But in him who interrogated the priest himself, Oleaster requires (on Num. ch. 27): First, that he be present [in person], and pray that the priest stand by [assist] him [as he] asks the Lord. Whence R. Bachai, on Deuteronomy (Parashat Shophetim, fol. 207b), notes [that] the Prophets bent themselves reverently, [being] present, before the King; but the King stood before the priest, when he wished to use Urim. But R. David, on ch. 20 of Judges, wishes this manner of standing-by to be [such] that he turn [his] face toward the priest; and this the cited Tractate hands down (in the superior question), ch. 7, fol. 37. But Rambam wishes him who interrogates to stand behind the priest (ch. 10, Tract. On the Vessels of the Temple, number 11). But his commentator, R. Joseph Karo, there (fol. 188, vol. 3), sufficiently signifies [that] he differs from Rashi and other Rabbis. Then, that he interrogate him [the priest] not by thought alone, nor by a clear voice, but in that manner in which Anna spoke before the Lord (1 Kings [Sam.] 1, v. 13); or, as the cited Rambam says in the place, in that manner by which one prays with oneself, within oneself. But when the priest was with face toward the ark, or at least toward the Western part, or, if you please, turned in whatever other direction, he who interrogated ought to have stood opposite [him] — since it rather befitted [that] he look in the same [direction] in which the priest looked, that toward God Himself at once, and likewise, the vows, countenance, and eyes of the supplicants might be directed. But that the manner of him who interrogated the priest was [with] a clear voice seems so plain that this very thing the Jerusalem Talmud teaches — and he who cites it, R. Azariah (bk. 3, ch. 57, fol. 157b), and likewise Perush on Yoma (ch. 7, fol. 73.1). And it would be wondrous if the contrary were feigned by those Rabbis. For how otherwise could the priest hear him, and understand his question? How, as [in] 1 Kings [Sam.] 1, [could] Eli [have done]; and so [that] he himself not err? For thus, in that place which this [Rabbi] cites, the Rabbinus writes: “Anna spoke in her heart, and only her lips moved, and the voice was not at all heard.”
But someone would answer, [that] the questions are proposed not to the priest himself, but to God alone — [with] the priest, however, wearing Urim and Thummim before him. And this could be confirmed from the interrogating-formulas which Saul (1 Kings [Sam.] 14, v. 37) [and] David (ch. 23, vv. 10 & 12) use. For all [these] are referred to God Himself; to Him they speak; from Him, [that] which they desire to know, they inquire. And for this cause hesitates [in] bk. [1] Kings 14 (quest. 3), Abulensis; and ch. 23 (quest. 7), there: “the second [inquiry] was, and afterward — but then it stands doubtful.” — But truly, in that reckoning the Pontiff would not be interrogated, but God alone. Yet, as we have so often seen above, from that very Num. 27 our Joshua is commanded to interrogate Eleazar. Then, since often about public affairs — peace, war, and the like — there was interrogation, what did it concern to conceal it from the priest, who [was] otherwise well acquainted with all these? [Was it] as the augur Attus Navius’s knowledge Tarquin tested (in Livy, and Cicero On Divination) — so [that] they who interrogated the Lord [might test] the prophetic power and faith of His priests and oracles?—
(col. 214)
—[that] they tested [it]? Thirdly, if to God alone the questions were proposed, why would the thought alone of the askers not have sufficed? Why would the movement of lips, and a murmuring, after the manner of Anna, be prescribed? Now fourthly, I would wish to know what, before Anna so spoke, was done in this kind of interrogating. Did she learn from those old interrogators that manner of speaking with God? or did all who followed [learn it] from her, [as] interrogators? [Did] both by chance [do] both thus — or those [old ones] by law, these by chance, or the contrary?
More truly, therefore, [it is] that the questions [were] put to the priest himself by the interrogators, which he would propose to God — and therefore [questions] put with that voice which was sonorous and clear, so that they could be received and heard by him, and at last proposed to God, as was noted above from Procopius. But those formulas of Saul and David interrogating do indeed name God, and speak to Him — but with the priest, and through the priest. For many [things], both in profane and in sacred [writers], you may find which are mandated to the very [persons] by the same words by which the internuncio [go-between] ought to speak and announce them — as [in] 2 Kings [Sam.] 3, vv. 12, 13, 14. And therefore, [in] bk. 1 of Kings, ch. 14, Abulensis (quest. 31) — although it be doubtful — nevertheless concludes rather to this part. “Saul,” he says, “did not consult the Lord by himself, but the priest consulted for him. But when it is said that Saul consulted, and that God did not answer him, he is said to have consulted because he bade the priest what he might consult the Lord [about] — just as he is said to build a house, who bids it to be built; or he is said to consult the Lord, because the question which the priest proposed was his. And so it is also said of David, that he himself did not consult the Lord by himself, but the great priest [consulted] for him. Although it is not unfitting, that sometimes the inquirer himself proposed the words of consultation, the Pontiff assisting him — and this is more signified of David, from the words of the text below (ch. 23), when it is said: ‘David said to Abiathar the priest: Apply the Ephod. And David said, O Lord God of Israel, &c.: If the men of Keilah will deliver me into his hands; and if Saul will come down. And the Lord said: He will come down. David said: Will the men of Keilah deliver me up? &c.’ — which all sufficiently appear to be the words of David.”
Finally, it warns (in the cited ch. 10, Tract. On the Vessels of the Temple) [that] to Rambam and David Kimchi it seems [that] only a single question was to be proposed at one time, not several at once. But they are refuted from 1 Kings [Sam.] ch. 23 & 30, as [is] noted on that chapter 23 (quest. 13) by Abulensis. Because, however, they draw this condition of the inquirer from the same Talmudic tractate Yoma (ch. 7, fol. 73) — [whence] those Rabbis drew [it] — it is to be known [that] there, both in the Gemara and in the Gloss, it is added [that], if several [things] be asked, response is indeed [given], but to one only — and that indeed to the first, which either is asked or ought to have been asked. For, when David had asked two [things] (1 Kings [Sam.] 23, v. 11) — and prior indeed, whether he was to be delivered by the Keilites into Saul’s hands; the latter, whether Saul would come down — the Lord answered (v. 12): “He will come down”; and afterward, “The men of Keilah will deliver [thee] up.” Nevertheless, a little after, the same Talmudic tractate confesses [that] several [things] could be interrogated, and to all responded — because that is plain from 1 Kings [Sam.] ch. 30, v. 8. Nor [is] that Rabbinic [maxim decisive]: “En sho’alin shenei devarim ke-echad” [אין שואלין שני דברים כאחד], that is, “Two things are not to be interrogated as one” — [which] agrees with that Aristotelian [rule] (bk. 1 Elenchi [Sophistical Refutations], ch. 4): that not several interrogations be made [into one]—
(col. 215)
—[several] ambiguous and sophistical [interrogations made] as it were [into] one.