Here we enter the two chapters that conclude Sefer Shoftim, and in effect two matters that seal the book: the first is what is known as "the idol of Michah" - Michah makes himself an idol that becomes a stumbling block for all of Israel; and the second is the incident of the concubine at Givah, which is the parashah that closes the book.
At first glance, from the order in which these matters are written, it would seem that these events happened close in time to the incident of Shimshon. Shimshon was the last of the judges, and immediately after him came the incident of the idol of Michah and the incident of the concubine at Givah, and afterward Sefer Shmuel begins, where we are introduced to Chanah, to Elkanah, to Shmuel who is born, and a new era begins: Shaul is anointed king, the era of David, and the era of the kings begins. It turns out that our era here lies at the seam between the end of the era of the judges and the beginning of the era of the kings and the era of Shmuel, and so it is according to the chronology of the order in which the book is written.
But in Seder Olam we see otherwise, and Rashi brings this: even though these two parshiyot, the idol of Michah and the concubine at Givah, are written here at the end of the book, the event itself took place at the beginning of the era of the judges, in the era of Otniel ben Kenaz. And there are proofs for this from the verses. One proof: it is written "and they set up for themselves the idol of Michah all the days that the House of God was in Shiloh" - implying that all the days of Shiloh the idol of Michah existed. And the days of Shiloh began already in the time of Yehoshua, and the Mishkan of Shiloh stood close to three hundred and seventy years (three hundred and sixty nine years), until the era of Eli. And if it is written "all the days of Shiloh," it implies that immediately at the end of the era of Yehoshua they began to worship idolatry with the idol of Michah, and this was the era of Otniel ben Kenaz. A second proof they bring from the incident of the concubine at Givah, where it is written "we shall not turn aside into a city of foreigners" - to Yevus. Yevus is called a city of foreigners, and Yevus is Yerushalayim. This implies that this refers to a period when they had not yet conquered Yerushalayim, and only afterward, in Shoftim chapter 1, do we see that they conquer Yerushalayim. That is to say, this took place even before the beginning of the era of the judges.
The approach of Seder Olam fits very well with what appears in the Midrash. Chazal ask: who is that Michah who made an idol, an ephod, and terafim? And they say: at the time when Pharaoh enslaved Israel with mortar and bricks, Pharaoh decreed a quota, and whoever did not meet the quota - they would take his children and place them as courses in the building. Moshe Rabbeinu cried out to the Holy One, blessed be He, and said to Him: Master of the world, when is the redemption? The Holy One, blessed be He, told him that it would come in its proper time. Moshe said to Him: but Master of the world, meanwhile people are dying, and behold, You see, there are infants being pressed into the building. Moshe went and took out one of the infants who had been pressed into the building, and therefore he was named Michah - after the fact that he was pressed (nitmakhmakh) into the building. Moshe said: why have You done evil to this people? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Moshe, do not worry, they are thorns that are being consumed. The Egyptians who thus kill the children of Israel - these children are thorns, and thorns are consumed. It is revealed and known before Me that if they came into the world and grew up, they would be complete evildoers. Moshe went and took out one of them, and this is Michah.
And further: when Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to raise the coffin of Yosef from the Nile, he wrote the Name upon a plate and wrote on it "arise, ox, arise, ox," and cast it into the Nile. The one who secretly took this Name was Michah. And when the Holy One, blessed be He, brought Israel across the Yam Suf, Michah passed with them with this Name in his hand, and with it he planned to make the calf. So in effect idolatry passed with them through the sea. And about this the Midrash says "he passed through the sea, a distress" - this is Michah, with whom was "distress," idolatry, for as it were "the bed was too short to stretch out" and as it were she is a rival (tzarah) to the Holy One, blessed be He. Chazal say: you see that this Michah's end was revealed, and a period later we see him making an ephod and terafim, and this is the Michah written in our passage. According to this the matter fits the approach of Seder Olam: if back then he was an infant, then when they came into the Land he was already a grown man.
In contrast, some explain that these incidents, the incident of Michah and the incident of the concubine at Givah, are written according to the chronological order of the events: the incident of Shimshon, and after it the incident of Michah, and after it the incident of the concubine at Givah. This is the explanation of the Radak, and he finds great difficulty with those who wish to say that the event took place in the era of Otniel ben Kenaz and in the days of Yehoshua. The Radak says: the matter is astonishing - how is it possible to say that all the time that the Ark of Hashem was in Shiloh, that is, already in the time of Yehoshua, there was idolatry? For it is written of the time of Yehoshua "and they served Hashem all the days of Yehoshua," and there was no idolatry at all then. And he further asks: the tribes of Gad and Reuven built an altar on the eastern side of the Yarden, and that altar was only "for appearance," as we learned, in order to serve as a reminder that we are part of the nation of Israel, so that in the future your children would not say to our children that you are not connected to the Jewish people - and nevertheless all the tribes went out to fight them and said: what, are you going to commit idolatry? And if so, the idol of Michah, which is a full-fledged idol for idolatry, would they not have gone out to fight against it? How is it possible that the tribes would remain silent? Therefore the Radak says: certainly this did not take place in that era, but rather in the era of Shimshon, after his death, and if so it refers to close to the end of the era of the judges, as is revealed to us from the plain meaning of the verses.
The Gra too maintains that the Michah written in our passage is not the Michah of the Midrash. Even though from the Gemara it would seem to be proven that this is the same Michah, the Gra says that it should not be understood so: we are not speaking here about Michah himself, but rather the intent is that this is the same deed that occurred then. And the explanation of the Gra resolves many questions, for many times we see that Chazal say about a certain person that he is another person. For example: "he is Nevat, he is Michah, and Sheva ben Bichri" - these refer to entirely different periods. Nevat is the father of Yeravam, Sheva ben Bichri appears in another era, and Michah in another era. How can they be the same person, when they did not live so long? Therefore the Gra says: when they say "this one is so-and-so, this one is such-and-such," they mean to say that they had the same matter, they did the same deed, and therefore they link and liken them to one another. So that even according to the Gra there is no necessity that it refers to the very same person, but rather to two people bearing the same name whose deeds were identical - deeds of the corruption of idolatry.
According to the Radak this is understandable, since it is the chronological order. But according to the other commentators, who hold that this story took place in the days of Otniel ben Kenaz, it is difficult: it should have been written right after the death of Yehoshua. To come and tell the story after the conclusion of the period of the Judges, out of order, is puzzling. There are several explanations for this. Some say that since he was from the tribe of Dan, the text comes to tell us what sin was among them, and this matter of Michah's idol continued for such a long time. Others explain that it is also connected to the matter of Shimshon, who was a Danite, and therefore it tells us here about an idol that was in the tribe of Dan: two episodes that tell you of a fault and a fall that occurred in the tribe of Dan. And some say the connection is the eleven hundred pieces of silver: here it appears that the mother prepared eleven hundred pieces of silver for the idolatry, and to Delilah the Philistines gave eleven hundred pieces of silver so that she would betray Shimshon, and therefore one matter is placed next to the other.
And some say that this also explains why the episode of the concubine at Givah is placed here, even though it is unrelated to the matter: because through Michah's idol thousands of Israel were killed, and so too through the concubine at Givah. For seemingly, in the episode of the concubine at Givah, those who went out to fight against the tribe of Binyamin fought justly, so why did they have to fall in battle? Because the sin of Michah's idol was among them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: over My honor you did not protest. Behold, an idol was made and you were silent, all those years this idol stood and you kept silent, and here, when they did a terrible deed to that concubine at Givah, you rose up and protested? Therefore they suffered defeat, as we shall see further on. And another explanation is brought in the Malbim: the text did not want to interrupt the sequence of the Judges. It brings the entire continuity of the Judges, and after finishing their account, it then tells what happened with Michah and what happened with the concubine at Givah. It did not want to cut in the middle, but rather finished the sequence and then described two episodes that occurred at the beginning of the period of the Judges according to Seder Olam.
וַיְהִי אִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרָיִם וּשְׁמוֹ מִיכָיְהוּ׃ - There was a man from Mount Ephraim and his name was Michayehu.
The Malbim addresses two difficulties. First, here it is written "Michayehu," and afterward we see that the name becomes "Michah." Second, it is written "and his name was Michayehu," and Chazal say that wherever "and his name" precedes, it refers to a righteous person, as in "and his name was Mordechai." Yet here it speaks of a man who committed idolatry that caused thousands to stumble, and it should have written "Michayehu was his name," as in "Naval was his name." The answer is that at that time he was still righteous, as we see that the mother is planning her idolatrous schemes and he is not willing to listen to it. Therefore he is called Michayehu, with the letters yud-heh-vav, and only afterward does the vav disappear and he is called Michah. And because of the good deed that was in him, the text put "and his name" first.
And indeed this rule too requires examination, for we find exceptions: "And Rivkah had a brother and his name was Lavan." This does not quite fit, it should have said "Lavan was his name." The answer is that whenever you find such a thing, look for some good deed that person did at that moment. Even if he was a negative person, the text says "and his name was so-and-so" because he did a good deed at that time. And regarding Lavan, he was greatly disturbed that Eliezer gave Rivkah rings, he was alarmed that there was a lack of modesty and a flaw in modesty here, and he went out to protest. And since he acted with an act of righteousness, they wrote "and his name was Lavan." But we should know: whenever "and his name" is written as an introduction, either it refers to a righteous person, or he performed at that moment an act of righteousness.
וַיֹּאמֶר לְאִמּוֹ אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח לָךְ וְאַתְּ אָלִית וְגַם אָמַרְתְּ בְּאָזְנַי הִנֵּה הַכֶּסֶף אִתִּי אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו וַתֹּאמֶר אִמּוֹ בָּרוּךְ בְּנִי לַה'׃ - And he said to his mother: the eleven hundred pieces of silver that were taken from you, about which you uttered a curse and even spoke in my ears, behold the silver is with me, I took it; and his mother said: blessed be my son to Hashem.
He says to his mother: Mother, do you remember that eleven hundred pieces of silver were stolen from you? "That were taken from you." And when this happened to you, "and you uttered a curse," from the language of curse and imprecation: a curse be upon whoever took the silver. "And you also spoke in my ears": you suspected me and made sure that I would hear you cursing the thief. And now I confess to you: behold, the silver is with me, you were right, I took it, and therefore I am ready to return it. And his mother said: blessed be my son to Hashem.
The Malbim explains: when you cursed aloud, you hinted to me that the silver was with me; I confess and now come to make amends and return the theft that I took. And it is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 71, that one who curses the robber should not curse and say "whoever robbed shall be cursed," but rather should say "whoever has the stolen item in his possession and does not return it shall be cursed." For if you say "whoever robbed shall be cursed," what does it matter to the robber? He has already robbed and is under the curse regardless. But if you say "whoever robbed and the stolen item is in his possession and he does not return it shall be under the curse," you have given him motivation to return it. And so too here, when she cursed, she did not say "whoever took the silver," but rather "whoever has the silver with him and does not return it." And therefore "his mother said: blessed be my son to Hashem": if so, you are blessed, and the curse does not apply to you, for my curse was upon whoever does not return, and you returned it, and the curse does not rest upon you.
Rashi brings here an interesting matter, an interpretation that he himself rejects, and it creates a connection between the previous chapter and our chapter, and it also touches upon the question of the time period. Rashi says: some say that Michah's mother is Delilah. And from where did she have eleven hundred pieces of silver? What the lords of the Philistines gave her for betraying Shimshon and revealing his secret, and this silver Michah took. It emerges according to this explanation that Delilah converted, and afterward married an Israelite, and he is the father of Michah. In practice it is very difficult to explain it this way, for I cannot imagine which court would have been willing to convert Delilah, who betrayed Shimshon to the Philistines. And Rashi himself rejects these words, for according to Rashi the episode of Michah took place in the time of Otniel ben Kenaz, at the beginning of the period of the Judges according to the view of Seder Olam, and we are here at the end of the period of the Judges, and therefore this is entirely impossible.
Nevertheless, Rav Chaim Kanievsky has a book called "Lemachseh Atik," named after the language of a verse, in which he reveals all sorts of things not readily available to everyone, hidden sources that in his great genius he uncovered. Rav Chaim Kanievsky says: what Rashi brings as an interpretation and then rejects, that Delilah was the mother of Michah, has a source in the Tosefta of the Targum. There is a Targum, and the Targum has a Tosefta, and the Yemenites need no explanation about this, since many times when they translate the haftarot they also translate the Tosefta. The Tosefta to the Targum is a sort of Midrash, and sometimes it is quite lengthy. If so, even though Rashi says that the matter cannot be, it is not an invention but a Midrash, and there it appears that she is that same Delilah. And this does not fit with what Rashi brings from the other Midrash, and consequently these are conflicting Midrashim, for we saw a Midrash that says this is the same Michah who was crushed in the building, while here we are dealing with Michah the son of Delilah at the end of the period of the Judges. Or we will need to explain according to the words of the Gra, that when they said "he is Michah" they did not mean that exact Michah, but rather that their deeds are equal and similar.
וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אִמּוֹ הַקְדֵּשׁ הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לַה' מִיָּדִי לִבְנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ׃ - And he returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother, and his mother said: I had wholly dedicated the silver to Hashem from my hand for my son, to make a graven image and a molten image, and now I will return it to you.
There is a difficulty here: in our verse it is written "and he returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother," and in the next verse it is written again "and he returned the silver to his mother," why the repetition? Rashi says: "and he returned" here means that he said he would return it to her. That is, since I am willing to return it to you, it is as though it is already with you. I will go and take it out from the place where I hid it, but "and he returned the silver" is essentially a declaration of intent: I intend to return it to you, mother, and it is as though it is already in your possession. Then his mother immediately says to him: "I had wholly dedicated the silver from my hand for my son," I took upon myself to hand over the silver from my hand into your hand, so that you would make from it a sort of molten image, and if so you may leave the silver with you.
The Ralbag notes an internal contradiction in the verse: "I dedicated the silver to Hashem," and immediately "to make a graven image and a molten image." Hashem and a graven and molten image? Is this idolatry or the service of Hashem? And further on it will appear explicitly that this is a form of idolatry. The Ralbag says: graven and molten images were forms that people would make, and in their opinion they thought that these forms would have the power to draw down supernal forces, to tell the future and through them know hidden things, as we saw with Lavan who chases after Yaakov because they took his terafim. According to this it is understood: at first she dedicated the silver to Hashem, and did not do it for the sake of idolatry, but rather wanted a holy spirit from Hashem to clothe itself in this graven and molten image, and through it they would know the future. But in the end they later erred and made of it something with power of its own, and made of it an idol and worshipped it itself.
The Malbim explains "and he returned the eleven hundred pieces of silver to his mother" according to its plain meaning: he immediately returned the stolen goods, and from this you see that he was still God-fearing, as we explained. And his mother says to him: I dedicated the silver to Hashem and made two conditions, "from my hand for my son," I obligated myself that the silver would be given to my son and he would be the treasurer over the silver from which a graven and molten image would be built, and therefore "and now I will return it to you." That is, not like Rashi that this is merely a declaration of intent, but she had already received the silver in hand, and says: take it, I am returning it to you, make from it a graven and molten image.
וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ וַתִּקַּח אִמּוֹ מָאתַיִם כֶּסֶף וַתִּתְּנֵהוּ לַצּוֹרֵף וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ פֶּסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָיְהוּ׃ - And he returned the silver to his mother, and his mother took two hundred pieces of silver and gave it to the smith, and he made it into a graven image and a molten image, and it was in the house of Michayhu.
According to Rashi, at first he only declared intent, and here he performs an actual deed. According to the Malbim, already the first time he returned the silver, except that his mother returned it to him and said: no, I designated you to be the treasurer over this silver from which you shall build a graven and molten image. And he takes the silver and returns it to her again, and this is a second time: the first time was the return of stolen goods, and the second time is a statement, mother, I am not entering into this business. A graven image, a molten image, idolatry, I do not want to be a partner in this, neither a treasurer for idolatry nor to make idolatry.
And here is a further difficulty: we spoke of eleven hundred pieces of silver, and how did it become two hundred? The truth is that if you ask any synagogue gabbai, he will tell you there is no difficulty here: in pledges I am a millionaire, but in practice how much actually comes into the pocket? Much, much less. People say without accounting: this is a thousand, that is two thousand, but when the stage of actually giving the money arrives, it turns out that things go awry along the way, and afterward they look for someone to perform a hatarat nedarim. But the Malbim explains: since he tried to persuade his mother, mother, what do you have to do with this trouble of making a graven image for idolatry, why do you need this? the mother was partially persuaded and said: fine, not all eleven hundred pieces of silver; two hundred I will give to the smith, and from the rest I will not make idolatry.
The Radak, by contrast, resolves the difficulty differently: the mother was willing to give eleven hundred pieces of silver, and she stood by the amount she pledged. Except that in order to make the graven image one must pay the smith, and the smith received a fee of two hundred pieces of silver, and from the remaining nine hundred he made the graven image. "And his mother took two hundred pieces of silver and gave it to the smith," as payment for the work, and the graven image was built from nine hundred. So that in fact she pledged eleven hundred and gave eleven hundred.
And let us note how the decline of Michah begins here. At first "and his name was Michayhu," and afterward he is called Michah, but here we are not yet at that stage, and it is written "and it was in the house of Michayhu," for he was still righteous. And yet he is already committing a transgression: by leaving the graven image in his house he transgresses "you shall have no other gods," and Rashi says that this is a warning to one who keeps an idol in his house. He does not worship it, it does not matter, the very fact that it is in your house, it may be that tomorrow you will light a candle for it, and who knows where you will slide with it. Do not leave idolatry in the house, do not leave it at all: take a hammer and smash it.
וְהָאִישׁ מִיכָה לוֹ בֵּית אֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשׂ אֵפוֹד וּתְרָפִים וַיְמַלֵּא אֶת יַד אַחַד מִבָּנָיו וַיְהִי לוֹ לְכֹהֵן׃ - And the man Michah had a house of God, and he made an ephod and teraphim, and he consecrated one of his sons, who became his priest.
Here the Malbim points out that we are witnessing a serious decline. First of all, he is now called "Michah" and no longer "Michayhu." "He had a house of God" - he made himself a house of God, and "God" here means idolatry, a house of idol worship for the graven image. After that, "he made an ephod and teraphim" - this was already at his own expense, not his mother's; he begins to make private investments. And then "he consecrated one of his sons" as a priest - he needed someone to serve here, to receive donations, to pray, to cultivate the idolatry, and so he took one of his sons and gave him the role. Some commentators say this was the firstborn, since it was their practice to sanctify the firstborn, and as is known, in contrast, the service in the Temple was performed by the firstborn. "He consecrated him" - he qualified him to be a priest in the house of idolatry.
בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה׃ - In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.
How can such a thing happen? How does one make an idol and set up idolatry publicly for the community, and no one protests? Regarding this the prophet says: there is no king in Israel, and when there is no king, each person does what is right in his own eyes.
וַיְהִי נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר שָׁם׃ - And there was a youth from Beit Lechem of Yehudah, of the family of Yehudah, and he was a Levite, and he sojourned there.
Who is this youth, who is of the family of Yehudah and yet a Levite and sojourns there? Chazal address the question and say: this youth, whom we will see later in the chapter become the priest serving in Michah's house as a priest for idolatry, is Shevuel son of Gershom son of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe Rabbeinu had a grandson who was a priest for idolatry, and his name was Shevuel. We will see his full story toward the end of the account of Michah and the Levite youth: who this Shevuel was, in what period he lived, and what he went through.
And why does the verse call him "of the family of Yehudah"? After all, Shevuel son of Gershom son of Moshe is from the tribe of Levi, and Yehudah is a different tribe. There is an opinion in the Gemara that on his father's side he was from the tribe of Levi, while on his mother's side his mother was from the family of Yehudah. But the Gemara brings a different explanation, and one could say it even rejects the first: know that he is not connected to the family of Yehudah at all, and the reason it is written "of the family of Yehudah" is because he acted as did King Menasheh, who was of Yehudah. That is why he is later called "Yehonatan son of Gershom son of Menasheh," and Chazal say: do not read "son of Menasheh" but "son of Moshe." And why is he called son of Menasheh? One explanation: out of respect for Moshe, they did not want to say that a priest for idolatry descended from him, so they concealed it and wrote "son of Menasheh." And where is this hinted? The nun of "Menasheh" is suspended, written above, as if it were written "Moshe" and someone planted a nun there - and this is a suspended nun. And why Menasheh specifically? Because one attributes the corruption to the one who is corrupt: who made an idol for idolatry? Menasheh. And so "son of Gershom son of Menasheh," who behaved in the manner of Menasheh, and also "of the family of Yehudah," since Menasheh was of Yehudah. And later we will explain why such a thing actually happened to Moshe, that a grandson who worshiped idols came from him, which is a most astonishing matter: how a righteous man like Moshe Rabbeinu could have a grandson who worshiped idols.
"And he sojourned there" - in Beit Lechem. And even though the Levites had cities designated for the tribe, nevertheless the youth dwelt in Beit Lechem, meaning he was looking for a place where he could earn a living, and so he went to live in Beit Lechem. And when he saw that he could not find a livelihood there, he began to look elsewhere.
וַיֵּלֶךְ הָאִישׁ מֵהָעִיר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא וַיָּבֹא הַר אֶפְרַיִם עַד בֵּית מִיכָה לַעֲשׂוֹת דַּרְכּוֹ׃ - And the man went from the city, from Beit Lechem of Yehudah, to sojourn wherever he might find, and he came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Michah, as he made his way.
He set out from Beit Lechem Yehudah "to sojourn wherever he would find," for he was looking for a livelihood. He was not searching for one particular place, but for any place where he could earn a living, and there he would settle. He arrives at the house of Michah, not because he thought he would find a source of income there, but "as he went on his way," like a traveler stopping to spend the night. And why specifically at Michah's house? One must understand that Michah's house of idolatry was a magnet, because he had opened a soup kitchen there. He had there, lehavdil, something like the tent of Avraham. People would come from every direction, and he would give them food and drink. That is why Chazal say that the fire of Michah's idol, whatever they would offer up to Michah's idol, would rise and mingle with the smoke of the altar arrangement in Shiloh, and the ministering angels sought to push it away: Master of the Universe, how can it be that idolatry mixes with the service of Hashem? Hashem said to them: Leave him be, for his bread is available to wayfarers. We see that he was a man of kindness, and therefore, when the young Levi went looking for a place to lodge, he found Michah's house, where there was a kind of soup kitchen at which one could eat and drink.
Some wish to bring proof from here that we are speaking of the beginning of the era of the Judges, for the Levi is looking for a place to settle; and if this were a later period, the Levite cities would already have existed, so why is he searching for a place? But in truth this is not conclusive, for it could very well be that he did not find his livelihood and therefore went and searched for another place, as we explained.
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מִיכָה מֵאַיִן תָּבוֹא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֵוִי אָנֹכִי מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה וְאָנֹכִי הֹלֵךְ לָגוּר בַּאֲשֶׁר אֶמְצָא׃ - And Michah said to him: Where do you come from? And he said to him: I am a Levite from Beit Lechem Yehudah, and I am going to sojourn wherever I may find.
Michah asks "Where do you come from," because he thought the man had a permanent home and was merely passing through here. The Levi tells him: No, I do not live in any fixed place, I am going to sojourn wherever I may find, I am searching for a place to settle. The Metzudat David explains that "I am a Levite" means: I am from the tribe of Levi, and I am ready to teach and instruct, as it is written concerning the tribe of Levi, "They shall teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Yisrael."
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מִיכָה שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי וֶהְיֵה לִי לְאָב וּלְכֹהֵן וְאָנֹכִי אֶתֶּן לְךָ עֲשֶׂרֶת כֶּסֶף לַיָּמִים וְעֵרֶךְ בְּגָדִים וּמִחְיָתֶךָ וַיֵּלֶךְ הַלֵּוִי׃ - And Michah said to him: Stay with me and be to me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, and a set of garments and your sustenance. And the Levi went.
Michah sees such a thing and jumps as one who has found great spoil: I am looking for a Levi, and here is a Levi of distinguished lineage. Do you know who will be the priest for me in the house of idolatry? A grandson of Moshe Rabbeinu, whose uncle is Aharon. This will make the place most attractive. And so he makes an offer that is hard to refuse. First: "Stay with me" - you are wandering with nowhere to lay your head, and I will provide you a place to settle and dwell. Second: "Be to me a father and a priest" - I will arrange an honorable position for you, you will have prestige here. Third: with honor you cannot buy at the grocery, you need a salary, and therefore "I will give you ten pieces of silver a year" - ten pieces of silver per year, which was a very considerable sum. And if you ask what more: "and a set of garments," your pay slip will include another item, you will receive garments befitting your value and honor. And what about food? Obviously - "and your sustenance," provisions, food and drink.
And how did the Levi respond? "And the Levi went" - and here there is a disagreement. Some explain, and so does the Malbim, that he was not willing to accept this: Is this what you are offering me? To serve idolatry, to be a priest for idolatry? Shall I sell myself for money? And therefore he left. But other commentators, and among them the Metzudat David, explain "And the Levi went" - he followed his own counsel, he indeed agreed, for it is hard to refuse such an offer. And some explain that "And the Levi went" means that he went to wrap up his affairs in the other places, to take his leave of Beit Lechem Yehudah and bring his belongings, in order to settle here permanently.
וַיּוֹאֶל הַלֵּוִי לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ וַיְהִי הַנַּעַר לוֹ כְּאַחַד מִבָּנָיו׃ - And the Levi consented to dwell with the man, and the young man became to him like one of his sons.
What is meant by "And the Levi consented to dwell with the man"? This depends on the interpretations. According to the Malbim, after he left he reckoned, saw that there was no other source of livelihood, and compromised. According to the Metzudat David, this is a continuation of the earlier words: "And the Levi went" - he went according to his own counsel, and decided to remain with him and consented to dwell with him. But let us note that the Malbim explains that there was no sudden extreme transition here, from a man who does not serve idolatry to someone who suddenly becomes a priest for idolatry. "And the Levi consented to dwell with the man" - a priest, God forbid, no; rather, I will stay with you for a few days, there is free food here, "to dwell with the man." And afterward "and the young man became to him like one of his sons" - little by little the mind grows accustomed, and he became like one of his sons, drawn after the wickedness of Michah.
Let us note the expression "And he consented... to dwell with the man." There is someone else about whom this is said: Shemot chapter 2, verse 21 - "And Moshe consented to dwell with the man, and he gave Tzipporah his daughter to Moshe for a wife." What the grandfather did, the grandson does. And what is the connection between the two? Chazal say: "vayoel" is nothing other than a term of oath. Yitro, who had served all the idolatries in the world, made Moshe swear and said to him: I will give you Tzipporah, swear to me that the firstborn son who will be born to you will be a priest for idolatry. "And Moshe consented" - an oath and swearing, and Moshe swore. And how could it be that Moshe swore such a thing? And indeed it is not even accurate, for his son was not a priest for idolatry, God forbid. The answer: Moshe said, I will bring him to repentance - a short seminar and he returns to me in repentance. And he was right, for Yitro himself repented. But Moshe let it out of his mouth, and a covenant is sealed with the lips. Moshe said "I swear that my son...," and though it was indeed not his son, his great-grandson and grandson was a priest for idolatry. And what did not strike him - struck his grandson, and therefore precisely the same verse, the same expression and the same wording.
And some explain that "vayo'el" here is an oath for a different reason: Michah was worried that the Levi would live with him, take a bit, and run off; or he was worried that later he would have a competitor, that the Levi would open his own house of idol worship and take away all his clientele. After all, if he is accepted here it is because he is a grandson of Moshe, and if people come it is because he is a grandson of Moshe. Tomorrow he will leave and run away, and therefore Michah put him under oath. And we will see later that this is indeed what happened in the end: not exactly running away, since they seized him, but he was fairly willing to go along with it. So Michah puts him under oath: I take you on condition that you stay here and do not run away, and "the Levi agreed to dwell with the man" - he swore to him, no problem, I am with you through fire and water.
And Rav Chaim Kanievsky brings in "Lamachaseh Atik" what the Gemara says in Sanhedrin 101, that the son of Michah, that son whom we saw Michah placed at the outset as a priest for idol worship, is Yeravam ben Nevat. It comes out, then, that Michah had two names, both Nevat and Michah. Or we can follow the line we explained earlier, that since they did the same deed, Scripture attributes to them the same expression. Or it is not necessarily a "son" in the literal sense, for sometimes it speaks of a great-grandson or grandson, as they say about Rut the Moabite that she was the daughter of Eglon king of Moav, though by the reckoning that refers to a much earlier period, only that "daughter" does not mean daughter but descendant. So too one can explain here.
וַיְמַלֵּא מִיכָה אֶת יַד הַלֵּוִי וַיְהִי לוֹ הַנַּעַר לְכֹהֵן וַיְהִי בְּבֵית מִיכָה׃ - And Michah filled the hand of the Levi, and the young man became his priest, and he was in the house of Michah.
"And Michah filled the hand of the Levi" - he inaugurated him for his task. "He became his priest and was in the house of Michah" - he became a permanent resident in his house. Until now he had been temporary, living out of a suitcase, and now the house of Michah is already a permanent place.
וַיֹּאמֶר מִיכָה עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יֵיטִיב ה' לִי כִּי הָיָה לִי הַלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן׃ - And Michah said: Now I know that Hashem will do good to me, for the Levi has become my priest.
And with this Michah gives thanks and praise to the idol, to the idolatry. As long as my son was priest, I knew that it was not fitting: a firstborn he is, indeed, but he is not a priest. But now I know that Hashem will do good to me, for I see here divine providence and the kindnesses of Hashem: the Holy One, blessed be He, arranged for me a priest for idol worship, arranged for me someone from the family of the tribe of Levi, and behold he is truly fitting. The kindness of Hashem is upon me, and this is a sign that I will succeed. See the people who stray from the straight path: he receives encouragement, as it were, even from things in which he sees the very opposite of the service of Hashem, and he says "Hashem helped me, with Heaven's assistance." A thief too sees Heaven's assistance in his thefts, kisses the mezuzah and prays to Hashem and gives thanks: Master of the world, thank you for helping me steal. He has made the Holy One, blessed be He, God forbid, a partner to the crime. And so too here: as it were, Hashem helped me find a priest for my idolatry.
And this shows the confusion they had, as we will see later: throughout the entire period that they served idolatry they had a constant confusion, that they would serve both Hashem and the ba'alim. A complete mixture: they would offer sacrifices to Hashem and also to the ba'al, serve idolatry and also believe in Hashem. For many times they were confused, and believed that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Ruler over everything, and that idolatry is a way to receive the influences from Hashem, a kind of intermediary. Therefore you will see many times that the name of Heaven is mentioned, as with the calf, where they offer peace offerings to Hashem and on the other hand say "these are your gods, Israel." So one need not be surprised at "for Hashem will do good to me": in his eyes the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Ruler over everything, and all the images and terafim are only a way to draw close to His service.
Chapter 17 opens the concluding narrative of Sefer Shoftim: Michah, a man who is called at first "Michayehu" and by the term used for the righteous "and his name," returns stolen goods out of fear of Heaven, and from there descends step by step, until he builds a house of God, makes an eiphod and terafim, inaugurates his son as priest, and finally hires the grandson of Moshe Rabbeinu as a priest for idolatry, and even sees in this the kindnesses of Hashem. The commentators disagree about the timing of the incident: according to Seder Olam and Rashi it was at the beginning of the period of the Judges in the days of Otniel ben Kenaz, and according to the Radak at the end of the period after Shimshon; and why the narrative was written here - because of the tribe of Dan, because of the eleven hundred pieces of silver, because the sin of Michah's idol caused the downfall in the incident of the concubine at Giv'ah, or, as the Malbim says, so as not to cut off the continuous sequence of the Judges. And the message that runs through the entire chapter is how one falls gradually: there is no king in Israel, every man does what is right in his own eyes, and no one protests, and thus a single idol in the house of a single man becomes a stumbling block for all of Israel for generations.