Judges 18:6-19:19

Sugya Map

The narrative in Judges 18 begins with the tribe of Dan seeking an inheritance, leading them to send out spies. Their encounter with Micah's Levite priest, Jonathan, and his subsequent "prophecy" in Judges 18:6 forms a pivotal moment, presenting a profound sugya concerning the nature of divine pronouncements from potentially illegitimate sources.

• Issue: The core tension revolves around the priest's statement, "לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ" ("Go in peace; YHVH views with favor the mission you are going on"). How are we to understand this seemingly divine affirmation given the priest's context – serving an idolatrous cult (Judges 17:5, 18:4) and the subsequent violent and illicit actions of the Danites (Judges 18:27-28)? Is this a genuine prophecy, a manipulation, a coincidental truth, or a statement of divine knowledge rather than approval?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The validity and interpretation of "prophetic" or divinatory utterances from those engaged in forbidden practices. Does God speak through a kohen avodah zarah?
  • The distinction between divine providence (God's overarching plan) and divine approval (God's moral endorsement).
  • The theological implications of success in a venture born of sin. Does success imply divine sanction?
  • The nuance of the phrase "נֹכַח יְהוָה" – does it denote being before God, in the sight of God, towards God, or with God's favor/assistance?
• Primary Sources:
  • Judges 18:6: "The priest said to them, 'Go in peace; YHVH views with favor the mission you are going on.'"
  • Judges 17:5: "Micah had a house of God, and he made an ephod and teraphim, and installed one of his sons, who became his priest."
  • Judges 18:4: "He said to them, 'Thus and thus Micah did for me—he hired me and I became his priest.'"
  • Judges 18:14-17: The Danites' decision to steal Micah's idols and priest.
  • Judges 18:27-28: The Danites' violent conquest of Laish.

Text Snapshot

The focal point for our analysis is the priest's utterance in Judges 18:6:

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם הַכֹּהֵן לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ.

Breaking down the key phrases:

• הַכֹּהֵן (The priest): This refers to the Levite, Jonathan, whom Micah had hired (Judges 17:10, 18:4). The appellation "הַכֹּהֵן" here is descriptive of his function within Micah's household, not necessarily his legitimate status as a priest for Klal Yisrael.
• לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם (Go in peace): A common Hebrew idiom for wishing success and well-being on a journey. It can range from a simple farewell to a blessing of successful completion.
• נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ (YHVH views with favor the mission you are going on / Lit. "before YHVH is the way upon which you go"): This is the crux.
  • נֹכַח (Nokhaḥ): As noted by Metzudat Zion, it means "נגד" (opposite, in front of, facing) [Metzudat Zion on Judges 18:6:1]. Its precise semantic range is critical. Does it mean "in the presence of," "under the gaze of," "in the favor of," or "in opposition to"? The Sefaria translation "views with favor" leans towards a positive interpretation, but the Hebrew itself is more ambiguous. It could imply divine knowledge (God sees your way) without divine endorsement. The verb form "views with favor" is an interpretive addition to the noun nokhaḥ.
  • הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ (the way upon which you go): Refers to their mission to find an inheritance.

The dikduk and leshon here are subtly pregnant. The use of "הַכֹּהֵן" for a Levite serving a private idolatrous cult immediately raises red flags. The phrase "נֹכַח יְהוָה" could be a deliberate ambiguity or a genuine but misguided attempt at prophecy, where the priest might believe he is channeling divine will through his illicit ephod and terafim. The text leaves the precise nature of this "divine favor" open for extensive exegetical dispute.

Readings

The priest's pronouncement in Judges 18:6, "לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ," is a rich tapestry for mefarshim, each weaving a distinct thread of interpretation regarding the legitimacy of the priest, the authenticity of the message, and the nature of divine providence. The ambiguity of "נֹכַח יְהוָה" is the fertile ground for these diverse chiddushim.

Rashi: Divine Knowledge, Human Worthlessness

Rashi offers a concise yet profound interpretation that cuts to the heart of the matter, distinguishing between divine omniscience and human legitimacy. He states: "The route you will follow is before Adonoy. It is revealed before the Holy One, blessed is He, but these [figurines] are worthless." ¹ Rashi's chiddush lies in divorcing the outcome from the instrument. The priest's statement, according to Rashi, is not a prophecy or a blessing that carries divine sanction due to the priest's spiritual standing or the efficacy of his cult objects. Rather, it's a descriptive truth about God's knowledge. God, in His infinite wisdom, already knows the path the Danites will take and its outcome. The success they will achieve is part of His predetermined plan, revealed to Him (and thus "before" Him), irrespective of the priest's illicit divination tools ("these [figurines] are worthless"). This reading simultaneously affirms God's omniscient providence and utterly discredits Micah's idolatrous setup. For Rashi, the "נֹכַח יְהוָה" signifies that the event is within God's purview and pre-knowledge, not that the action or its source (the priest/idols) is divinely approved. The priest might be uttering a truth, but not because he legitimately accessed God's will; rather, he is merely stating something already known to the Almighty. This approach safeguards God's holiness from any association with avodah zarah.

Radak: Divine Assistance and Predetermined Success

Radak, in contrast, leans towards a more positive, albeit still nuanced, understanding of the priest's words, suggesting a form of divine assistance. He explains: "נכח ה' דרככם. על דרך הנה ה' יצא לפניך כלומר סיוע אלהים עמכם ותרגומו אתקין ה' ארחתכון." ² Radak's chiddush is to interpret "נֹכַח יְהוָה" as divine support or assistance. He draws a parallel to phrases like "הנה ה' יצא לפניך" (Behold, YHVH goes before you), which implies God paving the way or actively aiding. The Targum's rendition, "אתקין ה' ארחתכון" (God will prepare your path), further supports this view. For Radak, the priest's words are not merely about divine knowledge, but about God's active involvement in ensuring the success of their mission. This doesn't necessarily legitimize the priest or his idols, but rather suggests that God, for His own reasons (perhaps related to the divine plan for the tribe of Dan or the punishment of Laish), had already determined that their mission would succeed and would facilitate it. The success is not a consequence of the priest's divination, but rather the priest, through whatever means (even illicit ones), happened to tap into a divinely predetermined reality of assistance. This is a subtle distinction: God assists the outcome, not necessarily the method or the source of the "prophecy." Radak thus sees the priest's words as a genuine, albeit potentially unwitting, glimpse into God's plan for that particular expedition, focusing on the result being divinely ordained and assisted.

Metzudat David: Divine Oversight and Favorable Providence

Metzudat David offers a reading that bridges Rashi's emphasis on divine knowledge with Radak's suggestion of a positive outcome. He states: "ויאמר להם. אחר ששאל, אמר להם דרככם הוא מול ה׳ להשגיח בה ולהצליח אתכם." ³ The chiddush of Metzudat David is his interpretation of "נֹכַח יְהוָה" as God's active supervision or oversight directed towards their success. "מול ה׳ להשגיח בה ולהצליח אתכם" means "before Hashem to observe it and to make you succeed." This implies a proactive divine involvement. Unlike Rashi, who focuses purely on knowledge, Metzudat David sees God's shegicha (providence) as actively engaged in ensuring the Danites' success. It's not just that God knows they will succeed; He is observing their path with the intent to make them succeed. This interpretation grants more weight to the priest's statement as a reflection of divine will, albeit without necessarily endorsing the priest's legitimacy. It suggests that even through an imperfect conduit, the message conveyed a genuine aspect of God's providence for the Danites' journey to establish their inheritance. The success is not accidental or merely known; it is actively facilitated by God's watchful eye.

Malbim: The Purpose of the Journey Under Divine Providence

Malbim provides a more intricate and precise breakdown of the priest's statement, distinguishing between the immediate greeting and the deeper theological meaning. He writes: "ויאמר (אחרי ששאל) לכו לשלום. הוא הצלחת הדרך. נכח ה' דרככם. ר"ל תכלית ההילוך הוא נכח ה' והשגחתו לטובה כי תגיעו למטרת חפצכם." ⁴ Malbim's chiddush lies in his parsing of the two clauses. "לְכוּ לְשָׁלוֹם" is understood as a general wish for the "success of the path." However, "נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ" is interpreted as the purpose or ultimate goal of their journey being "נֹכַח ה'" – before God, under His benevolent providence. He explicitly states that "תכלית ההילוך הוא נכח ה' והשגחתו לטובה כי תגיעו למטרת חפצכם" (the ultimate purpose of the journey is before Hashem and His providence for good, for you will reach the goal of your desire). This suggests that their quest for an inheritance, a foundational act for a tribe of Israel, is inherently under God's positive eye, regardless of the immediate circumstances or the questionable means employed by the Danites and the priest. The telos of their journey aligns with God's overarching plan for Klal Yisrael, and thus success is assured through divine hashgacha l'tova. Malbim's reading elevates the divine providence to a teleological plane, where the ultimate purpose of the Danites' settlement (even if achieved nefariously) is seen as part of a larger divine design.

Steinsaltz: Advisor and Miracle Worker, Destined Success

Steinsaltz offers a modern synthesis, highlighting the priest's perceived role and the certainty of the outcome: "The priest said to them, speaking as an advisor and a miracle worker: Go in peace before the Lord on your way upon which you are going. You are destined to succeed in your endeavor." ⁵ Steinsaltz's chiddush is in framing the priest's self-perception and the impact of his words. He characterizes the priest as acting "as an advisor and a miracle worker." This recognizes the Danites' perception of the priest's authority, even if the reader knows it to be illegitimate. The message itself is then interpreted as a straightforward declaration of "destined success." This view doesn't delve into the nuanced theological implications of how God relates to the illicit act but rather describes the immediate reality as presented by the priest and understood by the spies. It acknowledges the effectiveness of the priest's pronouncement within the narrative, even if its source is problematic, thereby focusing on the narrative function of the statement rather than a deep theological justification of its divine origin. The success is a given, a "destined" outcome, which the priest correctly (if illegitimately) foresees.

The common thread among these mefarshim is the acknowledgment that the Danites do succeed. The divergence lies in how this success is reconciled with the problematic nature of the priest and the Danites' actions. Rashi emphasizes divine knowledge without endorsement. Radak suggests divine assistance for the outcome, not the method. Metzudat David points to active divine oversight for success. Malbim elevates it to a teleological divine providence for the purpose of the journey. Steinsaltz synthesizes these, focusing on the priest's perceived role and the certainty of the destined outcome. Each chiddush grapples with the tension between human sin and divine omnipotence, offering a distinct lens through which to understand the complex interplay of human agency and divine will in the chaotic era of the Judges.

Friction

The most potent kushya arising from Judges 18:6, particularly when viewed through the lens of the traditional mefarshim, is the profound theological dissonance between the priest's seemingly positive divine pronouncement and the flagrant illegitimacy of his position and the reprehensible actions of the Danites. How can "נֹכַח יְהוָה הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכוּ עָלֶיהָ" — "YHVH views with favor the mission you are going on" — be uttered by a priest of an idolatrous cult (Judges 17:5, 18:4), through the use of ephod and terafim (Judges 18:14), and still be truthful and lead to success, without implicitly legitimizing the entire illicit enterprise?

The Kushya: Divine Endorsement of Avodah Zarah and Gezel?

The kushya is multi-faceted:

1. Legitimacy of the Oracle: The priest, Jonathan, is a descendant of Gershom son of Manasseh (or Moses, with the suspended nun) ⁶, but he serves a private cult complete with a graven image, molten image, ephod, and teraphim (Judges 17:4-5). This setup is explicitly avodah zarah (idolatry) or at best, shittuf (association) with God in a forbidden manner. How can a legitimate divine message, especially one of "favor," emanate from such a polluted source? Does God truly "view with favor" a divination performed through idols?
2. Moral Implications of Success: The Danites' mission, as it unfolds, involves outright theft of Micah's cult objects and his priest (Judges 18:17), and then the brutal, unprovoked massacre of the unsuspecting and peaceful inhabitants of Laish (Judges 18:27-28), followed by their settlement on stolen land. If their path is "נֹכַח יְהוָה," does this imply God's approval of theft, violence, and conquest without milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) justification? This is particularly jarring when juxtaposed with the mitzvot against theft and murder, and the meticulous laws of warfare outlined in the Torah.
3. Theological Consistency: The entire book of Judges laments the spiritual decline of Israel, epitomized by the phrase "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה" (In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased) ⁷. To suggest divine favor for acts that are clearly lo yashar (not upright) seems to undermine the very moral framework of the Tanakh.

This kushya challenges our understanding of divine justice and providence. Does God's plan ever override His moral law? Or is there a way to understand the priest's statement that preserves God's moral rectitude while accounting for the narrative's outcome?

The Terutz: Divine Knowledge and Providential Decree, Not Moral Endorsement

The most compelling terutz, synthesizing the insights of Rashi and Malbim, asserts that the priest's statement refers to divine knowledge and providential decree regarding the outcome, rather than a moral endorsement of the actions or the source of the prophecy.

This terutz rests on two pillars:

1. Divine Omniscience vs. Approval (Rashi's approach): Rashi's interpretation, "It is revealed before the Holy One, blessed is He, but these [figurines] are worthless" ⁸, is crucial. The success of the Danites' mission was part of God's pre-knowledge and ultimate plan. It was destined to happen. The priest, through his illicit means, might have stumbled upon this predetermined truth. The language "נֹכַח יְהוָה" can be read as "in the sight of YHVH" or "known to YHVH." God sees their path, and He knows its conclusion. This does not imply that God approves of the theft of the idols or the massacre of Laish. It merely states that these events, however sinful, are part of the unfolding of history as known to God. The fact that the priest's divination "works" in revealing this truth does not legitimize the avodah zarah itself, just as Balaam's prophecies were true despite his wicked intentions and non-Israelite status ⁹. God can use even corrupt vessels to reveal His will or allow events to unfold according to a larger scheme. The worthlessness of the idols means they are not the conduit of divine will; rather, the divine will is (or was destined to be) what it is, and the priest merely uttered a truth about it, possibly without even understanding its deeper implications or the moral void of his own practice.

2. Teleological Providence for the Tribe (Malbim's approach): Malbim's emphasis on "תכלית ההילוך הוא נכח ה' והשגחתו לטובה" ¹⁰ further strengthens this terutz. The ultimate purpose of the Danites' journey—to find an inheritance and settle within the land of Israel—was indeed a divinely ordained imperative for the tribes. The allocation of land in Israel was a central component of God's covenant with Abraham. That Dan, one of the twelve tribes, would eventually find a secure inheritance was part of the divine plan for the nation. While the specific method of acquiring Laish (theft, violence, and setting up an idol) was morally reprehensible, the goal of the tribe establishing its presence in the land was, in a broader sense, "נֹכַח יְהוָה." God's providence was for the settlement of the tribe, not for the sins committed en route. The priest, in his limited capacity, might have perceived the divine will for the outcome (Dan's settlement) without understanding the moral compromises inherent in their actions.

Therefore, the priest's statement is not an endorsement of avodah zarah or violence. It is a declaration of a predetermined outcome known to God, and perhaps reflecting a broader providential plan for the tribe of Dan to fulfill its destiny of settlement, even if achieved through means that were lo ra'uy (unfitting) and sinful. The success is a testament to God's overarching plan, not a validation of human transgression. The chaotic era of the Judges, where "everyone did as he pleased," demonstrates that even within a divine plan, human beings retain agency to make morally corrupt choices, and God allows these choices to unfold, sometimes even using them to achieve His larger purposes, without ever condoning the sin itself.

Intertext

The sugya of a seemingly true pronouncement emanating from a morally compromised source, or the success of a venture born of sin, echoes deeply within Tanakh and later Jewish thought, challenging facile interpretations of divine providence and moral accountability.

Balaam and the Divine Constraint on Prophecy

The most striking parallel is the narrative of Balaam in Bemidbar (Numbers 22-24) ¹¹. Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet-for-hire, is engaged by Balak to curse Israel. Despite his wicked intentions and his attempts to sway God's will, God consistently places words in his mouth that turn into blessings for Israel. Balaam's mouth is "constrained" by God, such that he can only utter what God desires. This parallel is highly instructive for Judges 18:6. Just as Balaam, a practitioner of divination and a potential enemy, could not curse Israel because God's will was otherwise, so too Micah's priest, despite his illicit cult, might have been used by God to articulate a truth regarding Dan's destiny. The legitimacy of the message (that Dan will succeed) is divorced from the legitimacy of the messenger (Balaam, or Micah's priest) or the method (divination, in both cases). The chiddush here is the concept of prophecy be'oness (prophecy under duress/compulsion) or nevuah shelo lishmah (prophecy not for its own sake). God's overarching plan for Klal Yisrael (in Balaam's case, to bless them; in Dan's case, to settle them) can utilize even those who are far from ideal conduits. This does not validate Balaam's sorcery or Micah's idolatry, but rather highlights God's absolute sovereignty over all forms of communication and His ability to achieve His ends through any means He chooses. As Rashi notes on Balaam, "From the mouth of the wicked, life issues." ¹²

Saul, the Witch of Ein Dor, and the Truth of Forbidden Divination

Another poignant parallel is King Saul's consultation with the witch of Ein Dor in Shmuel I (1 Samuel 28) ¹³. Desperate for guidance before a battle, Saul violates the Torah's prohibition against necromancy and consults a medium to raise the spirit of Samuel. While the act is explicitly forbidden and leads to Saul's condemnation, the message conveyed by the spirit of Samuel is tragically true: Saul and his sons will die in battle. This narrative reinforces the idea that forbidden means of divination can, in fact, yield accurate information. The kushya here is similar: if the information is true, does it somehow mitigate the prohibition? The answer, unequivocally, is no. The truthfulness of the message does not legitimize the action of consulting the medium. In the context of Judges 18:6, this tells us that the priest's accurate prediction of the Danites' success, even if obtained through the ephod and terafim of avodah zarah, does not make his cult permissible or his practice holy. God, in His absolute control over all realms, can allow truth to emerge even from sources anathema to His law. The ethical imperative remains to shun such practices, regardless of their occasional efficacy. The sin lies in the act itself, not necessarily in the veracity of the outcome. The Mishna in Sanhedrin states regarding ov (necromancer), that even if "he knows how to perform an act" it is forbidden ¹⁴, confirming that efficacy does not negate prohibition.

These intertextual references elucidate that the problem with Micah's priest is not necessarily that his oracle is false, but that it is illicit. God's knowledge and His ultimate plan are not contingent on human righteousness or proper channels. He can reveal (or allow to be revealed) what He wishes, through whom He wishes, even if those channels are deeply flawed. This allows the terutz to maintain God's moral perfection while explaining the narrative's outcome.

Psak/Practice

The sugya of Micah's priest and the Danite expedition, while situated in the narrative book of Judges, offers profound insights into meta-psak heuristics and foundational principles of halachah and hashkafa (Jewish worldview). It does not yield a direct halachic psak in the prescriptive sense, but rather informs our understanding of the parameters of divine interaction with humanity and the nature of religious authority.

The Illegitimacy of Means, Irrespective of Outcome

The primary meta-psak heuristic to emerge is the categorical rejection of prohibited means, even if they appear to lead to desirable outcomes. The success of the Danites, following the priest's "prophecy," might tempt one to believe that the priest's ephod and terafim were legitimate, or at least effective. However, the mefarshim (especially Rashi) are unanimous in discrediting the source and method. Rashi's explicit "but these [figurines] are worthless" ¹⁵ sets the tone. This reinforces a fundamental halachic principle: Ein mitzvah ba'averah (There is no mitzvah achieved through a transgression). ¹⁶ Even if the outcome aligns with God's ultimate plan (e.g., the tribe of Dan settling in the land), the specific actions (idolatry, theft, massacre) remain sinful and are not retrospectively sanctioned by the success. This principle prevents a consequentialist ethics from overriding divine command. The halachah mandates adherence to the d'var Hashem (word of God) as revealed in the Torah, irrespective of perceived short-term benefits or apparent "divine favor" through illicit channels.

Distinguishing Divine Knowledge from Divine Approval

The sugya provides a crucial lens for distinguishing between God's omniscient knowledge and His moral approval. As elaborated in the terutz, the priest's pronouncement reflects God's pre-knowledge of future events, or His overarching providence for the tribe's settlement, but not His endorsement of the Danites' sinful actions or Micah's cult. This distinction is vital in halachic reasoning when confronting situations where seemingly "good" things happen to "bad" people, or "bad" things happen to "good" people. It reminds us that divine providence is complex and not always a direct reward/punishment mechanism visible to human eyes. Success in this world is not, in itself, proof of spiritual rectitude or divine favor.

The Danger of Charismatic but Illegitimate Authority

The narrative also serves as a cautionary tale regarding charismatic but illegitimate religious authority. Micah's priest, Jonathan, is a Levite, lending him a veneer of authenticity. He possesses cult objects (ephod, teraphim) that evoke legitimate priestly functions. He provides an oracle that proves true. Yet, his entire operation is fundamentally flawed and prohibited. In psak and communal practice, this highlights the necessity of adhering to established halachic parameters and recognized rabbinic authority, rather than being swayed by individuals who claim special access to the divine through unorthodox or prohibited means, even if they occasionally appear "successful" or "prophetic." The path of Torah is defined by mesorah (tradition) and halachah, not by individualistic, self-appointed "advisors and miracle workers" (Steinsaltz) ¹⁷ who operate outside these bounds. The story implicitly underscores the importance of a centralized religious authority and a unified kingdom (the lack of which is the refrain of Judges), which would ideally have prevented such decentralized, idiosyncratic, and ultimately idolatrous religious practices.

Takeaway

The Danite narrative tragically illustrates that divine providence may allow outcomes to unfold according to a larger plan, even when human actions are morally reprehensible and religiously illicit. True faith demands adherence to God's law, not reliance on perceived divine favor from illegitimate sources or the deceptive allure of success achieved through sin.

Citations

1. Rashi on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
2. Radak on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=he&with=all&lang2=en
3. Metzudat David on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Metzudat_David_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=he&with=all&lang2=en
4. Malbim on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=he&with=all&lang2=en
5. Steinsaltz on Judges 18:6. https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Judges.18.6?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
6. Judges 18:30. https://www.sefaria.org/Judges.18.30?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
7. Judges 18:1 (and 17:6, 19:1, 21:25). https://www.sefaria.org/Judges.18.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
8. Rashi on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
9. Numbers 22-24. https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.22?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
10. Malbim on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=he&with=all&lang2=en
11. Numbers 22-24. https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.22?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
12. Rashi on Numbers 22:35:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Numbers.22.35.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
13. 1 Samuel 28. https://www.sefaria.org/1_Samuel.28?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
14. Mishna Sanhedrin 7:7. https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.7.7?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
15. Rashi on Judges 18:6:1. https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Judges.18.6.1?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
16. Sukkah 30a. https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.30a?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
17. Steinsaltz on Judges 18:6. https://www.sefaria.org/Steinsaltz_on_Judges.18.6?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en