The story (eventually; it starts here but doesn't really happen until the following chapter) of how the pantheistic Phoenician Danaans became the tribe of Dan and, after settling on the Mediterranean coast, were forced to move northwards and reestablish themselves at La'ish (and by inference how they came to be a "son" of Bilhah).
Though of course, if the Danites were the Danaans of Virgil's Aeneid, which is highly probable, then we are talking about an early group of colonists from Ionia, competing with a second group of colonists from Ionia (the Pelishtim who came from Crete when Knossos fell), and who were either pushed out by the new arrivals, or simply took their own colonisation deeper inland.
Check out the connections between this Miychah (Micah) and the Prophet Miychah - there definitely are connections; e.g. the one has a Levite from Beit Lechem stay with him; the other predicts the Messiah will come from Beit Lechem...
But also: look at the closing chapter of "City of Peace", where the tale of the Golden Bough is retold through the hanging of the surviving sons of King Sha'ul, and the the anointing of King Shelomoh (Solomon): is this not the story of Miychah here?
17:1 VA YEHI ISH ME HAR EPHRAYIM U SHEMO MIYCHA-YEHU
וַיְהִי אִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרָיִם וּשְׁמֹו מִיכָיְהוּ
BN (BibleNet translation): Now there was a man of Mount Ephrayim, whose name was Miycha-Yehu.
EPHRAYIM: This is not in Danite territory however; do we have a pre-story?
MIYCHA-YEHU (מיכיהו): Miychah, or Micah in English, is how he has come to be known, as an abbreviation of his full name. Why the abbreviation? Partly because it is easier to say, mostly because the name reveals that he too, yet another of these Judges, never was a Beney Yisra-El. The Yehudit here is MI-CHA-YEHU, which should really be MI-CHA-YAHU, which was originally MI-CHA-YAH, masuclinised by the Redactor to hide the YAH connection; the Tanach is full of examples of masculinising YAH and pretending she was a he. Either way it is not his name, but his priestly title, which is retained in modern Ivrit and English as the name MI-CHA-EL, "who is like El?", or Michael; and in Jewish liturgy in a variant form as "MI CHAMOCHA", from the text in Exodus 15:11 which is curiously unmonotheistic: "Who is like you, Adonai, among other gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness, awesome in praises, performing miracles?" Among other gods? Like the phrase in the Ten Commandments, that you shall have no other gods before me, the early Yisra-Eli god is not the only god, but simply the head of the pantheon, after whom you can worship who you please - though why would you, given his powers? Later, Second Temple period, the other gods were suppressed, and YHVH came to be considered the only, the Omnideity. But not in Mosheh's song, and clearly not in Miychah's name.
EPHRAYIM: This is not in Danite territory however; do we have a pre-story?
MIYCHA-YEHU (מיכיהו): Miychah, or Micah in English, is how he has come to be known, as an abbreviation of his full name. Why the abbreviation? Partly because it is easier to say, mostly because the name reveals that he too, yet another of these Judges, never was a Beney Yisra-El. The Yehudit here is MI-CHA-YEHU, which should really be MI-CHA-YAHU, which was originally MI-CHA-YAH, masuclinised by the Redactor to hide the YAH connection; the Tanach is full of examples of masculinising YAH and pretending she was a he. Either way it is not his name, but his priestly title, which is retained in modern Ivrit and English as the name MI-CHA-EL, "who is like El?", or Michael; and in Jewish liturgy in a variant form as "MI CHAMOCHA", from the text in Exodus 15:11 which is curiously unmonotheistic: "Who is like you, Adonai, among other gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness, awesome in praises, performing miracles?" Among other gods? Like the phrase in the Ten Commandments, that you shall have no other gods before me, the early Yisra-Eli god is not the only god, but simply the head of the pantheon, after whom you can worship who you please - though why would you, given his powers? Later, Second Temple period, the other gods were suppressed, and YHVH came to be considered the only, the Omnideity. But not in Mosheh's song, and clearly not in Miychah's name.
And indeed this playing with the meanings of the name is present in the Book of the Prophet Miychah, at 7:18 to be precise: "מִי אֵ֣ל כָּמ֗וֹךָ - MI EL KAMOCHA", though there it is the EL of Miycha-El, not the Yah of Miycha-Yah.
17:2 VA YOMER LE IMO ELEPH U ME'AH HA KESEPH ASHER LUKACH LACH VE AT ALIYT VE GAM AMARTA BE AZNAY HINEH HA KESEPH ITI ANI LEKACHTIV VA TOMER IMO BARUCH BENI LA YHVH
וַיֹּאמֶר לְאִמֹּו אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח לָךְ [וְאַתִּי כ] (וְאַתְּ ק) אָלִית וְגַם אָמַרְתְּ בְּאָזְנַי הִנֵּה הַכֶּסֶף אִתִּי אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו וַתֹּאמֶר אִמֹּו בָּרוּךְ בְּנִי לַיהוָה
BN: And he said to his mother: "The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from you, the ones you went about cursing, the ones you shouted at me about, here, I have the coins, I took them". And his mother said: "Bless you, my son, in the name of YHVH".
Most mothers would have clouted him about the ears and grounded him for ever; so what is going on here? Is it simply a way of establishing his character for whatever is going to come next?
ELEPH U ME'AH: Eleven hundred? Did we not just wrestle with the number 1100 a chapter or so ago? Go back and look (Judges 16:5 is the verse), and see what if anything connects. It might be worth going to this link, and noting that numbers in Yehudit are written by using numbers, with a Geresh, a form of apostrophe, denoting magnitude in the hundreds and thousands* - so might 1100 be written using only the letter Aleph, repeated, and with a Geresh (א״א)? And if so, would it not have been more powerful for the sum to have been 1101 shekels?
Most mothers would have clouted him about the ears and grounded him for ever; so what is going on here? Is it simply a way of establishing his character for whatever is going to come next?
ELEPH U ME'AH: Eleven hundred? Did we not just wrestle with the number 1100 a chapter or so ago? Go back and look (Judges 16:5 is the verse), and see what if anything connects. It might be worth going to this link, and noting that numbers in Yehudit are written by using numbers, with a Geresh, a form of apostrophe, denoting magnitude in the hundreds and thousands* - so might 1100 be written using only the letter Aleph, repeated, and with a Geresh (א״א)? And if so, would it not have been more powerful for the sum to have been 1101 shekels?
* So, for example, the date Saturday 29th June 2019 , which is the 26th of Sivan 5779 in the Jewish calendar, would be written with two Gerashim, the first (read from the right please!) for 29 (Kaph = 20, Vav = 6), the second for 5779:
כ״ו בְּסִיוָן תשע״ט
No explanation is given of why he has the money: did he steal it (and if so, for what purpose); was he perhaps protecting it (from her planned use, to which he maybe objected)?
17:3 VA YASHEV ET ELEPH U ME'AH HA KESEPH LE IMO VA TOMER IMO HAKDESH HIKDASHTI ET HA KESEPH LA YHVH MI YADI LIVNI LA'ASOT PESEL U MASECHAH VE ATAH ASHIVENU LACH
וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמֹּו וַתֹּאמֶר אִמֹּו הַקְדֵּשׁ הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לַיהוָה מִיָּדִי לִבְנִי לַעֲשֹׂות פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ
BN: So he gave the eleven hundred shekels of silver back to his mother, and his mother said, "I had dedicated all of these coins to YHVH, from my hand, for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image; so, now, here, you can take it back again".
To have 1100 shekels available for your son to make a molten image means you must be very rich. Or "mother" is the traditional "fairy-tale" mode for conveying the priestess or the goddess.
Is she saying that she had given him the money to make the idols, and he didn't, but now he must? That is how the KJ translation comes across. But not the Yehudit, or not by its grammar or its tone. In thanks for the return of her money, she dedicates it to the god by having her son use it to make the idols which will themselves provide his career; which is somewhat odd in itself, because - if this were a Beney Yisra-Eli story - a) idols are prohibited, and b) YHVH would not accept them; indeed, he would probably use it as an excuse to deliver the entire people into the hands of some anti-Yisra-Elite tribe as a punishment for this terrible sin. The implausibility itself therefore confirms the pagan source of this tale.
MASECHAH: See my notes at Judges 16:13.
KJ: Yet he restored the money unto his mother; and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made thereof a graven image and a molten image: and they were in the house of Micah.
To have 1100 shekels available for your son to make a molten image means you must be very rich. Or "mother" is the traditional "fairy-tale" mode for conveying the priestess or the goddess.
Is she saying that she had given him the money to make the idols, and he didn't, but now he must? That is how the KJ translation comes across. But not the Yehudit, or not by its grammar or its tone. In thanks for the return of her money, she dedicates it to the god by having her son use it to make the idols which will themselves provide his career; which is somewhat odd in itself, because - if this were a Beney Yisra-Eli story - a) idols are prohibited, and b) YHVH would not accept them; indeed, he would probably use it as an excuse to deliver the entire people into the hands of some anti-Yisra-Elite tribe as a punishment for this terrible sin. The implausibility itself therefore confirms the pagan source of this tale.
MASECHAH: See my notes at Judges 16:13.
17:4 VA YASHEV ET HA KESEPH LE IMO VA TIKACH IMO MATAYIM KESEPH VA TITNEYHU LA TSOREPH VA YA'ASEYHU PESEL U MASEYCHA VA YEHI BE VEIT MICHA-YEHU
וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמֹּו וַתִּקַּח אִמֹּו מָאתַיִם כֶּסֶף וַתִּתְּנֵהוּ לַצֹּורֵף וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָיְהוּ
BN: Nonetheless he gave the money back to his mother, and his mother took two hundred shekels of silver, and gave them to the founder, who made of them a graven image and a molten image: and they were put in the shrine of Micha-Yehu.
BEIT: In all these tales, the BEIT is the deity's house, not the Judge or priest or Prophet's domicile.
TSOREPH: Most translations say "founder". Do they mean that in the sense of a foundry, where bronze and brass, and (later than Miychah though) iron too were smelted (Fundere in the Latin = "to cast, melt, pour out")? Or do they mean it as the originator of something - the principal donor at the top of the honours board - in this case the about-to-be-mentioned "House of Miychah", which would not have been called the "House of Miychah" if he was just some guy with a mum; it would have been called after his father or an ancestor, because he isn't yet the big chief of the family. So it must be a shrine, and she the goddess, YAH obviously from his name, and he the priest, or possibly the sacred-king, or both, and these are new adornments for her temple, and quite possibly the eleven hundred shekels were his Guild, his initiation fee, and even more likely their explanation is the same as the Shimshon explanation, back in Judges 16:5. The next verse will confirm this.
KJ: And the man Micah had an house of gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.
BEIT: In all these tales, the BEIT is the deity's house, not the Judge or priest or Prophet's domicile.
TSOREPH: Most translations say "founder". Do they mean that in the sense of a foundry, where bronze and brass, and (later than Miychah though) iron too were smelted (Fundere in the Latin = "to cast, melt, pour out")? Or do they mean it as the originator of something - the principal donor at the top of the honours board - in this case the about-to-be-mentioned "House of Miychah", which would not have been called the "House of Miychah" if he was just some guy with a mum; it would have been called after his father or an ancestor, because he isn't yet the big chief of the family. So it must be a shrine, and she the goddess, YAH obviously from his name, and he the priest, or possibly the sacred-king, or both, and these are new adornments for her temple, and quite possibly the eleven hundred shekels were his Guild, his initiation fee, and even more likely their explanation is the same as the Shimshon explanation, back in Judges 16:5. The next verse will confirm this.
17:5 VE HA ISH MIYCHAH LO BEIT ELOHIM VA YA'AS EPHOD U TERAPHIM VA YEMAL'E ET YAD ACHAD MI BANAV VA YEHI LO LE KOHEN
וְהָאִישׁ מִיכָה לֹו בֵּית אֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשׂ אֵפֹוד וּתְרָפִים וַיְמַלֵּא אֶת יַד אַחַד מִבָּנָיו וַיְהִי לֹו לְכֹהֵן
BN: And the man Miychah set up a shrine for his gods, and made an ephod, and teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.
MIYCHAH: The abbreviation of his name in the Yehudit text starts here. Is calling him "the man Miychah" a way of distinguishing our hero from the "founder"? And he therefore takes the name Miychah because he is now the Abbot, so to speak, of that monastery, the Chancellor of that University - or Rosh Yeshivah might be a more apt determiner. In the same way, I have long suspected that Jesus acquired his name when he was selected to be the latest in a seven-hundred-year long line of heads of the School of Yesha-Yah (Isaiah).
MIYCHAH: The abbreviation of his name in the Yehudit text starts here. Is calling him "the man Miychah" a way of distinguishing our hero from the "founder"? And he therefore takes the name Miychah because he is now the Abbot, so to speak, of that monastery, the Chancellor of that University - or Rosh Yeshivah might be a more apt determiner. In the same way, I have long suspected that Jesus acquired his name when he was selected to be the latest in a seven-hundred-year long line of heads of the School of Yesha-Yah (Isaiah).
BEIT ELOHIM: A house of gods is of course a polytheistic shrine.
TERAPHIM: Beney Yisra-Eli temples do not have teraphim - see for example Rachel stealing her father's and hiding them, in Genesis 31:19 ff - because teraphim are idols.
KOHEN: The word means priest and is not an exclusively Yehudit term. The original was Khan, and those two demi-gods Genghis and Imran are examples of its use elsewhere. The root is known in both Turkish (Khagan there means "ruler") and Sanskrit (who presumably acquired it from the Tatars and Mongols), so probably it was much earlier, from that "common source" the Hittite.
17:6 BE YAMIM HA HEM EYN MELECH BE YISRA-EL ISH HA YASHAR BE EYNAV YA'ASEH
בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה
BN: In those days there was no king in Yisra-El, but every man did what was right in his own eyes.
So a "laissez faire" society, or a "liberal democracy", just like ours in the west today! Not that this changed very much once they did acquire a king; and certainly the kings always did only what seemed right in their own eyes. This is simply another way of setting up the YHVH-complaint and re-attributing the story to Yisra-El.
ISH HA YASHAR BE EYNAV YA'ASEH: The first time we have encountered this phrase; but see how often it will recur, until the form, varied from this version, becomes fixed as an idiom.
pey break
KJ: And there was a young man out of Bethlehemjudah of the family of Judah, who was a Levite, and he sojourned there.
So a "laissez faire" society, or a "liberal democracy", just like ours in the west today! Not that this changed very much once they did acquire a king; and certainly the kings always did only what seemed right in their own eyes. This is simply another way of setting up the YHVH-complaint and re-attributing the story to Yisra-El.
ISH HA YASHAR BE EYNAV YA'ASEH: The first time we have encountered this phrase; but see how often it will recur, until the form, varied from this version, becomes fixed as an idiom.
pey break
17:7 VA YEHI NA'AR MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH MI MISHPACHAT YEHUDAH VE HU LEVI VE HU GAR SHAM
וַיְהִי נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר שָׁם
BN: Now there was a young man from Beit-Lechem Yehudah, of the tribe of Yehudah, who was a Levite, and he came to stay there.
BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH: Is this the same as Beit Lechem Ehpratah, or an attempt to distinguish two towns that had the same name? "The house of the corn-god of Yehudah" is how this translates literally, and like the teraphim and the graven images, would have been anathema to YHVH. Beit Lechem Ephratah, the town where both David and Jesus will later be born, the one we know today as Bethlehem, was in the tribal territory of Yehudah, so if a distinction was being made, it might have been with a different Beit Lechem Ephratah in another part of the same tribal territory.
And note that Beit Lechem Ephratah is the predominant shrine referred to in the Book of Miychah (5:1-3), denoted there as
"And you, Beit Lechem Ephratah, least among the clans of Yehudah, from you one shall come forth to rule Yisra-El for me, one whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. Truly, He [YHVH] will abandon them until she who is to bear him has borne him; then the rest of his countrymen shall return to the children of Yisra-El. He shall stand and shepherd by the might of YHVH. By the might of the name of YHVH his god, And they shall dwell secure. For lo, he shall wax great to the ends of the earth."
YEHUDAH VE HU LEVI: Quiz time. I am not explaining this. You explain this. A member of the tribe of Yehudah who is a Levite? Come on, it's easy... but does it mean that the writer was ignorant of Mosaic law and history, or does it mean that the word Levi is being used in its later sense, not of tribal belonging, but the administrative duties at the Temple which went with the tribal belonging? In other words, this was a young man who had Mishmarot duties at the shrine but was not necessarily a priest, and the Yehudit had no other word to describe this but Levi? Or does it mean that the law was not being enforced, or even in place, at this early stage of Yisra-Eli history (please do not suggest that latter to orthodox Jews; though the website I have used for Mishmarot most definitely does)? This latter is in fact entirely probable. In the Books of Samuel and Chronicles, King David's sons serve as Kohanim, and they were definitely of the tribe of Yehudah (click here).
Or one other possibility: that he was one of the Levites from the refuge cities, and therefore he states Yehudah as his place of work-and-residence, and expects it to be understood that Yehudah is not actually his tribe. This sounds entirely logical and plausible too - until we reach verse 12.
17:8 VA YELECH HA ISH ME HA IR MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH LAGUR BA ASHER YIMTS'A VA YAV'O HAR EPHRAYIM AD BEIT MIYCHAH LA'ASOT DARKO
וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ מֵהָעִיר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא וַיָּבֹא הַר אֶפְרַיִם עַד בֵּית מִיכָה לַעֲשֹׂות דַּרְכֹּו
BN: And the man left the city of Beit-Lechem Yehudah to sojourn wherever he could find a place. And as he journeyed he came to Mount Ephrayim, to Miychah's shrine.
17:9 VA YOMER LO MIYCHAH ME AYIN TAV'O VA YOMER ELAV LEVI ANOCHI MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH VE ANOCHI HOLECH LAGUR BA ASHER EMTS'A
KJ: And Micah said unto him, Whence comest thou? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehemjudah, and I go to sojourn where I may find a place.
17:9 VA YOMER LO MIYCHAH ME AYIN TAV'O VA YOMER ELAV LEVI ANOCHI MI BEIT LECHEM YEHUDAH VE ANOCHI HOLECH LAGUR BA ASHER EMTS'A
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו מִיכָה מֵאַיִן תָּבֹוא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֵוִי אָנֹכִי מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאָנֹכִי הֹלֵךְ לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא
BN: And Miychah asked him: "Where do you come from?" And he told him: "I am a Levite from Beit Lechem Yehudah, and I am travelling to anywhere that will offer me a home."
Homeless man seeks work. Skilled Levite. Please assist. References may or may not be available!
KJ: And Micah said unto him, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest, and I will give thee ten shekels of silver by the year, and a suit of apparel, and thy victuals. So the Levite went in.
Homeless man seeks work. Skilled Levite. Please assist. References may or may not be available!
17:10 VA YOMER LO MIYCHAH SHEVAH IMADI VE HEYEH LI LE AV U LE KOHEN VE ANOCHI ETEN LECHA ASERET KESEPH LA YAMIM VE ERECH BEGADIM U MICHYATECHA VA YELECH HA LEVI
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹו מִיכָה שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי וֶהְיֵה לִי לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן וְאָנֹכִי אֶתֶּן לְךָ עֲשֶׂרֶת כֶּסֶף לַיָּמִים וְעֵרֶךְ בְּגָדִים וּמִחְיָתֶךָ וַיֵּלֶךְ הַלֵּוִי
BN: And Miychah said to him: "Dwell with me, and serve me as a father and as a priest, and I will give you ten shekels of silver as your annual stipend, and the appropriate clothing, and your board". So the Levite went in.
AV: "father" in the sense that a Christian priest or a Franciscan monk would be addressed as such. We have had no mention of a biological father, but that is not the point here.
YAMIM: "annual salary" if you prefer, but generally in the clergy they are called stipends.
ANOCHI: Both have used "anochi" rather than "ani"; it is very formal and poetical, where "ani" is colloquial. I guess, in a job interview, that is what you do.
The story becomes complicated now, theologically, by the fact that a Levite agrees to become a Kohen - for which he has no training if, as he says, he was trained as a Levite - and davka a Kohen to an idol-worshipper in a pagan shrine. But TheBibleNet is a secular commentary, so I shall leave that double-problem to the folks of faith (triple-problem, if you include his being a Levite from the tribe of Yehudah).
KJ: And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man was unto him as one of his sons.
AV: "father" in the sense that a Christian priest or a Franciscan monk would be addressed as such. We have had no mention of a biological father, but that is not the point here.
YAMIM: "annual salary" if you prefer, but generally in the clergy they are called stipends.
ANOCHI: Both have used "anochi" rather than "ani"; it is very formal and poetical, where "ani" is colloquial. I guess, in a job interview, that is what you do.
The story becomes complicated now, theologically, by the fact that a Levite agrees to become a Kohen - for which he has no training if, as he says, he was trained as a Levite - and davka a Kohen to an idol-worshipper in a pagan shrine. But TheBibleNet is a secular commentary, so I shall leave that double-problem to the folks of faith (triple-problem, if you include his being a Levite from the tribe of Yehudah).
17:11 VA YO'EL HA LEVI LASHEVET ET HA ISH VA YEHI HA NA'AR LO KA ECHAD MI BANAV
וַיֹּואֶל הַלֵּוִי לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ וַיְהִי הַנַּעַר לֹו כְּאַחַד מִבָּנָיו
BN: And the Levite was content to dwell with the man; and the young man became to him like one of his sons.
KA ECHAD MI BANAV: Despite the invitation to "be like a father" in the previous verse. Is the writer consciously playing word-games?
And is this entire chapter simply a fable to explain how the schools of Prophets were established: a founder, a Rosh Yeshivah, a Levite, a Kohen, and soon to follow a number (probably twelve) of disciples? In which case we can definitely read this in partnership with the Book of Miychah - for which click here.
KJ: And Micah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his priest, and was in the house of Micah.
17:13 VA YOMER MIYCHAH ATAH YADA'TI KI YEYTIV YHVH LI KI HAYAH LI HA LEVI LE KOHEN
KJ: Then said Micah, Now know I that the LORD will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest.
17:12 VA YIMAL'E MIYCHAH ET YAD HA LEVI VA YEHI LO HA NA'AR LA KOHEN VA YEHI BE VEIT MIYCHAH
וַיְמַלֵּא מִיכָה אֶת יַד הַלֵּוִי וַיְהִי לֹו הַנַּעַר לְכֹהֵן וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָה
BN: And Miychah consecrated the Levite; and the young man became his Kohen, and served in the house of Miychah.
YIMAL'E ET YAD: Literally "he filled his hand"; it is not obvious how it came to mean "consecrated", nor how it came to be used for entry into the military - Milu'im, to this day in Israel, is the term for military veterans who return for short periods of resumed service: presumably it has to do with "fulfilling" your obligations. Biblically we can find the term Milu'im at Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 8:33 et al, always with the sense of something "dedicated" (alas, usually for sacrifice).
Yimal'e has nothing to do with circumcision, though the two words are very similar, and these homophones are rarely accidental. LIMOL (למול) for "to circumcise" has no final Aleph, where YIMAL'E does. Though it is entirely possible that the young man's hand was also engaged in carrying out the duties of the MOHEL, and performing the Berit Miylah (בְּרִית מִילָה) - though normally that is the grand-father's role, not the father's, or the son's.
And either way, if he was a Levite, regardless of whether from the tribe and living in Yehudah, or otherwise, if he was a Levite, then he must already have been both circumcised and consecrated, so Miychah, if he was Yisra-Eli, might be "ordaining" him as a priest at his shrine, but that would not use YIMAL'E. However, if Miychah is not Yisra-Eli, then a trained priest from another cult would have to be consecrated (as a Jew wanting to serve as a pastor, or a pastor as a rabbi, or an imam as a yogi...), and might well require circumcision first...
YIMAL'E ET YAD: Literally "he filled his hand"; it is not obvious how it came to mean "consecrated", nor how it came to be used for entry into the military - Milu'im, to this day in Israel, is the term for military veterans who return for short periods of resumed service: presumably it has to do with "fulfilling" your obligations. Biblically we can find the term Milu'im at Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 8:33 et al, always with the sense of something "dedicated" (alas, usually for sacrifice).
Yimal'e has nothing to do with circumcision, though the two words are very similar, and these homophones are rarely accidental. LIMOL (למול) for "to circumcise" has no final Aleph, where YIMAL'E does. Though it is entirely possible that the young man's hand was also engaged in carrying out the duties of the MOHEL, and performing the Berit Miylah (בְּרִית מִילָה) - though normally that is the grand-father's role, not the father's, or the son's.
And either way, if he was a Levite, regardless of whether from the tribe and living in Yehudah, or otherwise, if he was a Levite, then he must already have been both circumcised and consecrated, so Miychah, if he was Yisra-Eli, might be "ordaining" him as a priest at his shrine, but that would not use YIMAL'E. However, if Miychah is not Yisra-Eli, then a trained priest from another cult would have to be consecrated (as a Jew wanting to serve as a pastor, or a pastor as a rabbi, or an imam as a yogi...), and might well require circumcision first...
17:13 VA YOMER MIYCHAH ATAH YADA'TI KI YEYTIV YHVH LI KI HAYAH LI HA LEVI LE KOHEN
וַיֹּאמֶר מִיכָה עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יֵיטִיב יְהוָה לִי כִּי הָיָה לִי הַלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן
BN: Then said Miychah: Now know I that YHVH will do me good, seeing as I have a Levite for my priest.
Which sounds even more like a man from a non-Yisra-Eli cult taking on a Yisra-Eli; or simply the Redactor needing to Yehudaise the tale by adding this.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to the images he was supposed to be making with the money he stole from the temple - with the money his mother returned to him after he so nobly admitted that he had taken it? Has he already made them? Are we to forget about them, or are they cliff-hangered for later in the tale?
Which sounds even more like a man from a non-Yisra-Eli cult taking on a Yisra-Eli; or simply the Redactor needing to Yehudaise the tale by adding this.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to the images he was supposed to be making with the money he stole from the temple - with the money his mother returned to him after he so nobly admitted that he had taken it? Has he already made them? Are we to forget about them, or are they cliff-hangered for later in the tale?
Copyright © 2021 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment