Sędziów 11:34 Midrasz: Midrash Tanchuma & Bereshit Rabbah

Another interpretation (of Lev. 27:2) “When anyone explicitly vows […]”: This text is related (to Prov. 11:30), “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).” If a person is righteous, and does not occupy himself with Torah, even though he is righteous, he has nothing in his possession. Rather, “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life”; this refers to the Torah. Because when one is a Torah scholar (literally, child of Torah), he learns how one acquires lives (npshwt), as stated (ibid.), “but a wise person acquires lives.” As if he makes a vow for the value of human beings, he would have learned what to do from the Torah. But if he does not have Torah in his possession, he has nothing in his possession. And so you find in the case of Jephthah the Gileadite, because he was not a Torah scholar, he lost his daughter.¹⁶Gen. R. 60:5; Lev. R. 37:4. When? In the time that he fought with the Children of Ammon and made a vow at that time, as stated (in Jud. 11:30-31), “Then Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, [and said, ‘If You indeed give the Children of Ammon into my hand;] Then it shall be that whatever comes forth…, shall belong to the Lord, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.’” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with him. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If there had come out from his house a dog, a pig, or a camel, he would have offered it to Me.” Hence He summoned his daughter to him. And why so much? So that all those that vow will learn the laws of vows and abnegations. [And the result was (in Jud. 11:34-35),] “and there was his daughter coming out to greet him [….] And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes […].” But was not Phinehas there?¹⁷Since he was an outstanding Torah scholar, and an outstanding Torah scholar could have annulled the vow. And still he said (in vs. 35), “and I cannot retract?” However, Phinehas had said, “I am a high priest and the son of a high priest. Shall I humble myself and go to an ignoramus ('am ha'arets)?” [And] Jephthah said, “I am head of the tribes of Israel and head of the magistrates. Shall I humble myself and go to a commoner?”¹⁸Gk.: idiotes. Between the two of them that poor woman perished from the world; so the two of them were liable for her blood. In the case of Phinehas, the holy spirit left him. In the case of Jephthah, his bones were scattered, as stated (in Jud. 12:7), “and he was buried in the cities of Gilead.”¹⁹Translations tend to emend the text and have Jephthah buried in a single city. When he sought to sacrifice her, she cried in front of him. His daughter said to him, “My father, I came out to greet you in joy, and [now] you slaughter me? Is it perhaps that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrote in the Torah that Israel offer the lives (npshwt) of people in front of the Holy One, blessed be He? And is it not written (in Lev. 1:2), ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord from the beasts.’ ‘From the beasts’ and not from people?” He said to her, “My daughter, I made a vow (in Jud. 11:31), ‘Then it shall be that whatever comes forth […].’ Is it possible that anyone who makes a vow does not have to fulfill his vow?” She said to him, “Behold, when our father Jacob made a vow (in Gen. 28:22), ‘and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You’; when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him twelve sons, did he ever offer up one of them as a sacrifice? Moreover, does not Hannah [do likewise], when she makes a vow and says (as reported in I Sam. 1:11), ‘And she made a vow and said, “Lord of hosts, if You will surely see… [then I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life].”’ Did she ever offer up her son as a sacrifice to the Holy One, blessed be He?” All these things she said to him, but he did not heed her. When she saw that he did not heed her, she said to him, “Let me go to a court of law. Perhaps one of them will find a loophole for your words.” Thus it is stated (in Jud. 11:37), “leave me alone for two months, so that I may go and come down to the mountains.” R. Zechariah said, “Is there anyone who comes down to the mountains? Does not one go up to the mountains? So what is the meaning of ‘and come down to the mountains?’ These represent the Sanhedrin,²⁰Gk.: synedrion. as in the usage (of Micah 6:2), ‘Hear, O mountains, the lawsuit of the Lord.’” She went to them, but they did not find a loophole for undoing his vow, because of the sin of those that he slaughtered from the tribe of Ephraim. So it is with reference to him that Scripture has said (in Prov. 28:3), “A poor man who exploits the indigent is a torrential rain which leaves no bread.” “A poor man who exploits the indigent.” This is referring to Jephthah; since he was poor in Torah like a [mere] sycamore shoot.²¹The metaphor designates one who is poor. (Prov. 28:3, cont.:) “Who exploits the indigent,” since he exploited the indigent, when he said [to the men of Ephraim] (in Jud. 12:6), “Say, ‘Shibboleth’; and he said, ‘Sibboleth,’ not being able to pronounce it correctly.” Then he slaughtered him. Therefore, he is (according to Prov. 28:3, cont.) “a torrential rain, and there is no bread,” in that he had someone who would undo his vow; however (ibid., cont.), “there is no bread,” in that the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken away the halakhah from them, so that they would not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow. When they did not find [a loophole] for undoing his vow, he went up and slaughtered her before the Holy One, blessed be He. Then the holy spirit proclaimed, “Did I desire you to sacrifice lives (npshwt) to Me, [lives] (according to Jer. 19:5), ‘which I never commanded, never spoke for, and which never entered My mind.’” “Which I never commanded” Abraham, that he slaughter his son. Instead I said to him (in Gen. 22:12), “Do not raise your hand against the lad.” [This was] in order to make known Abraham’s love [of God] to the nations of the world, that he did not spare his only one from Me and carried out the will of his Maker. (Jer 19:5 cont.:) “Never spoke” to Jephthah to offer up his daughter as a sacrifice to Me. Rabbi Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish [differed on the matter]. Rabbi Johanan says, “He was liable for money [in order to fulfill his vow], like the matter is written in Arakhin.” And R. Simoen ben Laquish said, “[He was liable for] nothing, as he made a stipulation about something that is impossible to sacrifice, and [so] there was no [liability] upon him.” “And which never entered my mind,” this is referring to Misha the king of Moab, about whom it is written that when he fell into the hand of the king of Israel (in II Kings 3:27), “And he took his firstborn son, who would become king in his stead, and offered him up as a burnt offering upon the wall.” What caused Misha to sacrifice his son?²²See the parallel text in Buber Tanchuma 10:7, which has the final question being about Jephthah, which fits much better with the continuation of the section. Because he was not a Torah scholar; for if he had read the Torah, he would not have lost his son, since it is written (in Lev 27:2-4) “When anyone explicitly vows [to the Lord the value of human beings (npshwt)] And the value of a male shall be […]. And if it is a female….” Ergo (in Prov. 11:30), “but a wise person acquires lives (npshwt).”

“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).