[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,⁠ so that Simeon, the smallest of the tribes,⁠ took [a share] equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes,⁠ 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 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,⁠ which seems to indicate that the Land was divided according to population,⁠ it refers to the [division amongst the] members of each [small] family,⁠ for each [of these minor families] received a share according to their numbers by their polls.⁠ 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,' 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.

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,⁠ 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.

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,⁠ and here Scripture only counts five.⁠" This is Rashi's language.
And Rashi has furthermore written:⁠ "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.⁠ And I have found [it written] in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher 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,⁠ and [nonetheless counts also] the families of the Ardites and the Naamites his sons, by themselves,⁠ 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],⁠ and [likewise] the children of Menasheh and Ephraim,⁠ and likewise the children of Asher.⁠ 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!⁠ 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 ten 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]!⁠ 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 included 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.⁠ We will also have to say that Jochebed 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,⁠ 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,⁠ and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela [from these marriages] became heads of families to raise up a name for Ard and Naaman the sons of Benjamin, who were amongst those that went down to Egypt.⁠
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the Naaman and Ard who are counted amongst the sons of Benjamin in the section of And these are the names etc.,⁠ 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,⁠ and similarly Scripture counts them [as the sons of Bela] in the Book of Chronicles.⁠ 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,⁠ 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,⁠ although the last four were in fact his grandchildren!⁠ And even though Scripture did not treat the sons of Perez [as the "sons" of Judah, their grandfather,⁠ 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,⁠ 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 [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,⁠ [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].⁠ 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]!⁠ 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 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,⁠ for from the time that they were fruitful and multiplied 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 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,⁠ and it became a custom in Israel.⁠ 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,⁠ and the family of the Iezerites and that of the Helekites,⁠ the sons of Gilead and their [other] brothers.⁠ 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]⁠ and those of Ephraim,⁠ 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.⁠ 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].