The Book of Judges contains a collection of narratives set between the time when the Israelites settled the land of Israel and the establishment of the monarchy. This period is characterized by a descent into anarchy. As Judges 17:6 puts it: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as they pleased.” This line is repeated as the closing statement of the whole book, which is replete with questionable behaviors and shockingly violent episodes.
In Judges 17 we meet Micah, a man in the hill country of the tribe of Ephraim who builds a (non-authorized) temple and appoints his son to serve as its priest before tapping an itinerant to take on that role. The hiree is first identified in the biblical text as a member of the family of Judah and a Levite (17:7). This is problematic as the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Levi are distinct and, since tribal affiliation passes only through the father, one cannot belong to multiple tribes — unless, perhaps, a person is also part of their mother’s tribe.
This is what brings the Levite into the talmudic conversation today. In a continuing discussion on family ties and inheritance, the Gemara explores whether a person is a member of their mother’s extended family. While the precedent that a woman, upon marriage, moves from her father’s household to her husband’s household suggests not, the Levite who is also a Judaite in Judges 17 suggests it is possible.
The Levite/Judaite is later identified (18:30) as Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh. But this is confusing because Gershom is the son of Moses (a Levite), not Manasseh. Indeed, the Talmud explains:
Although he (Gershom) was the son of Moses, because he acted as Manasseh the king of Judah, who was notorious for idol worship, the verse linked him to Manasseh by calling him “the son of Manasseh.”
Although Gershom’s biological lineage was prestigious, his character was notorious. He shared a taste for idol worship with the (much later) Israelite king Manasseh (not to be confused with the tribal head). Consequently, Gershom was called “son of Manasseh.” Jonathan, his descendant, followed suit.
The Book of Judges reports that Jonathan is ultimately enticed away from Micah’s shrine by spies from the tribe of Dan who convince him that it is better to serve an entire tribe than a single household. As part of the job interview they ask him about his origins and presence in Micah’s household (18:3–4): “Who brought you to these parts? What are you doing in this place? What is your business here? He replied, ‘Thus and thus Micah did for me — he hired me and I became his priest.’” The Gemara brings a midrash that reframes their questions and his answer:
Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?
Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people.
While Jonathan, like his father, veered off God’s ordained path, he explains this was not by choice, but by necessity. Better to be paid to work as a priest in an unauthorized shrine than to become dependent on the charity of others for sustenance.
While the Gemara does not comment on Jonathan’s justification for his unfortunate career, it does have a hard time believing that Moses could have charged his descendants to act in this way. Rather, the rabbis assert, Jonathan misunderstood:
Jonathan thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, the term idol worship should be understood literally: Strange labor — meaning labor that is unsuitable for him.
The rabbis can’t fathom that Moses would condone idol worship. Instead, the literal translation of that term, “strange labor,” should be understood only in its literal sense. In other words, instead of suggesting that one should be willing to perform idol worship to avoid becoming dependent upon others, Moses implored them to take on work that is difficult and humiliating rather than become a recipient of charity. They give Jonathan a redemption arc as well:
Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: “And Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries” (I Chronicles 26:24). And was his name really Shebuel? Wasn’t his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yohanan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God (shav la’el) with all his heart.
Jonathan’s appointment to work in the Temple is made possible by his paternal lineage – he is eligible for the job because he is a Levite. One has to wonder if his maternal connection to the tribe of Judah, also the tribe of King David, had something to do with it as well. Jonathan’s dual affiliation is unique and does not emerge as the organizing principle for how the Talmud thinks about family. Our current chapter makes that clear, as paternal connections, for the most part, are the basis of rabbinic inheritance laws.
Read all of Bava Batra 110 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 13, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
