The title characters of the biblical book of Judges are not so much jurists but chieftains and military leaders, who serially unite some or all of the Israelite tribes to fight against various foreign oppressors. Between judges, there are often interregna during which Israel’s fortunes deteriorate. Some, like Gideon and Deborah, are the subjects of long narratives; others, like Tola ben Puah, merit only two verses. What is unique about Tola, Ami Hordes observes, is that these verses state that he “saved Israel” but do not say from whom.

Hordes makes the case, based on an ambiguous word, that Tola was a cousin of his predecessor as judge, Abimelech—who in turn was the son and successor of Gideon. With this in mind, Hordes employs a careful reading of the text of Judges to present a novel understanding of this obscure character:

Lack of leadership continuity plagued the nation for hundreds of years following Joshua’s death [at the beginning of Judges]. Judges came and went, but the people never knew when or whether another would follow. Gideon’s formidable, if not perfect, leadership qualities, coupled with Divinely-inspired military success, produced 40 years of quiet—and led the populace to offer him a dynasty, perhaps in part in hopes of ending the cycle of uncertainty. After initially dismissing the idea, Gideon gave more than mixed messages about endorsing it. . . .

“After Abimelech [son of Gideon], Tola . . . arose to deliver Israel.” Again, no subjugator appears here; Tola apparently stepped up to save the people before another foe emerged. From what did he save them then? Perhaps from their anxiety regarding leadership. This may be implied by the only meaningful actions he takes in the story: by simply (1) standing up (vayakom) and (2) leading [literally, “judging”]—thereby filling the governance vacuum—he rescued them.

Information about a supposedly near-finalized hostage deal continued to trickle out yesterday. While it’s entirely possible that by the time you read this a deal will be much more certain, it is every bit as likely that it will have fallen through by then. More likely still, we will learn that there are indefinite and unspecified delays. Then there are the details: even in the best of scenarios, not all the hostages will be returned at once, and Israel will have to make painful concessions in exchange, including the release of hundreds of hardened terrorists and the withdrawal from key parts of the Gaza Strip.

Unusually—if entirely appropriately—the president-elect’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has participated in the talks alongside members of President Biden’s team. Philip Klein examines the incoming Trump administration’s role in the process:

President-elect Trump has repeatedly warned that there would be “all hell to pay” if hostages were not returned from Gaza by the time he takes office. While he has never laid out exactly what the specific consequences for Hamas would be, there are some ominous signs that Israel is being pressured into paying a tremendous price.

There is obviously more here than we know. It’s possible that with the pressure from the Trump team came reassurances that Israel would have more latitude to reenter Gaza as necessary to go after Hamas than it would have enjoyed under Biden. . . . That said, all appearances are that Israel has been forced into making more concessions because Trump was concerned that he’d be embarrassed if January 20 came around with no hostages released.

While Donald Trump’s threats are a welcome rhetorical shift, part of the problem may be their vagueness. After all, it’s unlikely the U.S. would use military force to unleash hell in Gaza, or could accomplish much in doing so that the IDF can’t. More useful would be direct threats against countries like Qatar and Turkey that host Hamas, and threats to the persons and bank accounts of the Hamas officials living in those counties. Witkoff instead praised the Qatari prime minister for “doing God’s work” in the negotiations.”