Malbim on Judges — The Questions (1–3) Why had they not asked until now, “Who shall go up first?” And why did he say to Shimon rather than to another tribe?

And they asked. During the lifetime of Joshua they did not need to inquire by means of the Urim and Tumim, for Joshua arranged everything according to the word of Hashem, as our Sages said (Eruvin 63a), as it is written, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest” — yet we do not find that Joshua needed it. But after his death they needed to inquire by means of the Urim and Tumim.

(a) Who should go up? For during the lifetime of Joshua he was the one who commanded the people; now they asked who should go up first.

(b) At first they conquered all together; now each tribe needed to conquer its own portion, as it says (Joshua 13), “I Myself will dispossess them; only cast it by lot for an inheritance.” Therefore they asked who should conquer first — for if the first were not successful, the Canaanite would say that with Joshua’s death their valor had weakened.

And because in the portion of each tribe there remained nations that they had not yet conquered, he relates here how they fought against them.

Judah shall go up. In accordance with his preeminence, and because he received his portion first.

And he said to Shimon his brother. For the inheritance of the tribe of Shimon lay within the territory of the tribe of Judah (Joshua 19).

Go up with me in my lot. To conquer my portion. And it is possible that Judah was to conquer in the hill country; therefore he said, “Go up with me,” whereas Shimon was to conquer in the plain; therefore he said, “and I will go.” And similarly below (v. 17), “And Judah went with Shimon his brother.”

The Questions (4) After stating that Hashem delivered the Canaanite into their hand and they defeated them at Bezek, how can it then say again that they fought and struck the Canaanite?

And they struck them at Bezek. At first the camps went out with their commanders and arrayed themselves around Bezek, and there they struck ten thousand men. And when it says “at Bezek,” it means around Bezek, as in: “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho” (Joshua 5).

(“Adoni-Bezek” the first time is accented on the last syllable [milra], and this indicates that the yod is not additional; rather, the yod strengthens the name, as is found in Scripture. But the second and third occurrences of “Adoni-Bezek” are accented on the penultimate syllable [mil‘el], which is a sign that the yod is additional — for by then he was no longer a lord.)

And they found. Later, when they came near to capture the city itself, they found Adoni-Bezek there. He had stayed within the city to defend it when needed, unlike the king of Ai, who went out from the city and left it exposed.

And they fought against him. Again; and there they struck the Canaanites a second time, who had locked themselves within the city behind doors and bars.

And he fled. For he saw that the city had been taken. “And they cut off” — Hashem placed it in their hearts to do to him what they had not done to any of their other enemies. This was somewhat against the laws of Israel, since the seven nations were to be slain by the sword, not subjected to this kind of mutilation. Rather, Hashem repaid him measure for measure.

And he said. He perceived in this the judgment of Heaven — that he was repaid measure for measure. And because he admitted his wrongdoing and acknowledged Hashem’s punishment, he died in the normal course on the road.

And they brought him to Jerusalem. For from that place they proceeded to wage war against Jerusalem, and they took him along with them; and there he died.

The Questions (8–22) The Abarbanel asked: If the intention here was to recount the wars that the children of Judah waged after the death of Joshua, why did it see fit to mention afterward the war of Hebron and Debir and the matter of Achsah, when the capture of Hebron has already been recorded in the Book of Joshua, and there it is attributed to Caleb? And why is the matter of Achsah mentioned a second time? And why does it again state that Hebron was given to Caleb? With regard to what is written, “But the Jebusite the children of Benjamin could not dispossess,” this raises difficulty in three respects.

And they fought. It has already been mentioned in the Book of Joshua (15:63), “But the Jebusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not dispossess; and the Jebusite dwelt with the children of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.” It is clear that they had already fought in Jerusalem and did not capture it. And below (v. 21) it says: “But the Jebusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Benjamin did not dispossess; and the Jebusite dwelt with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day.”

In my view, since Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem was the first of the five kings who gathered against Gibeon and there fell (Joshua 10), they surely devised plans to capture his city, just as they then captured the cities of the five kings. And they went, as opportunity allowed, to wage war — and Judah was the one who fought. For Jerusalem was in the portion of Benjamin, yet a strip within it belonged to Judah (as above in ch. 15); and from this perspective he too had a claim to its territory.

Thus, during the lifetime of Joshua they were unable to dispossess its inhabitants, who were Jebusites, and they dwelled among Judah “until this day” — meaning until the end of Joshua’s lifetime, when he wrote his book.

After the death of Joshua, wars arose between them and the inhabitants of the city; they captured it and burned the city in punishment for having rebelled and fought against them.

Yet despite capturing the city, they did not capture the stronghold, which was later called the Fortress of Zion, and which was not taken until the days of David; and there too a Jebusite dwelled, as it says (II Samuel 5:7–8). Judah did not fight there, since it was not in their portion, and Benjamin did not begin to fight there at all. Concerning this it says, “The children of Benjamin did not dispossess” — meaning they did not fight at all — and he dwelled with the children of Benjamin “until this day” (that is, until the end of Samuel’s lifetime, who wrote the Book of Judges).

And this is close to the view of the Abarbanel.

And they sent the city into fire. The commentators interpreted this as “they sent fire into the city.” But this is not required, for we find the same formulation elsewhere (Judges 20:48; 1 Kings 8:12; Psalms 74:7): “They have sent Your sanctuary into fire.” That is, through the fire they sent the city from existence into destruction.

And afterward they went down. Since the mountain of Jerusalem was higher than the surrounding mountains, it says “they went down” — first to fight in the hill country, and from there to the Negev and the Shephelah.

And Judah went. This conquest was already mentioned in the Book of Joshua (ch. 15), and there it is explained that Caleb dispossessed the Anakim, and this occurred during Joshua’s lifetime. Here, however, it recounts together everything that Judah conquered. That is to say: Judah had already gone to the Canaanite who dwelled in Hebron while Joshua was still alive. And although there the matter is attributed to Caleb, he was the head of the tribe, and his tribe went with him; and from this perspective it may be attributed to both. For Hebron itself was given to the Levites, while the field of the city and its surrounding villages were given to Caleb; therefore both took part in its dispossession.

And he went from there. This narrative, and likewise the story of Achsah, is recorded in Joshua (ibid.). That is, it had already occurred during Joshua’s lifetime. The Sages were evidently troubled by the repetition of this story, and by the fact that it is inserted here along with the note that the children of the Kenite went up from the City of Palms — something that seems entirely unrelated.

And they expounded it in Temurah (17a): that three thousand laws were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses, and Othniel son of Kenaz restored them through his dialectical reasoning. And when she said, “You have given me the land of the Negev,” it means a person dried of all material good, possessing nothing but Torah. And that the children of the Kenite left the luxuriance of Jericho, which Joshua had given them, and went to Othniel son of Kenaz to study Torah.

They wisely understood that the repetition of the matter indicates that this time it alludes to allegorical themes set in golden rhetoric. For we find that Debir is called Kiriath-Sepher (Joshua 15:49), and from this they derived that this city was then designated as a “city of the book,” meaning that students gathered there to meditate upon and review the Book of the Torah, and there was a great academy there. It was also called Kiriath-Sannah, after “the will of the One who dwells in the bush,” and because Moses received the Torah from Sinai. And Othniel was the head of the academy.

He “struck Kiriath-Sepher” — and in the language of the Sages, striking refers to victory in dialectical debate, as in “the war of Torah.” Thus it says, “When you sit to fight with a ruler,” “Your arrows are sharp,” and similar verses that are expounded concerning the war of Torah. And “striking” refers to one who wins the battle and establishes the halakhah, as it says in Berakhot (18b) regarding “And he went down and struck the lion in the pit on a snowy day,” which is expounded: “the school of Rav in the winter day.” Thus Othniel prevailed — whether in the literal war against the Canaanite at Kiriath-Sepher (as mentioned in Joshua), or in the second, Torah-based victory (as mentioned here).

And since Achsah saw that the land of the Negev had fallen to her in two senses:

(1) that the land itself was dry and thirsty for water — this is mentioned in Joshua;

(2) that her husband had turned toward the Negev — for “one who wishes to become wise should go south” —

and this was all his desire and delight, and it would not produce sustenance for his household, therefore she said, “You have given me” (using נתתני instead of נתת לי), meaning that I myself have become like the land of the Negev through my husband. Therefore she requested a blessing and a field for livelihood. And he gave her upper springs and lower springs:

(1) to water her dry land;

(2) and also as a hint that you already have a man who draws living waters from the source of blessing — both upper and lower — from divine wisdom and from human wisdom.

As our Sages said in the Midrash: “One to whom the secrets of the upper and the lower realms have been revealed may request something from Me.” And according to this, he relates here — in the language of allegory and poetic expression — that when he became established and spread much Torah, as he requested in I Chronicles (4:10; 2:55) according to the homiletical interpretation of the Sages, the children of the Kenite went up to him, to the wilderness of Judah near there. And he settled this people in an academy of wisdom.

And the children of the Kenite. They were tent-dwellers, traveling from place to place, and they were at peace with Israel. And when Judah fought against the Canaanite, they went up from the City of Palms, which was in the place of the battle, and settled in the wilderness of Judah. And he settled this people in a covenant of peace and tranquility. And just as Saul did when he fought against Amalek, when he said to the Kenite, “Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekite…” (I Samuel 15:6), so it was now.

And he went. In fulfillment of the agreement stated above (v. 3).

And it was. Until now it has related that Judah, who went up after the death of Joshua to fight according to the word of Hashem, succeeded, acted valiantly, and that Hashem was with him. From this point until the end of the chapter it begins to recount that afterward they did not act according to the command of Hashem and did not dispossess the inhabitants of the land, even though they saw that Hashem was with them. This serves as the introduction to what is stated in the next chapter, that the angel of Hashem went up to Bochim to rebuke them for this.

It then recounts how each tribe sinned in this matter, beginning with Judah. It says: although Hashem was with Judah and he dispossessed the hill country, it would therefore have been easy for him to descend from the mountain to the valley and conquer the inhabitants of the valley, as it says (Joshua 17:18), “For the mountain shall be yours… and its outgoings shall be yours, for you shall dispossess the valley.” It is thus clear that after conquering the hill country it would have been very easy to conquer the valley.

Nevertheless, he did not dispossess the inhabitants of the valley; that is, he did not conquer the hill country with the intention of afterward conquering the inhabitants of the valley, because when he saw that they had iron chariots he became discouraged and was afraid to fight against them. For even their intention in conquering the hill country was not to dispossess the Canaanite entirely from their portion, but only because…

And they gave Hebron to Caleb. They were obligated to support Caleb, for this had been granted to him by Moses; and he drove out the three sons of Anak. Yet they did not set their intention on dispossessing the surrounding territory completely.

And the Jebusite. Meaning that Benjamin too was lax in this commandment and failed to dispossess the Jebusite from its territory. This verse has already been explained above (v. 8).

And the house of Joseph also went up. They were negligent in the conquest of the land; and in order to magnify their guilt, he first states that the house of Joseph also went up to capture Bethel. And at that time they had clear proof and evidence that Hashem was with them — for…

The Questions (23) Why was it necessary to recount this? Would it not have been enough simply to state that they captured the city of Bethel?

And the house of Joseph spied out Bethel. The camp had not yet approached Bethel itself; rather, they sent to scout the land round about. For the verb tur (“to scout”) is usually connected with the word et, as in “to scout the land,” but here it appears with the preposition b, because they did not scout Bethel itself but in Bethel, that is, in the region of Bethel.

It is explained that there is a difference between a tar (scout) and a meragel (spy): the spy seeks the vulnerable points of the land and the place easiest to conquer, whereas the scout seeks what is good (as in “to scout out a resting place for them”). Thus they searched in the surroundings of Bethel for a suitable place for the camp to encamp, since they intended to lay siege and remain around Bethel for many days.

(It also says vayaturu in the causative form, meaning that they sent scouts to scout and did not scout themselves, as Rashi explains.)

And “the name of the city” means that this was not the Bethel near Ai that belonged to Benjamin, but Bethel-Luz, as explained above (Joshua 16:2).

And they saw. Meanwhile, the watchmen — whom the camp had posted around the city so that no one might escape — saw a man coming out of the city. Though they were few, since the main force had moved away to scout the land, they nonetheless showed boldness and bravery.

And they said to him, “Please show us the entrance to the city.” Meaning not the obvious gate, but a concealed access point.

And he showed them… and they struck. The watchmen alone captured the city. From this they ought to have recognized that Hashem was with them — that one could chase a thousand.

“And the man…” — this is added in passing: first, to indicate that they fulfilled their promise, which was upright and proper; and second, so that one should not mistakenly identify this Luz with the Luz located in the land of the Hittites.

The Questions (27) Was this not already mentioned in the Book of Joshua (ch. 17)?

And they did not dispossess. Meaning that despite having seen that Hashem was with them, the house of Joseph — namely Manasseh and Ephraim — still failed to dispossess their allotted territory. Manasseh did not drive out Beth-shean and the surrounding cities. This had already been mentioned in Joshua (ch. 17), where it states that “the children of Manasseh could not dispossess Beth-shean,” and that was during Joshua’s lifetime. But now they were able — yet they were unwilling.

And it came to pass. Even though Israel became strong over them, they were content to levy tribute from them and did not dispossess them, as the Torah had commanded.

And Ephraim. Of the house of Joseph, Ephraim did not drive out the inhabitants of Gezer, nor did he place them under tribute; instead, he lived among them in a covenant of fraternity — in violation of Hashem’s command, Who said, “You shall not make a covenant with them,” and “They shall not dwell among you, lest they cause you to sin against Me.”

Zebulun. He enumerates the tribes according to the sequence of their territorial allotments: after the house of Joseph came Zebulun, then Asher, Naphtali, and Dan — since Shimon and Issachar had successfully dispossessed their portions.

And the Asherite dwelled among the Canaanite. For the Canaanite constituted the majority, and Asher lived among them; and the same was true of Naphtali.

And they pressed. And this failure was even more evident in Dan, for at first the Amorite pressed them into the hill country, and afterward…

And the Amorite was determined. He began moving upward from the valley into the hill country, settling in Mount Heres, as well as Aijalon and Shaalbim. The tribe of Dan by itself could not overcome them until the house of Joseph came to assist; then the power of the house of Joseph prevailed.

Nevertheless, they merely imposed tribute. Even after witnessing open hostility, when they should have learned and utterly dispossessed them, they refrained from doing so. They were satisfied with extracting tribute and defining the Amorite’s border.

That the border of the Amorite extended from the ascent of Akrabbim, from Sela and upward. As though two nations had entered into a treaty and fixed for each one the limits of his territory. This was exceedingly evil in the eyes of Hashem; therefore He sent an angel to rebuke them for it, as will be described in the next chapter.