Numberschapter 36
13 verses · Moses, by tradition · 15th to 13th century BC · The Law
So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.
Introduction
Moses, by tradition, The Law, Numbers Overview.
The book of Numbers ends with one family's land and a question of law. In chapter 27 five daughters asked for their father's share because he had died without a son, and the LORD granted it. The leaders of their clan now raise the difficulty that ruling creates if the women marry into another tribe. The case mattered to people who measured a family's future by the ground it held. Listen for how the answer keeps both the daughters' right and the tribe's portion. Then listen for the closing line that gathers the whole book at the edge of the land.
Context
- Who
- The tribe of Manasseh, whose portion was at stake, and every tribe holding an inheritance that could pass out of its hands
- What
- The ruling that a daughter who inherits her father's land marries within her own tribe, so that the land stays with that tribe.
- Where
- The plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, where the book closes.
- When
- In the fortieth year after the Exodus, about 1406 BC on the traditional dating, between Aaron's death in the fifth month and Moses' last addresses in the eleventh, while other scholars date the writing of the book later.
- Why
- To keep each tribe's inheritance whole from generation to generation while keeping the daughters' right granted in chapter 27.
Historical context
The chapter is a case brought by named men and answered by Moses at the word of the LORD. They are the family heads of the clan of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh. It stands last in the book, in the fortieth year on the plains of Moab, which verse 13 states as it closes. The occasion is the ruling of Numbers 27. The daughters of Zelophehad had asked for their father's portion because he left no son, and they were granted it. The men of their clan now point out what that grant does to the tribe's land if the women marry outside it. A first hearer knew what stood behind their worry at verse 4. Land in Israel returned to its original family at the Jubilee under Leviticus 25, so a portion carried into another tribe would be confirmed there. He also knew that marriage within the clan was already the ordinary custom, so the answer at verse 6 left the daughters free to marry anyone they pleased inside their father's tribe. Verses 10 to 12 record that the five women did as they were commanded, and name them: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah.
Significance
The ruling held two rights together. A daughter without brothers kept her father's name on the ground, which is what the case in chapter 27 had won. Her tribe kept the portion allotted to it, which is what the men of Gilead had come to protect. Closing the book here put the point of the second half in view. The land was handed to families who did not yet hold it, and the arrangements for keeping it were settled before one of them crossed the river.
This chapter in Jewish lifeWhat this chapter is in Jewish life and reading.
How it is read
Rashi reads the complaint of the heads of Gilead as a question of descent. If the daughters of Zelophehad married outside the tribe, their sons would inherit from them, and a son is reckoned to his father's tribe (Rashi on Numbers 36:3:1). Sforno puts the same point as a question about the lot. If one tribe came to hold land belonging to another, the purpose of dividing the land by lot would be lost (Sforno on Numbers 36:2:1, the Munk translation, CC-BY).
The mention of the jubilee draws two readings out of Rashi. Taking the words as a condition, he reports an inference of Rabbi Judah. The keeping of the jubilee would cease at some time (Rashi on Numbers 36:4:1, citing Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 1). Taking them as a statement of time, he reads the verse as saying that an inheritance is not a sale. Land sold returns to its owner at the jubilee, and an inheritance never returns, so the jubilee would not undo the transfer (Rashi on Numbers 36:4:2).
Malbim reads the ruling as narrower than it first appears. The command concerns the portion of the tribe, so the requirement is that the husband come from the tribe of the father. A man of another family within Manasseh would serve (Malbim on Numbers 36:6:1, the Sefaria Community Translation, CC0). Rashi holds that the rule of the eighth verse applies to any daughter who inherits because her father had no son (Rashi on Numbers 36:8:1).
The order of the names at the eleventh verse is read as Rashi read it at the opening of chapter 27, and he says so himself. Here they stand by age, because they married in the order they were born. Elsewhere they stand by understanding, and the two orders together show that they were equal (Rashi on Numbers 36:11:1, citing Bava Batra 120a). Sforno reads the marriages as obedience rather than preference. The sisters set out to conform to the will of their Creator, and these husbands were not the ones they would have chosen with a free hand (Sforno on Numbers 36:10:1). He adds that they chose the sons of their uncles from among the families of their own tribe, as the nearest kin, so no land moved between tribes or between families (Sforno on Numbers 36:12:1).
Ibn Ezra comments at eleven places in this short chapter and the corpus carries none of his text, because the licence Sefaria reports for it does not permit keeping it. He stands cited and unquoted at Ibn Ezra on Numbers 36:1:1, 36:1:2, 36:5:1, 36:7:1, 36:7:2, 36:8:1, 36:11:1, 36:12:1, 36:13:1 and 36:13:2. Malbim stands cited without text at Numbers 36:2:1, 36:3:1, 36:5:1, 36:9:1 and 36:10:1, because Sefaria holds no English version of those refs.
What the rabbis say
The corpus carries forty locators on this chapter and the text of none, so each is cited and linked here rather than quoted. Twenty of them are Talmudic and twenty are midrashic. Bava Batra carries the heaviest run of any tractate on any chapter of this span, at fifteen places. It stands at 110b:2, 111a:1, 111a:7, 111a:12, 111b:13, 112a:2, 112a:3, 112b:2, 112b:3, 113a:1, 120a:4, 120a:5, 120a:6, 120a:10 and 121a:7. The Jerusalem Talmud stands at Ketubot 8:5:2 and 9:1:11. Taanit stands at 30b:10, Avot DeRabbi Natan Recension B at 40:12, and one further locator at Introduction to Halakhic Midrashim, Sifrei Numbers 66.
The midrashic locators gather on the same law. Otzar Midrashim stands at Sefer Tagin 5:320, 18:38, 18:39 and 26:44. Midrash Lekach Tov stands at Numbers 36:1:1 and 36:12:1, and at Deuteronomy 1:1:3. Ein Yaakov in the Glick Edition stands at Bava Batra 8:12 and 8:13 and at Taanit 4:11, with Ein Yaakov at Bava Batra 8:14 and Shabbat 12:2. Midrash Aggadah stands at Numbers 36:4:1 and 36:13:1. Bereshit Rabbati stands at Parashat Vayigash 3, Kohelet Rabbah at 1:4:4, Shemot Rabbah at 21:2, Bamidbar Rabbah at 21:15, Midrash Tannaim on Deuteronomy at 18:17:2, and the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael at Tractate Bachodesh 9:11. What each of them teaches is a saying of the rabbis, and is reported as theirs wherever this site quotes one. The quotations wait on a fetch that carries the text, because the corpus holds these locators without it.
Sources: Rashi, Rashi on Numbers 36:3:1 to 36:11:1, the Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary translated by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, 1929 to 1934, public domain; Sforno, Sforno on Numbers 36:2:1, 36:10:1 and 36:12:1, the HaChut Hameshulash translation by Eliyahu Munk, CC-BY; Malbim, Malbim on Numbers 36:6:1, the Sefaria Community Translation, CC0; Ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra on Numbers 36:1:1, 36:1:2, 36:5:1, 36:7:1, 36:7:2, 36:8:1, 36:11:1, 36:12:1, 36:13:1 and 36:13:2, cited by ref because the licence the corpus reports does not permit keeping the text; The Sefaria corpus, scripts/data/sources/sefaria/numbers/36.json, the 20 Talmud and 20 Midrash locators of this chapter, fetched 2026-09-19.
The heads below are this chapter's scenes. The numbered points under each are its verses.
Will their inheritance pass to another tribe?
Numbers 36:1-2
The heads of Gilead bring the fourth unsettled case in Numbers, after the men defiled at 9:6-8, the sabbath-breaker at 15:32-36 and the daughters at 27:1-11. They approach Moses and the leaders as the daughters had at 27:2, so the second hearing opens as the first did. They raise a collision between two commands, the land divided by lot at 26:55 and Zelophehad's inheritance given to his daughters at 27:7.
Numbers 36:1
“What, then, can be the meaning of the objection, that God only half considered what was right? In my opinion, He so arranged His replies, that only when inquired of He assigned to each one his rights. The daughters of Zelophehad come, and demand justice of Moses and the elders, and God complies with their prayers.”
John Calvin · Commentaries (1554)reformed
1 more voice on this verseWhat preachers and commentators have said about this verse, in their own words.
Numbers 36:1
“Formerly they had applied, at their own instance, to be recognized, for want of male heirs in their family, as entitled to inherit their father's property [Nu 27:1-11]; now the application was made on behalf of the tribe to which they belonged--that steps might be taken to prevent the alienation of their patrimony by their alliance with husbands of another tribe.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
The elders cite two commands already given, the lot of 26:55 and the grant of 27:7, and they accept both. Matthew Henry notes they were glad of the grant, since any of their own houses might one day need it. Adam Clarke joins this chapter to 27:1-11 as one case.
Numbers 36:2
“To give the inheritance of Zelophehad - unto his daughters - See this case spoken of at large on Numbers 27 (note). Either the first eleven verses of Numbers 27 should come in before this chapter, or this chapter should come in immediately after those eleven verses; they certainly both make parts of the same subject. Here Moses determines that heiresses should marry in their own tribe, that no part of the ancient inheritance might be alienated from the original family.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
Numbers 36:3-4
The objection is a consequence chapter 27 never addressed, since an heiress marrying into another tribe carries her land with her. Verse 4 closes off the Jubilee as a remedy, since Leviticus 25:10-13 restores land that was sold, and inherited land already belongs to the receiving tribe. Albert Barnes states it in those terms, that the Jubilee would in effect confirm the alienation.
Numbers 36:3
“And it is probable that this was not a bare surmise, or supposition, but that they knew, at this time, great court was made to them by some young gentlemen of other tribes, because they were heiresses, that they might get footing in this tribe, and so enlarge their own inheritance.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
The jubilee of Leviticus 25:10-13 returns land that was sold to its first family. Matthew Henry thinks the fear was real, since men of other tribes were likely courting the heiresses to gain a footing in Manasseh. The jubilee would settle the loss.
Marry within your father's family
Numbers 36:5-6
The answer through Moses, "The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks correctly", refines the ruling of 27:7 because a second party was heard. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown call this progressive legislation and observe that such additions fall in civil matters and never in the laws of worship. The liberty of the first ruling survives, "They may marry anyone they please", within "a clan of the tribe of their father".
Numbers 36:5
“Here was an instance of progressive legislation (see also Ex 18:27) in Israel, the enactments made being suggested by circumstances. But it is deserving of special notice that those additions to, or modifications of, the law were confined to civil affairs; while the slightest change was inadmissible in the laws relating to worship or the maintenance of religion.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)reformed
1 more voice on this verse
Numbers 36:5
“Now the matter is thus accommodated: these heiresses must be obliged to marry, not only within their own tribe of Manasseh, but within the particular family of the Hepherites, to which they did belong. They are not determined to any particular persons; there was choice enough in the family of their father: Let them marry to whom they think best.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible (1707-1721)puritan
Adam Clarke calls the rule freedom with a reasonable restraint. Matthew Henry notes that the choice left to the daughters was wide, since the family of their father, the Hepherites, held men enough. Their clan ran back through Hepher and Gilead to Manasseh, by 27:1.
Numbers 36:6
“Now, since the genealogy of Joseph is so traced, Mary also appears virtually to have been of the same tribe as he, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For it was commanded to join in marriage with one of the same family and of the same people, so that the inheritance of the race might not be changed from tribe to tribe.”
Eusebius of Caesarea · written before 339 · ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.7patristic
Numbers 36:7-9
One family's case becomes law for every heiress, stated at verses 7 and 9, so the map drawn by lot at 26:55 holds. John Gill and John Wesley add that tribes stayed traceable so the Messiah's descent could be known, and Eusebius argues Mary's tribe from Joseph's on that ground in his Ecclesiastical History. Numbers gives its own reason, "so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers".
Adam Clarke notes that the law bound heiresses only, so other daughters could marry into any tribe. Priests and Levites, who held no land, stood outside it, and he cites Jehoiada, who married a daughter of the king of Judah in 2 Chronicles 22. John Wesley sees the purpose in keeping the Messiah's tribe clear.
Numbers 36:8
“And the principal reason why God was solicitous to preserve tribes and families unmixed was, that the tribe and family too, out of which the Messiah was to come, and by which he should be known, might be evident and unquestionable.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament (1765)evangelical
Verse 9 repeats verse 7 almost word for word, turning a family's case into a law for the tribes. John Gill notes that keeping land in its tribe was one end of the jubilee, which this case shows could not secure it without this law. The rule holds for every tribe.
Numbers 36:9
“Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another,.... Which was one end of the year of jubilee, but that did not sufficiently secure it without this law, as this case shows: but everyone of the tribes of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance; the chief view of which was, that it might clearly appear of what tribe and family the Messiah sprang when he came.”
The daughters do as they were commanded
Numbers 36:10-12
The sisters are named a third time, with Tirzah and Noah trading places from 26:33 and 27:1. Gill reports the older explanations, Aben Ezra taking this as the order of their marriages and Jarchi as a sign that none of the five was preferred. They married "cousins on their father’s side" within the family of Hepher, and Joshua 17:3-6 records them receiving their portion when Canaan is divided.
Numbers 36:10
“Even as the Lord commanded Moses, so did the daughters of Zelophehad. They married into, the family of their father's tribe, according to the following account.”
Their husbands were sons of their father's brothers, first cousins, as John Gill puts it. That kept the land inside the family of Hepher, closer than the clan that verse 6 required. The five names match 26:33 in a new order.
Numbers 36:11
“For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah,.... The names of the daughters of Zelophehad, and the same as in Num 26:33, only the order a little varied, Tirzah and Noah here changing places; there they are according to their birth, here they are according to their marriage, as Aben Ezra thinks; though Jarchi is of opinion, that being thus differently placed shows that they were equal to one another, and one was not preferred to the other: these were married unto their father's brothers' sons; so that they were first cousins.”
John Gill reports the point of Aben Ezra that the verse says clans, in the plural, so the cousins were sons of more than one of their father's brothers. Adam Clarke quotes Ainsworth, who draws the lesson that believers are to hold fast their inheritance in God's promises. The land stayed where the lot put it.
Numbers 36:12
“And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph,.... The family of the Hepherites, of which they were. Aben Ezra observes, that their being married into families, and not a family, is a sign that their uncles' sons were not all of them brethren, or the sons of one man, but of more, though all sons of one or other of their father's, brethren: and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father; by means of these marriages, even both in their father's tribe and family.”
The book signs off by fixing a place, "on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho". Leviticus had closed with commandments given "on Mount Sinai" at 27:34, and the change of address measures what happened in between. Numbers ends with a case raised by ordinary men and settled in their favour, and Deuteronomy opens on these same plains with Moses beginning to speak.
Numbers 36:13
“These are the commandments, etc. - See these different terms analyzed and explained, Lev 26:15 (note). Thus ends the book of Numbers, containing a series of astonishing providences and events. Scarcely any piece of history in the sacred writings is better calculated to impress the mind of a serious reader with a sense of the goodness and severity of God. In every transaction his holiness and justice appear in closest union with his benevolence and mercy. From such a Being what have the wicked not to fear! From such a Father and Friend what have the upright not to hope!”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible (1810-1826)evangelical
How this psalm is built
The form: Case law, a second hearing that completes a ruling already given, as Clarke classes it.
The patterns in this chapter
| Device | What it does | Where to see it |
|---|---|---|
| No inheritance may be transferred from tribe to tribe | The ruling states its principle twice in three verses. Verse 7 says no inheritance in Israel may be transferred from tribe to tribe, and verse 9 says it again in almost the same words. The repetition marks the sentence the case was brought to settle. | Numbers 36:7, Numbers 36:9 |
| The case reopened and closed | The daughters of Zelophehad open a question in chapter 27 and the same family closes it here. Adam Clarke notes how closely the two passages belong together, and observes that the first eleven verses of chapter 27 stand immediately before this chapter in subject.Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible, 1832, on Numbers 36:2. | Numbers 27:1-11, Numbers 36:1-12 |
| The five named at the end | Verse 11 names the five women again: Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah. John Gill observes that the order differs from the list at Numbers 26:33, where Tirzah and Noah stand in the other places.John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, 1748 to 1763, on Numbers 36:11. | Numbers 36:11 |
The two hearings read together
9 more paragraphs on the patterns
Adam Clarke treats this chapter and the opening of chapter 27 as one subject, and says the first eleven verses of chapter 27 belong immediately before this chapter. Read that way, the Torah gives a right and then guards it, in two hearings separated by nine chapters.
The restraint and what it left open
Adam Clarke reads verse 6 as latitude with a reasonable limit. The daughters were free to marry whomever they thought best, and the one restraint prevented a vexatious mixture of property and possession between the tribes.
A small detail in the list of names
John Gill notices that the five names at verse 11 stand in a different order from the list at Numbers 26:33. In the earlier list the order follows their birth, and here Tirzah and Noah have changed places. The Berean text in the store reads Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah at Numbers 26:33 and at Numbers 27:1, and Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah here.
The family it belonged to
Matthew Henry points out which half of Manasseh this family came from. It belonged to the half that had yet to receive its lot west of the Jordan. The men still speak of the land as the inheritance of their fathers before any of it is in their hands.
The book's own last word
Adam Clarke marks verse 13 as the end of a book of astonishing providences. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown read it as a closing summary and locate the camp on the plateau north of the Arnon.
Keep studying
Sources for this chapter
The summary
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory; John Calvin, Commentaries; John Wesley, Notes on the Old Testament and Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary.
The form and classifications
Adam Clarke and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871, on Numbers 36:13.
The exposition
Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible; John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament; John Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament; Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch and Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible.