and very conformable to nature, as R. Gershon bar Solomon adduces in his book of " Sahar Ashamaim."4 Dew is formed by a humid vapour containing small earthy particles; the heat raises, rarifies, and converts it into aqueous drops, which fall on the herbs by means of the temperate coolness of the night and serenity of the atmosphere; so that, in Scripture, saying it "ascended," it alludes to the earth's vapours, and that it "descended," is after becoming dew drops: thus both verses are right as, after it had first ascended the manna fell, and then it descended.

QUESTION 92.

Exod. 16:4. Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you.

16:31. And its taste was like cakes with honey.

Numb.11:8. And its taste was like the taste of fresh oil.

There are three contradictions mooted in Shemot Raba1 from these three verses. First, it was bread; secondly, it tasted like cakes with honey; and thirdly, had the flavour of fresh oil. How are these three flavours to be understood?

RECONCILIATION.

The contradiction is conciliated by saying, that the manna possessed many different flavours corresponding to the various ages of its eaters. To children it was like oil, to adults like bread, and to old people like cakes with honey. They say, it not only possessed this property, but that it had even the taste of what they wished to eat; it was, therefore, termed bread from heaven, or celestial bread; this is collected from the verse which says, "These forty years the Lord thy God hath been with thee, thou hast lacked nothing.”2 If the Holy Scripture says they wanted not, nor lacked any thing, it follows that the manna had the property of every kind of food, for the taste of the palate is so changeable that man cannot contentedly restrict himself to one description of food for any length of time, nor to one mode of cooking it, they must consequently have desired many things they could not obtain, having only the manna, nor could they satisfy the longings of pregnant women, if that had not been the case. Their complaint against manna being their only food, was not owing to their dissatisfaction with its taste, but to their requiring something to please the sight, by the display of different dishes, therefore, they said, "There is nothing at all beside this manna before our eyes,' as desirous of having a variety of dishes to look at; and in this way the verses accord.

R. Seadiah a Gaon, who is followed by the learned Aben Ezra, and Don Isaac Abarbanel, says, the conciliation is easy, manna rained instead of bread, in which state it had the taste of cakes with honey, but when “ ground" or "cooked" it partook of that of oil. To this may be added what is stated in Medras, the pious and upright eat it as it came from heaven, without making dainty dishes of it; the middling class, that is to say, those who could neither be accounted good or bad, from their indifference, made cakes of it, and the depraved cooked it in various delicate ways, as if their happiness

4 C. 2.

1 C. 25.

2 Deut. 2:7.

3 Numb. 11:6.

depended on the gratification of their palates, similar to some in the present day, who imagine that the proper celebration of the Sabbath and Holy days only consists in the luxury of the table, eating delicate viands, and drinking delicious liquids, but this is vehemently opposed by many of our reverend doctors, as may be seen in Reshit Chochma, Maalot à Midot, and Kesoph Nibhar, as will be pointed out in other Questions.

6

4

5

QUESTION 93.

Exod. 16:35. And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to an inhabited land

Exod. 16:35. They did eat manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.

By an inhabited country the opposite side of Jordan seems to be meant, but the plains of Moab, where Moses died, is not the extremity, but the beginning of the land of Canaan, thus rendering the two passages of the same verse contradictory. How is this to be understood?

RECONCILIATION.

The Guemara1 and Tosaphot2 to solve this doubt, hold that Moses died on the seventh Adar as stated in Question 90, when the manna ceased falling, but they gathered thereon sufficient to last them until the sixteenth Nisan, when their store was exhausted, as it does not say in Joshua that it ceased to descend, but they had not "any more manna;" accordingly, mention is made in this verse of their eating it until they arrived at different places; with this difference, that they eat of the celestial manna for forty years, until they came to an inhabited land, which is the other side of Jordan (the learned Aben Ezra says to Gilgal); then the verse continues and says, they eat manna until they came to the confines of the land of Canaan. By this is understood, that the manna which descended fresh every day lasted until they came to the plains of Moab, where Moses died, when it ceased; and they then gathered enough for the remaining time.

Or it may be said, that the difference made in the Guemara, and adopted by Rashi in the interpretation of the words " inhabited land, and extremities of the land of Canaan," is not absolute, as we see in Tosaphot that there are authors who expound it in another sense. The inference is, that both mean the same thing, that is, they eat manna until they passed the Jordan, which is meant by an inhabited country; but in order to explain more clearly in what part of the country the manna failed them, it says, until they came to the confines of the land of Canaan, which was Gilgal, rendering the verse perfectly intelligible, wlthout having any contradiction or superfluity.

Whoever properly considers the words in which the Holy Scripture relates this history of Amalek, will instantly perceive the difference of the two passages. In the first, it appears that Israel obtained the victory, and defeated Amalek; but in the second, Amalek, on the contrary, came upon them when weary and tired, and attacked their rear. In Exodus it also says, "Then came Amalek and fought with Israel in Rephidim ;" which appears as if he fought with the whole body, although Deuteronomy says as quoted above; if he thus attacked the people in the rear, it follows he did not attack the whole. In Exodus it is also stated that "Moses said to Joshua, choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow," &c., shewing it was a predetermined battle, and deliberately undertaken, and not a casual or chance attack. But in Deuteronomy, on the other hand, it says, "He met thee by the way," which denotes a casual encounter. Exodus says, that the command in this battle was given to Joshua, whereas Deuteronomy makes no mention of him, all indicating contrariety. How are the texts to be reconciled?

RECONCILIATION.

Don Isaac Abarbanel observing the discrepany between the two texts, inclines to the belief that there were two actions between Amalek and Israel, in one the latter were attacked, in the other they offered battle, and in truth this may be inferred from the Holy Writ, for in Exodus it says, "Amalek came and fought with Israel;" it then continues that Moses commanded Joshua to prepare to give battle the next day, from which it is collected, that Amalek having fought with Israel retired to their camp, when Israel in turn, sought them and attacked them in their intrenchments; thus mentioning two battles in Exodus, in which it says, that Joshua was ultimately the victor, and that he defeated Amalek with the edge of the sword; but Deuteronomy only treats of the first, in which Amalek prevailed, making choice of this action to incite Israel to hate them, and endeavour to blot out their memory, from having attacked the weak in their rear, who could not keep up with the main body.

Or as it is observed in Yalcut, they set upon the sinners who were not protected the cloudy pillar. According to this, the doubt is solved, since it was in this attack on the rear that Amalek prevailed, as it is said in Deuteronomy, but in the battle of the following day Joshua, being prepared, attacked them in turn, and gained the victory.

R. Levi ben Gershon, and other authors, affirm it to have been but one battle, with altered success, for at its commencement Amalek attacked the rear of Israel, and killed some, who fell because of their sin in wishing to tempt the Lord, desiring to know "If he was among them or not" (verse 7), as it says in Deuteronomy, "When thou wast faint, and weary, and feared not God;" but subsequently the victory remained with Israel, by the care which Moses took in keeping his hands raised, and thus entreating the attraction of the Sovereign Splendours (or Divine regard). So in Exodus it gives a detailed relation of how Israel conquered, but in Deuteronomy, in order to foster their hatred, it exhorts them to remember the injury they had received from this perfidious enemy.

R. Joel ben Soeb,2 adopting the opinion that there was but one battle, interprets the second passage in another way: he says, that the fear of Israel fell

on all the nations who heard of the miraculous division of the Red Sea, as the Scripture testifies, "Then the dukes of Edom were troubled,"3 &c. so that none attempted to molest them, or meditated war against them, except this impious and detestable Amalek, the son of Eliphaz, and grandson of Esau, out of hatred for the blessing that had been given to Jacob, “ Be lord over thy brethren ;"4 and, therefore, he thought to obscure their glory by assailing them on the road, and by such boldness animating other nations to do the same; for as Aristotle says, the beginning of an action is more than half its performance. By this mode the words of Deuteronomy, " And smote of thee (by) all the feeble behind thee," are understood to mean, that those nations who were dispirited, although wishing to annoy Israel, repented of their dread, and altered their conduct, thus giving another signification to the "feeble behind thee." In this manner the verses also conciliate.

QUESTION 95.

Exod. 17:14. I will utterly put out the re- Deut. 25:19. Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. membrance of Amalek from under heaven.

If Israel were to blot out the remembrance of Amalek, how does the Lord say that He would do it?

RECONCILIATION.

Granting that Edom and other nations also offended Israel, Amalek, as Don Isaac Abarbanel properly argues, sinned more grievously than others, and God, consequently, and with just reason, commanded that its name, people, and all belonging to it, should be exterminated; that on no occasion might they be named. That Amalek might be abhorred beyond others, arose from his having committed a treacherous and unworthy action against Israel.

First. Without being provoked thereto by any injury received, or of intention to dispute the possession of any lands acquired by usurpation, or of any others in which Amalek was interested, but contrary to all principles of justice, to satisfy his hatred he attacked them on the road.

Secondly. For not having openly declared war against Israel, as is the usage among independent nations and powerful states, but assaulting them

unawares.

Thirdly. For not having attacked them manfully, face to face in front, but assailing the rear, where the old, sick, and weary were, who had fallen backthese he attacked like a lion among sheep.

Fourthly. Having heard the miracles God had performed for Israel, which had spread fear and terror among all nations, Amalek alone impiously despised the Divine intervention in their favour, and wished to obscure such glory, as R. Abraham Salom,1 and R. Samuel Jachia2 observe on the passage in Deuteronomy, saying, that the verses point out these four things-Israel being, therefore, insulted and injured, and the miracles of God despised by Amalek, vengeance belonged to both, Israel by war commencing the extermination, and God completing it, by granting them the victory.

3 Exod. 15:15.

4 Gen.27:29.

2 Tipheret Israel, Sermon 5.

L

1 Neve Salom, b. 5. c. 6.

In Yalcut and Midrash Tanhuma, another interpretation is given, which is, that previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, vengeance belonged to Israel; and Scripture, therefore, says, "Thou shalt blot out," but after that event God alone will execute the vengeance, finishing the contest by total extermination, as Balaam prophesied: "The first of nations is Amalek, but his end shall be total perdition."4

R. Bechayai says differently: We know that God destroys no king or monarch here below, without first depriving him of the protection he receives from above, which the ancient sages prove in Rabot,5 from the verse of Isaiah that says, "The Lord will visit upon the hosts of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth."6 First mentioning the punishment on the hosts of heaven, and afterwards on the hosts (or kings) of the earth; by this the solution is comprehended, and implies, that the assistance of the protecting angel being wanting, and the earthly king remaining unable to defend himself, is owing to God; but the war with Amalek belonged to Israel, and was to be so uncompromising that it could only end with his memorial and name being eternally effaced. Or it may be said, that every thing is applied in the first place to God, as the proximate cause of all actions; and, secondly, to the means, as the instrumental cause: on this ground the vengeance was ordained to Israel as the instrument, and promised by God, as the proximate cause of the victory.

Exod. 18:2.

QUESTION 96.

Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, &c.

18:4. And her two sons, of which the name of the one was Gershom.

Judges 18:30. And Jonathan the son of
Gershom, the son of Manasseh, &c.

1 Chron. 26:24. And Shebuel, the son of
Gershom, the son of Moses, &c.

The three verses appear repugnant to each other; for if Gershom was the son of Moses, according to the first verse, how does the second call him the son of Manasseh? And if Jonathan was the son of Gershom, and grandson of Manasseh, how does the third verse (in Chronicles) state that Shebuel was the son of Gershom, and grandson of Moses, and how must these variations be understood?

RECONCILIATION.

Many of the passages of the Holy Scriptures are so difficult, that but for the solution of the ancient sages they would hardly be understood; and this is the reason, why, in the Guemara,1 the following is said: On examination of the Hebrew text in Judges, it will be found in all copies that the in the name of (Manasseh) win is written suspended over the place where it should be, and not in line with the others, thus-; so that without it the name would be Moses, which is no mystery, and serves to conciliate the verses, that is, Jonathan was the son of Gershom, and grandson of Moses; the three letters in line forming the latter name-the being so placed as to disguise the name out of respect to Moses, in order that Jonathan, having consented to become priest to an idol, might not be recorded as his grandson; and as this action was similar to one of those afterwards committed by the

3 Article 267. 4 Numb. 24.20. 5 Shemot Raba, c. 9. 6 Isaiah 24:21. 1 Baba Batra, c.8.