The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 469

fidently assamed that the Machirites, who land mnst then determine, the Jnbile wauld had received an extensive and remote terri- seem to effect the traDllfer of which it com. tory beyond Jordan, had nothing whatever pelled the recognition. It is, however, none to do with this application. It was the the less atrange that the Man&S!lites ehould 11tner 81lction of the tribe, the mi81.pe.dwth have la.id such stress upou the practical effects or the six 110D11 of Gilead, who were yet to of a piece of legislation which had never yet :receive illherit:anee by lot in Cana.an proper, come into nae. It 11eems to point to the COD• to whom the matter appeared so 11erious that clnsion that the same thing had been custou,. they ea.me to Moses about it. ary among them in their Ecl;tian homes, Ver. 2.-m:, lori. •t1~ The singular and that they were acquainted, at least by form is conata.ntly used in Hebrew, as in tradition, with its actual working. other langaage11, together with the plural Ver. 6.-The tribe of the son.a of loseph. personal pronoun (see at Gen. xxiii. 6), The "The tribe (maUe/t.) of the Beni.Josepb." deference now pa.id to Mose11 (e£ eh. xxxii. There were two, or rather in effect three, 25, 27) is in marked contrast to the treat. tribes of the Beni.Joseph , Moses referred, ment he had received from the former gener• of colll'!le, to the one which had come before ation. Only Aaron (and that under the in• him. fluence of terror-Exod. xxxii. 22 ; eh. xii. Ver. 6.-0n.l:, to the fam.il:, of the tribe 11) and Joshua (eh. ii, 28) had addressed of their fa.ther 1hall they marry, The him as Adoni before. direction is not alto~ether plain, since the tribe (matteh.) contnmed several families Ver. 8.-Whereu.uto the:, are reeeived. (mi8h.pe.i}wth), and in this case one or more Literally, as in the ma.rgin, "unto whom of the families were widely separated from (DO~ referring to the men of the tribe) they the rest. Probably the words a.re to be read, sh11.ll be." "only to the tribe-family of their father," Ver. 4. -When the jubile of the children of i. e. only into tha.t miakpac}i,,:t,h of Manasseh Iarael shall be. It is remarkable that this is to which their father bad belonged. Prac- tically, therefore, they were restricted to the only reference by name to the Jubile {!,;;11, the family of the Hepherites (eh. :uvi. 32, jubeel; not jubilee, which is the vulgar 83). This is me.de almost certain when we form of the same word derived from the remember that the territory of the "family " Latin juhila:u.s) to be found in the Scrip. was to be apportioned within the tribe in the tares, Some allusions more or less doubtful same way, and with the same regard to have been pointed out in the prophets, but relationship, as the territory of the tribe the only one which seems incontrovertible is within the nation (see ou eh. x:.criii 54). in Ezek. xlvi. 17, and belongs to the ideal Ver. 7.-Every one .. shall keep him· ngi.m11 of that vision. Jeremiah's riaht of 1elf to the inheritance of the tribe of ha redemption over the lands of his family was fathera. This was to be the general rule probably due to the fact that tboy were which governed all such questions. Every priestly lands (J osb. xxi. 18 ; J er. i. 1 ; Israelite had his own ehare in the illheri t· :n:xii. 7-9), and as such incapable of per- a.nee of his tribe, and wit.h that he was to be manent alienation. It is, therefore, doubt. content, and not seek to intrude on other ful whether the Jubile was ever actually tribes. Accordingly the decision in the observed, although the principle upon which case of the do.ughters of Zelopbehad is e:t• it rested, the equity or redemption which no tended to all similar cases. Israelite could divest himself of, wa.s un• Ver. 11.-Mahlah, &c. It is a curious doubtedly acknowledged (see notes on Levit. instance of the inartificial character of the xxv. ). Then sha.ll their inheritance be put sacred records that these live llJ}.mcs, which a.nto the illherituce of the tribe whereu.nto have not the least interest in themselves, iher ue reoeived. It is again rema.rkable aro repeated thrice in this Book, and once in tha.t the one explicit reference to the Jubile Joshua (xvii. 3). It is evident that the case should be only to an indirect consequence of made a deep impreru1ion upon the mind of its practical working. The J ubile could not the nation at the time. Their father's really transfer the property of the heiress to brothera' aona. The Hebrew word i\; is. her hnsbnnd's t1ibe 1 but it would in effect always translated "father's brother," or confirm that transrer, and make it perma- "uncle ; " and that seems to be its o!'dinary nent. In practice no property wonld be meaning, altbo~gh in Jer. xn:ii. 12 it stands considered to have finally changed bands for uncle's sou. There is no reason to depart until the year of Jubile, when an extensive from the customary reo.ding here. No doubt re-settlement took place, a.nd when all titles the daughters of Zelophehc.d acted according not 11uceessfully challenged would be con- to the spirit as well a.s the letter of the law, sidered a.s confirmed. Since the title of the o.nd married the neo.rost mo.le relatives 1vho lieiresa's children could not be challenged, wure open to their choice. The Septuo.gi11t a.ud aince any intermediate disposition of the bas roi, dvtf,oi, aim~v.  -460 THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. [OB. DXVI. 1-18-