929 (Tanakh) · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Judges 18
Sugya Map
The narrative of Judges 18 presents a severe breakdown of the political, territorial, and halakhic structures of early Israel. This chapter is not merely a historical chronicle of tribal migration; rather, it serves as a primary locus for several fundamental halakhic and hashkafic inquiries regarding the boundaries of the Land of Israel, the nature of illicit worship (Avodah Zarah versus Bamah), and the constitutional crisis of the pre-monarchic era.
[The Danite Migration & Micah's Idol]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[Territorial Halakha] [Cultic Halakha]
| |
- Status of Laish (Within/Outside Borders) - Pesel Micah: Avodah Zarah vs. Bamah
- Joshua's Division vs. Sovereign Conquest - The "Hired" Levite (Jonathan b. Gershom)
- Halakhic Boundaries (Kedushat HaAretz) - The Masoretic Suspended Nun (Moshe/Manasseh)
The primary issues analyzed herein include:
- The Halakhic Status of Laish (Leshem): Was the conquest of Laish considered a fulfillment of the mitzvah of Yishuv HaAretz (settling the Land), or was it an unauthorized, private expansionist campaign outside the divinely mandated tribal boundaries?
- The Nature of "Pesel Micah": Did the cultic items (the pesel, massekhah, ephod, and teraphim) constitute absolute Avodah Zarah (idolatry punishable by death), or were they an illicit form of syncretic worship (Avodah Zarah בשיתוף) intended for the God of Israel?
- The Priestly Legitimacy of Jonathan son of Gershom: How could a descendant of Moses (or Manasseh) serve as a sectarian priest, and what are the halakhic implications of a non-Aaronic Levite usurping the priesthood (Kehunah)?
- The Chronological Anomaly: When did this episode occur, and how does its dating affect our understanding of the halakhic consensus regarding Bamot (private altars) during the era of Shiloh?
Nafka Minas (Halakhic & Conceptual Ramifications)
- Kedushat HaAretz (Sanctity of the Land): If Laish was outside the borders partitioned by Joshua, did it acquire the sanctity of the Land of Israel regarding agricultural laws (Terumot and Ma'asrot) upon its conquest by the tribe of Dan?
- The Law of Ir HaNidachat (The Beguiled City): Does the city of Dan, established around the Pesel Micah, meet the halakhic criteria of an Ir HaNidachat Deuteronomy 13:13-19? If so, why was it not destroyed by the rest of Israel?
- The Validity of Non-Aaronic Cultic Service: What is the halakhic status of rituals performed by a Levite acting as a priest? Are these actions considered Zar she-Shiresh (a non-priest who performed service) incurring the death penalty, or does the lack of a proper Temple alter this status?
Primary Sources
The analysis is anchored in the following primary texts:
- Tanakh: Judges 18, Joshua 19:40-48, Deuteronomy 13:13-19.
- Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin 103b (the nature of Micah's idol), Baba Batra 109b (the identity of Jonathan son of Gershom), Temurah 16a (the geographical and halakhic anomalies of Dan's inheritance), Zevachim 118b (the status of Shiloh and Bamot).
- Midrash: Seder Olam Rabbah 12 (chronological placement of the narrative).
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
To understand the core conflicts of Judges 18, we must examine two critical textual loci. These verses contain precise grammatical anomalies and lexical nuances that form the basis of the subsequent rabbinic debates.
Textual Locus A: The Geopolitical and Constitutional Crisis
בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַיָּמִים הָהֵם שֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי מְבַקֵּשׁ־לוֹ נַחֲלָה לָשֶׁבֶת כִּי לֹא־נָפְלָה לּוֹ עַד־הַיּוֹם הַהוּא בְּתוֹךְ־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנַחֲלָה׃ "In those days there was no king in Israel, and in those days the tribe of Dan was seeking a territory in which to settle; for to that day no territory had fallen to their lot among the tribes of Israel." — Judges 18:1
Lexical & Grammatical Nuances
- כִּי לֹא־נָפְלָה לּוֹ (For [it] had not fallen to him): The subject of the verb נָפְלָה (feminine singular) is grammatically ambiguous. Usually, נַחֲלָה (inheritance, feminine) is implied, but the text omits the noun directly preceding the verb. The word lo (לּוֹ - to him/it) has a dagesh in the lamed, a rare grammatical feature emphasizing the exclusion of Dan from the general distribution.
- בְּתוֹךְ־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנַחֲלָה (Among the tribes of Israel in inheritance): The repetition of the root נ-ח-ל indicates a double lack: they lacked both the physical possession of their assigned lot and the legal recognition of their borders within the broader confederation.
Textual Locus B: The Masoretic Suspended Nun and the Sectarian Priesthood
וַיָּקִימוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי־דָן אֶת־הַפָּסֶל וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד־יוֹם גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ׃ "The Danites set up the sculptured image for themselves; and Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh, and his descendants, served as priests to the Danite tribe until the land went into exile." — Judges 18:30
Traditional Text: מ נ ש ה (M-N-S-H - Manasseh)
^
|
Masoretic Suspension: [נ] (Suspended Nun)
|
Esoteric Reading: מ ש ה (M-S-H - Moses)
Lexical & Grammatical Nuances
- מְנַשֶּׁה (Manasseh) with a Suspended Nun (נו"ן תלויה): In the Masoretic text, the letter Nun in the name מְנַשֶּׁה is suspended above the line of the other letters (מנשה). If one reads the word without the suspended Nun, it reads מֹשֶׁה (Moses). This deliberate scribal anomaly is a critical point of analysis in Baba Batra 109b, pointing to a profound tension between genealogical lineage and moral descent.
- עַד־יוֹם גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ (Until the day of the exile of the land): What does glot ha-aretz refer to? If it refers to the Assyrian exile of the ten tribes II Kings 17:6, then this sectarian priesthood persisted for centuries. However, if it refers to the capture of the Ark of the Covenant during the battle of Aphek I Samuel 4:11, then the "exile" is that of the Divine Presence from Shiloh, aligning with the subsequent verse: "throughout the time that the House of God stood at Shiloh" Judges 18:31.
Readings
The Rishonim and Acharonim divide sharply on the geopolitical, chronological, and theological dimensions of Judges 18. By analyzing their comments, we can construct a rigorous framework of the sugya.
Rashi: The Chronological Baseline and the Early Conquest
Rashi, operating on the chronological system of Seder Olam Rabbah, argues that this episode did not occur at the end of the period of the Judges, despite its placement near the end of the book. Instead, Rashi positions it at the very beginning of the era.
In his comment on Judges 18:1:
"As there had not fallen to their lot. A suitable inheritance for them in the conquered territory, as it is said in Yehoshua, 'The boundary of Bnei Don extended from them' Joshua 19:47... When the apportioning of the land among the tribes was completed. This, too, teaches us that this episode took place at the very beginning of the period of the judges."
Rashi's Chiddush
Rashi resolves a major geographical contradiction. The Book of Joshua Joshua 19:40-46 details a large, fertile territory assigned to Dan in the central coastal plain (including Jaffa, Zorah, and Eshtaol). Why, then, does Judges 18 claim that "no territory had fallen to their lot"?
Rashi explains that while the lot was drawn, the realization of that lot was prevented by the military dominance of the Amorites, who "squeezed the children of Dan into the mountain" Judges 1:34. Thus, they lacked a nachalah that was "suitable" (dei tzarxo—sufficient for their needs).
Chronologically, this means the Danite migration occurred immediately after the death of Joshua, during the lifetime of Othniel ben Kenaz. The spiritual decay of Micah's idol was not a late-stage degeneration, but an early, persistent cancer that ran parallel to the entire period of the Judges.
Radak: The Interregnum and the Legal Vacuum
The Radak (R. David Kimhi) takes a different approach, focusing on the political-legal framework of the era and presenting a detailed chronological analysis of the period between Samson and Eli.
In his commentary on Judges 18:1:
"This verse also proves that this was not in the days of Othniel ben Kenaz, for he was a judge over Israel, and all the days of the judge they did not do 'every man what was right in his own eyes'... It appears that these events [Micah's idol, the Danite migration, and the Concubine of Gibeah] occurred between Samson and Eli, who was a judge of Israel, and there was a time between them when they had no judge... and they did every man what was right in his own eyes..."
Timeline of Judges (Radak's Hypothesis):
[Samson] ---> [Interregnum / Anarchy (No Judge/King)] ---> [Eli]
|
+---> Micah's Idol Established
+---> Danite Migration to Laish
+---> Concubine of Gibeah
Radak's Chiddush
Radak challenges the Seder Olam timeline cited by Rashi. He argues that during the tenure of any active Judge, widespread communal anarchy—such as a tribe establishing a public idol and looting a fellow Israelite’s home—was legally impossible. The phrase "in those days there was no king" implies a complete breakdown of central judicial authority.
Radak places these events in the interregnum between the death of Samson and the ascension of Eli the Priest. This political vacuum allowed the Danites to engage in what was essentially an illegal private war of aggression against Laish, a peaceful city aligned with the Sidonians.
Legally, this means the Danite conquest did not possess the status of a Milchemet Mitzvah (a commanded war of conquest), but was a private, unsanctioned military land grab.
Metzudat David: The Constitutional Role of the Monarch
The Metzudat David (R. David Altschuler) provides a political-legal analysis of the phrase "אין מלך" (no king).
On Judges 18:1:
"אין מלך. כי אם היה מלך, היה הוא לוחם מלחמות העם עם כל עמו ולא שבט לבד:" "No king: For if there were a king, he would fight the wars of the nation with all his people, and not a single tribe alone."
And on Judges 18:1:
"כי לא נפלה לו. להיות בה די צרכו:" "For it had not fallen to him: to be sufficient for his needs."
Metzudat David's Chiddush
The Metzudat David introduces a fundamental principle of halakhic political theory. A war of territorial expansion (Milchemet Reshut) or even the defense of national borders can only be legitimately waged under the auspices of a centralized sovereign (a king or a national leader).
In the absence of a king, the tribe of Dan was forced to act as an independent nation-state, launching a localized campaign. This lack of centralized military coordination meant they could not muster the collective forces of Israel to expel the Amorites from their original portion. Consequently, they had to resort to capturing Laish, a soft target on the northern periphery.
The Metzudat David highlights that the absence of a king does not merely lead to spiritual lawlessness; it causes structural military inefficiency, forcing individual tribes to compromise the territorial integrity of the nation.
Ralbag: The Epistemology of Illicit Divination
The Ralbag (Gersonides) focuses on the psychological and theological mechanics of the Danite spies' interaction with the young Levite and Micah's cultic objects.
On Judges 18:1:
"...ועבר דרך בית מיכה והכירו הנער הלוי ושאלו לו התצליח דרכם וענה להם על צד הקסם באמצעות הפסל והתרפים שכבר הצליח דרכם:" "...And they passed through the house of Micah, and they recognized the young Levite, and they asked him if their way would succeed; and he answered them by way of divination (קסם) through the medium of the idol (פסל) and the teraphim (תרפים), that their way had already succeeded."
Ralbag's Chiddush
Ralbag, consistent with his rationalist philosophy, addresses a difficult theological question: how did the Levite’s "oracle" correctly predict the success of the Danite mission? If Micah's idol was a false deity, why did its priest speak the truth?
Ralbag posits that the Levite was not receiving authentic prophecy (Nevuah), nor was there any supernatural power in the idol. Instead, he was practicing Kosem (divination)—a psychological and astrological methodology that utilized the teraphim (astrolabe-like instruments or human-shaped figures used to calculate celestial influences).
The success of the prediction was either a natural consequence of astronomical calculations or a psychological manipulation that emboldened the Danite spies. Ralbag de-mythologizes the Pesel Micah, defining it not as an active demonic force, but as an illicit, pseudo-scientific tool of divination that led the people away from authentic intellectual communion with God.
Friction
Kushya 1: The Coexistence of Shiloh and the Pesel Micah
The most challenging textual and halakhic problem of this narrative is found in the closing verse of the chapter:
וַיָּשִׂימוּ לָהֶם אֶת־פֶּסֶל מִיכָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כָּל־יְמֵי הֱיוֹת בֵּית־הָאֱלֹהִים בְּשִׁלֹה׃ "They maintained the sculptured image that Micah had made throughout the time that the House of God stood at Shiloh." — Judges 18:31
This verse states that an explicit, tribally sponsored idol (Pesel Micah) existed in Dan during the exact same period that the Tabernacle (Mishkan) stood in Shiloh. How could the Sanhedrin, the High Priest, and the various righteous Judges (such as Gideon, Samuel, and Eli) tolerate the public operation of an idolatrous temple within the borders of Israel?
[The Cultic Schism]
|
+--------------------+--------------------+
| |
[Sanctuary of Shiloh] [Sanctuary of Dan]
- Authorized Mishkan - Illicit Pesel Micah
- Aaronic Priesthood - Levite Priesthood (Jonathan)
- National Center - Tribal/Sectarian Center
Terutz A: The Talmudic Distinction of Syncretic Monotheism (Avodah Zarah בשיתוף)
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 103b addresses this paradox by defining the precise theological status of Micah's idol:
תניא, רבי נתן אומר: מגרב לשילה ג' פרסאות, והיה עשן המערכה ועשן פסל מיכה מתערבין זה בזה... "It is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Nathan says: From Garab to Shiloh was a distance of three parasangs, and the smoke of the altar [in Shiloh] and the smoke of Micah's idol [in Garab] would mingle with one another..."
The Gemara explains that God did not destroy Micah's idol immediately because Micah was hospitable to travelers: "His bread was available to wayfarers."
From a lomdish perspective, however, we must understand how this was tolerated halakhically. The Rishonim (such as Tosafot on Sanhedrin 103b s.v. "ביקש") explain that Micah’s idol was not intended as a denial of the Creator. It was an instance of Avodah Zarah בשיתוף (associating other forces with God) or an illicit Bamah (private altar) that utilized physical imagery to worship the God of Israel.
Micah himself says: "Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite as my priest" Judges 17:13. He used the Tetragrammaton (Y-H-V-H).
Because the generation viewed this not as paganism, but as a misguided, localized form of worship of the true God, the national leadership did not feel halakhically mandated to wage a civil war over it, unlike the case of the Ir HaNidachat which requires a complete turn to foreign deities.
Terutz B: The Political Autonomy of the Tribes
A second approach, rooted in the political reality of the period, is that the central leadership simply lacked the military power to enforce halakhic conformity on an entire tribe.
As the Radak noted, "in those days there was no king." The Judges were localized saviors, not absolute monarchs with standing armies.
If the tribe of Dan, armed with 600 vanguard soldiers and a newly conquered northern stronghold, decided to adopt the Pesel Micah as their tribal emblem, the rest of the nation lacked the political cohesion and military strength to march to the northernmost border and dismantle it by force. The coexistence of Shiloh and Dan was a symptom of a weak, decentralized state, not a halakhic endorsement.
Kushya 2: The Mystery of the Suspended Nun (Moshe vs. Manasseh)
The identification of the sectarian priest in Judges 18:30 presents a major textual and historical problem:
וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁם בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה... "...And Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh..."
The suspended Nun in מְנַשֶּׁה (Manasseh) indicates that the original or deeper reading of the name is מֹשֶׁה (Moses). This means the first priest of the Danite sectarian temple was the actual grandson of Moses (Gershom being Moses' eldest son, as written in Exodus 2:22).
If Jonathan was the grandson of Moses, how could the lineage of the greatest lawgiver in Israel produce the founder of a sectarian, idolatrous dynasty? Furthermore, if he was indeed the grandson of Moses, why does the Masoretic text attempt to hide this by suspending a Nun to make it read "Manasseh"?
[The Lineage of Jonathan]
|
+---------+---------+
| |
[Exoteric Reading] [Esoteric/True Reading]
Ben Manasseh Ben Moshe (Moses)
| |
(Scribal Nun) (Ancestral Trauma)
Terutz A: The Talmudic Theory of Moral Association
The Talmud in Baba Batra 109b addresses this textual anomaly directly:
וכי בן מנשה היה? והלא בן משה היה! דכתיב: בני משה גרשום ואליעזר. אלא, מתוך שעשה מעשה מנשה — תלאו הכתוב במנשה. "Was he indeed the son of Manasseh? Was he not the son of Moses? As it is written: 'The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer.' Rather, because his deeds were like the deeds of Manasseh [the later idolatrous king of Judah], the verse suspended him on Manasseh."
The Gemara explains that the Nun was suspended to protect the honor of Moses. The text preserves both the historical truth (Moses was his grandfather) and the moral reality (spiritually, he belonged to the lineage of the wicked King Manasseh).
From a halakhic perspective, this teaches that spiritual lineage is determined by action, not merely by genetics. The suspended Nun is a graphic Masoretic warning: pedigree (Yichus) cannot shield a person from the consequences of their choices.
Terutz B: The Yerushalmi's Account of Jonathan's Teshuvah
The Talmud Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin 11:5 (29b) provides an alternative historical and legal resolution. It suggests that Jonathan did not act out of idolatrous conviction, but out of financial desperation:
אמר לו: כך אני מקובל מבית אבי אבא — מכור עצמך לעבודה זרה ואל תצטרך לבריות. "He said to him [David]: 'I have received this tradition from my grandfather's house: Sell yourself to Avodah Zarah rather than be dependent on other people.'"
The Yerushalmi explains that Jonathan misconstrued a teaching of Moses. Moses had actually said: "Sell yourself to a service that is Zarah (strange/foreign to you, i.e., menial labor) rather than depend on charity." Jonathan interpreted "strange service" literally as Avodah Zarah (idolatry).
According to the Yerushalmi, when King David ascended the throne and recognized Jonathan’s wisdom, he appointed him as the chief administrator of the royal treasury (Nagid al HaOtzarot), after which Jonathan abandoned his idolatrous priesthood and did complete repentance (Teshuvah).
The suspended Nun therefore represents the temporary nature of his degeneration: he was temporarily "Manasseh," but ultimately returned to his true identity as a descendant of "Moses."
Intertext
To understand the broader halakhic context of Judges 18, we must analyze its connections with the laws of Ir HaNidachat (the beguiled city) and the laws governing the centralization of worship (Bamot).
Comparison: The Laws of Ir HaNidachat
The city of Dan, having established a public temple around the Pesel Micah, appears to meet all the criteria of an Ir HaNidachat (a city led astray to idolatry), as detailed in Deuteronomy 13:13-19:
=========================================================================================
Ir HaNidachat Criteria (Deut 13) Judges 18 Application
=========================================================================================
"Certain base fellows... have drawn The five spies and the 600 armed Danites instigate
away the inhabitants of their city" the relocation and establishment of the idol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Saying: Let us go and serve other They set up the Pesel Micah and appoint Jonathan
gods" as their sectarian priest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halakhic Penalty: "Destroy it utterly, No military action was taken by the rest of Israel;
and all that is therein... with the the idol remained throughout the era of Shiloh.
sword."
=========================================================================================
Why did the Sanhedrin or the other tribes not execute the laws of Ir HaNidachat against the city of Dan?
The Halakhic Exclusions of Ir HaNidachat
The Mishnah in Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:4 and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 11b outline several exclusions that explain why the laws of Ir HaNidachat could not be applied to Dan:
- A Frontier City (עיר הספר): The Torah states: "in one of thy cities" Deuteronomy 13:13, which the Sages interpret as excluding frontier cities on the borders of the Land of Israel. Since Dan (Laish) was located on the northernmost border, it served as a buffer zone against foreign invasion. Destroying it would have left the entire northern border of Israel open to Syrian and Sidonian incursions.
- An Entire Tribe (שבט שלם): The Gemara in Sanhedrin 16b establishes that a single court cannot declare a city to be an Ir HaNidachat if it involves an entire tribe. The Sanhedrin cannot wage war against an entire tribe of Israel, as the law of Ir HaNidachat is designed for a localized city, not a sovereign tribal entity.
- The Syncretic Nature of the Worship: As established in Sanhedrin 103b, the Pesel Micah was not pure paganism but syncretic worship of the God of Israel. The strict penalty of Ir HaNidachat applies only when the inhabitants are drawn away to worship entirely foreign deities ("which you have not known").
Comparison: The Law of Bamot (Centralization of Worship)
The establishment of the Danite sanctuary directly intersects with the halakhic timeline of the prohibition of Bamot (private altars), as outlined in Mishnah Zevachim 14:4-8:
[Mishkan in Wilderness] ---> [Gilgal (Bamot Permitted)] ---> [Shiloh (Bamot Forbidden)]
^
|
Danite Temple Established
(Direct Halakhic Violation)
During the 369 years that the Mishkan stood in Shiloh, the use of private altars (Bamot) was strictly forbidden Mishnah Zevachim 14:6.
The Danite sanctuary, which operated "throughout the time that the House of God stood at Shiloh" Judges 18:31, was a direct violation of this law. Even if they intended their worship for the God of Israel, the performance of sacrificial services outside the centralized sanctuary of Shiloh was a severe transgression, carrying the penalty of Karet (spiritual excision) for He'elev Chutz (offering sacrifices outside the Temple courtyard).
Psak / Practice
While Judges 18 is a historical narrative, it yields several practical halakhic rulings and meta-halakhic heuristics that continue to shape rabbinic decision-making.
Meta-Halakhic Heuristic: The Danger of Unauthorized "Halakhic" Innovation
The narrative of Micah and the Danites illustrates how easily well-intentioned individuals can slide into severe transgression when they attempt to bypass established halakhic authority. Micah began by dedicating his silver to God Judges 17:3, and the Danites sought divine guidance through a Levite Judges 18:5.
From their perspective, they were establishing a holy infrastructure. Yet, because their actions were not guided by the Sanhedrin or the authorized Aaronic priesthood, they created an idolatrous cult.
In modern halakhic decision-making, this narrative is cited as a warning against creating new religious rituals or institutions without the consensus of established halakhic authorities (Gedolei HaDor). It highlights that subjective religious sincerity, when divorced from objective halakhic boundaries, can lead to spiritual ruin.
Connection to Rosh Chodesh Av and the Nine Days
This analysis of Judges 18 is written on Rosh Chodesh Av, the beginning of the Nine Days of mourning for the destruction of both Holy Temples in Jerusalem.
There is a direct thematic connection between the spiritual decay of the Danite temple and the eventual destruction of the Temple. The Gemara in Yoma 9b states that the First Temple was destroyed due to three sins: idolatry (Avodah Zarah), sexual immorality (Gilluy Arayot), and bloodshed (Shefikhut Damim).
[The Roots of Churban]
|
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| | |
[Avodah Zarah] [Gilluy Arayot] [Shefikhut Damim]
(Judges 18) (Judges 19) (Judges 20)
Pesel Micah Concubine of The Civil War
Established Gibeah Against Benjamin
The closing chapters of the Book of Judges contain the roots of all three sins:
- Idolatry: The establishment of the Pesel Micah by the tribe of Dan Judges 18.
- Sexual Immorality: The gang rape and murder of the Concubine of Gibeah Judges 19.
- Bloodshed: The devastating civil war between the tribes of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin Judges 20.
The spiritual corruption that began in the era of the Judges with a "small" syncretic idol in the house of Micah eventually grew into the national idolatry that triggered the destruction of Shiloh, and ultimately, the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash.
On Rosh Chodesh Av, we reflect on how localized compromises in halakhic integrity can lead to national tragedy over generations.
Takeaway
The migration of Dan and the establishment of Micah's idol expose the danger of decentralized, subjective religion. When political and spiritual authority collapse, even the descendants of Moses can be hired to lead Israel astray, turning localized deviations into national tragedies.
derekhlearning.com