Shimshon, Halakha, and Morality
TALMUDICA AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
****************************************************************
This shiur is dedicated in
memory of Israel Koschitzky zt"l,
whose yahrzeit falls on the 19th of Kislev.
May the world-wide dissemination of Torah through the VBM
be a fitting tribute to a man whose lifetime achievements
exemplified the love of Eretz Yisrael and Torat Yisrael.
****************************************************************
Shiur #07: Shimshon, Halakha, and Morality
Mishna: Shimshon
went after his eyes. Therefore, the Philistines gouged out his eyes (Sota
1:8).
Gemara: Our Rabbis
taught: Shimshon rebelled through
his eyes, as it says: And Shimson said to his father: Take her for me because
she is pleasing in my eyes (Shoftim 14:3). Therefore, the Philistines
gouged out his eyes, as it says: And the Philistines seized him and they gouged
out his eyes (16:21). Is it so? Is it not written: And his father and mother
did not know that it was from God (14:4)? Yet when he went, he went after his
own inclination. It was taught: The
beginning of his degeneration was in Azza; therefore, he was punished in Azza. The beginning of his degeneration was
in Azza, as it says: And Shimshon went to Azza and he saw a female prostitute
(16:1). Therefore, he was punished
in Azza, as it says: And they brought him down to Azza (16:21). Does it not
say: And Shimshon went to Timna
(14:1) [and became involved with a non-Jewish woman there before the episode in
Azza]? Nonetheless, the beginning of his
degeneration was in Azza (Sota 9b).
Both the mishna and gemara mention Shimshons punishment
for transgressions of the eyes, yet only the gemara questions this idea.
The gemara cites a biblical verse which says Shimshons involvement with
non-Jewish women was part of the Divine plan, implying that Shimshons behavior
may be justified. Why does the
gemara not challenge the mishna, when the mishna also faults
Shimshon? R. Yaakov Reisher explains
that Shimshon was interested in three different non-Jewish women, but Shoftim
only mentions the Divine hand regarding one of the three, the woman
from Timna. Since the gemara
explicitly refers to that woman, it raises the question of Divine sanction
justifying Shimshons behavior. The
mishna, on the other hand, does not say which episode with women brought
about Shimshons punishment. We
cannot challenge the mishna, since the last two episodes are not possibly
justified by Divine sanction.
The gemaras answer clarifies that we fault Shimshon for the woman
from Timna as well, even though their relationship was part of Gods plan for
the punishment of the Philistines.
This conveys a crucial theological point. Our
job is to keep the Halakha and maintain a moral code, while leaving Gods plan
for Him to arrange. Whatever the
Divine strategy was, Shimson was not supposed to seek out non-Jewish women to
consort with.
Our approach above differs from those who try to minimize the
shortcomings of our biblical ancestors.
For example, R. Dessler states that Shimshons involvement with all three
women was part of Gods strategy to extract vengeance on the Philistines. According to R. Dessler, Shimshon
knew that his impulses were pure; therefore; his interest in foreign woman must
have Divine sanction. His only flaw was a touch of arrogance about his own
purity (Mikhtav me-Eliyahu 2:272-273).
It is difficult to accept R. Desslers approach. Not even a great
individual can assume the holiness of all his impulses. Furthermore, as noted,
the Tanakh does not say that the last two foreign women were part of the Divine
plan. Moreover, the gemara
in Sota makes it clear that Divine providence does not justify Shimshons
behavior, even regarding the first woman.
Some peshat oriented rishonim (early medieval commentators
who emphasize the simple, straight-forward reading of the biblical verses)
agree with R. Dessler that Shimshons involvement with all three women was
part of Gods plan. Radak explains
that God wanted someone unassociated with the people of Israel to punish the
Philistines so that they would not act with vengeance towards Israel. Due to his various romances, Shimson
became socially identified with nonJewish society and was the perfect
instrument for this plan (see Radaks commentary on Shoftim 13:4). However, Radak differs from R.
Dessler on one fundamental point.
Radak says that Shimshon was interested in these women for their beauty and lost
his idealistic motivations for the endeavor.
This seems closer to the intent of the Sages than R. Desslers
finding fault only in excessive pride.
In the concluding lines cited above, the
gemara asks, why say that Shimshons moral downfall began in Azza, when it
seemingly started in Timna. The
Talmud does not fully explain the reasoning behind its answer that the true
downfall happened in Azza. Rashi provides an explanation that appears explicitly
in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sota 1:9). Shimshon
married the women in Timna, whereas he had a fling with the woman from Azza. In truth, this distinction emerges
clearly from the biblical account.
Shimshon asks his parents to get him the Philistine woman from Timna as a wife.
And he came up, and told
his father and his mother, and said: 'I have seen a woman in Timna of the
daughters of the Philistines; now therefore get her for me as a wife (Shoftim
14:2). Contrast this with: And Shimshon went to Azza, and saw
there a harlot, and went in unto her (Shoftim16:1). The former scenario involved marriage
and the latter did not.
However, this distinction does not clearly
indicate that Shimshons religious descent began in Azza, since this answer
assumes that a one night stand is worse, an assumption challenged by Maharsha. In strict halakhic terms, marrying a
non-Jew reflects a biblical violation, whereas relations with a non-Jew do not (Avoda
Zara 36b, Rambam Hilkhot Isurei Biah, Chapter 12). Why say that the degeneration is in
Azza, when the Timna episode includes a more serious transgression?
Maharsha answers that the woman in Timna
converted to Judaism, so marrying her involved no halakhic prohibitions.
Though this approach lacks biblical grounding, it has support in Rambams
great code. Rambam writes that both
Shlomo and Shimshon converted the non-Jewish women they married. Since these women converted for the
sake of marriage and not due to religious convictions, Scripture portrays them
as non- Jews (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 13:14-16). When Shimshons parents complain that
he should prefer a Jewish wife (Shoftim 14:3), they complain about her
origin, even though the woman Shimshon selected had converted. R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes presents
Rambams idea as a precedent for Maharsha.
If we follow the simple reading which depicts
the woman in Timna as a non-Jew, why does the gemara not view that first
episode as the beginning of Shimshons degradation? Halakhically, is not the marriage at
Timna worse than the one night stand in Azza? Perhaps Jewish law offers a more
complex assessment. A Jewish man who publically engages in relations with a
non-Jewish woman can be killed on the spot.
Pinchass actions in Bamidbar 25 serve as the model for this
concept known as kanaim pogim bo (zealots hurt him.) Furthermore,
Rambam contends that the punishment of karet (the most severe punishment)
falls upon anyone who engaged in this act and was not killed by a zealot
(Issurei Biah 12:6). Arguably,
this indicates that Halakha evaluates such a sexual relationship in an extremely
negative light, although we must admit that the law enabling a zealot to apply
vigilante justice applies specifically to a public violation.
Rambam adds another point that makes this type
of sexual violation more stringent. The most serious forbidden relations, such
as incest and adultery, produce mamzerim (bastards) who are still Jewish
children; the offspring remain the children of their parents. By contrast, a Jewish man who fathers
a child with a non-Jewish woman produces a nonJewish child. In a profound sense, the child is not
his (Issurei Biah 12:7).
While this factor renders the act of sexual relations with a non-Jew more
severe, it does not explain why the gemara in Sota apparently
considers these sexual relations worse than intermarriage.
A much simpler answer appears in R. Yitzchak
from Karlins Keren Ora. He
writes: Even so, zenut (literally prostitution, here referring to sexual
relations with a non-Jew) is considered a bigger degradation.
In other words, Maharshas question
exhibits an overly technical approach to Halakha.
True, marrying a non-Jew violates a more stringent prohibition, but a
person who desires marriage exhibits a far more refined religious personality
than someone only interested in a quick fling.
In the former case, a man wants to find a life partner in order to build
a family together. In the latter,
the fellow wants to enjoy pleasure while avoiding responsibility. Therefore,
Shimshons fling in Azza is a far more grievous degradation than his marriage in
Timna, irrespective of the halakhic prohibitions involved.
Keren Ora reminds us that a full Jewish evaluation of any act
must certainly build upon the Halakha, but cannot be restricted to explicit
laws. Moral assessment includes a
more comprehensive range of factors.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!