Midrash sur Les Juges 1:16

(Ex. 1, 8) Now there rose up a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph. Rab and Samuel differ in the explanation of the meaning of this passage. One contends that it means a real new king, while the other says "his decrees were new." According to the one who says that it means a real new king, he infers it because it is written a new. The other one who contends that his decrees were new infers because it is not mentioned that the previous king had died and a new one had become king. But how will the latter explain who knew not Joseph? This means that he pretended not to know Joseph. (Ib., ib. 9) And he said unto his people, behold the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and mightier than we. We are taught that the king himself started to find ways of destroying Israel as it is said and he said unto his people; therefore was he also smitten first, as it is said (Ib. 7, 29) And upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon all thy servants shall all the frogs come up. (Ib. 1, 10) Come on, let us deal wisely with him. It should have been with them, [plural]. Said Chama b. R. Chanina: "This means that he said to them: 'Come on, let us deal wisely with the Redeemer of Israel. With what shall we punish them [so that He shall not be able to take retaliation]? Shall we punish them by fire. He will retaliate upon as it is said (Is. 66, 16) For by fire will the Lord judge. Shall we judge them with a sword? Upon this He will also retaliate as it is written (Ib.) And by His sword against all flesh. Let us therefore come and execute judgment through water; for long since He had already sworn not to bring a flood upon the world, as it is said (Ib. 54, 9) For as the waters of Noah is this unto He; as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more pass over the earth [hence there is no retaliation]. They [Pharaoh and his advisors] did not know, however, that this means only that He will not bring a flood upon the entire world but upon one Nation He may bring a flood, or He will not bring a flood upon the people, but that the people might go into the flood and thus be drowned. He could indeed act, and so also does the passage say (Gen. 14, 27) While the Egyptians were fleeing against it [the sea]: And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea." This is also meant by R. Elazar, who said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Ib. 18, 11) For by the very thing wherein they sinned presumptuously was punishment brought upon them. This means that with the very pot which they prepared to cook others therein, they themselves were cooked." Whence do we know that the word Zadu [used in the above text] refers to a pot? It is written (Gen. 25, 29) And Jacob sad [yazed] pottage. R. Chiya b. Aba said in the name of R. Jochanan: "The following three Bil'am, Job and Jethro — were the advisers of Pharaoh, concerning his decree to throw in the river the children of Israel. Bil'am, who gave this advice, was killed; Job, who kept silence, was punished with chastisement; and Jethro, who ran away, was rewarded by having his decendants placed among the Sanhedrin, in the chamber of Temple, as it is said (I Chr. 2, 55) And the families of scribes who dwelt at Jabetz. the Tiratite, etc… . these are, the Kenites that come from Chamoth, the father of the house of Rechah. And again it is written (Jud. 1, 16) And the children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses. (Ib., ib., 11) And they thereupon did set over him task-masters, it should have been over them and not over him. We are taught in a Baraitha in the name of R. Elazar, son of R. Simon: "From this it might be inferred that the Egyptians took a brick-mould, hung it upon the neck of Pharaoh, and if any Israelite said that he was delicate and could not work, the Egyptians said to him: 'Art thou more delicate than Pharaoh, the King?'" (Ib.) Task-masters, i.e., a person that forced Israel to make bricks (Ib., ib., ib.) To afflict him with their burdensome labors, it should have been them instead of him. This means to afflict Pharaoh himself through their burdensome-work [because of the brick he had to wear on his neck], (Ib.) And he built store cities for Pharaoh. Rab and Samuel differ in the explanation of the above passage. One contends, cities which caused danger to its owners, and the other explains it to mean, cities which caused poverty to its owners; for the Master said elsewhere: "Whoever occupies himself with buildings will at last become poor." (Ib) Pithom and Ra'amses. Rab and Samuel differ in the explanation of this passage, one contends that its real name was Pithom, and the reason it was called Ra'amses, was because one building after the other was crushed (fell in); and the other said that its real name was Ra'amses, and the reason it was called Pithom, was because one building after the other was swallowed in the depth. (Ib., ib. 12) But the more they afflicted him, the more he multiplied and the more he spread abroad. It should have been so they multiplied and so they spread abroad? Said R. Simon b. Lakish: "The Holy Spirit predicted to them, saying: "Thus [as it keeps on now] will they multiply and spread abroad." (Ib., ib., ib.) And they felt abhorance because of the children of Israel. From this it may be inferred that the Israelites were like thorns in the eyes of the Egyptians. (Ib., ib. 13) And the Egyptians caused the children of Israel to labor with (Ib. b) rigor. R. Elazar said: "The word b'fa-rech (rigor) means with soft words." R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: This means rigorously." (Ib., ib. 14) And they made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and in bricks and in all manner of labor in the field. Said Raba: "This passage informs us that in the very beginning they started with mortar and in bricks but afterwards with all manner of labor in the field." Besides all their other service, they made them labor with rigor. Said R. Samuel b. Nachmeni in the name of R. Jonathan: "This means that they changed the work of men for women and the work of women for men, and even he who explained the foregoing b'fa-rech differently, will admit that the same word here means rigorously."

Now Jethro heard (Exod. 18:1). Jethro was known by seven names. He was called Jethro (yitro) because he added (yater) a chapter to the law, that is, the chapter dealing with judges. He was called Hobab (hobab) because he loved (hiba) the law. When he came to the Holy Land, they offered him the fields of Jericho, but he said: “I brought none of my possessions with me, and I abandoned all I owned in order to study the Torah, shall I now sow and reap when I should be studying Torah?” They told him: “There is a man studying the law in a certain area that is in a desolate place in the desert, and it lacks even wheat.” When they heard this, they went there, as it is said: And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of the palm trees with the children of Judah, unto the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people (Judg. 1:16).⁷See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 3:76. The descendants of Jethro devoted themselves to Torah study. They went there and found Jabez sitting in the house of study, and the priests, the Levites, and the rulers were sitting with him, and all the Israelites were sitting there. And so they said to him (Jabez): “We are converts, how can we sit there among them?” Thereupon they seated themselves at the entrance to the school and listened and learned, as it is said: The families of scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Succathites. These are the Kenites (I Chron. 2:55). They were called tiratim (Tirathites) because they sat at the gate (sha’ar), shime’atim (Shimeathites) because they listened (from shama, “to hear”) and learned, and sukhatim (Succathites) because the Israelites made it clear to them (from mesakhim, “looked after them”). Another explanation (of Tirathites). Whenever the Israelites were confronted by danger they would blow (matri’in) their shofars, and they (Kenites) would hear them.

R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Jose b. Kisma: "A little refreshment often plays an important role, for its refusal estranged two tribes from Israel, as it is said (Deut. 23, 5) Because they met you not with bread and water, in the way." And R. Jochanan himself said: "Its [refusal] estranges relatives and its [partaking] brings strangers near; it shuts the eye from the wicked, causes the Shechina to rest on the prophets of Baal and even an unintentional offence is considered as if it were done intentionally." It estranges relatives. This refers to (Fol. 105) Ammon and Moab [who were relatives to Israel]. It brings near strangers — this refers to Jethro, for R. Jochanan said: "As a reward for what Jethro said (Ex. 2, 20) Call him, that he may eat bread; his descendants merited to sit among the Sanhedrin in the chambers of the Temple, as it is said (I. Chr. 2, 55) And the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez: the Thirathites, the Shimeathites, the Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came from Chammoth, the father of the house of Rechab, and (Jd. 1, 16) And the children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses, went up out of the city of palm-trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad, and they went and dwelt with the people." He shuts the eyes from the evil deed of the wicked,— this refers to Michah, [as said above]. Causes the Shechina to rest upon the prophets of Baal, — as (I Kings 13, 20) And it came to pass as they were sitting at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophets, that brought him back. — And even an unintentional offence is considered as if it were done intentionally, — for R. Juda in the name of Rab said: "Had Jonathan supplied David with some loaves of bread the priests of the city of Nob would not have been slain, Doeg, the Edomite, would not have been lost, and Saul and his three sons would not have been killed."

(Num. 24, 21) And he looked on the Kenites … Though firm be thy dwelling-place, etc. Bil'am said to Jethro: "Kenite, wast thou not with us at the time we consulted to destroy Israel? How, then, does it come that thou art placed now among the strongest of the world?" And this is what R. Chiya b. Aba, in the name of R. Jochanan, said: "The following three: Bil'am, Job and Jethro, were the advisers of Pharaoh, concerning his command of throwing in the river the children of Israel. Bil'am, who gave this advice, was killed; Job, who kept silent, was punished with chastisement; and Jethro, who ran away, was rewarded by having his descendants placed among the Sanhedrin, in the chamber of the Temple, as it is said (I Chron. 2, 55) And the families of the scribes who dwelt at Jobetz, the Tirotites, etc. These are are Kenites that come from Chamoth — (Num. 22, 23) And he took up his parable, and said, Alas, who shall live after God hath appointed him? R. Jochanan said: "Woe will be to that nation which will try to prevent the redemption of Israel, when the Holy One, praised be He! will do it to His children. Who can prevent a lion from coming together with his lioness at the time they are both free?"

And Moses went and returned to Jethro, his father-in-law (Exod. 4:18). Scripture says elsewhere in reference to this verse: A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity (Prov. 17:17). Who was this friend? It was Jethro, who welcomed Moses after he fled from Pharaoh. From this you learn that if anyone undertakes to perform a good deed (even if he does not do it), that good deed will never cease recurring in his home. Jethro welcomed into his home a redeemer who had fled from his enemy, and so from his house there descended one who welcomed an enemy who was fleeing from a redeemer and slew him. Who was this enemy? Sisera, as it is said: Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite … then Jael took a tent pin, etc. (Judg. 4:17, 21). And it is also written: And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law (ibid. 1:16). Hence it says: A brother is born for adversity (Prov. 17:17).

Two men welcomed two righteous men and were blessed because of them. At first they had no sons, but after these righteous men entered their homes and then departed, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them sons. These two were Laban and Jethro. If Laban had any sons of his own, would his daughters have been forced to shepherd his flock? The fact is that he had no sons, but after Jacob’s arrival, he was blessed with property and sons, as it is written: And the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake (Gen. 30:27), and furthermore, it is written: And he heard the words of Laban’s sons (ibid. 31:1). In this instance, it is written: Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters (Exod. 2:16). Is it likely that if he had sons his daughters would have been shepherdesses? No. Obviously, he had no sons. After Moses entered his house, however, he was blessed with sons, as it is written: And the sons of the Kenite, Moses’s father-in law (Judg. 14:17).

(Ibid. 27) "And Moses sent his father-in-law": R. Yehoshua says: He sent him with gifts. R. Elazar Hamodai says: He sent him with all the honor in the world, as is seen in his (Moses') response to him, as it is written (Numbers 10:30) "I pray you, do not leave us," telling him: You gave us good and beautiful counsel, and the L rd consented to your words. "I pray you, do not leave us." Yithro replied: Is a candle of benefit other than in a place of darkness? Can sun and moon benefit from a candle? You are the sun and Aaron your brother is the moon. What can a candle do between you? Let me go to my land and I will convert all of my countrymen and bring them to the study of Torah and under the wings of the Shechinah. One might think that he went but did not do so. It is, therefore, written (Judges 1:16) "And the children of Keni, the father-in-law of Moses, went up from the city of date-palms," and (Ibid.) "and they went and settled with the people," "the people" signifying "wisdom," (in this instance, Torah study), viz. (Iyyov 12:2) "Truly you are a people, but will wisdom die with you?" Read if not "tamuth" ("die"), but "tumath" ("put to death"). So long as a sage lives, his wisdom endures. When he dies, his wisdom is lost with him. (And thus we find, when R. Yochanan b. Zakkai died, that his wisdom was lost with him.) They went and settled with Yaavetz, it being written of them (I Chronicles 2:55) "the dwellers of Yaavetz." Now were they dwellers of Yaavetz? Rather, they were disciples of (a man called) Yaavetz, viz. "And the families of scribes, 'dwellers' of Yaavetz — Tirathim, Shimathim, Suchathim — These were the Kenites who descended from Chamath, the father of the house of Rechav." "Tirathim" — They sounded the alarm ("mathri'im") and were answered. "Shimathim" — They heard ("shamu") the sound of shofar of Torah at Sinai. "Suchathim" — They dwelt in succoth, viz. (Jeremiah 35:10) "And we (the descendants of Rechav) live in tents, etc."

One verse (Devarim 12:14) states (that the Temple is to be built) "in (the portion of) one of your tribes," and, another (here) "of all your tribes." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Israel knew that the Temple was destined to be built in the portion of one of them — wherefore they set aside the "fat land" of Jericho. Who ate of it all of these years (until its building)? The descendants of Keini (Yithro), the father-in-law of Moses, ate of it four hundred and forty years. But with the building of the Temple, they left, viz. (Judges 1:16) "And the children of the Keini, the father-in-law of Moses went up from the city of palms (Jericho)." These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says: They went to Yabetz, viz. ( Chronicles 2:55) "and the families of scribes, who dwelt in Yabetz … These were the Keinites, etc."

(Bamidbar 10:29) "And Moses said to Chovav (Yithro) the son of Reuel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses": Was Chovav the father-in-law of Moses, or Reuel, viz. (Shemot 2:8) "And they came to Reuel, their father, etc."? — (Judges 4:11) "And Chever the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, from the children of Chovav, the father-in-law of Moses" (indicates that) his name was Chovav and not Reuel. How, then, are we to understand "And they came to Reuel their father"? We are hereby apprised that the young children called their father's father "father." R. Shimon b. Menassia says: His name was Reuel, "the friend (re'a) of G-d," viz. (Shemot 5:12) "And Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before G-d." R. Dostai says: His name was Keini, for he had separated from the provocative deeds of the kanai ("the provokers"), who provoke the L-rd, viz. (Devarim 32:21) "They provoked Me (kinuni) with a no-god," and (Ezekiel 8:3) "where was the seat of the provocative image of provocation ("semel hakinah hamekaneh"). R. Yossi says: His name was Keini, for he had acquired (kanah) Torah for himself. R. Yishmael b. R. Yossi says: His name was Reuel, for he had befriended G-d, viz. (Proverbs 27:10) "Your Friend and the Friend of your father do not forsake." R. Shimon b. Yochai says: He had two names — Chovav and Yithro. "Yithro," because he added a section ("Yithro") to the Torah, viz. (Shemot 18:21) "And (Yithro said) you shall see from all the people men of valor, etc." Now were these things (of appointing judges) not known to Moses from Sinai, viz. (Ibid. 23) "If you do this thing and G-d commands you"? And why did they escape Moses? To credit the thing to Yithro. "Chovav," because he loved ("chivev") the Torah. For we find no other proselyte who loved the Torah as Yithro did. And just as Yithro loved the Torah, so did his descendants love the Torah, viz. (I Chronicles 2:55) "and the families of scribes who dwelt in Yabetz: Tirathim, Shimathim, Suchathim. (These were the Kenites, etc.") "Tirathim" — because they heard the teruah from Mount Sinai. "Tirathim" — because they cried out ("mathri'im) and fasted. "Tirathim" — because they did not shave themselves ("ta'ar" is a blade). "Tirathim" — because they sat in the gates ("tara" is a gate) of Jerusalem. "Shimathim" — because they did not anoint themselves with oil (because of their mourning over the destruction of the Temple). "Suchathim" — because they dwelt in succoth. "who dwelt in Yabetz": They left Yericho and went to Yabetz, to the desert of Judah in the south of Arad to learn Torah from him (Yabetz), viz. (Ibid. 4:10) "And Yabetz called out to the G-d of Israel … and G-d granted him what he requested." They were chassidim, who entreated G-d for someone to learn from, and he was a chassid who entreated G-d for someone to teach. The chassidim came to learn from the chassid, as it is written (Judges 1:16) "And the sons of the Keini, the father-in-law of Moses, etc.", and (Jeremiah 25:12) "Go to the house of the Rechavim and speak to them, and bring them to the house of the L-rd, etc.", and (Ibid. 6) "And they said: We will not drink wine for Yonadav the son of Rechav our father commanded us, saying … and a house you shall not build and seed you shall not sow … so that you may live many years on the land where you live" — Since this house (the Temple) is destined to be destroyed, see it as if it is already destroyed. (Ibid. 8-10) "And we heeded the vice of Yonadav ben Rechav our father … and we live in tents, for we heeded and did according to everything that Yonadav our father commanded us." And whence is it derived that the sons of Yonadav ben Rechav were of the sons of the sons of Yithro? For it is written (I Chronicles 2:55) "These were the Keinites, who descended from Chammath, the father of the house of the Rechavim." And what was their reward for this? (Jeremiah 35:18) "And to the Rechavim Jeremiah said: Thus said the L-rd of hosts, the G-d of Israel: Because you have heeded the command of Yonadav your father … (19) there will not be cut off from Yonadav ben Rechav one who stands before Me all of the days." R. Yehoshua says: Now may proselytes enter the sanctuary? Rather, they sat in the Sanhedrin and taught Torah. Others say: Some of their daughters were wed to Cohanim and their descendents entered the sanctuary. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If those, who drew near (to Israel), were thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near!) And thus do you find with Rachav Hazonah. What is written (of her)? (I Chronicles 4:21) "And the families of the house of the linen work, of the house of Ashbea": "the families" — Rachav Hazonah ("the feeder"), who kept an inn to feed her family. "the linen work" — She hid the spies among the linens. "the house of Ashbea" — The spies swore ("nisb'u") to her (to spare her family). Eight prophets, issued from Rachav Hazonah: Yirmiyahu, Chilkiyahu, Serayah, Machseyah, Baruch, Neriah, Chanamel, and Shalom. R. Yehudah says: Chuldah the prophetess was also of the descendants of Rachav Hazonah, as it is written (II Kings 22:14) "And Chilkiyahu the Cohein and Achikam and Achbor and Shafan and Asayah went to Chuldah the prophetess, the wife of Shalom the son of Tikvah, etc." And it is written (Joshua 2:18) "behold, when we (the spies) come to the land, you (Rachav) shall bind this line (tikvah) of scarlet thread, etc." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If she, who came from a people of whom it is written (Devarim 20:16) "You shall not spare any soul," because she drew near (to Israel), was thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near!) And thus do you find with the Giveonites. What is written of them? (I Chronicles 4:22) "And Yokim and the men of Chezeva. "And Yokim" — Joshua fulfilled ("kiyem") for them his oath (to spare them). "Chezeva" — they deceived ("kizvu") Joshua, saying (Joshua 9:9) "From a very distant land did your servants come," and not from Eretz Yisrael." Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If these, who came from a people consigned to destruction, because they drew near (to Israel), were thus drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so (will He draw them near)! And thus do you find with Ruth the Moavitess. What did she say to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17) "Your people is my people, and your G-d is my G-d. Where you will die, I will die." The L-rd said to her: You have lost nothing. kingdom is yours in this world and in the world to come. What is written (of her)? (I Chronicles 4:22) "and Yoash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moav." Yoash and Saraph are Machlon and Kilyon (viz. Ruth 1:2-6) "Yoash" — they despaired (nithya'ashu) of redemption. "Saraph" — they were liable to (the penalty of) burning, to the L-rd. "who had dominion over Moav" — they married Moavite women and left Eretz Yisrael and went and sojourned in the field of Moav. (I Chronicles, Ibid.) "and Yashuvilechem" — this is Ruth the Moavitess, who returned and dwelt in Beth Lechem. (Ibid.) "And these are ancient things" — each is discussed in its place. (Ibid. 23) "These are 'the keepers'" — the sons of Yonadav ben Rechav, who kept the oath of their father. "and the dwellers among the plants" — Solomon, who was like a (flourishing) plant in his kingdom. "and gedeirah ("the fence") — Sanhedrin, who sit and delimit the "fences" of Torah. "With the king in his work they sat there" — Ruth the Moavitess did not die until she saw Solomon, the grandson of her grandson (Yishai) sitting on his throne of kingdom, as it is written (I Kings 2:19) "And he (Solomon) sat on his throne, and he placed a seat for the mother of the king" — the mother of kingdom (i.e., Ruth). "and she sat at his right hand": as he busied himself with the work of the Temple, viz.: (I Chronicles, Ibid.) "with the king in his work they sat there. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If she, who was of the people of whom it is written (I Kings 11:2) "You shall not come into them, and they shall not come into you," because she drew near (to Israel), she was drawn near by the L-rd, then Israelites, who do the will of the L-rd, how much more so! And if you would ask: But where do we see this (that the L-rd draws them near) with Israel? It is written (Shemot 1:15) "And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, the first of whom was named Shifrah; and the second, Puah": Shifra is Yocheved (Moses' mother). Puah is Miriam (Moses' sister). "Shifra" — because she "beautifies (meshapereth) the child. "Puah" — because she "coos" (poeh) to the child. Variantly: "Shifra" — because Israel was fruitful (paru) and multiplied in her days. "Puah" — because she moaned (poah) and wept over her brother, as it is written (Ibid. 2:4) "And his sister stood from afar to know what would be done with him." (Ibid. 1:16) "And he (Pharaoh) said: When you deliver the Hebrew women … (17) and the midwives feared G-d … (21) and He made for them (the midwives) houses": I would not know what these "houses" were if not for (I Kings 9:10) "And it was at the end of twenty years that Solomon built the two houses — the house of the L-rd and the house of the king." "the house of the L-rd" — the priesthood; "the house of the king" — royalty. Yocheved attained to priesthood, and Miriam, to royalty. As it is written (I Chronicles 4:4) "These were the sons of Chur, the first-born of Efrathah, the father of Beth-lechem": "Efrathah" — Miriam, who married Calev, viz.: (I Chronicles 2:19) "And Calev took Efrath, and she bore to him Chur," and (Ibid. 50) "These were the sons of Calev, the son of Chur, the first-born of Efrathah, the father of Beth-lechem. "Efrathah" — This is the (royal) house of David, as it is written (I Samuel 17:12) "And David was the son of an Efrati man of Beth-lechem."

Benjamin merited that the Shechinah reside in his portion. And thus you find that when Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael among the tribes, he left over of the choice land of Jericho five hundred ells by five hundred ells and gave a first portion to the sons of Yonadav ben Rechav from which they ate four hundred and forty years, as it is written (I Kings 6:1) "And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year after the exodus of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt … he (Solomon) built the Temple for the L-rd." Deduct from that the forty years that Israel was in the desert, whence we find that they ate from it four hundred and forty years. And when the Shechinah reposed in the portion of Benjamin, they arose and vacated it, as it is written (Judges 1:16) "And the children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses, ascended from the city of date palms" (Jericho), and (Bamidbar 10:29) "And Moses said to Chovav (Yithro) the son of Reuel the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses … it will I give to you, etc." Now would it enter your mind that Moses was telling Yithro: Come and we will give you a portion in Eretz Yisrael? What he was saying to him was (Ibid.) "Come with us and we will do good with you." The reference is to the choice land of Jericho, which fed the descendants of Yithro before the Temple was built for the tribes. (Ibid.) "And he said to him: 'I will not go, etc.'", viz.: In the future, when Eretz Yisrael will be apportioned among the tribes, one of them will give me one of his vineyards or one of his furrows — "but I will go to my land and eat the fruits of my land and drink the wine of my vineyard."

R. Shimon says: This was not his intent, but what he said was "I will go to my land and to my kindred," and I will convert the people of my land and of my family. Lest you say he went and did not do so, it is written (I Chronicles 2:55) "and the families of scribes who dwelt at Ya'abetz … These were the Kenites who descended from Chammath, the father of the house of Rechav." And thus is it written (Judges 1:16) "And the children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses, ascended from the city of date palms" (Jericho.) They left a place of fruit, food, and drink, and went to the south of Arad to the desert to learn Torah with Ya'abetz. Who was Ya'abetz? Athniel ben Kenaz. And thus is it written (II Samuel 24:24) "And David bought (on the future site of the Temple) the threshing floor and the cattle for fifty silver shekels." And elsewhere it is written (I Chronicles 21:25) "And David gave Ornan for the place golden shekels, six hundred." It cannot mean (literally,) golden shekels, for it is written "silver shekels." And it cannot mean silver shekels, for it is written "golden shekels." It must mean, then, that he weighed in gold and bought in silver. And it cannot mean fifty, for it is written six hundred. And it cannot mean six hundred, for it is written fifty. It must mean, then, that when David saw the place where it was fitting to build the Temple, he collected fifty shekalim from each tribe; all together, six hundred shekalim.