וַיִּתְפָּקֵ֖ד הָעָ֑ם וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֵֽין־שָׁם֙ אִ֔ישׁ מִיּוֹשְׁבֵ֖י יָבֵ֥שׁ גִּלְעָֽד׃
Lalu bangsa itu diperiksa, dan ternyata tidak ada seorang pun dari penduduk Yabesy-Gilead di sana.
Rabbeinu Bahya
Nachmanides disagrees saying that the plain meaning of our verse is that anyone who declares something which belongs to him as חרם, segregated property (compare verse 28), such property remains consecrated to the Lord, regardless of the object of that declaration being man, beast, or field, even his ancestral field. In practice, such property is transferred to the priests and is not subject to redemption. However, if the person in question consecrated somebody who does not belong to him, such as a prisoner of war, it is clear that he did not intend to make this property over to the priests. An example illustrating this would be Numbers 21,2 where the Israelites vowed to Hashem: “if He will deliver this people into my hand, I will consecrate their cities.” Clearly, what was behind this vow was not to give these cities to the priests but that the Israelites vowed not to make secular use of any of the loot to be found there. It implies that everything conquered is out of bounds for use and that all the prisoners, livestock, etc., have to be killed, for instance.
Our verse serves as the halachic basis for the ruling that if the king or the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, which is legally entitled to declare חרמים declares a city as subject to such a ban, violating such a decree is punishable by death. This is the reason that the men of Yavesh Gilead who had ignored the oath of the entire Jewish people by not appearing at Mitzpah (Judges 21,10) made themselves guilty of the death penalty. This was also the reason why Yonathan, son of King Shaul who had ignored the order by his father not to taste anything prior to victory (Samuel I 14,44) was technically guilty of death when he tasted some honey, although he had been unaware of the prohibition by his father the King.
When the Book of Samuel tells us that the people redeemed Yonathan (saved his life from execution) on that day, the only reason this was possible was because he had been unaware of transgressing such an order by the Commander-in-Chief (compare verse 45 in Samuel I chapter 14). Targum Yonathan makes this clear when he translates that “it was clear to G’d that Yonathan had not been aware of committing an infraction.”
Our verse serves as the halachic basis for the ruling that if the king or the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, which is legally entitled to declare חרמים declares a city as subject to such a ban, violating such a decree is punishable by death. This is the reason that the men of Yavesh Gilead who had ignored the oath of the entire Jewish people by not appearing at Mitzpah (Judges 21,10) made themselves guilty of the death penalty. This was also the reason why Yonathan, son of King Shaul who had ignored the order by his father not to taste anything prior to victory (Samuel I 14,44) was technically guilty of death when he tasted some honey, although he had been unaware of the prohibition by his father the King.
When the Book of Samuel tells us that the people redeemed Yonathan (saved his life from execution) on that day, the only reason this was possible was because he had been unaware of transgressing such an order by the Commander-in-Chief (compare verse 45 in Samuel I chapter 14). Targum Yonathan makes this clear when he translates that “it was clear to G’d that Yonathan had not been aware of committing an infraction.”