The other [second] manner is: that by a certain flashing of the letters — which, incised in the gems, gave forth the names of the tribes — the Lord would respond. But [it is] a manner almost the same as the Josephan, except that, by this [one], it could now be explained how not only “Yea” or “No,” but other [things] also, were answered. And for that cause [it was] devised by R. David Kimchi [Camius].
But many other [things] would still have to be feigned: namely, that there was a flashing of certain of those letters, [but] not of others; again, that there was a certain flashing which would declare this letter to be taken in the first place, that in the second, another in the third, and thenceforth [each] letter to be taken in [its] place; thirdly, that Pontiffs more advanced in age, and dim-of-sight — like Eli — were unfit for Urim and Thummim. And therefore [it would follow] either that, from the order of the inferior Priests who might wear that Rational [breastplate], vicars had to be given to them; or that it was most burdensome to the princes, and to the whole people of the Jews, that the aged Pontiff could not readily read out and announce those divine utterances.
There is added [this]: that in the twelve names of the Patriarchs, not all the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet are [found]. For where [are] ח, ט, צ [heth, teth, tsade]? And even if [you add] Abraham, Isaac—
(col. 223)
—and Jacob, you should also adjoin [those other] names — as some wished above (q. 23) — not even then will all the letters be present. But to add shivtei Yeshurun [שבטי ישורון, “tribes of Jeshurun”] is only to affirm anything whatever by one’s own judgment, since there is nothing about this either from Scripture or from conjecture, as [was] said in the same place. In some voice, therefore, of the divine response, if any of those letters was wanting, what was done about it? Abulensis also objects (1 Kings [Sam.] ch. 14, quest. 32) that GOD, not writing, but speaking and saying, is said by Scripture [to answer] in those responses.
The third manner is that of the same Rabbi Kimchi [Camius], and [is] in the Talmud (ch. 7, Yoma, near the end), [and of] R. Yochanan, and of Rambam himself (ch. 10, On the Vessels of the Temple, vol. 3): that the letters which would be necessary for forming several words should protrude out of those same [tribe-]names — which they call bolṭot [בולטות, “protruding”]. But here too it would be necessary that by a certain sign it be expressed which of all the protruding [letters] should be taken in the first place, which in the second and third and following [places] — or at least [that] one protruded after another; and it was no small [matter], and a quite troublesome reading. And here is the same inconvenience as above: namely, that certain letters were absent. But this [is] much greater: that those gems would have had to have been dissected and divided, so that when (for the sake of a word) there was need of one א [aleph] or ב [bet], from the very Hebrew name Reuben the letter א or ב alone would come forth, while the rest remained in their order more depressed [sunk] — just as, namely, in modern printing-houses we see the engraved letters divided; and likewise in mosaic and inlaid works. Contrariwise, indeed, to [what is] in the musical organs of this age also, where, with certain stops at rest, others, struck and pressed, give forth a varied sound.
The fourth manner is in the same Tractate Yoma (ch. 7): that the letters which would be necessary for giving the response should run together, and mutually join themselves — which, in that cited place, Resh Lakish [Rischlakis] calls mitztarfot [מצטרפות, “joining together”]. But almost the same inconveniences occur which [were] proposed in the second and third manner; and there is added [this], that it can scarcely be explained to what place those letters ran together — whether they stood above the Rational itself, as it were suspended in the air, or whether they betook themselves into some part of the Rational, and into which: upper or lower, right or left, or perhaps middle.
The fifth manner the acumen of certain of my disciples and brethren was devising, in our domestic repetition [review] of the Scriptures: namely, if God had inscribed on those gems the response, even a very long one. For that this was done [is] not most difficult, they teach [by these examples]: 1. The mirrors of the Magi, and the crystalline spheres, in which the demons write and represent [the things] which are asked of them. The marvelous industry of certain men also teaches [it] — who, on a most tiny thing, can either sculpt or inscribe [things] as many as possible. Did not, in Aelian (bk. 1, Varia Historia), someone write an entire distich on a sesame [seed], in golden letters? Did not, in I-know-not-whom, another [write] the Homeric Iliad in a nut? Are there not, in a most tiny little portion of the eyes [the pupil], houses, mountains, cities beheld most vastly? And as (in bk. 4) sings — agreeably to St. Basil’s book On the Holy Spirit — Manilius: “Thus a tiny pupil surveys the whole world:
(col. 224)
“—and that whereby the eyes see is the least [part], when they discern the greatest [things].”
But that God could, by this manner, and by many others also, and more convenient, give responses, cannot be doubted. But here it is asked about what was [actually] done, and no proof of this manner appears. And in it, it could also seem difficult how Eli the Pontiff — whose sharpness of eyes was already growing dim — could read these [inscriptions] and know [them], unless we multiply miracles, and suppose his very power of seeing also to be divinely augmented.
The sixth manner is: that the Lord responded by voice alone. But since that voice could have been either truly and properly a voice — which would strike the ears of the body — or metaphorically a voice, by which every sign would be contained, by which the spirit can speak inwardly to a man: [did] the Lord respond by that proper and exterior voice alone? or by the metaphorical and interior alone? or by both? The first voice Abulensis seems rather to approve (Exod. 28, q. 15; 1 Kings [Sam.], q. 32, ch. 28, q. 16). The second he commends [from] 2 Kings [Sam.] ch. 15: David, when he names the priest Zadok “the seer” [videntem]. For this used to be attributed of old to the Prophets (1 Kings [Sam.] 9, v. 9). But Zadok seems to have been a Prophet by no other reason than that God was wont to speak to him — by that secret and interior speech by which He deals with the Prophets — through Urim and Thummim. The third voice the cited booklet On the Joshuan Priests prefers, in these words (num. 25): “The manner was, that either by a vocal sound, which some one of the Angels would arouse; or rather by an interior and secret address, God would instruct the Priest; and that one, [thus] instructed, would make the Prince, or those who had interrogated — [or] others — more certain about all [things]. For so in Prophecy, and in the divine dreams, it is wont to happen, that certain images of the things which are announced are fixed in a man’s mind or fantasy, and by these [signs], and by mute voices as it were, the Divinity speaks with the man. But that [manner] which was through Urim is coupled with these two manners of divine speech. Saul consults the Lord, and He answered him not, neither by dreams nor by Priests (ha-Urim) nor by Prophets” [1 Sam. 28:6].