## Ramban on Numbers Chapter 26

###### Ramban on Numbers 26:5:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:5:1)

**חֲנוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחַת הַחֲנֹכִי** – אוּלַי כַּאֲשֶׁר נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ לַשְּׁבָטִים עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ב״ב קכב) וְנָטַל שֵׁבֶט שִׁמְעוֹן הַמּוּעָט כְּשֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה הַמְרוּבֶּה חֵלֶק כְּחֵלֶק, כָּךְ נִתְחַלְּקָה לְבָתֵּי אָבוֹת לְיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְעָשׂוּ מִנַּחֲלַת רְאוּבֵן ד' חֲלָקִים, וְהָיָה חֵלֶק מִשְׁפַּחַת הַחֲנוֹכִי כְּחֵלֶק מִשְׁפַּחַת הַפַּלּוּאִי וְחֶצְרוֹן וְכַרְמִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁווֹת בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם. וְזֶה טַעַם הַמִּנְיָן הַזֶּה שֶׁיִּמְנוּ הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה לְיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם וְלֹא יַזְכִּיר "לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם", וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיַּזְכִּיר מִסְפָּרָם בִּכְלָל. וּמַה שֶׁאָמַר ״לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ נַחֲלָתוֹ״ (במדבר כ״ו:נ״ד) בִּבְנֵי הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה שֶׁנָּטְלוּ אִישׁ לְפִי פְקוּדָיו לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יַזְכִּיר בְּסֵפֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּחֲלוּקַּת הָאָרֶץ "לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם", ״וַיְהִי הַגּוֹרָל לְמַטֵּה בְנֵי יְהוּדָה לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם״ (יהושע טו א), וְכֵן בְּכֻלָּם. אוֹ יִהְיֶה טַעַם "לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם" לְכָל מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַשֵּׁבֶט, אוֹ שֶׁחָלְקוּ הָאָרֶץ לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם וְכָל מִשְׁפָּחָה וּמִשְׁפָּחָה הָיָה חֶלְקָם בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְלֹא תִתְעָרֵב בְּמִשְׁפָּחָה אַחֶרֶת, וְהוּא הַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
[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,³² so that Simeon, the smallest of the tribes,³³ took [a share] equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes,³⁴ 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 polls*³⁵ 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*,³⁶ which seems to indicate that the Land *was* divided according to population,³⁷ it refers to the [division amongst the] members of each [small] family,³⁸ 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*.³⁵ 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,’*³⁹ 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.

footnotes:
³² Baba Bathra 122a. See Vol. I, pp. 570-572.
³³ The tribe of Simeon numbered 22,200 men (further, Verse 14).
³⁴ The tribe of Judah numbered 76,500 (Verse 22).
³⁵ Above, 1:18.
³⁶ Further, Verse 54.
³⁷ As 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).
³⁸ Thus 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
³⁵ Above, 1:18.
³⁹ Joshua 15:1.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:9:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:9:1)

**וּבְנֵי אֱלִיאָב נְמוּאֵל וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם הוּא דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם** הִזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב זֶה לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲרָה כָּל הַיְרֻשָּׁה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת הַפַּלֻּאִי לִנְמוּאֵל לְבַדּוֹ, כִּי דָתָן וַאֲבִירָם וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם נִבְלְעוּ, אוֹ כְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ב״ב קי״ח) לִרְמֹז שֶׁאִבְּדוּ חֶלְקָם מִן הָאָרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיוּ מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וּרְאוּיִים לְנַחֲלָה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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,⁴⁰ 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.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ Baba Bathra 118 b.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:13:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:13:1)

**לְזֶרַח** הוּא צוֹחַר (בראשית מו י) לְשׁוֹן צֹהַר, אֲבָל מִשְׁפַּחַת אֹהַד בָּטְלָה. וְכֵן חָמֵשׁ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִשֵּׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּעֲשָׂרָה בָּנִים יָרַד לְמִצְרַיִם (שם פסוק כא), וְכָאן לֹא מָנָה אֶלָּא חֲמִשָּׁה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:י״ג). וְעוֹד כָּתַב (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:כ״ד): כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת נִקְרְאוּ עַל שֵׁם יוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְהַנּוֹלָדִים מִשָּׁם וָאֵילָךְ לֹא נִקְרְאוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת, חוּץ מִמִּשְׁפְּחוֹת אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ כֻּלָּם בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְאַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן בְּנֵי בֶלַע בֶּן בִּנְיָמִן. וּמָצָאתִי בִּיסוֹדוֹ שֶׁל ר' מֹשֶׁה הַדַּרְשָׁן שֶׁיָּרְדָה אִמָּן לְמִצְרַיִם כְּשֶׁהִיא מְעֻבֶּרֶת מֵהֶן. וְאִם אַגָּדָה הִיא הֲרֵי טוֹב, וְאִם לָאו אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁהָיוּ לְבֶלַע בָּנִים הַרְבֵּה, וּמִשְּׁנַיִם הַלָּלוּ אַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן יָצְתָה מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִשְׁפָּחָה רַבָּה, וְנִקְרְאוּ תּוֹלְדוֹת שְׁאָר הַבָּנִים עַל שֵׁם בֶּלַע, וְתוֹלְדוֹת הַשְּׁנַיִם הַלָּלוּ נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמָם. כָּל זֶה לָשׁוֹן הָרַב ז״ל. וַאֲנִי תָּמֵהַּ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין הַקֻּשְׁיָא בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁיִּמְנֶה הַכָּתוּב מִשְׁפַּחַת הַבַּלְעִי לְעַצְמָהּ וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הָאַרְדִּי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַנַּעֲמִי בָּנָיו לְעַצְמָן, כִּי זֶה הָיָה מִפְּנֵי הֱיוֹתָן לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַב, וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנֵי יְהוּדָה וּבִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶפְרַיִם וְכֵן בִּבְנֵי אָשֵׁר. אֲבָל אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ אַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן לְבֶלַע בֶּן בִּנְיָמִן אַחֲרֵי רִדְתּוֹ לְמִצְרַיִם, לֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיִים לְהִמָּנוֹת כָּאן לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת! וְאִם נַחְשֹׁב שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ לוֹ קֹדֶם לָכֵן, יִהְיוּ יוֹתֵר מִשִּׁבְעִים נֶפֶשׁ, כִּי אָז הָיוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן עֲשָׂרָה וְאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי בֶלַע שְׁנַיִם! עַל כֵּן דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי מֹשֶׁה הַדַּרְשָׁן שֶׁהָיְתָה אִמָּם מְעֻבֶּרֶת מֵהֶן וְלֹא יִמְנֶה אוֹתָם שָׁם, וְכָאן יַחְשְׁבֵם לְנוֹלָדִים. וְאִם אַגָּדָה הִיא, נִסְבֹּל הַדֹּחַק לְקַבְּלָהּ, וְנִצְטָרֵךְ עוֹד לוֹמַר כִּי יוֹכֶבֶד נוֹלְדָה בֵּין הַחוֹמוֹת בְּיוֹם הִכָּנְסָם שָׁם, וּלְכָךְ יַזְכִּיר אוֹתָהּ בְּשִׁבְעִים נֶפֶשׁ, וְאֵלֶּה נוֹלְדוּ אַחֲרֵי חֳדָשִׁים. וְאִם אֵינָהּ קַבָּלַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ, נִדְחֶה סְבָרָתוֹ זֹאת בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדַיִם. אֲבָל נוּכַל לוֹמַר כִּי אַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן מֵתוּ בְּלֹא בָּנִים, וּבֶלַע רָצָה לְהָקִים לְאֶחָיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְקָרָא שֵׁם בָּנָיו עַל שֵׁם אֶחָיו הַמֵּתִים. וְאוּלַי הָיָה יָבָם בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם, כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר, וְהָיוּ אַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן בְּנֵי בֶלַע לְרָאשֵׁי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לְהָקִים שֵׁם לְאַרְדְּ וְנַעֲמָן בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן יוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם. וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי כִּי נַעֲמָן וְאַרְדְּ אֲשֶׁר יִמְנֶה בִּבְנֵי בִנְיָמִין שָׁם בְּפָרָשַׁת ״וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת״ (בראשית מו כא), הֵם בְּנֵי בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר בֶּלַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ כָּאן, וְכֵן יִמְנֶה אוֹתָם בְּדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים (א ח א-ה). וּמִנְהַג הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּנֵי הַבָּנִים כְּבָנִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר ״אֶת לָבָן בֶּן נָחוֹר״ (בראשית כט ה), וְכָתוּב בְּדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים ״בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם וְעוּץ וְחוּל וְגֶתֶר וָמֶשֶׁךְ״ (א א יז), וְהִנֵּה אֵלֶּה אַרְבָּעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנִים בְּנֵי בָנָיו! וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כֵן בִּבְנֵי פֶרֶץ וּבִבְנֵי בְרִיעָה, אוּלַי נוֹלְדוּ עַל בִּרְכֵּי בִנְיָמִין וְיַחְשְׁבֵם לוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ ״וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״ (במדבר ג׳:א׳), אוֹ בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן רַבִּים שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁמֹנָה, טָפַל הַמִּעוּט לָרֹב. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַסְּבָרָא יִתָּכֵן עוֹד שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁלֹּא מָנָה הַכָּתוּב הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת לְיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם לְבַדָּם, כִּי גַּם הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּמִצְרַיִם מֵאוֹתוֹ יוֹם וְאֵילָךְ מָנָה לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּאֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה. וְאֵין טַעַם לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן בַּעֲבוּר הֱיוֹתָם בְּמִצְרַיִם, כִּי לְעֵת הַיְרִידָה רָאוּי שֶׁיִּמָּנוּ כֻּלָּם לְמִסְפָּר אֶחָד וְיַעֲשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִשִּׁבְעִים נֶפֶשׁ, וְכֵן יִמְנֵם הַכָּתוּב בְּכָל מָקוֹם בְּיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם ״בְּשִׁבְעִים נֶפֶשׁ יָרְדוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ מִצְרָיְמָה״ (דברים י כב). וְכֵן בְּנֵי בֶלַע אַחֲרֵי כֵן נוֹלְדוּ. אֲבָל הָעִנְיָן כִּי הָיָה הַמִּנְהָג בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם רָאשֵׁי בָתֵּי אָבוֹת, יִתְיַחֲסוּ כָּל יוֹצְאֵי יְרֵכוֹ לְעוֹלָם אֶל הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וְיִקָּרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּ גַם הַיּוֹם כָּל הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַדָּרִים בְּאַרְצוֹתָם לְהִקָּרֵא כֻּלָּם לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת, אִבְּן עֶזְרָא, אִבְּן שׁוּשָׁן. וְזֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אֵלֶּה רָאשֵׁי בֵית אֲבֹתָם״ (שמות ו יד), כִּי מֵעֵת אֲשֶׁר פָּרוּ וְרָבוּ בְּמִצְרַיִם הֶעֱמִידוּ לָהֶם רָאשֵׁי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לְהִתְיַחֵס עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאוּלַי הִתְחִילוּ הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה בְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעָרְבוּ בַּגּוֹיִם וְיִהְיוּ נִכָּרִים וִידוּעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיהֶם, ״שֶׁשָּׁם עָלוּ שְׁבָטִים שִׁבְטֵי יָהּ עֵדוּת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל״, וַתְּהִי לְחֹק בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהִנֵּה הָיוּ אֵלֶּה הַנִּזְכָּרִים כָּאן בְּמִצְרַיִם, אִישׁ אִישׁ לְרֹאשׁ לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָיו תִּתְיַחֵס הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה אֵלָיו. וּלְכָךְ יִמְנֶה בְּבֵית מָכִיר מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמָּכִירִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַגִּלְעָדִי בְּנוֹ וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הָאִיעֶזְרִי וְהַחֶלְקִי בָּנָיו וַאֲחֵיהֶם, וְכֵן בִּבְנֵי יְהוּדָה וְאֶפְרַיִם, כִּי הַבָּנִים הָאֵלֶּה הַנִּזְכָּרִים גְּדוֹלִים וְנִכְבָּדִים וַיִּהְיוּ לְרֹאשׁ. לֹא הָיָה זֶה בַּעֲבוּר הוֹלִידָם מִשְׁפָּחָה רַבָּה כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַב, כִּי כֻלָּם הוֹלִידוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת רַבּוֹת כִּי פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד, אֲבָל הָיָה זֶה לְכָבוֹד שֶׁשָּׂמוּ עֲלֵיהֶם רֹאשׁ. וְרֹב הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת בִּהְיוֹתָם בְּמִצְרַיִם הָיוּ מִתְיַחֲסוֹת אֶל הַיּוֹרְדִים לְמִצְרַיִם שֶׁהֵם לָהֶם הָאָבוֹת הַנִּכְבָּדִים, וְהַשְּׁאָר עָשׂוּ לָהֶם מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים שָׁם בְּקָרוֹב רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת. וְלָכֵן יִהְיוּ לָהֶם רֹב הַנִּזְכָּרִים כָּאן יוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְהִנֵּה יִהְיֶה יִחוּס הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת הָאֵלֶּה לְיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם כִּי שָׁם תִּקְּנוּ אוֹתָם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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,⁴¹ and here⁴² Scripture only counts five.” This is Rashi’s language.
And Rashi has furthermore written:⁴³ “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.⁴⁴ 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 Preacher⁴⁵, 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,⁴⁶ and [nonetheless counts also] the families of the Ardites and the Naamites his sons, by themselves,⁴⁷, 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],⁴⁸ and [likewise] the children of Menasheh and Ephraim,⁴⁹ and likewise the children of Asher.⁵⁰ 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!⁵¹ 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 ten⁴¹ 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]!⁵² 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 included⁴⁷, 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.⁵³ 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 Jochebed⁵⁴ 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*,⁵⁵ 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,⁵⁶ 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 name*⁵⁵ for Ard and Naaman the sons of Benjamin, who were amongst those that went down to Egypt.⁴¹
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the Naaman and Ard⁵⁷. 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.,⁵⁸ 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,⁴⁷, Verse 40. and similarly Scripture counts them [as the sons of Bela] in the Book of Chronicles.⁵⁹ 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*,⁶⁰, 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*,⁶¹ although the last four were in fact his grandchildren!⁶² And even though Scripture did not treat the sons of Perez [as the “sons” of Judah, their grandfather,⁶³ 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,⁶⁴ 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 *knees*⁶⁵ [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*,⁶⁶ [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].⁶⁷ 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]!⁶⁸ 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 persons*⁶⁹ 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*,⁷⁰ for from the time that they *were fruitful and multiplied*⁷¹, 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 nations*⁷² 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*,⁷³, 122:4. *and it* became *a custom in Israel*.⁷⁴ 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,⁷⁵ and *the family of the Iezerites* and that *of the Helekites*,⁷⁶, Verse 30. the sons of Gilead and their [other] brothers.⁷⁷ 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]⁷⁸ and those of Ephraim,⁷⁹ 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*.⁷¹, 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].

footnotes:
⁴¹ Genesis 46:21.
⁴² Further, Verses 38-39.
⁴³ In Verse 24.
⁴⁴ Further, Verse 40. The meaning of Rashi is as follows: Since Ard and Naaman are mentioned in Genesis 46:21 among the sons of Benjamin
⁴⁵ See above in Seder Naso
⁴⁶ Further, Verse 38.
⁴⁷ Ibid.
⁴⁸ Verse 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.
⁴⁹ Verses 29-32; 36. There too, the grandchildren [and even great-grandchildren] are counted as separate families.
⁵⁰ Verses 44-45. Asher’s grandchildren are counted as separate families.
⁵¹ Ramban’s meaning is as follows. Rashi seems to have understood that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher found it difficult to understand why Ard and Naaman
⁴¹ Genesis 46:21.
⁵² Genesis 46:27.
⁴⁷ Ibid.
⁵³ The difficulty is that in Genesis 46:8-27 the verses do not
⁵⁴ See Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, pp. 554-558.)
⁵⁵ Deuteronomy 25:7.
⁵⁶ Genesis 46:21: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela
⁵⁵ Deuteronomy 25:7.
⁴¹ Genesis 46:21.
⁵⁷ In Genesis 46:21 they are listed in the following order: And the sons of Benjamin: Bela … and Naaman … and Ard
⁵⁸ Genesis 46:8-27.
⁴⁷ Ibid.
⁵⁹ I Chronicles 8:3-4: And Bela had sons, Addar … and Naaman. Addar
⁶⁰ Genesis 29:5. Nahor was actually his grandfather, for Bethuel was his father. See Ramban ibid.
⁶¹ I Chronicles 1:17.
⁶² Their father was Aram, the son of Shem — see Genesis 10:22-23.
⁶³ The verse there (46:12) mentions that Perez was the son of Judah; and Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Perez.
⁶⁴ The verse there (46:17) mentions that Beriah was the son of Asher, and Heber and Malchiel the sons of Beriah.
⁶⁵ See Genesis 50:23.
⁶⁶ Above, 3:1. The explanation of this verse quoted now by Ramban is found in Rashi ibid.
⁶⁷ Verses 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).
⁶⁸ Ramban’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
⁶⁹ Deuteronomy 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.
⁷⁰ Exodus 6:14.
⁷¹ Ibid.
⁷² Psalms 106:35.
⁷³ Ibid.
⁷⁴ Judges 11:39.
⁷⁵ Further, Verse 29.
⁷⁶ Ibid.
⁷⁷ I.e., Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, Hepher (Verses 31-32) — brothers of Iezer and Helek, and sons of Gilead.
⁷⁸ Further, Verse 21.
⁷⁹ Verse 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.
⁷¹ Ibid.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:42:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:42:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:42:1)

וְטַעַם **אֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹת דָּן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם**, כִּי הָיוּ לְשׁוּחָם בָּנִים עָשׂוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת נִקְרָאוֹת בְּשֵׁם אֲבִי הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה, אֲבָל הָיוּ כֻּלָּם מִתְיַחֲסוֹת אֶל שׁוּחָם הָרֹאשׁ, וְהָיוּ נִקְרָאוֹת אֵלָיו בִּשְׁמוֹ, כְּאָמְרְךָ: לְדָנִיֵּאל מִשְׁפַּחַת דָּנִיֵּאל הַשּׁוּחָמִי, לִיחֶזְקֵאל מִשְׁפַּחַת יְחֶזְקֵאל הַשּׁוּחָמִי. וְהִנֵּה הֵם מִשְׁפָּחוֹת רַבּוֹת וּמִשְׁפָּחָה אַחַת אֵצֶל הַשּׁוּחָמִי, וְלָכֵן יִחֵס אֶת כֻּלָּן אֵלָיו. וְעַל דַּעַת הָאוֹמְרִים כִּי לְיוֹרְדֵי מִצְרַיִם יִתְיַחֲסוּ, הָיוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת רַבּוֹת נִקְרָאוֹת בְּשֵׁם אֲבוֹתָם שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בְמִצְרַיִם, וּבְכָאן לֹא הָיָה מְיַחֵס אוֹתָם אֶלָּא לַשּׁוּחָמִי כִּי הוּא יָרַד לְמִצְרַיִם לְבַדּוֹ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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 this⁸⁰. 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 say⁸¹ 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.⁸²

footnotes:
⁸⁰ The 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
⁸¹ I.e., Rashi — see Ramban above, Verse 13, at length.
⁸² Genesis 46:8; 23.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:46:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:46:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:46:1)

**וְשֵׁם בַּת אָשֵׁר שָׂרַח** – לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּחַיִּים מְנָאָה כָּאן, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:מ״ו). וְאוּנְקְלוֹס (תרגום אונקלוס על במדבר כ״ו:מ״ו) תִּרְגֵּם: ״וְשׁוֹם בַּת אִתַּת אָשֵׁר סָרַח״. נִתְכַּוֵּן בָּזֶה לוֹמַר כִּי הָיְתָה בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה, וּלְכָךְ הִזְכִּירָהּ הַכָּתוּב בְּכָאן כַּאֲשֶׁר הִזְכִּיר בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד, וְתִכָּנֵס בִּכְלַל ״לָאֵלֶּה תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ״ (במדבר כ״ו:נ״ג). וְאִלּוּ הָיְתָה בַּת אָשֵׁר עַצְמוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה יוֹרֶשֶׁת, כִּי בָּנִים זְכָרִים הָיוּ לוֹ, אֲבָל הָיְתָה בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר, לֹא הָיָה לוֹ בֵּן וְהָיְתָה נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ. וְיִהְיֶה טַעַם ״וְשֶׂרַח אֲחֹתָם״ (בראשית מו יז), כִּי הָיְתָה אֲחוֹת בָּנָיו לֹא בִתּוֹ. וּלְכָךְ אָמַר "וְשֵׁם בַּת אָשֵׁר שָׂרַח" וְלֹא אָמַר "וּבַת אָשֵׁר", לוֹמַר כִּי הָיָה שְׁמָהּ בַּת אָשֵׁר וְנִקְרֵאת שֶׂרַח. וְאִם הָיְתָה בַּחַיִּים כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י, הִנֵּה הִיא כִּבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד לְנַחֲלָה, וְאִם מֵתָה - מִשְׁפַּחְתָּהּ נָטְלוּ בַּעֲבוּרָהּ. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט הָיָה לָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה גְּדוֹלָה תִּקָּרֵא עַל שְׁמָהּ, וְתִכָּנֵס בִּכְלַל ״אֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחוֹת בְּנֵי אָשֵׁר לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם״ (במדבר כ״ו:מ״ז). אֲבָל לֹא רָצָה הַכָּתוּב לְיַחֲסָם אֶל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֹּאמַר "לְשֶׂרַח מִשְׁפַּחַת שֶׂרַח" וְקִצֵּר הָעִנְיָן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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 inheritance*⁸³ [in the Land in her own right], and therefore Scripture mentions her here just as it mentions the daughters of Zelophehad,⁸⁴ for she [Serach] is included amongst [those referred to in the verse], *Unto these the Land shall be divided*.⁸⁵ 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 sister*⁸⁶. 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.⁸⁷ 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*.⁸⁸ 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].

footnotes:
⁸³ Further, 36:8.
⁸⁴ Further, 27:7.
⁸⁵ Verse 53.
⁸⁶ Genesis 46:17. The verse reads: And the sons of Asher: Imnah and Ishvah and Ishvi and Beriah and Serach their sister
⁸⁷ The meaning of the verse is thus: “And the name of
⁸⁸ Verse 47.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:54:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:54:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:54:1)

**לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ** – לְשֵׁבֶט מְרֻבֶּה בְּאוּכְלוּסִין נָתְנוּ חֵלֶק רַב, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ הַחֲלָקִים שָׁוִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי לְפִי רִבּוּי הַשֵּׁבֶט חִלְּקוּ הַחוֹלְקִים, לֹא עָשׂוּ אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גּוֹרָל, וְהַגּוֹרָל עַל פִּי רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:נ״ד). וּמִדְרַשׁ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בַּכָּתוּב הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ כֵן, אֶלָּא אָמְרוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (פנחס כו ג): ״לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ״ - הֲרֵי שֶׁיָּצְאוּ עִמּוֹ עֲשָׂרָה בָנִים מִמִּצְרַיִם וּבִכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ נִמְצְאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה וְכוּ׳. וְכֵן בַּגְּמָרָא מְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁמָעוּתוֹ אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים לְחַלֵּק בֵּין שֵׁבֶט לְשֵׁבֶט כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (ב״ב קי״ז) בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב "לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ" וְגוֹ׳. וְעוֹד שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתַבְתִּי בְּסֵדֶר וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב (בראשית מ״ח:ו׳) כִּי בַּגְּמָרָא בְּפֶרֶק יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין (בבא בתרא קכ״ב) הֶעֱלוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה לְקַרְקַפְתָּא דְגַבְרֵי, אֶלָּא לִשְׁבָטִים נִתְחַלְּקָה, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֲלָקִים שָׁוִים עָשׂוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְנָטַל כָּל הַשֵּׁבֶט הַחֵלֶק שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ הַגּוֹרָל עָלָיו, וְזֶהוּ מַה שֶׁצָּוְחוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף שֶׁאָמְרוּ "מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּ לִי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב" (יהושע י״ז:י״ד), וְלֹא הוֹסִיף לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּלוּם אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ "עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים כִּי אָץ לְךָ הַר אֶפְרָיִם" (שם ט״ו), לוֹמַר שֶׁיִּכְבְּשׁוּ לָהֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ שֶׁלֹּא נִכְבְּשָׁה לָהֶם וְיַרְחִיבוּ בָּהּ אֶת גְּבוּלָם. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמַר "לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ... בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט" (במדבר כ״ו:נ״ה-נ״ו) שֶׁיִּקְחוּ כָּל הַמַּטּוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה, בֵּין שֶׁהוּא מְרֻבֶּה בְּאוּכְלוּסִין אוֹ מְמֻעָט בָּהֶם, וְיִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁ "לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ נַחֲלָתוֹ" לְאַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁבֶט עַצְמוֹ, אוֹ כְּפִי מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, הֲרֵי שֶׁיָּצְאוּ עִמּוֹ עֲשָׂרָה מִמִּצְרַיִם וּבִכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ נִמְצְאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו "לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ", כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאִם מֵתוּ אוֹתָן עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה בִּיצִיאָתָן מִמִּצְרַיִם וְנוֹלְדוּ לָהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ טְפָלִים וְנַעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי עֶשְׂרִים, קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו "לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה", כְּלוֹמַר לָרַב בִּיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם תַּרְבּוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עַכְשָׁו מוּעָט. הֲרֵי שֶׁיָּצְאוּ עִמּוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה וּבִכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ נִמְצְאוּ עֲשָׂרָה, קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו "לַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט", כִּדְאִיתָא בַּסִּפְרֵי. אֲבָל רָאִיתִי בַּסִּפְרֵי שָׁם דְּקָתָנֵי, "לְפִי פְּקוּדָיו", מַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא לְכָל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט לְפִי מַה שֶׁהוּא, כֵּן הוּא אוֹמֵר "וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּ לִי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב אֲשֶׁר עַד כֹּה בֵּרְכַנִי ה׳", מַהוּ אוֹמֵר, "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אִם עַם רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים כִּי אָץ לְךָ הַר אֶפְרָיִם", זֶהוּ לְשׁוֹן הַבְּרַיְתָא הַזֹּאת, וְנִרְאֶה מִמֶּנָּה שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם כְּדִבְרֵי הָרַב. אֲבָל לְפִי הַגְּמָרָא מְשַׁבַּשְׁתָּא הִיא. וְעוֹד שֶׁאִם כֵּן מַה יִצְעֲקוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף, וַהֲלֹא נָתַן לָהֶם לְפִי מִנְיָנָם הַמְרֻבֶּה כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים. וּלְפִי דַעְתִּי יֵשׁ בַּבְּרַיְתָא הַזּוֹ קִצּוּר, וְהוּא מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (ב״ב קי״ח) דְּמִשּׁוּם טְפָלִים דְּנָפִישׁוּ לְהוּ צָוְחוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף. וּבֵאוּר הָעִנְיָן, כִּי בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף כִּשְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים נָטְלוּ, בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם חֵלֶק אֶחָד וּבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה חֵלֶק אֶחָד, כִּי כֵן כָּתוּב (יהושע י״ד:ד׳), וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם שֶׁמְרֻבֶּה בְּאוּכְלוּסִים יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים מְרֻבִּים מֵהֶם, כִּי שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וְיִשָּׂשכָר וּזְבוּלוּן וְדָן מְרֻבִּים מֵהֶם, וְלָמָּה יִצְוְחוּ הֵם וְהַמְרֻבִּים יִשְׁתְּקוּ, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן אִם נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם כְּפִי מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּנְיָן הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה מְרֻבִּין מִשְּׁנֵי הַשְּׁבָטִים הָאֵלֶּה יַחְדָּיו. אֲבָל הָיוּ צוֹעֲקִים מִפְּנֵי הַטְּפָלִים, שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה בְּמִנְיַן יְצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם אֶלֶף וְנִתְרַבּוּ בַּמִּנְיָן הַשֵּׁנִי בַּמִּדְבָּר לִשְׁנַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף, וְאֵין בְּכָל הַשְּׁבָטִים שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה כָּל כָּךְ, וְהָיוּ כְּמוֹ כֵן מַרְבִּים בָּנִים עַד שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ, וְגַם בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם כֵּן, וְלֹא הָיוּ הַטְּפָלִים הָהֵם נוֹטְלִים כְּלוּם, וּלְכָךְ צָעֲקוּ וְשׁוֹמֵעַ אֵין לָהֶם, כִּי כֵּן הַמִּשְׁפָּט שֶׁלֹּא יִטְּלוּ אֶלָּא בְּנֵי עֶשְׂרִים. וּלְכָךְ אָמְרָה הַבְּרַיְתָא "לְפִי פְּקוּדָיו" שֶׁהָיוּ מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא לְכָל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט לְפִי מַה שֶׁהוּא בִּשְׁעַת הַמִּנְיָן, שֶׁלֹּא יִתְּנוּ כְּלוּם לַטְּפָלִים, וַאֲפִלּוּ גָּדְלוּ וְהִגִּיעוּ לְעֶשְׂרִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁחָלְקוּ. וְהַכָּתוּב שֶׁאָמַר ״מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּה לִי נַחֲלָה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב״, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בַּנִּגְלֶה מִפְּשׁוּטוֹ, כִּי אִם חָלַק לָהֶם הָאָרֶץ לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם כְּדִבְרֵי רַשִׁ״י הִנֵּה לָקְחוּ דַּיָּם, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהֵם עַם רַב לָקְחוּ חֵלֶק רַב, וְאִם לַשְּׁבָטִים - אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָתָם, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה עוֹבֵר עַל צַוָּאַת יַעֲקֹב, וְגַם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא צִוָּה בַּתּוֹרָה לְשִׁבְטֵי אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה. וְעוֹד כָּתוּב מְפֹרָשׁ כִּי שְׁנֵי גוֹרָלוֹת נָתַן לָהֶם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי גְבוּל בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם״, ״זֹאת נַחֲלַת מַטֵּה בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם״ (יהושע ט״ז:ה׳,ח׳), וּבִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: ״וַיְהִי הַגּוֹרָל לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה״, ״וַיְהִי גְבוּל מְנַשֶּׁה״ (שם י״ז:א׳,ז׳) כְּכָל הַנֶּאֱמָר בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים. אֲבָל אָמְרָם "גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד" לוֹמַר כָּל מַה שֶׁנָּתַתָּ לִשְׁנֵינוּ רָאוּי לְאֶחָד בְּגוֹרָלוֹ. וְהִזְכִּירוּ זֶה הַלָּשׁוֹן לְפִי שֶׁיְּהוֹשֻׁעַ הִפִּיל תְּחִלָּה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיֵּצֵא הַגּוֹרָל לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף מִיַּרְדֵּן יְרִחוֹ״ וְגוֹ' עַד ״וְהָיוּ תוֹצְאוֹתָיו יָמָּה״ (שם טז א-ג), וְשָׁם נֶאֱמַר ״וַיִּנְחֲלוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶפְרָיִם״ (שם פסוק ד), כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁנָּחֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּגּוֹרָל הַזֶּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָלַק אוֹתוֹ הַגּוֹרָל בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּגוֹרָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר שָׁם ״וַיְהִי גְבוּל בְּנֵי אֶפְרָיִם״ וְגוֹ', וּכְתִיב ״וַיְהִי הַגּוֹרָל לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה״ וְגוֹ'. עַל כֵּן אָמְרוּ: הִנֵּה הַגּוֹרָל הָאֶחָד הָרִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לְכָל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵינוּ, כִּי עַם רַב אֲנַחְנוּ, וּמַדּוּעַ חָלַקְתָּ אוֹתוֹ אַחֲרֵי כֵן לִשְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים?. וְהָיְתָה הַטַּעֲנָה מִפְּנֵי הַטְּפָלִים שֶׁנִּתְרַבּוּ בָהֶן עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַגְּמָרָא. וּלְפִי דֶרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט נִרְאֶה לִי כִּי הַצְּוָחָה הַזֹּאת הָיְתָה שֶׁל בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה, אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁנֵי הַשְּׁבָטִים יַחַד. וְכֵן ״וַיִּגְּשׁוּ בְנֵי יְהוּדָה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּגִּלְגָּל וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו כָּלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה״ (שם יד ו), הַדִּין לְאֶחָד וְכָל הַשֵּׁבֶט יִתְרַעֵם עִמּוֹ. וְהָיְתָה הַטַּעֲנָה לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל הַשְּׁבָטִים מִי שֶׁהִשְׁאִיר עָרִים רַבּוֹת וּגְדוֹלוֹת לַכְּנַעֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁאִיר מְנַשֶּׁה שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַנָּפֶת (שם יז יא) - תְּלָתָא פַּלְכִין. וּרְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, כִּי לְאַחַר שֶׁכָּתוּב ״וְלֹא יָכְלוּ בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה לְהוֹרִישׁ אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ (שם פסוק יב), שָׁם כְּתִיב ״וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף״ (שם פסוק יד), כִּי מִתְּחִלָּה לֹא נִתְרַעֲמוּ עַד שֶׁעָשׂוּ עִמָּם מִלְחָמָה וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָהֶם. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁזֶּה טַעַם ״גּוֹרָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד״ - אָמְרוּ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִפַּלְתָּ לִשְׁנֵינוּ תְּחִלָּה גּוֹרָל אֶחָד, נָפַל חֶבְלֵנוּ יַחַד וְאֵרַע חֵלֶק שְׁנֵינוּ בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה הַקָּשֶׁה, וְאִלּוּ עָשִׂיתָ לָנוּ שְׁנֵי גוֹרָלוֹת כַּנָּהוּג בְּכָל שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים, הָיָה יוֹצֵא בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר שֶׁהוּא נוֹחַ לִכְבֹּשׁ. וְאָמַר לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם יַעֲלוּ בְּיַעַר הַפְּרָזִי וְהָרְפָאִים יִבְרְרוּ לָהֶם שָׁם כָּל מַה שֶׁיִּרְצוּ וְיַרְחִיבוּ גְּבוּלָם. וְחָזְרוּ הֵם וּבֵאֲרוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם וְאָמְרוּ: גַּם הָהָר לֹא יַסְפִּיק לָנוּ כִּי רֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל בְּכָל הַכְּנַעֲנִי שֶׁנָּתַתָּ לָנוּ בְּאֶרֶץ הָעֵמֶק. וְאָז אָמַר לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי לֹא יִתֵּן לָהֶם בָּהָר גּוֹרָל אֶחָד, אֲבָל יִהְיֶה לָהֶם הָהָר כֻּלּוֹ וְהַיַּעַר הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁשָּׁם, וְיִבְרְרוּ לָהֶם מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל צָרְכָּם, וְיִהְיֶה לָהֶם כָּל תּוֹצְאוֹת גְּבוּלֵי הָהָר, וְיוֹרִישׁוּ מִשָּׁם הַכְּנַעֲנִי כִּי רֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל לוֹ וְהוּא חָזָק, וְאֵין שְׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים חֲפֵצִים בּוֹ, אֲבָל הֵם שְׁנֵי הָאַחִים שֶׁהֵם עַם רַב וְכֹחַ גָּדוֹל לָהֶם, הֵם יַעַזְרוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה וְהֵם יוֹרִישׁוּהוּ. וְסוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא הוֹסִיף לָהֶם כְּלוּם כִּי כֵן הַדִּין. וְהִנֵּה הַצֹּרֶךְ הִרְחִיב דְּבָרֵינוּ בָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, וְעוֹד כְּתַבְנוּהוּ בִּרְאָיוֹת בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְחִי יַעֲקֹב. וְהַכְּלָל כִּי הַדִּין שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ בַּגְּמָרָא הוּא אֱמֶת וּבוֹ רָאוּי לְפָרֵשׁ הַמִּקְרָאוֹת. וְהִנֵּה פֵּרוּשׁ הַפָּרָשָׁה: לְאֵלֶּה הַנִּזְכָּרִים לְמִשְׁפְּחוֹת תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת, שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ לְכָל זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלוֹתָם חֶלְקוֹ. לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ נַחֲלָתוֹ - שֶׁיְּחַלְּקוּ אֶרֶץ רְאוּבֵן לְאַרְבַּעַת חֲלָקִים, לְמִשְׁפַּחַת הַחֲנוֹכִי הַמְרֻבָּה עַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל נַרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ, וּלְמִשְׁפַּחַת הַפַּלּוּאִי הַמֻּעֶטֶת נַמְעִיט, כִּי אִישׁ לְפִי פְקוּדֵי הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה יֻתַּן נַחֲלָתוֹ, וְתִטּוֹל כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וּמִן הַטַּעַם הַזֶּה מְנָאָם כָּאן לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת. וּלְפִיכָךְ הִזְכִּירוּ חֲכָמִים (ת״כ בהר פרשה א ב): חָלְקוּ לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת וְלֹא חָלְקוּ לְבָתֵּי אָבוֹת, וְאֵין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ וְכוּ':

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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, 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:⁹⁰ 132. “*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*]. ”⁹¹, 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 Gemara⁹² 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:⁹² “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 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 Yaakov*⁹⁴ that in the Gemara of the Chapter *Yesh Nochalin*⁹⁵ 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?’*⁹⁶ 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*, ’⁹⁷, 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*.⁹⁸ [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],⁹¹, 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],⁹⁹ 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*, ”¹⁰⁰ 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 Sifre⁹⁰ 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?’*⁹⁶ 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. ’* ”⁹⁷, Verse 15. This is the language of this Beraitha.¹⁰¹ 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 Gemara¹⁰² 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,¹⁰³. 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,¹⁰⁴ 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!¹⁰⁵, 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],¹⁰⁶ whereas they had increased by the [time of the] second census [taken] in the desert to fifty-two thousand [and seven hundred]!¹⁰⁷ 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],¹⁰⁸ 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.¹⁰⁹ 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,¹¹⁰ for such was the law — that only those who were above twenty years of age received a share in the Land.¹¹¹ 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*,⁹⁶ 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!¹¹² 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].¹¹³ 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;*¹¹⁴ *This is the inheritance of the tribe of the children of Ephraim*.¹¹⁴ And [with reference to] the children of Menasheh [it is said], *And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh;*¹¹⁵, 17:1. *And the border of Menasheh was* etc.,¹¹⁶, 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 part*⁹⁶ 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.¹¹⁷, 16:1. until: *the goings out thereof were at the sea*.¹¹⁸, Verse 3. And there it is stated, *And the children of Joseph, Menasheh and Ephraim, took their inheritance*,¹¹⁹, 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*,¹²⁰, Verse 5. and it is [further] written, *And this was the lot for the tribe of Menasheh*.¹¹⁵, 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*,⁹⁶ and why [therefore] did you subdivide it afterwards into two parts?” And the [reason for this] complaint, according to the explanation of the Gemara,¹⁰² 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.,¹²¹, 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*,¹²², 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*,¹²³, Verse 12. that it is written: *And the children of Joseph spoke*,⁹⁶ 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*.⁹⁶ 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*,⁹⁷, Verse 15. they will be able to select for themselves from there whatever they want, and thus extend their borders.⁹⁷, 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*. ”¹²⁴, Verse 16. Then Joshua told them that he would not give them in the mountain *one lot only*,¹²⁵, Verse 17. *but the* whole of the *hill-country shall be* theirs together with the large *forest* which is there,¹²⁶, 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*,¹²⁶, 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 power*¹²⁵, 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*.⁹⁴
The general principle thus is that the law which [the Rabbis] reached as a conclusion in the Gemara⁹⁵ [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 these*¹²⁷ who are mentioned according to their families *the Land shall be divided* [*for an inheritance*] *according to the number of names*,¹²⁷ 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],¹²⁸ 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]:¹²⁹. “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 (Leviticus 25:4) [using the singular, to indicate that] the law applies only when each person recognizes his own field.”

footnotes:
⁸⁹ “The Holy Spirit.” See above in Seder Chukath
⁹⁰ Sifre Pinchas
⁹¹ In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land
⁹² Baba Bathra 117b.
⁹² Baba Bathra 117b.
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
⁹⁴ Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572).
⁹⁵ “There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
⁹⁷ Ibid.
⁹⁸ Further, Verses 55-56.
⁹¹ In other words, the division of the Land depended not on the number of people in each family upon entering the Land
⁹⁹ The 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.
¹⁰⁰ Meaning: “and to those who were fewer
⁹⁰ Sifre Pinchas
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
⁹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁰¹ See Vol. II, p. 133, Note 209.
¹⁰² Baba Bathra 118a.
¹⁰³ Genesis 48:5: As Reuben and Simeon, shall Ephraim and Menasheh be mine
¹⁰⁴ Judah 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.
¹⁰⁵ At the time of the first census, Judah numbered 74,600 (above, 1:27), whereas Ephraim and Menasheh together were only 72,700 (ibid.
¹⁰⁶ Above, 1:35.
¹⁰⁷ Verse 34 here. Thus they increased by 20,500.
¹⁰⁸ From the time of this second census [taken in the fortieth year of Israel’s stay in the desert] until the actual beginning
¹⁰⁹ This text is difficult to understand, because in fact the children of Ephraim decreased
¹¹⁰ See II Samuel 15:3.
¹¹¹ See above, Verses 2 and 53.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
¹¹² Genesis 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!
¹¹³ Further, 34:23-24.
¹¹⁴ Joshua 16:5 and 8.
¹¹⁴ Joshua 16:5 and 8.
¹¹⁵ Ibid.
¹¹⁶ Ibid.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
¹¹⁷ Ibid.
¹¹⁸ Ibid.
¹¹⁹ Ibid.
¹²⁰ Ibid.
¹¹⁵ Ibid.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
¹⁰² Baba Bathra 118a.
¹²¹ Ibid.
¹²² Ibid.
¹²³ Ibid.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
⁹⁶ Joshua 17:14.
⁹⁷ Ibid.
⁹⁷ Ibid.
¹²⁴ Ibid.
¹²⁵ Ibid.
¹²⁶ Ibid.
¹²⁶ Ibid.
¹²⁵ Ibid.
⁹⁴ Genesis 48:6 (Vol. I, pp. 570-572).
⁹⁵ “There are some [near of kin] who inherit.” The text quoted here is in Baba Bathra 122a.
¹²⁷ Verse 53.
¹²⁷ Verse 53.
¹²⁸ Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi (above, Verses 5-6).
¹²⁹ Torath Kohanim, beginning of Seder Behar
¹³⁰ “… I might think that the law of the Seventh year applies. For this reason Scripture states, thou shalt not sow ‘thy’ field


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:55:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:55:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:55:1)

**אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת הָאָרֶץ** לְשִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם שֶׁהֵם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מַטּוֹת יִנְחֲלוּ אוֹתָם. וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״עַל פִּי הַגּוֹרָל תֵּחָלֵק נַחֲלָתוֹ״ שֶׁל מַטֶּה "בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט", כִּי גַּם בֵּין הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת יַטִּילוּ גּוֹרָל, וְיִהְיֶה חֵלֶק הַחֲנוֹכִי בָּרוּחַ וּבַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה לוֹ הַגּוֹרָל, וְחֵלֶק הַפַּלֻּאִי בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה לוֹ הַגּוֹרָל, אַךְ נַרְבֶּה לָרַב וְנַמְעִיט לַמּוּעָט בַּמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּסֵדֶר אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֶת הָאָרֶץ בְּגוֹרָל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם, לָרַב תַּרְבּוּ אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ, אֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא לוֹ שָׁמָּה הַגּוֹרָל לוֹ יִהְיֶה, לְמַטּוֹת אֲבֹתֵיכֶם תִּתְנֶחָלוּ״ (במדבר ל״ג:נ״ד). הִנֵּה בֵּאֵר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַנַּחֲלָה לַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת בְּגוֹרָל אֶל הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר יִפּוֹל לוֹ הַגּוֹרָל, שָׁם נַרְבֶּה לָרַב וְנַמְעִיט לַמְעַט בַּמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת. וְאָמַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לְמַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם, כְּלוֹמַר שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַטּוֹת. וּמַה שֶׁכָּתַב רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:נ״ה): ״לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם" - אֵלּוּ יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם - אֵינוֹ נָכוֹן, שֶׁאֵין "מַטּוֹת" רַק שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁכָּתוּב: ״וְלֹא תִסֹּב נַחֲלָה מִמַּטֶּה לְמַטֶּה אַחֵר כִּי אִישׁ בְּנַחֲלָתוֹ יִדְבְּקוּ מַטּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ (במדבר ל״ו:ט׳), וְכֵן ״אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה לְכָל מַטּוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל״ (במדבר ל״א:ד׳), וְכֵן בַּמְּרַגְּלִים (לעיל יג ב-טו), וְכֵן בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְשֵׁם שֵׁבֶט וּמַטֶּה אֶחָד הוּא. אֲבָל מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (ב״ב קיז): רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: "לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ" - מִדְרָשׁ מֵרִבּוּי הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁהָיָה דַּי שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת הַמַּטּוֹת״, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִזְכִּיר "אֲבוֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ", דָּרְשׁוּ שֶׁהָאָבוֹת - וְהֵם הַנִּזְכָּרִים בְּמִצְרַיִם ״אֵלֶּה רָאשֵׁי בֵית אֲבוֹתָם״ (שמות ו יד) - הֵם נוֹחֲלִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וּמֵהֶם תָּבֹא לְאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר תֵּחָלֵק לָהֶם:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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 section¹³¹. 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*.¹³² 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.¹³³
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*.¹³⁴ Similarly [it is written], *a thousand ‘l’mateh’* (*of every tribe*) *throughout all ‘matoth’* (*tribes of*) *Israel*,¹³⁵, 31:4. and so also in the case of the spies,¹³⁶ (*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:¹³⁷ “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*.¹³⁸ 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.

footnotes:
¹³¹ Literally: “In the book of” Eileh Mas’ei
¹³² Further, 33:54.
¹³³ Thus 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.
¹³⁴ Further, 36:9.
¹³⁵ Ibid.
¹³⁶ Above, 13:2: ‘l’mateih’
¹³⁷ Baba Bathra 117a.
¹³⁸ Exodus 6:14.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:57:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:57:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:57:1)

**וְאֵלֶּה פְקוּדֵי הַלֵּוִי** – לֹא יָדַעְתִּי לָמָּה יִמְנֶה בְּנֵי לֵוִי, וּמַה תּוֹעֶלֶת עַתָּה בְּמִנְיָנָם. אוּלַי לְאֵלֶּה נִתְּנוּ הֶעָרִים לָשֶׁבֶת וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶן לִבְהֶמְתָּם, לֹא לַנּוֹלָדִים אַחֲרֵי כֵן. אוֹ שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לָהֶם לְכָבוֹד לִפְנֵי הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לִגְיוֹן שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ פָּחוּת שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁגִּיחוּ עָלָיו לִמְנוֹתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הָעָם. וְהִזְכִּיר עַמְרָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ כִּי בְּנֵי לֵוִי יִמָּנוּ לִשְׁנַיִם, לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם, וְרָאוּי לִפְקֹד אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו לְעַצְמָן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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*,¹³⁹ 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”¹⁴⁰ 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,¹⁴¹ 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].

footnotes:
¹³⁹ Further, 35:2-7.
¹⁴⁰ Bamidbar Rabbah 1:10.
¹⁴¹ In 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.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:58:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:58:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:58:1)

וְכָתַב רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ו:נ״ח) **אֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹת לֵוִי** חָסֵר כָּאן מִשְׁפַּחַת הַשִּׁמְעִי וְהָעָזִּיאֵלִי וּקְצָת יִצְהָר נֶפֶג וְזִכְרִי. וַאֲנִי תָּמֵהַּ, לָמָּה יִמְנֶה הַכָּתוּב בְּלֵוִי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאָבוֹת וְיַחְזֹר וְיִמְנֶה מִשְׁפָּחוֹת לַבָּנִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הָיוּ לִמְרָרִי בָּנִים אֲחֵרִים אֶלָּא מַחְלִי וּמוּשִׁי, וּמַהוּ "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמְּרָרִי" וְאֵין זוּלָתָם? אֲבָל הָיָה זֶה לְכָבוֹד, כִּי בְּנֵי לֵוִי שְׁלָשְׁתָּם הָיוּ גְּדוֹלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְזִכְרָם הָיָה לִבְרָכָה, וְהָיוּ כָּל תּוֹלְדוֹת גֵּרְשׁוֹן נִקְרָאִין "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי" לִכְבוֹדוֹ, וְכֵן כָּל בְּנֵי מְרָרִי "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמְּרָרִי" לִכְבוֹדוֹ. וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן שָׂמוּ לָהֶם בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת וְנֶחְלָקִים לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים, וְנִקְרָאִים בִּפְרָט מִשְׁפַּחַת הַמַּחְלִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַמּוּשִׁי. וְכֵן בִּקְהָת יִקָּרְאוּ כָל זַרְעוֹ בִּכְלָל "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַקְּהָתִי", וְחוֹזְרִים וְנֶחְלָקִים עוֹד לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת בַּבָּנִים, מִשְׁפַּחַת הַחֶבְרוֹנִי וּמִשְׁפַּחַת הַקָּרְחִי. וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר עַתָּה "מִשְׁפַּחַת הָעַמְרָמִי" בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁנֶּחְלְקָה לְכֹהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם, וְהִזְכִּיר שְׁמוֹתָם לְכָבוֹד, וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר הַכְּהֻנָּה לְאַהֲרֹן לִכְבוֹד מֹשֶׁה. וְכֵן תִּרְאֶה בַּמִּנְיָן הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּפְּקוּדִים שֶׁאָמַר: ״וַיִּהְיוּ אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי לֵוִי בִּשְׁמוֹתָם גֵּרְשׁוֹן וּקְהָת וּמְרָרִי״ (במדבר ג׳:י״ז), וְהָיָה זֶה לְמַעֲלָתָם, כִּי בִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁבָטִים לֹא הִזְכִּיר כֵּן. וְטַעַם **מִשְׁפַּחַת הַקָּרְחִי** כִּי מִתְּחִלָּה הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַיִּצְהָרִי" (שם פסוק כז), כִּי הָיוּ בְּעֵת הַמִּנְיָן הַהוּא בָּנִים גַּם לְנֶפֶג וְזִכְרִי, וְעַכְשָׁו לֹא הָיוּ רַק לְקֹרַח וְנִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ. וּלְפִי דַּעְתִּי לֹא הָיָה מִן הָרָאוּי שֶׁיֵּעָקֵר שֵׁם הַיִּצְהָרִי מִזַּרְעוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֵּתוּ קְצָת בָּנָיו, אֲבָל עָשׂוּ זֶה אַחֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂה קֹרַח בַּעֲבוּר כְּבוֹד בָּנָיו, לְהוֹדִיעַ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְדוֹרוֹת שְׁמָם וְזִכְרָם, כִּי כֵן הַכָּתוּב מִשְׁתַּדֵּל לוֹמַר ״וּבְנֵי קֹרַח לֹא מֵתוּ״ (במדבר כ״ו:י״א). וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכָּלוּ נֶפֶג וְזִכְרִי וְנִשְׁאֲרוּ כָּל זֶרַע יִצְהָר לְקֹרַח, קְרָאוּם "מִשְׁפַּחַת הַקָּרְחִי" לְהוֹדִיעַ כִּי הָיוּ בָּנָיו צַדִּיקִים וְטוֹבִים מִמֶּנּוּ. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֹשֶׁה הַדַּרְשָׁן (ברש״י בפסוק לו) בְּ"אַתֶּם הַמְעַט מִכָּל הָעַמִּים״ - ה' מְעַט, אֵינֶנּוּ אֱמֶת, בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁמָּנָה לִבְנֵי לֵוִי שְׁמוֹנָה וְאֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ, כִּי הַשָּׁלֹשׁ לַאֲבוֹתָם כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַרְנוּ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
Now Rashi commented: “*And these are they that were numbered of the Levites*. The families of the Shimeites¹⁴² and the Uzzielites¹⁴³, Verse 27. and part of the Itzharites, namely Nepheg and Zichri, are missing here.”¹⁴⁴. 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],¹⁴⁵, Verse 19. since Merari had no other children except Machli and Mushi,¹⁴⁵, 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,”¹⁴⁶ … 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,’*¹⁴³, Verse 27. which would have included the other two sons of Itzhar apart from Korach, i.e., Nepheg, and Zichri]¹⁴⁴. 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 Itzharites*¹⁴³, 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 Zichri*¹⁴⁴. 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 not*¹⁴⁷ [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*.¹⁴⁸ And the Midrash of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher on the verse, *ye are ‘hame’at’* (*the fewest*) *of all peoples*¹⁴⁹” 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.

footnotes:
¹⁴² Above, 3:21.
¹⁴³ Ibid.
¹⁴⁴ Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri
¹⁴⁵ Ibid.
¹⁴⁵ Ibid.
¹⁴⁶ As it did above, 3:27: And of Kohath was the family of the Amramites
¹⁴³ Ibid.
¹⁴⁴ Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri
¹⁴³ Ibid.
¹⁴⁴ Exodus 6:21: And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri
¹⁴⁷ Above, Verse 11.
¹⁴⁸ I Kings 2:32.
¹⁴⁹ Deuteronomy 7:7. Since it could have said: “ye are ‘me’at’ of all peoples


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:59:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:59:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:59:1)

וְטַעַם **אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי בְּמִצְרָיִם** – עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט, לְפִי שֶׁכָּל בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב עִם כָּל בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם יָרְדוּ לְמִצְרַיִם, וְאֵין בָּהֶם מִי שֶׁהוֹלִיד שָׁם אַחֲרֵי כֵן, זוּלָתִי לֵוִי שֶׁהוֹלִיד אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה, כִּי אִחֵר הַשֵּׁם לֵידָתָהּ כִּי לֹא הִגִּיעַ הַקֵּץ כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי כְּבָר (בראשית מו טו):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
[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;*¹⁵⁰ 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.¹⁵¹

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ Psalms 113:9. Jochebed here is described by Ramban as a joyful mother
¹⁵¹ Genesis 46:15 (Vol. I, p. 559).


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:63:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:63:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:63:1)

וְטַעַם **אֵלֶּה פְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר** עַל פְּקוּדֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵין פְּקוּדֵי הַלֵּוִי בִּכְלָל, כִּי בָּהֶם לֹא יֹאמַר ״וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ״, שֶׁלֹּא נִגְזְרָה הַגְּזֵרָה הַהִיא עַל שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי כְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ב״ב קכא), וְהָעֵד אֶלְעָזָר גַּם פִּנְחָס:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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*],¹⁵² since that decree [that they must perish in the wilderness] did not apply to the tribe of Levi, as our Rabbis have said.¹⁵³ And a proof [of this is] Eleazar, and also Phinehas [who were born in Egypt¹⁵⁴ and yet are both mentioned here, and came into the Land].¹⁵⁵

footnotes:
¹⁵² Verse 64.
¹⁵³ Baba Bathra 121b.
¹⁵⁴ Exodus 6:23; 25.
¹⁵⁵ Joshua 14:1; 22:13.


###### Ramban on Numbers 26:64:1
[Ramban on Numbers 26:64:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Numbers/r/26:64:1)

**וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן** כִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב לֹא הָיוּ עַתָּה בַּפְּקוּדִים הָאֵלּוּ, לְפִי שֶׁהָיוּ מִשִּׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה, וְאֵין הַמִּנְיָן אֶלָּא מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים עַד בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה, כִּי הֵם עִקַּר יְמֵי הָאִישׁ כָּעִנְיָן הָאָמוּר בָּעֲרָכִין (ויקרא כז ג), וְאָז הוּא יוֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לֹא מִשִּׁשִּׁים וָמַעְלָה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ב״ב קכא). אֲבָל אָמַר וְלֹא נוֹתַר מֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי אִם כָּלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן נוּן, שֶׁהָיוּ מִן הַפְּקוּדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְלֹא מֵתוּ:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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,¹⁵⁶ and it is then [in those years] that he *goes forth to war in Israel*,¹⁵⁷ and not after the age of sixty, as our Rabbis have said.¹⁵³ 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].

footnotes:
¹⁵⁶ Leviticus 27:3.
¹⁵⁷ Above, Verse 2.
¹⁵³ Baba Bathra 121b.