parts, regulated according to the number of persons of the tribe which was to occupy it; after Joshua had done this, to avoid disputes among the tribes about the partition or share allotted to each; or that they might understand that all had been directed by Divine Providence, he prepared lots which were thus drawn. Eleazar, the High-Priest, arrayed with the Urim and Thummim,4 in the presence of Joshua and all Israel, placed two wheels before him, in one were the names of the tribes, and in the other the portion and its boundaries, assigned to each. Eleazar, then, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, said for instance, "If the name of the tribe of Zebulun be drawn from one, the boundary of Acho will come out of the other: the prince of that tribe then put his hands into the two wheels, and drew a token from each, exactly as the pontiff had announced-" the tribe of Zebulun" on one, "the boundary of Acho on the other. Eleazar then continued, and said, If the tribe of Naphtali be drawn, the boundary of Chinereth will come out the prince, then putting in his hands, drew" Naphtali " and "Chinereth," and so on for the remainder of the tribes.

By this opinion the verses conciliate; for the fact was, Joshua divided the land in proportion to the many or few of each tribe, but it was nevertheless divided by lots to avoid disputes, as Solomon says, 66 The lot causeth contentions to cease, ,"5 and again, "The disposition thereof is from the Lord."6 Thus all people were satisfied and contented, considering everything had been guided by Divine Providence; and on this account only did the drawing take place, by which the verses agree. And the prophetic blessing of Jacob was fulfilled, that Ephraim and Manasseh should have two shares; that is, in the partition of the land; and, although descended from one tribe, two portions should be assigned them; and this was the reason of his saying, "As Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine." The cause of the children of Joseph's complaint to Joshua was, because the land was divided according to the number of persons in each tribe, adopting the account of the second census, when the total of the adult males was 601,730 who entered the land, and as stated in Numbers xxvi.7 after this census was taken. "Unto these shall the land be divided for an inheritance;" its saying "unto these," gives it to be understood that the inheritance was to be divided among these very men who had been numbered from twenty years old and upwards, without regard to those who had then not attained that age. So that Joshua guided himself by this last census in the division which is further elucidated in the Guemara.8 Now this tribe of Joseph had more males under twenty years of age than any of the other tribes; for the children of Manasseh were 32,200 at the first census, and 52,700 at the second. So that they had increased by 20,500 during the inter

4 As some persons may be curious to know how the inanimate stones of the breastplate could predict by the Urim and Thummim the will of the Omnipotent, the following tradition of our sages fully explains it. When any particular tribe was indicated, the stone bearing its name shone with extraordinary and unusual lustre, and the decision was pointed out by the letters of the Alphabet forming it protruding in a manner visible to all present, so that it might not be supposed the High-Priest who proclaimed it, was guided by his own will like the priests of heathen oracles. The following example will demonstrate it clearly: when it was asked of the Lord,* Who shall go up first? The answer was. "Judah," by the emerald on which his name was engraven shining resplendently; then the letters of the word by "he shall go up," protruded. As the names of the tribes do not contain all the letters of the alphabet, our sages inform us that each stone had six letters engraven on it, from the words on Abraham, pay Isaac, apy Jacob, and waw the tribes of Jeshurun, thus

to complete the name of Abraham לוי ; ב a שמעון ; א had at a little distance from it the ראובן

D, and so with all except Benjamin, which of itself contains six letters. TRANSLATOR.

Prov. 18:18.

* Judges 1:12.

Batra c. 8.

val, and thus multiplied more than any of the others; and, as their children under twenty were proportionately numerous, their complaint arose from their being so many, and requiring a larger portion of land than what was appropriated to them; and this opinion tends to remove the doubt.

The Second is the opinion of Maimonides, who makes this reflection in order to conciliate the text. The land was divided into equal portions, and the drawing of lots followed; so that the various districts might be assigned to Reuben, Simeon, and the rest after this was done, as each tribe consisted of families. A re-partition of the portion accruing to the tribe was made among the several families, which was regulated according to the many or few persons of which each consisted. For example: there were five families of the Simeonites; Nemuel, Jamin, Jachin, Zerah, and Shaul: after a certain district or portion of land had been appropriated to these by lot, they made another division amongst themselves by lot; that is, they first divided the inheritance into five shares, and appropriated so many measured quantities according to the number of persons in each family; and this done, they again drew lots to decide what part or situation each of the families was to have as its portion some lands being more fertile than others; thus, according to this opinion, there were two divisions and two drawings; that is, the land was first divided into the number of parts; they then drew lots to ascertain which portion belonged to such or such tribe; then that portion was subdivided among the families of each, who decided by lot what part each was to have: thus conciliating the verses; for the verse specifying that the land should be divided by lot, refers to the part each tribe was to take of their inheritance, and afterwards to each family, as it is also said in another place. "And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families; to (him of) the many ye shall increase his inheritance, and to (him of) the few ye shall diminish his inheritance; every man's shall be where his lot falleth."9 The lots, therefore, served to point out the situation; and, being designated by it, that place was settled on each in proportion to their number, as the verse cited says, "According to this the reason why the children of Joseph complained was, as the portions of the tribes were equal, and, as only the families in each one had a greater quantity than another, as above-stated, this tribe being so numerous, the portion they occupied was comparatively small; Joshua therefore replied, if they were many, they must drive out the Canaanites.10

The third opinion is that of Don Isaac Abarbanel, which ingeniously conciliates the verses; saying, the partition of the Holy Land involves two considerations; the first is the province that was to be given to each tribe, and the second-the division of that province amongst it; in respect of the first, as some provinces were more fertile than others, lots were drawn which declared that which belonged to Reuben and so on, in order to avoid disputes among the tribes on that account; that done, before the next was drawn, Joshua, Eleazar, and the twelve princes of Israel numbered the people of the tribe drawn, and, according to their population, they appropriated their lot, fixing the boundaries of their possessions: in this way the verses are not contradictory, for, first, there were drawings by lots, and afterwards the consideration of the many or few in each tribe.

According to this, Jacob's blessing to Joseph was, that his sons should so increase that they would be equal to two tribes; and we see in the second census, that Manasseh and Ephraim were more numerous than Reuben and Simeon. By this, also, the question of the complaint of the children of

9 Numbers 26:54.

10 Joshua 17:18.

Joseph is answered; for, after their province was allotted to them, Joshua and the rest proceeded to apportion it amongst them, and they had reason to complain when they perceived how small their share was as compared to their population.

Each of these authors founded their opinion on the authority of the ancient Sages of the Guemara11 and Siphré; which it is unnecessary to adduce here.

QUESTION 168.

Numb. 33:3. And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month: on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand.

Deut. 16:1. For in the month of Abib the
Lord thy God brought thee forth out of
Egypt by night.

These verses are very contradictory, for one says the departure from Egypt was on the fifteenth of the month, the morrow or day after the Passover, how then does the other say by night?

RECONCILIATION.

Rashi, R. Levi ben Gershon, and R. Bechayai, infer in their Commentaries, that the departure from Egypt was by day from the first, and the following text "No man of you shall go out of the doors of his house until the morninb," and "Even on the self same day all the hosts of the Lord went out, &c."" and they hold that the reason of the other text saying, the departure was by night, is because Pharaoh gave permission at night that they might go, as the text says, "And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and he called Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people :"3 and as permission was then given it is accounted as if they actually departed, although the truth is, the departure took place by day.

Onkelos, that it might be understood from the latter text that their departure was, by night, translates it in his paraphrase thus, "In the month of Abib, the Lord thy God took thee from Egypt, and performed wonders for you by night;" giving it to be inferred, that the miracle of the smiting of the First-born, which occurred at night, caused Pharaoh to rise up and grant Israel their liberty, which is reckoned equivalent to their leaving Egypt.

The learned Aben Ezra solves this doubt in another way, saying, it must reasonably be understood, Moses was not at Rameses with the children of Israel on the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan, but with Pharaoh in Egypt, by whom he was called at midnight when he gave permission that they might go to serve God; then Moses took with him some of Pharaoh's servants, and went to Rameses to make known the king's resolve to liberate Israel; and it is a known and an established fact that the capital of ancient Egypt, where Joseph's grannaries are yet to be seen, is six leagues distant from Rameses, where Moses went to during the night, and from the rising of the morning star (while yet

11 Batra, c. 8.

Exodus 12:22.

2 Exodus 12:41.

3 Exodus 12:30.

dark, or an hour and twenty minutes before daylight), some, who had received the news, began to depart; but the extent of Rameses being eight leagues, those who lived at the farthest extremity did not learn the news so early, and they only began to move by day, so that some departed by night and others by day; and in this way the two verses agree.

Don Isaac Abarbanel gives an acute explanation, which is, that the departure was by day, and the verse that says it was by night, must be differently interpreted; to wit-" And thou shalt make the Passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt by night;" that "by night" has no reference to the departure from Egypt, but to the passover or paschal lamb, which was to be eaten at night, and is a figure used by rhetoricians, which indicates the same as if it had clearly said, "Ye shall make the passover to the Lord your God by night: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth, &c. :" by which the doubt is solved.

QUESTION 169.

Num. 33:31. And they departed from Moserot and pitched in Bené Jaakan.

37. And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor, at the command of the Lord, and died there.

Deut. 10:6.

And the children of Israel moved from Beérot of Bene Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died.

Two contradictions appear in these passages, the first, in saying that from Mosera they moved to Bené Jaakan, and stating in another place that they moved to Moserot from Bené Jaakan; the second, in Aaron dying in Mount Hor, according to one text, and at Mosera according to another. these various readings, therefore, to be explained ?"

RECONCILIATION.

How are

For the conciliation of this text, it is necessary to observe, that manna was given to Israel in recompense of the piety and virtues of Moses, water for those of Miriam, and the clouds of glory that surrounded and accompanied the people for those of Aaron.

According to the Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan ben Uziel, on Numbers xxi. when Aaron passed from this to a better world, the protection and assistance which these clouds afforded failed, and Israel were immediately deprived of them. The king of Arad learning this, had the temerity to attack them, imagining, that being without this aid, he could easily conquer them. This is inferred from Scripture, when relating the circumstances attending the death of Aaron, "And the Canaanite king of Arad heard that Israel came by the way of the spies, then he fought against Israel, and took some of them captives;" which verse follows immediately the one relating Aaron's death, signifying that he fought in consequence of that event, as the protection of the clouds alluded to had failed them.

Supposing this to be the case, the people seeing that this privation was

1 Numbers 21:1.

owing to Aaron's decease, they began to lose courage, and gave up their hope of entering the Holy land, and so took the road to return to Egypt; and whereas their journies had previously been from Mosera to Bené Jaakan, thence to Hor-a-Gidgad, thence to Jotbatha, thence to Ebronah and Ezion Gaber, and from Ezion Gaber to Kadesh, and thence to Mount Hor, where Aaron died, we find that they retraced the steps of these journies until they came back to Mosera, whence they had set out.

As a punishment for this offence, God permitted them to be attacked there by the king of Arad, and many were taken prisoners, which the very text infers, "And the Canaanite king of Arad heard that Israel came by the way of the spies, and he fought with Israel;" meaning, that they followed the evil example of their fathers, who, crediting the false report of the spies, conspired to return unto Egypt, saying, "Let us choose a captain and return unto Egypt;" ;" and these had the same intention, which the king of Arad learning, resolved to attack them, thinking to make an easy conquest.

The ancient Sages say, that those of the tribe of Levi were here actuated by the same holy zeal they had previously shewn; and in taking up arms against the people, and compelling them to abandon their evil purpose, obliged them to prosecute their journey forward, when they acknowledged their fault, and repented of their sinful determination: and as the death of Aaron was the cause of these evils, they mourned as sincerely as if he had died and been buried at that very place.

The texts are thus reconciled as to the journies they made, first from Mosera to Mount Hor, and subsequently returning to Mosera from Mount Hor, and saying that Aaron died at Mosera, instead of Mount Hor, shew that Israel wept and bewailed his death as if he had actually died there. This opinion of the ancients is adopted by Rashi and R. Bechayai.

The learned Aben Ezra conciliates these verses in another manner, saying, that the same journies which are represented in one text as having been made, are referred to and related in another. The text appears to favour this idea,

Beerot of Bene) בארות בני יעקן ,Bené Jaakan) is one thing) בני יעקן for

same.

Jaakan) is another, п (Mosera) and nidin (Moserot) are not the same; therefore, as the Scripture does not name these places by unvarying terms, it may reasonably be supposed they are not the identical; and, therefore, Kadesh may have been called Beérot-bené-Jaakan, and Hor-a-Har (the mount) Mosera; in this way the verses are not contradictory, for it says in one verse that they removed from. Kadesh to Hor-a-Har, and the same in another verse, denominating the places differently, that is, Beérot-bené-Jaakan and Mosera, stating that Aaron died there, Mount Hor and Mosera being the It is not surprising that a place should be called by different names, for it occurs very often in Scripture; the wilderness of Shur is also termed of Etham, thus the two doubts are solved, seeing that the movements are not related in two ways, for Beérot-béné-Jaakan and Moserot are not Bené Jaakan and Mosera, consequently, Aaron died in Hor-a-Har (Mount Har) or Mosera, which is one and the same place; in this way also, the forward journeys which they made from this place are related by giving them different names, for in Numbers it is said, that from Hor-a-Har they moved to Zalmona, and in Deuteronomy from Mosera (which is Hor-a-Har) they moved to Gudgoda, which is the same place, as also Punon and Obot. Jotbiata is a place called Béér (a well), on which account, the term springs of waters is applied to it: thus the verses conciliate.

2 Num. 14:4.