ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף במדבר 26:8

Compare one in Genesis 46,9 ובני ראובן חנוך ופלוא. Pelet and Phalu are identical, Eliav being the son of latter. We know this from Numbers 26,8. Seeing that the Torah previously had written in Numbers 14,35: במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו, “in this desert they will be consumed, there they will die,” the Torah here explains why some of them died as the result of other specific occurrences, not just the sin of the spies. These people were quite numerous, including the twenty four thousand who died during the last year of the wanderings at Shittim as a result of sleeping with Moabite women and having worshipped the deity, Baal Peor of those women. Not a single one of the adult males who had left Egypt and who were alive during that debacle survived the march through the desert. (Numbers 26,64)

Dasan and Aviram and On the son of Peles. So that one does not explain “the sons of Reuvein” as referring to Peles alone, and that he was [identical with] Palu son of Reuvein. We find this language elsewhere, as in “the sons of Dan are Chushim” (Bereishis 46:23) and “the sons of Palu are Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8) where the Torah refers to them in the plural form even though there was only one son. Therefore Rashi explains that the sons of Reuvein were “Dasan and Aviram and On son of Peles,” meaning that Peles was also one of the descendants of Reuvein. We need not ask how one might have thought that Peles was [another name for] Palu when, if so, the Torah should have placed On before Dasan and Aviram, given that they were sons of Eliav son of Palu whereas On was the son of Palu himself! This is not a difficulty because the Torah merely places first those who were more vociferous in the dispute. You might ask: Perhaps he was really the son of Palu, and how does Rashi know that he was not? It appears that Rashi was careful to state “and On son of Peles” because the Torah should have just said “Dasan, Aviram and On.” Why does Scripture write “son of Peles”? This is Rashi’s inference. Furthermore, the Torah writes “On son of Peles” while it should have written “the sons of Eliav, and On, the sons of Peles, son of Reuvein” given that Eliav and On would have been brothers, both sons of Peles, if he had been Palu. Finally, it should not have said “the sons of Reuvein” instead of “son [of Reuvein]” and “son [of Peles]” instead of “sons [of Peles].” Rather “sons” must mean “from the family of Reuvein” and therefore Rashi adds “and On the son of Peles.” R. Yaakov Triosh. Re’m writes: There are opinions that Rashi means to say that “the sons of Reuvein” refers back to “Dasan and Aviram” alone, and not to On, as if the Torah had said that Dasan and Aviram were from the sons of Reuvein, but that On was a son of Peles and not from the sons of Reuvein. There are also opinions that Rashi’s intention is just the opposite and that it also refers back to On, in order that one not say that “the sons of Reuven” refers to Dasan and Aviram but not to On. This might be so, given that neither On nor Peles are ever mentioned along with the sons of Reuvein. Re’m rejects both of these opinions, and I have written what appears most correct to me.

.בנותיו , “his daughters.” This is a reference to Dinah. We find a similar instance of a single son being described in the plural in 46,23 ובני דן חושים, though he had only one son. We also encounter this phenomenon in Chronicles I 2,8 ובני איתן עזריה, “and the sons of Eytan, Azaryah.” Our sages in Baba Batra 143 used these examples as the basis for their statement that if someone says: “my property is to be given to my sons,” and he has a son and a daughter, that the entire property goes to his son. The Talmud there questions: “since when does a father call a solitary son, “my sons?” Answer: indeed this is so as we know from Numbers 26,8 ובני פלוא אליאב “and the sons of Phalu were (was) Eliyav.”