민수기 26:54의 주석

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.