Judges 10:1-30 Patriarchal narrative without Divine intervention

Judges 19:1-30 is known as the story of the rape and dismemberment of the concubine.  It is an odd narrative.  It seems to be an encapsulation of the Patriarchal narratives, but this encapsulation presents the tales of the Patriarchal narratives as they might have ended without the intervention of G-d.  We note that the protagonist is identified in relation to those around him.  First, he is “a Levite.”  Then, when he is with his female companion’s father, he becomes “the son-in-law.”  When he is with his servant, he is identified as “the master.”  In this way, the man is a malleable character, without his own identity, reflecting those around him.

* In those days, there was no king in Israel.  A Levite man stayed in the remote hill country of Ephraim, and he took יקח לו    a woman concubine  פילגשׁ from Bethlehem of Judah.

The man is identified by his tribe, Levite, and by his region, Ephraim.  The woman is identified by her city, Bethlehem.  He “took” her, yiqach, indicating there was a contract of some kind (money, conquest or intercourse is not stipulated).  He did NOT take her as “bride,” כלה  but as concubine   פִלגשׁ.  There has been a great deal of speculation about the exact nature of the status of the pilgash.  Since we lack specifics, the only thing that can be said is that it is evident the status is not comparable to the status of “bride”  כלה .  It is conjecturable that the pilgash was a woman the progeny by whom would not constitute a continuation of the family line.

* His concubine whored  תזנה אליו  against him and went from him to her father’s house, to Bethlehem in Judah, and she was there for four months.

In this, we hear echoes of Tamar/Judah, both in the verb and in the return to her father’s house.  Unlike Tamar/Judah, this text tells us that she whored, rather than simply dressing herself in the costume, and that she returned, presumably voluntarily, to her father’s house (where, by contrast, Judah sent Tamar in his attempt to evade the full execution of his contract with her, the “bride” he took to perpetuate the family line).

* Her husband rose and went after her to speak tenderly to her and bring her back.  A servant and a pair of donkeys were with him.  At her father’s house, they saw the girl’s father, he was glad to greet them.

In contrast with the story of Tamar/Judah, the Levite, identified as “her man,” went after her to speak tenderly to her.  Judah, when confronted with the tale that Tamar had played prostitute, demanded her death.

* His father-in-law, the girl’s father, seized יחזק him and he stayed with him for three days, and they ate and drank and lodged there.

* On the fourth day, they woke early, and he rose to go and the girl’s father said to his son-in-law, Sustain yourself with a piece of bread, and go after.

*  They sat and they ate the two of them together and they drank.  The girl’s father said to the man “Please be willing to make your heart merry”

* The man rose to go, but he urged his son-in-law again, and he stayed.

* He rose to go on the morning of the fifth day, and the girl’s father said, “please stay your heart and wait until afternoon.”  And they both ate.

* The man rose to go, he and his concubine and his servant.  His father-in-law said to him, “behold, now the day is now drawing close to evening.  Please spend the night here and make your heart happy.  Tomorrow you will wake up and go on your way home.

* But the man was not willing to stay, and rose and went, and came opposite Jebus, which is Jerusalem, and with him were two saddled donkeys and his concubine.

We seem to have an encapsulation of the Jacob/Rachel narrative, in that the girl’s father insists on the Levite remaining (as Laban required Jacob to stay and work for Rachel’s hand.)  The concubine, we note, is listed among his possessions.  His servant is not mentioned.

* They were near Jebus when the day was spent.  The youth said to his master, “Please come and let us turn to this city of Jebusites and stay in it.”

* His master said to him, “We will not turn in to a city of foreigners who are not Israelites.  We will go further to Gibeah.”

The Levite, who, while at his father-in-law’s house was referred to as “the man,” now is referred to in relation to his servant as “his master.”

* He said to his servant, “Come, let’s approach one of these places, and we will will stay in Gibeah or Ramah.”

* They travelled and went further and the sun went down on them near Gibeah which belonged to Benjamin.

* They turned there to come to stay in Gibeah, and he went in and sat by the road of the city, for no man took them into his house to stay.

In this narrative of wandering, we hear echoes of the story of Abraham.

* An old man came from his work in the field in the evening. The man was from the hill country of Ephraim and he lived as a foreigner in Gibeah.  The men of the place were Benjaminites.

The old man was a countryman of the Levite’s.

* He lifted his eyes and saw  the wayfaring man on the road of the city.  The old man asked, “where are you going and where have you come from?”

* He said to him, “we are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote hill country of Ephraim.  I am from there, and I went to Bethlehem in Judah.  I am going to the house of G-d, and no man will take me into his house.

* There is straw and fodder for our donkeys, and I have also bread and wine, [my girl is] your maidservant and the young man [is] with your servants.  There is no lack of anything.”

* The old man said, “Peace to you, only let all your needs are on me.  Only do not stay on the road.”

* He took them into his house, with the donkeys, and they washed their feet and ate and drank.

* Their hearts were merry.  The men of the city, certain worthless men, surrounded the house, pounding on the door and spoke to the man who was master of the house, the old man, saying, “Send out the man who came into your house so we can have sex with him.”

This scene recalls the story of Lot.  The differences in the Lot narrative are that Lot was the protagonist and the guests who were demanded by the hooligans of the city were malachim.  In this narrative, our protagonist is not a malach, and his host is identified as an old man, hence, presumably, incapable of offering him much protection.

* The man who was the master of the house went out to them and said to them, “My brothers, please do not do evil  תרעו after this man came to my house.  Do not do this foolishness  נבלה. 

The first verb used by the old man,   תרעו , is the same verb we find in the Lot narrative:  “do evil.”

* Here is my daughter, a virgin and his concubine.  I will bring her out to you and you may rape  ענו them and do to them what is good in your eyes.  Do not do anything to this man.”

In the Lot narrative, Lot offers both of his daughters to the hooligans.  The malachim, in intervening and blinding them, forestall any need on his part to actually go through with his offer.  In this narrative, there are no malachim to intervene, and the old man, the master of the house, offers his own daughter and the concubine of his guest for the pleasure of those who have menaced his house.   This is the only occurrence of the verb “anu.”  Exactly what it means, we don’t know. It is variously translated as “ravish” or “humble.”  “Humble” seems to be rather...tame as a possible interpretation.

* But the men would not listen to him.  The man seized  יחזק his concubine and sent her to them outside, and they had sex with her and abused her all night until morning and when dawn broke, they let her go.

The verb used for the man and his concubine is the same verb used for the man and the concubine’s father: יחזק.  The verb used for the men and the concubine is the same verb used for by the men regarding their intent towards the man.  It is also the verb used by the hooligans of the Lot narrative regarding Lot: ידע .   In this instance, the verb is elucidated by its accompaniment “abused.”

* At the dawn of the day, the woman came and fell at the entrance of the house of the man where her master was, until it was light.

Where previously, she had been identified as “the girl” or “the concubine,” after a night of torture, she is now identified as “the woman.”

* In the morning, her master arose and opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, and behold, the woman his concubine had fallen in the entrance of the house, her hands were on the threshold.

We note the verse does NOT tell us that her master was going out to see how she has spent the night.  He was going out to go on his way.  From the text, it would seem that he had already determined that she was no longer his possession.

* And he said to her “Get up and let’s go.”  There was no answer.  The man took her on the donkey and rose up and went to his place.

* He came to his house, and he took the knife and he seized  יחזק  his concubine and he cut her up   נתח  into twelve pieces and he sent her through all the borders of Israel.

The verb used  נתח  does not simply mean “cut up.”  It is used in reference to those animals sacrificed at the Temple.

* All who saw said  “Nothing has happened, and nothing has been seen like this since the day the Israelites came up out of the land of Eqypt until this day.  Consider this, take counsel and speak.”

            We have a conflation of Patriarchal narratives that is unrelieved by the advent and intervention of G-d or of angels.  What is most horrifying about this narrative is not that a woman was abused, nor it is that she was given over to abuse by a man whose property she was (who, in theory, might have been expected to protect her).  What is particularly horrifying about this narrative is the historical span in which the abuse of the woman, and the man’s right to hand her over to abuse, was the norm.  In its own context, this narrative illustrates for us how the patriarchal narratives could have ended differently, had it not been for Divine intervention.  Arguably, that was the author’s agenda, because the narrative opens “there was no king in Israel”—no king indicates lawlessness, absence of justice, absence of mercy. Both culturally and theologically, G-d was melech hamalachim—the king of kings.  When there is no king, there is no justice, no mercy, and evil abounds. 

There are two significant things to note in the text.  The first is that the verb חזק changes in usage from "seizing" (by the girl's father) for positive purposes in the beginning of the text (to feed/shelter/entertain the Levite), to "seizing" for negative purposes at the end of the text  (to throw the girl out among the hooligans.

The second is in the coda:  Those who saw what was done said "nothing [like this] has happened and nothing like this has been seen from the days that the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt until this day.  Consider this, take counsel and speak."  We are not told if "this" refers to the Levite's throwing his concubine out to be abused, to the abuse inflicted on her by the mob or to the butchery of the girl by the Levite.  Or if "this" refers to the story as a whole.  The text does not give us any indication if this coda was intended as an expression of approval or of disapproval of the actions of the Levite and/or the mob.  We are left with a disturbing text and an amibguous  coda.  All we can say for certain is that the tenor of the text changes from kindness at its beginning to intentional brutality at its end.