I can suggest an answer based on a Beraisa cited in the Gemara below, 36b.

1) The Beraisa states that those on the half of Mount Gerizim were more numerous than the half of Mount Eival because of the Leviyim down below. The Toras ha'Kena'os (36b, end of DH v'Ela) asks how does the Gemara know that there were more on Har Gerizim than on Har Eival? Why do we not say that the Gerim were divided unequally between the two mountains in such a way that the total number on each Har would even itself out?

2) The Toras ha'Kena'os writes that one must say that the Gerim were divided equally between the two mountains in the same way that the Tribes were divided equally, six to each mountain.

3) It seems that this means that we learn from the verse, "ka'Ger ka'Ezrach," that the Gerim received the same treatment as the citizens. We did not want to create a situation where a lot of Gerim were placed all together but rather they were dispersed equally among the rest of the people. According to this, the words, "ka'Ger ka'Ezrach," imply that the Ger and the Ezrach were totally equal.

4) However, the Toras ha'Kena'os concludes, "Tzarich Iyun," which suggests that we also have to look further into this question!

5) I would like to bring support for my answer that the Gerim were dispersed equally among the Shevatim.

a) The Meshech Chochmah on Shemos 12:19 makes a statement which set me thinking. He writes that in the whole of the Chumash, "Ezrach" is written before "Ger," with one exception. (Consequently, since in Shemos 12:19 "Ger" is mentioned before "Ezrach," the Meshech Chochmah writes that there must be a reason for this.)

b) I understand from the Meshech Chochmah that it is valid to make a Diyuk about the order in which "Ezrach" and "Ger" are written. Since, in Yehoshua 8:33, "Ger" is written before "Ezrach," this is unusual.

c) I am not going to attempt to suggest a reason why Ger is mentioned before Ezrach in connection with the Berachos and Kelalos in Sefer Yehoshua. However, what I will say is that the fact that Ger is mentioned first should suggest that the Gerim were just as important as the Ezrach in this event. If so, it would not seem unlikely that the Gerim were specifically placed lower down at the bottom of the mountain, which would seem to represent a lower honor than those given the privilege to stand on the mountains.

d) Reb Pesach, I found in Otzar ha'Chochmah in the Sefer Divrei Tovah (by Rabbi Avraham Taub) on Yehoshua, page 303, that he writes a similar Pshat to yours. He writes that the Shevatim were at the top of the mountain and the Gerim were on the slope. Nonetheless, I still prefer my Pshat.

6) I am now going, bs'd, to attempt to relate to the paradox that the Mishnah (32a) states that the Shevatim went up to the top of the hills, but nevertheless the Radak and the Me'iri say they were only on the slope.

a) A key to resolving this problem may be to point out that Rebbi on 37a states that both the Yisraelim and the Leviyim (see Rashi DH Elu) stood at the bottom of the mountains. Rashi writes that this is what is stated in the Book of Yehoshua.

b) The Meromei Sadeh, by the Netziv of Volozhin, explains that since Sefer Yehoshua uses the words "El Mul" instead of saying "Al," this informs us that they did not stand on the mountains. Rather, we must say that they stood at the bottom, opposite the hills.

c) So we now have Rebbi's Pshat in "El Mul" -- it means at the bottom of the mountain. The Mishnah (32a) cites a different Pshat in "El Mul" -- that they went to the top of the mountain. However, we have a general rule throughout Shas: "Afushei Plugta Lo Mafshinan" -- we always try to limit the amount of disputes, and even when there is a dispute we try wherever possible to make the two opposing opinons as close to each other as possible. (This rule is mentioned in Kitzur Klalei ha'Talmud, printed on the side of the Mevo ha'Talmud, which appears at the end of Maseches Berachos.)

d) Therefore, even though the Mishnah says that they went to the top of the mountain, we prefer to say that this does not mean literally the top, in order not to make too big a difference between the Mishnah and Rebbi. In addition, there is another crucial reason to say that the Mishnah is not to be taken literally: the literal reading of the Mishanh is against the simple meaning of the verse in Navi, "El Mul." The Radak and Me'iri preferred to follow the simple meaning of the verse, even though it is not the simple meaning of the Mishnah.

e) I would like to add, bs'd, a small nuance with which I suspect not everyone will agree. We should not forget that it was Rebbi himself who compiled the Mishnah. However, we know that Rebbi often cited opinons in the Mishnah with which he did not actually agree himself. Therefore, Rebbi mentioned in the Mishnah that they went to the top of the hill, even though he himself learned differently. However, we can argue that when Rebbi said in the Mishnah that they went to the top of the mountain, the words "the top of the mountain" should be understood as relative speech. In comparison to Rebbi's opinion that they did not go up the mountain at all, the opinion that maintains that they did go on the mountain was considered by Rebbi to be equivalent to going to the top of the mountain.

B'Hatzlachah,

Dovid Bloom

1) Reb Pesach, I found that the Shitah Mekubetzes (Bava Metzia 9b, DH Leima) writes in the name of Mahari Abuhav:

"It is not fitting that we should make a dispute between two Tana'im from one extreme to the other, if it is possible to make their dispute where one Tana is at one end, and the other Tana is in the middle."

According to this, I argue the following. Rebbi learns that "Al" means "Samuch." The Rabanan learn that "Al" means "on." However, this does not have to mean literally on the peak of the mountain. Somebody who is standing on the slope of the mountain is also "on" the mountain. So I argue that it is better to keep "on" meaning "on the slope" according to the Rabanan so that we can follow the teaching of Mahari Abuhav and have Rebbi explaining that it means at the bottom, and the Rabanan explaining that it means in the middle.

2) Reb Pesach, I looked at this again and I see what you mean, because I found that the Sedei Chemed (in Ma'arechet Mem, Rule 16, DH Da d'Chidesh) cites Sefer Yavo ha'Levi, who writes that the rule that we do not make a dispute from one extreme to the other applies only when this involves a dispute in logic. When, in contrast, it comes to how we derive things through Derashot from the verses, we do find that there are extreme disputes.

In the next paragraph (DH v'Al Pi), the Sedei Chemed cites a few examples of extreme disputes involving Derashot from verses. In Sanhedrin 6b we find one opinion that it is forbidden "Livtzo'a" -- to make a compromise agreement between two litigants. But then the Gemara cites an opinion that it is a Mitzvah to make a compromise agreement. The Sedei Chemed says that we need not be concerned that this is a Machlokes Min ha'Katzeh El ha'Katzeh, because the two opinions are based on verses, not on Sevara, so it is possible to have an extreme difference of opinion.

The Sedei Chemed then cites another famous dispute. In the Mishnah and Gemara in Sotah 20a and 21b, Ben Azai says that a person is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, while Rebbi Eliezer says that anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is as considered as though he teaches her light-headedness. This is an extreme Machlokes, but since it is based on the way to learn verses, it is acceptable.

I still am not convinced that the examples of the Sedei Chemed are quite the same as our Gemara, because in our Gemara the dispute involves how to understand the word "Al" which is not a question of a Derashah but rather of the meaning of a word. If so, I still argue that one should attempt to keep the possible meanings of one word fairly close together. Well, this is debatable, but at least we have seen that the rule of not making a Machlokes Min ha'Katzeh El ha'Katzeh does not always hold true.

Dovid Bloom

Reb Pesach, I looked up what I wrote in my original reply and I did not actually write the words "with one exception" when I cited the Meshech Chochmah (those words were added by the outstanding editors in Kollel Iyun Hadaf!).

1) So I will now try and explain the words of the Meshech Chochmah, bs'd:

It seems to me that he had in mind a phrase mentioned a few times in the Gemara (see Eruvin 9a), "Yetziva b'Ar'a v'Giyora bi'Shmei Shemaya." Rashi writes that a Yetziva is an "Ezrachi." It is obvious to Chazal that the Ezrach must come before the Ger, in the normal run of events. This is what the Meshech Chochmah means when he writes that in the whole of the Torah, the Ezrach is written before the Ger. He does not mean that one cannot find exceptions to this rule, but that when one does find an exception to the rule there will always be a good reason for this.

2) The Meshech Chochmah writes that if a Ger eats Chametz on Pesach he will certainly be Chayav Kares, because he came of his own free will but then did not live up to the requirements. The Chidush is that even the Ezrach will be cut off. This is why Ger becomes before Ezrach in Shemos 12:19 and Bamidbar 9:14; because the Ger entered voluntarily, he has a greater obligation to keep the laws of Pesach, the festival which proclaims how we became a people (our collective Gerus).

3) Again, Vayikra 24:16 and 24:22 discuss the punishments for people who did not live up to the requirements of the Torah, and the Chidush is that even an Ezrach receives the same punishment.

4) Now to the question of why Ger is mentioned before Ezrach in Sefer Yehoshua:

a) Reb Pesach, I do not understand so well why the fact that the Gerim were half-half, but the Ezrachim were not half-half, should be a sufficient reason to say that the Gerim were more important and therefore were mentioned before the Ezrachim.

b) I would like to suggest a different reason for why the Gerim were mentioned first, based on Tosfos in Nidah (13b, DH Kashim). Tosfos there writes in the name of the Mechilta that the Erev Rav were twice as numerous as the Ezrachim who came out of Mitzrayim. Because there were so many more Gerim, it follows that the verse in Yehoshua mentions Ger first.

c) Incidentally, it is not so simple to assume that the item mentioned first in a list is in fact more obvious. See Tosfos in Kesuvos 20b, DH Echad, who discusses this question at length. However, the discussion there is about statements in the Gemara, not verses in the Torah. We do not necesarily know what Tosfos would say about verses in Nach.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom