AFTER THE TIME of Abimelech a man of Issachar, Tola son of Puah, the son of Dodo, rose to save Israel. He lived in Shamir, in the hill country of Ephraim. 2He led Israel twenty-three years; then he died, and was buried in Shamir.
3He was followed by Jair of Gilead, who led Israel twenty-two years. 4He had thirty sons, who rode thirty donkeys. They controlled thirty towns in Gilead, which to this day are called Havvoth Jair. 5When Jair died, he was buried in Kamon.
Original Meaning
WITH THE COMPLETION of the Gideon/Abimelech cycle the narrative now introduces two non-cyclical/minor judges: Tola son of Puah and Jair of Gilead.
Tola (10:1–2)
THE NOTICE ABOUT Tola immediately raises a question: From whom did Tola save (yšʿ ) Israel? Some scholars argue that Tola saved Israel from Abimelech’s rule. Thus Webb states:
Such details as are given of Tola’s activity, together with the explicit reference to Abimelech’s career which had immediately preceded strongly suggest that it was the disastrous effects of Abimelech’s rule that Israel needed saving from, and that Tola did this by providing a period of stable administration. Tola saved Israel from disintegration.1
However, in my opinion, there is nothing in the text that indicates that Tola provided “good administration.” This is not stated, nor can it be inferred from the statement that Tola “led [špṭ] Israel twenty-three years,” since this is used for all the judges from Tola on, including Jephthah and Samson—hardly “good administrators!”2 Underlying this interpretation is the presupposition that there are “saving/delivering” judges and “administrative” judges, and Tola is forced into the latter even though the text describes him as “saving” (yšʿ ) Israel. The verb yšʿ is used specifically with Othniel, Shamgar, Deborah, and Tola. Nothing in the text indicates that the other three are “good administrators.” If, as we have discussed previously (see comments in the introduction), the judges (šōpeṭîm) were to be both “deliverers” or “saviors” of their people from their enemies and “instigators,” “catalysts,” or “stimuli” for godly living (2:16–17), then these criteria should be applied to Tola (and the rest of the noncyclical/minor judges).
While it is true that the phrase “after . . . Abimelech”3 is special in that it provides a proper name in the slot after the preposition, the syntax is actually similar to that of Jair (10:3). The syntax argues for a one-two-three sequence in the minor judge presentations as described in the introduction (see p. 43).
While Tola and Puah are clearly clan names in the genealogy of the “sons of Issachar” in 1 Chronicles 7:1 (cf. also Num. 26:23), the fact that Tola is specified in Judges 10:1 as “a man of Issachar” seems to reflect an awareness of the possible confusion of the personal and clan names and that this is a personal name.4 Also listed in 1 Chronicles 7:1 is a brother of Tola named Shimron (MT) or Shomron (LXXL). The place name Shamir of Judges 10:2 is thought by some scholars to be identical with the site of Samaria (Shamir = Shemer = Shomron), since the clan may have bequeathed its name to the hill.5
However, there are difficulties with this view. (1) According to 1 Kings 16:24, Omri paid a considerable amount for the estate of Shemer—two silver talents (= 6,000 silver shekels) and then named the site Samaria after Shemer.6 (2) The site in Judges 10:2 is identified as being in Mount Ephraim, whereas Samaria was located in Manasseh.7
Whatever the case, what is “a man of Issachar” doing living (yšb) outside of his tribal allotment (whether in Ephraim or Manasseh)?8 According to 10:1–2, Shamir was the ancestral estate of Tola. He lived, died, and was buried there. Obviously, some of the clans of Issachar had given up on occupying their own allotment (cf. Josh. 19:17–23) and had moved to another site, one they could easily occupy (cf. the Danite movement in Judg. 18).
In any case, Tola’s socioeconomic status may be reflected in the fact that he is the only judge (cyclical or noncyclical) for which a genealogical connection is given back to a third generation: Tola, the son of Puah, the son of Dodo. Often in the Old Testament such a genealogical statement is an evidence of high social standing.
Yet the verb “to live” (yšb) is also reminiscent of the early career of Deborah, who sat/presided (yšb) under her palm tree in Mount Ephraim and judged Israel (4:4–5). She, too, is said to have “arisen” when Israel was in disarray (5:7). Hence, Tola’s career has positive links.
But from whom did Tola save Israel? As we have already pointed out, the text is deliberately ambiguous. Surely the narrator could have been more direct. But if the noncyclical/minor judges evince the same moral decline that the major judges do, then Tola’s activity is likened to that of Ehud or Deborah/Barak. He is not of the same quality as a Shamgar, who “saved” Israel from a specific enemy. One can wish that the narrator supplied more information or was less ambiguous, but then such might have obscured his one-two-three pattern of minor judges and/or distracted from the cycles message of moral degeneration.
Jair (10:3–5)
THE SECOND OF the two noncyclical/minor judges mentioned in this section is Jair. The information about him is initially straightforward. Jair is Transjordanian (Gilead is located on the east side of the Jordan), and he “led [lit., judged] Israel twenty-two years.” But then somewhat puzzling statements follow (lit. trans.): “He had thirty sons, who rode on thirty donkeys; thirty towns belonged to them. Their towns are called Havvoth Jair, which are in the land of Gilead to this day.”9 One thing is certain: Jair is a powerful man. In order to have thirty sons,10 one has to have a harem. Following as it does so soon after the Gideon/Abimelech cycle, the issue of kingship seems to be clearly in view.
Thus the same problems with this that were encountered in the Gideon narrative seem to apply. (1) The accumulation of wives was the custom of ancient Near Eastern monarchs, and (2) the support of such a harem and its sons required monarchic-type resources. The statement that they “rode on thirty donkeys” seems humorous to modern, Western readers, but in its ancient Near Eastern context, monarchs in the Levant often rode on donkeys.11 Appropriately, the sons of Jair ride on donkeys as evidence of their royal-type power. They have (i.e., possess and control) thirty cities, and this area has attained a regional name from Jair himself: Havvoth (“settlements of”) Jair.
The obvious alliterative play on words between Jair (yāʾîr), donkey (ʿayir), and city/town (ʿîr) creates a humorous irony in the passage. Jair’s concerns are not with “saving” Israel from anyone; instead, they are in building a power base for himself and his sons. This self-interest motif will recur throughout the remaining judges (both cyclical and noncyclical).
Ironically, Jair’s power base quickly succumbs to the Ammonite oppression described in 10:6. As Webb puts it: “Small use Jair’s pampered sons will be when the Ammonites invade! Then the Gileadites will search desperately for a fighter (10:17–18).” The description of Jair in 10:3–5 illuminates the offer made by the elders of Gilead to Jephthah (“you will be our head over all who live in Gilead” [11:8]) and explains why Jephthah finds it so attractive. The reality, however, is different for Jephthah from what it has been for Jair. Jephthah has to maintain his position by force (12:1–6) and has no family to parade his greatness; he is rendered childless by his own rash, manipulative vow (see next section).
While Jair is an anticipatory foil of Jephthah, Ibzan is a resumptive foil (12:8–10). Thus with only one child, a daughter at that, Jephthah is sandwiched between Jair with his thirty sons and Ibzan with his thirty sons and thirty daughters.
Bridging Contexts
SEE THE COMMENTS at the end of the last three minor judges (12:8–15, pp. 278–79 below).
Contemporary Significance
SEE THE COMMENTS at the end of the last three minor judges (12:8–15, p. 280 below).