194 JAMES NEIL, M.A., 
ing to the number of the names. To [him who is] many shalt 
thou increase his (not their) inheritance; to [him who is] few 
thou shalt, diminish his inheritance. To each man shall be 
given his inheritance according to those that were numbered of 
him.” 
This surely points to an allotment to each man individually. 
The application of Zelopbehad’s daughters immediately follows 
and was approved, their claim being allowed. Then follows the 
Law. In Numbers xxxvi. 8, ‘‘ Hvery daughter that possesseth an 
inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be wife unto 
one of the family of the tribe of her father.” They and all future 
heiresses were thus restrained by special enactment from marrying 
into any other than their own tribe, and thus (singly and person- 
ally—not collectively) alienate the inheritance from their father’s 
tribe. Ten portions were allotted to Manasseh (Joshua xvii. 5, 6), 
because the daughters of Manasseh ‘had an inheritance among 
the brethren of their father.” So, in Deuteronomy xxi. 17, we read 
that a first-born son was to inherit a double portion; as Joseph 
did in Ephraim and Manasseh, when Reuben had forfeited his 
double portion, 1 Chronicles vy, 1. 
Again we have, in Joshua xv, from 16 to 19, Caleb giving to his 
daughter Achsah, a field, > 7w, sadeh, as personal property. 
(Note here the use of the phrase, “a blessing,” to mean a super- 
added gift. The natives of Palestine to this day use the phrase 
in the same sense—‘ the blessing,” bdérakeh—an additional hand- 
ful added to the already full measure; an extra bunch to the full 
weight of grapes; a small coin, over and above the stipulated pay, 
all added in token of good will. Thus Achsah received her field, 
and, besides that, her barakeh of the upper and lower springs). 
In 1 Samuel viu. 14, Israel is warned that the future kings may 
take from thom their fields, &c., plainly their personal property. 
Naboth’s history, 1 Kings xxi., plainly refers to his vineyard as 
personal property, The Jubilee laws against alienation of pro- 
perty also refer to personal acts of mortgage or sale. See also 
the application of those laws to the Prince, in Ezekiel xlvi. 16, 18. 
Mr. Neil refers to the span of hnman life given in Psalm xe. 10, 
but it should be rememberea that in this psalm Moses, ‘‘ the man 
of God,” is not speaking of human life in general, but of the one 
generation doomed to die in the wilderness within the 40 years. 
Other Israelites did live to see more than one jubilee period. 
In short, I am disposed to regard the fellahh custom of working 
in common, the “undistributed” princely or crown lands (ardh- 
