Commentary for Numbers 26:56

על פי הגורל ACCORDING TO (more lit., by the mouth of) THE LOT [SHALL THE POSSESSION BE DIVIDED] — The lot itself spoke as I have already explained; this tells us that the division took place by the Holy Spirit (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 6).

על פי הגורל תחלק נחלתו, when it came to the actual distribution of the land, the result of the lottery confirmed what Joshua had announced as the fair share for each tribe. It was found that the tribes who numbered more people did indeed receive parcels that were larger than those who numbered fewer people.

בין רב למעט, be they numerous or few. We have already referred to the discussion in Baba Batra 122 about how the division was to proceed, if according to the number of individuals or according to the number of tribes, and we have mentioned that in the future the land would be divided between 13 tribes. In addition to that the Talmud stated that the key to the division was the monetary value of a piece of land, not just its size. Rabbi Yehudah adds that the amount of land needed to grow a bushel of wheat in the tribal area of Yehudah was one fifth of the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of wheat in the Galil. Rashbam comments on the words בין רב למעט that every tribe had to accept the piece of land allocated in the general הגרלה, lottery, regardless of whether they thought they ought to have received a larger share due to the number of men over 20 in that tribe, as all the tribes received equal shares. The difficulty with this approach is that there is no need to accept such a simplistic view based on the text seeing we have a Baraitha according to which the words בין רב למעט are understood to refer to the relative distance from Jerusalem of the various parcels of land allocated to the tribes, i.e. that land close to Jerusalem was considered worth more than land which was a long way from Jerusalem. According to the Baraitha the word רב would refer to land close to Jerusalem being worth more.

בין רב למעט, “between the numerous and the few.” All tribes received equal amounts of land regardless of how numerous they were. If so, what was the meaning of the words לרב תרבה נחלתו וגו', “to the numerous you shall increase his inheritance?” (Verse 54) We must understand this as the internal division of the land within each tribal territory. Families that had many children received larger plots than families who had only few children. Alternately, the internal division was not based on the numbers in each family at this time, but on the numbers in each family at the time of the Exodus. In other words; if a family consisted of a father and ten sons at the time of the Exodus, but that family had by now shrunk to half its original size, the family was still allocated the amount of land based on the family’s original size. This was how the words לרב תרבו נחלתו were applied. On the other hand, if a family at the time of the Exodus had only five sons, and in the interval there were 10 sons, all of them had to share an inheritance based on five sons. This is the meaning of למעט תמעיט נחלתו. The approach to the whole paragraph then would be that the land would be distributed based on families mentioned in the Torah by name. This is why the Torah wrote במספר שמות, “according to the number of names.” In other words, the distribution was based on a head count, but not on a head count of the number of souls, but on a headcount based on people whom the Torah singled out by name. The lot mentioned was used only to determine which named tribe would receive which named share of land, the shares being equal in size, though, of course not equal in value. The reason why the matter of the גורל is repeated once more in verse 56 is to tell us that even within the tribe the plots of land were distributed by lottery, so as to minimize friction and jealousy.

על פי הגורל תחלק נחלתו , “each portion shall be assigned by lot.” Our verse expresses what is stated in Proverbs 18,18: “the lot puts an end to strife, it separates between the mighty.” Solomon comes out in favor of determining distribution of properties, etc., with multiple claimants by lottery as it prevents strife and bad feeling. it is a cause for preventing coveting something belonging to others. If we assume that the other person has gained his property through the casting of lots no one can begrudge it claiming unfairness by human authority. Solomon illustrates this further in Proverbs 16,33: “a lot is cast into the lap, but one’s judgment depends on G’d.”

The lots spoke… For if not so, why does it say, “By word of the lottery”? Surely the Torah had written, “Only by lot shall [the land] be divided…” (v. 55). Rather, it was to teach that it was through Divine Inspiration, meaning that at the moment when the lots came out a voice would emanate with the lot saying, “I am the lot of the area of Acco, and I have come up for such and such a tribe.” Rashi needed to say this, otherwise [one may ask]: Given that they divided [the land] according to the largeness or smallness of the tribe, why then was it divided by lots? Perhaps a tribe with a large population would draw a small portion. Consequently, he explains that the lottery was by Divine Inspiration.

V. 56. על פי הגורל nach Baba Batra 122 a: באורים ותומים in Unterscheidung des בגודל (V. 55), welches einfach: Los bedeutet. נחלתו: da ארץ in der Regel Femininum ist, so bezieht sich נחלתו wohl auf איש (V. 54). — בין רב למעט: nach einer Auffassung (Baba Batra daselbst) mit genauer Ausgleichung des Wertes. Es dürfte damit die Auffassung Sipornos sich begründen, dass die zwölf Gebietesteile der Stämme nach Bedürfnis der Bevölkerung eines jeden ungleich am Umfang, aber gleich am Wert gewesen. Die kleineren Gebiete waren wertvoller an Bodengüte und Lage.

על פי הגורל, “according to the lot, etc.” i.e. after the 12 boundaries of the tribal territories had become known.

In addition, an examination of the text by the Talmud leads us to conclude that the Talmud is self-contradictory. At the outset the Talmud understands the words to mean that the lottery had to be accepted and there was no compensation for the apparent injustice if a tribe with a large population had drawn a smaller parcel of land in the lottery. The parcels of land were equal in size. In the course of the Talmud's discussion, when it emerges that the words בין רב למעט refer to the distance of the land from Jerusalem, it is clear that the principle of each tribe inheriting equally was not accepted, and would be rectified in the distribution of the land in the future when 12 equal shares would go to the 12 tribes and the ruler would receive the thirteenth share. How could the same words in our verse be used to support both theories?

Wir sind in der Darstellung des Verteilungsmodus vorzüglich Raschi und רשב׳׳ם gefolgt. Es sind jedoch darüber verschiedene Auffassungen (siehe תוספו׳ Baba Batra 117a und Misrachi z. St.).

תחלק נחלתו, “shall each family’ share of inherited land be determined in accordance with the number of families in each tribe, i.e. four for the tribe of Reuven, and five for the tribe of Shimon, etc.”

Furthermore, once we accept the principle that the land was divided into 12 equal shares to the 12 tribes, the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Rabbi Yonathan would apply to each tribe as the numbers varied between the first count and the census in our portion. If all this were correct, why does the Talmud in Baba Batra 118 raise the problem of the complaints of the tribe of Joseph in Joshua 17,14? If the land had been divided according to the present number of men over 20 why would the tribe of Joseph complain? They received an allocation in accordance with their number. Their complaint would only make sense if their allocation was based on the number of men they had at the time of the Exodus; if the land was distributed according to the present census why did they complain? The Talmud answers that they complained that too many of their number had turned twenty between the present census and the actual distribution and many of those had no father who would have qualified in their stead at this time. I do not understand the problem. Seeing that according to all opinions all tribes received an equal amount of land, i.e. everyone is agreed that the tribe of Joseph received an amount equal to that of each of the other tribes, their complaint would be equally justified regardless of whether we accept the principle of distribution according to Rabbi Yoshiah or that according to Rabbi Yonathan. We are forced to conclude therefore that the Talmud bases the complaint of the tribe of Joseph on a lottery which allocated differently sized parcels of lands to different tribes according to both the view of Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonathan. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the tribes all received the same amount of land, it was the tribe of Yehudah who should have complained as they were the most numerous and had not received more land than the least numerous tribe. The result of such a distribution would have been that Yehudah who numbered 76,500 fighting men received one parcel of land whereas the two tribes Menashe and Ephrayim who numbered only some 8,700 men more received double the amount of land!

בין רב למעט, “between the more numerous ones and the less numerous ones.” How did this work out in practice? Four sections of land were accorded to the four families of Reuven, two of whom were large families and two of whom were relatively small families. The large family had to divide up their parcel into three shares according to the parchments used in the lottery two shares of ancestral land went to the two larger families, the third section being redivided and distributed to the two families who had fewer members. A pattern of distribution using the lottery was used throughout. All the families of the 12 tribes received their shares through having participated in a lottery.

As a result of these considerations I have concluded that the Talmud never meant to imply that the 12 tribes each received the same amount of land as described by Rashbam. The correct interpretation of the Talmud's paragraph starting with the words תא שמע is that the words בין רב למעט mean that the Torah confirms that indeed some tribes received a larger share of land than did others. The reason for this was that the distribution was by lottery. This was the major reason why the lottery was necessary in order to head off complaints. If you even envisaged the possibility that the land was distributed in accordance with the number of people in the present census, what point was there to engage in a lottery at all? Why would the Torah have to mention:- "be they many or few?" The meaning of these words is: "regardless of whether the tribe in question is numerous or small in number the distribution will be based on the lottery concerning the location of their land allocation." The second Baraitha where we are told something about the distribution of the land in the future means to clarify the matter still further by telling us that the lack of consideration for numbers refers only to the fact that the basic consideration is the number of tribes and not the number of individuals in the nation. Such clarification was necessary as one could have argued, based on the wording of the Torah, that the only thing the words בין רב למעט prove is that the land was not going to be distributed on the basis of the individual number of people in the nation, but that it would still be possible to adjust the size of the tribal allocations according to the number of families. This is why the Talmud quotes the Baraitha that even in the future the basic approach to the distribution of the land will be the number of tribes. There would be 12 distinct areas, [like provinces, Ed.] but that the tribal areas would not be identical in size but there would be larger areas (which presumably would be drawn in the lottery by the more numerous tribes) as well as smaller tribal areas. All this is in agreement with the Sifri on the words איש לפי פקודיו which I have mentioned earlier.

בין רב למעט, the letter ל in the word למעט has a dot under it, making the vowel chirik.