Questions **(1) Why did they swear—after all the killing and the great destruction—that they would not give them wives? And if they swore, how did they immediately regret it?

The order of the verses is very confused: it begins with the matter of the oath regarding their daughters, then speaks of how they regretted what they had done to Benjamin; afterward it discusses the inquiry concerning those who did not come to the war; then it returns to their regret for Benjamin; then again to the men of Jabesh-Gilead who did not come to the war; and again it states that the people relented concerning Benjamin. These matters appear repetitive and disordered.

It would have been appropriate to address separately their regret for Benjamin and separately their grievance and actions against the men of Jabesh-Gilead. Why is each matter repeated unnecessarily?

The phrase “an inheritance of survivors for Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel”** is unclear—especially since there no longer seemed to be a danger of extinction, for they had already taken four hundred women.

And the words of verse 22 are obscure and difficult to understand.

And the men of Israel had sworn at Mizpah. It is explained by us that when the subject precedes the verb, the matter is not being related in chronological order, but refers to something that occurred earlier (see what is explained on Joshua 1:12, on the verse “And to the Reubenites and to the Gadites…”).

Thus, “and the men of Israel had sworn” refers to an oath taken previously, while they were still at Mizpah—before they went out to war—not to intermarry with Benjamin.

And the people came to Bethel … and they said, “Why, O Hashem God…”

For had Israel not fallen in the first two battles, they would not have placed Benjamin under the ban of total destruction. They would have punished only the offenders, not killed women and children and destroyed everything. But because Benjamin caused forty thousand of Israel to fall, they exacted vengeance against him.

Now they came before Hashem, sitting and weeping, searching and investigating what had caused this—why Hashem’s anger had burned against them so that they fell in the first two battles. For this became the cause of an even greater calamity: that one tribe should be lacking today from Israel. For although six hundred men remained, still the tribe was considered missing, since a mere handful cannot properly be called a tribe; they were but a remnant, not a tribe in its own standing.

And it was on the following day. They again sat to investigate the cause of the matter and to examine their deeds, seeking why Hashem’s anger had burned against His people.

And they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. In order to obtain favor from Hashem.

And the children of Israel said. As they were investigating the matter, they recalled the episode of Israel in the war against Ai, which had likewise involved a commanded battle in which they fell before the enemy. There it became known that the cause was that Achan had trespassed against the ban and Joshua’s oath.

Therefore they examined whether a similar sin might be found among them. For since there had been a great oath—that whoever did not go up to Mizpah to participate in this war would surely be put to death—they concluded that there must have been some who violated this oath, and that because of this Israel had fallen in battle.

Accordingly they said, “Who is there that did not go up in the assembly?” for they did not yet know who it was.

And they relented. Until this point he had spoken about the past—how they investigated why they had been punished and supposed that perhaps some among them had violated the oath, and that because of this they were struck. Yet it was not really incumbent upon them to pursue that matter further, for the past could not be undone.

But now a new issue arose before them: they remembered that in their anger they had sworn that none of them would give his daughter to Benjamin. Accordingly, even though six hundred men of the tribe of Benjamin remained, they would find no wives—for the women of Benjamin had all been killed. In this way the entire tribe would be erased.

This would be a grave blemish and deficiency for the whole nation, for the Divine Presence rests upon Israel only when they are twelve tribes; if one tribe is missing, it is a great defect for the nation as a whole, as mentioned in the words of our Sages in many places (see, for example, Bava Kamma 83a). This would be damage for generations—an irreparable loss, profaning the glory of Jacob and the sanctity of Israel forever.

Thus it says, “Today one tribe has been cut off from Israel,” and they explained the reason: “What shall we do for the survivors regarding wives?”

And they said. When they realized that if a city or family were found that had not gone to this war and would therefore be liable to death for violating the oath, this could provide a solution for Benjamin—for the women of such a place would be permitted to them, since they had not come to Mizpah and had not sworn—they now began to search and inquire which one of the tribes of Israel had not gone up to Hashem at Mizpah, for they now needed this for the sake of Benjamin.

And behold, they discovered that there was no one there from the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead. Accordingly, they judged that since, in their view, Jabesh-Gilead had transgressed the oath and thereby caused Hashem’s anger to burn—resulting in the destruction of Benjamin—it followed that the men of Jabesh-Gilead were the cause of this outcome.

Therefore it was fitting, they reasoned, that by executing them, there would arise from among them—from the virgins of Jabesh-Gilead whom they would keep alive—a remnant for Benjamin, to become wives for them.

And they sent. After they found a remedy for them, they sent and proclaimed peace to them, and gave them the women.

This was for the benefit of the entire nation, so that there would not be a defect in the community through the loss of a tribe; for it was accepted among them that the Divine Presence would not rest upon them if one tribe were missing from the number of the tribes.

And they did not find enough for them. For they did not find wives for all six hundred men.

And the people. That is, although their fear that a tribe would be erased from Israel had already subsided—since they had found wives for four hundred men—nevertheless, after they had reconciled with them and spoken peaceably to them, the people regretted the entire affair. They repented of what had been done, by which Hashem had made a breach among the tribes—bringing division, hatred, and war.

Therefore it says, “And the people relented,” for earlier it had said, “And the children of Israel relented,” referring to the leaders, elders, and prominent figures concerned for the welfare of the nation. But now the entire people relented—they repented and returned to them in love, and did not wish that the remaining two hundred men should die without children.

And the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for the survivors regarding wives?”

At that point the Sanhedrin examined whether they could annul the oath in order to provide wives for those who remained. They offered a reason: “For the women have been destroyed from Benjamin.” That is, at the time of the oath they had not intended that the women and children be killed. Their intent had only been that they themselves would not intermarry with Benjamin—not that Benjamin would be left childless, for in that case they would have taken wives from their own tribe.

But now that the women of Benjamin had been destroyed and the tribe would be erased under these conditions, they had not sworn with such a circumstance in mind. Therefore there was an opening and grounds for regret (to reconsider the oath).

And they said. But they reconsidered and said that this was not a valid argument. It would have been correct had they found no remedy at all and the entire tribe were about to be erased—such a loss would have been a defect and deficiency for the whole nation, and then they would have had grounds to release themselves from the oath, for surely they had not sworn with the intention of obliterating an entire tribe.

But now, a surviving inheritance remains for Benjamin; Benjamin already has a remnant through the four hundred young women taken from the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, from whom offspring and heirs would arise. Consequently, a tribe will not be blotted out from Israel. Therefore the oath has no opening and no basis for regret.

Accordingly they rendered their decision: “We cannot give them wives from our daughters, for the children of Israel have sworn.” There is no permission to release them from their oath.

And they said. But they again conferred for the benefit of the remaining two hundred men and devised a plan—that they should seize wives from among the dancing maidens.

And you shall seize. They stipulated with them:

(1) that each man should seize only one woman; (2) that they should bring them to the land of Benjamin, so that their fathers would not overtake them to contend with them.

And it shall be, when they come … to us. If they come to contend with us—claiming that we have allowed the women to be taken by force—then we shall present two arguments:

(1) As for your concern about the oath—that you might say that although they seized them, we are granting them favor by remaining silent—we will say to them, “Be gracious to them?”—in astonishment. Is it an act of grace that we did not take each man’s wife from him in battle? That is, they seized them and married them with the consent of the women; they are now their wives. Are we obligated or permitted to wage war against them and take their wives from them? We are neither obligated nor permitted to do so. Therefore we are not granting them favor by refraining from taking the women back.

(2) For you did not give them, and therefore you are not now guilty. They took them on their own initiative, and you did not violate your oath.

And they went their ways. Although at that moment they ought to have taken heed of the stumbling block that had arisen from their own hands—while they were still gathered together, they could have repaired the breach and established a king or judge to oversee the people—nevertheless, immediately afterward each man went to his place, and the matter remained as before: there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes.

As for the time when these last two events—the matter of Micah’s idol and the concubine at Gibeah—took place, Scripture does not state it explicitly. According to our Sages in Seder Olam (ch. 12), it was in the days of Cushan-Rishathaim. Therefore it says, “In those days there was no king in Israel,” meaning after the death of Joshua and the elders, before a judge had yet arisen for Israel—until Othniel son of Kenaz.

According to this view, it fits what is said that the tribe of Dan sought an inheritance to dwell in and captured Laish; this would have been after Joshua’s death, when each tribe went to conquer its territory, and the children of Dan captured Laish as mentioned in the book of Joshua (ch. 19). It also fits what is said regarding Jerusalem, “We will not turn aside to a foreign city which is not of the children of Israel,” for this would have been before Judah conquered its portion of Jerusalem (as stated earlier in chapter 1, verse 8). And it accords with the statement that Micah’s idol stood all the days that the House of God was in Shiloh, implying that it endured alongside the Ark’s presence in Shiloh.

However, from what our Sages say (Rashi on I Samuel 20:30) regarding “son of a wayward woman,” that Saul’s wife pursued him because Saul was ashamed to seize her from among the dancers, it appears that this episode occurred after the death of Samson, before another judge arose—hence, “In those days there was no king in Israel.” According to this, it is fitting that these sections are written after the account of Samson, for that would match the chronological order.

And when it says that Micah’s idol stood all the days that the House of God was in Shiloh, this would mean that it stood from that time until the destruction of Shiloh. So too it is implied by the words of the Sages (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 9:3), that Jonathan later became treasurer of the storehouses in the days of Solomon and that he was the old prophet in Bethel; and according to Seder Olam, he lived more than four hundred years.