74 Benjamin D. Sommer
in a strange manner: the letter nun (equivalent to our n) is written in su-
perscript. Th is suggests the possibility that we should read the name with-
out the nun — and without the nun, this name would read “Moses.” In other
words, the Levite of this story in Judges may in fact have been a descen-
dant of Moses (who was himself a Levite — that is, a member of the tribe
descended from the patriarch Jacob’s son Levi). Th e Levite was descended
from Moses’s son Gershom (a character mentioned in Exodus 2:22 and 18:3
and apparently alluded to in Judges 18:30); or perhaps the text in Judges
does not intend literally to connect the Levite of this story with a Mosaic
progenitor, but the text as it is traditionally written at the very least wants
to remind us of Moses and his son Gershom. Th at hint is also evident, on
second reading, in the very fi rst verse of the narrative, Judges 17:1, which
mentions that the Levite with whom the narrative is concerned lived in
Bethlehem. More specifi cally, the text tells us that “he dwelt there.” Th e He-
brew for “dwelt there,” gar sham, sounds almost identical to “Gershom,”
the name of Moses’s son; indeed, one could translate the phrase in ques-
tion, “And he was Gershom.” In short, the opening and closing verses of
this story have a number of textual signals that attract the midrashic inter-
preter’s attention: the odd spelling of Ma na sseh/Moses and the play on the
name of Moses’s son Gershom. One additional feature needs to be noted:
the Levite in question is referred to fi rst of all, at the beginning of Judges
17:7, as “a lad” — in Hebrew, na‘ar, the same word used of the seemingly
anonymous lad in Numbers 11:27.
We have identifi ed two separate problems in two diff erent texts: the
oddities in Judges require explanation, and so does the anonymity of the
lad in Numbers. Th e vocabulary of the verses involved in these two prob-
lems shows that these texts are linked; both include the word na‘ar (lad),
and both relate to Moses. To the midrashic mind, these linkages (char-
acteristic 4) demand that we read both texts closely (characteristic 1) and
that we read each in light of the other (characteristic 3). It follows from
the linkages that the two texts are hinting at one and the same lad — to wit,
Moses’s son Gershom, who, like Joshua, would be upset at the prediction
made by Eldad and Medad. Aft er all, the midrash has already established
that their prophesy could be seen by Moses’s disciples as an insult to Mo-
ses (though Moses himself did not see it that way). Gershom would have
shared Joshua’s desire to bring the matter to Moses’s immediate attention,
which explains why he did not merely “go” or “walk” but “ran” to the Tent
of Meeting to tell Moses what was transpiring at the Israelite encampment.
We should also note the role of characteristic 2 in this midrash. Th e in-