וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ־שָׁ֣ם הָעֵדָ֗ה שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֥ר אֶ֛לֶף אִ֖ישׁ מִבְּנֵ֣י הֶחָ֑יִל וַיְצַוּ֨וּ אוֹתָ֜ם לֵאמֹ֗ר לְ֠כוּ וְהִכִּיתֶ֞ם אֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֨י יָבֵ֤שׁ גִּלְעָד֙ לְפִי־חֶ֔רֶב וְהַנָּשִׁ֖ים וְהַטָּֽף׃
At ang kapulungan ay nagsugo roon ng labindalawang libong lalaki mula sa mga magigiting na lalaki, at inutusan nila sila, na sinasabi: “Humayo kayo at patayin ninyo sa pamamagitan ng tabak ang mga naninirahan sa Jabes-gilead, pati ang mga babae at ang maliliit na bata.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
We have observed an example of the punishment which accrued to the Jewish people who had sworn an oath in public in the matter of פלגש בגבעה, (Judges 20,9) not to go home until they had punished the men of Givah for their vicious rape. This oath was a public declaration in the presence of Pinchas the High Priest (20,28). We find there that the people of Yavesh Gilead who had not participated in the punitive expedition against the people of Benjamin were killed, men, women and children because they had dishonoured their publicly given oath (Judges 21,10).This was a harsher punishment than is applied to people who desecrate the Sabbath. Another instance where the severity of not complying with a public oath is demonstrated was the edict of King Saul that no one was to taste any food until after the battle against the Philistines (Samuel I 14,24). Yonatan, King Saul’s eldest son, who had been unaware of his father’s decree and the public oath accepting it, had tasted a little honey in all innocence. In spite of Yonatan’s not having heard the prohibition the King was going to execute him had not the people intervened. (verses 44-45). At any rate, we learn from there that when someone deliberately violates his oath, (or an oath that he had agreed to though not initiated, he is subject to the death penalty.
I can show you that the Torah has compared the severity of violating an oath to the sin of adultery The Torah writes here in connection with swearing a false or unnecessary oath that G’d will never totally forgive a person guilty of this. You will also find the expression לא ינקה in Proverbs 6,29 where Solomon applies it to someone who indulges in sexual intercourse with someone else’s wife. We find that G’d punished the entire nation by a famine because King Saul had failed to honor an oath sworn to the Gibeonites by the leaders of the Jewish people under the rule of Joshua. G’d told David in Samuel II 21,1 that the famine was the punishment for Saul having killed some Gibeonites in contravention of an holy oath sworn to them at the time of Joshua. Only after this gross injustice had been wiped out by David handing over seven descendants of Saul did G’d again turn to His people with goodwill. (Samuel II 21,14).
Another tragedy involving non-compliance with an oath was the killing of Shimi ben Geyrah who had been sworn by Solomon on pain of death not to leave Jerusalem where he had been under house arrest since the death of David. Kings I 2,42 makes it clear that Solomon executed him for violating this oath. It is noteworthy that in all the Ten Commandments we find a specific reward promised for compliance only in connection with the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas a specific punishment is reserved for violation of the commandment not to worship idols and not to swear an unnecessary oath.
Many people think that the sin of murder and adultery are far worse than the sin of swearing a needless oath and they wonder why the Torah has reserved its condemnation for the sin of swearing an unnecessary oath rather than for committing murder or adultery. The answer is simple. Murder and adultery are the kinds of sins which cannot be committed all the time. One needs a special opportunity in order not to be caught; in the case of adultery one also needs a willing partner. Not only that; having murdered one person whom one hates is unlikely to lead to the same person again murdering other people against whom he harbors no ill will. Similarly, it is unlikely that someone wants to commit adultery again and again with different women as his libido may not have been aroused by them. Committing the sin of swearing unnecessary oaths, however, does not satisfy one’s evil urge and is not subject to special opportunities but is likely to become a way of life with a person who has indulged in that sin without being caught. The very fact that he who commits this sin generally does not even get a feeling of special satisfaction from doing it makes it such a dangerous sin, one which is liable to become a norm rather than the exception. This is why the Torah reserved the warning that G’d will never completely forgive someone who knowingly commits this sin. If Israel were guilty of no other sin than indulging in such oaths this would be enough to add years to our collective exile. Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra on this subject.
I can show you that the Torah has compared the severity of violating an oath to the sin of adultery The Torah writes here in connection with swearing a false or unnecessary oath that G’d will never totally forgive a person guilty of this. You will also find the expression לא ינקה in Proverbs 6,29 where Solomon applies it to someone who indulges in sexual intercourse with someone else’s wife. We find that G’d punished the entire nation by a famine because King Saul had failed to honor an oath sworn to the Gibeonites by the leaders of the Jewish people under the rule of Joshua. G’d told David in Samuel II 21,1 that the famine was the punishment for Saul having killed some Gibeonites in contravention of an holy oath sworn to them at the time of Joshua. Only after this gross injustice had been wiped out by David handing over seven descendants of Saul did G’d again turn to His people with goodwill. (Samuel II 21,14).
Another tragedy involving non-compliance with an oath was the killing of Shimi ben Geyrah who had been sworn by Solomon on pain of death not to leave Jerusalem where he had been under house arrest since the death of David. Kings I 2,42 makes it clear that Solomon executed him for violating this oath. It is noteworthy that in all the Ten Commandments we find a specific reward promised for compliance only in connection with the commandment to honour father and mother, whereas a specific punishment is reserved for violation of the commandment not to worship idols and not to swear an unnecessary oath.
Many people think that the sin of murder and adultery are far worse than the sin of swearing a needless oath and they wonder why the Torah has reserved its condemnation for the sin of swearing an unnecessary oath rather than for committing murder or adultery. The answer is simple. Murder and adultery are the kinds of sins which cannot be committed all the time. One needs a special opportunity in order not to be caught; in the case of adultery one also needs a willing partner. Not only that; having murdered one person whom one hates is unlikely to lead to the same person again murdering other people against whom he harbors no ill will. Similarly, it is unlikely that someone wants to commit adultery again and again with different women as his libido may not have been aroused by them. Committing the sin of swearing unnecessary oaths, however, does not satisfy one’s evil urge and is not subject to special opportunities but is likely to become a way of life with a person who has indulged in that sin without being caught. The very fact that he who commits this sin generally does not even get a feeling of special satisfaction from doing it makes it such a dangerous sin, one which is liable to become a norm rather than the exception. This is why the Torah reserved the warning that G’d will never completely forgive someone who knowingly commits this sin. If Israel were guilty of no other sin than indulging in such oaths this would be enough to add years to our collective exile. Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra on this subject.
Ramban
NONE DOOMED WHO SHALL BE DOOMED OF MAN, SHALL BE REDEEMED. “[This means that] if a person is about to be executed [by the court], and someone else says, ‘I take upon myself to pay his valuation [to the Temple treasury],’ his vow is of no effect.” HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. “For you see he is going to die. Therefore he is not to be redeemed; he has neither a market-price nor a fixed valuation” [as fixed by the Torah on the basis of his age]. This is Rashi’s language. But our Rabbis have differed on this matter, some saying198Arakhin 6 b. The name of the Sage holding this opinion is Rabbi Yishmael. that it constitutes an admonition in connection with those who are liable to the death-penalty, that one must not take a ransom from them in order to free them. It is possible that He mentions this admonition here in order to state that he [the condemned] cannot give money to [the Temple of] G-d as other devoted things [are given], and thereby go free of punishment.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities,199Numbers 21:2. then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed],200See Judges Chapter 19. that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’.201Ibid., 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there,202Ibid., 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu:203I have found this in the Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.”
Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, ‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’204I Samuel 14:44. Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]?
And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter.205See Judges 11:30-34, where it is related that Jephthah vowed that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Eternal’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah206Bereshith Rabbah 60:3. that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood!
Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s207The source is unknown to me since we have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Book of Judges. This interpretation, however, is found in the commentary of Ralbag. empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering208Judges 11:31. is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal209Deuteronomy 18:5. in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her,210Genesis 24:16. so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life].
All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s,208Judges 11:31. this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal,211I Samuel 1:11. and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her,212Judges 11:38. like harlots enhancing their hire!213See Ezekiel 16:31. Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year214Judges 11:39-40. Ramban’s comment here is typical of Jewish teaching which abhors celibacy. because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained.
And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood;215Above, 19:26. See Ramban there. and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children216Deuteronomy 24:16. which the Rabbis interpret217Sanhedrin 27 b. The meaning of the verse is thus: a parent cannot be condemned on the evidence of his children. as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’218II Kings 14:6. Here it is obvious that the Rabbis also understood the verse in its literal sense — that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their parents, and vice versa. Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not,219I Samuel 14:45. for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,220In Verse 29 before us. it says there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not;219I Samuel 14:45. [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel.219I Samuel 14:45. And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating that whatever a man devotes of his belongings, whether man or animal or field of his possession, it is holy unto the Eternal, meaning that they become devoted things of the priests, and there is no redemption for them. But if he devotes people who are not his, such as those who go to war against their enemies and utter a vow, If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then will I utterly destroy their cities,199Numbers 21:2. then all the people found in them are to die. The reason for this is that the intention of those making such a vow is not that [the captives] be given to the priests, but rather that it be forbidden to derive any benefit from them, since their purpose is to utterly destroy the enemies. Thus we find in the case of the men of Jabesh-gilead who transgressed the oath of the assembly by not coming to Mitzpah [to take part in the battle against Gibeah for the outrage they had committed],200See Judges Chapter 19. that it is written, And the congregation sent thither ten thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them saying: ‘Go and smite the inhabitants with the edge of the sword’.201Ibid., 21:10. And common sense does not allow [us to say] that the whole congregation perpetrated such an evil deed, killing many people of Israel who were not guilty of death! And Phinehas was there,202Ibid., 20:28. and by word of his mouth the whole affair was done! I have further found in the Agadah, in the [Midrash] Yelamdeinu:203I have found this in the Yalkut Shimoni, Shoftim 76. On “Yelamdeinu” see in Seder Bo (Vol. II, p. 131, Note 196). “We have been taught: Rabbi Akiba says, Cheirem (‘doomed to destruction’) is an oath, and an oath is cheirem. The men of Jabesh transgressed the cheirem, and thus they became liable to the death penalty.”
Therefore I say that it was from this verse [before us] that they deduced this law — that if any king of Israel, or the Great Sanhedrin [of seventy-one judges] in the presence of all Israel, who have the authority to institute ordinances [for the good of the people], if they declare a certain city cheirem, to be warred on, and likewise if they declare a certain matter cheirem, he who violates it is liable to the death-penalty. This indeed was the guilt of the men of Jabesh-gilead [as mentioned above], and of Jonathan, to whom his father [Saul] had said, ‘G-d do so and more also, thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.’204I Samuel 14:44. Now on the basis of what legal authority did these people deserve death, if not because of this source [in Scripture]?
And this was the mistake that Jephthah made with his daughter.205See Judges 11:30-34, where it is related that Jephthah vowed that whosoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Eternal’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt-offering, and it was his daughter who came out to meet him first. For he thought that just as a cheirem [“doomed” object] of the chief of Israel is valid and takes effect to put [certain] people to death, and [also] anyone who transgresses it is liable to the death-penalty, so [Jephthah thought] that if he uttered a vow at a time of war, to make an offering of a certain person or persons, the vow is valid; but he did not know that a cheirem declared by the king and Sanhedrin is valid [only] regarding the destruction of rebels, or against one who transgresses their decrees and ordinances. But that a vow should take effect to make a burnt-offering of something not appropriate for G-d, [as Jephthah thought] — Heaven forbid! Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah206Bereshith Rabbah 60:3. that [Jephthah] was not even obliged to pay the price of her market-value to the Temple treasury [as his vow was totally invalid], and he was punished for her [innocent] blood!
Now do not let yourself be misled by Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s207The source is unknown to me since we have no commentary of Ibn Ezra on the Book of Judges. This interpretation, however, is found in the commentary of Ralbag. empty words, when he says that the meaning of the expression and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering208Judges 11:31. is “or I will offer it up,” as if to say: “if that which comes forth of the doors of my house be a man or woman, that person shall be holy to G-d, inasmuch as he will abstain from the ways of the world, to stand to minister in the Name of the Eternal209Deuteronomy 18:5. in prayer and thanksgiving to G-d; but if it be something fit for an offering, I will make it a burnt-offering.” Accordingly [Ibn Ezra’s interpretation continues, since Jephthah’s daughter was the first to come out to meet her father], he built her a house outside the city where she resided in seclusion, and he provided her with sustenance all her days, and no man knew her,210Genesis 24:16. so that his daughter remained shut away [from the world all her life].
All this are words of emptiness. For if he vowed that [whatsoever comes forth of the door of his house] shall be the Eternal’s,208Judges 11:31. this does not mean that he should be a recluse [from the world], but instead he is to be like Samuel, of whom his mother said, and I shall give him unto the Eternal,211I Samuel 1:11. and he was a servant in the House of G-d, not a recluse. And according to the ordinances of the Torah, no man can utter a vow which will bind the persons who come out of the door of his house to live thereafter in seclusion, just as he cannot bring them as an offering. And if the matter be so [as Ibn Ezra put it] then Jephthah’s daughter would be bewailing her virginity with her companions with her,212Judges 11:38. like harlots enhancing their hire!213See Ezekiel 16:31. Heaven forbid that this be a custom in Israel, to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year214Judges 11:39-40. Ramban’s comment here is typical of Jewish teaching which abhors celibacy. because she did not marry and she worshipped G-d in purity! Rather, this whole subject is to be understood in its plain meaning [that Jephthah actually brought her as an offering], and his mistake was as I have explained.
And according to the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, it is possible that this verse [before us] includes many [different] subjects, similar to the verse, Ye shall not eat with the blood;215Above, 19:26. See Ramban there. and like the verse, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children216Deuteronomy 24:16. which the Rabbis interpret217Sanhedrin 27 b. The meaning of the verse is thus: a parent cannot be condemned on the evidence of his children. as invalidating the testimony of relatives, and Scripture further states concerning it: But the children of the murderers he [King Amaziah of Judah] put not to death, according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Eternal commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers.’218II Kings 14:6. Here it is obvious that the Rabbis also understood the verse in its literal sense — that children are not to be put to death for the sins of their parents, and vice versa. Similarly this verse [before us] includes the law of one who vows to give to the Temple treasury the valuation of a person who is liable to the death-penalty [as explained above], the law of those against whom a cheirem is declared at a time of conquest, as we have said, and the law of one who transgresses the cheirem of the Great Court or of the king of Israel, as was the case in the incident of Saul [and Jonathan mentioned above]. It is with reference to that that it is said there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not,219I Samuel 14:45. for since the Torah states, he shall not be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death,220In Verse 29 before us. it says there, So the people rescued Jonathan, that he die not;219I Samuel 14:45. [meaning] that since a miracle happened through him [i.e., that the Philistines suffered a great defeat on that day], they knew that it was in error that Jonathan had acted [contrary to the cheirem of his father]. And this is the sense of the expression [of the people in speaking on behalf of Jonathan], who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel.219I Samuel 14:45. And so likewise did Yonathan ben Uziel translate this expression: “For before the Eternal it is revealed that he [Jonathan] acted in error on that day, and so the people rescued Jonathan.”
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.”