of Judah and Benjamin; for in allotting the Holy Land, that portion that was afterwards occupied by the Ark fell to Benjamin: and as these Jebusites held a large part of that capital, neither those of Judah or Benjamin had sufficient power to dispossess them of that portion which respectively belonged to them, and thus the two verses agree; and its being stated, "they could not," must not be ascribed to the want of physical power; but, as R. Joshua ben Korha says, from their not being permitted to do it, in consequence of the covenant Abraham made with Abimelech, that he would not injure him, "nor his son, nor his son's son:" it appears, that in the time of Joshua, the grandson yet lived, so that they could not dispossess them, being bound by the oath of Abraham. R. Eliezer, in his Pirqué, relates, that when the angels were Abraham's guests, and he hastened to the herd,2 the calf he singled out ran to the mouth of a cave, which he entered; in following it, he there found the sepulchre of Adam and Eve, their bodies lying on couches, with lamps burning before them, which emitted as odoriferous a perfume as if it were from Paradise; therefore, he was desirous to purchase the spot, but they, knowing that the Lord had promised that land to his descendants, would not consent to the sale without his swearing first, positively, that he would not dispossess them of their lands. On this oath being taken by Abraham, they made two bronze images, whereon they engraved it, and placed them in the fortress, so that they could not then conquer them; therefore, the Jebusites said, in the time of David, "Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither,"3 alluding to those images, of which it is said, "they have eyes, but see not, they have feet, but walk not.' Joab having gained possession of the fortress, took away these images. Let it be how it may, the conquest of the Jebusites belonged to both tribes, who either could not, or would not, disturb them, being satisfied to render them tributary. "4 QUESTION 23. Josh. 19:40. And the seventh lot came out for the tribe of the children of Dan according to their families. it Judges 18:1. In those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in, for unto that day there had not fallen unto them an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. RECONCILIATION. This doubt is well solved by Rashi and R. David Kimchi; for, although Joshua assigned lands to the tribe of Dan, he nevertheless did not give them sufficient for their families, which is borne out by the book of Joshua, where says, "And the coast of the children of Dan went out for them the expression, for them, does not occur in the relation of the allotments to the other tribes; and they infer from it that the meaning is, their portion did not suffice for the whole, but only for a portion of the tribe. Thus where the second verse says, that "the tribe of Dan sought them an inheritance to dwell in," means, to dwell comfortably, as, until then, they had not received a sufficient inheritance among the tribes of Israel; by which there is no contradiction. Don Isaac Abarbanel solves this doubt easily in another manner. He says, 'Gen. 21:23. 3 Gen. 18:7. 32 Sam. 5:6. Ps. 15:5-7. 'Josh. 19:47. that the tribe of Dan had already an inheritance, as stated in Joshua; but it fell to them so apart and remote from the inheritances of the other tribes, and being unwilling to be so separated, they went forth to seek an inheritance among the rest. He gathers this from the same verse, which says, "In those days, the tribe of Dan sought them an inheritance to dwell in," that is, to dwell amongst the children of Israel, and immediately continues, "for unto that day, there had not fallen to them an inheritance among the tribes of Israel," in which it is declared that although they had an inheritance, it had not fallen to them amongst the tribes of Israel. R. Samuel Laniado says, that although they had received their inheritance, the situation did not please them; and they therefore sallied forth to seek more desirable lands, and sent out spies to Laish, it being a pleasant and delightful country; and in respect of the words, "The tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance wherein to dwell," means to their satisfaction, because, until then, no such inheritance had fallen to them among the tribes of Israel; and this is what is signified by the verse which says, "And the coast of the children of Dan went out for them," meaning, it was against their liking, the situation not pleasing them. R. Aaron a ben Haim says, that they already had an inheritance, as Joshua had assigned them lands, but they, neglectfully, had not wrested them all from the hands of the Canaanites; in consequence, they had not a sufficiency for their families, and this is what is meant in the statement that "inheritance had not fallen to them," i. e. that sufficient inheritance had not been conquered; which conciliates the verses. QUESTION 24. Josh. 24:9. Then Balak, the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and warred against Israel. It is not stated in the Books of Moses that RECONCILIATION. The desire and eagerness evinced by Balak to make war with the Israelites, cause the Holy Scriptures to impute the act to him, as if he had actually committed it, as it is shewn that he avowed his intention, in saying, "Peradventure I shall prevail in fighting against him, and drive him out."1 Or, perhaps, it may be understood, that the war mentioned was the curse he wished Balaam to lay on them, because, finding that the power of the Israelites consisted in prayer, he wished to undertake the war with similar weapons, and this is the war here alluded to, as it says, And warred against Israel, and sent and called Balaam, the son of Beor, to curse you." QUESTION 25. Josh. 24:30. And they buried him (Joshua)- Judges 2:9. And they buried him in the in the border of his inheritance in Timnath Serat. border of his inheritance in Timnath Heres. Numb. 22:11. האומר לחרס ולא יזרח RECONCILIATION. The ancient sages maintain that the inheritance was properly named Serah, but obtained the appellation of Heres, because, on means the sun, as in Who commandeth the sun, and it riseth not," whence they infer that Israel placed a statue or image of the sun upon the sepulchre of Joshua, in commemoration of the wonderful event of the suspension of its movements at his prayer. And thus, on non properly signifies, statue or image of the sun," by which the doubt is solved. R. David Kimchi, nevertheless, solves this with greater facility, because, (as a profound grammarian) he says, the transposition of the letters does not alter the meaning of a word in Holy Writ, as was and awɔ mean alike, " a lamb." So also now and now "garment;" and by reversing the letters of П thus, on, it means the same place, and is one name.2 1 Job. 9:7. 'That the Hebrew language is in accordance with strict philosophical principles is demonstrated by the Sun being denominated by three different names, and the Moon by two. In other languages, they form compound terms: thus on is the Solar orb, wow, the Solar light, and non, the Solar flame, as is shewn in Scriptural passages, which would seem obscure were not the proper term used, as for example, in the above passage: "Who commandeth the sun, (i.e. the Solar orb) and it riseth not ;"a for it is neither the flame nor light that appears to rise, but the orb itself. Din pyaja wow "Sun, (i.e. solar light) wait in Gibeon;" for it is only its rays that can be said to rest on earth. mana nna mɔaba "Fair as the Moon, clear as the Sun," (i. e. the solar flame,) and is not applicable in any other manner to that planet, for neither is the orb or the light always clear. It is also observable that the last letters of the three words are numerically 365, corresponding to the number of complete days in the solar year. The two applied to the moon are ab, which signifies the disc, as the last quotation shews, for her light is not fair, although the orb is, (as poets term it the "silver moon"); this name is the feminine gender of the word 135 "white," the other is л, that is, the lunar light, (heat not being one of its qualities, we have no word expressive of it) as, the ordinance of the moon and stars for a light by night;d" חקת ירח וכוכבים לאור לילה and again, 17 7 wow" the sun and moon shall be dark;"e which can only allude to the solar and lunar lights.-TRANSLATOR. a Job 9:7. b Joshua 10:12. c Song of Sol. 6:10. e Joel 2:10. d Jeremiah 31:35. JUDGE S. QUESTION 1. Judges 4:2. And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan; who reigned in Hazor. The captain of his host was Sisera, and he dwelt in Harosheth of the nations. The same verse contains a contradiction; for in the beginning it says, that Jabin reigned in Hazor, how then does it subsequently say, that he dwelt in Harosheth of the nations, thus attributing two cities as his residence. RECONCILIATION. R. David Kimchi, who is followed by Don Isaac Abarbanel, says, that after Joshua had burnt Hazor, Jabin retired with the remainder of his people to Harosheth of the nations, which explanation agrees with the text; for it says, "Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor," is to be understood that he had reigned there in Joshua's time, and where it says, "and he dwelt in Harosheth of the nations," treats of the actual time. According to R. Aaron a ben Haim, it is probable that after Hazor had been burnt, it was rebuilt by those who remained: and so the text says, that this Jabin king of Canaan, was king of Hazor; but from the misfortune he had there experienced, he removed his court to Harosheth of the nations. "Jabin Or, we may say the verse should be explained in another manner. king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor, and the captain of his host was Sisera, and he dwelt in Harosheth of the nations:" the pronoun he may refer to Sisera; and thus Jabin was king of Hazor, but the general of his army dwelt in Harosheth of the nations, and therefrom molested Israel: so there is no contradiction. And the reason this place was called Harosheth of the nations, is because the name of Harosheth is derived from wn, thought or idea, and signifying that every useful invention in all the liberal arts among the nations was to be found there. Or, from being a place capable of containing a multitude of people; or, because many assembled there from various places to defend themselves against Israel, from its being a very strong and fortified place. QUESTION 2. Judges 9:5. And he came to his father's house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons upon one stone. Ibid. And Jotham, the youngest son of Jerubbaal, was left: for he hid himself. If he killed all the seventy, how was Jotham left? RECONCILIATION. The solution of this doubt is easy, it being very common in the Divine words to take only the round number. As it says in the beginning of Exodus,1 "All the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were seventy;" although Joseph and his sons are included in that number, they went not with Jacob, for they were previously in Egypt. So, also, it is said in Deuteronomy, "Forty stripes he may give him," yet it might not exceed thirty-nine, which number is included in that of forty. Here the same style is used, saying, that Abimelech killed seventy sons, being together in the house of their father (probably celebrating his obsequies); and then it says, Jotham, the youngest of them, remained: as he could hide himself. Or, it may be said that Jotham did not escape by favour or grace from the hands of the tyrant Abimelech, but only by secreting himself, and from the evil intention he had to kill him: the Holy Scriptures reckon the same as if he had actually executed it; and therefore it may say he killed the seventy brothers, including him in the number as he had intended it. Or, it may be that the Holy Scripture had regard to the violent death of the fratricide, Abimelech, thus including him was to complete the number at seventy. And it saying that he killed his brethren, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy persons upon one stone, indicated the premature death that he would suffer, which was by a woman throwing a stone from a castle that struck him on the head and terminated his life; God paying him in the same way as he had sinned; as the Sage says in his proverbs, "He who diggeth a pit shall fall therein; and he that rolleth a stone, it will return to him."3 QUESTION III. Judges 11:26. While Israel dwelt in Heshbon The account does not seem correct. 300 years. The Holy Scripture having used a particular mode (different from all other histories), in the computation of the years of the Judges of Israel and their kings for we should suppose the years of their respective governments would be added to the years of the creation of the world, or to that of the departure from Egypt, we have no other means of ascertaining the chronology of the times, but by adding the years of government of each judge successively, and then continuing with the kings: in that case, the present offers no small difficulty from the following: On one side we know, that the building of the Temple was in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, which was 480 years after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, as is plainly stated in Kings. On the other hand, the above verse states that 300 years elapsed from the war of Sihon to the time of Jephtha: this being expressly stated, desirous of verifying the account, by adding the C. 1:5. 2 Deut. 25: 3. 3 Prov. 26:27. 1 1 Kings 6:1. |