHA VE ASIYTA LO KA ASHER TIMTS'A YADECHA
וְהָיָה בַבֹּקֶר כִּזְרֹחַ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ תַּשְׁכִּים וּפָשַׁטְתָּ עַל הָעִיר וְהִנֵּה הוּא וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתֹּו יֹצְאִים אֵלֶיךָ וְעָשִׂיתָ לֹּו כַּאֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא יָדֶךָ
BN: "And then, get up early in the morning, as soon as the sun rises, and attack the city. You will see, when he and his people come out against you, that you will be able to deal with them as you see fit."
TIMTS'A YADECHA: Timts'a from the same root as Mots'e, from which the phrase, much used in this book, MOTS'E CHEN BE EYNEYCHEM. In the latter, people did "as they saw fit in their own eyes"; here "as he sees fit in his own hands".
9:34 VA YAKAM AVI-MELECH VE CHOL HA AM ASHER IMO LAILAH VA YE'ERVU AL SHECHEM ARBA'AH RASHIM
וַיָּקָם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְכָל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עִמֹּו לָיְלָה וַיֶּאֶרְבוּ עַל שְׁכֶם אַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
BN: So Avi-Melech got up in the dead of night, he and all the people who were with him, and they lay in wait outside Shechem in four companies.
IMO: ITACH in verse 32, ITO in verse 33, and again in verse 35, but IMO here, and also in verses 1 and 3 above, and 44 and 48 below. The "IT"s are the accusative preposition ET, plus pronoun suffix; IM means "with" and is really the correct form to use on each occasion. Or are we modern grammarians missing some subtle distinction between this verse and the other three?
9:35 VA YETS'E GA'AL BEN EVED VA YA'AMOD PETACH SHA'AR HA IR VA YAKAM AVI-MELECH VE HA AM ASHER ITO MIN HA ME'ARAV
KJ: And Gaal the son of Ebed went out, and stood in the entering of the gate of the city: and Abimelech rose up, and the people that were with him, from lying in wait.
IMO: ITACH in verse 32, ITO in verse 33, and again in verse 35, but IMO here, and also in verses 1 and 3 above, and 44 and 48 below. The "IT"s are the accusative preposition ET, plus pronoun suffix; IM means "with" and is really the correct form to use on each occasion. Or are we modern grammarians missing some subtle distinction between this verse and the other three?
9:35 VA YETS'E GA'AL BEN EVED VA YA'AMOD PETACH SHA'AR HA IR VA YAKAM AVI-MELECH VE HA AM ASHER ITO MIN HA ME'ARAV
וַיֵּצֵא גַּעַל בֶּן עֶבֶד וַיַּעֲמֹד פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר וַיָּקָם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתֹּו מִן הַמַּאְרָב
BN: And Ga'al ben Eved went out, and stood in the open gateway of the city, while Avi-Melech, and all the people who were with him, were getting up from lying in wait.
9:36 VA YAR GA'AL ET HA AM VA YOMER EL ZEVUL HINEH AM YORED ME RA'SHEY HE HARIM VA YOMER ELAV ZEVUL ET TSEL HE HARIM ATAH RO'EH KA ANASHIM.
KJ: And when Gaal saw the people, he said to Zebul, Behold, there come people down from the top of the mountains. And Zebul said unto him, Thou seest the shadow of the mountains as if they were men.
9:36 VA YAR GA'AL ET HA AM VA YOMER EL ZEVUL HINEH AM YORED ME RA'SHEY HE HARIM VA YOMER ELAV ZEVUL ET TSEL HE HARIM ATAH RO'EH KA ANASHIM.
וַיַּרְא גַּעַל אֶת הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל זְבֻל הִנֵּה עָם יֹורֵד מֵרָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו זְבֻל אֵת צֵל הֶהָרִים אַתָּה רֹאֶה כָּאֲנָשִׁים
BN: And when Ga'al saw the people, he said to Zevul: "Look, there are people coming down from the top of the mountain". And Zevul said to him: "You are seeing the shadow of the mountains as if they were men".
Back into the realms of the shadows (Tsalmun'a, for which see my note to Judges 8:5), just as Yotam oracled in verse 15, above. The phrasing there is very precise in its hint of "treachery". And once again we can see that the Gid'on tale and this one are not two separate stories, but a single tale, that happens to come in two parts.
samech break
KJ: And Gaal spake again and said, See there come people down by the middle of the land, and another company come along by the plain of Meonenim.
Back into the realms of the shadows (Tsalmun'a, for which see my note to Judges 8:5), just as Yotam oracled in verse 15, above. The phrasing there is very precise in its hint of "treachery". And once again we can see that the Gid'on tale and this one are not two separate stories, but a single tale, that happens to come in two parts.
samech break
9:37 VA YOSEPH OD GA'AL LEDABER VA YOMER HINEH AM YORDIM ME IM TABUR HA ARETS VE ROSH ECHAD BA MI DERECH ELON ME'ONENIM
וַיֹּסֶף עֹוד גַּעַל לְדַבֵּר וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה עָם יֹורְדִים מֵעִם טַבּוּר הָאָרֶץ וְרֹאשׁ אֶחָד בָּא מִדֶּרֶךְ אֵלֹון מְעֹונְנִים
BN: Then Ga'al spoke again, and said: "Look, there are people coming down the middle of the gorge, and another company coming along by the oak-tree at Me'onenim".
ME'ONENIM (מעוננים) like Zevul means "habitations". There is a town named Ma'on (Joshua 15:55, 1 Samuel 25:2), and 2 Chronicles 26:7 uses the name Me'unim for an Arab tribe; though that may be an error for Me'u-anim. Ezra 2:50 and Nehemiah 7:52 refer to the Me'unim, and it is implausible that the Redactor, being of their exact historical period, would not have known that. There is also a Ma'an south of the Dead Sea, in modern Jordan, and in the very next chapter we are going to find Ma'on listed among those who oppressed Yisra-El (Judges 10:12). But each of these places uses the word Ma'on in much the same way that every Arab town has a medina, and so many English towns include the Roman castra; and as the word Be'er was used a few verses ago. Given that Zevul is now fighting Me'onenim - "habitation" is now fighting "habitations" - the entire story has been abstracted out of history, and this could be any town against any other. Which leaves, yet again, only the allusion that fuels the allegory: Ma'on to the people of the Redactor's time was specifically the habitation of YHVH, as in Psalm 26:8, 68:6, Deuteronomy 26:15, and in its feminine form (Me'onah) in Psalm 76:3. So, once again, we are at Mil'o, and on Mor-Yah, by analogy ("Once upon a time there were two brothers, Lon and Don, and they had a quarrel with their northern kinsmen, one of them a man from Fort-town, the other who lived by a scousepool on the edge of the Mer Sea"... that sort of thing, but better done than my feeble attempt).
KJ: And Abimelech chased him, and he fled before him, and many were overthrown and wounded, even unto the entering of the gate.
ME'ONENIM (מעוננים) like Zevul means "habitations". There is a town named Ma'on (Joshua 15:55, 1 Samuel 25:2), and 2 Chronicles 26:7 uses the name Me'unim for an Arab tribe; though that may be an error for Me'u-anim. Ezra 2:50 and Nehemiah 7:52 refer to the Me'unim, and it is implausible that the Redactor, being of their exact historical period, would not have known that. There is also a Ma'an south of the Dead Sea, in modern Jordan, and in the very next chapter we are going to find Ma'on listed among those who oppressed Yisra-El (Judges 10:12). But each of these places uses the word Ma'on in much the same way that every Arab town has a medina, and so many English towns include the Roman castra; and as the word Be'er was used a few verses ago. Given that Zevul is now fighting Me'onenim - "habitation" is now fighting "habitations" - the entire story has been abstracted out of history, and this could be any town against any other. Which leaves, yet again, only the allusion that fuels the allegory: Ma'on to the people of the Redactor's time was specifically the habitation of YHVH, as in Psalm 26:8, 68:6, Deuteronomy 26:15, and in its feminine form (Me'onah) in Psalm 76:3. So, once again, we are at Mil'o, and on Mor-Yah, by analogy ("Once upon a time there were two brothers, Lon and Don, and they had a quarrel with their northern kinsmen, one of them a man from Fort-town, the other who lived by a scousepool on the edge of the Mer Sea"... that sort of thing, but better done than my feeble attempt).
9:38 VA YOMER ELAV ZEVUL AYEH EPHO PHIYCHA ASHER TO'MAR MI AVI-MELECH KI NA'AVDENU HA LO ZEH HA AM ASHER MA'ASTAH BO TSE NA ATAH VE HILACHEM BO
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו זְבֻל אַיֵּה אֵפֹוא פִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר מִי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ כִּי נַעַבְדֶנּוּ הֲלֹא זֶה הָעָם אֲשֶׁר מָאַסְתָּה בֹּו צֵא נָא עַתָּה וְהִלָּחֶם בֹּו
KJ: Then said Zebul unto him, Where is now thy mouth, wherewith thou saidst, Who is Abimelech, that we should serve him? is not this the people that thou hast despised? go out, I pray now, and fight with them.
BN: Then Zevul said to him: "Where is your mouth now, the one that said: 'Who is this Avi-Melech that we should serve him?' Is not this the people that you despised? Go out, I implore you, now, and fight against them."
AYEH EPHO: Are they not two ways of saying the same thing, "where?" and "where?"? We had an issue with EPHO (written then as EYPHO) at Judges 8:18, where it appears to be used to mean "what kind of?" - but clearly that is not its meaning here. Is it simply an idiom, as we might say "where oh where?", though in Zevul's mouth rather less lyrically than that.
Because once again there is a tone to this which is difficult to render accurately in a staid, polite, conventional translation of that sacred text the Tanach. "Alright then, big-mouth" may catch the opening phrase a little more precisely. "Go out, I pray now" needs something more like "get on your bike", but stronger, and obviously bikes are anachronisms. Again, I leave the reader to insert expletives and pejoratives as appropriate. I am quite certain now that he wasn't named ZEVUL by his parents (see verse 28).
I also can't help wondering if this ZEVUL isn't a Redactor's version of Ba'al-Zevul, which goes with I-Zevul (Jezebel) - see my note to verse 28 - as another of the names for the Lord of the Underworld. Especially as Ga'al has taken us into precisely that mythological territory with his tree parable [this note really needs to go at the first mention of ZEVUL, not here; but it has taken until here for the story to make clear that this is the case].
But Zevul is only Avi-Melech's "consigliere", his "Mayor". Really it is Avi-Melech himself who is the Lord of the Underworld - see the fragment "Taurus Mountains 400,000 BCE" in Ancestry of the Patriarch 1.
AYEH EPHO: Are they not two ways of saying the same thing, "where?" and "where?"? We had an issue with EPHO (written then as EYPHO) at Judges 8:18, where it appears to be used to mean "what kind of?" - but clearly that is not its meaning here. Is it simply an idiom, as we might say "where oh where?", though in Zevul's mouth rather less lyrically than that.
Because once again there is a tone to this which is difficult to render accurately in a staid, polite, conventional translation of that sacred text the Tanach. "Alright then, big-mouth" may catch the opening phrase a little more precisely. "Go out, I pray now" needs something more like "get on your bike", but stronger, and obviously bikes are anachronisms. Again, I leave the reader to insert expletives and pejoratives as appropriate. I am quite certain now that he wasn't named ZEVUL by his parents (see verse 28).
I also can't help wondering if this ZEVUL isn't a Redactor's version of Ba'al-Zevul, which goes with I-Zevul (Jezebel) - see my note to verse 28 - as another of the names for the Lord of the Underworld. Especially as Ga'al has taken us into precisely that mythological territory with his tree parable [this note really needs to go at the first mention of ZEVUL, not here; but it has taken until here for the story to make clear that this is the case].
But Zevul is only Avi-Melech's "consigliere", his "Mayor". Really it is Avi-Melech himself who is the Lord of the Underworld - see the fragment "Taurus Mountains 400,000 BCE" in Ancestry of the Patriarch 1.
I am also assuming, though the text does not state as much, that Zevul is still on Avi-Melech's side, and expects Ga'al to be soundly thrashed.
samech break
samech break
9:39 VA YETS'E GA'AL LIPHNEY BA'ALEY SHECHEM VA YILACHEM BA AVI-MELECH
וַיֵּצֵא גַעַל לִפְנֵי בַּעֲלֵי שְׁכֶם וַיִּלָּחֶם בַּאֲבִימֶלֶךְ
KJ: And Gaal went out before the men of Shechem, and fought with Abimelech.
BN: And Ga'al set out at the head of the men of Shechem, and fought with Avi-Melech.
BN: And Ga'al set out at the head of the men of Shechem, and fought with Avi-Melech.
9:40 VA YIRDEPHEHU AVI-MELECH VA YANAS MI PANAV VA YIPLU CHALALIM RABIM AD PETACH HA SHA'AR
וַיִּרְדְּפֵהוּ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַיָּנָס מִפָּנָיו וַיִּפְּלוּ חֲלָלִים רַבִּים עַד פֶּתַח הַשָּׁעַר
BN: And Avi-Melech chased him, and he fled before him, and many were killed or wounded, right up to the open gate.
The problem of playing three sides in a contest; everyone plays everyone off against each other, competing for power, sometimes pretending to cooperate but only really using that pretense as a means of gaining advantage. And the people who started this, wanting to overthrow Avi-Melech but unwilling to go into Tianenmin Square themselves, have now brought in two surrogates, and defeat only makes their situation worse. Modern politics is no different. And is this the real point beind Yotam's parable of the trees?
The problem of playing three sides in a contest; everyone plays everyone off against each other, competing for power, sometimes pretending to cooperate but only really using that pretense as a means of gaining advantage. And the people who started this, wanting to overthrow Avi-Melech but unwilling to go into Tianenmin Square themselves, have now brought in two surrogates, and defeat only makes their situation worse. Modern politics is no different. And is this the real point beind Yotam's parable of the trees?
9:41 VA YESHEV AVI-MELECH BA ARUMAH VA YEGARESH ZEVUL ET GA'AL VE ET ECHAV MI SHEVET BI SHECHEM
וַיֵּשֶׁב אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בָּארוּמָה וַיְגָרֶשׁ זְבֻל אֶת גַּעַל וְאֶת אֶחָיו מִשֶּׁבֶת בִּשְׁכֶם
BN: And Avi-Melech went to live in Arumah; and Zevul forced out Ga'al and his kinsmen, preventing them from dwelling in Shechem.
ARUMAH: 2 Kings 23:36 names it as RUMAH, dropping what is presumably an Aramaic Aleph here; but that leaves it as "high ground", and not necessarily the name of a town at all. But it also takes us back to TARMAH in verse 31, so it is not obvious whether Avi-Melech, being a god, goes back to his version of Olympus, of Avi-Melech, being a man but having lost Shechem to Zevul as a consequence of the skirmish with Ga'al, has gone up into the mountains to launch his own guerrilla war, or if indeed there is a town by the name of Arumah, and he is now ruling from there. Remember that Shechem was where the Ark was kept, and the capital of post-Joshuaic Yisra-El - if this is indeed a tale from that epoch; so if he is ruling from Arumah, then he isn't really ruling at all; Zevul is.
ARUMAH: 2 Kings 23:36 names it as RUMAH, dropping what is presumably an Aramaic Aleph here; but that leaves it as "high ground", and not necessarily the name of a town at all. But it also takes us back to TARMAH in verse 31, so it is not obvious whether Avi-Melech, being a god, goes back to his version of Olympus, of Avi-Melech, being a man but having lost Shechem to Zevul as a consequence of the skirmish with Ga'al, has gone up into the mountains to launch his own guerrilla war, or if indeed there is a town by the name of Arumah, and he is now ruling from there. Remember that Shechem was where the Ark was kept, and the capital of post-Joshuaic Yisra-El - if this is indeed a tale from that epoch; so if he is ruling from Arumah, then he isn't really ruling at all; Zevul is.
VA YEGARESH ZEVUL ET GA'AL: If we read these names in their "other" form, based on the variations in my notes, this would translate as "The Lord of the Underworld expelled the Saviour", which is positively Davidic. And have I deliberately waited until this moment to remind you what the Shechem was, in the sacrifices - not the minchah, but the full meat-offering? The shoulder, the "royal portion", in fact the priestly portion - see my notes on SHECHEM in The Dictionary of Names.
9:42 VA YEHI MI MACHARAT VA YETS'E HA AM HA SADEH VA YAGIDU LA AVI-MELECH
KJ: And it came to pass on the morrow, that the people went out into the field; and they told Abimelech.
9:42 VA YEHI MI MACHARAT VA YETS'E HA AM HA SADEH VA YAGIDU LA AVI-MELECH
וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיֵּצֵא הָעָם הַשָּׂדֶה וַיַּגִּדוּ לַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ
BN: And it came to pass the following day, that the people went out into the field; and they told Avi-Melech.
9:43 VA YIKACH ET HA AM VE YECHETSEM LISHLOSHAH RASHIM VA YE'EROV BA SADEH VA YAR VE HINEH HA AM YOTS'E MIN HA IR VA YAKAM ALEYHEM VA YAKEM ALEYHEM VA YAKEM
KJ: And he took the people, and divided them into three companies, and laid wait in the field, and looked, and, behold, the people were come forth out of the city; and he rose up against them, and smote them.
9:43 VA YIKACH ET HA AM VE YECHETSEM LISHLOSHAH RASHIM VA YE'EROV BA SADEH VA YAR VE HINEH HA AM YOTS'E MIN HA IR VA YAKAM ALEYHEM VA YAKEM ALEYHEM VA YAKEM
וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָעָם וַיֶּחֱצֵם לִשְׁלֹשָׁה רָאשִׁים וַיֶּאֱרֹב בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה הָעָם יֹצֵא מִן הָעִיר וַיָּקָם עֲלֵיהֶם וַיַּכֵּם
BN: And he took the people, and divided them into three companies, and lay in wait in the field, and looked, and, behold, the people were coming out of the city; and he rose up against them, and smote them.
The story-teller is not making it easy for us to follow this: the ones who brought Avi-Melech the news now become his three companies, and will fight against the Shechemites, who apparently are now pursuing after him, having just got rid of Ga'al.
And wasn't it in three companies that Gid'on... and four companies in verse 34 - they don't need to be mentioned for the story to work, so mentioning them has to be significant. I am simply speculating, but three versus four would be the numbers used in any mythological account of the battle between the sun and the moon (Shimshon versus Delilah et al), the four quarters of the mandala-universe of the sun, the three phases of the moon - and it was by night, and then precisely at sunrise, that Zevul had Ga'al start his personal wrestling-match with Avi-Melech...
KJ: And Abimelech, and the company that was with him, rushed forward, and stood in the entering of the gate of the city: and the two other companies ran upon all the people that were in the fields, and slew them.
The story-teller is not making it easy for us to follow this: the ones who brought Avi-Melech the news now become his three companies, and will fight against the Shechemites, who apparently are now pursuing after him, having just got rid of Ga'al.
And wasn't it in three companies that Gid'on... and four companies in verse 34 - they don't need to be mentioned for the story to work, so mentioning them has to be significant. I am simply speculating, but three versus four would be the numbers used in any mythological account of the battle between the sun and the moon (Shimshon versus Delilah et al), the four quarters of the mandala-universe of the sun, the three phases of the moon - and it was by night, and then precisely at sunrise, that Zevul had Ga'al start his personal wrestling-match with Avi-Melech...
9:44 VA AVI-MELECH VE HA RA'SHIM ASHER IMO PASHTU VA YA'AMDU PETACH SHA'AR HA IR U SHENEY HA RA'SHIM PASHTU AL KOL ASHER BA SADEH VA YAKUM
וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ וְהָרָאשִׁים אֲשֶׁר עִמֹּו פָּשְׁטוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ פֶּתַח שַׁעַר הָעִיר וּשְׁנֵי הָרָאשִׁים פָּשְׁטוּ עַל כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיַּכּוּם
BN: Then Avi-Melech, and the company that was with him, rushed forward, and held firm in the open gate of the city; while the other two companies charged at the people who were in the fields, and slew them.
9:45 VA AVI-MELECH NILCHAM BA IR KOL HAYOM HA HU VA YILKOD ET HA IR VE ET HA AM ASHER BAH HARAG VA YITOTS ET HA IR VA YIZRA'EHA MELACH
KJ: And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that was therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt.
9:45 VA AVI-MELECH NILCHAM BA IR KOL HAYOM HA HU VA YILKOD ET HA IR VE ET HA AM ASHER BAH HARAG VA YITOTS ET HA IR VA YIZRA'EHA MELACH
וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ נִלְחָם בָּעִיר כֹּל הַיֹּום הַהוּא וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת הָעִיר וְאֶת הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ הָרָג וַיִּתֹּץ אֶת הָעִיר וַיִּזְרָעֶהָ מֶלַח
BN: And Avi-Melech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slaughtered the people who were in it, and destroyed the city, and sowed it with salt.
"Grandpa, why are there deserts?". "Well, you see, there was a struggle for power between the sun and the moon, which is to say the sun-god and the moon-goddess; she wanted the land to be fertile, and produce many crops, and of course she needed his help in providing the seed; but they fought over who should be the boss, and one dawn he lay in wait for her to set, and captured her, and destoyed every piece of land that she had made fertile, and sowed it with salt instead of seed, so that it became desert."
"Grandpa, why are there deserts?". "Well, you see, there was a struggle for power between the sun and the moon, which is to say the sun-god and the moon-goddess; she wanted the land to be fertile, and produce many crops, and of course she needed his help in providing the seed; but they fought over who should be the boss, and one dawn he lay in wait for her to set, and captured her, and destoyed every piece of land that she had made fertile, and sowed it with salt instead of seed, so that it became desert."
YITOTS: Definitely "destroyed", though whether it was razed by fire or torn down piecemeal is not obvious from the root - cf Leviticus 14:45 (where it is piecemeal, brick by brick), Psalm 52:7 (where it is torn down, tent by tent), Job 19:10 (where it is "broken down" but unclear how), et al.
YIZRA'EHA MELACH: Sowed it with salt? ZER'A is "a seed", so "sown" is accurate. But why? Unless you want to kill their crops. Back to the grape harvest? But salt? Like the substance into which Lot's wife turned, when she looked back to witness the destruction of her city? Or if the tale is history serving as aetiological rather than mythological allegory - Avi-Melech the god, and this another tale to explain another volcanic eruption? But we are in the territory of the Lord of the Underworld, who creates Zevel wherever he goes - so killing the crops = infertility... I think grandpa has it, if I may borrow the term from Ya-el a couple of chapters back, on the nail.
pey break
KJ: And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard that, they entered into an hold of the house of the god Berith.
YIZRA'EHA MELACH: Sowed it with salt? ZER'A is "a seed", so "sown" is accurate. But why? Unless you want to kill their crops. Back to the grape harvest? But salt? Like the substance into which Lot's wife turned, when she looked back to witness the destruction of her city? Or if the tale is history serving as aetiological rather than mythological allegory - Avi-Melech the god, and this another tale to explain another volcanic eruption? But we are in the territory of the Lord of the Underworld, who creates Zevel wherever he goes - so killing the crops = infertility... I think grandpa has it, if I may borrow the term from Ya-el a couple of chapters back, on the nail.
pey break
9:46 VA YISHME'U KOL BA'ALEY MIGDAL SHECHEM VA YAVO'U EL TSERIYACH BEIT EL BERIT
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ כָּל בַּעֲלֵי מִגְדַּל שְׁכֶם וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל צְרִיחַ בֵּית אֵל בְּרִית
BN: And when all the men of Migdal Shechem heard that, they barricaded themselves inside the shrine of El Berit.
MIGDAL SHECHEM: Since when was Shechem a tower, rather than a town? Or is this another case, like Beit-El and Luz, of a town adjacent to a shrine, and then a smaller second town growing up around the shrine - the tower in this case, like the minaret of a mosque or the spire of a church?
MIGDAL SHECHEM: Since when was Shechem a tower, rather than a town? Or is this another case, like Beit-El and Luz, of a town adjacent to a shrine, and then a smaller second town growing up around the shrine - the tower in this case, like the minaret of a mosque or the spire of a church?
And note that it was a Migdal, not a Mitspeh - an Earth-focused watchtower for a garrison rather than a heavens-focused obervatory for the astronomer-priests.
Ba'al Berit previously (verse 4), though here he is definitely El Berit, which makes him Ba'al's father.
Ba'al Berit previously (verse 4), though here he is definitely El Berit, which makes him Ba'al's father.
9:47 VA YUGAD LA AVI-MELECH KI HITKABTSU KOL BA'ALEY MIGDAL SHECHEM
וַיֻּגַּד לַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ כִּי הִתְקַבְּצוּ כָּל בַּעֲלֵי מִגְדַּל שְׁכֶם
BN: And Avi-Melech was told that all the men of Migdal Shechem were gathered together.
9:48 VA YA'AL AVI-MELECH HAR TSALMON HU VE CHOL HA AM ASHER ITO VA YIKACH AVI-MELECH ET HA KARDUMOT BE YADO VE YICHROT SOCHAT ETSIM VA YISA'EH VE YASEM AL SHICHMO VA YOMER EL HA AM ASHER IMO MAH RE'IYTEM ASIYTI MAHARU ASU CHAMONI
וַיַּעַל אֲבִימֶלֶךְ הַר צַלְמֹון הוּא וְכָל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתֹּו וַיִּקַּח אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶת הַקַּרְדֻּמֹּות בְּיָדֹו וַיִּכְרֹת שֹׂוכַת עֵצִים וַיִּשָּׂאֶהָ וַיָּשֶׂם עַל שִׁכְמֹו וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עִמֹּו מָה רְאִיתֶם עָשִׂיתִי מַהֲרוּ עֲשׂוּ כָמֹונִי
BN: And Avi-Melech went up to mount Tsalmon, he and all the people who were with him; and Avi-Melech took an axe in his hand, and cut down a bough from the trees, and took it, and laid it on his shoulder, and said to the people who were with him: "What you have seen me do, make haste, and do as I have done".
Like Gid'on at the very start of this tale, we are cutting down the sacred groves. Remember Dunsinane? But also remember Frazer. Yotam's parable of the trees makes even more sense now. And go back to the previous tale, where Gid'on also cut down an Asherah, and then pursued a king named... Tsalmun'a: odd coincidences, no?
TSALMON(צלמון) - and I am sorry to disappoint those of you who like to hunt on maps, or even in reality, for places mentioned in books, but the only place you are going to find a physical Mount Tsalmon is in Hobbitland, or perhaps en route to your tea party at the Mad Hatter's. You can look for it in Dante's "Inferno", where it is named Mount Purgatory, or you can go down into the "shadows" of Psalm 68 and seek it there. We are journeying through the Underworld, as we knew we were, when we encountered Tsalmunah at Judges 8:5.
Most translators and commentators, needing to find somwhere geographical that can be claimed to be this place, and on Earth, simply call it Mount Eyval - click here for example. Much easier than forcing yourself to deal with the cosmologies of this tale, especially if you are actively Jewish or Christian.
AL SHICHMO: The play on words cannot be rendered in English. SHECHEM and SHICHMO. But it reminds us again that a SHECHEM is also the priestly portion of the sacrifice, the best part and also the most holy: the shoulder. And what is he doing with it? No, this is not Frazer's "Golden Bough", though it is probably why the word is being used here. The term is SOCHAT ETSIM, "the bough of a tree": the root of SOCHAT is SOCHOH (שֹׂכֹ֖ה), where David will kill Gol-Yat with a stone to his forehead, in 1 Samuel 17. More coincidences? Or more parallels?
Like Gid'on at the very start of this tale, we are cutting down the sacred groves. Remember Dunsinane? But also remember Frazer. Yotam's parable of the trees makes even more sense now. And go back to the previous tale, where Gid'on also cut down an Asherah, and then pursued a king named... Tsalmun'a: odd coincidences, no?
TSALMON(צלמון) - and I am sorry to disappoint those of you who like to hunt on maps, or even in reality, for places mentioned in books, but the only place you are going to find a physical Mount Tsalmon is in Hobbitland, or perhaps en route to your tea party at the Mad Hatter's. You can look for it in Dante's "Inferno", where it is named Mount Purgatory, or you can go down into the "shadows" of Psalm 68 and seek it there. We are journeying through the Underworld, as we knew we were, when we encountered Tsalmunah at Judges 8:5.
Most translators and commentators, needing to find somwhere geographical that can be claimed to be this place, and on Earth, simply call it Mount Eyval - click here for example. Much easier than forcing yourself to deal with the cosmologies of this tale, especially if you are actively Jewish or Christian.
AL SHICHMO: The play on words cannot be rendered in English. SHECHEM and SHICHMO. But it reminds us again that a SHECHEM is also the priestly portion of the sacrifice, the best part and also the most holy: the shoulder. And what is he doing with it? No, this is not Frazer's "Golden Bough", though it is probably why the word is being used here. The term is SOCHAT ETSIM, "the bough of a tree": the root of SOCHAT is SOCHOH (שֹׂכֹ֖ה), where David will kill Gol-Yat with a stone to his forehead, in 1 Samuel 17. More coincidences? Or more parallels?
ITO...IMO: On this occasion we have both versions, though they still seem to mean the same thing.
9:49 VA YICHRETU GAM KOL HA AM ISH SOCHOH VA YELCHU ACHAREY AVI-MELECH VA YASIYMU AL HA TSERIYACH VA YATSIYTU ALEYHEM ET HA TSERI'ACH BA ESH VA YAMUTU GAM KOL ANSHEY MIGDAL SHECHEM KE ELEPH ISH VE ISHAH
וַיִּכְרְתוּ גַם כָּל הָעָם אִישׁ שֹׂוכֹה וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל הַצְּרִיחַ וַיַּצִּיתוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַצְּרִיחַ בָּאֵשׁ וַיָּמֻתוּ גַּם כָּל אַנְשֵׁי מִגְדַּל שְׁכֶם כְּאֶלֶף אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה
BN: And each one of the people likewise cut down his bough, and followed Avi-Melech, and laid them against the barricades, and set the barricades on fire; so that all the men of Migdal Shechem died too, about a thousand men and women.
Go back to the oracle delivered against Avi-Melech (verse 15) when he first seized power; the brambles predicted fire from the cedars of Lebanon. Compare that with this. The oracle is again borne out.
Go back to the oracle delivered against Avi-Melech (verse 15) when he first seized power; the brambles predicted fire from the cedars of Lebanon. Compare that with this. The oracle is again borne out.
pey break
9:50 VA YELECH AVI-MELECH EL TEVETS VA YICHAN BE TEVETS VA YILKEDAH
וַיֵּלֶךְ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל תֵּבֵץ וַיִּחַן בְּתֵבֵץ וַיִּלְכְּדָהּ
BN: Then Avi-Melech went to Tevets, and made camp outside Tevets, and took it.
TEVETS: From the root YAVATS meaning "brightness". So his journey, which began in the darkness and set out at the break of dawn, has taken him up Mount Shadows to the brightness of Tevets. Like Gid'on, this whole tale is metaphorical of the sun's journey through the Underworld, equivalent to the Am Tuat of the Egyptians.
9:51 U MIGDAL-AZ HAYAH VETOCH HA IR VA YANUSU SHAMAH KOL HA ANASHIM VA HA NASHIM VE CHOL BA'ALEY HA IR VA YISGERU BA'ADAM VA YA'ALU AL GAG HA MIGDAL
KJ: But there was a strong tower within the city, and thither fled all the men and women, and all they of the city, and shut it to them, and gat them up to the top of the tower.
TEVETS: From the root YAVATS meaning "brightness". So his journey, which began in the darkness and set out at the break of dawn, has taken him up Mount Shadows to the brightness of Tevets. Like Gid'on, this whole tale is metaphorical of the sun's journey through the Underworld, equivalent to the Am Tuat of the Egyptians.
9:51 U MIGDAL-AZ HAYAH VETOCH HA IR VA YANUSU SHAMAH KOL HA ANASHIM VA HA NASHIM VE CHOL BA'ALEY HA IR VA YISGERU BA'ADAM VA YA'ALU AL GAG HA MIGDAL
וּמִגְדַּל עֹז הָיָה בְתֹוךְ הָעִיר וַיָּנֻסוּ שָׁמָּה כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים וְהַנָּשִׁים וְכֹל בַּעֲלֵי הָעִיר וַיִּסְגְּרוּ בַּעֲדָם וַיַּעֲלוּ עַל גַּג הַמִּגְדָּל
BN: But there was a strong tower within the city, and all the men and women fled there, all the people of the city, and they shut themselves in, and went up to the top of the tower.
This business of several towns all taking refuge in their towers is strangely reminiscent of the stories of the destruction of the Jewish tribes of Yatrib in the Hadith of Muhammad. Or are these perhaps the dragon-protected towers that King Arthur assailed? Or simply yet one more version of Clifford's Tower?
KJ: And Abimelech came unto the tower, and fought against it, and went hard unto the door of the tower to burn it with fire.
This business of several towns all taking refuge in their towers is strangely reminiscent of the stories of the destruction of the Jewish tribes of Yatrib in the Hadith of Muhammad. Or are these perhaps the dragon-protected towers that King Arthur assailed? Or simply yet one more version of Clifford's Tower?
9:52 VA YAVO AVI-MELECH AD HA MIGDAL VA YILACHEM BO VA YIGASH AD PETACH HA MIGDAL LE SARPHO VA ESH
וַיָּבֹא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַד הַמִּגְדָּל וַיִּלָּחֶם בֹּו וַיִּגַּשׁ עַד פֶּתַח הַמִּגְדָּל לְשָׂרְפֹו בָאֵשׁ
BN: And Avi-Melech came to the tower, and fought against it, and reached the very door of the tower, and set it on fire.
Always fire, from the Lapidot to the Lapidim to the destruction of the boughs, and now this; just as Yotam predicted in his oracle of the trees.
9:53 VA TASHLECH ISHAH ACHAT PELACH RECHEV AL ROSH AVI-MELECH VA TARITS ET GULGALTO
KJ: And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull.
Always fire, from the Lapidot to the Lapidim to the destruction of the boughs, and now this; just as Yotam predicted in his oracle of the trees.
9:53 VA TASHLECH ISHAH ACHAT PELACH RECHEV AL ROSH AVI-MELECH VA TARITS ET GULGALTO
וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ אִשָּׁה אַחַת פֶּלַח רֶכֶב עַל רֹאשׁ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַתָּרִץ אֶת גֻּלְגָּלְתֹּו
BN: And a certain woman threw a millstone on Avi-Melech's head, and it broke his skull.
PELACH: Odd word, PELACH, or maybe two different words that somehow became merged - the way that American has merged "storey" and "story" and "kerb" and "curb", keeping only the latter spelling in each case, but retaining both meanings. In Daniel 3:12 it is used for worshipping the deity (and again in 7:14 and 7:27), which must be a Persian or perhaps an Aramaic word that entered the language, secondary or even tertiary to its Yehudit meaning; Ezra, who was Persian, has PALCHAN for "a worshipper" in 7:19 of his book.
Generally it indicates a part that has been cut open or sliced, such as the pomegranate in Song of Songs 4:3, or the fig-cake in 1 Samuel 30:12, and presumably it gets to be a millstone, here, because it is constructed from slices, as per the illustration (click here for more detail). I have not included this next part in the translation, but actually the PELACH RECHEV is the rider stone, which is the upper of the two stones that work together to grind the corn. The lower stone is called a PELACH TACHTIT in Job 41:16. See also 2 Samuel 11:21, which retells this moment in the tale, but is also important because it names Avi-Melech as ben Yeru-Beshet (בֶּן־יְרֻבֶּשֶׁת), not Yeruv-Ba'al (one of King Shaul's sons is likewise sometimes named Meriv-Ba'al and sometimes Mephi-Boshet; scholars have yet to come up with a plausible explanation).
Is it not also a piece of symbolism? Why was there a millstone in a strong-tower anyway - presumably it wasn't a strong-tower, but a windmill. The woman must have been mighty strong to lift up a millstone, carry it to the window, and drop it on his head - so that in itself needs thinking about. But look at the illustration: a round wheel, a stone table for King Arthur, a tribal chart for Ya'akov, the rough draft for a horoscope for someone inclined to deliver oracles - and such a circular object would be called in Yehudit a Gulgolet (cf 2 Kings 9:35), or perhaps the wheel of an Agalah (cf Isaiah 28:28), but probably not a Gil-Gal, though that comes from the same root... and guess what part of Avi-Melech it landed on: GULGALTO, his skull.
The crushing of his skull renders his ending identical to Siysrah's (Judges 4:21-22), even if not in the actual means, though how sad that the woman on this occasion does not get remember by name. Each of these tales seems to be the same story; presumably each tribe had its own version, as presumably each month had its own version.
How far is this an analogy created to explain some aspect of the natural world, and how far is this a historical story in which mythology has been used - a Biblical "pathetic fallacy", so to speak - to assist in the moral dimensions of the tale? Avi-Melech's wickedness described in imagery of She'ol, or She'ol described in imagery of Avi-Melech? This question matters, because it takes us to precisely the place at which Hannah Arendt wrote about "the banality of evil" after the trial of Adolf Eichmann: if Hitler is simply a manifestation of the external force of Evil, and the flames of the gas chambers merely the same (Lapidim, Lapidot) for the fires ofShe'ol or Hell, then human beings are ultimately redeemed (Ga'al!) from all personal responsibility - and personal responsibility, as we have seen, has been the core of the sermon throughout this particular tale.
KJ: Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died.
PELACH: Odd word, PELACH, or maybe two different words that somehow became merged - the way that American has merged "storey" and "story" and "kerb" and "curb", keeping only the latter spelling in each case, but retaining both meanings. In Daniel 3:12 it is used for worshipping the deity (and again in 7:14 and 7:27), which must be a Persian or perhaps an Aramaic word that entered the language, secondary or even tertiary to its Yehudit meaning; Ezra, who was Persian, has PALCHAN for "a worshipper" in 7:19 of his book.
Generally it indicates a part that has been cut open or sliced, such as the pomegranate in Song of Songs 4:3, or the fig-cake in 1 Samuel 30:12, and presumably it gets to be a millstone, here, because it is constructed from slices, as per the illustration (click here for more detail). I have not included this next part in the translation, but actually the PELACH RECHEV is the rider stone, which is the upper of the two stones that work together to grind the corn. The lower stone is called a PELACH TACHTIT in Job 41:16. See also 2 Samuel 11:21, which retells this moment in the tale, but is also important because it names Avi-Melech as ben Yeru-Beshet (בֶּן־יְרֻבֶּשֶׁת), not Yeruv-Ba'al (one of King Shaul's sons is likewise sometimes named Meriv-Ba'al and sometimes Mephi-Boshet; scholars have yet to come up with a plausible explanation).
Is it not also a piece of symbolism? Why was there a millstone in a strong-tower anyway - presumably it wasn't a strong-tower, but a windmill. The woman must have been mighty strong to lift up a millstone, carry it to the window, and drop it on his head - so that in itself needs thinking about. But look at the illustration: a round wheel, a stone table for King Arthur, a tribal chart for Ya'akov, the rough draft for a horoscope for someone inclined to deliver oracles - and such a circular object would be called in Yehudit a Gulgolet (cf 2 Kings 9:35), or perhaps the wheel of an Agalah (cf Isaiah 28:28), but probably not a Gil-Gal, though that comes from the same root... and guess what part of Avi-Melech it landed on: GULGALTO, his skull.
The crushing of his skull renders his ending identical to Siysrah's (Judges 4:21-22), even if not in the actual means, though how sad that the woman on this occasion does not get remember by name. Each of these tales seems to be the same story; presumably each tribe had its own version, as presumably each month had its own version.
How far is this an analogy created to explain some aspect of the natural world, and how far is this a historical story in which mythology has been used - a Biblical "pathetic fallacy", so to speak - to assist in the moral dimensions of the tale? Avi-Melech's wickedness described in imagery of She'ol, or She'ol described in imagery of Avi-Melech? This question matters, because it takes us to precisely the place at which Hannah Arendt wrote about "the banality of evil" after the trial of Adolf Eichmann: if Hitler is simply a manifestation of the external force of Evil, and the flames of the gas chambers merely the same (Lapidim, Lapidot) for the fires ofShe'ol or Hell, then human beings are ultimately redeemed (Ga'al!) from all personal responsibility - and personal responsibility, as we have seen, has been the core of the sermon throughout this particular tale.
9:54 VA YIKRA MEHERAH EL HA NA'AR NOS'E CHELAV VA YOMER LO SHELOPH CHARBECHA U MOTETENI PENYOM RU LI ISHAH HARAGAT'HU VA YIDKEREYHU NA'ARO VA YAMOT
וַיִּקְרָא מְהֵרָה אֶל הַנַּעַר נֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו שְׁלֹף חַרְבְּךָ וּמֹותְתֵנִי פֶּן־יֹאמְרוּ לִי אִשָּׁה הֲרָגָתְהוּ וַיִּדְקְרֵהוּ נַעֲרֹו וַיָּמֹת
BN: Then he called hastily to the young man his armourbearer, and said to him: "Draw your sword, and slay me, lest men say of me, 'A woman slew him'". And his young man thrust him through, and he died.
Nothing worse for Shimshon than being killed by Delilah! But surely, if a man has been hit by a millstone thrown from above, hard enough to break his skull, is he likely to be still conscious at all, let alone conscious enough to say that?
Nothing worse for Shimshon than being killed by Delilah! But surely, if a man has been hit by a millstone thrown from above, hard enough to break his skull, is he likely to be still conscious at all, let alone conscious enough to say that?
MOTETENI: Is that really one word, or should it be MOT TENI - Mot meaning "death" and "Teni" meaning "give me"? The sense is identical, but I wonder how the two separate words became elided: by scribal error, or by idiom? The only separator here is the Sheva under the first Tav, and that actually enhances the likelihood that two words have been falsely joined; it provides a pronunciation aide, rather than being a vowel inside the word.
It remains unclear why this story is being told in a book whose focus is the contribution of YHVH to Beney Yisra-Eli history. Evidently this is not a Beney Yisra-Eli story, and YHVH has no part in any of it. The armour-bearer would have touched a nerve of recollection too, for readers or listeners at the time of Ezra; and especially for those who, as we have done, recognise the story's repetition in the Book of Samuel, at the time of Sha'ul: David was Sha'ul's armour-bearer at the time of the slaying of Gol-Yat (Goliath) - which Sochoh in the previous verse just happened to prefigure; and of course David and Sha'ul is itself another version of this same "harrowing of the Underworld" myth; and yes, the name Gol-Yat (Goliath) is also rooted in that "wheel of fire", that "millstone", that "skull".
And yes, if you think you noticed the crushing of another cosmic skull in the selfsame root: Gulgolet (גלגלת) in Yehudit, Gulgota (גולגותא) in Aramaic, or Golgotha, "the place of the skull", better known in the Christian world as Calvary. Same myth endlessly repeated.
9:55 VA YIR'U ISH YISRA-EL KI MET AVIMELECH VA YELCHU ISH LIMKOMO
וַיִּרְאוּ אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי מֵת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַיֵּלְכוּ אִישׁ לִמְקֹמֹו
BN: And when the men of Yisra-El saw that Avi-Melech was dead, everyone returned to their own homes.
Isn't that just the saddest ending ever to a story - from the moral, didactic, dialectical point-of-view! "And when they saw that he was dead, everyone went home." As if it had all just been an evening at the movies. Nothing learned, nothing changed. Life will go on as it did before. Except for the most important outcome, which is in the next verse: the vindication and exaltation of the deity.
9:56 VA YASHEV ELOHIM ET RA'AT AVI-MELECH ASHER ASAH LE AVIV LAHAROG ET SHIV'IM ECHAV
KJ: Thus God rendered the wickedness of Abimelech, which he did unto his father, in slaying his seventy brethren.
Isn't that just the saddest ending ever to a story - from the moral, didactic, dialectical point-of-view! "And when they saw that he was dead, everyone went home." As if it had all just been an evening at the movies. Nothing learned, nothing changed. Life will go on as it did before. Except for the most important outcome, which is in the next verse: the vindication and exaltation of the deity.
9:56 VA YASHEV ELOHIM ET RA'AT AVI-MELECH ASHER ASAH LE AVIV LAHAROG ET SHIV'IM ECHAV
וַיָּשֶׁב אֱלֹהִים אֵת רָעַת אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְאָבִיו לַהֲרֹג אֶת שִׁבְעִים אֶחָיו
BN: Thus Elohim paid back the wickedness of Avi-Melech, which he did to his father, by slaying his seventy kinsmen.
9:57 VE ET KOL RA'AT ANSHEY SHECHEM HESHIV ELOHIM BERO'SHAM VE TAV'O ALEYHEM KILELAT YOTAM BEN YERUV-VA'AL
KJ: And all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads: and upon them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal.
9:57 VE ET KOL RA'AT ANSHEY SHECHEM HESHIV ELOHIM BERO'SHAM VE TAV'O ALEYHEM KILELAT YOTAM BEN YERUV-VA'AL
וְאֵת כָּל רָעַת אַנְשֵׁי שְׁכֶם הֵשִׁיב אֱלֹהִים בְּרֹאשָׁם וַתָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם קִלֲלַת יֹותָם בֶּן יְרֻבָּעַל
BN: And Elohim repaid all the evil of the men of Shechem upon their own heads, and on them he placed the curse of Yotam the son of Yeruv-Va'al.
KILELAT: We were not told that it was a curse at verse 20, though the phrasing should have led us to that interpretation; and actually I did give it away, at verse 7, when I deliberately sent my link to Mount Gerizim to Mount Eyval instead: the tale of the blessings and the curses at the time of Yehoshu'a.
YOTAM: Alas, we are not told what happened to Yotam after this (unless one of the two Yotams of 2 Kings 15 et al should turn out to be the same man as here).
pey break
KILELAT: We were not told that it was a curse at verse 20, though the phrasing should have led us to that interpretation; and actually I did give it away, at verse 7, when I deliberately sent my link to Mount Gerizim to Mount Eyval instead: the tale of the blessings and the curses at the time of Yehoshu'a.
YOTAM: Alas, we are not told what happened to Yotam after this (unless one of the two Yotams of 2 Kings 15 et al should turn out to be the same man as here).
pey break
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment