Ten Tribes Vs. One Tribe/2

Ten Tribes Vs. One Tribe

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Two possibilities are raised as candidates for the missing twelfth tribe not mentioned by Achiyah: Binyamin or Shimon.  The vast majority of commentators choose Binyamin and suggest that Achiyah omitted mentioning the tribe in his prophecy only due to their relative insignificance.   A second approach, instead, suggests that Achiyah assumed that the tribe of Shimon was to remain as part of the Southern Kingdom.  Since Shimon had been subsumed by Yehuda long before our story, they were not really considered a distinct tribe to merit explicit mention. This position posits that soon after the rebellion, Rechavam forced his control over Binyamin, so that they too became part of the Southern Kingdom. This, though, was not forseen by the prophet and had far-reaching consequences.

Binyamin with Yehuda

Achiyah prophesied that Binyamin and Yehuda would remain under the rule of the Davidic dynasty, while the other ten tribes would side with Yerovam.

Sources:RadakMelakhim I 11:13Melakhim I 11:32Melakhim I 12:20Melakhim II 17:18About R. David Kimchi, RalbagMelakhim I 12:20-21Melakhim I Toalot 11:39About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelMelakhim I 11About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, MetzudotMetzudat David Melakhim I 11:13Metzudat David Melakhim I 11:30Metzudat David Melakhim I 12:20-23About R. David Altschuler, Hoil MosheMelakhim I 12About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi,

"וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ": The missing tribe – These sources assume that Achiyah's words "וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" referred to Yehuda and Binyamin together.  Binyamin is not mentioned on its own since it was both less important and less numerous than the tribe of Yehuda. In addition, since Yerushalayim fell within the borders of both tribes, they were considered as one.¹

"וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ אֵת עֲשָׂרָה הַשְּׁבָטִים" – The ten tribes included everyone else except the Levites. Since the Levites had no inheritance, they are not considered in the count of twelve at all.²

Evidence that Binyamin was loyal to the Davidic line – The fact that Rechavam gathers "כׇּל בֵּית יְהוּדָה וְאֶת שֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִן" to quell Yerovam's rebellion supports the idea that both tribes together had been left under the control of the Davidic dynasty.  During the reign of Asa, as well, Binyamin is explicitly grouped with Yehuda (Divrei HaYamim II 15:1-10).

"לֹא הָיָה אַחֲרֵי בֵית דָּוִד זוּלָתִי שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה לְבַדּוֹ" – These sources explain as above, that this verse does not meant to exclude Binyamin; they are simply included under the larger Yehuda.  It is not clear, however, why in the very next verse Binyamin is no longer simply assumed, but is instead mentioned explicitly and distinct from Yehuda.

Status of Yerushalayim and Binyamin's siding with Yehuda – According to this approach, Yerushalayim was always meant to be under the jurisdiction of the Davidic dynasty.  Since Yerushalayim was within the territory of Binyamin, it had, of necessity, to be under the control of David's line.³

"לְמַעַן דָּוִד עַבְדִּי וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרְתִּי" – These sources could suggest that Hashem kept Yehuda "לְמַעַן עַבְדִּי דָוִד" and Binyamin "לְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם".‎⁴

Why would Binyamin side with Yehuda? From a political perspective, it does not make sense that Binyamin would have wanted to join Yehuda, its rival from the reign of Shaul.⁵  Moreover, the tribe would appear to have been prime candidates to join a rebellion with Yerovam, a fellow descendant of Rachel! 

• Hoil Moshe suggests that Binyamin only sided with Rechavam out of fear that they would otherwise be attacked.⁶
• Alternatively, it is possible that their allegiance demonstrates that David's attempts at reconciliation with the tribe had in fact succeeded.⁷

Status of Shimon – According to this position, Shimon sided with Yerovam, despite their being physically located in the south, within the territories of Yehuda.⁸  However, it is difficult to see how Yehuda would tolerate having pockets of a rival nation within its borders. This might be the reason why, later, in the time of Asa, people from Shimon are mentioned as part of a group of Israelites who decided to veer towards Yehuda.⁹

Shimon with Yehuda

Achiyah had subsumed Shimon under the tribe of Yehuda, while including Binyamin among the ten tribes who were to rebel with Yerovam.

Ten and one – According to this approach, the ten tribes mentioned by Achiyah included Binyamin, whom the prophet assumed would naturally join the House of Yosef in their rebellion.¹⁰ The one tribe referred to Yehuda itself.

The missing tribe – Only eleven tribes are mentioned because already in the era of the Conquest, Shimon had been subsumed under Yehuda and lost its independent identity.¹¹ The two tribes had worked together to conquer their territories,¹² and Shimon inherited cities within the area allotted to Yehuda, thus losing distinct tribal status.¹³

Change of plan: וַיַּקְהֵל אֶת כׇּל בֵּית יְהוּדָה וְאֶת שֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִן – According to this approach, Achiyah's words were initially fulfilled, only to be overturned soon afterwards.  When the rebellion first began, all of Israel (including Binyamin) did in fact turn on the House of David and " לֹא הָיָה אַחֲרֵי בֵית דָּוִד זוּלָתִי שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה לְבַדּוֹ". However, in an effort to reassert his rule over the country, Rechavam forced his control over his northern neighbor, Binyamin. Only because Shemaya the Prophet then forbade him to fight, did Rechavam not continue to re-subjugate the other tribes.

No other mention of "ten tribes" – Never after our story is the Northern kingdom said to comprise ten tribes, because in the end they were really only nine.

Status of Yerushalayim – According to this approach, it is possible that the original plan was for Yerushalayim to be an international city.  As it lay on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin (which was to have been the border between the two kingdoms) the Beit HaMikdash was initially meant to be open to North and South alike.

What if? Sharing Yerushalayim would likely have prevented Yerovam from building the two calves, as there would not have been the same fear that pilgrimages to Jerusalem would mean losing part of his nation to Rechavam. In addition, sharing a religious center would likely have ensured that close ties remained between the two countries, promoting peace and the possibility of forming a confederation.  The fact that, in the end, Yerovam felt the need to create new religious centers and traditions likely played a large role in enlarging the rift between North and South.

"לְמַעַן דָּוִד עַבְדִּי וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרְתִּי" – According to this approach, Hashem's promise to keep "one tribe" for the sake of Yerushalayim is somewhat difficult, since Yerushalyim was partially within the land of Binyamin, which was originally meant to be part of the Northern kingdom.

Status of Shimon – Considering that Shimon was located within the borders of Yehuda, it is very logical that they would be included in the Southern kingdom, under the rulership of the Davidic line.  In fact, from a logistical standpoint, it is almost impossible to understand how they could have successfully backed Yerovam.

Philosophical Issues: Can a Prophet Err? This position raises an important theological question: is it possible for a prophet to err, or for a prophecy not to be fulfilled?

¹ R. Medan (see footnote 7 in R"Y Levi's article, "בחירת ירושלים והמקדש") suggests, instead, that the phrase "וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" refers to both parts of the verse's continuation (מושך עצמו ואחר עמו). The verse should read as if written: וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ לְמַעַן עַבְדִּי דָוִד [וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ] וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתִּי. According to this reconstruction, there is no missing twelfth tribe at all. This possibility, however, does not match Melakhim I 11:36, which also mentions one tribe but is not worded in a way that would allow the phrase "הַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה לּוֹ" to be doubled.  It also encounters considerable difficulty from Melakhim I 12:20, which states, "לֹא הָיָה אַחֲרֵי בֵית דָּוִד זוּלָתִי שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה לְבַדּוֹ" and does not mention Binyamin.

² The number twelve is reached due to Yosef being split into two tribes, Ephraim and Menashe.

³ See Radak.

⁴ See R. Medan (cited above) who says this explicitly.

⁵ In fact, the last time the tribes gathered as a group of ten against Yehuda, claiming  "עֶשֶׂר יָדוֹת לִי בַמֶּלֶךְ", was during the prelude to the rebellion of the Benjaminite, Sheva b. Bichri.

⁶ Since they were geographically the closest tribe to Yehuda, and fairly small, they would have been the first candidates for punishment.

⁷ See Choice of Yerushalayim for the possibility that David's main goal in choosing his capital city had been to promote peace with Binyamin.

⁸ See Yehoshua 19:1 and Shofetim 1:3 and Shofetim 1:17.

⁹ See Divrei HaYamim II 15:9.  The verse itself, though, supports the idea that Shimon was originally considered Israelite and only during the reign of Asa did some members of the tribe switch allegiances. See also Divrei HaYamim II 34:1-7 which similarly appears to include Shimon with other members of the Northern Kingdom, sharing how Yoshiyahu purified cities from Menashe and Ephraim, and Shimon through Naphtali.

¹⁰ They were natural allies, both being descendants of Rachel. [See Shemuel I 19:21, where Shimi of Binyamin refers to himself as "רִאשׁוֹן לְכׇל בֵּית יוֹסֵף".]

¹¹ As above, the tribe of Levi, too, is not considered since they did not inherit their own portion.

¹² See Shofetim 1:3 and 1:17.

¹³ See Yehoshua 19:1-9: "וַיְהִי נַחֲלָתָם בְּתוֹךְ נַחֲלַת בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה".  See also Ibn Ezra and Radak that this was a fulfillment of Yaakov's words in his blessing to Shimon and Levi, "אֲחַלְּקֵם בְּיַעֲקֹב וַאֲפִיצֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".