Context

The era of the judges is characterized by a cycle of sin, subjugation beneath foreign nations, repentance, followed by redemption through a heroic judge. By the time we reach Chapter 11, we have gone through most of our favorites. Until now, we have had Otniel, Ehud, Shamgar ben Anat, Devorah / Barak, Gid’on, followed by his son Avimelech (who was more of a tyrant than a judge), and Tola and Ya’ir. In chapter 10, the nation of B’nei Ammon take over the land of Gil’ad, which is on the opposite side of the Jordan. The Israelites repent and assemble at Mitzpah to fight the Ammonites, but they don’t yet have a general.

Overview

[1-3] Yiftach, an able warrior and the son of a prostitute, is chased away by his “legitimate” half-brothers, and attracts a band of ruffians who travel with thim.

[4-11] Ammon attacks Israel, so the elders of Gil’ad go and beg Yiftach to be their general. Yiftach insists that they appoint him leader, and they agree.

[12-28] Yiftach asks why Ammon is attacking, and the king of Ammon claims that Israel has stolen Ammonite land. Yiftach recounts the history of Sichon and the Emorite and how they attacked Israel despite Israel’s peaceful overtures; the Ammonite never possessed that land. The King of Ammon ignores this message.

[29-33] Yiftach pledges an offering to G-d if he triumphs in battle, then he defeats Ammon.

“You shall not inherit in our father’s house”

What is it about Yiftach’s background that makes it an important part of his story as a judge? Theoretically, the Navi, or at least the haftarh, could have skipped verses 1-10 and begun with the appointment of Yiftach to the position of general. Why is it important that he was a son of a “zonah” or prostitute and that he was banished by his brothers?

My answer to this is inspired by a dvar torah delivered a few years ago by Elishav Rabinovich shlit”a at Congregation Beth Israel in Berkeley. Elishav spoke about the book of Rut and how it was related to the story of the ancestors of Rut and Orpah — Lot and his daughters. After the destruction of the city of Sodom, Lot and his daughters escape. Not to the mountains at first, just to the city of Tzo’ar.

In many retellings of the story, the daughters of Lot thought that the entire world had been destroyed, which is why they resorted to having children by their father. However, the text doesn’t support that — after all, they had seen the city of Tzo’ar survive! Elishav suggested that the daughters of Lot had absorbed the philosophy of Sodom. Outsiders are simply not good enough to be in our midst or part of our family. The Da’at Zekenim cites the Ibn Ezra (perhaps a different edition than we have) along those lines:

ואיש אין בארץ לבא. פי’ ר’ אברהם אבן עזרא ז”ל איש אין בארץ ראוי לבא עלינו כי היו מחזיקות עצמן במיוחסות:

And there is no man in the land to come. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra z”l explained: there is no suitable man to come unto us, because they accorded themselves high status.

The children of Lot’s daughters, Moav and Ammon, seem to learn the lesson of their mothers. The Torah condemns them for not meeting the Israelites with food and drink when they left Egypt. Later, in the book of Ruth the story is turned on its head when Rut, the descendant of Moav, son of Lot’s older daughter, rejects the attitude of her ancestor. She allows herself to become a stranger in another land, where she receives the generosity of Boaz who overlooks her foreignness.

Our story in Sefer Shoftim sees a reversal in a different way. Here, the ones acting as agents of exclusion, turning away the stranger are the Israelites! Given their behavior, it makes sense that they are put under the sovereignty of Ammon. Their moral character has decayed so far that they are no better than Ammon. This is especially pronounced when we consider the commentary of Radak who cites an Aramaic translation of our text:

ובתרגום של תוספתא דא היא נימוסא הות בישראל מלקדמין דלא מיסתחרא אחסנתא משבטא לשבטא ובכן לא הוה יכיל גברא למיסב איתתא דלא משבטא וכד הות איתתא דרחמא גברא דלא משבטהא הות נפקא מבי נשא בלא אחסנתא והוו אנשי קרון לה פונדקיתא דרחימת גברא דלא משבטהא וכן הוה ליה לאימיה דיפתח

And in the Targum of Tosefta: “This was the custom in Israel back then, not to pass inheritance from one tribe to another, and so a man could not marry a woman from outside his tribe. And if a woman loved a man not from her tribe, she would leave her father’s house without an inheritance, and the people would call her an ‘innkeeper’ because she loved a man who was not from her tribe. And so it was for Yiftach’s mother.’

Based on this translation, their alienation of Yiftach was not because he was foreign or born to a prostitute, but that his mother came from a different tribe within the same nation. Still, they banished him and could not welcome him as a brother. Only when the elders correct this dire mistake does the nation merit redemption from the Ammonites.

“Now you shall inherit it?”

Yiftach gives an impassioned recounting of the history of Israel traveling through the desert, as a way of explaining that the land of Gil’ad never belonged to the Ammonites at all. However, he seems to be trying to convince them of two points: 1. That the land had originally belonged to the Emorites, and 2. That the Israelites had conquered that land after behaving peacefully and respectfully and still being met with hostile resistance. Why doesn’t Yiftach simply rely on making the first point, and then depend on the defense of “לאו בעל דברים דידי את”, “you have no standing in this dispute!”

I have two possible answers to this question:

  1. The history is meant to provide a hint to the Ammonites, that even though the Israelites may begin admirably in overtures of peace, they will fight back when provoked. Just as, when push came to shove, the Israelites overthrew Sihon and the Emori, so too they will conquer Ammon, if the need arises.
  2. The history is meant as a rallying cry to the people of Gil’ad and Israel. In any era of conflict, someone will raise the option of appeasement. “Perhaps we can make the Ammonites happy by conceding to their demands. We can move to a different part of the land.”
    Yiftach’s history is meant to remind the Israelites of the justice of their cause. “We have tried being friendly before, and it does not necessarily lead to peace. We will find peace where we can, but we will fight wherever our cause is just.” Indeed, from this point, he goes and rallies troops from across the region.

Shabbat Shalom! Keep an extra chair at your shabbos table for a stranger.