Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Hukom 16:16

And she gave also to her husband with her. The word “with her” is explained by the commentators to mean so that he would be with her always and not marry another when she dies. It could also mean that she gave it to him while he was literally with her [sexually], for then she pressured him, similar to what is said about Samson: and she pressed him (Judges 16:16). Because at another time, perhaps he would not have listened to her to transgress God’s command. And regarding this, he said in his defense: The woman whom You gave to be with me. [Meaning:] At the time when she was literally with me, she overcame me — for according to the simple meaning, there is no justification for this defense. And regarding his claim she gave me from the tree, perhaps he meant to say as a defense that since the command did not state “from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge you shall not eat” but rather said from the Tree of Knowledge you shall not eat, I thought that the intention was that I am not permitted to pluck the fruit from the tree, but if it was already plucked and available, I thought it was permissible for me to eat it. And now, she gave me from the tree, and I did not take it from the tree myself.

יהי דן, “Dan will be, etc.” There are several reasons why Yaakov in his blessing compares Dan to a serpent, a snake. The first one is that Samson, unlike others before or after him, did not command armies in his battles against the enemy of his people. He acted totally alone, just like a snake which attacks from an ambush, coming out of its lair. Secondly, just like a snake receives some mysterious whisper which causes it to act aggressively, so Samson would respond to the whisperings of Delilah. This is the deeper meaning of Judges 16, 16-17: “Finally, after she had nagged him and pressed him constantly, he was wearied to death and he confided everything to her. He said to her: ‘no razor has ever touched my head; for I have been a Nazirite to G’d since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as an ordinary man.’” Furthermore, just as a snake is also known as שרף due to its venom which burns, so Samson burned down the fields of the Philistines when the corn in them was close to being harvested. (Compare Judges 15,5). Also, just as the snake attacks man in his heel, at is lowest point, seeing the first serpent had been condemned to crawl on its belly, and G’d had told it that the way it would attack man would be by biting man’s heel (Genesis 3,14), so Samson is described as נוקב עקבי סוס “attacking the heel of a horse,” i.e. bringing down the pillars of the temple of the Philistines (compare Judges 16,29). He killed 3,000 Philistines who were sitting on the roof of that temple (Judges 16,27). The reason Samson’s exploits are described here as causing “the rider to fall backwards,” is that when a snake bites the heel of a horse, the horse rears upwards with its front legs throwing its rider backwards. Just as the snake kills without the use of a sword, so Samson killed without conventional arms as mentioned in Judges 16, 30: “those who were slain by him (when he made the pillars of their temple collapse) outnumbered those whom he had killed while he was alive.”
Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 relates that just as a serpent is vengeful so Samson was vengeful. This is based on Judges 16,28: “O, Lord give me strength once more to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.” Thus far the Midrash.

‘VAYEI’AVEIK’ A MAN WITH HIM, A man covered himself with dust. So Menachem ben Saruk explained it, being derived from the word avak (dust); by their movements, they were raising dust with their feet. I, however, am of the opinion that it means “and he attached himself to,” and that it is an Aramaic word, as in, “After they have joined (aviku) it;”⁵³Sanhedrin 63b. “And they twined the Fringes with loops.”⁵⁴Menachoth 42a. This is all the language of Rashi.
In the language of the Sages, avikah is often used to convey the sense of chavikah (loop), as in: “There are avkso (loops) in the punishing scourge;”⁵⁵Makkoth 23a., “A couch is called dargesh when it is set up and taken apart by means of loops, through which the cords are fastened.”⁵⁶Nedarim 56b. Similarly the word avukah (a torch) is so called in the language of the Sages because it is made up of small pieces of wood which are tied and bound together. This is because the letter cheth is difficult to pronounce in their language and so they used the easier aleph. Many times the cheth disappears completely as in tuteich⁵⁷Chullin 7 b: metutei (from beneath her feet). (underneath) in place of techuteich; mesuta⁵⁸Kiddushin 33a. (a bath) in place of maschuta; asita⁵⁹Shabbath 77b. (a mortar) in place of chasita. And it is possible that the word vayei’aveik is actually vayeichaveik, as vayechabkeihu (and he embraced him),⁶⁰Genesis 33:4. for perhaps it is the way of the Hebrew language to interchange the aleph and cheth. Thus we find: And in the fourth chariot grizzled ‘amutzim’ horses,⁶¹Zechariah 6:3. which is the same as chamitzim, derived from the expression, ‘chamutz’ (crimsoned) garments.⁶²Isaiah 63:1. Commentators⁶³R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root erez. have said that ‘va’aruzim’ for thy merchandise⁶⁴Ezekiel 27:24. is like vecharuzim, derived from the expression, thy neck ‘bacharuzim’ (with beads).⁶⁵Song of Songs 1:10. So too did they say concerning the word vate’altzeihu⁶⁶Judges 16:16. that it is like vatechaltzeihu (and she pressed him), this being an inverted form of vatilchatzeihu, [the root of which is lachatz (oppression)]. Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who said, in translation of the word vayei’aveik, ve’ishtadeil, and so also he translated the expression, And if a man ‘yephateh’⁶⁷Exodus 22:15. “as if yeshadeil,” if he embraces and kisses which is the manner of seduction. It may be that Onkelos found no word comparable to vayei’aveik, and so he considered it a matter of cunning, for all effort implies cunning and a clarification of circumstances. In Bereshith Rabbah⁶⁸77:3. the Sages said: “Who became filled with dust? The man that was with him.” This agrees with the words of Menachem [ben Saruk, who said that vayei’aveik means “he covered himself with dust] “, and this is the correct interpretation.