Midrasch zu Schoftim 17:7

(Fol. 109 b) But is not the name of the mother's side also mentioned [in the record]? Behold! it is written (Jud. 17, 7) And there was a young man out of Bethlehem-Judah of the family of Judah, but he was a Levite, and sojourned there. Now, does not this passage contradict itself? It says of the family of Judah, from which it is to be inferred that they came from the tribe of Juda; and then it says he is a Levite, which means that he was of the tribe of Levi. We must conclude that his father was from Levi and his mother from Juda, and nevertheless it is said of the family of Juda, Raba b. Chanan said: "The passage reads, and he is Levi, which does not mean that he was a Levite, but that his name was Levi." If so, how is the following to be understood (Ib. 17) I have obtained a Levite for a priest. There it is understood that he happened to get a man by the name of Levi? Was not his name Jonathan, as it is written (Ib. 18, 30) And Jonathan the son of Gershom… . were priests, etc. And according to your theory, was he then the son of Menashe? Behold, he was the son of Moses, as it is written (I Chron. 23, 15) The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliczer. But you will have to explain this that it is written Menashe, because he acted (idolatrous) like Menashe, therefore he is called Menashe. In this instance you could explain likewise that the phrase of Juda is employed because Menashe came from Juda. R. Jochanan, in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai, said: "From this it is to be inferred that every corruption is fastened to the corrupt (who originally started it)." You may infer the same from the following (I Kings 1, 6) And his mother had borne him after Abshalom the son of Maacha? We must say that because he acted like Abshalom, who also rebelled against the kingdom, the verse conjoined him with Abshalom.