6th. R. Bechayai considers Shiloh to mean Moses; for Moses and Shiloh are numerically, both 345; he therefore says, that Jacob herein prophesied the approaching redemption from Egypt: it would then read, "The wand (of command) shall not be taken from Judah, until Shiloh (that is Moses) comes," then it will be taken away from Judah and given to Moses (who was of the tribe of Levi); and thus it is said, "And he was king in Jeshurun." 38 It is also predicted that he should "gather the people," as the same verse in Deuteronomy says, "when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together," besides, it was most likely that the Patriarch would say something relative to his children's redemption from Egypt.

7th. The same author also gives another interpretation to the text; the translation of which would be, "The sceptre shall not be withdrawn until Shiloh ('s sun) sets;" that is, until the tabernacle of Shiloh should be rejected and it occurred so; for no sooner was that the case, than the prophet Samuel anointed David as king; and the Psalmist testifies it in saying, "He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men, Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which he loved;" "He chose David also his servant, we here see that as soon as Shiloh was forsaken, David was elected, and anointed as king.

"'39

8th. R. Joel ben Soeb understands this paw to be "the rod of chastisement;" and the text would then be "Punishment shall not be withdrawn from Judah," that is, Israel called D'' (Jews); and " legislators from between his feet," means, the never-ceasing oppression towards them of those who rule by statutes and laws, "until Shiloh come," that is, the Messiah; and him all people will obey, for he will have the empire of the world.

Don Isaac Abarbanel, in his commentary on Samuel, holds the same opinion, with this difference, that "legislator from between his feet," implies, that although punishment will not be withdrawn, they will not forget the Law on that account; but shall have legislators between their feet, or near them; as the Psalmist, treating on the persecutions of Israel, says, "All this is come upon us, yet have we not forgotten thee, neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant." 40 And there is no ground for the opposition offered to this opinion, in saying, that in a blessing Jacob would not have prognosticated evil; for, being a prophet, his duty would require his declaring both good and evil: as we see he said of Simeon and Levi, “Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce,"41 but, nevertheless, he prophesied comfort to these also, and animated all his children to bear their sufferings patiently, as they would not be everlasting, but only until the coming of the Messiah; when dominion would belong to them, and all nations would obey them, including those which had oppressed them. This version also coincides.

9th. R. Hezekiah understands Shiloh to mean Ahijah the Shilonite; and lays it down thus, "The wand (or staff of command) shall not be withdrawn from Judah, nor a legislator from beneath his feet, until Shiloh comes:" this happened in the case of Ahijah, who tore Jeroboam's garment into twelve pieces, for then the absolute command of the whole was taken away from Judah, and the kingdom was divided; which the holy history states occurred in the time of Jeroboam, as well as "the gathering of the people," for all but the tribes of Judah and Benjamin flocked to him. (See 1 Kings 11:29—31; 12:20.

10th. Don Isaac Abarbanel, availing himself of the text of our sages,

38 Deut. 33:5.

39 Ps. 78:60, and on.

40 Ps. 44:18. 41 Gen. 49:7.

H

explains it thus: Daw means some command or jurisdiction, however small it may be; and this is what the prophecy of the patriarch refers to, for Judah was always the headmost of his brothers-in the selling of Joseph he said, "What profit is it if we slay our brother?" and was obeyed-he begged Jacob to send Benjamin with him, which he did, although he had refused the same request to Reuben-he it was who addressed Joseph in behalf of all; and this tribe had always the foremost place-his banner ever led the van-at the dedication of the altar, Nachshon's, of the tribe of Judah, was the first offering -in the war, on the death of Joshua, Judah advanced the first, and directed it-in the division of the Holy Land, Judah was first apportioned—when Saul numbered the people, Judah was numbered separately as a mark of dignity, and although Saul was king, Judah had always a preeminence over the other tribes, and much more so at the time of King David-when the people divided, Judah remained with the house of David; and even after Judah was carried captive to Babylon, they always had a head and prince of the seed of David; so in the time of the Ashmoneans, as Josephus relates, the head of the 10 or senate, was always a chief of the house of Judah; and the same in the latter captivity in Spain and France, the heads of Israel have ever been of the house and seed of David, as, according to R. Isaac ben Guiat, (the Abarbanels were,) who says that on the destruction of the Second Temple, two families of that lineage went into those parts, one named Bené David, and the other the Abarbanels, so that in this sense the prophecy of the patriarch is confirmed.

To this may be added, what R. Isaac Arama adduces to this purpose; which is, that R. Benjamin of Tudela asserts in his travels, that at Bagdad he saw a great number of Israelites; and that at a certain time they made a procession with a prince they had among them, of the house of David, proclaiming before him, "Make place for the son of David!" Don Isaac Abarbanel,

on the 12th chapter of Zechariah, refers to the assertion of Aben Ezra, that in his time, there was in the said city of Bagdad, a lineage of the house of David.

In "Shebeth Judah" it is related, that in Persia great honours were paid to the princes of the house of David; to which also R. Guedaliah Yahia refers, in his "Shalshelet a Cabala;" and it may yet be that it is done to the present day in places unknown to us.

According to this exposition, the Scripture saying "until when," is not for a limited period; that is, that this species of command should last until the Messiah comes, and no longer, as the phrase y is of an affirming, or more forcible addition, to what it refers to, as "until he left numbering," "42 and 'own as "unto the heart of heaven;"43 so, that to strengthen the prophecy it says, this dominion will last until the advent of the Messiah. And thus we see to the present day, in many places, where the Jews have any jurisdiction, those of Judah are the chief; and which dominion, although small, will continue until the Messiah comes, when it will be great, for all people will obey him.

It may also be said, that in this the patriarch prophesied, that although the Ten Tribes would be captives to the king of Assyria and carried by him to countries unknown to us; the tribe of Judah should never be withdrawn (that is, lost sight of), nor taken from human communication, and wherever they might be would always have legislators at their feet, that is, sages that should instruct them; the verse would then run thus, "And the tribe (or identity)

shall not be withdrawn from Judah, nor legislators from between their feet, until Shiloh come, and to him will be the gathering of the people."

Or it may be said that in the same manner as the Lord promises in various places to David, that he should possess the kingdom for ever, and yet we see that at present he has it not, (as all the promises of God are conditional,) so was this to Jacob, and for the sins of Israel the kingdom is lost to them; but they will again possess it, either by returning to God, and crying with all their heart to him, as they did in the Egyptian captivity, or the Lord will do it as He promised through his prophets for His holy name's sake.

In either way the contradiction is reconciled, for the patriarch did not prophesy that there should always be a king, for we see he was carried into captivity; but it is to be understood (as shewn) demonstrating the different meanings which the words of this verse admit of, and from which arises the ambiguity attached to it, and the various interpretations given to it.

EXODUS.

QUESTION 69.

Exod. 2:18. And when they came to Rehuel their father.

21. And Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.

Num. 10:29. And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Rehuel the Midianite, Moses' father in law, &c.

The contradiction appears manifest, for if Rehuel is said to have given his daughter Zipporah to Moses for wife, and that he was his father in law, how does it state in the other place, that it was Hobab the son of Rehuel the Midianite who stood in that relation to Moses?

RECONCILIATION.

To conciliate these verses some may read the latter one thus:-And Moses said to Hobab, the son of Rehuel, the Midianite, Moses' father in law," that is, Rehuel the Midianite was Moses' father in law, and not Hobab; but this opinion does not agree with the verse in Judges, "The children of Hobab the father in law of Moses ;"1 which clearly states Hobab, and not Rehuel, to have been the father in law of Moses.

4

3

The idea of the author of Siphré is, that Hobab and Rehuel are different names of the same person, and the Scripture saying, the daughters came to Rehuel their father, is owing to Holy writ giving the title of father to grandfathers, as fully explained in Question 39; and the following examples demonstrate it-Jacob in his prayer before the meeting with Esau says, "The God of my father Abraham," who was his grandfather. Mephibosheth is called the son of Saul, whereas he was the son of Jonathan, Saul's son. Laban is termed the son of Nahor, although he was his grandson. In the same way Laban said of the children of Jacob, "Thy daughters are my daughters, and thy sons my sons." As also in "Pirque" of R. Eliezer, it is observed of the saying of Jacob, "Ephraim and Manasseh shall be to me as Reuben and Simeon ;" so that Rehuel was the father of Hobab or Jethro, and no doubt arises from its saying that he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses for wife; for under his sanction as an elder and a grandfather, the marriage took place. Hobab was the identical Jethro, his change of name taking place when he entered the flock of Israel, and became one of that people; a custom preserved to the present day by the Hebrews, for the name a person may have borne previous to circumcision, is changed when he becomes a son of the covenant. R. Levi ben Gershon, Don Isaac Abarbanel, R. Bechayai, and Nachmanides adopt this opinion. R. Simeon bar Menassiah asserts in Yalcut,5 that the

1 Jud. 4:11.

2 Gen. 32:9. 3 2 Sam. 19:25.

4 Gen. 31:43.

5 Art. 169.

R. Elias

names of Rehuel, Hobab, and Jethro, belonged to the same person. Mizrahy properly observes on this opinion, that it then becomes necessary to say that both father and son had the name of Rehuel, therefore, when the Scripture says, "they came to Rehuel their father," must be understood for Jethro, their immediate father; and its saying that "Hobab was the son of Rehuel," is meant for the father of Hobab or Jethro: this is comformable to Rabot, Mehilta, and Tanhuma, in which seven significant names are given to this Jethro; which is not to be wondered at, for the Holy Scriptures shew many persons to have had various names, as in Samuel,' that prophet's son is called "Joel," and in Chronicles "Vashni."8 The grandfather of Samuel had three names, and so had many others, as will be hereafter shewn; and it may therefore be also assumed that Jethro had various names.

6

The learned Aben Ezra, on the tenth chapter of Numbers, takes another view of it, which is; Zipporah is found to be the daughter of Rehuel, as stated in the verse which says, "and he gave him Zipporah his daughter for wife," as also by

they came to Rehuel their father;" and by the second verse of the text we find Hobab was the son of Rehuel: from which it may reasonably be collected that Hobab was the brother of Zipporah and identical with Jethro; for the sacred text says, that Jethro came to Moses in the desert; and to Hobab Moses said, Thou knowest our encampment in the wilderness:"9 therefore, Jethro and Hobab are the same person: that being the case, Zipporah and Jethro, alias Hobab, were brother and sister, and children of Rehuel, consequently Hobab, alias Jethro, was brother in law to Moses, and in the text saying, 12" "And Jethro, Moses' father in law came," may be read brother in law, the title ¡n, which we generally translate father in law, being also applicable to brother in law, 10

66

Or it may be thus explained, in Exodus 11 it says, "the priest of Midian had seven daughters," and further on, they came to Rehuel their father.” The priest herein mentioned was not Rehuel, but Jethro, as in chapter xviii. verse 1, "When Jethro, priest of Midian, father in law of Moses, heard," &c. and as the first text says, "and Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave him Zipporah his daughter;" the "man" refers to Jethro the priest, and not to Rehuel, who, therefore, was the grandfather, as aforesaid: so there is no contradiction.

QUESTION 70.

Exod. 3:2. And he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush consumed not.

Exod. 3:3. And Moses said, I will draw near now and see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.

If Moses saw the bush burning, how does it say he wanted to approach to see why it did not burn?

RECONCILIATION.

Onkelos holds that the verb ya has two significations, first ph lighting, and second burning; therefore, the first verse which says 13 MIDA TIN

6 Shemot Raba, c. 27.

7 1 Sam. 8:2. 8 1 Chron. 6:28.

9 Numb. 10:31.

10 The Hebrew word in appears to be applicable to any near relatives by marriage, whether father, brother, or son in law; in the latter sense it is applied to Ahaziah, as son in law to the house of Ahab. See Question 40 on Kings in second part.-TRANSLATOR. 11 Exod. 2:16.