they shall no more say "the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, but they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord," that is, that as formerly they had only named the place of the Ark (from its sanctity) as the most holy place, so, in that time, the holiness of the Ark shall extend and spread itself over the whole city of Jerusalem, as the throne of the Lord. The same is testified by other prophets, "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." 48 If the intention of the prophet had been to say, that at the time of the Messiah, there should be a newlaw, he would have said, They shall no more say, The Ark of the Lord, but that there would be a new law, or a new covenant; he does not say this, but, with admirable connection, continues, that they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord," which involves the explanation given.

Besides this, all nations consider the Ten Commandments that were in the ark as being everlasting, and even observe them in their way. This explains the first opposing text.

To proceed to the Second, the prophecy says:49" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they brake, and I complained of them, saith the Lord; but this covenant which I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and I will write it in their hearts, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to me for a people and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, nor each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will remember no more.' This is the text, as taken from the correct Hebrew.

R. David Kimchi and other authors explain it, saying, The promise here made by the Lord, is not that he will give Israel a new law or covenant, but that at the time of the Messiah they will not annul the old one. "In those days (that is, when the captives are collected, and the twelve tribes united, which has not yet happened) I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new covenant; and the saying 66 new "does not necessarily imply that there should be a new law, but that it shall be renewed in their hearts, for what at the beginning had not been sufficiently manifested, when it comes to be so, the Scripture terms new, as Samuel said to Saul, "Come, let us go to Gilgal, and make new (re-new) the kingdom there."50 Not that Saul was then appointed a king, but as establishing himself, and a confirmation of the kingdom to him; and saying there shall be a new covenant signifies the same; that is, that then it will be strictly observed; and so the text explains it, in saying it should not be like the covenant of the fathers, which they had broken or annulled; in confirmation of which it continues," but this covenant which I will make to the house of Israel," &c. as above.

The text may likewise be explained thus, the word n that we translate "covenant is not applicable to the law only, but in Scripture often means a reciprocal contract, and an alliance between two parties, as we find of Abra

51.(and they both made a covenant) ויכרתו שניהם ברית ham and Abimelech

The same term is used with Isaac and Abimelech, and between David and Jonathan; with whom there was no institution of a new law, but agreements and reciprocal contracts established between them. This being the case, the

48 Joel 2:28.

49 Jer. 31:31.

30 1 Sam. 11:14.

51 Gen. 21:27.

verses of the contradiction are understood; for, on the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, the Lord, as is seen in Exodus xxiv. made a covenant with the people, by the ceremony of Moses sprinkling the blood of the sacrifices on them, by which they bound themselves to hearken to and perform all he should command them, but they did not keep their word, nor adhere to the contract made: on which account the Lord promised, that the covenant he would make with them hereafter should not be thus annulled, for he would write it in their hearts, and spread his Spirit over every creature, so that all might serve him with one accord and worship. Isaiah, speaking of this new covenant, says that "the Lord will make a strong covenant that shall never be annulled;" and Ezekiel, that "the Lord will make a covenant of peace, an everlasting covenant."'52 So that it is proved the prophet Jeremiah does not allude to a new law, but a renewed compact. Therefore if it were necessary to understand that were the Lord to give a new law at that time (of the Messiah), it would also be necessary, that what the prophet asserts in the same passage should be fulfilled, that is, that he will write the law in their hearts, and would be to them for a God and they (Judah and Israel) should be to him for a people, and that no one should teach the knowledge of God to his companion, for all should know him, from the smallest to the greatest; therefore, in our opinion there never will be another law than that which the Lord gave amidst so many miracles and wonders on Mount Sinai: and which will be as everlasting as the sun and moon, and the days of heaven upon the earth.

QUESTION 147.

Levit. 25:3. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, &c. but in the seventh shall be a Sabbath of rest unto the land.

Deut. 15:1. At the end of seven years thou shalt make a release (Heb. "Shemita.")

If the Shemita, or release, was in the beginning of the seventh year, as inferred from the first text from its commencing at the expiration of the six, in which they cultivated the land, how then does the other say that the Shemita should be at the end of the seventh year?

RECONCILIATION.

In this precept of the Shemita two things are to be considered: one is the release of the land, by leaving it uncultivated and unsown; the other, the release of debts, or money borrowed from another: the first is that treated of in Leviticus, and the latter in Deuteronomy; therefore the opinion of our sages is that the Shemita of the land commenced at the beginning of the seventh year, according to the first verse, "Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years shalt thou prune thy vineyard, and gather in the crop thereof, but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the Lord, thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard." The release of debts, called 'no'nu (pecuniary release) began at the end of the seventh year, as the text says, " At the end of seven years thou shalt make a release," and then explains that release, saying, "This is the thing (or matter) of the Shemita: every creditor that lendeth unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it," &c.1 And thus the verses, as they treat of different releases, do not disagree.

The learned Aben Ezra gives another interpretation, which is, that the word p signifies end or extremity, as nvpn be nypa 102 (from extremity to extremity) and as all things have two extremities or ends, one at the beginning and the other at the termination, this case is to be understood in a similar way ; for, where the text says, 'w paw po ought to be translated “from the end of seven years," and as a year has two ends, its commencement and its close, so the end here alluded to, must be understood for the commencement of the seventh year, so that both texts (according to this explanation) state the very same thing.

Maimonides solves it by saying, the word yp means, as Onkelos interprets it, 100 (from the end) and as everything contains a beginning and an end, so do numbers also. Of tens one is the beginning, and ten the end; in that way there are seven years in the calculation of the Shemita-the beginning is one, and the termination seven; therefore the end of seven years is clearly the very seventh itself; then no difficulty arises in saying, from the end of seven years; and is the same as if it had said from the end of No. 7, that is, the actual seventh, and the first text, treating on the Shemita of the land, carries no contradiction with it, for it began at the expiration of six years, and the commencement (or at one of the ends) of the seventh as before stated.

It must be observed, in respect of the release of debts, that although they were cancelled at the end of the seventh year, yet if the debtor chose to pay, the creditor might receive; not so with the interest, that might neither be paid nor received; and our Sages say, that a man who paid his debt on or after the seventh year, was acceptable to the Lord, and the creditor might shame him who did not, by saying, he was enjoying or eating other people's property. There was also a remedy for a creditor's not losing his debt, which was, that on making the loan, conditionally that it should be repaid even on the year of release, such agreement remaining in full force for the payment of the debt. It must also be observed that during the whole of the seventh year, the creditor might demand and legally recover his debt, but after sunset of the vesper of the commencement of the eighth year, payment could no longer be exacted.

QUESTION 148.

Levit. 26:30. And my soul will abhor you. Levit. 26:44.

Neither will I abhor them to destroy them utterly.

RECONCILIATION.

The extent of the first passage is defined in the second. It says, "When they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, utterly to destroy them," that is to say, that although the Lord says his soul will abhor, and separate from them, he will not abhor them so as to make an end of, or entirely destroy them; for such a separation would be everlasting, and as the prophet Malachi says, "I, the Lord, I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."1 The ancient sages adduce the same from the verse, "I will expend mine arrows upon them,"2 ergo, the arrows will be finished, but not they; thus they expound the contradiction of the texts, saying, He did not abhor them in the time of Titus Vespasian ; He did not cast them off in the time of the Greeks, or make an end of them in the time of Haman. 66 "I, the Lord thy God, in the last war of Gog and Magog,

2 Exodus, 36:33.

1 Malachi, 3:6.

2 Deut. 32:23.

when thou shalt remain with dominion over all other nations:" so that, although the Lord declares in the maledictions that his soul will reject Israel, He withal promises that it shall not be in such a manner as to make an end of them, as they were to be everlastingly a people, as before stated.

QUESTION 149.

Levit. 27:26. Only the firstling that is a firstling to the Lord among beasts, no man shall sanctify it to him, it is the Lord's.

Deut. 15:19. All firstling males born of thy herds and of thy flocks thou shalt sanctify to the Lord.

Here is an evident contradiction, for the first verse says, that the firstling, that is, a firstling for the Lord, no man shall sanctify to him, and the other says the contrary.

RECONCILIATION.

R. Ishmael, in the Guemara1 (Torat Cohanim and Siphré), conciliates these verses thus: The verse which forbids to sanctify, is to be understood as not to substitute the firstling instead of other oblation, that is, not to make a burntoffering or similar sacrifice of such firstling; for it does not belong to man to apply it as he chooses, for it was the Lord's from its birth: and where it says, Thou shalt sanctify, alludes to another thing, that is, from its birth as a firstling it was termed holy and remained sanctified; and, as R. Levi ben Gershon observed, every one knew it, so that, being considered as such, the precepts respecting it might be observed: and, with this distinction, the verses conciliate. Nachmanides explains these verses differently, which is, where it says, the firstling is not to be sanctified, is as if it had said, there is no need of sanctifying it, for the verse ends by saying, "Whether it be bullock or sheep, it is the Lord's," equivalent to saying, every firstling is the Lord's from its birth, and it would therefore be both superfluous and improper to sanctify to the name of the Lord that which was already his; and the other verse saying, that it shall be sanctified, means that it shall only be used as a holy thing, for the verse continues by saying, "Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thy bullock, nor shear the firstling of thy sheep." "Thou shalt eat it before the Lord thy God, &c.," which meaning is very appropriate to the text.

'Arachin c. 8.

NUMBERS.

QUESTION 150.

Num. 1:49. Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel.

Deut. 10:6. To Mosera, there Aaron died; 8. At that time the Lord separated

the tribe of Levi.

If the tribe of Levi was separated from the others and numbered apart, in the second year after the children of Israel came out of Egypt, how then does Scripture, after narrating the movements of the people during forty years, say that "at that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi?"

RECONCILIATION.

According to Rashi the verses easily solve themselves, for saying "at that time" does not refer to their journies, but to another passage; for Moses had just before recited the circumstances attending the making of the golden calf, in which he impressed on the minds of the people, that by the sin they had committed against God, how he had broken the first tables of stone, and made others instead. The tribe of Levi were not only innocent of the crime, but even shewed themselves very zealous in avenging the cause of the Lord, and were therefore chosen, in lieu of the first-born, to serve in the temple. So that the words, "at that time," refer solely to the case of the calf related just before. Many other authors agree in this reconcilement of the two passages.

QUESTION 151.

Num. 2:17. Then the tabernacle of the congregation shall set forward, with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camp.

Num. 10:33. And they departed from the Mount of the Lord three days' journey, and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey.

The contradiction is manifest; for if the ark that was in the tabernacle, moved in the midst of the camps (as stated in the first verse), how then does the second passage say that it moved before the camps in the three days' journey?

RECONCILIATION.

In "Siphré" it says, that the ark which moved in advance of the camps, was the one that contained the two broken tables. And here it is necessary to observe, that R. Joda ben Lakish held the opinion, that Israel carried two

1 Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim.