De todos ha de haber en el mundo. (There must be all types in the world.)
Cervantes, Don Quixote, vol. 2, chap. 6
Separating Simeon from his brother Levi does not come easy. “Simeon and Levi are brothers” declared Jacob, tying them together as a single unit. Indeed, they were so often intertwined in deed and personality, in intent and action, that they were all but interchangeable in the Book of Genesis. Together they vanquished Shechem; together they bore their father’s wrath.
It was not until a much later era, when one tribe dominated the national landscape while the other floundered to find his unique role, that their personalities diverged. It is thus impossible to examine Simeon without his constant partner-in-arms, Levi. Yet even as Levi extricated himself from the sticky brotherly bond to emerge triumphant, Simeon was crushed by his father’s curse and, as a tribe, consigned to near oblivion.
Often these less-painted characters are precisely the ones who linger in the reader’s mind: the dismissed – those who were deliberately obscured by the deep shadows cast by the blazing, dominating heroes. Quite a few of Jacob’s sons fell into this rank, eclipsed as they were by such brothers as Judah, Joseph, and Levi. We wonder and worry about the lesser stars within Jacob’s family. We are discomfited by the notion of hierarchy among siblings, seeking to discover the distinctiveness of each personality. Perhaps none is more difficult to come to terms with than Simeon, the impugned and blasted shevet, almost beyond salvation thanks to Jacob’s curse and ignored entirely in Moses’s last testament to the nation. Yet he remained counted among the twelve tribes, and thus he was reserved a specific role and distinct naĥalah within the nation of Israel.
Who was Simeon, really, beyond the sullen older brother, censured by Jacob? Did he retain any redeeming features that might offset his reputation as the most disgraced of the shevatim? Was he ever rehabilitated?
Simeon was the second son of Leah. His birth bolstered her confidence – and the hope that Jacob would love her on account of the children she provided him. This is the simple meaning of the name that Leah gave him:
She conceived again and bore a son, and she said, “God has heeded [lit. heard, Heb., sh-m-’] that I am unloved, and has given me this one also.” So she named him Simeon.
Genesis 29:33
Simeon stems from the root sh-m-’, meaning “to hear,” or “to heed.” God noticed my pain, Leah proclaimed, and again provided me with a son to help ease my way into Jacob’s heart.
Simeon’s name may also be read, however, as bearing ominous overtones of the iniquities in store for this son. Perhaps, posit the Sages, Leah sensed dark potential as she peered into her second child’s face: “sham avon” – there (in him) is sin.1MHG, Genesis 29:33, and Tzeror Ha-Mor VaYetzei 37b, perhaps basing themselves on BR 71:4. This midrash plays on the letters of Simeon’s name, while careening wildly away from the simple meaning of the verse; it functions to pin later information about the tribe to the very essence of his name.
Shall Our Sister Be Treated Like a Whore?!
We next meet Simeon as a young man.2Rashi (Nazir 29b, “ור׳ יוסי ור׳ יהודה סבר”) suggested that he was at least thirteen years old, since the verse specified “ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי אחי דינה איש חרבו” [the two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah – each man took up his sword] (Genesis 34:25). Years have passed. Jacob is finally on the way back to Israel. Then disaster strikes.
Now Dinah – the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob – went out to visit the daughters of the land. Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, chief of the country, saw her; he took her, and lay with her by force.
Genesis 34:1–2
All of Dinah’s brothers were “distressed and exceedingly angry” (Genesis 34:7).3See also 34:13. Yet it was Simeon and his younger brother Levi who set forth on revenge. They killed all of the unprotected male citizens of the city at their most vulnerable, weakened from the circumcisions that they underwent as part of a peace treaty with Jacob.434:25. While it is possible to interpret that the other brothers joined Simeon and Levi afterward in plundering and looting the city,5Ralbag on 34:27 interpreted “benei Yaakov” as implying all of Jacob’s sons. Simeon and Levi were the ringleaders. It was they who were held accountable by their father:
Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: “You have brought trouble on me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and Perizzites. My men are few in number, so that if they unite against me and attack me, I and my house will be destroyed.”
Genesis 34:30
Startlingly, the narrative doesn’t end there. Simeon and Levi had the last word: “Shall our sister be treated like a whore?” (Genesis 34:31).
This dramatic close to the episode offers a telling glimpse into Simeon’s character. He was righteously indignant, zealous for the honor of his father’s house. By destroying Shechem and redeeming their sister, he and Levi proved themselves true “brothers to Dinah,”634:25. whereas the other sons of Jacob were never identified as such. Simeon’s loyalty to his family, especially to another child of Leah, is underscored by the midrashic tradition that he went on to marry Dinah, who despaired of ever finding a husband after her defilement.7BR 80:10. Simeon cared deeply about his family’s integrity. And he is forever symbolized – for good and evil – by the battle against Shechem that he initiated.
The two central tribal symbols – the standard and the gemstone on the priestly breastplate – both demonstrate the centrality of Shechem to the formation of Simeon’s identity. His flag was emblazoned with a depiction of Shechem, the city he destroyed.8BaR 2:7. His gemstone was the pitdah (topaz, or jade), which had the mythic property of breaking or changing color as soon as an unchaste person gazed at it – a fitting complement to Simeon, who was singularly enraged at the dissoluteness of Shechem.9Midrash Talpiyot, אות ״א״ ענף אבנים טובות ״שמעון הטופאציאו״. The pitdah also has the quality of cooling off the body from its ardor, a helpful antidote to a tribe concerned with sexual propriety (Rabbenu Baĥya, Exodus 28:17).
Simeon’s Hatred of Joseph
It is not surprising, then, that Simeon was the zealous leader of the move against Joseph. When a teenaged Joseph shared his dreams of supremacy with his brothers, Simeon was the one who called for his murder. Perhaps Joseph’s charisma, his strong sexual allure,10Genesis 49:22; BR 98:18; Tan. VaYeshev 5. acutely disturbed Simeon’s well-honed sense of sexual morality and integrity.
Apart from issues of Joseph’s personality, though, Simeon may have had a more basic concern. As next in line to lead the clan after Reuben, perhaps Simeon felt that his personal status was threatened.11See “Simeon and Levi” in this chapter. Maybe he, like his older brother, lobbied for the dominance of Leah over Rachel, and was put off by the loving attentions lavished on Joseph by their father (so reminiscent was this of the simmering tensions between their mothers).12According to the pseudepigraphal Testament of Simeon, Simeon’s desire to kill Joseph came of jealousy. Simeon informed his sons that his sin of jealousy was punished by the withering of his own right hand, which induced him to repent. “For two years I gave myself up to fasting and the fear of God, for I perceived that redemption from jealousy could come only through the fear of God.” One thing is certain: his national vision demanded equality among the brothers, and Joseph’s claims to dominance deeply insulted that vision. A charismatic individual encourages adoration; from there, it is only a short leap to deification. Simeon (and his brothers) deeply feared that Joseph would bring the Children of Israel to idolatry of one form or another. This, according to the midrash, was Simeon’s key contention, his justification for attacking Joseph:
Simeon said to Levi: “Behold, the master of dreams comes with a new dream. This one will lead them all to the Baal idolatry! Come now, therefore, and let us slay him, that we will see what will become of his dreams.”13Tan. B. VaYeshev 13 detailed that Simeon and Levi were the instigators; the content of their speech was found in BR 84:14.
This midrashic motif that Simeon headed the plot to kill Joseph continues with a number of details. Simeon wanted to kill; Simeon alone was charged with throwing Joseph into the pit.14BR 84:16 and 99:7; Tan. B. VaYeshev 13 (where Simeon was also charged with hurling down stones into the pit after Joseph); Tan. VaYeshev 9, Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 37:19. Philo also placed blame squarely on Simeon in De Josepho 30; some sources have Levi as an accomplice (Midrash Mishlei 1:12). He threatened the Midianites with death for drawing Joseph out of the pit and keeping him alive.15Sefer Ha-Yashar, VaYeshev, 67b–68a. In this midrashic retelling of the sale of Joseph, passing Midianites, thirsty for water, approached the pit and subsequently saw Joseph languishing. They drew him out. Brandishing his sword, Simeon threatened them all with death. The Midianites saved themselves by appealing to the other brothers with an offer to buy Joseph. And, when Issachar advised tearing Joseph’s ketonet pasim, the special colorful garment lovingly given him by Jacob, and dipping it in blood to trick their father into thinking that Joseph had been torn apart by a wild animal, Simeon did not want to relinquish the cloak. This refusal to cooperate stemmed from Simeon’s anger toward his brothers for not agreeing to kill Joseph.16This detail was furnished by the pseudepigraphal Testament of Zebulun 4.
Why, we must ask, does the midrash take this approach? True, Simeon had, in the past, taken deadly initiative, but linking the plot to murder Joseph with the massacre of Shechem seems spurious. The midrash, however, is responding to a puzzling detail that emerged later in the story.
When Jacob’s sons descended to Egypt seeking relief from the famine raging through Canaan, they were directed to the vizier – who was none other than their brother Joseph (whom they did not recognize). Joseph sought a comprehensive rapprochement with his brethren, and devised an elaborate ruse to prolong their interaction with him. He accused them of spying. He then held Simeon captive until the brothers could prove the veracity of their tale by demonstrating that they indeed had a younger brother. They were to bring Benjamin down to Egypt, and only then would Joseph release Simeon.
The choice of Simeon is curious. We might have expected Joseph to imprison Reuben, as he was the firstborn son, or Judah, the brother identified as having suggested selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites. But it was Simeon, a relatively low-key figure, who was kept. It is this oddity that led the Sages to identify Simeon as the ringleader of that whole sorry conspiracy. Joseph imprisoned Simeon because he was the one who sought to kill Joseph.17Rather than level the serious charge against Joseph of taking revenge for what Simeon had done to him, the midrash understands Joseph’s move to detain Simeon as a self-defense mechanism. Joseph, argues the midrash, suspected that Simeon might again try to rally his brothers to kill him, since he stood in their way of obtaining food. He knew Simeon’s volatile nature and he wanted to separate him from Levi, fearing that together the unrestrained brothers might do to Egypt what they had done to Shechem (MHG, Genesis 42:24; BR 91:6). For more on Shechem as the city that Simeon and Levi destroyed, and Levi later rehabilitated, see “Visiting Naĥalat Levi” in chapter 4.
The glimpses of Simeon throughout the Book of Genesis, from both the verses themselves and the midrashic constructs linking the sale of Joseph with the detainment of Simeon in Egypt, form a troubling image of this shevet.
Jacob’s Curse
The portrait of this second son of Jacob that emerged over the course of his lifetime was not a positive one. It was the zealousness with which Simeon terrorized Shechem, the hotheaded rage that Simeon focused on Joseph, that Jacob scathingly blasted in his last testament to his sons:
Simeon and Levi are a pair;
Their weapons are tools of lawlessness.
Let me not be included in their council,
Let me not be counted in their assembly.
For when angry, they slay men,
And when it pleased them, they maimed the bull.
Cursed be their anger so fierce,
And their wrath so relentless.
I will divide them in Jacob,
Scatter them in Israel.
Genesis 49:5–7
Simeon and Levi were brothers-in-arms, lamented Jacob, finding no solace in the closeness or similarity between his sons. A midrash read into Jacob’s opening words: “Brothers, indeed! – brothers to Dinah, but not to Joseph.”18BR 98:5. The two defining episodes in Simeon’s life – the massacre of Shechem and the attempted murder of Joseph – were alluded to repeatedly by Jacob.
Simeon had the last word when finally confronted by Jacob about Shechem, but Jacob had not forgotten and had not forgiven. The Sages understand Jacob’s deathbed testament to Simeon and Levi as a sharp censure:
Their weapons are tools of lawlessness – [can also be interpreted as] their weapons are ill-begotten tools. The weapons of violence that you used to kill Shechem were illegitimate – they were of Esau’s portion (for to Esau was it said: by the sword you shall live; not to you, Simeon and Levi!). It was not seemly for you to draw the sword.
In their anger they slew a man – You wrongfully killed Hamor, father of Shechem.19For a discussion of why Jacob believed so strongly in the injustice of killing Hamor, see פישל מייעל, שבטי ישראל, (באלטימור: תשנ״ז), 123–27.
And when it pleased them, they maimed the bull – You sought to uproot Joseph, whom Jacob defined as “the Bull” (Genesis 49:22).20BR 98:5.
Their punishment?
Let me not be included in their council – When the Simeonites involved themselves with the Midianite women at Shittim, a move spearheaded by their leader Zimri, nowhere was Jacob’s name mentioned in Zimri’s lineage.
Cursed be their anger…I will divide them in Jacob – 24,000 men of Simeon died in Shittim due to their sins of licentiousness and idolatry, and their widows married into other tribes.
I will scatter them in Israel – Your descendants shall be destitute, and will be forced to go begging amongst their brethren throughout the land.21Ibid.
In Jacob’s testaments to his sons, he honed in on an essential attribute that could greatly impact the future of the given tribe. Simeon’s zealousness would again become his undoing, Jacob intimated – it was a trait that he would not be able to shake. There seemed to be little redemptive potential in his future.
Simeon and Levi
The tribe of Simeon realized their diminished status long after their ancestor’s death, when they confronted Moses in the desert. It was there that the twinned brothers finally separated. Levi had taken his trait of zealousness in a very different direction.22For more on the subtle distinctions between jealousy and zealousness, see Rabbi Matis Weinberg, Patterns in Time: Chanukah (Feldheim: Jerusalem, 1992), 266–73, 287–89.
Nowhere is this more evident than in a later biblical episode detailed in the Book of Numbers. As the Israelites camped in Shittim in the Plains of Moab, on the cusp of crossing over into the land, the Moabites hatched a plan for their downfall: sexual entrapment by fetching Midianite women23Sanhedrin 106a. that would eventually lead to idolatry. Flagrant breeches of propriety were brought to a climax as a Simeonite prince, Zimri son of Salu, paraded Kozbi the Midianite princess into his chambers as Moses and the Israelites looked on from the Tent of Meeting. It was the Levite and priest Phineas son of Elazar who determinedly took up his spear and strode after them into Zimri’s tent, then impaling the couple in flagrante delicto.
Ramban explains the order of events. The people worshipped the Midianite god Baal-Pe’or, causing the “anger of God [to flare] up against Israel.”24Numbers 25:3. This, Rashi and Ramban argue, refers to visiting a plague upon the people,25According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 82b), those 24,000 who were killed off by the plague (Numbers 25:9) were from the tribe of Simeon: “The mixed multitude [from Egypt] took for themselves wives from among the daughters of the tribe of Simeon, and the offspring of these intermarriages were the sinners who fell prey to the allurements of the Moabite women. The plague that broke out in consequence of the sins committed by them purged Israel of this element.” Note the biting irony in having Simeon, the chaste tribe obsessed with sexual integrity, singled out as the very tribe involved in rampant sexual sin.
Alternatively, the 24,000 Simeonites were killed off by a plague after Phineas killed Zimri; in this version, Zimri’s co-tribalists surrounded Phineas and were about to kill him. God leveled them with a deadly plague, and Phineas was saved (BaR 20:25). In both versions, the tribe of Simeon saw its numbers halved, and it would never quite recover. as we are later told that Phineas caused “the plague [to be] removed from upon the Children of Israel.”26Numbers 25:8.
As the fatalities mount, the nation and Moses came wailing before the Tent of Meeting. It was then that the prince of Simeon defiantly cavorted with the daughter of the Midianite chieftain, in full sight of the Israelite populace and Moses himself. It seemed that, as the representative of his tribe, Zimri had a specific agenda. It would be a misreading to explain away his public, almost ceremonial, act as simple carnal lust.27Ramban on Numbers 25:5. The Talmud solves the incongruities by introducing a backstory – an earlier dispute between Zimri and Moses, incited by the resentment Simeon harbored toward Levi.
Kozbi [the Midianite princess] was charged to only yield to Moses [to seduce him]. When approached by Zimri, he boasted that he was greater than Moses, for Moses was chief of the third tribe, whereas Zimri was chief of the second [older] tribe of Simeon.
Zimri grabbed Kozbi by her braids and presented her before Moses, asking, “Is this one permitted to me?” Moses answered no, to which Zimri retorted, “You married the daughter of an idolater, also a Midianite – so why can’t I have Kozbi?”
Sanhedrin 82a
This confrontation would be difficult to understand were we not aware that the two brothers who essentially had shared adventures and curses – Simeon and Levi – had since diverged. Levi escaped the brunt of Jacob’s curse, fathering the leaders of the nation, Moses and Aaron. By avoiding sinning with the Golden Calf, he earned the favor of God. Simeon, by contrast, languished, unredeemed from his father’s curse. He nurtured a resentment toward his younger brother. Zimri lambasted the fact that Moses the Levite was allowed a Midianite woman; surely he, as representative of the elder tribe, should have been afforded the same license. Royalty should be with royalty, Zimri argued, and persuaded the princess Kozbi that he was the principal figure among the Israelites.
Zimri was so convinced of the rightness of his claim to lead Israel, and his desire to best Moses and the Levites was so intense, that he failed to see the madness of his act. Blinded by righteous indignation, Zimri shamelessly sinned against God just to aggrieve Moses.
At this point, the tribe of Levi, through their favorite son Phineas, demonstrated how the trait of kana’ut – zealousness – shared by the blood brothers could be applied judiciously. Phineas was zealous not for his own honor, nor for the honor of Moses, but for the honor of God, and his bold act was praised by the Lord:
And the Lord said to Moses: “Phineas son of Elazar son of Aaron the priest has turned My wrath away from the Children of Israel, for he was zealous for My sake in their midst, so I did not wipe out the Children of Israel in My passion. Thus, I say, I grant him My covenant of peace.”
Numbers 25:10–12
Simeon and Levi were brothers, Jacob bemoaned – the two sons who were most alike, and most dangerous when united. They were the hotheaded ones, zealous and unforgiving, and united they were too formidable a force. “I will divide them in Jacob, scatter them in Israel.” This attribute of zealousness is a powerful tool, redemptive if used correctly and deadly if misemployed. At Shittim, as Phineas confronted Zimri, Jacob’s prophecy was realized, and the once-inseparable brothers now faced each other as antagonists. Levi (in Phineas) proved triumphant in his mastery of the potential inherent in a zealous personality, while Simeon (in Zimri) disastrously exposed that he never learned to channel his intensity properly.28For further discussion of their common spiritual strengths, see Ha-Emek Davar, Genesis 34:25, and Sefat Emet, VaYeĥi (5647).
Moses’s “Blessing”
After Jacob’s curse, and the calamitous episode in Shittim, we are fairly unsurprised that Simeon was the one tribe upon whom Moses did not bestow a blessing. The Sages, however, believe that Simeon was alluded to in Judah’s blessing, for the naĥalah of Simeon was buried deep within Judah’s territory:
“And this is the blessing for Judah: he said, Heed, God, the voice of Judah!” (Deuteronomy 33:7) – Moses prayed on behalf of Simeon, saying:
“Master of the Universe, whenever Simeon’s welfare is in question, provide his salvation!”
Sifrei, Deuteronomy 34829This midrash is based on the wording “שמע ה׳ קול יהודה,” (God heeded the voice of Judah), where “shema” is understood as a veiled allusion to Simeon. See also Midrash Tannaim 33:7.
Others assert that Simeon is to be found in Levi’s blessing – discovered in the very omission of his name, for Jacob established the precedent of grouping the brothers together. Simeon’s absence is especially glaring in the context of the lavish attention given to Levi:
“And of Levi he said” (Deuteronomy 33:8) – Why is this said? Because Simeon and Levi drank from the same cup, as it was said, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, I will scatter them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). A parable: Two men borrowed money from the king. One repaid the king and even lent him some money, while the other not only did not repay the debt but even borrowed more money. So it was that both Simeon and Levi “borrowed” in the matter of Shechem,30“The two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah – took each man his sword and came upon the city stealthily, and killed all of the males” (Genesis 34:25). but Levi repaid his debt in the wilderness31“Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, ‘Whoever is for the Lord, let him come to me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered to him. And he said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Let every man gird his thigh… ’ And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses” (Exodus 32:26–28). and even “lent” something to God at Shittim.32“Phineas son of Elazar son of Aaron the priest has turned My wrath away from the Children of Israel… ” (Numbers 25:11). But Simeon not only did not repay his “debt” but even “borrowed” more, in the matter of Zimri.33Numbers 25:14. Thus Levi was blessed, but not Simeon.
Sifrei, Deuteronomy 34934Also Midrash Tannaim 33:8.
This lack of blessing, or at best a blessing hidden deep within another tribe’s blessing, portended a dismal future for the tribe. Indeed, the midrash notes that Simeon produced neither judge nor king, unlike the other tribes who each laid claim to a period of national leadership.35YS Judges 42. It is true that King Zimri was from Simeon, but his brief seven-day reign was considered too insignificant for the midashic author to note. Additionally, Midrash Shoĥer Tov (Tehillim 90:3:17) identified the judge Shamgar ben Anat as a Simeonite. Perhaps Shamgar’s short tenure was also considered inconsequential by the midrashic author. It also should be noted that Shamgar ben Anat’s tribal identity was disputed by Abarbanel and Rashi. See שבטי ישראל, מייעל, 132. Compare with Sukkah 27b: “there was not one tribe which did not furnish kings and judges.”
Simeon’s fate – to be eternally overshadowed by younger brothers Judah and Levi, and bereft of distinguished sons – was succinctly distilled into a curse with which the father of the tribe burdened his offspring: “As a small remnant you will be scattered among Levi and Judah, and none among you will rise to be a judge or a king of our people… ” (Testament of Simeon).36Even Simeon’s positioning around the Tabernacle in the desert indicated his lamentable status as requiring the merit and protection of Reuben and Gad (BaR 2:10). The tribal prince’s name is “Shlumiel,” perhaps the source of the yiddish epithet “schlemiel,” meaning a bungler who never quite wins at life.
Simeon, the Schoolteacher
Are we to despair entirely of Simeon? After all, we have seen little evidence of any redemptive quality that might salvage this tribe from its cursed status. And while the midrash37PR 7, 28a–28b. might claim that the three oldest sons of Jacob indeed received blessings like the other brothers, despite the severe censure for their sins by Jacob, we are hard-pressed in Simeon’s case to identify just what that blessing was.
We are left to interpretive innovation, introduced compassionately by Rashi, to grasp at some notion of Simeon’s saving grace. In the context of Jacob’s “blessing” to Simeon, Rashi comments that Simeon brought forth schoolteachers needed by Israel.38Rashi’s source is unclear. His exegesis may have stemmed from midrashic sources like BR 99:7 and Tan. VaYeĥi 10, which indicated that the tribe would be destitute, forced to wander and beg. Linking such a poor lifestyle with the usual meager income afforded a primary school teacher was natural. Rashi may have played off of these sources, as well as Deuteronomy 33:10, which identified the Levites as the nation’s teaching rank. Since Simeon and Levi were “blessed” together by Jacob as being scattered among the tribes, Rashi might have attributed the positive consequence of such an adverse situation – namely, being available to attend to the national need for gifted schoolteachers – to the brother of the natural-born educators, the Levites. For further discussion of their shared spiritual strengths, see Sefat Emet, VaYeĥi 5647. Interestingly, the Church Fathers Tertullian (Adversus Marcion, 3:18 and Adversus Judaios, 10) and Hippolytus (on Genesis 49:5) likewise mentioned the tradition that Pharisees and scribes belonged to the tribes of Simeon and Levi.
What does it take to be a good teacher? Communication skills, clearly, and a mastery of the material. Most critically, though, a teacher must be passionate about what he or she is teaching, in order to inspire the students. Simeon, perhaps, was given the role of the national schoolteacher because he was passionate. Young, impressionable minds react strongly and positively to an instructor who fully embraces the pedagogical role with excitement. To introduce young Jews to Torah, we want someone whose teaching is heartfelt on the job, and Simeon fit the bill.
Simeon, Flawed…but an Integral Part of the Nation of Israel
In sum, we find that Simeon’s great trait was his zealousness. He was zealous for the honor of his sister and refused to engage in diplomacy when it came to Shechem. He also was hotheaded with jealousy toward Joseph, and led the brothers in the plot to kill him. This zealousness tied him together with his brother Levi, and their combined intensity was potentially incendiary. Thus, even as Jacob grouped the brothers together, he also intimated that they separate for their own good. Indeed, the tribe of Levi later distanced themselves from that of Simeon, using their zealousness for the honor of God – and against Simeon. Levi, as embodied by the archetypal son Phineas, put their outstanding character trait of kana’ut to good purpose, even as Simeon’s kana’ut degenerated to competitiveness and jealousy. Moses omitted Simeon from his blessings, and we are forced to seek out a smidgen of absolution or favor for the beleaguered tribe embedded within another brother’s blessing. It seems this tribe could only have been redeemed by being “scattered among Israel.”39It would seem that some Simeonites made their way up north, settling within the naĥalot of Ephraim and Manasseh (II Chronicles 34:6). In the Book of Judith, which was set in the town of Bethulia in the Dothan Valley, the courageous heroine who decapitated the enemy general was referred to numerous times as being a Simeonite. That a member of this tribe particularly would act forcefully and zealously on behalf of her nation may be seen, perhaps, as a tikkun for the inappropriate actions of her ancestors.
Simeon and Levi, the twinned brothers, came to embody two sides of a single, dangerous trait. Kana’ut can be expressed either as selfless zealotry for a lofty purpose, as achieved by Levi, or, conversely, jealousy driven by petty and personal reasons, with which Simeon was associated. Even as they diverged, Simeon and Levi remained interlinked, each defining the other: it was only through Simeon’s mistakes that Levi could learn to embody and express the positive aspects of zealotry. Phineas achieved the “covenant of peace” with the very act that destroyed Zimri.
While our exploration of Simeon reveals a character that was more chastened than gloried, we are gratified that this second son of Jacob was not banished from the family. He too had his naĥalah, a set of cities in the south from which the members of the tribe that bore his name set out among the other tribes to fulfill their role as itinerant preachers and beggars. Perhaps this role was their tikkun, or redemptive measure, for him. Even if not, their teaching served the nation, as did their begging – for “as much as the wealthy might give to the poor, the poor give more to the wealthy [by way of ĥesed opportunities].”40Ruth Rabbah 5:19.
A final thought: “There are dark shadows on the earth, but its lights are stronger in the contrast.”41Charles Dickens, The Pickwick Papers (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), 799. The diminished shevet had another role: to serve as a foil for the rest of the nation. The ketoret (holy incense) served in the Temple had to contain one foul-smelling ingredient to bring out the sweetness of the components; so too, stated the Talmud, on days of fasting and penitence, congregations must include evildoers.42Keritot 6b. See also Bartenura on Megillah 4:9. Simeon remained a vital part of Am Yisrael, providing the dark notes to highlight their greatness.43This idea was developed in conversation with Dr. Chana Tannenbaum.
Naĥalat Shimon
Simeon’s naĥalah, as detailed in Joshua 19:1–9, was composed of a series of seventeen cities within the southern belt of the naĥalah of Judah. Twice here, and once more in the Book of Judges,44Judges 1:3, where Judah asked Simeon to join them in battle against the Canaanites (this request probably stemmed from the tribes’ proximity to one another). the verses stress that Simeon was all but absorbed into the larger, more powerful tribe of Judah (Simeon’s cities were surrounded on the north, east, and south by Judah’s territory). The midrashic sources that discover Moses’s blessing to Simeon implicit within his blessing to Judah rely heavily on the fact that Simeon was subsumed by Judah:
Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon; since the share of the Judahites was larger than they needed, the Simeonites received a portion inside their portion.
Joshua 19:9
Later evidence indicates, though, that Simeon maintained its tribal identity and did not assimilate into Judah.45I Chronicles 4:41–42, where the families of Simeon were registered in the reign of Hezekiah (715–686 Bce). His territory, though, was often described as “broader Judah” (II Samuel 24:7; I Samuel 30:14, 26–31).
One question remains: why was Simeon allocated a southern portion? A curious Talmudic adage addresses the issue. In Bava Batra 25b, the Sage Rabbi Yitzĥak opined that one who sought wealth should head north, while one who sought wisdom would find it in the south. Even a superficial understanding of the topography of Eretz Yisrael demonstrates that the northern areas of the country were rich in water and soil, and that it required much more ingenuity and cleverness to produce fruit in the south, the dry Negev. As David Ben-Gurion, the modern visionary who so championed Jewish settlement in the south, put it: “It is in the Negev that the creativity and pioneer vigor of Israel shall be tested.” To find applied wisdom and a perspicacious spirit, head south.
Why, then, would we expect to find Simeon in this difficult terrain? Rabbi Eliyahu Mallai offers the following explanation:
The south, which is the permanent home of Simeon, exemplifies the uniqueness of Israelite wisdom, its focus and distinctiveness.…Wealth and materialism mark the connection and similarity of Israel with the other nations.…Simeon is associated from his very outset with the trait of zealous passion for the special sanctity of the Jewish people and for his concern for the paradigm of Israel as “a nation which dwells apart,” with little association with other peoples. Therefore he especially belongs in the south.46הרב אליהו מאלי, “נחלת שמעון,״ האתר למקוריות במצוות, http://tora.us.fm/tnk1/sofrim/mali/nxlot_jmeon.html (Hebrew website; translation mine).
Simeon, who was adamant that Shechem not be absorbed into the family of Jacob and that the Israelites remain distinct, belonged in the south, a region where the other nations had no interest in partnering with the Jews, and where the unique “yiddishe kop” was needed to make the desert bloom.
Visiting Naĥalat Shimon
Itinerary: Ziklag (Tel Ser’a), Tel Beer-Shev’a
We expect that a tour of Naĥalat Shimon will evoke association with the tribe of Judah. The Negev region and its cities belonged to both of these tribes. The situation was particularly complicated, given that the national royal family, the House of David, were Judahites, imparting even more clout to the already powerful tribe of Judah, which had personal investment in this region. Thus, any city allocated to Simeon likely became subsumed fairly quickly into Naĥalat Yehudah.
We start our tour at the westernmost city assigned to Simeon, Ziklag. Ziklag marked the western edge of the entire Israelite territory. Just west of the site sat the famed foreign entity Gerar (Tel Haror), which was always, since the days of the Patriarchs, unconquerable by the Israelites.
Tel Ser’a (alternatively, Tel esh-Shari’ah), situated on the northern bank of the Gerar Brook, roughly between Beer-sheba and Gaza, was identified by its lead excavator Eliezer Oren as the biblical city of Ziklag.47His opinion is corroborated by Jeffrey Blakely, “The Location of Medieval/Pre-Modern and Biblical Ziklag,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139, 1 (2007): 21–26. It is located just west of the Bedouin city of Rahat, and the contours of a classic tel are easily viewed from the road.
Park your car by the side of the road just before the entrance to Rahat so you can take in the view. The tel itself is some distance off in a barley field, all but inaccessible and not visitor-friendly. Still, considering the importance of Ziklag to the biblical narrative, this is probably the best place to stop and take in a city of Simeon.
Where did Ziklag surface in the Bible? As with some of the other cities listed within Simeon’s naĥalah in Joshua 19,48Verse 5; also I Chronicles 4:30. Ziklag was also registered on Judah’s city list.49Joshua 15:31. Most famously, in I Samuel 27, the city was given to David by Achish, the Philistine king of Gath. David had found haven from Saul’s wrath by entering the thick of Philistine territory, and he makes a request of the king:
David said to Achish, “If you please, let a place be granted me in one of the country towns where I can live; why should your servant remain with you in the royal city?” At that time Achish granted him Ziklag; that is how Ziklag came to belong to the kings of Judah, as is still the case.
I Samuel 27:5–6
When David later marched up to Aphek, ostensibly to join the Philistines in their war effort against Saul, Ziklag was raided by Amalekites. David recovered all of the captives and restored Ziklag’s lost wealth. It was in Ziklag that David heard of Saul’s death and where he composed his famous elegy in commemoration of the slain king. Ziklag marked an important station in David’s convoluted journey to the monarchy.
Given the verses cited above, it seems reasonable to posit that the city was at least administered by David’s tribe, Judah, in the monarchial period. What of its earlier history? In one place, the biblical record indicated that the cities of Simeon were self-governed until the Davidic era.50“The Simeonites dwelt in Beer-sheba… Ziklag… these were their towns until David became king” (I Chronicles 4:31). In the I Samuel narrative, though, Ziklag was a Philistine holding in the time of David. It is impossible to determine the makeup of Ziklag’s population in David’s day. Explicit in both contexts was that David assumed control of Ziklag – before he was coronated in Hebron – and of Simeon’s other cities, perhaps after he took the throne. This being so, we must consider the possibility that a certain implicit understanding between Simeon and Judah was in place in the tribal period, in which Simeon maintained its tribal identity, but willingly ceded administrative control over its scattered cities to the dominant regional power, Judah.51“[The Simeonites] had not many children; in all, their families were not as prolific as the Judahites” (I Chronicles 4:27). Of note is that after the Israelites returned to Eretz Yisrael in the fifth century Bce from Babylonian exile, the tribe of Simeon was no longer mentioned. The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi resettled the land roughly along the same borders as their original naĥalot, but Ziklag and Beer-sheba – once belonging to Simeon – were then inhabited squarely by Judah (Nehemiah 11:28).
We do not hear of friction between these two southern tribes, only that Simeon, over time, increased heavily in number. It seems that Simeon did not threaten Judah’s hegemony over those cities that originally belonged to Simeon, but had since passed into Judah’s hands. By the days of King Hezekiah, the Simeonites had spread out toward the eastern valley of the approaches to Gedor, “in search of pasture for their flocks, and finding rich, good pasture. And the land was ample, quiet and peaceful.”52I Chronicles 4:39–40. They further expanded to Mount Seir, wiping out the Amalekites who dwelt there and settling in their place. In all, Judah and Simeon can be understood to have dwelled together in harmony.
The archaeological record of Tel Shera accords with the biblical narrative of Ziklag, making the site’s identification as Ziklag highly probable.53For a thorough discussion of the issues involved in conclusively identifying Ziklag with Tel Ser’a – although this tel does seem to be the best possible option – see Neal Bierling, Giving Goliath His Due: New Archaeological Light on the Philistines (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House Publishing, 1992). Tel Shera’s earliest stratum dates to the Chalcolithic period, and significant remains from Egyptian and Philistine cultures were discovered in the LB-era stratum.54For a table of archaeological periods in ancient Israel, see the back of the book. The material evidence suggests a new, highly organized urban plan imposed on the site dating to the tenth century Bce monarchial period, replete with the four-room house model so indicative of Israelite occupation.55See the illustration on page 70.
From Ziklag we make our way southeast toward Tel Beer-Shev’a, identified by the excavators of the site as ancient Israelite Beer-sheba.56Yohanan Aharoni, “Tel Be’er Sheva,” Qadmoniot 23–24 (1974): 75–84. Beer-sheba was a central southern city, mentioned often in the Bible to demarcate the southern extent of Israelite sovereignty figuratively.57There are eleven biblical references to the kingdom spanning from a northern point until Beer-sheba, most of which are worded “from Dan until Beer-sheba.”
According to Yoel Elitzur, the conventionally accepted identification of this tel as ancient Beer-sheba is wrong.58יואל אליצור, מקום בפרשה: גיאוגרפיה ומשמעות במקרא (תל־אביב: ידיעות אחרונות, תשע״ד), 81–83. He argues that this archaeological park was really the Israelite fortress Sheba, not Beer-sheba: “The second lottery went to Simeon…and in their territory was Beer-sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah… ” (Joshua 19:2).59Many commentators, such as the Metzudot, Radak, and the Vilna Gaon, understood Sheba as indistinct from Beer-sheba, since counting Sheba as its own city would have left Simeon with fourteen cities in that province, as opposed to the thirteen calculated in Joshua 19:13.
Elitzur supports his thesis with the following arguments:
the small size of the site (only eleven dunam) indicates that the site was a fortress rather than a city;
the site lacks the earthen rampart fortifications typical of Canaanite cities conquered by the Israelites that elevated those cities above the surrounding area (giving the ruins the familiar trapezoidal shape missing here);
the Bedouin village near the tel is named Tel-Seba, also indicating that this site was originally known as Sheba, not Beer-sheba.60The modern Arabic names for villages and locations are critical clues to identifying ancient sites, since the first Arabs to settle in this area during the early Muslim conquest (seventh and eighth centuries CE) maintained the original names of the villages and cities in an arabicized form.
But if the national park that we’re visiting was really Sheba, then where was the ancient Israelite city Beer-sheba? Elitzur suggests that we find it in the area of the Bedouin shuk in the present-day modern city of Beersheba, the “Jewel of the Negev” (known in Arabic as Bir a-Saba, to distinguish it from Tel-Seba). Excavations have not been conducted in that location, but Elitzur is certain that the large, fortified city of ancient Beer-sheba, a Canaanite city destroyed and rebuilt by the Israelites, is hidden under modern Beersheba.
Whether we are visiting ancient Beer-sheba or ancient Sheba, we are still “on task.” As with Ziklag, both of these localities were allotted to both Simeon61Joshua 19:2. and Judah.62Joshua 15:28. Beer-sheba, though, has a history going back hundreds of years before the Israelite conquest and allotment of territory.
Our familiarity with the place began with Abraham, who gave the location its name in honor of the peace pact drawn up between himself and the Philistine king, Abimelech of Gerar. The two disputed which of them had dug the local well. Abimelech capitulated, admitting that it indeed had been Abraham. In making a pact for peace, both men swore over seven sheep on that day, so the area surrounding the well was renamed Be’er Sheva (Beer-sheba) – “The Well of the Seven” or “The Well of the Oath.” Abraham planted an eshel tree near the well and settled there to raise Isaac.63Genesis 21:22–34.
Isaac, in turn, was also a digger of wells, as he traversed the same region, redigging the wells his father had dug, that were subsequently plugged up by the Philistines. He then went on to dig four wells of his own, the last one in Beer-sheba.64Genesis 26:18–25. Many years later, Jacob lingered in Beer-sheba on his journey from Hebron down to Egypt to reunite with Joseph. There he was promised Divine Providence while in Egypt, as well as the assurance that he would grow into a large nation whom God would return to the land.65Genesis 46:1–7.
We are reminded of these stories in the lives of our Patriarchs as we peer into the well just outside of the city gates. This well dates to the twelfth century Bce, hundreds of years after Abraham and Isaac dug in this area. It is 70 meters (approx. 230 feet) deep, a massive undertaking to access the groundwater from this relatively high position. Since the site could have housed relatively few residents (given its small size), archaeologists posited that this well mainly catered to the needs of the surrounding nomadic tribes. This is particularly interesting, given that the site sits on the plain just north of the confluence of two large streambeds, Beer-sheba and Hebron, both of which served as main passageways for caravans and foot traffic in the region. The well must have been built to draw people toward the place and serve the passerby, reminding us through association of the Patriarchs’ penchant for welcoming strangers into their tents.
The city itself was built at the same time as the well, in the twelfth century Bce, which accords nicely with the settlement records in Joshua and Judges. The archaeological record here boasts some fine examples of the typical Israelite “four-room house,” erected during a renovation period in the tenth century Bce. These dwellings, consisting of three parallel chambers with a fourth long chamber running perpendicular, were standard for Israelite Iron period sites, cropping up in excavations of other nearby cities like Arad, Jerusalem, and Tel Beit Mirsim.66For a thorough treatment examining the architectural, functional, and social aspects of this type of dwelling, see Avraham Faust and Shlomo Bunimovitz, “The Four-Room House: Embodying Iron Age Israelite Society,” Near Eastern Archaeology 66 (Mar–Jun 2003): 22–31. After an eighth century Bce earthquake (perhaps the one mentioned by the prophet Amos,67Amos 1:1. who rebuked Beer-sheba for her idolatrous ways68Amos 8:14.), the fortifications were strengthened and various features were renovated, such as the city gate, complete with benches for the elders and judges to gather.
Yohanan Aharoni and Ze’ev Herzog, who identify this site as Beer-sheba, conclude that, throughout the biblical period, Beer-sheba was more of an administrative center than a residential zone – ascertained by the relatively few dwellings discovered during excavation. A walk on the tel affords you the opportunity to examine the “Governor’s House,” identified as such because of its large and numerous rooms, as well as three storehouses that were filled with an impressive pottery assemblage. Thrill at the surprisingly large dimensions of the subterranean water system that sustained the city during wartime. The large plastered reservoir was fed by a channel redirecting floodwater from the Hebron Stream.
Tel Beer-shev’a, whether peopled by Simeonites, Judahites, or both, remained stable for the hundred-year stretch after the eighth-century Bce renovations. The reconstructed four-horned altar positioned by the Parks Authority at the entrance to the site tells the story of an idolatrous city that underwent reform by royal order, probably issued by Hezekiah. The dressed stones of the altar were discovered in secondary use in a storeroom wall, indicating that the altar was purposefully dismantled and reused in a mundane context. Hezekiah’s reforms, though, were not enough to save the city from the campaign of the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib, who sacked Beer-sheba in 701 BCE. While various later strata of occupation were marked, the city never really recovered from that devastation.
What becomes clear from a visit to the region of these two important biblical cities, Ziklag and Beer-sheba/Sheba, is that Simeon’s holdings were scattered throughout Judah’s southern swath and did not form a contiguous territory of their own. Furthermore, we can only loosely associate these cities with Simeon, in that the biblical listings conflict, sometimes allocating to Judah,69Joshua 15:28, 31. other times to Simeon70Joshua 19:2, 5. – most likely reflecting the realities of either different eras or nuances of what a “holding” might mean. Could these cities have been populated mainly or even entirely by Simeon, but administrated by Judah? Or perhaps at one period Simeon administered the city, and at a later time ceded control to the dominant regional power, Judah. Either way, we leave the day with a strong sense that Simeon’s naĥalah was entirely overshadowed by Judah’s.