Commento su Numeri 26:66

ויהי אחרי המגפה AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THE PESTILENCE [THAT THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES … TAKE THE SUM OF ALL THE CONGREGATION] — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a shepherd amongst whose flock wolves found their way and slew some of them, and he counted them to discover the number of those that were left. — Another explanation: When they left Egypt and were entrusted to Moses' care, they were entrusted to him by number, now when he is close to death and has to hand back his sheep, he hands them back by number (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 4).

ויהי אחרי המגפה It was after the plague had stopped, etc. Why was the beginning of this paragraph written as if it were the conclusion of the previous paragraph, with the dividing symbol פ separating it from chapter 26? If you reflect on what I have written previously you will find that this makes perfect sense. The position of our verse at the end of the previous paragraph reflects the Torah's instruction that only by complying with the command to harass the Midianites in the manner we have explained could the Israelites rehabilitate themselves for having entertained idolatrous thoughts, i.e. the worship of Baal Pe-or. Only then would their positive relationship towards G'd become a natural one. Once this had been accomplished, ויהי אחרי המגפה, they would have put the plague behind them. The true disappearance (instead of mere arrest) of the plague occurred as the result of penitence along the lines G'd had indicated. This is why the new paragraph had to begin in the middle of the verse, as it were. [In editions of the Bible based on the church's divisions into chapters and verses, our verse is part of chapter 26 instead of being verse 19 in the last chapter as it ought to be. In either event, the verse is interrupted by the symbol פ which always indicates that what follows has to be a new line in the Torah scroll. Ed.] You may still ask why the Torah did not make this line a verse by itself? The reason is that the Torah also wanted to link our verse to the subject which follows, i.e. that G'd had decided that the time had come to conduct a new census amongst the 12 tribes exclusive of the tribe of Levi whose members were not to share in the distribution of the land of Canaan.

This is compared to a shepherd … Another interpretation: When they left. Rashi is answering the question: How was the count related to the plague? [He answers] by bringing the parable. However, there is a difficulty according to the other interpretation that Rashi brings: How does this answer Rashi’s question? The answer is that previously it is written “Antagonize the Midianites and kill them…” while in Parshas Matos (31:2) it is written “Take revenge for Bnei Yisroel against the Midianites, afterward, you shall be gathered to your people [i.e. die].” From there one sees that the death of Moshe was related to the war with Midian [which was itself related to the plague], and this was why the count of Yisroel was juxtaposed to the war with Midian. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that he should have merely counted those who died in the plague, and then he would have automatically known how many were left. Therefore Rashi brings the second interpretation. However, according to this second interpretation there is the difficulty that in the end, the time for Moshe’s death had not yet come, therefore he also brings the first reason.

Kap. 26. V. 1. ויהי אחרי המגפה. Das Kapitel schließt in der Mitte des Verses nach einem Vordersatz und beginnt mit dem Nachsatz einen neuen Abschnitt, um zu veranschaulichen, wie mit dem Hinsterben der Peorverfallenen einem neuen reinen Abschnitte des Volkslebens wieder Raum gegeben war. Mit dem Aussterben der im geschlechtlichen Peordienst Entarteten leuchtete Israel wieder in dem angestammten Adel geschlechtlicher Reinheit, wie der moabitische Prophet es vor der Peorverführung geschaut und wie dafür eine jede Zählung dieses Volkes das sprechendste Dokument bot. Daher nach der מגפה eine neue Volkszählung. Dass da ein jeder einzelne למשפחתו לבית אבין, wie vor vierzig Jahren nach dem Auszug aus Mizrajim gezählt werden konnte, das war der Beweis, dass über die Vaterschaft keines Kindes in Israel ein Zweifel obwaltete, das war der Beweis, dass die Peorausschweifung nur eine vereinzelte Ausnahme bildete, dass aber dem über die jüdischen Häuser ausgesprochenen Prophetenworte: יזל מים מדליו וזרעו על מים רבים die volle Wirklichkeit entsprach (siehe מדרש אספה im Jalkut z. St.).

ויהי אחרי המגפה, “it was after the plague had ceased, etc.” At that time G–d instructed Moses to conduct another census of the people (males between 20-60 years of age). Joshua would have to know how many soldiers he had at his disposal when commencing his conquest of the land of the Canaanites. The people had been counted twice. In this count the names of the families in each tribe are mentioned. When they had been counted in the desert of Sinai, only the tribal allegiance of each person counted had been recorded. According to the plain meaning of the text, not all tribes entered the land of Israel in accordance with the families of their respective tribes. Some of them did not have male descendants of the requisite age, so that they would be lumped together with their brothers, sons of the same father. For instance, although we know that according to the count of Yaakov’s grandchildren descending to Egypt in Genesis chapter 46, six are listed, when the Torah reports the result of the present census only three, i.e. Ohad, Yachin, and Zochar are mentioned by name. Sometimes the name of the family is that of the third generation, as in the case of Zerach. We had never found that any of the six sons of Shimon included one named Zerach. Similarly, Gilad, a great grandson of Joseph appears to have been the mainstay of Menashe’s descendants, as he had performed deeds of valour. In some instances the names of the original sons of Yaakov were changed slightly by the time they constituted families of substantial numbers. For instance: Yemuel in Genesis became Nemuel in Numbers, and Chusham in Genesis became Chushim in Numbers.

ויהי אחרי המגפה, “it was after the plague;” the “plague” referred to here is the dying in the desert of the generation of the adult Israelite males who had been redeemed from Egypt, but had lacked the faith to try and conquer the land of Canaan. This short phrase is described as an entire chapter despite its containing only three words. Our sages separated these three words from what preceded them by a cantillation mark indicating that a paragraph had been concluded. This is followed by another census of the Jewish males of military age prior to the crossing of the river Jordan.

Another reason why this verse is positioned so peculiarly and why it seems as if slashed in half, may have to do with a comment by Yalkut Shimoni item 773. The Midrash relates our verse to Psalms 94,18 in which Moses is the speaker. According to the Midrash, the nations of the world protested to G'd for having shown preference for the Jewish people by giving them the Torah. G'd countered asking that they produce proof that they were entitled to equal treatment on the basis of their ancestry. These nations were unable to establish the paternity of the men with whom their mothers had lived with any degree of certainty. As a result, G'd told them they had no claim to special treatment. Now that the Israelites had become guilty of "sleeping around," the nations challenged G'd once more about this, claiming Israel had lost its moral "crown." G'd therefore punished by death all the Israelites whose sins had undermined the image of the whole nation. The meaning of the verse in Psalms then may be that wiping out these people whose foot had slipped was an act of kindness by G'd for the remainder of the nation. In view of this, we can understand why our verse was positioned where it was and why it was also the natural introduction to the count of the Israelites. When the Israelites had been counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, we explained the term שאו for numbering as implying moral excellence on the part of the people being numbered. Only when the Israelites were counted again and everyone had been able to point to his father with certainty was the accusation by the Gentile nations that the Israelites were not morally superior disproved. The verse in Psalms mentioned by the author of Yalkut Shimoni means that though Israel had slipped morally, this was only temporary, i.e. מטה רגלי; now that they had repented, G'd's kindness had restored them to their former morally lofty position. The plague, which was related to their moral descent as per chapter 25, now enabled their moral rehabilitation as per the count in chapter 26. The verse therefore is the conceptual bridge between the two paragraphs.

Still another reason for the unusual positioning of this verse, or rather half this verse, may be related to Bamidbar Rabbah 21,7. We are told there that when the people left Egypt and they were entrusted to Moses' leadership, he received them after they had been counted. Now that Moses was close to death and he had to give back the people who had been entrusted to him, he also had to count them before handing them over to a new leader. Thus far the Midrash. Now we understand the meaning of the words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה …שאו. Had the Torah only commenced with verse 1 in chapter 26 instructing Moses to count the people without the half verse "it was after the plague" preceding it without a full stop, we would have assumed that the only reason for this count at this time was what the Midrash had said. By placing the words ויהי אחרי המגפה where it did, the Torah supplied an additional reason for the count, i.e. that it symbolised the rehabilitation of the Jewish people in the eyes of G'd.

לבית אבתם [TAKE THE SUM OF THE CONGREGATION] ACCORDING TO THEIR FATHERS’ HOUSE — after their fathers’ tribes shall they reckon their descent, and not after their mothers’ (Bava Batra 109b).

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה מבית אבותם, “from twenty years and up according to their respective fathers’ house.” When enumerating the tribe of Reuven, the Torah here omits the addition למשפחותם, ”according to their families,” which we had found in the previous census (Numbers 1,2). The reason is that in the interval of almost 40 years some intermarriage with the members of Korach’s family had occurred, as a result of which such members of Korach’s expanded family perished with him. [This is not surprising, as the discontented Reuvenites had felt sympathy for Korach’s rebellion and intermarriage between them was based on common interests. Ed.] (The author refers the reader to his commentary on Numbers 1,18 where he dealt with this at greater length)

שאו את ראש, “take a census.” Our sages (Tanchuma Pinchas 4) explained the reason for this census at this time by means of a parable. A shepherd whose flock had been attacked by wolves which had killed many of his sheep counted the surviving sheep in order to assess his losses. Furthermore, seeing that Moses had counted the people shortly after the Exodus, now that he was close to the end of his career he wanted to prove that he had the same number of people at his command to hand over to his successor.

Their relationship follows the paternal tribe, rather than the maternal. Regarding families [if both parents were from the same tribe] there is no difference between following the father or following the mother, since they were all from the same tribe, even if there were many families in [that] one tribe. However, concerning the tribes there is a difference if the mother was from another tribe [and here he wanted to determine the number of each tribe].

Count the whole community. This count was needed now to inform that although 24,000 had fallen, nevertheless, 600,000 remained, and thus their entry into Eretz Yisroel would be with a complete population.

שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, “take the sum of allthe congregation of Israel from twenty years old and up;” once the count had been completed the Torah continues (verse 53) “to these the land will be divided up.” It describes that the amount of or quality of the various parts of the country will vary with the size of each tribe, so that it will be distributed fairly. (Numbers 26,54)

לבית אבותם, “according to their ancestral houses.” Tribal membership was based on the father and not on the mother (Rashi).

Hashem signed His Name י-ה on the names of the tribes specifically at the time of this count because up to now they were never suspected of licentiousness. However, after they sinned with harlotry in Shittim, there was now a place to say that their end demonstrated about their beginnings, and also the Egyptians had control over their wives. Therefore, Scripture states החנוכי, “the Chanochite,” הפלואי, “the Paluite,” in which we see that Hashem signed His Name י-ה on the tribes. This is because the Name י-ה mediates between the words איש (man) and אשה (woman) [י was given to man and ה to woman]. This teaches that all Bnei Yisroel were born from a man and woman who had the Name of Hashem between them. The ה precedes the י [in the names of the tribes] to inform about the righteousness of the women, for the word אשה contains the ה. In truth, the women were more careful about forbidden relations than were the men. The proof is that the Torah publicizes Shlomis bas Divri, which informs that only she was licentious and all the others were modest.

וידבר משה ואלעזר הכהן אתם AND MOSES AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST SPOKE WITH THEM — They spoke with them (אתם; cf. 5:5) regarding this: that the Omnipresent had (given command to count them.

וידבר משה..בערבות מואב, And Moses spoke…in the wilderness of Moav, etc. Why did the Torah have to write that Moses addressed the people "in the wilderness of Moav?" If the location really was of the essence to our understanding what Moses had to say it should have been mentioned when the commandment was introduced, i.e. in verse 1. The reason may be connected to the Midrash we have quoted that Moses had to hand over the people entrusted to him after they had been counted. You will find that whenever counts took place the location is mentioned by the Torah. When we heard about the number the Israelites comprised at the time of the Exodus, the Torah supplied the location, i.e. Ramses. When the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers we were told that it was in the desert of Sinai. So it may be no more than natural that here too the Torah decided to supply the location for where the count took place. It was here, near the river Jordan opposite the town of Jericho that the loyal shepherd of the Jewish people, Moses, completed his mission. The Torah mentioned that it was after the plague to show that in spite of the plague which had cost so many Jewish lives the total number of Israelites had not shrunk but had considerably increased when we remember that at the first count the whole tribe of Levi had been included and the number given by the Torah was "approx 600.000." This was a testimony to Moses's leadership who could prove he had not lost any of his sheep. This then is the reason why the Torah did not write the location in verse 1. The location was not related to the count but to the fact that Moses used the count to complete his mission and "hand over his flock" to G'd or to a new leader.

They spoke with them concerning this; that the Omnipresent had commanded to count them. Rashi means to say that the word אתם ["them"] refers to the words that they spoke to Israel, in order to exclude [the alternative], so that you should not understand it like אתם ["with them", meaning] that they spoke with Bnei Yisroel.

VV. 3 u. 4. וידבר וגו׳ אתם. Nicht ויפקד אתם, sondern וידבר אותם, es wurde, wie dies bei der ersten Zählung Kap. 1 u. 2 angeordnet war: למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמת כל זכר לגלגלתם, es wurde ein jeder namentlich als zu dem und dem Hause und der und der Familie gehörig genannt. Nicht das Wissen der Gesamtzahl, das "Zählen" war das wesentliche Ziel, sondern das Genanntwerden eines jeden einzelnen nach seiner Abstammung, seiner Familien- und Stammesangehörigkeit für seine nationale Gesamtbestimmung als יוצא צבא בישראל, war das Wesentliche und gab jedem einzelnen das bewusstvolle Selbstgefühl seiner Bedeutung für seines Hauses, seiner Familie, seines Stammes Anteil an der Lösung der gemeinsamen nationalen Aufgabe. Was dort mit dem למשפחתם וגו׳ במספר שמות וגו׳ ausführlich gesagt ist, das ist hier in dem Ausdruck וידבר אותם prägnant zusammengefasst: sie sprachen jeden einzelnen besonders aus. Es war aber bei der Veranlassung, welche diese Zählung hervorrief, von besonderer Bedeutung, dieses Aussprechen eines jeden einzelnen deutlich zu bezeichnen, da ja eben in diesem "Ausspruche" eines jeden einzelnen nach seiner Abstammung sich die geschlechtliche Reinheit der Familien dokumentierte, ein Grund, welcher auch wohl die gerade bei dieser Zählung hervorgehobene Nennung der Familien eines jeden Stammes motivieren dürfte.

Moshe and Elozor the kohein spoke. This was a language of leadership, because Bnei Yisroel were scattered among the cities across the Yardein, and only the camp and the Tent of Meeting stood in one place. When they were commanded to count, Moshe and Elozor announced that anyone twenty years of age and over should come to the designated place.

וידבר משה ואלעזר הכהן אותם, “Moses and Elazar the priest spoke with them;” They told them that G-d had commanded that another census be taken. An alternate interpretation: the word אותם (spelled without the letter ו) means that they spoke “with” the people not to the people. Compare Ezekiel 16,60: וזכרתי את בריתי אותך בימי נעוריך, “I remembered My covenant with you made when you were in your youth.”.

לאמר SAYING they said to them (what they said to them was): You must be counted FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARDS.

You must be counted… For the word “saying” does not refer to “Moshe and Elozor … spoke.” Rather, it refers to that which came afterwards, namely, “From twenty years of age and above…” Thus the verse is saying as follows: “Moshe and Elozor the kohein spoke of them,” meaning these words, “on the plains of Moav, by the Yardein near Yericho.” And what were these words that they said? “Saying from twenty years and above…” This is what they spoke to them about.

You might argue that the introduction שאו את ראש suggests that G'd did order a census, quite independently of the considerations we have mentioned; the answer is that the words שאו ראש were not intended to demand a census. After all, even if it turned out that the number of the Israelites had shrunk considerably, who would attribute this to their leader? What comparison is there between a shepherd entrusted with sheep and a leader entrusted with people? We would answer that the count now represented the same idea as the one after the golden calf episode. We had been told at the time that when a pack of wolves have attacked a flock, the shepherd counts the remaining sheep to determine the amount of damage he sustained. When many Israelites had died as a result of the golden calf episode, G'd wanted to count how many had survived. In this instance too, many Israelites had died as the result of the debacle at Shittim so that a count to establish how many had remained alive was called for. Moses exploited this opportunity to do his "own thing," i.e. to demonstrate that he had not lost any of "the sheep" under his care. By mentioning the location in connection with what Moses said (verse 3) instead of in connection with what G'd said (verse 1) the Torah was able to make this point. Alternatively, Moses added verse 4 to show that the count was not his own idea but that he carried out G'd's instructions by conducting it.

Gewiss aber war dies "Aussprechen" der sechsmalhunderttausend Individuen nicht das Geschäft zweier Männer, und auch hierbei Mosche und Elasar, wie bei der ersten Zählung, von den נשיאים assistiert. Das וידבר heißt also nicht sowohl: sie sprachen aus, als: sie ließen aussprechen, brachten zum Ausspruch. Mosche und Elasar waren nur die Anordnenden, und erklärt dies das: לאמר am Schlusse des Verses. Sie ordneten an, dass jeder vom zurückgelegten zwanzigsten Jahre aufwärts, ganz nach der Anordnung der ersten Zählung, ausgesprochen werden sollte. Eigentümlich ist die Akzentsetzung, die mit dem Etnach auf מואב dies bedeutsam von על ירדן וכו׳ trennt. Es sind damit eigentlich zwei Sätze gebildet und das וידבר משה וגו׳ zu על ירדן ירחו in wiederholt: וידבר וגו׳ אותם בערבות מואב und וידבר וגו׳ אותם על ירדן ירחו. Damit wäre dann der Zählung ein zweifacher Zweck erteilt: בערבות מואב in Beziehung zu dem in dieser Örtlichkeit vorgegangenen Peorereignis, wie wir bereits entwickelt, und: על ירדן ירחו mit Hinblick auf die bevorstehende Besitznahme von Palästina (siehe V. 53).

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כאשר צוה וגו׳ FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND ONWARDS, EVEN AS [THE LORD] HAS COMMANDED [MOSES AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, WHO CAME FORTH FROM EGYPT] that the counting of them (of those who came out from Egypt) should be from twenty years old and upwards, as it is said. (Exodus 30:14): “Every one that passeth amongst them that are numbered [shall be from twenty years old and upwards]”.

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, from twenty years old and up, etc. Why doesn't the verse tell us the subject matter this number is relevant to as it had done in verse two? Did Moses expect the Israelites to guess the significance of this number? If that were to be assumed, why did the Torah trouble itself in verse two to provide the information that people fit for military service were to be counted? According to what I have explained on verse three that the number (census) and the location i.e. the wilderness of Moav, were interconnected seeing that the objective of the census was to demonstrate that the number of Israelites had not diminished during the years Moses had been in charge, even the younger members of the people ought to have been counted in order to establish Moses' claim. What good would it do the people if the numbers of men fit for military service had not decreased but the number of potential soldiers had decreased due to the families being smaller or mostly girls being bom? Perhaps someone really thought that all the Israelites were counted on this occasion in order to prove Moses' claim that the people were at least as numerous as when Moses had taken over. To prevent us from arriving at that conclusion, the Torah repeated that only males above the age of twenty were included in this census. The reason Moses did not count people younger than twenty was "as G'd had commanded Moses." Had the census been up to Moses' discretion alone, Moses would not have bothered to count the Israelites at all, neither the men of military age nor the ones younger or older. By writing the words: "as G'd commanded Moses," the Torah states that the entire census was G'd's idea. This being so, there was no reason to include any age category in such a census which had not been included in a previous census.

לאמר מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה; Moses and Eleazar told the Israelites to inform them with a list of all the details of the males who had attained the age of 20. This was parallel to what we were told in Numbers chapter 1 at the previous census, hence the words “as G’d had commanded,” etc.; if these words had referred to what occurred now there would have been no need for this phrase. At that time G’d’s instructions had included the words: “according to their families, the houses of their fathers,” i.e. the co-operation of each family in the census had been requested.

As it is said “everyone passing by to be counted, etc.” You might ask: Why does Rashi bring the verse that is stated in Parshas Ki Sisa, rather than bring the verse that is written here, as it says “count…from twenty years of age…” (v. 2)? The answer is that Rashi is answering [another] question: “As [Hashem] commanded” implies that he had already commanded them, and that Yisroel already were aware of this. However they did not know about this command until Moshe told it to them. Rashi had another difficulty: Why it is written, “Bnei Yisroel who had left Egypt”? It should have merely written “Bnei Yisroel” and no more! Thus Rashi was obliged to explain [differently] and to bring the verse stated in Ki Sisa, for that command was only said to those who left Egypt. You might ask [further]: Nonetheless, he should have brought the verse stated in Parshas Bamidbar (1:3). The answer is that the count mentioned in Parshas Bamidbar was only a temporary measure on the day that the Mishkon was erected, but it was not [to apply] for future generations. However the count mentioned in Ki Sisa was also said for future generations, for [the command], “When you count…” implies that whenever you count them, only count those from twenty years of age.

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה ובני ישראל היוצאים מארץ מצרים .“as the Lord G-d had commanded Moses and the Children of Israel when they were departing from the Land of Egypt.” At that time the males twenty years and older had also been counted. (Rashi and B’chor shor)

ובני ישראל היוצאים מארץ מצרים, and the children of Israel who took part in the Exodus from Egypt. It is quite unclear what the Torah intended with these words. Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that the Torah meant that many of the people who were being counted now had actually taken part in the Exodus. Even if he is correct, why would the Torah consider it necessary to tell us about this at this point? Moreover, who needed Rabbi Ibn Ezra to tell us this? It is quite clear that many of the people who were below the age of twenty at the Exodus must have been included in this census! After all, the decree that the generation of the Exodus were to die in the desert after the debacle with the spies had applied only to people who had already reached the age of twenty either at the time of the Exodus or at the time the spies came back with their report! Perhaps it was the intention of the Torah to inform us that the result of this census produced a number equal to that of the census at the time the Israelites left Egypt as opposed to the number which resulted at the time the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. At that time the total amounted to 603,550 whereas this time the total was 601,730. In other words, the number was slightly lower than it had been some 38 years ago. The message then would be that Moses was not obligated to hand over to Joshua the same number of fighting men he had been able to muster at the time when he counted them earlier. The important thing was that he could show that he did not hand over fewer men than at the time of the Exodus. The census did prove this. [You will recall that I pointed out that the number at the Exodus included at least approx. 20.000 Levites so that Moses handed over far more men than he had at the time. Ed.] Another meaning of the words in question may be this: The number i.e. the census of Israelites on this occasion followed the same pattern as it had when they left Egypt, i.e. according to the houses of the respective tribal heads; Reuben according to the families of Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Carmi. Similarly, Shimon according to its tribal heads, i.e. Nemuel, Yamin, Yachin, Zerach and Shaul. This was in contrast to the count at the beginning of the Book of Numbers where the families of the tribes are not featured separately at all.

משפחת החנכי THE FAMILY OF THE HANOCHITES — Because the heathen nations spoke slightingly of Israel, saying, “How can these trace their descent by their tribes? Do they think that the Egyptians did not overmaster their mothers? If they showed themselves master of their bodies, it is quite certain that they did so over those of their wives!”. On this account the Holy One, blessed be He, set His name upon them: the letter ה on one side of their name and the letter י on the other side (חנכיה), to intimate: I bear testimony for them that they are the sons of their reputed fathers (and not of the Egyptians) (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:12). This it is that is expressed by David, (Psalms 122:4) שבטי יה עדות לישראל: “that the tribes bear the name of the Lord (יה) is a testimony regarding Israel” — this Divine Name (יה) bears testimony regarding their tribes (i.e. that they rightly attach themselves to those tribes to which they claim to belong). On this account in the case of all of them it is written החנכי and הפלואי but in the case of ימנה (v. 44) it was not felt necessary to state “of the family of הימני”, because the Divine Name is already attached to it — the י at the beginning and the ה at the end (ימנה) (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 773).

[REUBEN, THE FIRSTBORN OF ISRAEL: THE SONS OF REUBEN]: HANOCH, THE FAMILY OF THE HANOCHITES. Perhaps [the reason why the individual families of each tribe are mentioned here is that] when the Land was divided among the tribes [in equal parts] according to the opinion of our Rabbis,³²Baba Bathra 122a. See Vol. I, pp. 570-572. so that Simeon, the smallest of the tribes,³³The tribe of Simeon numbered 22,200 men (further, Verse 14). took [a share] equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes,³⁴The tribe of Judah numbered 76,500 (Verse 22). it was also divided up [amongst each tribe itself] according to the number of families that went down to Egypt. Thus they made out of Reuben’s inheritance four [equal] parts [because it consisted of four main families: Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi], and the Hanochites received a share equal to that allotted to the Palluites, the Hezronites, and the Carmites, even though these [four families] were not all equal in the number of names … by their polls³⁵Above, 1:18. This is the reason here for counting [the people] in this manner, [namely] by counting the family according to those who went down to Egypt, and it does not mention [here] by their polls, even though it mentions the numbers [of each tribe] as a whole. And when Scripture states [here]: To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, [and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance,³⁶Further, Verse 54. which seems to indicate that the Land was divided according to population,³⁷As is indeed Rashi’s opinion. See further, Verse 54, for a complete discussion. Ramban also touches briefly on this subject in Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 571-572). it refers to the [division amongst the] members of each [small] family,³⁸Thus when, for example, the family-group of Hanochites received their quarter-share of Reuben’s overall inheritance, they further subdivided it amongst their members according to the number of individuals in each family. However, they themselves received a share — [one quarter] — of the total inheritance of Reuben, equal to that received by the three other main families of Reuben, despite differences in their respective populations. Likewise each of the twelve tribes, whether large in population, like Judah, or small like Simeon, received an equal share of the whole Land [that is, equal in value, although not in area] (Baba Bathra 122a). for each [of these minor families] received a share according to their numbers by their polls.³⁵Above, 1:18. It is for this reason that in the Book of Joshua [when speaking of] the division of the Land, it says according to their families, as is stated in the verse, And the lot for the tribe of the children of Judah ‘according to their families,’³⁹Joshua 15:1. and similarly in the case of all the other [tribes]. Or the meaning of [the phrase there] according to their families may be: “to ‘all’ the families of the tribe” [meaning that each minor family of each tribe was taken into account, according to the numbers of its individual members, as explained above]; or that they divided the Land according to their families, so that each family received its share in one place, so that it did not become mixed up with [that of] another family. This [latter interpretation] appears to me to be the correct one.

משפחת החנכי, the family of Chanoch. Yalkut Shimoni on our verse (item 773) quotes Rav Idi who says that whenever you have the letter ה at the beginning of a name and the letter י at the end this is a sign that the person named was a son of the person who claimed to be his father. The string of such names here proves that the Israelites practiced marital fidelity. [The two letters discussed here together form the name of G'd i.e. י־ה so that what Rav Idi means is that G'd associated His name with the names of these families. Ed.]

חנוך משפחת החנוכי, Chanoch, the Chanochi family;” Nachmanides speculates that the reason why suddenly the tribes are divided into their respective families, may have to do with the opinion according to which the land was distributed in equal measure to the 12 tribes, so that the numerically weak tribe of Shimon received as much land as the numerically strong tribe of Yehudah. The Torah would then be telling us that the distribution of the land within each tribe followed a similar pattern, i.e. the basic family units, בית אב which was based on the 20 year olds at the time of the Israelites arriving in Egypt. At that time Reuven had four sons, so that the land allocated to the tribe of Reuven would have been split into 4 equal parts, regardless of demographic changes in the respective numerical strength during the intervening 250 years. [210 in Egypt 40 in the desert. Ed.] Although, at the time of this census, the families of Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron and Carmi, were quite different from one another numerically, for the purpose of the distribution of their family plots in the land of Israel they were all treated as equal in numerical strength. As far as the Torah instructing (verse 54) לרב תרבה נחלתו ולמעט תמעיט נחלתו איש לפי פקודיו יתן נחלתו, “to the numerically strong you shall increase the amount of his inheritance, whereas to the numerically weak you shall give proportionately less, each according to his count shall be given his inheritance,” this is a principle that is repeated in Joshua This is the reason why at this census the basic units are the composition of the families that had descended from Canaan to Egypt with their patriarch Yaakov. This is also why,- as opposed to the census in Parshat Bamidbar -the word לגולגלותם, “according to their headcount,” does not appear at all.

חנוך משפחת החנוכי, “Chanoch the clan of the Chanochites.” According to Rashi, the reason for such detailed emphasis on the certainty of the Israelites’ paternity was necessary to counter the sneering comments by the Gentiles who ridiculed the claim that the Egyptians during their control of the Jewish people had not been able to sleep with their wives. The Torah therefore testifies by the manner these descendants are attributed to their respective fathers that there was never a doubt about an Israelite’s paternity, i.e. his being fathered by an Israelite. By appending the two letters of the Lord’s name ה and י respectively to the front and end of the respective names of these people, G’d testified that the people mentioned were sired by Jews. David proclaims this even more clearly when he speaks about the tribes of Israel being שבטי י-ה, “the tribes of G’d” (Psalms 122,4). The extra letters are absent only in the name ימנה of the tribe of Asher as the name as it is without prefix or suffix already features the letters י and ה, respectively (verse 44).

The ה' on one side and the י' on the other. You might ask: Surely regarding gentiles the Torah also writes in this manner, as it is written וירד העמלקי והכנעני ["the Amalekite and the Canaanite descended"] (Bamidbar 14:45). The answer is that if had written, “The descendants of Reuvein are: the Chanochite family” without adding “from Chanoch” there would have been no difficulty, just as [the Torah writes] regarding the Amalekite. However, now that it is written, “The descendants of Reuvein are: from Chanoch, the Chanochite family” there is a difficulty as to why the Torah [also] placed the ה' on the one side and the י' on the other?

V. 5. משפחת החנכי. Jeder Stamm teilte sich in mehrere Familienzweige, deren den Familiennamen gebende Ahnen bei den meisten die ersten Söhne des Stammvaters waren, nur dass sich bei einigen, wie dies ja noch mit Vornamen so häufig geschieht, die Namen etwas anders nuancierten. Bei einigen wie bei Jehuda, Efrajim und Benjamin bildeten auch die Enkel, bei Menasche selbst die Urenkel noch besonders genannte Familienzweige. Dass, wie רמב׳׳ן bemerkt, die Zahl der Familienzweige nicht von der größeren oder geringeren Volkszahl des Stammes bedingt war, ist z. B. aus dem Vergleich Benjamins und Dans ersichtlich. Von Benjamin werden sieben besondere Familienzweige genannt, bei einer Bevölkerung von fünfundvierzigtausend, von Dan nur ein Familienzweig und er zählte vierundsechzigtausend.

משפחת הפלאי, “the family of the Paliy.” Actually, this family did not reach the land of Israel as the Reuvenites except for the family of Nemuel, the latter’s great grandson perished during the uprising of Korach. (Compare verse 89)

Having read Rav Idi's comment, we need to understand why these two letters appear in the reverse order, i.e. ה־י instead of י־ה. We may understand this with the help of some introductory remarks based on Tikkuney Hazohar 10. We are told there that the overall pool of souls of the Jewish people originates from an area beneath the throne of G'd which is called Heychal Kodsho, the Sanctuary of His Holiness. This aspect of G'd is called in our parlance א־ד־נ־י. Our halachic codifiers such as Tur Shulchan Aruch Or Hachayim 5 have told us that when someone utters the name of G'd during his prayers he must think of each single letter in the name of G'd he utters. When he utters names which we are permitted to utter and which are spelled in the prayerbook with the letters א־ד־נ־י, he must think of G'd in terms of His sovereignty. When he encounters the name of G'd spelled י־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being eternal. When he encounters the Ineffable Name, i.e. י־ה־ו־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being supremely powerful. He should also think of G'd as multifaceted as portrayed by the various ways His name appears in print. We have a verse in Psalms 11,4 where the ineffable name of G'd appears both before and after the words היכל קדשו, "the Sanctuary of His holiness." In that instance you will find that the letter ה at the end of the name of G'd before the expression היכל קדשו and the letter י immediately after the expression היכל קדשו form the reverse of the usual י־ה, i.e. ה־י just as in the sequence of the name החנכי. These two letters then may be viewed as the seal of the היכל קדשו, and together they represent the two letters י־ה which form the name of G'd most often manifest in our lives ever since the destruction of the Temple.

.אלה משפחות הראובני, “These are the families of the tribe of Reuven, etc.” the letters ה and י, symbolising the name of G-d at the beginning and end respectively of the names of some of these tribes during the census are found only for the tribes Reuven, Shimon and Zevulun. In the case of Reuven and Shimon the reason was to appease them because of Reuven’s their founding father’s indiscretion with his father’s concubine Bilhah, and of the far more recent disgrace of so many of the tribe of Shimon who had become guilty of sleeping with Moabite women at Shittim. In the case of Zevulun, the reason is because members of this tribe had risked their lives several times and they had been commended for this by Devorah in her song of victory in Judges 5,16.

אשר הצו WHO INCITED — i.e., who incited Israel, על משה AGAINST MOSES,

AND THE SONS OF ELIAB: NEMUEL, AND DATHAN, AND ABIRAM. THESE ARE DATHAN AND ABIRAM WHO [QUARRELLED AGAINST MOSES] etc. Scripture mentions this [episode leading to the death of Dathan and Abiram] in order to indicate that the whole inheritance of the Palluite family remained for Nemuel alone, because Dathan and Abiram [the other sons of Eliab] and all their belongings were swallowed up [in the earth, and hence Nemuel was the only surviving son of Eliab, who was in turn the only son of Pallu]. Or it may be, as our Rabbis have said,⁴⁰Baba Bathra 118 b. that [Dathan and Abiram’s death is mentioned here] to allude [to the fact] that they lost their share in the Land even though they were amongst those who came out of Egypt, and were therefore eligible to [receive] an inheritance.

הוא דתן ואבירם, "the same Datan and Aviram, etc." What did the Torah want to teach us by referring to Datan and Aviram at this point? If the Torah merely wanted to tell us that these two were the same Datan and Aviram we have encountered in connection with the rebellion of Korach, we knew this. It was hardly likely that two members of the tribe of Reuven both named Eliav each had two sons called Datan and Aviram. Moreover, their names did not need to appear here at all. None of the other families who had died before this census were mentioned in this sequence. Furthermore, why was the Torah so long-winded in telling us how these two brothers "incited in the company of Korach against Moses and Aaron when they incited against G'd?"

ובני אליאב נמואל ודתן ואבירם וגו', “and the sons of Eliav were Nemuel, Datan and Aviram, distinguished etc.;” Nachmanides writes that the latter detail was recorded here so that we would know that the entire inheritance (of land in the land of Israel) of the family of Palu-i accrued only to Nemuel. We know that both Datan and Aviram were swallowed up by the earth together with their entire families during Korach’s revolt. Alternatively, in accordance with views expressed by our sages, Baba Batra 118, the purpose of singling them out was to tell us that in spite of the principle of the distribution being governed by who arrived as adult in Egypt, the members of these families had forfeited their claim due to their conduct in the desert.

Israel. The words הצו ["incited"] and בהצותם ["when they incited"] are from the causative [הפעיל] conjugation which would refer to someone else, thus they require an object. Consequently, Rashi was obliged to explain the object of the incitement was the people. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi switched the objects, and said that one was Yisroel and the other was the people. Why were they not both the same? [He answers:] Perhaps the answer is that because the verse repeats itself with different terms, the words הצו ["incited"] and בהצותם ["when they incited"]. Rashi said [that it must mean], “[Who] incited Yisroel”…“when they incited the people,” or possibly the reverse.

V. 9. הוא דתן ואבירם. Nach Baba Batra 117b sind alle an dem Aufstand Korachs Beteiligten bei der Verteilung des Landes als nicht existierend betrachtet worden, während die anderen יוצאי מצרים, selbst, wenn sie beim Einzuge in das Land bereits verstorben waren, als die eigentlichen Besitznehmer zu betrachten waren, unter welche das Land dergestalt zur Verteilung kam, dass die am Leben befindlichen aktiven Besitzergreifer des Landes dasselbe nur als deren Erben erhielten (siehe zu V. 53). עדת קרח לא היה להן חלק בארץ הבנים נטלו בזכות אבי אביהן ובזכות אבי אמותיהן. Nach רמב׳׳ן dürfte aus diesem Grunde hier der Untergang Datan und Abirams erwähnt sein. — אשר הצו וגו׳: der Aufstand gegen Mosche und Aharon war in Wahrheit ein Aufstand gegen Gott, und weil er das war, darum ותפתח וגו׳.

.'בהצותם על ה, “when they agitated against the Lord.” Rav Chisda (in Sanhedrin folio 110) stated that anyone who agitates against his Rabbi is as if he had agitated against the Lord Himself. [Korach had agitated against Moses, his Rabbi. Ed.]

בהצתם WHEN THEY INCITED the people AGAINST THE LORD.

I believe that the reason the Torah recalls what these brothers had done was to inform us that they had been the cause of Korach's rebellion. It was G'd's wish to publicise the names of the wicked people who had orchestrated the evil in question. By writing אשר הצו, the Torah stresses that these two incited others both against Moses and Aaron as well as against G'd. Rashi explains the verse in the same sense. Once we have heard that these two caused the whole Israelite community to sin, it is quite possible to blame them also for having incited Korach. Although the Torah wrote (Numbers 16,1) "Korach took, etc.," which sounds as if Korach had initiated whatever he did, this may have occurred after something the brothers Datan and Aviram had already done, and that they had incited him. When the Torah repeats here once more what it had written in Numbers 16,32 that "the earth opened its mouth and it swallowed them and Korach," it may be that these two were the root cause why Korach and family were swallowed by the earth and why the 250 men who offered incense were burned to death at the time. The Torah also suggests here that but for the two demagogues Datan and Aviram the Israelites who had gathered threateningly against Moses and Aaron would have done תשובה.

הצו means they persuaded Israel to strive against Moses — it is a grammatical form denoting “they caused someone to do something".

The best proof for our theory is the fact that Moses is described as trying to placate only Datan and Aviram when he sent messengers to call them for a chat (Numbers 16,12). When they refused to come, Moses even went to look them up (16,25). The reason was that Moses felt that these two were at the bottom of the whole rebellion. Once we accept this, the death of all the people who perished can be attributed to Datan and Aviram. This results in our being able to find some excuse for both Korach and the 250 men who offered the incense. You find that the Torah wrote in Deut.11,6: "and what He has done to Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their houses, and their tents and every living thing which followed them." Moses attributed the entire debacle exclusively to Datan and Aviram. Having explained this, we can now understand the scholar in Sanhedrin 110 who holds that the company of Korach does not qualify for life in the hereafter as referring only to Datan and Aviram. The contrary opinion who holds that Korach and company will enjoy life in the hereafter and who base themselves on Samuel I 2,8 that "G'd lowers people to Sheol and brings them up again," must be understood as referring to Korach and companions exclusive of Datan and Aviram to whom the verse does not apply.

ויהיו לנס AND THEY BECAME A נס — a sign and a reminder in order that no stranger should bring himself near to raise further dispute concerning the priesthood (cf. Numbers 17:5).

ותבלע אותם ואת קרח במות העדה באכול האש, “it (the earth) swallowed them and Korach when the congregation died when the fire consumed them;” the verse introduces the name Korach between the words “it swallowed” and the words “when the fire consumed,” in order to teach us that Korach was both swallowed by the earth and burned by the fire. (I already mentioned this in Numbers 16,30).

A symbol and a reminder. That is to say that the term נס ["banner"] has the connotation of something high [which is visible to all], similar to כנס על הגבעה ["like a banner on top of the hill"] (Yeshayahu 30:17), and כנשוא נס הרים ["a banner raised over the mountains"] (Yeshayahu 18:3).

V. 10. נס .ויהיו לנס ist ein hochaufgestecktes Zeichen dem zur Orientierung, der einem bestimmten Ziele in einer bestimmten Richtung zu folgen hat. Datan und Abirams Untergang war eine solche hervorragende Gottestat, allen denen zur Orientierung, die der Belehrung über die einzuschlagende oder zu vermeidende Lebensrichtung bedürfen. In der späteren hebräischen Sprache ist der Ausdruck נסים für alle zu unserer Belehrung geschehenen hervorragenden Gottestaten sehr gebraucht.

ויהיו לנס, “they remained as an example.” Their fate was a warning for the Israelites not to question the institution of the hereditary priesthood (Rashi).

ובני קרח לא מתו BUT THE SONS OF KORAH DID NOT DIE — They were in the plot originally, but at the moment when the rebellion broke out they had thoughts of repentance in their hearts; therefore a high spot was fenced round for them in Gehinnom and they stayed there (Sanhedrin 110a).

ובני קרח לא מתו. However, Korach's sons had not died. It is somewhat surprising that the Torah informs us about this fact here instead of in the story about Korach or in connection with the count of the Levites where we should have been told about which Levites had died. If you accept what we have written it is evident that the Torah chose this occasion to reveal who was the root-cause of Korach's uprising, i.e. Datan and Aviram. If so this was the place to inform us about some other redeeming quality of Korach, namely that his sons were righteous and did not join their father in his rebellion or that they retracted in time. At any rate, whereas Datan and Aviram and all their "houses," i.e. their offspring perished, Korach's sons did not. This is another factor which supports the theory that Datan and Aviram had been the instigators all along.

.ובני קרח לא מתו , “and Korach’s sons did not die.” Our sages in Megillah 14 explain these words to mean that there was a special place reserved for them in Gehinom where they remained. The site where the swallowing occurred and where judgment of these individuals occurs is known as Gehinom. Alternatively, the sages meant the real purgatory the entrance to which is close to the point where Korach and company were swallowed. (According to Eyruvin 19 there are a total of three such portals to purgatory). We find that sons (or descendants) of Korach sang hymns in the Holy Temple as we know from Psalms 47,1 and 48,1 and others.

They repented in their hearts. Rashi wishes to answer the question: How could they not have died? For surely it is written (Bamidbar 16:32), “All the people belonging to Korach” meaning that his sons were also swallowed up by the earth.

V. 11. ובני קרח לא מתו (siehe Kap. 17, 3).

ובני קרח לא מתו, “and the sons of Korach had not died;” [during the uprising. Ed.] Even though they were Levites, the Torah here refers to them as if they had been part of the tribe of Reuven, seeing that the wickedness of the members of the tribe of Reuven, Datan and Aviram, had been greater than that of Korach, even. Korach’s sons not having joined the rebellion, or having repented in time, was therefore even more remarkable.

An elevated area was secured for them in gehinom. [נתבצר "secured"] is an expression of ערי מבצר ["fortified cities"] (Bamidbar 32:36). That is to say that Hashem arranged an elevated place for them, such that they would not descend too far into gehinom, and thus they did not die.

לנמואל, this person is the same as the one who appears elsewhere with the name ימואל. (Genesis 46,10, i.e. ובני שמעון ימואל)

לזרח OF ZERAH — He is identical with Zohar (mentioned in Exodus 6:15 as a son of Simeon), which is an expression equivalent to צהר, shining (a synonym of זרח). However, the family of אהוד (mentioned there) had ceased to exist by now. The same was the case with five families of the tribe of Benjamin, for with ten sons did Benjamin go down to Egypt and here it enumerates only five. Similarly with Ezbon of the tribe of Gad. So you have seven families that had become extinct (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5). — And I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 1:2 the reason why these seven families were now extinct: that when Aaron died the clouds of glory departed and the Canaanites came to wage war against Israel. These therefore set their hearts on returning to Egypt and turned back eight stages from Mount Hor to Moserah, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 10:6) “And the children of Israel journeyed from Bene Jaakon to Moserah; there Aaron died”. But did he not die at Mount Hor and from Moserah to Mount Hor there were eight stages in a backward direction? But the explanation is that they turned back, and the Levites pursued them to force them to return and slew of them seven families. And besides these, of the sons of Levi there fell four families: the families of Shimei and Uzzieli, and of the three sons of Izhar (Exodus 6:21) only the family of one son, Korah, is enumerated here, v. 58, so that the family of Izhar may be regarded as extinct — making three families missing. And as regards the fourth family I do not know which of those mentioned in 3:21, 27, 33, it was that had become extinct by now (Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10; Yoma 1:1). But Rabbi Tanchuma (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5) explained that they (the families not mentioned here) died by the plague in the matter of Balaam. But this can hardly be so, because according to the deficiency that shows itself in the tribe of Simeon in this census, as compared with the first census in the wilderness of Sinai (1:23), it would appear that all the twenty four thousand who died of that plague (Numbers 25:9) must have fallen from the tribe of Simeon.

L’ZERACH’ (OF ZERAH). “He is [identical with] ‘Tzochar’ [Zohar — mentioned in Genesis 46: 10 as one of the sons of Simeon who went down to Egypt], and it [the name Zerach (Zerah)] is an expression meaning tzohar [‘shining,’ which is also the meaning of Zerach]. But the family of Ohad [the other son of Simeon mentioned ibid., in Genesis] became extinct. Similarly five families of the tribe of Benjamin [had by now ceased to exist], for he [Benjamin] went down to Egypt with ten sons,⁴¹Genesis 46:21. and here⁴²Further, Verses 38-39. Scripture only counts five.” This is Rashi’s language.
And Rashi has furthermore written:⁴³In Verse 24. “All the families were called by the names of those [of their ancestors] who went down to Egypt, but those who were born after that time were not called families [in their own right and their own names], except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin.⁴⁴Further, Verse 40. The meaning of Rashi is as follows: Since Ard and Naaman are mentioned in Genesis 46:21 among the sons of Benjamin who went down to Egypt, and here in Verse 40 they are referred to as sons of Bela, who was himself a son of Benjamin, we must perforce say that the ones referred to here were not the same as those mentioned there [but had the same names]. Furthermore we must perforce say that the Ard and Naaman mentioned here were not amongst those who went down to Egypt, for otherwise Scripture would have mentioned them there in Genesis, in the same way that it counts the grandchildren of Judah and Asher. This is the meaning of Rashi when he wrote: “except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin.” However, the question then arises: why are Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela, counted here, since they were not amongst those who went down to Egypt? In other words, why were they an exception to the rule? To answer this question Rashi quotes the statement which he found in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher. And I have found [it written] in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher⁴⁵See above in Seder Naso, Note 146. that their mother [that of Ard and Naaman — i.e., the wife of Bela] went down to Egypt when she was already pregnant with them [and therefore they formed separate families, since they are also included amongst ‘those who went down’ to Egypt]. Now if this is a tradition, well and good. But if not, I say that Bela had many children, but from each of these two, Ard and Naaman, there came forth a large family, [and therefore they formed families in their own right and in their own names], whereas the descendants of the other sons were called by Bela’s name, and [only] the descendants of these two [Ard and Naaman] were called after their [own] names.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi], of blessed memory.
But I am astonished at [the words of] Rashi. For the difficulty [raised by Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] is not that Scripture counts the family of the Belaites by itself,⁴⁶Further, Verse 38. and [nonetheless counts also] the families of the Ardites and the Naamites his sons, by themselves,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. for that was [indeed] because they became [large] families, as the Rabbi [Rashi] has said. This is the way of Scripture, as in the case of the children of Judah [where it counts Hezron and Hamul, who were grandchildren of Judah, as forming families by themselves],⁴⁸Verse 21. Hezron and Hamul were the sons of Perez, who was the son of Judah. Although Perez himself formed a family (Verse 20), the verse nonetheless counts independently the two families formed by his sons Hezron and Hamul. and [likewise] the children of Menasheh and Ephraim,⁴⁹Verses 29-32; 36. There too, the grandchildren [and even great-grandchildren] are counted as separate families. and likewise the children of Asher.⁵⁰Verses 44-45. Asher’s grandchildren are counted as separate families. However, if we say that Ard and Naaman were born to Bela, the son of Benjamin, after they went down to Egypt, they should not have been counted here as [separate] families!⁵¹Ramban’s meaning is as follows. Rashi seems to have understood that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher found it difficult to understand why Ard and Naaman are mentioned as forming separate families, since their father Bela is also mentioned as forming a separate family. To answer this, Rabbi Moshe gave the explanation that their mother was already pregnant with them when she went down to Egypt ; and Rashi himself [because he questioned the authenticity of that tradition] gave a different reason, i.e., that they formed large families in their own right. Ramban is saying that Rabbi Moshe’s difficulty was not why Scripture mentions them as forming separate families, because the answer to that question is clearly that they had large families, which were worthy of constituting separate families and hence were not included in Bela’s family. That this is so we see clearly from the examples of Judah, Menasheh, Ephraim and Asher, as Ramban points out. Yet Rabbi Moshe did not ask about the children of these people, but only about Ard and Naaman, the children of Bela! Clearly this is because Scripture only counts as separate families the children of those who went down to Egypt, [e.g. Judah and Asher] or who were already there when Jacob went down [e.g. Menasheh and Ephraim]. But in the case of Ard and Naaman, there is a difficulty, whether we say that they went down to Egypt with Jacob or not, [as explained further on in Ramban], and it is this difficulty which Rabbi Moshe the Preacher was trying to answer. The question whether they went down to Egypt with Jacob depends, of course, on when they were born. For if we say that they were born to Bela after he went down to Egypt, the question arises: Why are they counted here as separate families, since only those who were among the seventy souls who went down to Egypt with Jacob are counted here as separate families? And if they were born before Jacob’s family went down to Egypt, then since they are not mentioned in Genesis, the total number of people who went down must have been seventy-two, so why does Scripture omit them and count only seventy? In brief it was this difficulty that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher had in understanding the verses, a difficulty which applies only to Ard and Naaman, and not as Rashi assumed his question to be, which would apply to other cases as well. And should we say that [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born to him before [he went down to Egypt], then [the family of Jacob] would consist of more than seventy souls, for then the sons of Benjamin were ten⁴¹Genesis 46:21. apart from these two sons of Bela [thus the overall total of people who went down to Egypt would be seventy-two, whereas Scripture there only mentions a total of seventy]!⁵²Genesis 46:27. It was for this reason [and not for the reason implied by Rashi’s explanation] that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained that their mother [the wife of Bela] was already pregnant with them [Ard and Naaman, when the family of Jacob went down to Egypt], and [since they were not yet born] they are not counted there [in the Book of Genesis], but here they are included⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. among those born [before the descent into Egypt, because their mother was already pregnant with them when they went into Egypt].
Now if this is a tradition [of the Rabbis, that Bela’s wife was pregnant with Ard and Naaman when she went down into Egypt], we will force ourselves to accept it despite its difficulty.⁵³The difficulty is that in Genesis 46:8-27 the verses do not mention Ard and Naaman amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt, because although their mother came into Egypt when she was pregnant with them, they were not yet born and thus one cannot say that they ”came into Egypt.” Yet here they are counted as forming separate families, although only the families of those that came into Egypt are counted as separate families, and the reason is because they “came into Egypt” since their mother was pregnant with them! Thus there is an apparent contradition! Furthermore, we will have to differentiate between the case of Jochebed and that of Ard and Naaman, as will be explained further on. We will also have to say that Jochebed⁵⁴See Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, pp. 554-558.) was born [whilst they passed] through the walls [of the border-city of Egypt], on the very day that they entered into [Egypt], and therefore she is included amongst the seventy souls [that came into Egypt], whereas these [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born some months [after Jacob’s family had come to Egypt, and therefore they are not included amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt with Jacob]! But if it is not a tradition of our Rabbis [but merely a personal opinion of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] we will reject this theory of his with all our might. But we can say that Ard and Naaman, the sons of Benjamin [as mentioned in Genesis 46:21], died without children, and Bela [their brother] wanted to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel,⁵⁵Deuteronomy 25:7. and therefore he gave his sons the names of his brothers who had died. Perhaps Bela [actually] performed the rite of marriage with their wives, since he was the firstborn,⁵⁶Genesis 46:21: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela etc. — The duty of marrying a childless brother’s wife falls primarily on the eldest of the remaining brothers ; if he refuses the duty devolves upon any other surviving brother (Yebamoth 39a). and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela [from these marriages] became heads of families to raise up a name⁵⁵Deuteronomy 25:7. for Ard and Naaman the sons of Benjamin, who were amongst those that went down to Egypt.⁴¹Genesis 46:21.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the Naaman and Ard⁵⁷In Genesis 46:21 they are listed in the following order: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela … and Naaman … and Ard. Ramban now suggests that these two people who are mentioned there in Genesis as the “sons” of Benjamin, are in fact identical with the Ard and Naaman mentioned here in Verse 40, who are described as the sons of Bela, who was the son of Benjamin. Naaman and Ard were thus in fact the grandchildren of Benjamin, and it is the style of Scripture to describe grandchildren as children, as Ramban shows. This explains why Ard and Naaman are counted here as separate families in their own right, since they were amongst those who went down to Egypt [as stated explicitly in Genesis 46:21], and there is thus also no problem about how we reach the number of seventy souls who went down there. In other words, the Ard and Naaman mentioned there in Genesis [as the sons of Benjamin] and here in Verse 40 [as Benjamin’s grandsons] are identical persons. who are counted amongst the sons of Benjamin in the section of And these are the names etc.,⁵⁸Genesis 46:8-27. were in fact [not the real sons of Benjamin at all, but they were] the sons of his firstborn son Bela, as is stated explicitly here,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 40. and similarly Scripture counts them [as the sons of Bela] in the Book of Chronicles.⁵⁹I Chronicles 8:3-4: And Bela had sons, Addar … and Naaman. Addar mentioned is synonymous with Ard. Such is the custom of Scripture to speak of grandchildren as children [and therefore in Genesis 46:21 the verse describes them as the ‘sons’ of Benjamin], just as it says, Laban the son of Nahor,⁶⁰Genesis 29:5. Nahor was actually his grandfather, for Bethuel was his father. See Ramban ibid., Vol. I, p. 360. and in the Book of Chronicles it is written, The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether and Meshech,⁶¹I Chronicles 1:17. although the last four were in fact his grandchildren!⁶²Their father was Aram, the son of Shem — see Genesis 10:22-23. And even though Scripture did not treat the sons of Perez [as the “sons” of Judah, their grandfather,⁶³The verse there (46:12) mentions that Perez was the son of Judah; and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Perez. as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], likewise [it did not treat] the sons of Beriah [as the “sons” of Asher, their grandfather,⁶⁴The verse there (46:17) mentions that Beriah was the son of Asher, and Heber and Malchiel the sons of Beriah. as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], — this may be because they [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela], were born upon Benjamin’s knees⁶⁵See Genesis 50:23. [i.e., he brought them up], and therefore they are considered his sons. This is then similar to [the verse], And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses,⁶⁶Above, 3:1. The explanation of this verse quoted now by Ramban is found in Rashi ibid. [where the verse proceeds to mention only the sons of Aaron! The explanation given is that they were in actual fact only the sons of Aaron, but since Moses brought them up and taught them Torah, they are also called his children]. Or it may be that because Benjamin had many sons — for he had eight — therefore Scripture included the few [i.e., his two grandsons, Ard and Naaman] amongst the many [real sons, and therefore spoke of all ten as Benjamin’s sons].
And it is possible also that we suggest as a hypothesis that Scripture here does not count only the families of those who went down to Egypt, [as Rashi explained above], because [we see] that even those who were born in Egypt from that time onwards are also counted as families, such as Scripture does here in the case of [the families of] Ephraim and Menasheh [whose families are counted separately, even though they did not go down to Egypt with Jacob].⁶⁷Verses 29 and 35 here. Ephraim and Menasheh of course were not amongst those who went down to Egypt with Jacob, but were born to Joseph beforehand (see Genesis 48:5). It is not a [satisfactory] reason for Scripture to do so [as exceptions in their cases only], on the grounds that they were [already] in Egypt [and therefore are included as separate families together with all those who came down afterwards with Jacob], because it is at the time of the [actual] descent [into Egypt] that one ought to count them all in one number, and to make families out of the seventy souls [who actually went down with Jacob, and it is not correct to include Ephraim and Menasheh who were there but did not go down with the others]!⁶⁸Ramban’s meaning is that since Scripture’s main purpose is to list the seventy people who “went down” to Egypt with Jacob, it ought to include only those who actually went down at that time. But in actual fact only sixty-eight went down, since Ephraim and Menasheh were already there! And one cannot suggest that an exception is made in their case, since Scripture always stresses the factor of actual descent, referring to the seventy souls who went down to Egypt. Hence we must say that in fact Scripture includes in its list not only those who actually went down to Egypt with Jacob, but also those who did not go down then, and even some who were born later, as explained further on. In that case we can understand that Ard and Naaman are included in the list, even though they were born later. Similarly Scripture always counts them [Ephraim and Menasheh] together with those who went down to Egypt, [such as in the verse]: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons⁶⁹Deuteronomy 10:22. This includes Joseph and his two sons, Menasheh and Ephraim (see Genesis 46:19-20), although they did not go down to Egypt with Jacob. So also the sons of Bela [Ard and Naaman] were born afterwards [i.e., after the descent into Egypt, and they are nonetheless counted here as separate families! This proves that the determining factor whether to count a family here separately, is not the criterion of whether its founder was amongst those who went down to Egypt with Jacob, as Rashi said, but must have been some other reason, as will now be explained].
But [we must say that] this matter was [as follows]. It was the custom in Israel [for people] to appoint over themselves “heads of fathers’ houses,” and all the descendants of that man would always trace their lineage back to him, and be called by his name in his honor; just as all the Arabs do to this very day, and as do all the Jews who live in their [the Arabs’] countries, calling themselves by family [names, such as] “Ibn Ezra,” or “Ibn Shushan.” This is the meaning of the verse which says, These are the heads of their fathers’ houses,⁷⁰Exodus 6:14. for from the time that they were fruitful and multiplied⁷¹Ibid., 1:7. in Egypt, they established heads of families over themselves, to whom they would trace their lineage. Perhaps they initiated this practice in Egypt in order not to mingle themselves with the nations⁷²Psalms 106:35. and so that they would be recognized and distinguishable among their tribes, [for it is there in Egypt] whither the tribes went up, even the tribes of the Eternal, as a testimony unto Israel,⁷³Ibid., 122:4. and it became a custom in Israel.⁷⁴Judges 11:39. Thus [all] those mentioned here [in this section] were, every one of them, heads of their fathers’ house in Egypt, from whom the family traced its descent. That is why Scripture counts in the house of Machir [the son of Menasheh]: the family of the Machirites and the family of the Gileadites his son,⁷⁵Further, Verse 29. and the family of the Iezerites and that of the Helekites,⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 30. the sons of Gilead and their [other] brothers.⁷⁷I.e., Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, Hepher (Verses 31-32) — brothers of Iezer and Helek, and sons of Gilead. In a similar way [Scripture records] the children of Judah [and also counts Hezron and Hamul, who were the sons of Perez and grandsons of Judah, as separate families]⁷⁸Further, Verse 21. and those of Ephraim,⁷⁹Verse 36. There Eran, who was the son of Shuthelach and the grandson of Ephraim, is counted as forming a separate family, although his father Shuthelach is also mentioned there as founding a separate family. for these children mentioned were great and distinguished people, and became heads [of their families]. But [the reason for them being counted as separate families] is not because they [each] gave birth to a large family, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, because they all begot large families [even those who are not mentioned individually], since they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty.⁷¹Ibid., 1:7. But [Scripture named separate families here] as a mark of honor, meaning that [the members of that particular family] had appointed [that person] as their head. Now most of the families when they were in Egypt traced their descent from those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], because they considered them distinguished ancestors, and the others appointed for themselves heads of houses from those who were born there shortly after [Jacob’s descent to Egypt]. Therefore most of the [people] mentioned here [in this census as forming families] were [amongst] those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], and therefore these families trace themselves back to those who came down [originally] to Egypt, because it was there that they established them [these people, as the heads of their family-groups].

לשאול משפחת השאולי, "of Shaul the family of the Shaulites." Rabbi Yochanan is quoted in Bamidbar Rabbah 21,3 as having said that Zimri had 5 names, one of which was "Shaul son of the Canaanite." It is difficult to understand that the Shaul mentioned here could have been Zimri seeing we have the principle (Yuma 38) of שם רשעים ירקב, "let the names of the wicked rot;" if so, why would G'd associate His name [i.e. the letters ה and י surrounding the name שאול Ed.] with that of such a wicked person? This especially since the Torah has already referred to his Canaanite connection! One of the ways we suggested as appropriate to understand 25,14 אשר הכה את המדינית, had been that Zimri was struck only while in the company of Kosbi. He did not share his afterlife with her. This would explain why at this stage, i.e. after Zimri was dead already, G'd could associate His name with Zimri's because the latter was in עולם הבא by this time. Perhaps the following words in Bamidbar Rabbah 21,3 lend even more weight to what we have just said. The Midrash explained the name שאול to mean that he had "lent himself out to commit a sin." Seeing that loans are subject to return to their origin, Shaul returned to his erstwhile status after his death.

However the family of Ohad became extinct. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely here the Torah only mentions those who came down to Egypt, who were counted in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:8-24). There it writes, “And the sons of Shimon were: Yemuel, Yamin, Ohad, Yachin, Tzochar and Shaul son of the Canaanite.” However, here it counts Zerach who was not counted there. Furthermore Ohad is not counted here. Rashi explains that Zerach who was counted here is Tzochar, and that “Tzochar” is [a word] meaning "tzohar” ["illumination"]. [This is possible] because hei and ches are [sometimes] interchangeable. Also “Zerach” [is a word which] has the connotation of light. However, the family of Ohad became extinct.

לזרח, Rashi comments here that the family of Ohad, had become extinct. He adds that also five of the sons of Binyamin’s family had become extinct. Rashi writes further that what was true of the family of Ohad of the tribe of Reuven, also applied to the family of Etzbon of the tribe of Gad. He explains that that Ozni in verse 16 of our chapter was in fact identical with Etzbon. According to the plain meaning of the text this was because they had not founded a family, i.e. had not married. If you were to ask that if this is correct where was the seventh family of which Rashi wrote that it had become extinct? We might have to assume that the missing family is that of Yishveh of the tribe of Asher. (Compare Genesis46,17, and Numbers 26,44, and the discrepancy in those two verses.) Rashi also writes that four families of the tribe of Levi appear to have disappeared between the first and the second census, i.e. the families of Shiee, Azieli, and some of the family of Yitzhar of whom only the family of Korach is listed here. This is certainly not meant to be an enumeration as only one third of the family are mentioned here when compared to the list in Exodus 6,21. Our author continues to quote lengthy comments by Rashi on this problem. [I have decided that the interested reader will prefer to read the text of Rashi for himself. Ed.]

Also Etzbon of Gad… You might ask: Surely Rashi himself comments later regarding Ozni (v. 16) “I say that this was the family of Etzbon”. The answer is that his explanation here is according to the teaching that seven families became extinct, however Rashi himself does not agree to this. [There is another difficulty] according to Rashi’s explanation later (v. 24) that only those who went down to Egypt are referred to as “families,” for Ozni was not one of those who went down to Egypt. Thus why was he mentioned? One cannot say that Ozni refers to Etzbon since there is no commonality between [the names] Ozni and Etzbon. Rather, one must say that when Rashi explains, “Also Etzbon of Gad” this is according to the teaching in the Yerushalmi that there were seven families missing. And Rashi also disagrees with the teaching in the Yerushalmi that only those who went down to Egypt are referred to as families. With this we can answer the inquiry of Re’m who writes: “However there is a difficulty, for surely Rashi himself writes later that all the families were named after those who went down to Egypt, but those who were born from then on were not referred to by their own names. If this is so, how could the Torah count Ozni, for he was not one of those who came to Egypt? The matter requires investigation.” There are those who explain that, “Also Etzbon from Gad” means that one should not be surprised at the change of Zerach’s name, given that Etzbon of Gad from the tribe of Gad also had his name changed. [You might ask:] Rashi writes, “So there are seven families,” however accordingly there are only six. The answer is that when Rashi says, “So there are seven” this refers to the family of Yishvah, one of the sons of Asher. For here the Torah only counts Yishvi while in Parshas Vayigash it writes (Bereishis 46:17) “Yishvah and Yishvi.” This was what Rashi meant when he said “seven families.”

And from Moserah to Mount Hor there are eight journeys. You might ask: Surely above in Parshas Chukas (21:4) Rashi explained that there were seven journeys. The answer is that above he was considering those from Mount Hor and onwards, not including Mount Hor.

Of the sons of Yitzhar, none are counted here except for the Korachite family. Meaning that Yitzhar had three sons, Korach and Nefeg and Zichri, but here it only counts the Korachite family while Nefeg and Zichri became extinct. Now, since the majority of the family became extinct [it was considered as if] the entire family became extinct, and it emerges that three of the Levite families fell, the Shimites, Ezrielites and Yitzrites.

I do not know the identity of the fourth. There are those who raise the difficulty: Perhaps the four missing families are the Shimite and Ezrielite [families], and the Nefegite and Zichrite [families] who are the sons of Yitzhar. For the Torah has only counted the Korachite family from among the sons of Yitzhar.

That they died in the plague at the affair of Bil’am. Meaning that this specifically refers to the seven families, however one should not say that the Levites were also [killed] in the plague at the incident of Bil’am, for we do not find that the Levites sinned there.

As compared with the first counting at the Sinai desert. For at the Sinai desert they numbered fifty-nine thousand three hundred, while here only twenty-two thousand two hundred were counted. Thus it emerges that thirty-seven thousand one hundred were missing.

Fell from the tribe of Shimon. That is to say that the twenty-four thousand [people] who died in the plague at the affair of Bil’am, all fell from the tribe of Shimon. [This is understandable] because we find that from among the tribes, the tribe of Shimon sinned the most, for the leader of Shimon’s tribe had sinned.

V. 14. אלה משפחות השמעני. Oben bei der ersten Zählung, Kap. 1, 22, als noch die sittliche Ehre des simonischen Stammes unbefleckt war, steht der Begriff פקודים: פקדיהם ,פקדיו zweimal, um gleich bei dem zweiten Stamme zu sagen, dass er sowohl, wie alle folgenden Stämme nicht summarisch, sondern ganz so in Einzelzählung, wie der Stamm Reuben gezählt worden (siehe daselbst). Hier bei der zweiten Zählung, nachdem einer ihrer Stammesfürsten in so entehrender Weise sich vergangen, nach Sanhedrin 92 a der Stamm selbst auch einen hervorragenden Anteil an der ganzen Verschuldung gehabt, fehlt das ehrende לפקדיהם oder ופקדיהם, und fasst sich der Bericht in möglichster Kürze. Simeons Volkszahl ist auch die auffallend kleinste und fehlen gegen die erste Zählung volle siebenunddreißigtausend! Es liegt nicht fern, dass von den in der Seuche gefallenen vierundzwanzigtausend ein großer Teil seinem Stamme angehört haben möge.

These are the families of Shimon. Scripture uses the language “by their number” or “their number” with all the tribes, but by Shimon it was not used at all. This is because the connotation of “their number” here is as we will explain later (v. 54), “each person, according to his number” — according to the number of his household or affairs — that is, each one had a numbering of how he ran his affairs on his own. Many remained of the tribe of Shimon, nevertheless, their number was decimated by the plague that afflicted their tribe, and therefore it does not say here “their number”.

לצפון, this man is identical with צפיון in Genesis46,16.

לאזני, according to Rashi, he is identical with Etzbon, as I have already explained on verse 13.

לאזני OF OZNI — I say (cf. Rashi on v. 13) that this is the family of Ezbon, (Genesis 46:16), but I do not know why his family was not called directly by his name.

לאזני, "to Ozni, etc." Rashi says: "this was the family of Etzbaun, and I do not know why he is not called by the same name as he appears in Genesis 46,16." Thus far Rashi. I do not see why he had to invent something without giving a reason for it, especially when we have no tradition concerning this amongst the writings of our sages. Moreover, you will find the following comment in Midrash Tanchuma item 4 on our Parshah: "When you examine the list of the children of Gad you will find seven names although Etzbaun does not appear seeing he was missing having followed Bileam's advice." According to the Midrash then, Ozni must have been a different family which originated with Gad but did not appear in the list in Genesis 46,16. This in itself would not be unusual as surely all the tribes had more families than the ones enumerated here, but these were known by the family names of their more numerous brothers. When these sub-categories became numerous they in turn were given separate names. I have found the following in the Pessikta: Ozni is identical with the Etzbaun mentioned in Genesis 46,16. The name is derived from "Atzit" and "he-ezin." Thus far the Pessikta. Accordingly, it was a proper name and the Torah did not care listing the same person here under a different name. Rashi must have been divinely inspired having guessed what the sages have stated [which he did not quote because he had no access to these writings. Ed.]

I say that this was the family of Etzbon. Meaning that Ozni who is counted here was not counted among those who came down to Egypt, therefore it appears to me that he is Etzbon, “but I do not know…” You might ask: Surely above Rashi explained, “And similarly Etzbon of Gad [became extinct]” I have already explained this above (v. 13).

בני יהודה, the sons of Yehudah. This whole paragraph (19-22) is full of allusions to the history of the Jewish people. The reason the Torah has chosen to present us with these hints when enumerating the family members of Yehudah is because Yehudah is symbolic of the Jewish people as a whole. We have learned already in Bereshit Rabbah 98,6 that when one used to ask a Jew who was a member of a certain tribe to identify himself he would describe himself first and foremost as a Yehudi, not as a Shimoni or Reuveni, for instance. When our verse starts with the words בני יהודה, the Torah has in mind the descendants of Yehudah, not just his actual sons. Er and Onan respectively are allusions to the premature destruction of both the first and the second Temple. This idea is alluded to in Song of Songs 5,2: "I am asleep but my heart is ער, "awake." This means that while the first Temple was standing G'd was very much "awake," watching over my fate. Onan is an allusion to the second Temple. The Torah refers to it as Onan, an expression denoting אונאה, deception, as many of the holy vessels such as the Holy Ark, etc. were missing during the entire period of the second Temple's operation.

The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare Shabbat 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in Yuma 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred.

The Torah concludes verse 19 by mentioning ארץ כנען, to remind us that these sins were committed on holy soil and that the souls of people who died on such soil because of such sins were returned to the domain of Samael, otherwise known as Canaan. There is also an allusion of a more comprehensive nature here. It is that the reason the Israelites did not hold on to ארץ ישראל permanently was that they never completed the command to drive out or kill the Canaanites completely. Allowing the Canaanites to co-exist with them in the same land enabled the remaining Canaanites to seduce the Israelites into worshiping idols and adopting many of the abominable practices of that nation.

The Torah introduces the sons of Yehudah here with the word ויהיו, a word which usually is a prelude to something painful, some negative experience. The painful experience our verse alludes to is the destruction of the Temple and the exile and persecution which occurred as a corollary of the destruction of the House of G'd. Hail to people who have never had to taste the bitter experience of exile. You will note that the expression ויהיו is not mentioned in connection with any of the other tribes except Yehudah and regarding one of the families of Benjamin, i.e. Bela. The reason for this will be explained in due course.

The Torah writes למשפחותם, according to their "families," as the destruction of the Temple affected all the families of the Jewish nation wherever they were, negatively. Anyone bearing the name Yehudi viewed the Temple's destruction as a personal disaster, i.e. וי היו, they were in a state of mourning.

The reference to Shelah is an allusion to the redeemer who will redeem the Jewish people from their final exile. His name is called שלה. Although when Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his death bed he called the same Messiah שילה (with the extra letter י), this detail does not change the name materially. If you will take a close look at the names recorded here and compare them with the ones in Genesis chapter 46, you will find numerous changes in the spelling. Perhaps the formula שלה is a form of the possessive as it belongs together with the words ויהיו בני יהודה i.e. "inasmuch as all of Israel has to mourn on account of what happened to the Temple and to look forward with fervent hope to the coming of the Messiah." We have a parallel for this in the Talmud where Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi was asked by the Messiah if the Israelites were truly aware of his pain and were sick on his account. The Zohar in Parshat Beshalach comments on Isaiah 52,8: קול צפיך נשאו קול….בשוב ה׳ ציון, "the voice of those who wait for you raise their voice (still further)." Here too the expression ויהיו means that all the families are saddened, שלה, on account of the Messiah who has not yet come. When the verse continues speaking of משפחת השלני, "the family of Shelah," this refers to the generation in whose time Shelah (Messiah) will appear. That whole generation will then be called by the name of the Messiah in commemoration of that event.

There may be an additional message in the fact that the Torah added the letter נ when speaking of the family of Shelah, i.e. השלני. Normally only the letters ה or י are used in adding the possessive clause to such names. We must refer to Shabbat 32 where the Talmud explains Zachariah 8,23 אשר יחזיקו עשרה אנשים מכל לשונות הגוים והחזיקו בכנף איש יהודי to mean that in the days of the Messiah 10 people of each of the 70 nations will hold on to the fringes on the garment of a single Jew begging to be allowed to go with him, etc. The same idea is hinted at in the word השלני. All the nations of the world will claim שלו אני, "I belong to him," i.e. to the Messiah."

לפרץ משפחת הפרצי. This is an allusion to the authority wielded by a Jewish king who may infringe on fenced in private property in order to make a roadway (Sanhedrin 20). The verse tells us that the descendants of Peretz will all be kings, enjoying the right to be פורץ גדר, to tear down fences in order to claim a right of way. We are told in Baba Metzia 113 concerning messianic times that every Jew will be considered as a prince. This is supported by Isaiah 49,7: "kings will behold them and rise up (in their honour)." The word פרץ is also an allusion to the great פרצה, "breach," which the Messiah will make amongst the Gentile nations.

לזרח משפחת הזרחי; this is a reference to what is written in Isaiah 60,2 וכבוד ה׳ עליך זרח, "and the glory of the Lord will shine upon you." The prophet goes on in verse 19 of the same chapter: "your light will shine continuously" (not by day only, or by night only, but continuously, forever more). In other words, the family of Zerach will be instrumental in assuring us of G'd's eternal light.

It is also possible that the entire paragraph refers to three manifestations which will occur during the messianic period. 1) the arrival of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim as we learned in Sukkah 52. 2) The Messiah of Davidic origin will reveal himself. 3) The final stage of the redemption when G'd personally and directly will rule over us. The name Shelah is a reference to the advent of the Messiah descended from Ephrayim; the Torah hints that he will be smitten and die as a result of the sins of the Jewish people. The word שלה then must be understood as similar to Samuel II 6,7: ויכהו שם על השל, G'd killed him there (Uzzah) because of the sin." [he had tried to steady the ark instead of letting the ark steady him, an inadvertent sin. Ed.] The word פרץ refers to the Messiah from the house of David who would make a פרצה amongst the Gentile nations. and who would avenge the blood of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim. Concerning G'd's eternal rule over us, the Torah wrote לזרח, alluding to G'd's light which would shine forever from then on.

The reason the Torah writes the word ויהיו in connection with פרץ though he symbolises the Messiah from the house of David, is that the arrival of the Messiah will be accompanied by many painful episodes, so much so that some scholars who lived during the time of the Talmud expressed the wish not to be alive during that time. The expression בני פרץ, allude to two separate phenomena which will originate through the arrival of פרץ, i.e. the arrival of the Messiah. One is that G'd will build the "courtyard of the King," i.e. third Temple, and the Jewish people will all be members of His entourage. This is what is meant by the words לחצרון משפחת החצרוני. [the word חצרון is related to חצר, courtyard. Ed.] The second result is alluded to by the words לחמול משפחת החמולי, i.e. that G'd will relate to us at that time with all the pity (חמלה) possible.

When the Torah writes אלה משפחות יהודה, "These are the families of Yehudah," it is a hint that they would experience both the pleasant and the unpleasant aspects of the redemption. לפקדיהם, refers to the fact that being numbered contained positive and negative elements (compare Zohar Chadash volume 1 page 160. [I do not have a Zohar Chadash on Pinchas. Ed.]) Our paragraph mentions two kinds of numberings.

The Torah speaks of 76,500 fighting men who were counted amongst the tribe of Yehudah. [The author indulges in fanciful speculation of the time of the redemption based on the numbers of the tribe of Yehudah. The speculations have proven irrelevant. I do not propose to go into detail. Ed.]

לפרץ, the sons of Peretz were divided into three families; one bore the name of its founder, and the other two were Chetzron and Chamul.

בני יששכר, The members of the tribe of Issachar, etc. Inasmuch as the tribe of Issachar is distinguished by intensive Torah study, the Torah alluded to this in its very name, יש שכר, "there is a reward," i.e. this tribe more than any other qualifies for reward. Any benefit secured in this life other than reward for Torah study is not worth the name, as it is transient. Our sages in Berachot 28 tell us that one needs to recite a short prayer when leaving the house of study in which one acknowledges that whereas both the secular people and the Torah scholars invest a great deal of effort in their respective pursuits, the former waste their efforts, whereas the Torah students do not labour in vain. The reason is simple. All comforts and riches in this life are transient, do not accompany man to the hereafter. The reward called שכר which one receives in return for Torah study does endure and one can take it with him to the hereafter. By using the word שכר the Torah also indicates that everything in the world which G'd has created, He created only for the sake of Issachar, i.e. the people studying Torah. We find this thought already in Bereshit Rabbah 1, i.e. that the word בראשית ברא implies that G'd only created the universe for the sake of Torah, i.e. the people who study it. Another allusion contained in this verse is related to what we learned in Uktzin 3,12 that in the messianic future (or even later) G'd will make every righteous person inherit 310 "worlds." The author of that Mishnah bases this on the numerical value of the word יש, from the promise in Jeremiah 31,16 יש שכר לפעולתיך, "there is a reward for your accomplishments."

When the Torah continues: לתולע, etc., the Torah utilises the names of the respective families of the tribe of Issachar to describe the conditions which need to be met by the Torah student to qualify for the reward we have described. We are taught in Avot 6,5 that Torah knowledge can be acquired via 48 different paths. The meaning of the name תולע alludes to two of these paths. 1) The student must develop the characteristics of a noble, elegant person, עדין. Our sages in Moed Katan 16 describe David as having possessed this virtue and that is why he was called עדינו העצני (Samuel II 23,8). [This is a completely homiletical interpretation of that whole verse by Rav who describes David as having made himself as delicate as a worm when studying Torah. Ed.] The second aspect of the meaning of תולע is that one needs to make oneself as insignificant as a worm whose only power is its mouth. These two virtues combined represent the ultimate simile for humility, especially when applied to a mighty warrior such as David. If one possesses this virtue one has no need to cultivate any of the other 48 qualities mentioned in that Mishnah.

The Torah goes on לפוה משפחת הפוני. We must first explain why the Torah saw fit to add the letter נ in the word הפוני, although this letter is not one found in the name of G'd. We would have expected the Torah to write הפוי. We suggest therefore that the Torah wanted to allude to the other qualities mentioned in the above-mentioned Mishnah in Avot 6,5 which are recommended for the student who wishes to acquire Torah. One of them is מיעוט שיחה, a minimal amount of unnecessary conversation, plus other such suggestions. By referring to פוה משפחת הפוני the Torah alludes to the mouth seeing the word פוה is related to פה, mouth. The Torah added the letter ו which is the mystical dimension of the עץ החיים, "the tree of life," the activity the mouths of the members of the tribe are busy with when studying Torah more than the mouths of secularly oriented people. The fact that this letter ו appears next to the letter ה suggests the mystical dimension of good characteristics combining within the persons studying Torah. The words משפחת הפוני suggest that one needs to divest oneself of all extraneous concerns, even from idle talk, if one wants to attain the maximum Torah knowledge and observance one is capable of achieving. I have found a comment by Rabbi Moshe Alshich on Exodus 28,31 according to which the mouths of Torah students are in the same category as the holy vessels used in the Temple. This is because of all the things that are sacred nothing is more sacred than Torah. Once the mouth has become a holy vessel it must not be abused to serve secular matters, even if the conversation one conducts is not slanderous or otherwise concerned with forbidden matters. This is precisely what the Torah hints at with the word לפוה, i.e. that any conversation not related to Torah should be avoided. As to the expression משפחת הפוני, the latter נ converts this word into פנות i.e. the turning aside or clearing out of all matters which interfere with the mouth being used for disseminating Torah.

The Torah continues לישוב, which suggests "sitting," i.e. that in order to study Torah in depth one has to sit down, one cannot study haphazardly a few minutes here and a few minutes there. This too is one of the 48 methods described in the Mishnah as a way to acquire Torah. Sitting down enables one to also activate other qualities useful in the acquisition and retention of Torah.

The Torah continues with the fourth son of Issachar לשמרן משפחת השמרני. The word שמרני suggest שמירה, "observance," something that the Torah student is even more duty-bound to be careful with than the average Jew. A sage in Yuma 86 was asked to give an example for the sin of חלול השם, a desecration of G'd's name. He answered: "if I were to buy meat and not pay cash on the spot." This gives us an inkling of how circumspect a Torah scholar has to be in every single one of his actions. We read in Chovat Halevavot in the fifth section of the chapter dealing with repentance that the pious people in former generations used to rather forego seventy things which are permissible in order to avoid violating even a single thing which is forbidden.

When the Torah continues: אלה משפחות יששכר לפקדיהם, the word פקדיהם is meant in a positive sense. The Torah describes the פקידה as 64,300. [The word Pekidah has a dual meaning; in addition to numbering or appointing, the plain meaning in our verse, it also means keeping something in mind, Ed.] The Torah hinted at two potential achievements here. 1) The terrestrial world can be fit to be the carrier of G'd's Presence, שכינה. This is alluded to in the number 64 being only one less than the numerical value of the name of G'd spelled א־ד־נ־י. The number 64 is the numerical value of the attribute of Justice, דין. Our task is to "sweeten" this attribute by means of Torah study so that we close the gap between what is represented by 64 and to achieve what is represented by the number 65 (compare Zohar volume 2 page 9). This is based on Deut. 22,6: "and the mother (bird) is sittting on the chicks (eggs)." 2) the attainment of life in the hreafter which is alluded to in the Mishnah by the mention of 310 worlds. In our verse this is alluded to by the words אלף ושלש מאות, 1300. [I believe the idea is that we are to imagine the number א=1 inserted within the number 300 making a total of 310. Ed.]

Before explaining the reason behind all this, let me first examine the statement of Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi in Uktzin 3,12 according to which the righteous will inherit 310 worlds. If the Rabbi meant to emphasise the number, why did the word in the Bible (Proverbs 8,21) which Rabbi Yoshua uses, i.e. יש, list the number ten before the number 300? It would have been more convincing if Solomon had written שי instead of יש! I have heard a beautiful explanation about this. The number 310 actually comprises 4 worlds, i.e. the worlds of אצילות, בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. Each one of these words contains or is dependent on the number 10, i.e. the 10 emanations [each emanation is divided into ten parts also. Ed.]. Rabbi Yoshua wanted to tell us that the righteous will enjoy the harmony in four different worlds. However, not every righteous person will enjoy this harmony in equal measure. All the righteous will experience all there is to experience in the lower three of these four worlds. When it comes to the highest of these worlds, the עולם האצילות, however, different souls of the righteous will experience only a fraction of the potentially ten parts of harmony to be experienced in that domain. Each of these parts is again divided into ten, so that Rabbi Yoshua assures the righteous that the minimum of the possible total of 400 "worlds" that each of the righteous will attain is 310, i.e. the total available in the lower three worlds and not less than one tenth of the potential attainable in the עולם האצילות. We need to appreciate further that the "tenth" part which one attains in the highest world is by itself worth more than all the spiritual achievements one has attained in the three lower worlds combined. This is what Solomon alluded to when instead of speaking of שי he spoke of יש, i.e. to remind us that the ultimate tenth one has attained in the fourth world is superior to the 300, i.e. 3×10×10 in the lower three worlds. In view of the aforegoing the אלף (1) which precedes the number 300 in the word אלף ושלש מאות, alludes to the small part of the potential available in the עולם האצילות and is parallel to the letter י in the word יש in Proverbs 8,21. The number 300 may be understood at its face value. The idea that every emanation is divided into ten parts itself so that every "world" is comprised of 100 units is found in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar chapter 69. This then is what is alluded to in the letters שכר in the name יששכר.

לישוב OF JASHUB — He must be identical with Job (Genesis 46:13) who is mentioned amongst those who went down to Egypt, for all the families were called by the names of those who went down to Egypt. But as for those who were born from that time and onwards their families were not called by their own names, except the families of Ephraim and Manasseh, both of whom wore born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin (v. 40). And I have found in the work of R. Moses the Preacher why this was so in the case of the two latter — that their mother went down to Egypt when she was already pregnant with them so that they may be regarded as being among those who went down to Egypt, and on this account they formed separate families, just as Chamul and Chezron who were grandchildren of Judah (v. 21), and Cheber and Malkiel who were Asher’s grandchildren (v. 45). If this is an Agada, well and good; but if not, then I say that Bela had many grandchildren and that from these two, Ard and Naaman, there issued from each a large family, and the offspring of the other sons were called after Bela’s name, but the offspring of these two were called after their name. So, too, I say about the sons of Machir who formed two different families, one called after his name, and one called after the name of Gilead, his son, because it was a very large family. Five families are missing from Benjamin’s sons as stated before: here (i.e., by the fact that five of the families had become extinct) there was fulfilled part of his mother’s prophecy which is alluded to in the fact that she called him Ben Oni (my unfortunate son), (Genesis 35:18), whilst by the incident of the concubine in Gibea (Judges 20:35), the whole of it was fulfilled for practically the entire tribe was exterminated. This I found in the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

This is Yov… In Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:13). Rashi explains in Divrei Hayomim I (7:1) that he was [really] called Yov, but since they settled down to learn Torah, as it is written (ibid. v.12), “From the sons of Yissachar there were those who had understanding of the times” he merited to be called “Yashuv” (lit. "settled").

לישוב, he is identical with Yov (in Genesis 46,13) in that one ש was added to him from the two ש of his father (יששכר), and therefore, (the 2nd Shin) is not read in his father's name.

And Ard and Na’aman, the sons of Bela, the son of Binyamin. That is to say that they too were born in Egypt. (Nachalas Yaakov) This raises a difficulty, for if so Yaakov came down to Egypt with seventy-two souls, given that she was pregnant with them, just as Yocheved is considered part of the count of seventy souls for the same reason. One answer is that Yocheved was different because she was born at the entrance to Egypt, inside its walls, while they may have been born after being several months in Egypt. Another answer is that the tribe of Levi is different because they are counted from the age of one month. See there for more detail.

That their mother went down to Egypt. Meaning that he gives the reason why the families of Ard and Na’aman, grandsons of Binyamin were counted, even though they were not from those who went down to Egypt.

They were therefore divided into separate families… This is what he was saying: Do not ask how it is possible that grandchildren [of Binyamin] are considered as separate families, for the explanation is that it is like Chetzron and Chamul…

If this is from the Aggadah, fine, but if not… Meaning that if R’ Moshe Hadarshan found this reason in the Aggadah then fine, and I am not permitted to disagree with him. “But if not, then I say…” meaning that if he was saying this based on his own reasoning, then I too, am offering another reason that is my own.

[From Ard and Na’aman] respectively, large families emanated. Meaning: Ard and Na’aman were counted as families solely because of their large numbers, given that each of them bore many children. Consequently, it was fitting for each of them to be called a family, even though they were not from those who went down to Egypt. [Rashi made this comment] because one could err, [saying] that since Ard and Na’aman were termed families due to their numerous children, their father Bela should not have been termed a family in his own right, just as Yosef was not termed a tribe in of itself, since it had already been divided into the tribes of Efraim and Menashe. [This is not a difficulty] according to R’ Moshe Hadarshan who considers a fetus like a [born] child, for accordingly a father and a child could be counted as two, like Peretz and his sons, since both were among those who went down to Egypt. However, according to Rashi’s explanation there is a difficulty. Therefore he was obliged to say that Bela had many children aside from Ard and Na’aman and they were called by his name, which was not the case for Yosef. Re’m.

Five families are missing from the sons of Binyamin. This explanation is also from the commentary of R’ Moshe Hadarshan, therefore Rashi brings it before the comment (v. 36), “These are the sons of Shuselach” [even though Binyamin is not mentioned until v. 38].

בני זבלון, The sons of Zevulun, etc. The verse alludes to Zevulun's particular contribution and to that tribe's spiritual achievements. The name סרד containing the same letters as the word סדר, "order or arrangement," means the same thing as סדר, just as the Torah on occasion reverses the order of the letters in the word כשב, "sheep," and spells it כבש. The idea is that Zevulun arranges all the material needs for Issachar so that the latter can study Torah without interruption. אלון is an expression for strength, i.e the oak tree; Proverbs 3,18 describes Torah as the tree of life for those who grasp it and support it. Vayikra Rabbah 25,1 elaborates that instead of speaking of the people who study Torah, Solomon spoke of those who support Torah, i.e. מחזיקים בה. Seeing that Zevulun supported Issachar's Torah study financially, the Torah alludes to this with the letters in the name of one of his sons אלון.

בני מנשה למכיר, “as for the sons of Menashe, the ones of Machir, etc.” The names of all the tribes are listed here in the same sequence as they have been listed in Numbers chapter one, with the exception of Ephrayim andMenashe; in this instance Menashe has been named first. The principal reason maybe that it numbered so many more men of military age than the descendants of Ephrayim. While the Jewish people had been in the desert, the number of members of the tribe of Ephrayim had been greater than that of the descendants of Menashe. Furthermore, the flag of Ephrayim’s army group had been the leader of its group, and in that chapter the subject of the flags had first been mentioned, and a tribe leading such a contingent takes precedence over one that merely is an adjunct. In our chapter where the subject is the impending distribution of parts of the Holy Land to the various tribes of the Jewish people, mentioning Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn son first seems appropriate. After all, half of that tribe had also been assigned a substantial portion of their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, alongside the tribes of Reuven and Gad.

למכיר “to Machir;” the sons of Machir were divided amongst five families, one bearing the name of its founding father, and the others bearing the names of Gilead, and the sixth of the sixth bearing the name of its founder.

V. 34. ופקדיהם. Während es bei den meisten übrigen einfach heißt: אלה משפחת וגו׳ לפקדיהם, bildet hier bei Menasche und dem folgenden Benjamin die Konstruktion zwei Sätze: אלה משפחת וגו׳ ופקדיהם, und gibt damit das Ergebnis der Zählung zu besonderer Erwägung. Bedenken wir, dass die Gesamtvolkszahl sich um einige Tausend vermindert hatte, dass dieser Zählung das Aussterben aller über zwanzig Jahre alten יוצאי מצרים, sowie das wiederholte Sterben von קברות התאוה, nach Korachs Aufstand, durch die נחשים השרפים, bei Peor, vorangegangen, so dürfte in der erhöhten Volkszahl eines Stammes ein ehrenvolles Zeugnis für bewährte Pflichttreue liegen. Diese Erwägung kommt aber namentlich den beiden Stämmen Menasche und Benjamin zu gute. Sie waren bei der ersten Zählung entschieden die kleinsten an Volkszahl, und hatte Menasche die größte Zunahme, über zwanzigtausend, Benjamin doch über zehntausend aufzuweisen. Benjamin wird nur von Jissachar, mit neunzehntausend, und von Ascher, mit dreizehntausend übertroffen. Wir halten es nicht für unwahrscheinlich, dass hierin das Motiv dieser veränderten Konstruktion bei Menasche und Benjamin liegen dürfte. Bei Naftali (V. 50) steht auch ופקדיהם, obgleich es nur um eintausend sich vermehrt hatte, wohl weil damit die Zählung schließt, ebenso wie bei Reuben der Anfang der Zählung (V. 7) durch einen besonderen Satz ויהיו פקדיהם berichtet wird.

לשותלח, Shutelach’s family was divided into two families one named after its head and the other after Eyran.

ואלה בני שותלח וגו׳ AND THESE ARE THE SONS OF SHUTHELAH etc. — As for the other sons of Shuthelah their offspring were called after Shuthelah’s name; but out of Eron there issued a large family which was therefore called after his own name so that the children of Shuthelah were reckoned as two different families (the family of Shuthelah and the family of Eron). — Go and reckon and you will find in this section fifty seven families, and of the sons of Levi eight, so that there are sixty five in all. This is the meaning of what is said, (Deuteronomy 7:7): “For you are the least (המעט) [of all the peoples etc.].” The word המעט may be taken to signify: you are five (ה) less (מעט) than the families of all the nations, who are seventy in number. This, also, I understand from the work of R. Moses the Preacher, only that I have been compelled to omit from or add to his words.

The other sons of Shuselach… This is Rashi’s own language. He wishes to explain why a family was called after a grandchild [of one of the tribes] as explained above.

ואלה בני שותלח, “and these are the sons of Shutelach, etc.; Rashi invites us to count all the families listed arriving at a count of 57 families for the 12 (13) tribes of plus eight families from the tribe of Levi. Actually, a look at our portion shows that the tribe of Levi comprised only 5 and a half families.

לאחירם OF AHIRAM — He is identical with Ehi (אחי) who went down to Egypt (Genesis 46:21), and because he was called after Joseph’s name (Sotah 36b), who was his (Benjamin’s) brother (אח) and greater, (רם) than he, he was also called Achiram.

לבלע, to Bela, etc;” the sons of Bela were divided into three families, one named after its founder, two after Arad and Naamon,

לאחירם, he is identical with Ehi.

לשפופם OF SHEFUFAM - he was identical with Muppim, but was so called also after Joseph because Joseph became enfeebled (שפוף) through his sufferings among the nations.

Being humbled among the nations. שפוף ["humble"] has the connotation of hovering [just above the ground].

לשפופם, he is identical with מופים, in Genesis 46,21.

לחופם, he is identical with חופים, in the verse just quoted. Five of Binyamin’s sons had died, i.e. בכר, גרא, נעמן, ראש and ארד. This is what Rashi had referred to on verse 13, when he wrote that 5 of Binyamin’s family were extinct.

ויהיו בני בלע ארד ונעמן, ”The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman.” [Our author refers to a Rashi on verse 36 in which Rashi quoted Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon who tried to account for the 5 missing families when we compare with the seventy members of Yaakov’s family that descended to Egypt and who are presumed to be the counterpart of the 70 families of the nations at large enumerated in Parshat Noach as the backbone of mankind. You will note that of the 10 sons of Binyamin enumerated in Parshat Vayigash 46,21, only 5 are appearing in our verse. Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon is quoted as saying that Ard and Naamon may have been in their mother’s womb at the time Yaakov traveled to Egypt, so that their inclusion in the families to whom land would be distributed would pose no problem, is itself problematic, as are other aspects. I will now continue to let the author speak. Ed.] As to Rashi’s quoting Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon that Ard and Naaman descended with Yaakov to Egypt, while their mother was pregnant with them, he does so because he could not reconcile their being listed as heads of families, seeing only people who immigrated to Egypt are considered as such. Nachmanides writes that if it had been possible to argue that these two had indeed immigrated to Egypt at that time, Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon would not have faced any problem at all. As it is, if these two had been born prior to arrival of their fathers in Egypt, the Torah should have listed 72 descendants of Yaakov traveling, not 70, seeing that at that time 10 sons of Binyamin were alive. On the other hand, if they were born after arrival of their mother or father in Egypt, how could they qualify as heads of families that were entitled to a share in the land of Israel under that heading? This is why Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon concluded that they were in the womb of their mother while their mother traveled with her family to Egypt. If we accept this, we need also to accept the notion that Yocheved was born at the entrance to the gates of Egypt, so that she was included in the number 70 that without her is not complete. All of these explanations are extremely forced and difficult if not impossible to substantiate. We may say that Ard and Naamon, the real sons of Binyamin, died in Egypt after having married but before having had children, so that the levirate marriage was performed on their widows and the first child of each of these marriages was named after their deceased father. Seeing that their fathers had been of the family members of Yaakov descending to Egypt, they inherited the right to be regarded as founding members of the people in the distribution of shares in the land of Israel. The correct interpretation is that Ard and Naamon who had been listed in Parshat Shemot [there is no such in the Book of Exodus, I presume what is meant is Genesis Ed] as part of the 70 were in fact grandsons of Binyamin, as they are described here where they are listed as sons of Binyamin’s firstborn son Bela. They are listed similarly in Chronicles I [Ard appears there as Adar Ed.] On the other hand, we must remember that grandsons are often described as sons in the Bible. The best known example may be Genesis 29,5 where Lavan is described as the son of Nachor although we have met him as the son of Betuel, (Genesis 24,9) who was a son of Nachor. If we were to reconstruct history on the basis of what is logical, we must remember that the whole subject of distribution of the land is not dealt with only in terms of who arrived in Egypt and when, but also in terms of who left Egypt and at what age. The enumerating of “families,” משפחות, is not restricted to the ones who existed prior to the descent into Egypt. Examples are the families of Ephrayim and Menashe, whose founders were born in Egypt. It was an old established custom among the Israelites to establish family heads, a custom not as much in evidence among other tribes. It was a source of pride for the descendants of such family heads (founders) to be able to number themselves as members of their respective families. This custom intensified ever since after the Israelites settled in Egypt they began to multiply at an accelerated rate. It became a sort of unwritten law for everybody to know and treasure and correctly trace his ancestry. In view of the enormous growth of the Jewish people during the years they stayed Egypt, the only way to preserve such identities through a number of generations was to know who the founding father of the family had been. Those who were able to trace themselves back to Yaakov in Canaan did so, others traced themselves back to the most distant founding father that could be established with certainty, even if the founding father of that family did not date back to the period prior to the descent of Yaakov to Egypt. The fact is that most of the families mentioned here were able to trace themselves back to the period preceding Yaakov’s descent to Egypt.

בני בלע ערד ונעמן, the sons of Bela, Ard and Naamon; Bela had named his two sons in commemoration of two of his brothers who had died.

לשוחם OF SHUHAM — he is identical with Hushim (Genesis 46:23).

THESE ARE THE SONS OF DAN AFTER THEIR FAMILIES: [OF SHUHAM, THE FAMILY OF THE SHUHAMITES. THESE ARE THE FAMILIES OF DAN AFTER THEIR FAMILIES]. The meaning of this⁸⁰The difficulty here is that Scripture speaks of an individual [Shuham — the only son of Dan] in the plural, saying: these are ‘the families’ of Dan. is that Shuham had children who formed families which were called by the name of the [respective] fathers of the family, but they all traced back their lineage to Shuham the head [of them all], and [therefore] they were called by his name, so that one would say [for example]: “Of Daniel, the family of Daniel the Shuhamite; of Ezekiel, the family of Ezekiel the Shuhamite.” Thus [the sons of Shuham] consisted of many families, but [all identified themselves] as the one Shuhamite family, and therefore they are all ascribed to him. And according to those who say⁸¹I.e., Rashi — see Ramban above, Verse 13, at length. that the people traced their lineage [only] to those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob, we must say that] there were many families [descended from Dan] who were called by the name of their ancestor, and who were born in Egypt, and here Scripture described them [i.e., all the families of Dan’s descendants] as Shuhamites, because he [Shuham] alone [as the only son of Dan] went down to Egypt.⁸²Genesis 46:8; 23.

אלה בני דן למשפחותם, “these are the sons of Dan according to their families.” Nachmanides writes that Shuchim had many sons all of whom started families of their own, all of whom both called themselves in a manner recalling the founding father of the family, as well as reflecting in their name that of their respective immediate fathers. This is why at the end of the paragraph the Torah repeats the word משפחות twice in the line אלה משפחות דן למשפחותם, “these are the families of Dan according to their families.” According to the school of thought that claims that all these people counted traced themselves back to the members of Yaakov’s family that descended to Egypt, there must have been many families that simply called themselves by names born by their forefathers who had been born already in Egypt but that here they were all traced back to Shuchim as he was the only one of Dan’s sons who had been born before he came to Egypt.

V. 42. אלה משפחת דן למשפחתם, so auch V. 50: אלה משפחת נפתלי למשפחתם. Wir sahen schon oben, z. B. bei Menasche, dass der Begriff משפחה in engerer und weiterer Bedeutung zu fassen ist. Die משפחת המכירי faßt als Unterabteilung die משפחת הגלעדי, und diese wieder in noch fernerer Teilung noch sechs משפחות unter sich. Bedeutet doch משפחה von שפח, verwandt mit ספח ,שפע etc. eigentlich Gruppe und kann also größere und kleinere Gruppierungen bezeichnen. Von Dan ist eigentlich nur eine Familiengruppe השוחמי genannt. Diese selbst bestand schon aus verschiedenen משפחות, die sich wieder in noch ferneren משפחת verzweigte und so auch die משפחת נפתלי

בני אשר the sons of Asher. Yishveh is missing in this list, and this is why Rashi explains concerning Ozni, that he was identical with the family of Itzbon. If we were to assume that the family of Itzbon had died or been killed in war, there would be eight families missing from the previous census not only seven, five from Binyamin, Ohad, Itzbon, and Yishveh.

לבריעה, of Beriah; the sons of Betriah were divided into three families, one was named after its founder, and Chever and Malkiel.

ושם בת אשר שרח AND THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF ASHER WAS SERAH — Because she still remained alive after all these long years (Sotah 13a) it exceptionally mentions her here (Seder Olam 9).

AND THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF ASHER WAS SERACH. “Because she was still alive [at the end of Israel’s period of bondage in Egypt, and after forty years in the desert, and was one of the seventy people mentioned in Genesis 46 who went down to Egypt with Jacob], Scripture mentions her here.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated [the verse as follows]: “and the name of the daughter of Asher’s wife, was Serach.” By this he intended to say that she was a daughter that possesseth an inheritance⁸³Further, 36:8. [in the Land in her own right], and therefore Scripture mentions her here just as it mentions the daughters of Zelophehad,⁸⁴Further, 27:7. for she [Serach] is included amongst [those referred to in the verse], Unto these the Land shall be divided.⁸⁵Verse 53. Now had she been the daughter of Asher himself, she would not have inherited [a portion in the Land], since he had male children [as stated in Verse 44]. But she [Serach] was the daughter of his [Asher’s] wife from another man [namely Asher’s wife’s first husband], who did not have a son; therefore his inheritance [in the Land] passed to his daughter. In that case, the reason [why Scripture uses the phrase] and Serach their sister⁸⁶Genesis 46:17. The verse reads: And the sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and Serach their sister. Ramban here is pointing out that the verse avoids calling her Asher’s daughter, and describes her especially as the sister of his sons, because she was in actual fact not his daughter at all, but only their half-sister. is because she was a [half-]sister to Asher’s sons, but was not his daughter. And therefore it says [here], And the name of the daughter of Asher was Serach, and it does not say “and Asher’s daughter [was Serach],” because [the intention of the verse] is to say that her name was [i.e., she was known as] “Asher’s daughter,” and she was [actually] called Serach.⁸⁷The meaning of the verse is thus: “And the name of the person known as ‘the daughter of Asher’ was Serach.” Now if she were still alive [at the end of the period of Israel’s sojourn in the desert], as Rashi explained, then she was like the daughters of Zelophehad as regards [receiving] an inheritance [in the Land in her own right], but if she had died [by then, Scripture mentions her here to indicate that] her family received [a portion in the Land] because of her [since she was amongst those who went down to Egypt].
According to the simple meaning of Scripture, Serach had a large family which was called by her name, and she is included in the phrase, These are the families of the sons of Asher according to those that were numbered.⁸⁸Verse 47. Scripture, however, did not want to trace their ancestry to a woman, by saying: “Of Serach, the family of the Serachites,” but instead alluded to this matter [briefly].

ושם בת אשר,”and the name of the daughter of Asher, etc.” Rashi writes that the reason that lady was singled out by name as the only daughter of whom there must have been many, was that she was still alive at the time when this census was taken. Nachmanides writes that if that were the reason, why did Onkelos translate this verse as ושום בת אחת אשר, “and the name of Asher’s only daughter was Shum.” [This is not the version of Onkelos that appears in our editions where we have ושום בת אשר סרח, “Asher’s daughter’s name was Serach.” Ed.] According to Nachmanides her name was mentioned because seeing that he had only a daughter and no sons, she inherited her father’s portion of the ancestral land when Joshua distributed same. She was mentioned for the same reason that Tzelofchod’s daughters were mentioned by name. If Serach had been the daughter (instead of granddaughter or great granddaughter) she would not have qualified for such an inheritance seeing that Asher did have sons of his own as we know from Genesis 46,17 where 4 sons and their sister Serach are listed. What made her different was that although Asher’s wife was her mother, she did not have the same father as had Asher’s sons who were listed as her “brothers” i.e. half-brothers. This is why the Torah does not simply introduce her as ובת אשר, “and Asher’s daughter, but with the prefix “and the name of Asher’s daughter.” She was known as Asher’s daughter, her name being Serach, although Asher was not her biological father.. I do not understand his words (our author concerning Nachmanides) for the mystery deepens as we do not know who the man was who fathered Serach, and on the strength of her father not having any sons she inherited her father’s portion of the land. After all, Serach was of the people who took part in the Exodus and the people who descended to Egypt were only seventy in number and all of Yaakov’s sons had sons so that they qualified as males. Furthermore, seeing she is listed as being alive when the Israelites arrived in Egypt she must have survived past the Exodus (210 years +) in order to qualify under the heading of the generation that left Egypt. According to the plain meaning of the text, Serach presumably had a great and numerous family, all of whose members were known by the name of their matriarch. The Torah decided to include her in the list of the families of the sons of Asher for purposes of the census, but the Torah did not want to list their genealogy as descended from a female i.e. לסרח משפחת סרח, and that is why the Torah abbreviated here. All of the tribes are listed in the same order as they had been listed in Parshat Bamidbar, i.e. in the order in which the tribes were encamped around the Tabernacle. The only change is that in this census Menashe is mentioned ahead of Ephrayim. Ibn Ezra writes that this change of the order in which Ephrayim and Menashe are listed is because the members of the tribe of Ephrayim had decreased by approximately 8000 souls during the 40 years in the desert. Previously, the members of the tribe of Ephrayim had outnumbered those of the tribe of Menashe by approximately 10000, whereas now the members of Ephrayim numbered approximately 20000 fewer than those of Menashe. 26, 54.

ושם בת אשר שרח, “And Asher’s daughter was called Serach.” Seeing that she had been mentioned by name already in Genesis, when eligibility for army service was quite irrelevant, the Torah mentions her here again. [According to our tradition she was still alive after 250 years after Yaakov had come to Egypt. Ed.] There is reason to wonder why the verse mentioning her commences with the connective letter ו, “and.” There is also reason to wonder why the Targum apparently understood Serach as not being Asher’s daughter though she was the daughter of Asher’s wife. Asher apparently had raised her after her mother had died when she was a baby. This is why the Torah describes her as being Asher’s daughter. This would also account for the letter ו at the beginning of this verse, as if to hint that she did not become his daughter already at her birth. The difficulty with this interpretation is that if she had been born to one of the other tribes why did the Torah not mention this? If she was not born to any of the members of the 12 tribes, why is she listed as such in the count of the people Yaakov brought with him to Egypt? Perhaps she was indeed the biological daughter of Asher, and because already before the family descended to Egypt she had acquired a reputation of being especially pious, the Torah decided to mention her name.

.ושם בת אשר שרח, “whereas the name of Asher’s daughter was Serach.” We would have expected the Torah to write simply בת אשר סרח, “Asher’s daughter was Serach.” It appears that the reason why the Torah chose this longwinded version of saying the same thing was because it wished to give us a reason for why she was called “Serach.” She was generally referred to as “Asher’s daughter,” seeing she had grown up in his house although she was not biologically his daughter but his wife’s daughter. This also seems to be confirmed by the Targum who wrote: “and the name of Asher’s wife daughter was Serach.” The question remains open what was the name of her mother, if one of the sons of Yaakov had sired her, why did he not give her his name? If she was sired by a gentile, why was she counted as part of Yaakov’s offspring in Genesis chapter 46 and as a sister to Asher’s sons?Perhaps we may speculate that since she was known by her first name primarily as she had performed many worthy deeds, the title: “and her name was,” preceded her actual name, as a compliment. In the list of Yaakov’s offspring who went down to Egypt with Yaakov her name is listed preceding her status. (Genesis 46,17). This may have been due to her being much older than her younger brothers. The word: ושם, “and the name of,” before her actual name, suggests that “her name preceded her,” she had been well known for her deeds of charity, etc.

ואלה משפחות נפתלי, “and these are the families from the tribe of Naftali;” this concludes the total of the families from the various tribes excluding those from the tribe of Levi, fifty seven families in all. The southern army command headed by the flag (tribe) of Reuven had four families from Reuven, five from Shimon and seven families from the tribe of Gad. The eastern army command headed by the tribe of Yehudah, had five families from that tribe, four families from the tribe of Issachar, and three families from the tribe of Zevulun. The western army command headed by Menashe comprised eight families from that tribe, four families from the tribe of Ephrayim, and seven families from the tribe of Binyamin. The northern army command, headed by the tribe (flag) of Dan, had one family from that tribe, five families from the tribe of Asher, and four families from the tribe of Naftali.

'אלה פקודי בני ישראל וגו, “these were those who were numbered among the Children of Israel, six hundred thousand, seventeen hundred and thirty.” This total is smaller than the total reported at the previous census by eighteen hundred and twenty. If this total had been greater than the previous total they would have said that they were now numerically strong enough to take on the Canaanites militarily. G-d wanted to demonstrate to the people under the command of Joshua that though there were slightly fewer Israelite soldiers than forty years earlier when the spies had considered themselves too weak to conquer the Canaanites, they still would manage to do so, not because of their numbers but because of G-d’s assistance. When one enjoys His assistance numbers become irrelevant. (This point was made even more pronouncedly during the days of Gideon in Judges 7,7.)

וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd spoke to Moses to say. Moses was to tell Joshua and the elders that Joshua would lead them into the land to take possession of it. The word לאמור in this instance does not refer to the people at large. If this were not so, the word לאלה in the next verse would not make sense.

לאלה תחלק הארץ TO THESE THE LAND SHALL BE DIVIDED, and not to any who are now less than twenty years old; even though they become included among those who are twenty before the division of the land, — for they were seven years in conquering it and seven years did they take in dividing it — for no one received a portion in the land except these 601,000 and if one of these had six sons, they received only their father’s portion (cf. Bava Batra 117a).

לאלה תחלק הארץ בנחלה, "To these the land will be shared out as an inheritance, etc." On the word לאלה our sages in Baba Batra 117 comment as follows: Rabbi Yoshiah holds that the subject of the word are the people who participated in the Exodus. He bases himself on the additional data in verse 55 לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, 'they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.' How do I then fulfil the instruction of the Torah which wrote לאלה, i.e. 'to these' i.e. to people present now at this time? The word is meant to exclude people who were not yet 20 years of age at the time they left Egypt." Rabbi Yonathan holds that the land was distributed only to the people who actually set foot in the land, i.e. the men under the leadership of Joshua. He bases himself on the word לאלה. As to the meaning of the words לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan feels that in this instance the Torah applied yardsticks other than the normal ones to the laws of inheritance. Usually the living inherit the dead; in this instance the dead inherited the living. Thus far the statements of these two scholars.

Even if they reached twenty before the apportioning of the land. Meaning [the verse implies that] you shall apportion the land “among these” 601,730 mentioned above who came to the land of Israel, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yonasan (Bava Basra 117a). However, [there is a difficulty that] the verse did not need to mention this, given that we would know it from [the verse], “The land shall be apportioned as an inheritance according to the number of names” which comes afterwards, teaching that the land was apportioned to those mentioned above. Thus, what does the Torah mean to teach [by saying] “among these” which implies an exclusion, [i.e.] among these, but not among others. [Rashi answers:] The exclusion is that [the division] was specifically “among these” who were twenty years of age and above, but not others [even if they reached twenty before the apportioning of the land]. Re’m.

V. 53. לאלה וגו׳. Die hier על ירדן ירחו im Anblick des Landes Gezählten sind diejenigen, unter welche das Land zur Verteilung kommen soll, also alle die männlichen באי הארץ, welche über zwanzig Jahre alt waren, und zwar במספר שמות. Verstehen wir diesen Ausdruck recht, so wäre damit gesagt, dass alle die bei der Zählung zum Ausspruch gekommenen Namen eine Parzelle des Landes, als das nach ihnen genannte, ihnen eigene Gebiet erhalten sollen. Es sind aber bei der Zählung die Namen der Stämme, die Namen der Familien und die Namen der über zwanzig Jahre alten männlichen Individuen einer jeden Familie zum Ausspruch gekommen: למשפחתם לבית אבתם כל זכר לגלגלתם (V. 4. Kap. 1, 2). Das Land soll demnach so verteilt werden, dass jeder Stamm, und in jedem Stamm jede Familie, und in der Familie jedes zwanzig Jahre alte männliche Individuum sein kenntlich gesondertes eigenes Gebiet erhalte. So tritt auch überall sofort bei der Verteilung unter Josua die Norm למשפחתם bei jedem Stamme hervor (Josua 15) und sind שמיטין und יובל dadurch bedingt, dass nicht nur das Land im allgemeinen in Besitz genommen und etwa auch nach Stämmen verteilt, sondern dass diese Verteilung bis auf Familien und Familienhäupter und Individuen vollzogen worden. מנין אתה אומר כיבשו ולא חלקו חלקו למשפחות ולא חילקו לבתי אבות ואין כל אחד ואחד מכיר את חלקו יכול יהיו חייבים בשמטה ת׳ל שדך שיהא כל אחד ואחד מכיר שדהו כרמך שיהא כל אחד ואחד מכיר את כרמו — (ת׳׳כ בהר). Es erscheint dies als eine Verwirklichung des von uns schon wiederholt bemerkten Grundcharakters der jüdischen Nation, dass die größte Stammes- und Familienmannigfaltigkeit innerhalb der ebenso großen geistigen und sittlichen Einheit wesentlich zur Bestimmung des Volkes des göttlichen Gesetzes gehört (siehe Bereschit Kap. 25, 11 und 48, 3). Jeder Stamm, jeder Zweig, jedes Haus war eine besondere Eigentümlichkeit, die auf dem gemeinsamen Gesetzesboden ihre eigene und geeignete Stelle zur Entfaltung erhalten sollte, wie ja die liebste und trauteste Bezeichnung der Einsetzung Israels in das Gottesland נטיעה "Pflanzung" lautet.

לאלה, “to these,” i.e. to the heads of these fifty seven families enumerated in this chapter the land will be divided up as ancestral inheritance. Each would receive a share corresponding to the number of family heads that had been numbered.

I have seen a Baraitha in the Sifri which offers a third approach to our verse. The word לאלה is understood to exclude the unworthy members of the Jewish people, the wicked. As proof they cite the sons of the spies and the people who had complained against Moses and G'd on various occasions. In order to bring the approach of the Baraitha into accord with that of Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed to the people who participated in the Exodus, we have to translate the word לאלה as כאלה, i.e. "to people such as these righteous ones who make up the nation as of this day." Just as only the righteous ones who left Egypt share in the inheritance, seeing they and their children died already, so also at this time only Israelites who were righteous would receive their share of the land. It would appear that this exegesis which denies the wicked their share in the Holy Land is not at odds with our own approach (that of Rabbi Yoshiah) that the word was intended to exclude the people who were below the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. The word לאלה simply excludes anyone who does not meet the standards, be it because he was too young or because he was too wicked.

I have noted that Rashi explains the word לאלה as reflecting the approach of Rabbi Yonathan i.e. not to those who are below 20 even though they had reached that age before the actual distribution took place. This seems hard to understand. After all, Rabbi Yonathan already exploited the exegetical value of the word ואלה to inform us that the land was distributed according to the present number of Israelites as distinct from the number of Israelites (of comparable age) who participated in the Exodus. By referring to the line לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan had already proved that the number of people present now were not the only criterion in determining who was to get how much. How then can Rabbi Yonathan use the word לאלה to teach us also that youngsters under the age of twenty did not participate in the division of the land?

I am certainly not prepared to quarrel with Rashi regarding the principle that people under twenty were not included in the lottery for distribution of the land even though Rabbi Yonathan did not say so specifically. It is possible that the word לאלה could supply us with two separate למודים, exegetical insights. However, it does not necessarily have to be so. It is equally possible that the word only excluded the principle that the key to the distribution were the people who had participated in the Exodus. What we have to examine is why Rashi did not follow the accepted way of understanding Rabbi Yonathan's words.

I have seen a comment by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who explains the words of Rashi and did not even mention the difficulty there is in Rashi's commentary when we consider the words of the Baraitha. I claim that Rashi was perfectly aware of the thrust of Rabbi Yonathan's interpretation. However, Rashi thought that the words לאלה prove conclusively that the land was to be distributed only to people who were alive at that time and who had reached the age of twenty. It was the latter detail Rashi wanted to tell us as something new. Rashi took for granted that the land was to be distributed only to people who actually would enter the Holy Land.

במספר שמות, according to the number of names. The Torah means that the number of families which have been enumerated in chapter 26 were to be the basis for the distribution, i.e. 57 families. Each of these 57 families was to be given a tract of land commensurate with the size of the family. This can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan. According to Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed basically to the people who left Egypt the land should have been distributed between 63 families instead of between 57 as we have learned from Bamidbar Rabbah 21 that 6 families of those enumerated at the time of the first count no longer appeared in the count. According to Rabbi Yoshiah the tribes of these 6 families would be accorded their share instead. It is, possible however, that even Rabbi Yoshiah would agree that the words "according to the number of families" would refer to the families who participated in the Exodus. [I believe there is a misprint here and it should say that even Rabbi Yonathan agreed that only the words במספר שמות refer to the people who participated in the Exodus taking part in the distribution. Ed.]

לרב תרבה נחלתו TO THE NUMEROUS THOU SHALT GIVE MORE INHERITANCE — To the tribe that had a numerous population they gave a large portion of land. Although the portions were not of equal area because, as we have now said, in all cases they assigned the portions according to the size of the tribe, yet they did so only by aid of the lot, but the lot fell by the utterance of the Holy Spirit, as is explained in Baba Batra 122a: Eleazar the Priest was clothed with the Urim and Thummim, and spake by the Holy Spirit, “If such-and-such a tribe comes up, such-and-such a territory shall come up with him”. The names of the tribes were written on twelve tablets, and those of twelve districts on twelve tablets. They mixed them in an urn, and the prince of a tribe inserted his hand in it and took out two tablets. There came up in his hand the tablet bearing the name of his tribe and the tablet relating to the district that had been declared by the Urim and Tummim to be intended for it. The lot, itself cried out, saying, “I, the lot, have come up for such-and-such a district for such-and-such a tribe”, as it is said, (v. 56) על פי הגורל by the mouth (utterance) of the lot [shall the possession thereof be divided]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 6). The land was not divided by measurement alone because one district is superior to another but it was divided by estimating its fertility: a bad piece of land sufficient to sow a Kor was regarded as the equivalent of a good piece of land sufficient to sow a Seah (the thirtieth part of a Kor) — all depended upon the value of the soil.

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 Chukath, 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.”

לרב תרבה נחלתו, a reference to the amount of land, for although the land was being divided 12 tribes in shares of equal value in terms of money, the size of the allocations varied according to the quality of the soil each tribe received. A tribe who numbered many souls received a quantitatively larger piece of real estate as is spelled out here by the words לרב תרבו נחלתו, “you shall give a larger inheritance to the numerically superior tribe.”
This is the reason why Menashe and Ephrayim received 2 separate territories seeing that their father Joseph had been a firstborn and treated as such in Yaakov’s final blessing, they were entitled to two such shares. (Genesis 48,22) This is also the way we must understand Chronicles I 5,1 ובחללו יצועי אביו ניתנה בכורתו ליוסף בן ישראל, “and when he defiled the bed of his father his birthright was given to Joseph, son of Yisrael.”
Shimon, who numbered fewer people than any other tribe at this count, received a relatively small parcel of land, which itself was an enclave within the territory allocated to the tribe of Yehudah. (compare Joshua 19,9 on this subject) This also was the fulfillment of Yaakov’s wish in Genesis 49,7 “I will divide both Levi and Shimon among the tribes of Israel.”

לרב תרבה נחלתו, "to the more numerous you will give a larger share in his inheritance, etc." Baba Batra 117 has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "according to the theory of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who partook in the Exodus, this verse makes sense; however, how does one explain these instructions according to the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only the generation who was counted in the wilderness would share in the distribution of the land? What purpose was there for the Torah to distinguish between the numerous ones and the less numerous ones?" Whereas Abbaye is not reported as having furnished Rav Pappa with an answer, this question is not so serious that no answer could have been found in the very text itself. Moreover, these words (Rabbi Yonathan's) were not the ones of an Amora (teacher of the Talmud) but of a Tanna, a teacher of the Mishnah. As an Amora, Rav Pappa was not allowed to challenge the words of a Tanna, hence it was not urgent to answer a question which would not result in changes of the halachah even if it went unanswered. We have a principle that whenever the Talmud concludes a question with the word קשיא (as in this instance), there is an answer but it did not suit the editors to provide it at this point.

לרב תרבו נחלתו, “For the numerous you shall increase his inheritance;” According to Rashi this means that the tribe whose population is numerous will be allocated a larger slice of the land than the tribe whose population is fewer in numbers. In other words, different tribes received territorially different amounts of land. Nachmanides writes that the opinion of the sages in the Talmud, after a debate on the subject, was that division of the land was not related to the headcount of the various tribes, but that each tribe received the same amount of land. Each tribe took the portion that he drew when the lots were drawn. This explains the complaint of the members of the tribe of Joseph that in spite of their having a numerically strong population, the amount of land per square cubit available for each member was considerably less than that available for a member of a less populous tribe. (Compare Joshua 17,14) This is also the meaning of:

לרב תרבה נחלתו, “to the numerous you will increase his (share of the) inheritance.” A tribe which was more populous (than average) was given a larger piece of land (Rashi).

They gave a larger portion. Although it was distributed [to the people] in equal portions, nonetheless the land was divided into twelve unequal areas. [This was possible because] the division was miraculous, the lots of each member of the tribe joining together in order to facilitate this. Similarly, it was miraculous in that the lot denoting a large portion of the land did not come out for a tribe with a small population. (See Mizrochi and Gemara Bava Basra).

V. 54. לרב וגו׳ איש וגו׳. Da dem Individuum keine פקודים eigen sind, es selbst vielmehr zu den פקודים gehört, so kann איש hier kein Individuum, sondern nur Stamm und Familie als Einheiten bedeuten, als deren Angehörige eben die zwanzigjährigen Männer gezählt worden sind. Es soll also je nach der Größe eines Stammes und einer משפחה das denselben zuzuweisende Gebiet bemessen sein, und zwar soll dafür nicht die sonstige Seelenzahl, sondern die Zahl der zur Zählung gekommenen zwanzigjährigen Männer entscheidend sein. Als letztes Resultat der Verteilung soll also jeder zwanzigjährige Mann der באי הארץ ein Bodenanteil, und zwar alle einer משפחה angehörigen Männer, sowie alle einem Stamme angehörenden משפחות in einem zusammenhängenden Bodenkomplex erhalten.

'לרב תרבה וגו, to the numerically more numerous, etc.” they did not all receive equally sized plots of land, but the number of males in each family determined the number of plots each would receive. This is why the Torah referred to “its numbered.”

According to my commentary that the words במספר שמות mean that the land should be distributed amongst the 57 families enumerated in the count here in our Parshah, the words לרב תרבה mean that they were not to make 57 equal shares according to the number of the families, but that they were to consider also the size of the respective families before distributing land to each family. A family comprising 20,000 souls was to receive a share twice as large as a family comprising only 10,000 souls.

The word איש was added to exclude the number of women in each family as being irrelevant in this instance. It also excluded people of indeterminate sex. (Sifri)

Furthermore, if we adopt Rashi's approach that Rabbi Yonathan included only people who were counted -meaning they had reached the age of twenty- at the time of the present census, the following situation could arise. Suppose a father had ten sons each above the age of 20 at this time, and another father had 8 sons, 4 of whom were above the age of twenty the other 4 being younger. By the time they all entered the Holy land the first father had lost 4 of his sons because they had died, whereas the other father's sons by then had all reached the age of 20, the last mentioned family would have received a larger share than the family which had ten eligible sons at this time. To prevent such a mistake from being made the Torah wrote לרב תרבה, i.e. that the determining criterion was the respective number of eligible sons a family comprised at the time the commandment was given, i.e. at the time of this census. Any change in the status of the family between now and the actual time of distribution was to be disregarded. Perhaps Rashi's commentary was designed to answer this question before it was even articulated.

איש לפי פקודיו, each one according to those that were numbered of it, etc. Sifri on this verse comments as follows: "the land was distributed to the tribes in accordance with their present number." This does not contradict what I have written that the words "according to the number of names" refer to the 57 families enumerated in this count. The distribution of the land between the tribes on the one hand and the families on the other may have proceeded along the following lines: The land was divided up into 12 sections, one each for each tribe. These sections in turn were divided up into 57 parcels. A tribe which comprised 2 families would receive 2 parcels whereas a tribe comprising 4 families would receive 4 parcels of land. According to Rabbi Yoshiah each parcel would be sized in accordance with the number of families at the time of the present census, whereas according to Rabbi Yonathan it would be sized according to the number of families at the time of the Exodus. As to the question that if the families were the decisive factor, why was the number of tribes relevant to the distribution at all, the answer is that each tribe was accorded a parcel in accordance with the lottery, something that would not be the case if the only factor determining the distribution would have been the total number of families. Without the lottery families of different tribes might wind up being situated next to each other instead of their parcel of land being situated within the tribal area allocated to each tribe separately.

Baba Batra 121 raises the point that the scholars were not certain whether the land was distributed in accordance with the number of tribes or in accordance with the number of individual people. They tried to answer this by reference to the verse in our portion where the Torah said "be they numerous or few" meaning that it was not divided in accordance with the number of individuals over the age of twenty (verse 36). They quoted a Baraitha according to which the land of Israel will be divided up amongst 13 tribes in messianic times, whereas in Joshua's time it was divided amongst 12 tribes. Thus far the Talmud there. The Talmud apparently was unaware of the Baraitha we mentioned in the Sifri, where this point is derived from the words איש לפי פקודיו. It is reasonable to assume that the scholar in the Talmud who said that in the future the land of Israel would be shared out between thirteen tribes also based his opinion on these words.

According to Rabbi Yonathan who holds that the division was based on the people actually entering the land, we still need to find out if he referred to people over twenty only or if he meant that even youngsters who had not attained that age were qualified to receive a separate share in the land. The Torah therefore had to write the words לפי פקודיו to let us know that only men over the age of twenty were assigned separate shares.

לשמות מטה אבתם ACCORDING TO THE NAMES OF THE TRIBES OF THEIR FATHERS [THEY SHALL INHERIT] — These (the fathers referred to) were they who came out of Egypt. — Scripture treated this inheritance differently to all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, for in the case of all other inheritances the living become heirs to the dead, whilst here the dead become heirs to the living. How is this so? Two brothers who were of those who came out of Egypt who had sons at least twenty years old amongst those who came into the Land, one son to this and three to that, the one son took one portion, and the three took three portions, for it is said, (v. 53) “To these (enumerated in the census taken immediately before they entered Palestine) shall the land be divided”. Their inheritance (that of these four) returns to (is regarded as having belonged to) their fathers’ father, and they (the two brothers who have four sons between them), divide equally. This is what is stated, “according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” — that after the sons have received they divide it according to the fathers who came out of Egypt. If, however, they had straightway divided it according to the number of those who came out of Egypt these four would have taken only two portions, whilst now they take four portions (Bava Batra 117a; Sifrei Bamidbar 132:1).

HOWEVER, THE LAND SHALL BE DIVIDED BY LOT amongst the tribes of Israel, and ACCORDING TO THE NAMES OF THE TRIBES OF THEIR FATHERS who constituted twelve tribes THEY SHALL INHERIT them [i.e., the twelve equal portions of the Land]. And then He repeated: 56. ACCORDING TO THE LOT SHALL THE INHERITANCE of the tribe BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE MORE AND THE FEWER, meaning that they should also cast lots amongst the [individual] families, so that [for instance] the portion of the Hanochites should be in the direction and place which the lot chooses for him, and the portion of the Palluites should be in the place which the lot chooses for him, but we are to allot more [of the land] to the larger [families], and give less to the smaller families. This is the meaning of that which it says in the section¹³¹Literally: “In the book of” Eileh Mas’ei. of Eileh Mas’ei: And ye shall inherit the land by lot according to your families — to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance; wheresoever the lot falleth to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers shall ye inherit.¹³²Further, 33:54. Thus He explained that the inheritance should be allotted to families by the lot, and in whichever direction the lot chooses for him [any individual family], there we shall give a larger [portion] to the larger of the families and a smaller [portion] to the smaller [families]. He [furthermore] said that it [the division of the Land] should be according to the tribes of your fathers, meaning to say twelve tribes.¹³³Thus it is clear that the Land was initially divided into twelve equal parts, so that each tribe was allocated an equal share of the Land, and the lot also determined the location of each tribe’s portion. Subsequently each tribe subdivided the land which it had received, amongst its individual families, and this division was made in proportion to the number of members of each particular family. This division too, was by means of a lot which determined the direction and location of each family’s inheritance.
Now that which Rashi said — “According to the names of ‘matoth’ of their fathers, this means those who came out of Egypt” — is not correct, for the term matoth always means “the tribes” of Israel, just as it is written, So shall no inheritance remove ‘mimateh’ (from one tribe) ‘l’mateih acheir’ (to another tribe); for ‘matoth’ (the tribes of) the children of Israel shall cleave each one to its own inheritance.¹³⁴Further, 36:9. Similarly [it is written], a thousand ‘l’mateh’ (of every tribe) throughout all ‘matoth’ (tribes of) Israel,¹³⁵Ibid., 31:4. and so also in the case of the spies,¹³⁶Above, 13:2: ‘l’mateih’ (of every tribe) of their fathers. and likewise in all other places — for the terms sheivet and mateh are identical. And when the Rabbis said in the Gemara:¹³⁷Baba Bathra 117a. “Rabbi Yashiyah says: The Land was divided amongst those that came out of Egypt, for it is said, according to the names of ‘matoth’ of their fathers they shall inherit” — this interpretation [is not based, as Rashi understood, on the meaning of the word matoth itself, but] is deduced because of the [seeming] redundancy of the verse, for it would have been enough for Scripture to say: However, the Land shall be divided by lot according to the names of the tribes [and to omit the concluding phrase … of their fathers they shall inherit]. But since He did mention … of their fathers they shall inherit, the Rabbis interpreted that it is ‘the fathers’ — namely those who are mentioned [as having left] Egypt, [as it says]: These are the heads of their fathers’ houses.¹³⁸Exodus 6:14. It is they who are to inherit the Land, and it is through them that the Land is to come to those who [actually] divided it.

לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the tribes of their respective fathers, etc. According to the view of Rabbi Yoshiah this verse merely demolishes the apparent meaning of the word לאלה. It tells us that the word לאלה was not meant to apply to the people counted in the wilderness of Moav but rather meant כאלה, that the people to be given land were to be כאלה like the ones who were counted at the Exodus, i.e. the ones who were twenty and over. Rabbi Yonathan, however, holds that although in the first instance the people who had been counted now were to inherit the land, they in turn would confer rights of inheritance on the people who had participated in the Exodus as has been explained in the Baraitha in the Sifri. The exact wording there is as follows: Assuming one (family) would inherit 1 acre and another (family) of the same בית אב, branch of this tribe, 3 acres by applying the yardstick of the number of 20 year olds in the families at present, then the combined amount would be inherited by the previous generation (the dead) of this family. This inheritance in turn would now be allocated on an equal basis to the younger generation so that both families of the younger generation would receive 2 acres although one family was more numerous than the other at this time. [Our example assumes that there had been only two sons of the family which participated in the Exodus. Ed.] By following this approach the word ינחלו "they will inherit" at the end of verse 35 becomes very relevant as it refers to the people who had now been counted not inheriting now, but only via their fathers. This also explains why the Torah wrote תחלק הארץ, "the land will be divided," instead of writing "they will divide the land." The same consideration also prompted the Torah to write the words תרבה נחלתו in the future tense. Also the expression יותן נחלתו "his inheritance will be given," instead of יקח נחלתו "he will take his inheritance" points to the explanation of Rabbi Yonathan that the generation of the people who left Egypt were the key to the distribution of the land is correct. Our verse teaches then that up until this point the Torah speaks about what Joshua is to do at the time he will make the Israelites inherit the land. From this point on, however, the people who do the inheriting have to consider their share in terms of לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the members of the family groups who had left Egypt.

לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, “according to the names of their fathers’ tribes shall they inherit.”

Scripture deviates with this inheritance… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely above it is written (v. 53), “The land shall be apportioned among these” which implied those who are entering the land of Israel. But here it implies [that it was divided among] those who left Egypt.

V. 55. אך בגורל יחלק וגו׳. Das in den vorangehenden Versen bezeichnete Resultat der Verteilung soll aber nicht sowohl durch gegenseitiges Kompromiss oder durch Entscheidung der nationalen Autorität, sondern בגרל und על פי גרל (V. 56) unter Mitwirkung eines von אורים ותומים-Ausspruch bestätigten Loses erzielt und festgestellt werden (Baba Batra 12a).

אך, nonetheless the aforesaid, Joshua and Calev, did not receive the share of the land according to the criteria mentioned, i.e. through lots, but by a direct command from G-d.

אך בגורל — Joshua and Caleb are excepted from this method of division (since אך is a limiting term) and so indeed it states, (Judges 1:20) “And they gave Hebron to Caleb as Moses had said” (cf. Rashi on Numbers XlV. 24), and it further states, (Joshua 19:50) “According to the command of the Lord they gave him (Joshua) the city which he had asked” (Sifrei Bamidbar 132:3).

But here the dead inherit the living. It appears that the reason is because anything good that emanates from the mouth of Hashem is not retracted. Here Hashem had promised to give the land of Israel to those who left Egypt, but they all died in the desert. Therefore, Hashem commanded that the inheritance should be returned to those who left Egypt and that they would bequeath it to their children. With this we may also answer [the difficulty with] what was stated in Parshas Va’eira (Shemos 6:8), “I shall give it to you as a bequeathal מורשה” but the Torah did not write “I shall give it to you as an inheritance ירושה.” Rather, [we see] it was a hint that they would not enter and inherit the land of Israel; only they would bequeath it to their children after them.

לשמות מטות אבתם ינחלו enthält nach ר׳ יונתן (daselbst 117 a) eine bedeutsame Modifikation des V. 53 aufgestellten Verteilungsprinzips. שמות מטות אבתם der in den wirklichen Besitz des Landes gelangenden באי הארץ sind nämlich die mit ihren Namen in die erste Zählung als יוצאי מצרים begriffen gewesenen Väter des ins Land gelangenden jetzigen Geschlechtes. Sie, diese Väter, die bereits zwanzigjährigen Männer des Auszugs aus Mizrajim, sollten eigentlich in den wirklichen Besitz des verheißenen Landes gelangen, an sie war (Schmot 6, 8) die Zusage gerichtet: ונתתי אתה לכם מורשה, und wenn sie, diese Väter, infolge ihrer sündhaften Verschmähung des Landes (Bamidbar 14, 31) des wirklichen Besitzes desselben verlustig wurden und ihre Kinder an ihrer Statt das Land erlangen und so nach V. 53 alle bereits zwanzigjährigen männlichen Nachkommen der יוצאי מצרים als Teilungsberechtigte in Besitz des Landes kommen sollen: so sollen sie nach V. 55 לשמות מטות אבתם ינחלו, dieses Besitzerwerbrecht nur für die Namen ihrer Väter, im Namen ihrer Väter, namens derselben ausüben; sie kommen nur als deren Delegierte in den Besitz des Landes, treten nur als deren Erben auf, sowie es auch ihnen, den Vätern, nur als מורשה, als Erbschaft von ihren Voreltern zugesagt war, דכתיב ונתתי אותה לכם מורשה אני ד׳ ירושה היא לכם מאבותיכם וליוצאי מצרים קאמר להו (Baba Batra 117b). Demgemäss kommen bei der Verteilung des Landes beide Prinzipien, die מספר שמות der in der ערבות מואב-Zählung begriffenen באי הארץ und die in der ersten der יוצאי מצרים begriffenen שמות מטות אבתם kombiniert zur Geltung. Waren z. B. unter den gezählten יוצאי מצרים zwei Brüder A und B, von denen A einen Sohn, B neun Söhne hinterließ, die nun als באי הארץ in den Besitz des Landes gelangten, so würden, wenn das Land nur unter die יוצאי מצרים nach der ersten Zählung zur Verteilung und die באי הארץ nur als deren Erben in Besitz gekommen wären — wie in der Tat (daselbst 117a) ר יאשיה s Ansicht ist, — die neun Söhne von B zusammen nur einen, nicht größeren Anteil, als der eine Sohn des A erhalten haben. Wäre das Prinzip der באי הארץ-Zählung allein das maßgebende gewesen, so wären den neun Söhnen von B neun Teile, dem einen Sohne von A jedoch nur ein Teil geworden. Nach dem kombinierten Prinzipe erhielten allerdings die Nachkommen von A und B als באי הארץ je ein und neun, zusammen zehn Teile, aber nicht infolge rein persönlichen Rechts, sondern zugleich als Erbdelegierte von A und B. Sie nehmen die zehn Teile zusammen לשמות מטות אבתם, für ihre Väter A und B als deren מורשה, als das diesen von ihren Vätern zugefallene Erbgut in Besitz, von welchem somit dem einen Sohne von A, als dessen Erben, die Hälfte, also fünf Teile, und den neun Söhnen des B als dessen Erben die andere Hälfte, somit ebenfalls nur fünf Teile zufielen. Dieser Verteilungsmodus heißt חזרה, indem die Besitznahme der Söhne an die verstorbenen Väter, ja gewissermaßen an deren Väter zurückgeht und erst von da aus an die Söhne als Erben zur definitiven Verteilung kommt, daher der Satz: משונה נחלה זו מכל נחלות שבעולם שכל נחלות שבעולם חיין יורשין מתים וכאן מתים יורשין חיין (daselbst), es ist hier der scheinbar paradoxe Fall, dass die Verstorbenen, die Väter, der Großvater, die Lebenden beerben.

אך בגורל יחלק את הארץ, “but the land is to be divided up by the use of lots (lottery)” But before the land would be divided up into 57 parcels by lot naming each tribe’s family heads, it would be divided into 12 sections, one for each tribe excluding the tribe of Levi. These twelve sections would each be given the name of one of the tribes and be tossed into a container with the names of the twelve tribes separately, and the respective parcels of land separately. The person monitoring the lottery would pull out of one section of the container the name of a tribe and out of the other section of that container a slip of parchment with the boundaries of the section allocated to the tribe so named. It would be found miraculously that tribes with larger populations had drawn larger sections of the land to be settled on. He would show both these pieces of parchment to all those assembled, so that it would be clear that no favoritism had occurred. If the land had been divided initially into 57 parcels according to the names of the heads of these 57 families, and only subsequently into 12 sections, different families would find that they were to be located on land belonging to the portion of a different tribe. When Bileam, with his mind’s eye viewed the Jewish people on their land, he described them as וירא את ישראל שוכן לשבטיו, “he envisioned Israel as dwelling in an orderly fashion according to its respective tribes, (Numbers 24,2) something which resulted in his being overcome by holy spirit. We also have a verse in Numbers 36,7 according to which when a female inherited some land before the original division she could not marry out of her tribe so that her husband could not through inheriting her share of the land diminish that tribe’s ancestral part of the land of Israel.

מטות אבתם THE TRIBES OF THEIR FATHERS — Consequently proselytes and slaves were excepted (Sifrei Bamidbar 132:4).

Had sons who entered the land. Meaning: They had sons of twenty years of age who were thus fit to inherit.

Betrachten wir diesen Verteilungsmodus näher, so wird das Land eigentlich als Hinterlassenschaft des den יוצאי מצרים unmittelbar vorangehenden Geschlechts dergestalt behandelt, dass jedem der Väter der יוצאי מצרים so viel Anteil an dem verheißenen Lande zuerkannt ward, als von ihm zwanzigjährige Enkel den Boden desselben betreten, und dass sich diese Hinterlassenschaft von ihnen nur auf diejenigen ihrer Söhne, die als יוצאי מצרים das zwanzigste Jahr zurückgelegt hatten, und durch diese auf deren zwanzigjährigen Söhne als באי הארץ vererbte.

לשמות מטות אביתם, “according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.” This appendix is meant to exclude converts and freed slaves from participating in that lottery.

To their grandfather, and they then shared everything equally. Meaning to the father of the two brothers who had already died; from here one sees that the dead “inherit” the living. Subsequently they would divide it equally among the two brothers, since it was [considered] the bequeathal of their father, and afterwards the single son would inherit the same amount as the three. Rashi says “to their grandfather” rather than “to their father” because if their inheritance only reverted to their fathers, who were from twenty years of age and above when they left Egypt, why would it be divided equally when each of those who came to the land of Israel returned it to his father. Surely each one would bequeath it back to his children, and not to his brothers’ children. (See Gemara Bava Basra and Mizrochi).

Zwei Momente dürften damit in dem Kataster des jüdischen Nationallandes ihre Verewigung gefunden haben sollen.

This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev. Meaning that אך ["only"] comes to exclude [something], implying that it was not divided by lottery. Yet surely the Torah writes, “By word of the lottery” (v. 56). Rather, “This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev…” Rashi reverses the order here, first commenting on “By word of the lottery.” [The reason] appears to be that one might have said “Only by lot” was merely to indicate that everything was done miraculously, as he explains concerning “By word of the lottery.” However, after Rashi had explained concerning “By word of the lottery” that it was “By Divine Inspiration,” there is a difficulty as to what is meant by “only.” Consequently, he explains that “This excludes Yehoshua and Kalev…” R. Yaakov Triosh.

Was Gott verheißen, ist so gewiss, dass es selbst vor der Erfüllung als bereits verwirklicht zu betrachten ist. Nicht nur die bereits Erlösten, selbst das noch im harten Ägypterjoch schmachtende Geschlecht wird bereits als Besitzer des gottverheißenen Bodens mit rechtlichen Folgen für ihre Nachkommen betrachtet. Wird daher א י ja auch als מוחזק, als bereits realer Besitz der Väter, nicht als ראוי, als bloßer Rechtsanspruch betrachtet, so daß bei dessen Verteilung auch die בכורs-Rechte geltend werden konnten. (Kap. 27, 6 und Dewarim 21, 17).

Der Eltern größte und reichste Errungenschaft sind treu sich bewährende Söhne und Enkel. Sie sind die Zeugen ihres Verdienstes und sind Sühne ihrer Schwächen. Wie Jakob seine Söhne, nach unserer Auffassung, seine den Emoriten abgerungenen Eroberungen, gleichsam die Trophäen seines Lebens nannte, so kommt hier wackerer Kinder und Enkel Zahl den Vätern und Großvätern in der Idee zu gute. Dass doch eine so große Anzahl, dass sechsmalhunderttausend und so und so viel rüstige Männer, nach allen den Geist und Gemüt brechenden ägyptischen Prüfungen, als der Erlösung würdig der göttlichen Führung bereit standen, — dass doch eine fast ebenso große Anzahl, dass wiederum sechsmalhunderttausend und so und so viel rüstige Männer nach allen den Verirrungen und sichtend aufreibenden Verhängnissen der Wüstenwanderung als des Landes, des Bodens des göttlichen Gesetzes würdig bereit standen, zu denen ein Mosche sprechen konnte: ואתם הדבקים בד׳ אלקיכם חיים כולכם היום, das war doch ein Verdienst des Geistes, den die Ahnen mitten im Drucke der ägyptischen Knechtschaft in ihren Kindern gepflegt, und jedes Stückchen Land, das die Enkel am Gottesboden erhielten, legten sie im Geiste jenen Großvätern als deren Errungenschaft huldigend zu Füßen, um es erst als ihre Hinterlassenschaft durch Vermittlung ihrer ebenfalls bereits heimgegangenen Väter wieder zu erhalten. אמשול לך משל, spricht das Wort der Weisen (Baba Batra 117a), לשני אחים כהנים שהיו בעיר אחת לאחד יש לו בן אחד ואחד יש לו שני בנים והלכו לגורן זה שיש לו בן אחד נוטל חלק אחד וזה שיש לו שני בנים נוטל שני חלקים ומחזירין אצל אביהן וחוזרין וחולקין בשוה. Siehe, es gleicht zweien Priesterbrüdern, deren einer einen Sohn hat, und der andere zwei, die zur Fruchtscheune gingen, um Priesterspenden zu empfangen. Der eine, der einen Sohn hingesandt, hat ein Teil, der andere mit zwei Söhnen, hat zwei Teile erhalten, sie bringen aber alles Erhaltene zusammen ihrem alten Vater heim, zu dessen Hause sie sich noch zählen und um dessen Verdienste willen man den Enkeln gespendet, und teilen alles gleich. (Im Jalkut ist in obiger ברייתא die Lesart אצל אבי אביהן. In der Fassung unserer ברייתא sind aber von מחזירין die beiden Brüder Subjekt, אביהן ist also schon der Großvater. Es dürfte dies. mehreren Kommentatoren entgangen sein.)

Und dass eben diese der Besitzergreifung des göttlichen Landes gewürdigten Söhne das Land doch nur לשמות מטות אבתם, doch nur als Namensträger und Erben ihrer Väter in Besitz erhielten, das ist denn doch ein Beweis, dass diese um ihrer Verirrung willen des Landes verlustig gegangenen Väter doch in den achtunddreißig Jahren ihrer Wanderung den rechten Geist in der Brust des ihnen nachfolgenden Geschlechtes zu pflegen verstanden haben, so dass dieses wiederum als sechsmalhunderttausend und so und so viel rüstige Männer der weiteren Gottesführungen im Lande würdig bereit stand, ist doch ein Beweis, dass sie in ihren Kindern ihr Vergehen zu sühnen verstanden und, wie die Weisen sich ausdrücken, das דור המדבר doch ein דור דעה gewesen (במדבר רבה Kap. 19). Blickt doch, wie Sanhedrin 110 b bemerkt, noch das Prophetenwort (Jirmija 2, 2) mit Liebe auf das Geschlecht der Wüste hin: הלוך וקראת באזני ירושלים לאמר זכרתי לך חסר נעוריך אהבת כלולתיך לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה, und bemerkt hierzu das Wort der Weisen: ומה אחרים באים בזכותם הם עצמן לא כ׳׳ש. Es muss also im großen ganzen das abgeschlossene Bild der Wüstenwanderung trotz aller wiederholten Abirrungen sich als ein würdiges darstellen. —

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.

AND THESE ARE THEY THAT WERE NUMBERED OF THE LEVITES. I do not know why He [commanded] that the Levites should be counted [here], and what purpose [is served] now by counting them [since they did not receive any portion in the Land]. Perhaps [they were counted because] it was only to these [Levites] that they gave the [forty-eight] cities to dwell in and their open land for their cattle,¹³⁹Further, 35:2-7. and not to those who were born afterwards. Or [it may be that this census] was done as an expression of honor for them before G-d, so that “the legion of the King”¹⁴⁰Bamidbar Rabbah 1:10. should not be treated as less important [than the other people], by not bothering to count them like the rest of the people. Scripture mentions Amram and his wife [Jochebed, with the children she bore — Aaron, Moses and Miriam their sister, although it does not do so in connection with any other Levite families], because the sons of [that] Levite [Amram] were counted as two [groups], as priests and as Levites,¹⁴¹In other words, since one son of Amram, i.e., Moses, was counted amongst the Levites, and the other son, Aaron, was counted amongst the priests, therefore Scripture pointed out especially that Amram had two sons. and it was fitting that Aaron and his sons [who were originally Levites but later on became priests] should be counted separately [therefore Scripture mentions especially the names of the parents and of their children].

ואלה פקודי הלוי, “And these are the numbered ones of the tribe of Levi.” Nachmanides writes that he does not know why the census of the Levites is introduced at this juncture. He suggests that perhaps it is because the ones numbered now are the ones to whom each of the tribes had to cede some portion of their land in order to have the 48 cities populated by the Levites who had no land holdings other than the strip of greenbelt surrounding their respective towns. The size of those towns would be based on Levites already alive at this time, those born later would not be able to establish additional such towns or to increase the size allotted to the town in which their parents lived. It is also possible that the Torah inserted this paragraph at this time in honour of these Levites, as otherwise it would appear to the reader that the Kings’ (G’d’s) legion, i.e. the Levites, were treated less respectfully than the commoners. Amram and his wife Yocheved were mentioned by name separately, as the tribe of Levi was basically divided into the plain Levites and the descendants of Aaron who were priests. Nachmanides writes further that he is wondering why the Torah first enumerates the families of Levi by counting three separate family heads of the Levites, i.e. Gershon, Kehat and Merari, and then proceeds to also enumerate the next generation when repeating details of their offspring describing them as משפחות, families, [with their appropriate heads, Ed.] although in the case of Merari there were only two sons, Machli and Mushi, how could the Torah speak of משפחת המררי? (Compare Numbers 3,20) The reason the Torah does not speak of Amram’s family, i.e. משפחת העמרמי, is because this family would be subdivided into Aaron the head of the priests, and the ordinary Levites, be they descended from Gershon, Merari, or Kehat, excluding Aaron son of Amram. The Torah at this juncture does not mention that Aaron was the priest, out of respect for Moses The same holds true for the report of the genealogy of the tribe of Levi in Numbers 3,17, where Aaron’s office as High Priest is not mentioned. [Seeing that Aaron as the priest is listed there in verse 32, this editor does not see the comparison as valid. Ed.] The reason why the family of Yitzhar is described under the heading of Korach, (verse 58) is that originally at the time of the first census Yitzhor had other sons alive, i.e. Zichri and Nefog, and both of these sons had their own sons by now. By the time of the present census the only surviving sons of Yitzhor were the sons of Korach, concerning whom the Torah had testified that they did not die in the uprising. (26,11) As a result, the family of Yitzhar henceforth was known as the descendants of Korach. I do not believe (Nachmanides writing) there was a valid reason why Yitzhar’s name should be expunged among his descendants; however they did this after the revolt of Korach in honour of Korach’s sons who had had the courage to defy their father and to remain loyal to both G’d and Moses, an example for future generations, as testified by the Torah itself. In the Midrash of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshon on the meaning of the words כי אתם המעט, in Deut 7,7 where the letter ה at the beginning of the word "המעט" is understood as a hint at the five of the 70 families that founded the Jewish people and with whom Yaakov descended to Egypt as having died out, this is not correct. He claims that whereas Levi had originally 8 sons, (families) here only five are mentioned. Three of those so-called original eight were only belonging to a different generation, Gershon, Kehat, and Merari. I also do not follow why in lieu of Yitzhar, all his descendants should not describe themselves as descended from Korach. On the contrary, we have a principle that the names of wicked people should rot, and Korach most certainly was such a wicked person. Why should his name be commemorated for all time? (The last paragraph is not part of Nachmanides’ commentary on this verse.)

ואלה פקודי הלוי למשפחותם לגרשון, “and these are the enrollments of the Levites according to their clans. Of Gershon, etc.” The Torah first mentions the oldest of Levi’s sons followed by Livni, Levis’s grandson but omitting Shimi (Exodus 6,17) as he had no sons, or they died during his life time leaving no male offspring (Ibn Ezra).

ואלה פקודי הלוי, “and these were they that were numbered among the Levites;” the purpose of that count was to apportion the 48 towns in which the Levites were to make their homes, fairly. This is spelled out in greater detail in the portion of Massey

אלה משפחת לוי THESE ARE THE FAMILIES OF LEVI — there are missing here the families of Shimei and Uzziel and part of that of Jizhar (cf. Exodus 6:16 ff. and Rashi on v. 13).

Now Rashi commented: “And these are they that were numbered of the Levites. The families of the Shimeites¹⁴²Above, 3:21. and the Uzzielites¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 27. and part of the Itzharites, namely Nepheg and Zichri, are missing here.”¹⁴⁴Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri. Now the family of the Korachites is mentioned here in Verse 58, but Nepheg and Zichri are omitted. This is the meaning of Rashi’s statement that “part of the Itzharites are missing here.” And I [further] wonder! Why did Scripture count here in [Verse 57, speaking of] the Levites, the families of the three ancestors [Gershon, Kohath, and Merari — the three sons of the Levites mentioned above, 3:17], and then again count [in Verse 58] the families of their sons [mentioning amongst them: the family of the Machlites, the family of the Mushites, who were both sons of Merari],¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 19. since Merari had no other children except Machli and Mushi,¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 19. and for what then is the family of the Merarites [mentioned here in Verse 57, seeing that both his children, Machli and Mushi, are counted in Verse 58 as separate families], and there were no other [children of Merari] apart from them! But [we must say that Scripture mentioned each of the three families of the three sons of Levi here in Verse 57] as [a sign of] honor, since all three sons of Levi were great men in Israel, and their memories were a blessing. Therefore all the descendants of Gershon [the first son of Levi] were called the family of the Gershonites in his honor, and similarly all the children of Merari [his third son] were called the family of the Merarites in his honor [as mentioned here in Verse 57]. And afterwards they appointed for themselves paternal families, and became divided up into [smaller] families as did the other tribes, and were called by particular names, [such as] the family of the Machlites and the family of the Mushites [in Verse 58]. Similarly in the case of Kohath [the second son of Levi] all his children were included in [the term] the family of the Kohathites [in Verse 57], and continued to divide themselves up further into [smaller] families of [his] children — the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Korachites [in Verse 58]. And Scripture did not mention here [in Verse 58] “the family of the Amramites,”¹⁴⁶As it did above, 3:27: And of Kohath was the family of the Amramites … because it was divided up into priests and Levites, and it mentioned their [individual] names [Aaron and Moses — in Verse 59] in [their] honor. However, it did not mention [in that verse Aaron’s] priesthood, because of the honor of Moses [i.e., since Moses was not the High Priest, but remained a Levite, Scripture in his honor did not want here to emphasize that Aaron was “the priest”]. Similarly you will see in the first census [taken in the second year after the exodus] when counting [the Levites], that Scripture states, And these were the sons of Levi, by their names: Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari, [stating all their names] because of their individual distinction, for in [the case of] the other tribes it does not mention them in this way [i.e., it does not mention any individual names].
And the reason [why Scripture mentions in Verse 58] the family of the Korachites [and does not mention ‘the family of the Itzharites,’¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 27. which would have included the other two sons of Itzhar apart from Korach, i.e., Nepheg, and Zichri]¹⁴⁴Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri. Now the family of the Korachites is mentioned here in Verse 58, but Nepheg and Zichri are omitted. This is the meaning of Rashi’s statement that “part of the Itzharites are missing here.” is because it was originally called the family of the Itzharites¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 27. since at [the time of] that [first] census Nepheg and Zichri also had children, [hence the family of the Itzharites included Itzhar’s three sons, Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri¹⁴⁴Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri. Now the family of the Korachites is mentioned here in Verse 58, but Nepheg and Zichri are omitted. This is the meaning of Rashi’s statement that “part of the Itzharites are missing here.” and their descendants]. Now, however, [at the time of this second census] only Korach had children, and therefore they were called after his name [the family of the Korachites, here in Verse 58]. However, in my opinion, it was not right that the name of the Itzharites should be completely removed from his offspring, even though some of his [Itzhar’s] children had died; but they did this after the incident of [the rebellion of] Korach because of the honor of Korach’s sons[who originally joined their father’s revolt against Moses, but subsequently repented], in order to publicize in Israel their name and their memory in all future generations. For likewise [we see that] Scripture makes a point of saying, But the children of Korach died not¹⁴⁷Above, Verse 11. [in order to emphasize that they turned aside from their father’s evil ways]. And since Nepheg and Zichri had come to an end [because all their children died], and all the descendants of Itzhar [that] remained [were] Korach’s, they called them the family of the Korachites [here in Verse 58], in order to publicize [the fact] that this [Korach’s] children were more righteous and better than he.¹⁴⁸I Kings 2:32. And the Midrash of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher on the verse, ye are ‘hame’at’ (the fewest) of all peoples¹⁴⁹Deuteronomy 7:7. Since it could have said: “ye are ‘me’at’ of all peoples” instead of ‘hame’at’, Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained it as an allusion to the fact that the Israelites numbered sixty-five families, five less than the families of the traditional seventy nations of the world. The verse thus means: “you are ‘hei [which is the Hebrew number five] less’ than all the peoples.” Now Rabbi Moshe the Preacher arrived at this figure of sixty-five by counting fifty-seven families amongst all the other tribes [as mentioned here in Verses 5-49], and eight families of Levites [as mentioned here in Verses 57-58]. — To this Ramban objects, since, as explained above, the three mentioned in Verse 57 are not separate families, but are merely mentioned as a sign of honor to the three distinguished sons of Levi. Hence there are only five separate families of the Levites [as mentioned in Verse 58], so that the total together with the fifty-seven of the Israelites is only sixty-three! Consequently the whole interpretation of the verse, ye are ‘hame’at’ of all the peoples by Rabbi Moshe the Preacher, is not true — since there were not sixty-five families, but only sixty-three. — that [you are] less [than all peoples] by ‘hei,’ is not true — because Scripture counts [here] eight [families] for the children of Levi [in Verses 57-58], but they were only five — [those mentioned in Verse 58], for the three mentioned [in Verse 57] were the fathers [of these five, and thus cannot be counted as separate families], as we have explained.

אשר ילדה אתה ללוי במצרים WHOM HER MOTHER BORE TO LEVI IN EGYPT — she was born in Egypt but was not conceived in Egypt; when they came “between the walls” (within the confines of Egypt), she gave birth to her, and she (Jochebed) made up the number of seventy; because in the enumeration of them (Genesis 46:8—27) you will find only sixty-nine (Numbers Rabbah 13:20; cf. Rashi Genesis 46:15).

[JOCHEBED, THE DAUGHTER OF LEVI], WHO WAS BORN TO LEVI IN EGYPT. The meaning of this according to the simple sense of Scripture is [to point out] that because all the [other] sons of Jacob went down to Egypt with their sons and daughters, and none of them bore children there afterwards, except for Levi who begot this joyful mother of children;¹⁵⁰Psalms 113:9. Jochebed here is described by Ramban as a joyful mother because she gave birth to three such distinguished children, Aaron, Moses and Miriam. — The reference is based upon Sotah 12a, where it is said that at the time of marriage of Amram and Jochebed the angels of G-d chanted a joyful mother of children. for G-d delayed her birth [since He wanted to redeem Israel through her children], and the time of the redemption had not yet come, as I have already explained.¹⁵¹Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, p. 559).

אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, “whom she bore (Levi’s wife) Levi in Egypt.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning that all of Yaakov’s children with all their respective children arrived with him in Egypt, so that after that no more children were born to Levi after Yocheved, we must assume that Yocheved was deliberately born at such a late date. [Nachmanides already explained that Moses had to be born late in terms of the date G’d had set for the redemption, as if he had been born earlier G’d’s timetable for the Exodus would have been upset. Compare Nachmanides on Genesis Ed.]

Her birth was in Egypt. Meaning, the verse is abbreviated and does not explain who bore her, thus one must say that his wife bore her. Then there is the difficulty as to why does it say “in Egypt”? So Rashi was obliged to explain that her birth was in Egypt, but not her conception. This would only have been possible if she was born between the walls [upon entering Egypt].

אשר ילדה אותה ללוי, “which she had born for Levi.” For this was the name of Levi’s wife.

כי לא התפקדו בתוך בני ישראל FOR THEY WERE NOT NUMBERED AMONGST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, that they should also be numbered from twenty years old and upwards. What was the reason that they were not numbered from twenty years old? כי לא נתן להם נחלה BECAUSE NO INHERITANCE WAS TO BE GIVEN THEM, while those who were counted from twenty years old were persons who were recipients of an inheritance, as it is said, (v. 54) “to everyone shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of them”, (consequently the Levites had to form a different group for the census).

ויהיו פקודיהם שלשה ועשרים אלף כל זכר מבן חדש ומעלה, “and the number of enrolled ones comprising all those from one month and up was 23,000.” I have explained on Numbers 4,49 why the Levites were counted from one month and up.

To have been counted from the age of twenty. Rashi wishes to answer the question: It is written, “They were not counted among Bnei Yisroel.” Yet they were counted! He answers that they were not counted from the age of twenty years like Yisroel, rather from the age of one.

שלשה ועשרים אלף, “twenty three thousand.” According to Bamidbar Rabbah 5,1 the Levites who carried the Holy Ark suffered losses in their numbers due to flashes of lightning emanating from that Ark from time to time.[This editor presumes that what is implied it is that not all the Levites all the time when engaged in that task had their minds on their holy task as they should have had. Or, seeing that the Levites had been counted not from the age of 20, but from the age of only one month, a number might have succumbed to sickness before they were strong enough. The number of adult Israelites involved in the census had hardly changed.

Since no inheritance was given to them. Re’m writes: The matter requires investigation. Surely above in Parshas Bamidbar (1:49) it is written “However, the tribe of Levi [you shall not count]…” and there Rashi gives two reasons: One is that “The King’s Legion is worthy [of being counted separately],” and another is that “The Holy One, Blessed Is He, foresaw with His Holy Spirit that a decree would arise [against all those who were counted]…” [However, we may ask] what is Rashi’s source for those two reasons? Surely here the Torah writes the reason why they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel. Perhaps the answer is that the reason given by the Torah is to explain why they were counted from the age of one month and above and not from the age of twenty years and above, as it is written, “From one month and older; they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel” [meaning that they were not counted] from age of twenty and older. However, the reason said by the Rabbis was to explain why they were not counted among Bnei Yisroel, rather than why each one was counted separately. Accordingly, the verse [in Bamidbar] was necessary to instruct one not to count the tribe of Levi among the tribes of Yisroel. However I do not know how it would be possible to count them together, since one was [counted] from the age of one month and older, and the other from the age of twenty years and older. Thus the matter requires investigation. It appears to me that the Rabbis were answering the question: The count of Bnei Yisroel was not in the order of birth [of the progenitors of each tribe], rather in order of their banners. Therefore, the Torah should have counted the tribe of Levi after [counting the tribes under] the [first] two banners to travel. So why were they counted separately? For this Rashi gives two reasons.

THESE ARE THEY THAT WERE NUMBERED BY MOSES AND ELEAZAR. [This phrase refers] to they that were numbered of the children of Israel [mentioned further on in this verse], but does not refer to they that were numbered of the Levites [Verse 57], because of them it could not be said [as is said in the following verse]: But among them there was not a man [of them that were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest in the wilderness of Sinai],¹⁵²Verse 64. since that decree [that they must perish in the wilderness] did not apply to the tribe of Levi, as our Rabbis have said.¹⁵³Baba Bathra 121b. And a proof [of this is] Eleazar, and also Phinehas [who were born in Egypt¹⁵⁴Exodus 6:23; 25. and yet are both mentioned here, and came into the Land].¹⁵⁵Joshua 14:1; 22:13.

אלה פקודי משה ואלעזר, “These are the ones counted by Moses and Eleazar.” The Torah now reverted to the Israelites that had been counted, not the Levites, for among the former the wording of “none of the ones counted here were included in the men counted by Moses and Aaron.” The reason is that the decree that the males over 20 that had been counted in the desert of Sinai had to die in the desert had not applied to the Levites. The Torah had stated that of the earlier generation only Calev and Joshua had been exempt. If the Levites had been included in the decree, how come that Pinchas and Eleazar had survived?

ובאלה לא היה איש וגו׳ BUT AMONG THESE THERE WAS NO MAN [OF THEM WHOM MOSES AND AARON NUMBERED] — no man; but the decree consequent upon the incident of the spies had not been enacted upon the women, because they held the Promised Land dear. The men had said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt”, while the women said, (Numbers 27:4) “Give us a possession in the Land”. On this account, too, the chapter regarding the daughters of Zelophehad follows immediately here (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).

BUT AMONG THESE THERE WAS NOT A MAN OF THEM THAT WERE NUMBERED BY MOSES AND AARON THE PRIEST. For Joshua and Caleb [who were amongst those who were numbered at the first census] were not [included] now in this census, because they were over sixty years old, and the census was only of [people] aged between twenty and sixty, which [years] are the principal ones of a man’s life, similar to that which is stated in [the law of] Valuations,¹⁵⁶Leviticus 27:3. and it is then [in those years] that he goes forth to war in Israel,¹⁵⁷Above, Verse 2. and not after the age of sixty, as our Rabbis have said.¹⁵³Baba Bathra 121b. But when Scripture says [in the following verse], And there was not left a man ‘of them,’ save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun [the words “of them” do not refer to those who were numbered now in the wilderness of Sinai, but to] them that were numbered at the first [census] and did not die [in the wilderness, since Caleb and Joshua, being over sixty years old, were not numbered now in this second census].

ובאלה לא היה איש מפקודי משה ואהרן, “and among those counted now there had not been a single one who had been counted by Moses and Aaron.” Even though Joshua and Calev were still survivors of the original census, they were not included in the present census as only men between the ages of 20 and 60 were counted, and both Calev and Joshua were far older by then. However, when the Torah states that no man except Joshua and Calev had survived from the original census they had been mentioned because they had been included in the original census.

However, against the women. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did the Torah write “[no] man”? It should have said “no one was left.”

V. 64. ובאלה לא היה איש wie beim Egel, so waren nach ב׳׳ר auch bei den die Frauen nicht an der Verirrung und daher auch nicht an deren Folgen beteiligt. אותו הדור, heißt es daselbst, היו הנשים נודרות מה שאנשים פורצים: in dem Geschlechte der Wüste hielten die Frauen aufrecht, was die Männer niederrissen. Es bezieht sich übrigens dieses ובאלה nicht auf den unmittelbar zuvor genannten Levitenstamm; denn auch die Leviten waren in das מרגלים-Verhängnis nicht begriffen; es bezieht sich vielmehr auf die vorangehenden פקודי בני ישראל, den Hauptgegenstand dieser zweiten Zählung, die für die Verteilung des Landes, an welcher aber die Leviten keinen Teil hatten, von Wichtigkeit war.

While the women said “give us possession.” Meaning: They were also among those who cherished the land. They said [the daughters of Tzelofchad], “Give us a possession among our father’s brothers” (27:4).

כי אם כלב בן יפונה, “except for Calev son of Yefuneh.” The reason the Torah (Hashem) mentioned Calev’s name first is that G’d Himself always mentions his name before that of Joshua (Numbers 13,30) seeing the Torah had reported Calev as being the first one to speak up against the other spies and had displayed more jealousy on behalf of the Lord than had his companion Joshua. Furthermore, G’d had described Calev as עבדי, “My servant,” the highest type of compliment accorded to mortals. Moses, on the other hand, always mentioned Joshua first to indicate that Joshua possessed more wisdom (Ibn Ezra).
The words: “for not a one had remained except for Calev and Joshua,” which are almost impossible to understand, have been interpreted by our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 7 as stressing the word איש; of the men of military age none survived; many women did survive. The verse teaches that the decree that the generation of the Exodus had to die in the desert applied only to men, not to women. Our sages in the above-mentioned Tanchuma state that “the men hated the land of Israel, not the women.” It was the men who had demanded to appoint a leader to take the people back to Egypt (Numbers 14,4). The women, by contrast, (the daughters of Tzelofchod) demanded to be given a share in the Holy Land. [We have pointed out already in Genesis 46,7 that there is a clear inference that Yaakov’s womenfolk did not move to Egypt of their own free volition. The women had always displayed greater fondness of the land of Israel. Ed.]. Seeing the Jewish women were fond of the land of Israel, the Torah wrote the chapter about the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchod at this juncture.