הִנֵּ֛ה אָנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וּבְנוֹת֙ אַנְשֵׁ֣י הָעִ֔יר יֹצְאֹ֖ת לִשְׁאֹ֥ב מָֽיִם׃
Voici, je me trouve au bord de la fontaine et les filles des habitants de la ville sortent pour puiser de l’eau.
Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition)
R. Samuel b. Nachmeni, in the name of R. Jonathan, said: Three men made an unreasonable demand (making their actions dependent on chance); two of them were answered desirably (Providence favored their ways), but one was answered according [to his unreasonableness]. They are: Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Saul, the son of Kish; and Jephthah, of Gilead. Concerning Eliezer it is written (Gen. 24, 13) … and the daughters of the men of this city come out to draw water, etc. Now, such a maiden might have been blind or maimed, nevertheless he was answered desirably when Rebekah came [providentially] to him. Concerning Saul, the son of Kish, it is written (I Sam. 17, 25) And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, etc. It might have happened that a slave, or an illegitimate son, might accomplish the feat, nevertheless he was answered desirably; and David came [providentially] to him. Concerning Jephthah it is written (Jud. 11, 31) Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house … I will offer it up for a burnt-offering. An unclean animal might have come forth [which would not be a proper sacrifice] . He was therefore answered undesirably, for his own daughter came [providentially] to meet him. This is meant by the words of the prophet (Jer. 8, 22) Is there no mere balm in Gilead? Or, is no physician there? And further, it is written (Ib. 19, 5) which I had not commanded nor spoken, and which had not come into my mind; i.e., which I had not commanded refers to the son of Mesha, the King of Moab, as it is said (II Kings, 3, 27) Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stand, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land; nor spoken, refers to the daughter of Jephthah, the Gilodite; and which had not come into my mind, refers to Isaac, son of Abraham." R. Berachia said: "The congregation of Israel also made an unreasonable demand, but the Holy One, praised be He! answered it in a desirable manner, as it is written (Hos 6, 3) And let us know, eagerly strive to know the Lord; His going forth is sure as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain that watereth the earth. The Holy One, praised be He! said: 'My daughter, thou askest a thing which is sometimes desirous and sometimes superfluous, nevertheless I shall be to thee as a thing which is needed all the time; as it is said (Ib. 14, 6) I will be as the dew unto Israel. Another time did the congregation of Israel make an unreasonable demand, saying: 'Sovereign of the universe! (Songs 8, 6) Set me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm.' Whereupon the Lord said: 'Thou askest me to do a thing which sometimes can be observed and sometimes cannot; but I will set thee as a seal in such a place that you will always be observed'; as it is said (Is. 49, 16) Behold, upon the palms of my hands have I engraved thee."
Bereshit Rabbah
“Behold, I am standing by the spring of water and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water” (Genesis 24:13).
“May it be that the girl to whom I will say: Tilt your jug please, and I will drink, and she will say: Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink; it is she You have confirmed for Your servant, for Isaac, and through her I will know that You have shown kindness to my master” (Genesis 24:14).
“It was before he concluded to speak, and behold, Rebecca was coming out, who was born to Betuel, son of Milka, wife of Nahor, brother of Abraham, and her jug is on her shoulder” (Genesis 24:15).
“Behold, I am standing by the spring of water and the daughters of the men of the city…May it be that the girl to whom I will say: Tilt…” – there are four people who made inappropriate demands [of God], three were granted appropriate responses, one was granted an inappropriate response. They are: Abraham’s servant Eliezer, Caleb, Saul, and Yiftaḥ. Eliezer said: “May it be that the girl to whom I will say….” What if some maidservant would emerge and give him to drink, would he have taken her to marry his master’s son? That is a rhetorical question. Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him: “It was before he concluded to speak, and behold, Rebecca was coming out…”
Caleb said: “Whoever smites Kiryat Sefer and captures it, I will give him Akhsa my daughter as a wife” (Judges 1:12). What if some slave would have conquered it, would he have given him his daughter? Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him, as it is stated: “Otniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s…brother, captured it; and he gave him Akhsa his daughter as a wife” (Judges 1:13).
Saul said: “It shall be, that whichever man smites him [Goliath], the king will enrich him with great wealth, and he will give him his daughter as a wife” (I Samuel 17:25). What if some Kushite or idolater or slave had emerged and smitten him, would he have given him his daughter? Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him, as it is written: “David, the son of that nobleman” (I Samuel 17:12).
Yiftaḥ [said:] “It shall be that whatever emerges…I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:31). What if some dog or cat had emerged, would he have offered it up as a burnt offering? And the Holy One blessed be He made an inappropriate arrangement for him. That is what is written: “Yiftaḥ came…and behold, his daughter came out to greet him” (Judges 11:34).
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He [Yiftaḥ] was obligated to pay for monetary consecration.8When his daughter came out to greet him, although he was of course not obliged to sacrifice her, he was obligated to redeem her with money, as one redeems consecrated property that cannot be used. Reish Lakish said: He was not even obligated to pay for monetary consecration, as we learn in a mishna:9Temura 5:6. If one said regarding an impure animal or a blemished animal: ‘These are hereby [consecrated as] a burnt offering, it is as if he has said nothing at all.’ [But if he said:] ‘These are hereby [consecrated] for use towards a burnt offering,’ they are to be sold, and he must bring a burnt offering with their money.10Yiftaḥ’s statement was analogous to the first case, so his declaration was null and void.
Pinḥas [the high priest] was not there to abrogate his [Yiftaḥ’s] vow for him. Instead, Pinḥas said: ‘It is he who requires my services; shall I go to him?’ And Yiftaḥ said: ‘I am the head of the chieftains of Israel, shall I go to Pinḥas?’ Between the two of them, that young woman was lost.11Yiftaḥ did fulfill his vow through his daughter, although this was not in accordance with Torah law, as explained in the previous paragraph. This accords with [the saying] that people say: Between the midwife and the mother in childbirth, the son of the wretched woman is gone.12If the baby dies, each one blames the other.
Both of them [Pinḥas and Yiftaḥ] were punished for the blood of the young woman. Yiftaḥ died as a result of his limbs falling off. Everywhere he would go, one of his limbs would fall off and they would bury it there. That is what is written: “Yiftaḥ died and he was buried in the cities of Gilad” (Judges 12:7) – “the city of Gilad” is not stated, but rather, “the cities of Gilad.”13Indicating that he was buried in several cities. As for Pinḥas, the Divine Spirit was stripped from him. That is what is written: “Pinḥas son of Elazar had been chief over them” (I Chronicles 9:20) – “is chief over them” is not written here, but rather, “had been chief.” “In earlier times the Lord had been with him” (I Chronicles 9:20).
“May it be that the girl to whom I will say: Tilt your jug please, and I will drink, and she will say: Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink; it is she You have confirmed for Your servant, for Isaac, and through her I will know that You have shown kindness to my master” (Genesis 24:14).
“It was before he concluded to speak, and behold, Rebecca was coming out, who was born to Betuel, son of Milka, wife of Nahor, brother of Abraham, and her jug is on her shoulder” (Genesis 24:15).
“Behold, I am standing by the spring of water and the daughters of the men of the city…May it be that the girl to whom I will say: Tilt…” – there are four people who made inappropriate demands [of God], three were granted appropriate responses, one was granted an inappropriate response. They are: Abraham’s servant Eliezer, Caleb, Saul, and Yiftaḥ. Eliezer said: “May it be that the girl to whom I will say….” What if some maidservant would emerge and give him to drink, would he have taken her to marry his master’s son? That is a rhetorical question. Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him: “It was before he concluded to speak, and behold, Rebecca was coming out…”
Caleb said: “Whoever smites Kiryat Sefer and captures it, I will give him Akhsa my daughter as a wife” (Judges 1:12). What if some slave would have conquered it, would he have given him his daughter? Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him, as it is stated: “Otniel son of Kenaz, Caleb’s…brother, captured it; and he gave him Akhsa his daughter as a wife” (Judges 1:13).
Saul said: “It shall be, that whichever man smites him [Goliath], the king will enrich him with great wealth, and he will give him his daughter as a wife” (I Samuel 17:25). What if some Kushite or idolater or slave had emerged and smitten him, would he have given him his daughter? Yet the Holy One blessed be He made an appropriate arrangement for him, as it is written: “David, the son of that nobleman” (I Samuel 17:12).
Yiftaḥ [said:] “It shall be that whatever emerges…I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:31). What if some dog or cat had emerged, would he have offered it up as a burnt offering? And the Holy One blessed be He made an inappropriate arrangement for him. That is what is written: “Yiftaḥ came…and behold, his daughter came out to greet him” (Judges 11:34).
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He [Yiftaḥ] was obligated to pay for monetary consecration.8When his daughter came out to greet him, although he was of course not obliged to sacrifice her, he was obligated to redeem her with money, as one redeems consecrated property that cannot be used. Reish Lakish said: He was not even obligated to pay for monetary consecration, as we learn in a mishna:9Temura 5:6. If one said regarding an impure animal or a blemished animal: ‘These are hereby [consecrated as] a burnt offering, it is as if he has said nothing at all.’ [But if he said:] ‘These are hereby [consecrated] for use towards a burnt offering,’ they are to be sold, and he must bring a burnt offering with their money.10Yiftaḥ’s statement was analogous to the first case, so his declaration was null and void.
Pinḥas [the high priest] was not there to abrogate his [Yiftaḥ’s] vow for him. Instead, Pinḥas said: ‘It is he who requires my services; shall I go to him?’ And Yiftaḥ said: ‘I am the head of the chieftains of Israel, shall I go to Pinḥas?’ Between the two of them, that young woman was lost.11Yiftaḥ did fulfill his vow through his daughter, although this was not in accordance with Torah law, as explained in the previous paragraph. This accords with [the saying] that people say: Between the midwife and the mother in childbirth, the son of the wretched woman is gone.12If the baby dies, each one blames the other.
Both of them [Pinḥas and Yiftaḥ] were punished for the blood of the young woman. Yiftaḥ died as a result of his limbs falling off. Everywhere he would go, one of his limbs would fall off and they would bury it there. That is what is written: “Yiftaḥ died and he was buried in the cities of Gilad” (Judges 12:7) – “the city of Gilad” is not stated, but rather, “the cities of Gilad.”13Indicating that he was buried in several cities. As for Pinḥas, the Divine Spirit was stripped from him. That is what is written: “Pinḥas son of Elazar had been chief over them” (I Chronicles 9:20) – “is chief over them” is not written here, but rather, “had been chief.” “In earlier times the Lord had been with him” (I Chronicles 9:20).