198 JAMES NEIL, M.A.,. 
to prove, namely, that, however it came about, the ancient tenure 
of land in Israel, as in all the other nations of that time, was a 
holding of the sadeh, or “ broad acres,”’ in common, with a periodi- 
cal, probably annual, reallotment amongst the commoners, for my 
critic says, ‘‘ In short, Iam disposed to reyard the fellahh custom 
of working in common the ‘undistributed’ princely or crown 
lands (ardh mirc), as a survival like many others of aboriginal custom 
not abolished by Israel, because the Mosaic Laws were but imper- 
fectly carried out.” 
The only point, therefore, at issue between us is the construc- 
tion to be put upon the Law of Moses, as it relates to the tenure 
of tillage. 
This Law was unquestionably given to a people who had never 
seen or heard of any other tenure of the sadeh by the mass of men 
than that of the holding in common by Village-Communities. My 
critic appears to admit this. For them, as an Eastern people, 
custom would have possessed an inexorable power. How, then, on 
the face of it, is it possible that, if, as my critic maintains, the 
Law made suddenly for the first time in the experience of man- 
kind so radical a change (and one that has only come about even 
in later times, and amongst Western nations given to change, very 
slowly) as that from the holding by tribes and families in common 
to the holding by individuals in severalty, so little, so very little, 
should be said in that Law on this subject at all, and that little, 
from a legal stand-point, of the most vague and general character ? 
So sweeping, startling, and tremendous a change would, naturally, 
call for minute, explicit, and (from the general style of the Mosaic 
Law) repeated statements. Yet my critic can find only one very 
brief, vague, general provision bearing directly on this subject in 
the whole Law, as I shall presently show, namely, Numbers xxyvi. 
52-54, and three allusions to it, Numbers xxxvi. 8; Joshua xv. 
16-19; and xvii. 5, 6! 
Again, my critic appears to admit—and who can doubt ?—the 
frequent allusion to this custom of periodically assigning each 
man’s portion of land by “the lot” and ‘‘ the rope,” in the lan- 
guage of Hebrew prophets employing illustrations for a Hebrew 
people. What other conclusion can be drawn from the use of this 
figure—giving as they always do the most familiar imagery in | 
order to be understood by that primitive, untravelled people, 
Israel, who were forbidden intercourse with other nations—by 
David* and other Psalmists,t by Solomon,t by the author of 
* Psalm xvi. 5, 6. t Psalm Ixxviii. 55. ft Proverbs i. 14. 
