of the congregation." The high court before which this case was presented consisted of Moses, representing the political power; Eleazar, the high priest, representing the ecclesi astical power; the princes or chieftains, rep resenting the tribal organizations; and the "congregation," the meaning of which is not clear. It certainly could not mean the whole people, and probably meant a body of the leading men of the people constituting an integral part of the court. The court sat at the door of the sanctuary. Anciently the judgment place was at the gate of the town, where the market place was; later on it was at one of the gates of the city; and finally the gate notion had become that judgment so familiar is spoken that when at the ¡ court was removed to the sanctuary at Jeru salem, it sat at the door of the sanctuary, even as in the report of this case it sat at the door of the tabernacle in the wilderness. The five women then approached the court in session " saying. Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah," hence was not attaint and could transmit his inheritance, " but died in his own sin," a natural death, " and had no sons." Hence his inheritance would, under the old law, descend to collateral kinsmen, and the name of the deceased would be forgotten in his family. Against this his daughters pro tested, " Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family be cause he hath no son? " Why should not the name be perpetuated through the daugh ters, and the family inheritance descend to them? There was no equitable reason for refusing their petition: " Give unto us, there fore, a possession among the brethren of our father." Relying upon a rule of inheritance peculiar to their tribe, contrary to the imme morial rule by which property descended to the heirs male, to the exclusion of the women, and resting upon the simple justice of their contention, these five women were

emboldened to present their claim. It seems that there were still traces of the matriarchal state of society, in which kinship was reck oned through the females, and the devolu tion of property followed a similar rule. The matriarchate was not entirely unknown among the ancient Hebrews, and there are Bible references which are inexplicable with out this theory to guide us. Perhaps some traditional rights had persisted in certain families of Manasseh, or perhaps in the whole tribe, unchanged by the common law of the nation, just as customs of the manor persisted in England, and local customs everywhere survive the levelling tendency of general legislation. At any rate, the problem presented to the court was not one to be dismissed by mere reference to the law limiting the right of inheritance to the males, and the court retired to consult. "And Moses brought their cause before the Lord." If we follow the traditional ortho dox interpretation of this verse, it means that Moses went to consult God to obtain light in this case, and, as the next verse shows, God gave him a decision. No doubt the writer of the narrative in the Book of Numbers believed that this was the manner of the procedure, and that Moses actually was directed by God to decide the case as he did. It is not unlikely, however, that the true procedure was simply this : that Moses retired, with or without the rest of the court. to consider the question, and finally rendered the decision. The Oriental looked upon the judge as the actual representative of God, and the judgment as the decision of God himself, probably because the fact that the judge was usually the priest made the judg ment partake somewhat of the nature of a priestly act. At any rate, from this crude idea arose the notion that judgment when rendered in righteousness is divine, and that the mouth of the judge is as the mouth of God. In the Talmud we find that the general dictum, " the words of the rabbis are as acceptable as the words of the Torah,"