אֵ֣לֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹ֤ת בְּנֵי־אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ לִפְקֻ֣דֵיהֶ֔ם שְׁנַ֧יִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֛ים אֶ֖לֶף וַחֲמֵ֣שׁ מֵא֑וֹת אֵ֥לֶּה בְנֵי־יוֹסֵ֖ף לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָֽם׃ (ס)
Itulah kaum-kaum keturunan Efraim; jumlah orang yang terhitung dari mereka adalah tiga puluh dua ribu lima ratus orang. Itulah keturunan Yusuf menurut kaum-kaum mereka.
Ramban
LET REUBEN LIVE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “he began with Reuben because he was the firstborn. He did not mention Simeon because of the sin of [Baal] Peor, because the worshippers were Simeonites, the proof being their numbers,80In the first census the tribe of Simeon numbered 59,300 (Numbers 2:13). In the second census [after the Peor affair] they numbered 22,200 (ibid., 26:14), a decrease of 37,100 people. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra the decrease would be accounted for by the 24,000 people that died in the plague because of the Peor affair (ibid., 25:9) thus indicating that the idol-worshippers were exclusive of that tribe. On this point, Ramban will comment that even assuming that all 24,000 who died in the plague were from the tribe of Simeon, there are still 13,100 people unaccounted for, a discrepancy that cannot be explained by Ibn Ezra’s theory. and their prince, too, being killed [in the affair].” In my opinion, the numbers are no proof because over thirteen thousand are still unaccounted for, aside from those who died in the plague.80In the first census the tribe of Simeon numbered 59,300 (Numbers 2:13). In the second census [after the Peor affair] they numbered 22,200 (ibid., 26:14), a decrease of 37,100 people. In the opinion of Ibn Ezra the decrease would be accounted for by the 24,000 people that died in the plague because of the Peor affair (ibid., 25:9) thus indicating that the idol-worshippers were exclusive of that tribe. On this point, Ramban will comment that even assuming that all 24,000 who died in the plague were from the tribe of Simeon, there are still 13,100 people unaccounted for, a discrepancy that cannot be explained by Ibn Ezra’s theory. In addition, other tribes as well diminished in population, for the sons of Gad lost five thousand,81In the first census the Gadites numbered 45,650 (Numbers 2:15), and in the second census they were 40,500 (ibid., 26:18) — a decrease of 5,150. — And so perhaps we should assume that these deaths resulted from the plague because of Peor. and the sons of Ephraim, eight thousand!82In the first census the tribe of Ephraim numbered 40,500 (Numbers 2:19), and in the second census they were 32,500 (ibid., 26:37) — a decrease of 8000. Moreover, from the verse which states, And Israel attached himself unto Baal-peor,83Numbers 25:3. and it is said again, Take all the chiefs of the people84Ibid., Verse 4. it would appear that there were some among them from all the tribes, and that all their judges passed sentence on them. And similarly He said, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.85Ibid., Verse 11. Now do not rejoin against me from the affair of Achan where He said, Israel hath sinned86Joshua 7:11. In this part of the verse the specific sin is not mentioned yet. It is stated at the end of that verse: Yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing. — For the significance thereof see Ramban further. [although it was but a single individual who sinned; similarly we can say that it was the tribe of Simeon alone that sinned in the affair of Peor yet Scripture describes it as if the entire nation sinned. This rejoinder is not valid, for] there, [the details of] the sin had not yet been revealed, so He mentioned Israel generally [but in the case of Peor the facts of the sin were clearly given and still He spoke of all Israel, which shows that people from all the tribes were among the worshippers of Peor]. Similarly, the identity of the victim [i.e., Zimri, a leader of the Simeonites] is no proof [that only his tribe sinned, as Ibn Ezra argues], for he [Zimri, the son of Salu] was only a prince of a fathers’ house87Numbers 25:14. of that tribe, not the prince of the [entire] tribe. Those who assembled against G-d in the congregation of Korach were greater and more honorable people than he [Zimri], for they were princes of the congregation,88Ibid., 16:2. yet all their tribes did not follow them! Additionally, the psalm [that relates the sins of the wilderness] mentions Dathan and Abiram and their affair by name, saying, The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram;89Psalms 106:17. The verse indicates that, despite the fact that princes of the congregation were in the company of Korach, the general population did not follow them, for the psalm specifies the participants in the strife. and it [the same psalm] mentions They attached themselves also unto Baal-peor90Ibid., Verse 28. together with Moreover, they scorned the desirable Land91Ibid., Verse 24. which applies to the general population!92Thus it is clear that the worshippers of Baal-peor came from all the tribes, just as those who scorned the desirable Land came from among the entire people. This contradicts Ibn Ezra’s view that only the tribe of Simeon was involved in the affair of Peor. Forbid it also that Moses should refrain from blessing the tribe of Simeon, [when it is said] that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel!93Judges 21:17. For all those who had joined Baal-peor had already died, as it is said, for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the Eternal thy G-d hath destroyed from the midst of thee,94Above, 4:3. and it is written of those who survived, But ye that did cleave unto the Eternal your G-d are alive every one of you this day.95Ibid., Verse 4. And why should he not bless them? They all made the [golden] calf and sinned in the affair of the spies, yet they were forgiven, and he blessed them!
Now, I have seen in Midrash Rabbah the following text:96Bamidbar Rabbah 21:9. “Six families were eliminated because of the immorality caused by Balaam’s advice [that Israel could be corrupted through seduction], and so Scripture listed one family less of Simeon97Genesis 46:10 lists six sons of Simeon, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:12-13). and five less of Benjamin.”98Genesis 46:21 lists ten sons of Benjamin, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:38-39). Thus, according to the opinion of the Rabbis [the tribe of] Benjamin had a greater part in the sin than did the tribe of Simeon — yet Benjamin is included in the blessing!99Further, Verse 12.
In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that Scripture considers the tribes of Israel as only twelve. So it stated in Jacob’s blessing, All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.100Genesis 49:28. Now Jacob mentioned his twelve sons and considered Joseph to be one tribe101Ibid., Verses 22-26. [instead of enumerating Ephraim and Menasheh separately as is sometimes done]. Moses saw fit to consider Joseph as two tribes, as he said, And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Menasheh.102Further, Verse 17. This was for two reasons: one, since the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded and made them two tribes regarding the dedication of the altar,103Numbers 7:48 and 54. the flags104Ibid., 2:18-21. [designating the tribal encampments in the wilderness], and the inheritance of the Land,105Ibid., 34:23-24. he [Moses] had to count them as two [separate tribes] for their blessing. Secondly, he referred to Joshua, who would make them possess the Land, and he was from Ephraim, the younger son [of Joseph], therefore Moses had to mention his brother [Menasheh] who was older than him. Now, he also wanted to bless [the tribe of] Levi, for, through his blessing, all Israel would be blessed, in that his offerings shall be acceptable before G-d on their behalf. Hence it was necessary to omit one of the tribes, for nowhere [in Scripture] are they enumerated except as twelve, corresponding to the twelve constellations in the firmament,106Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. the twelve months of the year, and the twelve “border diagonals”107Sefer Habahir, 95. — This is a Cabbalistic term for the twelve mystic powers emanating from various combinations of the letters of the Great Divine Name. See my Hebrew commentary p. 495. concerning which the Rabbis have said in the Midrash106Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. that they are the everlasting arms.108Further, Verse 27. As the Sages mentioned in Tractate Berachoth:109Berachoth 32b. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet,110I.e., Isaiah. In our text of the Gemara: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said ‘to her': My daughter …” Go and tell the congregation of Israel: My daughter, I have created twelve constellations in the firmament to correspond to the twelve tribes.” Similarly, at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal where Scripture counts Levi,111See above, 27:12. Joseph is not mentioned as two tribes111See above, 27:12. [because, there Simeon111See above, 27:12. is mentioned]. Likewise you will see in the distributions of Ezekiel that he counts Joseph as two tribes112See Ezekiel 48:4-5. with reference to the apportioning of the Land and did not mention Levi. On the other hand, in enumerating the city exits [of Jerusalem] he mentioned, the gate of Levi, one113Ibid., Verse 31. and did not list the tribe of Joseph as two tribes; instead he said, the gate of Joseph, one,114Ibid., Verse 32. since the tribes are always counted as only twelve. I have already mentioned this in the section Vayikach Korach.115Numbers 17:12 (see Vol. IV, pp. 189-190). Accordingly, Simeon was left out [of Moses’ blessings] since his tribe was not large and it was not the intention of the blessing of Jacob, their father, that they become numerous. Instead he divided them in Jacob and scattered them in Israel,116See Genesis 49:7. and to that extent they, too, were blessed through the blessing of the rest of the tribes among whom they were.
Now the order of this blessing [of Moses] was by [dictate of] Ruach Hakodesh (the Holy Spirit) according to their inheritance. He began with Reuben for he occupied his inheritance first;117Joshua 13:15. and, also, for he was the firstborn,118I Chronicles 5:1. and Moses prayed for him that his name not be blotted out because of his sin; therefore, in his blessing, he accorded him the right of the firstborn.119Above, 21:17. Then he mentioned Judah for he was the first to inherit within the Land [proper]120Reuben’s possession was beyond the Jordan eastward. and of him came he that is the prince,121I Chronicles 5:2. Reference is to David. and he was the first to advance to war [against the Canaanites],122Judges 1:2. concerning which Moses blessed him [saying, his hands shall contend for him, and Thou shalt be a help against his adversaries].123Verse 7. Thus Judah’s blessing embraces all Israel. Then Moses blessed Levi — who dwelled with the children of Judah in Jerusalem, and there their offerings should be acceptable. Afterwards he blessed Benjamin because their inheritance was with the children of Judah, and, [because] the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were between the children of Judah and the children of Benjamin, and the Levites abode with both of them. Then he blessed the children of Joseph for such was their inheritance, as it is said, And the lot of the tribe of the children of Benjamin came up according to their families; and the border of their lot went out between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph.124Joshua 18:11. Afterwards he continued to bless the children of the mistresses,125I.e., Leah and Rachel, who were the heads of their households. Here, though, it refers only to Leah, since Rachel’s children — Benjamin and Joseph — were already blessed. and mentioned Zebulun before Issachar126See further, Verse 18. as Jacob had done.127See Genesis 49:13-14. So, too, [in the division of the Land] the third lot fell to the children of Zebulun128See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). and the fourth lot to the children of Issachar.128See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). Then he blessed the children of the handmaids129Bilhah and Zilpah. — Dan, Naphtali, and Asher — in order of their birth,130The order of their birth was: Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher (Genesis 30:6-13). Here, the order is: Gad (Verse 20-21), Dan, Naphtali, Asher (Verses 22-24). Ramban will proceed to explain why Gad is first. and they were also [encamped] under the same standard.131Numbers 2:25-30. He mentioned Gad [born after Naphtali] before all the children of the handmaids, because he occupied his inheritance earlier with Reuben,132See Joshua 13:23-24. the first of all, and he was [encamped under] Reuben’s standard.133Numbers 2:10-14.
Let Reuben live, and not die. “The meaning thereof is that his tribe shall live and never die.134In other words, this is to be understood as a prayer rather than a blessing. — It is so clearly stated in our text of Ibn Ezra. Ramban also mentioned above, “and Moses prayed for him etc.” And let his men be a number. This is like the verse, And I have not learned wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One I have135Proverbs 30:3. [where the word not from the first part of the verse, applies to the second part as well – ‘and the knowledge of the Holy One I have not.’ Here, too, the word not from the expression and ‘not’ die applies to the second part, thus meaning] ‘and let his men not be a number,’ that they may not become few, for whatever can be counted, is few. So also, and I am few in number.”136Genesis 34:30. This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
It is more correct to explain: “Let Reuben live in Israel; and not die, that his tribe at no time should be cut off, and that his numbers always be among the count of the children of Israel.” He prayed for him that his name not be cut off from Israel because of the anger with which his father was wroth with him when he defiled his couch.137Ibid., 49:4. This is similar to what is stated there, and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve;138Ibid., 35:22. Scripture made it be known that he was not excluded from that number on account of his sin. Rashi also explained it this way. And the meaning of his men [and let ‘his men’ be numbered among the men of Israel] is that all his men should deserve this [to be included in the ranks of Israel], and not even part of their tribe be cut off because of his [Reuben’s] sin. Perhaps the expression his men refers to the heads of the four families [of the tribe of Reuben — Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi],139Exodus 6:14. and the meaning of the word mispar (number) is like b’mispar [with the prefix beth meaning “in the number,” the verse stating: “and let his men be ‘in’ the number” of the children of Israel]. Similarly, to play the harlot ‘beith’ [literally: “the house of”] her father140Above, 22:21. [means b’veith — “in the house of” her father]; they shall wash ‘mayim’141Exodus 30:20. [literally: “water,” means b’mayim — “with water”]. There are many similar cases. Or it may be that the meaning thereof is that in the census of Israel his men be counted first as is the right of the firstborn, for number one is the unit from which all numbers originate.142See Ibn Ezra to Exodus 3:1.
Onkelos rendered it: “And his children will receive their inheritance among their numbers.” He meant what we have explained, saying that Reuben will live and not be cut off [from Israel] and his men will be counted among their numbers forever. His tribe will not be blotted out from Israel but they will not be counted on account of their large numbers as forming two tribes. Thus he deprived him of the birthright [that awards the firstborn with a double share], but he assured him of being forever one tribe.
And some commentators143I have found this interpretation in Chizkuni: “Let Reuben live, and not die when he will pass over the Jordan armed before the children of Israel. And his men be a number — in the same number that they will pass over there [into the land of Canaan] may they return, without a single one lacking.” explain that this blessing refers to the conquest of the Land, the verse stating that the Reubenites will live when crossing [the Jordan] armed for war before the children of Israel. And the purport thereof is that they will prevail, and not be defeated, similar in meaning to the expression, and by thy sword shalt thou live.144Genesis 27:40. And let him not die, that none of them should die in battle, and his men be a number that they should return to their homes in their [original] number, there lacking not one man of them.145Numbers 31:49. Similarly, in the blessing of Gad146Further, Verse 20. his companion [under the same standard]147Numbers 2:10-14. Moses mentioned this subject. This interpretation is likely [to be true]. But the first one appears to me to be more correct, for Moses’ blessing corresponds to the manner and thought that Jacob mentioned.
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the expression Let [Reuben] live and not die is associated with visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children148Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). and there I alluded to its secret.148Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). Moses’ blessing helped Reuben gain atonement for the affair of Bilhah, that he not be cut off and be denied [the World to Come] for it, forever. However, He visited upon him, along with the rest of the tribes [the sin of] the sale of Joseph, according to the narrative in Pirkei Heichaloth.149“Chapters of the Palaces.” — Heichaloth Rabboth, 6. A reference to this work is also found in Ramban’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (see Vol. I, p. 10, Note 22). This is a mystic Midrash describing the process of ascending to heaven and of the palaces therein leading up to the Holy Throne. The principal narrator in this account is Rabbi Yishmael, one of the martyrs who was executed during the religious persecutions of Hadrian. The Midrash mentions the executions on account of the tradition that the ten martyrs suffered their fate in order to atone for the sale of Joseph by ten of his brothers.
Now, I have seen in Midrash Rabbah the following text:96Bamidbar Rabbah 21:9. “Six families were eliminated because of the immorality caused by Balaam’s advice [that Israel could be corrupted through seduction], and so Scripture listed one family less of Simeon97Genesis 46:10 lists six sons of Simeon, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:12-13). and five less of Benjamin.”98Genesis 46:21 lists ten sons of Benjamin, while in the second census only five are given (Numbers 26:38-39). Thus, according to the opinion of the Rabbis [the tribe of] Benjamin had a greater part in the sin than did the tribe of Simeon — yet Benjamin is included in the blessing!99Further, Verse 12.
In my opinion, the correct interpretation is that Scripture considers the tribes of Israel as only twelve. So it stated in Jacob’s blessing, All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.100Genesis 49:28. Now Jacob mentioned his twelve sons and considered Joseph to be one tribe101Ibid., Verses 22-26. [instead of enumerating Ephraim and Menasheh separately as is sometimes done]. Moses saw fit to consider Joseph as two tribes, as he said, And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Menasheh.102Further, Verse 17. This was for two reasons: one, since the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded and made them two tribes regarding the dedication of the altar,103Numbers 7:48 and 54. the flags104Ibid., 2:18-21. [designating the tribal encampments in the wilderness], and the inheritance of the Land,105Ibid., 34:23-24. he [Moses] had to count them as two [separate tribes] for their blessing. Secondly, he referred to Joshua, who would make them possess the Land, and he was from Ephraim, the younger son [of Joseph], therefore Moses had to mention his brother [Menasheh] who was older than him. Now, he also wanted to bless [the tribe of] Levi, for, through his blessing, all Israel would be blessed, in that his offerings shall be acceptable before G-d on their behalf. Hence it was necessary to omit one of the tribes, for nowhere [in Scripture] are they enumerated except as twelve, corresponding to the twelve constellations in the firmament,106Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. the twelve months of the year, and the twelve “border diagonals”107Sefer Habahir, 95. — This is a Cabbalistic term for the twelve mystic powers emanating from various combinations of the letters of the Great Divine Name. See my Hebrew commentary p. 495. concerning which the Rabbis have said in the Midrash106Bamidbar Rabbah 14:29. that they are the everlasting arms.108Further, Verse 27. As the Sages mentioned in Tractate Berachoth:109Berachoth 32b. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet,110I.e., Isaiah. In our text of the Gemara: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said ‘to her': My daughter …” Go and tell the congregation of Israel: My daughter, I have created twelve constellations in the firmament to correspond to the twelve tribes.” Similarly, at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal where Scripture counts Levi,111See above, 27:12. Joseph is not mentioned as two tribes111See above, 27:12. [because, there Simeon111See above, 27:12. is mentioned]. Likewise you will see in the distributions of Ezekiel that he counts Joseph as two tribes112See Ezekiel 48:4-5. with reference to the apportioning of the Land and did not mention Levi. On the other hand, in enumerating the city exits [of Jerusalem] he mentioned, the gate of Levi, one113Ibid., Verse 31. and did not list the tribe of Joseph as two tribes; instead he said, the gate of Joseph, one,114Ibid., Verse 32. since the tribes are always counted as only twelve. I have already mentioned this in the section Vayikach Korach.115Numbers 17:12 (see Vol. IV, pp. 189-190). Accordingly, Simeon was left out [of Moses’ blessings] since his tribe was not large and it was not the intention of the blessing of Jacob, their father, that they become numerous. Instead he divided them in Jacob and scattered them in Israel,116See Genesis 49:7. and to that extent they, too, were blessed through the blessing of the rest of the tribes among whom they were.
Now the order of this blessing [of Moses] was by [dictate of] Ruach Hakodesh (the Holy Spirit) according to their inheritance. He began with Reuben for he occupied his inheritance first;117Joshua 13:15. and, also, for he was the firstborn,118I Chronicles 5:1. and Moses prayed for him that his name not be blotted out because of his sin; therefore, in his blessing, he accorded him the right of the firstborn.119Above, 21:17. Then he mentioned Judah for he was the first to inherit within the Land [proper]120Reuben’s possession was beyond the Jordan eastward. and of him came he that is the prince,121I Chronicles 5:2. Reference is to David. and he was the first to advance to war [against the Canaanites],122Judges 1:2. concerning which Moses blessed him [saying, his hands shall contend for him, and Thou shalt be a help against his adversaries].123Verse 7. Thus Judah’s blessing embraces all Israel. Then Moses blessed Levi — who dwelled with the children of Judah in Jerusalem, and there their offerings should be acceptable. Afterwards he blessed Benjamin because their inheritance was with the children of Judah, and, [because] the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary were between the children of Judah and the children of Benjamin, and the Levites abode with both of them. Then he blessed the children of Joseph for such was their inheritance, as it is said, And the lot of the tribe of the children of Benjamin came up according to their families; and the border of their lot went out between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph.124Joshua 18:11. Afterwards he continued to bless the children of the mistresses,125I.e., Leah and Rachel, who were the heads of their households. Here, though, it refers only to Leah, since Rachel’s children — Benjamin and Joseph — were already blessed. and mentioned Zebulun before Issachar126See further, Verse 18. as Jacob had done.127See Genesis 49:13-14. So, too, [in the division of the Land] the third lot fell to the children of Zebulun128See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). and the fourth lot to the children of Issachar.128See Joshua 19:10 (Zebulun). Ibid., Verse 17 (Issachar). Then he blessed the children of the handmaids129Bilhah and Zilpah. — Dan, Naphtali, and Asher — in order of their birth,130The order of their birth was: Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher (Genesis 30:6-13). Here, the order is: Gad (Verse 20-21), Dan, Naphtali, Asher (Verses 22-24). Ramban will proceed to explain why Gad is first. and they were also [encamped] under the same standard.131Numbers 2:25-30. He mentioned Gad [born after Naphtali] before all the children of the handmaids, because he occupied his inheritance earlier with Reuben,132See Joshua 13:23-24. the first of all, and he was [encamped under] Reuben’s standard.133Numbers 2:10-14.
Let Reuben live, and not die. “The meaning thereof is that his tribe shall live and never die.134In other words, this is to be understood as a prayer rather than a blessing. — It is so clearly stated in our text of Ibn Ezra. Ramban also mentioned above, “and Moses prayed for him etc.” And let his men be a number. This is like the verse, And I have not learned wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One I have135Proverbs 30:3. [where the word not from the first part of the verse, applies to the second part as well – ‘and the knowledge of the Holy One I have not.’ Here, too, the word not from the expression and ‘not’ die applies to the second part, thus meaning] ‘and let his men not be a number,’ that they may not become few, for whatever can be counted, is few. So also, and I am few in number.”136Genesis 34:30. This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
It is more correct to explain: “Let Reuben live in Israel; and not die, that his tribe at no time should be cut off, and that his numbers always be among the count of the children of Israel.” He prayed for him that his name not be cut off from Israel because of the anger with which his father was wroth with him when he defiled his couch.137Ibid., 49:4. This is similar to what is stated there, and Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve;138Ibid., 35:22. Scripture made it be known that he was not excluded from that number on account of his sin. Rashi also explained it this way. And the meaning of his men [and let ‘his men’ be numbered among the men of Israel] is that all his men should deserve this [to be included in the ranks of Israel], and not even part of their tribe be cut off because of his [Reuben’s] sin. Perhaps the expression his men refers to the heads of the four families [of the tribe of Reuben — Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi],139Exodus 6:14. and the meaning of the word mispar (number) is like b’mispar [with the prefix beth meaning “in the number,” the verse stating: “and let his men be ‘in’ the number” of the children of Israel]. Similarly, to play the harlot ‘beith’ [literally: “the house of”] her father140Above, 22:21. [means b’veith — “in the house of” her father]; they shall wash ‘mayim’141Exodus 30:20. [literally: “water,” means b’mayim — “with water”]. There are many similar cases. Or it may be that the meaning thereof is that in the census of Israel his men be counted first as is the right of the firstborn, for number one is the unit from which all numbers originate.142See Ibn Ezra to Exodus 3:1.
Onkelos rendered it: “And his children will receive their inheritance among their numbers.” He meant what we have explained, saying that Reuben will live and not be cut off [from Israel] and his men will be counted among their numbers forever. His tribe will not be blotted out from Israel but they will not be counted on account of their large numbers as forming two tribes. Thus he deprived him of the birthright [that awards the firstborn with a double share], but he assured him of being forever one tribe.
And some commentators143I have found this interpretation in Chizkuni: “Let Reuben live, and not die when he will pass over the Jordan armed before the children of Israel. And his men be a number — in the same number that they will pass over there [into the land of Canaan] may they return, without a single one lacking.” explain that this blessing refers to the conquest of the Land, the verse stating that the Reubenites will live when crossing [the Jordan] armed for war before the children of Israel. And the purport thereof is that they will prevail, and not be defeated, similar in meaning to the expression, and by thy sword shalt thou live.144Genesis 27:40. And let him not die, that none of them should die in battle, and his men be a number that they should return to their homes in their [original] number, there lacking not one man of them.145Numbers 31:49. Similarly, in the blessing of Gad146Further, Verse 20. his companion [under the same standard]147Numbers 2:10-14. Moses mentioned this subject. This interpretation is likely [to be true]. But the first one appears to me to be more correct, for Moses’ blessing corresponds to the manner and thought that Jacob mentioned.
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the expression Let [Reuben] live and not die is associated with visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children148Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). and there I alluded to its secret.148Exodus 20:5 (see Vol. II, p. 300, and Notes 361-362). Moses’ blessing helped Reuben gain atonement for the affair of Bilhah, that he not be cut off and be denied [the World to Come] for it, forever. However, He visited upon him, along with the rest of the tribes [the sin of] the sale of Joseph, according to the narrative in Pirkei Heichaloth.149“Chapters of the Palaces.” — Heichaloth Rabboth, 6. A reference to this work is also found in Ramban’s Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (see Vol. I, p. 10, Note 22). This is a mystic Midrash describing the process of ascending to heaven and of the palaces therein leading up to the Holy Throne. The principal narrator in this account is Rabbi Yishmael, one of the martyrs who was executed during the religious persecutions of Hadrian. The Midrash mentions the executions on account of the tradition that the ten martyrs suffered their fate in order to atone for the sale of Joseph by ten of his brothers.
Ramban
FROM THE MANY YE SHALL TAKE MANY, AND FROM THE FEW YE SHALL TAKE FEW. Here too,66See 26:54 where Ramban presents a similar explanation about the allocation of the whole Land amongst the twelve tribes; he now applies the same principles to the manner in which the tribes contributed to the number of cities given to the Levites. in the opinion of our Rabbis [the meaning is that] from the paternal families which received a large amount as their inheritance, they should take many [cities], as He mentioned according to your families,67Above, 33:54. while each tribe received exactly the same amount of land [and therefore had to provide an equal number of cities for the Levites]. And although you will find in the Book of Joshua that the number of cities which they gave to the Levites was not equal,68In Joshua Chapter 21, where a list of all these cities is given, it is stated that while most of the tribes each gave four cities to the Levites, the tribe of Judah gave eight, Shimon one, the half tribe of Menasheh in Canaan two, and Naphtali three [thus totalling thirty-eight cities in the land of Canaan and ten on the eastern side of the Jordan]. Ramban’s statement that “the number of cities which they gave to the Levites was not equal” is thus clear, as is proven in the cases of Judah, Shimon, and Naphtali. according to the number of tribes, that was because of the [different] value of the particular cities, since some were more important than the others, for the Land was divided according to its value.69Baba Bathra 122a. Thus, land nearer to Jerusalem was appraised more valuable than land further away, both because it was nearer to the Sanctuary and also it was further away from the border of the nations (Rashbam, ibid.). A proof to this is the fact that from [the tribes of] Judah, Shimon and Benjamin they gave thirteen cities [to the Levites],70Thus: Judah gave eight, Shimon one, Benjamin four, totalling thirteen cities. Similarly: Issachar and Asher each gave four, Naphtali three, the half-tribe of Menasheh two, totalling thirteen cities. and from the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the half-tribe of Menasheh, [also] thirteen [cities were given],70Thus: Judah gave eight, Shimon one, Benjamin four, totalling thirteen cities. Similarly: Issachar and Asher each gave four, Naphtali three, the half-tribe of Menasheh two, totalling thirteen cities. and yet these [latter tribes] were larger than the former ones in their population.71The figures used here are those of the census, above Chapter 26. Judah (Verse 22 ibid.), Shimon (Verse 14), and Benjamin (Verse 41) totalled 144,300. Issachar (Verse 25), Asher (Verse 47), and Naphtali (Verse 50) totalled 163,100. The complete tribe of Menasheh (Verse 34) totalled 52,700. Assuming that the half-tribe of Menasheh mentioned in Joshua was exact half [i.e., 26,350] we have a total for the latter group mentioned of 189,450, which is far more than the 144,300 of the first group. And from the tribe of Ephraim they gave four cities [to the Levites],72Joshua 21:20-22. and from the tribe of Dan four cities,73Ibid., Verses 23-24. and yet the children of Dan were double [the population] of the children of Ephraim.74The children of Ephraim totalled 32,500 (above, 26:37), while Dan totalled 64,400 (ibid., Verse 43)! Thus we must say that the cities were not given in proportion to the population of the tribes, but according to the appraised value of the city.
Ramban
TO THE MORE THOU SHALT GIVE THE MORE INHERITANCE. “To a tribe which was larger in population they gave a larger portion [of the Land than that given to the smaller tribes]. And although the portions were [thus] not equal, since they divided [the Land] according to the size of the tribe, they did so only by means of the lot [as commanded in Verse 55], and the lot [assigned the portions] by means of Ruach Hakodesh. ”89“The Holy Spirit.” See above in Seder Balak, Note 64. This is Rashi’s language.
But the interpretation of our Rabbis about this verse is not so. Instead, they said in the Sifre:90Sifre Pinchas 132. “To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance. Supposing somebody came out of Egypt with ten sons, and when they entered the Land they were [only] five etc. [we apply to this case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance; if on the other hand he had five sons when he came out of Egypt, and when they entered the Land they were ten, we apply to them the verse, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance]. ”91In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land, but upon the number that the family had when they left Egypt — hence if they became fewer, we still apply the verse: To the more … since they were more when they left Egypt, and vice versa. It is thus obvious that the Sifre applied these verses to the division of the Land among the fathers’ houses, and not, as Rashi explained it, to the division between the twelve tribes as a whole. And likewise it is explicitly stated in the Gemara92Baba Bathra 117b. that the meaning of [this section] according to the Sages was not to distinguish in any way between [the portion given to] each particular tribe [since they each received an equal portion], just as they have said:92Baba Bathra 117b. “It is well-understood according to the Sage who says [that the Land was divided] according to [the numbers of] those who came out of Egypt, why Scripture states, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance etc.”93“For if a person came out of Egypt with ten sons, and by the time they entered the Land he only had five sons, we apply to him the verse, To the more etc. ; whereas if he had originally five sons etc. [as explained by Ramban above in the text]. But according to the Sage who says that the Land was divided according to the number of people at the time that they entered the Land, what is the meaning of the phrases: to the more and to the fewer, since each family received a share equal to its numbers at that time?” From this text, too, it is obvious that the Sages were not referring to differences between the portions of larger or smaller tribes, but instead applied this verse to the subsequent allocation of the land among the various families of each tribe. Furthermore, I have already written in Seder Vayechi Yaakov94Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572). that in the Gemara of the Chapter Yesh Nochalin95“There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a. the Rabbis expressly came to the conclusion that the Land was not divided according to the heads of men, [i.e., according to the overall population], but it was divided among [all] the tribes [equally]. Thus they divided it into twelve equal parts, and each tribe took that part which was assigned to it by the lot. It was for this [reason] that the sons of Joseph complained about it, saying [to Joshua], ‘Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people?’96Joshua 17:14. However, Joshua did not give them any additional [land] at all [since each tribe received an equal share], but he told them, ‘[If thou be a great people], get thee up to the forest, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim; since the hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee, ’97Ibid., Verse 15. meaning to say that they should conquer for themselves that land [which had been assigned to them and] which they had not yet taken, and thereby they should extend their border.
This is [also the meaning of] that which Scripture says, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. [According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided] between the more and the fewer.98Further, Verses 55-56. [That is to say], each of the tribes should take equally, whether it has a large population or a small one. And then the meaning of [the verse which says], To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance, [is not “to the tribe that is more populous you shall give more etc. but] to the members of the tribe itself [for each tribe received an equal portion; and therefore Scripture is saying here that when the tribe divides its portion amongst its individual families, it should give a larger portion to a family with more members etc.]. Or [the meaning of this phrase may be] according to its interpretation [by the Rabbis, as mentioned above],91In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land, but upon the number that the family had when they left Egypt — hence if they became fewer, we still apply the verse: To the more … since they were more when they left Egypt, and vice versa. It is thus obvious that the Sifre applied these verses to the division of the Land among the fathers’ houses, and not, as Rashi explained it, to the division between the twelve tribes as a whole. that it [the Land] was divided according to [the numbers of] those who left Egypt. Thus supposing somebody came out of Egypt with ten sons, and when they entered the Land they were [only] five, we apply to this case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance.” That is to say, if those ten sons who were twenty years old [or more] at the time that they left Egypt died, and they had five sons [born to them] in the desert, or if [five of the children] were minors [at the time of the exodus],99The Divine decree that the generation of the wilderness was not to enter the Land (see above, 14:29-31) did not apply to those who were minors at the time of the exodus. Hence it was possible for those born in the desert, or were minors at the time of the exodus, to actually take possession of the Land. and became twenty years of age [in the desert], we apply to such a case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more, meaning: to those who were more at the time of leaving Egypt, thou shalt give the more [land], even though they are now fewer. “And supposing a person came out of Egypt with five sons, and at the time that they entered the Land they were ten, in that case we apply to him [the verse], and to the fewer thou shalt give the less, ”100Meaning: “and to those who were fewer at the time of the exodus from Egypt, thou shalt give less land, even though they are now, at the time of entering the Land, greater in population.” as is stated in the Sifre [mentioned above].
However, I have seen there [in the Sifre90Sifre Pinchas 132. a text explaining our verse] which states [as follows]: “To each one according to those that were numbered of it [shall its inheritance be given]. This teaches us that the Land was only allocated amongst each tribe according to what it was [in population]. Thus it is said, And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying: ‘Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Eternal hath blessed me thus?’96Joshua 17:14. What does it say [further]? And Joshua said unto them: ‘If thou be a great people, get thee up to the forest, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim; since the hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee. ’ ”97Ibid., Verse 15. This is the language of this Beraitha.101See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209. And it appears from it that the Land was indeed divided [amongst the twelve tribes themselves] according to the number of heads [i.e., according to their population], as the Rabbi [Rashi] has said! But according to the Gemara this [Beraitha] is rejected [as the final interpretation]. Furthermore, if it is so [as the Beraitha implies, that the Land was divided amongst the tribes themselves according to their relative populations], what did the children of Joseph complain about? Surely he [Joshua] gave them [a greater share] in proportion to their larger numbers, as [he gave] the other tribes [according to their relative sizes]!
In my opinion this Beraitha is a shortened text, and it is [in fact based] upon that which the Rabbis said in the Gemara102Baba Bathra 118a. that the children of Joseph complained because of their many [young] children. The explanation of the matter is [thus as follows]: The children of Joseph took [the amount of land which they deserved] as two tribes, the children of Ephraim one share, and the children of Menasheh another share, for so it is written,103Genesis 48:5: As Reuben and Simeon, shall Ephraim and Menasheh be mine. and neither of their [two] tribes was larger in population than any of the other tribes. Indeed, some of the other tribes were more numerous than they were, for the tribes of Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dan were [all] more populous than they were,104Judah numbered 76,500 (Verse 22); Issacher 64,300 (Verse 25); Zebulun 60,500 (Verse 27); Dan 64,400 (Verse 43). Thus they were each larger than the tribe of Ephraim, who were only 32,500 (Verse 37), or that of Menasheh, who were 52,700. It is therefore evident that the tribe of Ephraim did not complain merely because they were a large tribe. so why [therefore] should they have complained whilst the more numerous ones remained quiet? This [question] applies with even greater force if the Land was divided according to [the number of] those who came out of Egypt, according to the interpretation [of the Sifre quoted above], because the sons of Judah at the [time of the] first census were more numerous than these two tribes [Ephraim and Menasheh] put together!105At the time of the first census, Judah numbered 74,600 (above, 1:27), whereas Ephraim and Menasheh together were only 72,700 (ibid., Verses 33 and 35). Thus the tribe of Judah had far greater cause to complain than Ephraim or Menasheh. Therefore [we must rather say that] they complained because of their children, for the sons of Menasheh in the [first] census [taken at the time] of the exodus from Egypt totalled thirty-two thousand [and two hundred],106Above, 1:35. whereas they had increased by the [time of the] second census [taken] in the desert to fifty-two thousand [and seven hundred]!107Verse 34 here. Thus they increased by 20,500. None of the [other] tribes increased to such an extent. And they [the tribe of Menasheh] continued to increase in population until the [time of the] division of the Land [in the days of Joshua],108From the time of this second census [taken in the fortieth year of Israel’s stay in the desert] until the actual beginning of the division of the Land by Joshua, there was a period of something over seven years, since tradition assigns a period of seven years for the conquest of the Land, and seven years for its division. In the meantime, naturally, the sons of Menasheh continued to increase. and this also happened in the case of the children of Ephraim.109This text is difficult to understand, because in fact the children of Ephraim decreased in numbers between the first census at the time of the exodus from Egypt and the second census here! [In the first census they totalled 40,500 (Above, 1:33), and in the second census 32,500 (Verse 37 here)]. A suggestion has been made [by Kur Zahav] that Ramban’s meaning is as follows: Since Scripture says that it were the children of ‘Joseph’ who complained [a term which of course comprises the tribes of both Ephraim and Menasheh], it shows that the children of Ephraim also had increased between the time of the second census and the division of the Land, although they had decreased between the time of the first census at the exodus and the second census now. This interpretation is supported by a close reading of the text of Ramban here, who wrote: “[the tribe of Menasheh] continued to increase in population until the [time of the] division of the Land,” and then added: “and this also happened in the case of the children of Ephraim.” See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 312. Now since these children received no share [in the Land], therefore [the children of Joseph] complained, but there was no man to hear them,110See II Samuel 15:3. for such was the law — that only those who were above twenty years of age received a share in the Land.111See above, Verses 2 and 53. Therefore the Beraitha [quoted above] is saying: “According to those that were numbered — who were twenty years old and over. This teaches us that the Land was only allocated amongst each tribe according to what it was [in population] at the time of the census, meaning that they were not to give anything to the children, even if they had grown up and reached the age of twenty at the time that they divided [the Land].
Now the verse stating [that the children of Joseph complained to Joshua, saying]: Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people,96Joshua 17:14. cannot, as all must agree, be understood as would appear from its literal meaning. For if he [Joshua] divided the Land amongst them [the twelve tribes] according to the number of people [in each tribe], as Rashi explained, then they [the children of Joseph] must have taken their fair share, for according to their greater population, [in the same proportion] they took a larger portion [in the Land]. And if [the Land was divided] according to the [number of] tribes [so that each tribe received an equal part], it is impossible that Joshua should not have given them their share of the birthright, for he would not have transgressed the testament of Jacob!112Genesis 48:5. In other words, it is inconceivable that Joshua should violate Jacob’s command that Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, should be treated as separate tribes and each receive the same share in the Land that all the other tribes received, instead of treating them as merely one tribe [of Joseph], so that they would together receive only one share. Since this is inconceivable, why then did the children of Joseph complain, for they must have received the extra portion due to them as the birthright which had been taken away from Reuben! And the Holy One, blessed be He, also commanded likewise in the Torah, [mentioning] the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh [separately, amongst those who were to take possession of the Land].113Further, 34:23-24. Moreover, it is expressly written that he [Joshua] gave them [the children of Joseph] two lots, as it is said, And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus;114Joshua 16:5 and 8. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim.114Joshua 16:5 and 8. And [with reference to] the children of Menasheh [it is said], And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh;115Ibid., 17:1. And the border of Menasheh was etc.,116Ibid., Verse 7. just as it is said in the case of [all] the other tribes. But in saying: [Why hast thou given me but] one lot and one part96Joshua 17:14. they meant to say: “All that you [Joshua] have given the two of us together, each one [of us] deserves to get as his [own] lot.” They used this expression because Joshua at first cast [only] one lot for both of them, as it is said, And the lot for ‘the children of Joseph’ went out from the Jordan at Jericho etc.117Ibid., 16:1. until: the goings out thereof were at the sea.118Ibid., Verse 3. And there it is stated, And the children of Joseph, Menasheh and Ephraim, took their inheritance,119Ibid., Verse 4. meaning to say that they both took their inheritance by means of this [one] lot, and afterwards he divided this portion amongst the two of them by [a further] lot, as it is said there, And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus,120Ibid., Verse 5. and it is [further] written, And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh.115Ibid., 17:1. Therefore they [the children of Joseph] said to Joshua: “Behold, this single first lot [which you drew for the two of us before you further subdivided it], each one of us deserves to get, since we are a great people,96Joshua 17:14. and why [therefore] did you subdivide it afterwards into two parts?” And the [reason for this] complaint, according to the explanation of the Gemara,102Baba Bathra 118a. was because of their children who increased greatly amongst them.
And according to the simple meaning of Scripture, it seems to me that this complaint [to Joshua by the children of Joseph] was that of the children of Menasheh [only, and not that of the children of Ephraim], but the two tribes came to him together. Similarly, Then the children of Judah drew nigh unto Joshua in Gilgal, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizite said unto him etc.,121Ibid., 14:6. for that case [affected only] one person, and yet the whole tribe came to join him in his complaint. And the [particular] grievance of the children of Menasheh was because none of the other tribes had left many great cities in the hands of the Canaanites, as had Menasheh, who left [unconquered] the three regions,122Ibid., 17:11. [which Yonathan translated] “three districts.” A proof for this [explanation of the cause of their grievance] is that it is after it says, And the children of Menasheh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities,123Ibid., Verse 12. that it is written: And the children of Joseph spoke,96Joshua 17:14. for at first they did not complain, until they had waged war against them and they were not able to prevail over them. It is possible that this is the meaning of [the expression] one lot and one part.96Joshua 17:14. They said: “Because you cast originally one lot for both of us [Ephraim and Menasheh], our portion [in the Land] came together, and so it happened that both of our portions were [allocated] in this place which is difficult to capture but had you cast two lots for us, as was done for all other [separate] tribes, our portion might have been allocated in a place which is easier to conquer.” And Joshua replied [to this claim by saying] that if they go up to the forest of the Perizzites and the Rephaim,97Ibid., Verse 15. they will be able to select for themselves from there whatever they want, and thus extend their borders.97Ibid., Verse 15. Then they [the children of Joseph] spoke up and explained their [original] grievance, saying, “The hill-country will also not be enough for us, for all the Canaanites that you have given us in the land of the valley have chariots of iron. ”124Ibid., Verse 16. Then Joshua told them that he would not give them in the mountain one lot only,125Ibid., Verse 17. but the whole of the hill-country shall be theirs together with the large forest which is there,126Ibid., Verse 18. and they should choose for themselves as much as they need from those [lands], and they shall have all the goings out of the borders of the hill-country. And [he further told them that] they would drive out the Canaanites from there though they have chariots of iron, and though they be strong,126Ibid., Verse 18. as a result of which none of the other tribes wanted it [that land], but they, the two brothers, who are a numerous people and have great power125Ibid., Verse 17. will [be able to] help each other to drive them [the Canaanites] out. The end of the matter was that Joshua did not listen to them and did not add anything to their portion, for such was the law [that they get in the same proportion as all the other tribes]. We have written at length on this subject, because of the necessity [to clarify this matter fully] and we have furthermore written about it, with proofs, in the section of Vayechi Yaakov.94Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572).
The general principle thus is that the law which [the Rabbis] reached as a conclusion in the Gemara95“There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a. [that the Land was divided amongst the twelve tribes into twelve equal parts] is true, and that is the proper basis on which to explain the verses. Thus the meaning of the section [before us] is as follows: Unto these127Verse 53. who are mentioned according to their families the Land shall be divided [for an inheritance] according to the number of names,127Verse 53. giving each male person, according to their number, his share. To the more ye shall give the more inheritance — thus for example they are to divide the land of Reuben into four parts [because the tribe consisted of four main families],128Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi (above, Verses 5-6). and “we will give to the family of the Hanochites, for example, who were the largest [in population], a greater inheritance, and to the family of the Palluites, [for example], who were the least populous, we will give a smaller share, for to each one according to those that were numbered of the [particular] family shall its inheritance be given, and the whole family shall receive its share in one place.” It was for this reason that He [commanded here] that they should be counted according to their families. Therefore the Sages mentioned [with reference to the law of the Seventh year]:129Torath Kohanim, beginning of Seder Behar. “If they divided the land [of a tribe] amongst its [main] families, but did not [yet] subdivide it amongst the houses of the families, and each individual does not yet know what his share is … etc.”130“… I might think that the law of the Seventh year applies. For this reason Scripture states, thou shalt not sow ‘thy’ field (Leviticus 25:4) [using the singular, to indicate that] the law applies only when each person recognizes his own field.”
But the interpretation of our Rabbis about this verse is not so. Instead, they said in the Sifre:90Sifre Pinchas 132. “To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance. Supposing somebody came out of Egypt with ten sons, and when they entered the Land they were [only] five etc. [we apply to this case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance; if on the other hand he had five sons when he came out of Egypt, and when they entered the Land they were ten, we apply to them the verse, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance]. ”91In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land, but upon the number that the family had when they left Egypt — hence if they became fewer, we still apply the verse: To the more … since they were more when they left Egypt, and vice versa. It is thus obvious that the Sifre applied these verses to the division of the Land among the fathers’ houses, and not, as Rashi explained it, to the division between the twelve tribes as a whole. And likewise it is explicitly stated in the Gemara92Baba Bathra 117b. that the meaning of [this section] according to the Sages was not to distinguish in any way between [the portion given to] each particular tribe [since they each received an equal portion], just as they have said:92Baba Bathra 117b. “It is well-understood according to the Sage who says [that the Land was divided] according to [the numbers of] those who came out of Egypt, why Scripture states, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance etc.”93“For if a person came out of Egypt with ten sons, and by the time they entered the Land he only had five sons, we apply to him the verse, To the more etc. ; whereas if he had originally five sons etc. [as explained by Ramban above in the text]. But according to the Sage who says that the Land was divided according to the number of people at the time that they entered the Land, what is the meaning of the phrases: to the more and to the fewer, since each family received a share equal to its numbers at that time?” From this text, too, it is obvious that the Sages were not referring to differences between the portions of larger or smaller tribes, but instead applied this verse to the subsequent allocation of the land among the various families of each tribe. Furthermore, I have already written in Seder Vayechi Yaakov94Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572). that in the Gemara of the Chapter Yesh Nochalin95“There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a. the Rabbis expressly came to the conclusion that the Land was not divided according to the heads of men, [i.e., according to the overall population], but it was divided among [all] the tribes [equally]. Thus they divided it into twelve equal parts, and each tribe took that part which was assigned to it by the lot. It was for this [reason] that the sons of Joseph complained about it, saying [to Joshua], ‘Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people?’96Joshua 17:14. However, Joshua did not give them any additional [land] at all [since each tribe received an equal share], but he told them, ‘[If thou be a great people], get thee up to the forest, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim; since the hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee, ’97Ibid., Verse 15. meaning to say that they should conquer for themselves that land [which had been assigned to them and] which they had not yet taken, and thereby they should extend their border.
This is [also the meaning of] that which Scripture says, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. [According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided] between the more and the fewer.98Further, Verses 55-56. [That is to say], each of the tribes should take equally, whether it has a large population or a small one. And then the meaning of [the verse which says], To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance, [is not “to the tribe that is more populous you shall give more etc. but] to the members of the tribe itself [for each tribe received an equal portion; and therefore Scripture is saying here that when the tribe divides its portion amongst its individual families, it should give a larger portion to a family with more members etc.]. Or [the meaning of this phrase may be] according to its interpretation [by the Rabbis, as mentioned above],91In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land, but upon the number that the family had when they left Egypt — hence if they became fewer, we still apply the verse: To the more … since they were more when they left Egypt, and vice versa. It is thus obvious that the Sifre applied these verses to the division of the Land among the fathers’ houses, and not, as Rashi explained it, to the division between the twelve tribes as a whole. that it [the Land] was divided according to [the numbers of] those who left Egypt. Thus supposing somebody came out of Egypt with ten sons, and when they entered the Land they were [only] five, we apply to this case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance.” That is to say, if those ten sons who were twenty years old [or more] at the time that they left Egypt died, and they had five sons [born to them] in the desert, or if [five of the children] were minors [at the time of the exodus],99The Divine decree that the generation of the wilderness was not to enter the Land (see above, 14:29-31) did not apply to those who were minors at the time of the exodus. Hence it was possible for those born in the desert, or were minors at the time of the exodus, to actually take possession of the Land. and became twenty years of age [in the desert], we apply to such a case the verse, To the more thou shalt give the more, meaning: to those who were more at the time of leaving Egypt, thou shalt give the more [land], even though they are now fewer. “And supposing a person came out of Egypt with five sons, and at the time that they entered the Land they were ten, in that case we apply to him [the verse], and to the fewer thou shalt give the less, ”100Meaning: “and to those who were fewer at the time of the exodus from Egypt, thou shalt give less land, even though they are now, at the time of entering the Land, greater in population.” as is stated in the Sifre [mentioned above].
However, I have seen there [in the Sifre90Sifre Pinchas 132. a text explaining our verse] which states [as follows]: “To each one according to those that were numbered of it [shall its inheritance be given]. This teaches us that the Land was only allocated amongst each tribe according to what it was [in population]. Thus it is said, And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying: ‘Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the Eternal hath blessed me thus?’96Joshua 17:14. What does it say [further]? And Joshua said unto them: ‘If thou be a great people, get thee up to the forest, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim; since the hill-country of Ephraim is too narrow for thee. ’ ”97Ibid., Verse 15. This is the language of this Beraitha.101See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209. And it appears from it that the Land was indeed divided [amongst the twelve tribes themselves] according to the number of heads [i.e., according to their population], as the Rabbi [Rashi] has said! But according to the Gemara this [Beraitha] is rejected [as the final interpretation]. Furthermore, if it is so [as the Beraitha implies, that the Land was divided amongst the tribes themselves according to their relative populations], what did the children of Joseph complain about? Surely he [Joshua] gave them [a greater share] in proportion to their larger numbers, as [he gave] the other tribes [according to their relative sizes]!
In my opinion this Beraitha is a shortened text, and it is [in fact based] upon that which the Rabbis said in the Gemara102Baba Bathra 118a. that the children of Joseph complained because of their many [young] children. The explanation of the matter is [thus as follows]: The children of Joseph took [the amount of land which they deserved] as two tribes, the children of Ephraim one share, and the children of Menasheh another share, for so it is written,103Genesis 48:5: As Reuben and Simeon, shall Ephraim and Menasheh be mine. and neither of their [two] tribes was larger in population than any of the other tribes. Indeed, some of the other tribes were more numerous than they were, for the tribes of Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and Dan were [all] more populous than they were,104Judah numbered 76,500 (Verse 22); Issacher 64,300 (Verse 25); Zebulun 60,500 (Verse 27); Dan 64,400 (Verse 43). Thus they were each larger than the tribe of Ephraim, who were only 32,500 (Verse 37), or that of Menasheh, who were 52,700. It is therefore evident that the tribe of Ephraim did not complain merely because they were a large tribe. so why [therefore] should they have complained whilst the more numerous ones remained quiet? This [question] applies with even greater force if the Land was divided according to [the number of] those who came out of Egypt, according to the interpretation [of the Sifre quoted above], because the sons of Judah at the [time of the] first census were more numerous than these two tribes [Ephraim and Menasheh] put together!105At the time of the first census, Judah numbered 74,600 (above, 1:27), whereas Ephraim and Menasheh together were only 72,700 (ibid., Verses 33 and 35). Thus the tribe of Judah had far greater cause to complain than Ephraim or Menasheh. Therefore [we must rather say that] they complained because of their children, for the sons of Menasheh in the [first] census [taken at the time] of the exodus from Egypt totalled thirty-two thousand [and two hundred],106Above, 1:35. whereas they had increased by the [time of the] second census [taken] in the desert to fifty-two thousand [and seven hundred]!107Verse 34 here. Thus they increased by 20,500. None of the [other] tribes increased to such an extent. And they [the tribe of Menasheh] continued to increase in population until the [time of the] division of the Land [in the days of Joshua],108From the time of this second census [taken in the fortieth year of Israel’s stay in the desert] until the actual beginning of the division of the Land by Joshua, there was a period of something over seven years, since tradition assigns a period of seven years for the conquest of the Land, and seven years for its division. In the meantime, naturally, the sons of Menasheh continued to increase. and this also happened in the case of the children of Ephraim.109This text is difficult to understand, because in fact the children of Ephraim decreased in numbers between the first census at the time of the exodus from Egypt and the second census here! [In the first census they totalled 40,500 (Above, 1:33), and in the second census 32,500 (Verse 37 here)]. A suggestion has been made [by Kur Zahav] that Ramban’s meaning is as follows: Since Scripture says that it were the children of ‘Joseph’ who complained [a term which of course comprises the tribes of both Ephraim and Menasheh], it shows that the children of Ephraim also had increased between the time of the second census and the division of the Land, although they had decreased between the time of the first census at the exodus and the second census now. This interpretation is supported by a close reading of the text of Ramban here, who wrote: “[the tribe of Menasheh] continued to increase in population until the [time of the] division of the Land,” and then added: “and this also happened in the case of the children of Ephraim.” See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 312. Now since these children received no share [in the Land], therefore [the children of Joseph] complained, but there was no man to hear them,110See II Samuel 15:3. for such was the law — that only those who were above twenty years of age received a share in the Land.111See above, Verses 2 and 53. Therefore the Beraitha [quoted above] is saying: “According to those that were numbered — who were twenty years old and over. This teaches us that the Land was only allocated amongst each tribe according to what it was [in population] at the time of the census, meaning that they were not to give anything to the children, even if they had grown up and reached the age of twenty at the time that they divided [the Land].
Now the verse stating [that the children of Joseph complained to Joshua, saying]: Why hast thou given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people,96Joshua 17:14. cannot, as all must agree, be understood as would appear from its literal meaning. For if he [Joshua] divided the Land amongst them [the twelve tribes] according to the number of people [in each tribe], as Rashi explained, then they [the children of Joseph] must have taken their fair share, for according to their greater population, [in the same proportion] they took a larger portion [in the Land]. And if [the Land was divided] according to the [number of] tribes [so that each tribe received an equal part], it is impossible that Joshua should not have given them their share of the birthright, for he would not have transgressed the testament of Jacob!112Genesis 48:5. In other words, it is inconceivable that Joshua should violate Jacob’s command that Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, should be treated as separate tribes and each receive the same share in the Land that all the other tribes received, instead of treating them as merely one tribe [of Joseph], so that they would together receive only one share. Since this is inconceivable, why then did the children of Joseph complain, for they must have received the extra portion due to them as the birthright which had been taken away from Reuben! And the Holy One, blessed be He, also commanded likewise in the Torah, [mentioning] the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh [separately, amongst those who were to take possession of the Land].113Further, 34:23-24. Moreover, it is expressly written that he [Joshua] gave them [the children of Joseph] two lots, as it is said, And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus;114Joshua 16:5 and 8. This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim.114Joshua 16:5 and 8. And [with reference to] the children of Menasheh [it is said], And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh;115Ibid., 17:1. And the border of Menasheh was etc.,116Ibid., Verse 7. just as it is said in the case of [all] the other tribes. But in saying: [Why hast thou given me but] one lot and one part96Joshua 17:14. they meant to say: “All that you [Joshua] have given the two of us together, each one [of us] deserves to get as his [own] lot.” They used this expression because Joshua at first cast [only] one lot for both of them, as it is said, And the lot for ‘the children of Joseph’ went out from the Jordan at Jericho etc.117Ibid., 16:1. until: the goings out thereof were at the sea.118Ibid., Verse 3. And there it is stated, And the children of Joseph, Menasheh and Ephraim, took their inheritance,119Ibid., Verse 4. meaning to say that they both took their inheritance by means of this [one] lot, and afterwards he divided this portion amongst the two of them by [a further] lot, as it is said there, And the border of the children of Ephraim according to their families was thus,120Ibid., Verse 5. and it is [further] written, And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh.115Ibid., 17:1. Therefore they [the children of Joseph] said to Joshua: “Behold, this single first lot [which you drew for the two of us before you further subdivided it], each one of us deserves to get, since we are a great people,96Joshua 17:14. and why [therefore] did you subdivide it afterwards into two parts?” And the [reason for this] complaint, according to the explanation of the Gemara,102Baba Bathra 118a. was because of their children who increased greatly amongst them.
And according to the simple meaning of Scripture, it seems to me that this complaint [to Joshua by the children of Joseph] was that of the children of Menasheh [only, and not that of the children of Ephraim], but the two tribes came to him together. Similarly, Then the children of Judah drew nigh unto Joshua in Gilgal, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizite said unto him etc.,121Ibid., 14:6. for that case [affected only] one person, and yet the whole tribe came to join him in his complaint. And the [particular] grievance of the children of Menasheh was because none of the other tribes had left many great cities in the hands of the Canaanites, as had Menasheh, who left [unconquered] the three regions,122Ibid., 17:11. [which Yonathan translated] “three districts.” A proof for this [explanation of the cause of their grievance] is that it is after it says, And the children of Menasheh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities,123Ibid., Verse 12. that it is written: And the children of Joseph spoke,96Joshua 17:14. for at first they did not complain, until they had waged war against them and they were not able to prevail over them. It is possible that this is the meaning of [the expression] one lot and one part.96Joshua 17:14. They said: “Because you cast originally one lot for both of us [Ephraim and Menasheh], our portion [in the Land] came together, and so it happened that both of our portions were [allocated] in this place which is difficult to capture but had you cast two lots for us, as was done for all other [separate] tribes, our portion might have been allocated in a place which is easier to conquer.” And Joshua replied [to this claim by saying] that if they go up to the forest of the Perizzites and the Rephaim,97Ibid., Verse 15. they will be able to select for themselves from there whatever they want, and thus extend their borders.97Ibid., Verse 15. Then they [the children of Joseph] spoke up and explained their [original] grievance, saying, “The hill-country will also not be enough for us, for all the Canaanites that you have given us in the land of the valley have chariots of iron. ”124Ibid., Verse 16. Then Joshua told them that he would not give them in the mountain one lot only,125Ibid., Verse 17. but the whole of the hill-country shall be theirs together with the large forest which is there,126Ibid., Verse 18. and they should choose for themselves as much as they need from those [lands], and they shall have all the goings out of the borders of the hill-country. And [he further told them that] they would drive out the Canaanites from there though they have chariots of iron, and though they be strong,126Ibid., Verse 18. as a result of which none of the other tribes wanted it [that land], but they, the two brothers, who are a numerous people and have great power125Ibid., Verse 17. will [be able to] help each other to drive them [the Canaanites] out. The end of the matter was that Joshua did not listen to them and did not add anything to their portion, for such was the law [that they get in the same proportion as all the other tribes]. We have written at length on this subject, because of the necessity [to clarify this matter fully] and we have furthermore written about it, with proofs, in the section of Vayechi Yaakov.94Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572).
The general principle thus is that the law which [the Rabbis] reached as a conclusion in the Gemara95“There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a. [that the Land was divided amongst the twelve tribes into twelve equal parts] is true, and that is the proper basis on which to explain the verses. Thus the meaning of the section [before us] is as follows: Unto these127Verse 53. who are mentioned according to their families the Land shall be divided [for an inheritance] according to the number of names,127Verse 53. giving each male person, according to their number, his share. To the more ye shall give the more inheritance — thus for example they are to divide the land of Reuben into four parts [because the tribe consisted of four main families],128Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi (above, Verses 5-6). and “we will give to the family of the Hanochites, for example, who were the largest [in population], a greater inheritance, and to the family of the Palluites, [for example], who were the least populous, we will give a smaller share, for to each one according to those that were numbered of the [particular] family shall its inheritance be given, and the whole family shall receive its share in one place.” It was for this reason that He [commanded here] that they should be counted according to their families. Therefore the Sages mentioned [with reference to the law of the Seventh year]:129Torath Kohanim, beginning of Seder Behar. “If they divided the land [of a tribe] amongst its [main] families, but did not [yet] subdivide it amongst the houses of the families, and each individual does not yet know what his share is … etc.”130“… I might think that the law of the Seventh year applies. For this reason Scripture states, thou shalt not sow ‘thy’ field (Leviticus 25:4) [using the singular, to indicate that] the law applies only when each person recognizes his own field.”