Tanach · Acharonim on Tanach · Or HaChaim · Torah
Or HaChaim on Numbers 26:56/אור החיים על במדבר כ״ו:נ״ו
אבֵּין רַב לִמְעָט. בְּמַסֶּכֶת בָּבָא בַּתְרָא (דף קכב.) אָמְרוּ וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָם: אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטִים אִיפְּלוּג אוֹ לְקַרְקַף גַּבְרֵי אִיפְּלוּג? תָּא שְׁמַע ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״. וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁתֵּחָלֵק לִשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים, שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה לֹא נֶחְלְקָה אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וְכוּ׳, וְלֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סְאָה בִּיהוּדָה שָׁוֶה חָמֵשׁ סְאָה בַּגָּלִיל, עַד כָּאן. וְכָתַב רַשְׁבַּ״ם שָׁם וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: תָּא שְׁמַע ״בֵּין רַב״ וְגוֹ׳, שֶׁיִּקַּח כָּל שֵׁבֶט מַה שֶׁיִּתֵּן לוֹ הַגּוֹרָל, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מַגִּיעַ לוֹ חֵלֶק מְרוּבֶּה כְּגוֹן שֵׁבֶט שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ אֲנָשִׁים מְעַט, בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ חֵלֶק מוּעָט כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ אֲנָשִׁים מְרוּבִּים וְכוּ׳, דְּכָל הַשְּׁבָטִים חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה וְכוּ׳, עַד כָּאן. וְקָשֶׁה בְּדִבְרֵי הַגְּמָרָא, לָמָּה מְפַשֵּׁט מֵהַכָּתוּב כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ הֶכְרֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי בַּבְּרַיְתָא שֶׁמֵּבִיא מְפָרְשׁוֹ לְקָרוֹב לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְרָחוֹק מִמֶּנָּה, קָרוֹב קוֹרֵיהוּ רַב, רָחוֹק מְעַט, לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁוֶה יוֹתֵר.
1 בין רב למעט, be they numerous or few. We have already referred to the discussion in Baba Batra 122 about how the division was to proceed, if according to the number of individuals or according to the number of tribes, and we have mentioned that in the future the land would be divided between 13 tribes. In addition to that the Talmud stated that the key to the division was the monetary value of a piece of land, not just its size. Rabbi Yehudah adds that the amount of land needed to grow a bushel of wheat in the tribal area of Yehudah was one fifth of the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of wheat in the Galil. Rashbam comments on the words בין רב למעט that every tribe had to accept the piece of land allocated in the general הגרלה, lottery, regardless of whether they thought they ought to have received a larger share due to the number of men over 20 in that tribe, as all the tribes received equal shares. The difficulty with this approach is that there is no need to accept such a simplistic view based on the text seeing we have a Baraitha according to which the words בין רב למעט are understood to refer to the relative distance from Jerusalem of the various parcels of land allocated to the tribes, i.e. that land close to Jerusalem was considered worth more than land which was a long way from Jerusalem. According to the Baraitha the word רב would refer to land close to Jerusalem being worth more.
בוְעוֹד נִרְאִים דִּבְרֵי הַשַּׁ״ס סוֹתְרִים סוֹפָם לִתְחִלָּתָם, כִּי מֵאָמְרוֹ ״תָּא שְׁמַע בֵּין רַב״ וְגוֹ׳ מְגַלֶּה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁסּוֹבֵר שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה בְּשָׁוֶה לַשְּׁבָטִים, וּמֵאָמְרוֹ ״וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא״ לֹא מַשְׁמַע כֵּן, שֶׁהֲרֵי מְפָרֵשׁ אָמְרוֹ ״בֵּין רַב״ וְגוֹ׳ לְרִחוּק מָקוֹם וְקֵרוּב מָקוֹם. וּמִכֹּחַ זֶה מֻכְרָחִים אָנוּ לוֹמַר דְּסוֹבֵר הַתַּלְמוּד כִּי תַּנָּא דַּעֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל סוֹבֵר שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּהַשְׁוָאָה, וְלָזֶה הֵעִיר הַשַּׁ״ס בְּמַאֲמַר ״תָּא שְׁמַע ׳בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט׳״ לוֹמַר דְּסוֹבֵר כְּדִבְרֵי הַבָּרַיְתָא שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּשָׁוֶה. וְאֵין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ צוֹדְקִים, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם נְפָרֵשׁ ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״ בֵּין שֵׁבֶט שֶׁנּוֹטֵל רַב לְנוֹטֵל מְעַט לְשִׁעוּר אֲנָשָׁיו, מִנַּיִן לָנוּ לוֹמַר רִחוּק מָקוֹם וְקֵרוּב מָקוֹם, וְכֵן לְהֵפֶךְ אִם נְפָרֵשׁ לְרִחוּק מָקוֹם וְכוּ׳ מִנַּיִן לוֹמַר שֶׁנֶּחְלְקָה וְכוּ׳?
2In addition, an examination of the text by the Talmud leads us to conclude that the Talmud is self-contradictory. At the outset the Talmud understands the words to mean that the lottery had to be accepted and there was no compensation for the apparent injustice if a tribe with a large population had drawn a smaller parcel of land in the lottery. The parcels of land were equal in size. In the course of the Talmud's discussion, when it emerges that the words בין רב למעט refer to the distance of the land from Jerusalem, it is clear that the principle of each tribe inheriting equally was not accepted, and would be rectified in the distribution of the land in the future when 12 equal shares would go to the 12 tribes and the ruler would receive the thirteenth share. How could the same words in our verse be used to support both theories?
גוְעוֹד, אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁנֶּחְלְקָה בְּשָׁוֶה לַשְּׁבָטִים, אִם כֵּן נַעֲמִיד מַחְלֹקֶת רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן וְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בַּחֲלֻקַּת כָּל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, לְמָר לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וּלְמָר לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ. כְּפִי זֶה מַה מַקְשָׁה הַגְּמָרָא (בבא בתרא קיח.) וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנָהּ: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם הַיְינוּ דְּקָא צָוְוחָן בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף, דִּכְתִיב (יהושע יז:יד) ״וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ מַאי קָא צָוְוחֵי? כּוּלְהוּ שָׁקוּל לִטְפָלִים, עַד כָּאן. אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה קֻשְׁיָא, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלְּכָל הַסְּבָרוֹת נָטְלוּ בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף בְּשָׁוֶה עִם הַשְּׁבָטִים, וְטַעֲנַת בְּנֵי יוֹסֵף הוּא שֶׁהֵם רַבִּים מִכָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים, וּבֵין לְהָאוֹמֵר לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וּבֵין לְהָאוֹמֵר לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ מַחְלֹקְתָּם הִיא בְּחִלּוּק הַשֵּׁבֶט עַצְמוֹ. אֶלָּא וַדַּאי דְּבֵין לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֵּין לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ בְּהַשְׁוָאָה לַשְּׁבָטִים, וְאֵין לְהַעֲמִיד תַּנָּא דִּבְרַיְתָא הֵפֶךְ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְעוֹד, אִם נֹאמַר שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּשָׁוֶה, יוֹתֵר הָיָה לוֹ לִצְעֹק שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּפִי מִסְפַּר בָּאֵי הָאָרֶץ יֵשׁ בְּמִסְפַּר יְהוּדָה שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁשָּׁה אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, וּמִסְפַּר מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶפְרַיִם יַחַד שְׁמוֹנִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֶלֶף וּמָאתַיִם, נִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין יְתֵרִים שְׁנֵיהֶם מִיהוּדָה אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹנָה אֲלָפִים וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת, וְנָטְלוּ בְּכִפְלַיִם, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵם נָטְלוּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים וִיהוּדָה חֵלֶק אֶחָד, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּבֹאָר שָׁם שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה אֶלָּא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים לְבַד מִלֵּוִי שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל חֵלֶק בָּאָרֶץ.
3Furthermore, once we accept the principle that the land was divided into 12 equal shares to the 12 tribes, the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Rabbi Yonathan would apply to each tribe as the numbers varied between the first count and the census in our portion. If all this were correct, why does the Talmud in Baba Batra 118 raise the problem of the complaints of the tribe of Joseph in Joshua 17,14? If the land had been divided according to the present number of men over 20 why would the tribe of Joseph complain? They received an allocation in accordance with their number. Their complaint would only make sense if their allocation was based on the number of men they had at the time of the Exodus; if the land was distributed according to the present census why did they complain? The Talmud answers that they complained that too many of their number had turned twenty between the present census and the actual distribution and many of those had no father who would have qualified in their stead at this time. I do not understand the problem. Seeing that according to all opinions all tribes received an equal amount of land, i.e. everyone is agreed that the tribe of Joseph received an amount equal to that of each of the other tribes, their complaint would be equally justified regardless of whether we accept the principle of distribution according to Rabbi Yoshiah or that according to Rabbi Yonathan. We are forced to conclude therefore that the Talmud bases the complaint of the tribe of Joseph on a lottery which allocated differently sized parcels of lands to different tribes according to both the view of Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonathan. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the tribes all received the same amount of land, it was the tribe of Yehudah who should have complained as they were the most numerous and had not received more land than the least numerous tribe. The result of such a distribution would have been that Yehudah who numbered 76,500 fighting men received one parcel of land whereas the two tribes Menashe and Ephrayim who numbered only some 8,700 men more received double the amount of land!
דאֶלָּא הַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי כִּי לֹא עָלָה עַל דַּעַת הַגְּמָרָא לוֹמַר שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּקָה לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּשָׁוֶה כְּדִבְרֵי רַשְׁבָּ״ם, וּפֵרוּשׁ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁאָמַר תָּא שְׁמַע בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט – מִמַּשְׁמָעוּת הַכָּתוּב מוֹכִיחַ שֶׁהַחִלּוּק הָיָה לַשְּׁבָטִים, מִמַּה שֶׁהִזְכִּיר בַּגּוֹרָל ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״, הֲרֵי שֶׁהַחֲלוּקָּה שֶׁהָיְתָה עַל פִּי הַגּוֹרָל הָיָה בּוֹ חֵלֶק רַב וְחֵלֶק מוּעָט. וְאִם תֹּאמַר לְקַרְקַף דְּגַבְרֵי לֹא יֻצְדַּק לֵאָמֵר ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״, וּפֵרוּשׁ רַב וּמְעָט הוּא בֵּין שֵׁבֶט שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּפִי אֲנָשָׁיו הַרְבֵּה וּבֵין שֵׁבֶט שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּפִי אֲנָשָׁיו מוּעָט – הַכֹּל יִהְיֶה עַל פִּי הַגּוֹרָל לְעִנְיַן הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיִּטְלוּ בּוֹ חֶלְקֵיהֶם. וְאָמְרוֹ וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּ׳ – יִרְצֶה לְהָבִיא הַדָּבָר בְּיוֹתֵר בֵּאוּר, לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְבַעַל הַדִּין לַחְלֹק וְלוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לְהוֹכִיחַ מִפָּסוּק ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״ אֶלָּא לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַלְּקָה לְקַרְקַף דְּגַבְרֵי, אֲבָל עֲדַיִן יֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק אִם לְמִשְׁפָּחוֹת אוֹ לִשְׁבָטִים. לָזֶה אָמַר״ וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכוּ׳ נִתְחַלְּקָה לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים. נִמְצֵינוּ אוֹמְרִים כִּי פֵּרוּשׁ ״בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט״ לְכָל הַסְּבָרוֹת אֵין נִשְׁמָע מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ הַשְּׁבָטִים בְּשָׁוֶה, וְלֹא חָלְקוּ אֶלָּא כְּפִי שִׁעוּר הַפְּקוּדִים, וּכְדִבְרֵי תַּנָּא שֶׁל סִפְרֵי שֶׁהֵבֵאתִי בְּפָסוּק ״אִישׁ לְפִי פְקֻדָיו״.
4As a result of these considerations I have concluded that the Talmud never meant to imply that the 12 tribes each received the same amount of land as described by Rashbam. The correct interpretation of the Talmud's paragraph starting with the words תא שמע is that the words בין רב למעט mean that the Torah confirms that indeed some tribes received a larger share of land than did others. The reason for this was that the distribution was by lottery. This was the major reason why the lottery was necessary in order to head off complaints. If you even envisaged the possibility that the land was distributed in accordance with the number of people in the present census, what point was there to engage in a lottery at all? Why would the Torah have to mention:- "be they many or few?" The meaning of these words is: "regardless of whether the tribe in question is numerous or small in number the distribution will be based on the lottery concerning the location of their land allocation." The second Baraitha where we are told something about the distribution of the land in the future means to clarify the matter still further by telling us that the lack of consideration for numbers refers only to the fact that the basic consideration is the number of tribes and not the number of individuals in the nation. Such clarification was necessary as one could have argued, based on the wording of the Torah, that the only thing the words בין רב למעט prove is that the land was not going to be distributed on the basis of the individual number of people in the nation, but that it would still be possible to adjust the size of the tribal allocations according to the number of families. This is why the Talmud quotes the Baraitha that even in the future the basic approach to the distribution of the land will be the number of tribes. There would be 12 distinct areas, [like provinces, Ed.] but that the tribal areas would not be identical in size but there would be larger areas (which presumably would be drawn in the lottery by the more numerous tribes) as well as smaller tribal areas. All this is in agreement with the Sifri on the words איש לפי פקודיו which I have mentioned earlier.