Explanation #1: In Rashi's Perush on Chumash (Bamidbar 26:55), he said that [those who entered Eretz Yisrael] returned [their shares] to their grandfathers.

Explanation: He means that a man (Yakov) who left Mitzrayim and he has two sons, and one of those sons (Dan) has one son, and the other son (Levi) has three sons, now when they return to their grandfather, [Dan and Levi] return to divide equally;

This is because they come from [Yakov's] power, and this one (Levi) should not inherit more than this one (Dan);

Reason: Had the grandfather (of the sons of Dan and Levi) not left Mitzrayim, rather, the fathers (Dan and Levi) themselves, why should they share equally when each returns [his share] to his father? Each father returns and bequeaths to his sons, and not to the sons of his brother!

Implied question: Why does it say that a parable is two Kohanim brothers, and it does not mention their father?

Answer: It says so for a mere parable. (It is not precise.)

Question #1: According to Explanation #1, [the Torah] should have written "li'Shmos Matos Avos Avosam", for when there are not grandfathers (who left Mitzrayim), rather, only fathers, there is no consequence of returning [inheritance to the fathers].

Question #2: The Tosefta that the Rashbam brought teaches only two brothers who left Mitzrayim. One has nine sons.... It does not teach two sons and their father!

Explanation #2 (Riva): It is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that when they return to their fathers, the two brothers share equally, even though normally this is not the law, here it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, from these two verses;

Implied question: It says that the dead inherit the living! (This connotes that it works like inheritance!)

Answer: It is not truly the law of inheritance, rather, it resembles the law of inheritance.

Question: What is the difference between the opinion that [Eretz Yisrael] was divided among those who left Mitzrayim, and the opinion that it was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael?

Now (according to Explanation #2), when those who entered the land return to their fathers everything that they received, and the fathers divide equally [to their sons], it is as if it was divided among those who left Mitzrayim!

Answer: Only when they are brothers, they return to divide equally. However, if they are not brothers, no. If this one has nine sons, and this one has one son, [the former] receives nine Lesechim (i.e. the area in which nine half-Korim are sown), and [the latter] receives one Lesech;

However, according to the opinion that [Eretz Yisrael] was divided among those who left Mitzrayim, everyone receives equally.

Implied question: The Rashbam explained that if Reuven and Shimon left Mitzrayim and fathered sons in the Midbar, this had 10 sons and this had one, if we follow those who left Mitzrayim, the one would receive as much as all of them. However, now [i.e. according to the opinion that it was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael], 10 receive 10 portions, and the one receives one!

Answer: He does not discuss Reuven and Shimon brothers, for if so, also according to the opinion that it was divided among those who entered the land, they would divide equally! Rather, they are strangers.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): When the sons return to their fathers, all fathers in Yisrael divide equally.

A difference between the opinion [that it was divided among] those who left Mitzrayim, and the one who says those who entered the land, is regarding those who died in the Midbar and their children entered the land all young (below 20) or women, like Tzlafchad's daughters;

According to the opinion that it was divided among those who left Mitzrayim, they received. According to the opinion [that it was divided among] those who entered the land, they did not receive at all.

Another difference is oppositely - if children left Mitzrayim, and not fathers, and they entered the land they were [at least] 20 years old, they or their children, according to the opinion "those who entered the land", they received. According to the opinion "those who left Mitzrayim", they did not receive.

Question #1 (against Explanation #3): Why did the Tosefta mention two brothers?

Question #2 (Rivam): "Li'Shmos Matos Avosam" connotes specifically brothers, for everywhere brothers are called fathers, e.g. "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim", and we derive (Sanhedrin 27b) that one's brother's son is Pasul to testify about him.

Also, from "Banim Lo Yumsu Al Avos" we derive there that one's father's brother is Pasul [to testify about his nephew].

Question #3 (against Explanation #1): Also, from there we can prove that we return to the fathers, and not to the grandfather. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Question #3 (against Explanation #3 - Rivam): What was the question below (118a) "according to the opinion 'those who entered the land', why did Bnei Yosef complain"? According to Explanation #3, they properly complained according to the opinion "those who entered the land", just like according to the opinion "those who left Mitzrayim"!

In any case they received only based on the [number of] fathers who left Mitzrayim, since all fathers in Yisrael share equally!

However, if only brothers share equally, it is a proper question. Even though there were a small number of fathers in Bnei Yosef, they returned to their sons according to how they increased!

Answer: According to R. Tam's Perush, we must say that they return only to fathers within the same Shevet, and not to all of Yisrael.

Support: "Li'Shmos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" connotes that only fathers in that Shevet [receive from the children who entered the land].

Remark: R. Tam gave a different answer. It is difficult.

Explanation: We discuss one man who receives two portions for himself, for he left Mitzrayim and came to the land, like is proven in the Tosefta that the Rashbam himself brought;

Citation (Tosefta - R. Shimon): It was divided even to those who left Mitzrayim. What is the case? If he was from those who left Mitzrayim, but not from Arvos Mo'av, or from those who entered the land, but not from those who left Mitzrayim, he receives one portion. If he was from those and from those, he receives a portion from (i.e. due to) here and from here...

Citation (cont.): So R. Shimon used to say, that Yehoshua and Kalev received three portions in the land. They were from those who left Mitzrayim, and from those who stood on Arvos Mo'av, and they received the portions of the [other] Meraglim.

Question: If so, Yehoshua and Kalev were counted in Arvos Mo'av [to receive portions] for entering the land, for it says "la'Eleh Techalek ha'Aretz". If so, men above 60 years old were counted in Arvos Mo'av!

Source: Yehoshua was 110 [when he died], and he led Yisrael only 28 years (so he was 82 at Arvos Mo'av), and also Kalev was [at the time almost] 80, like it says "Ben Arba'im Shanah Anochi bi'Shlo'ach Moshe Eved Hash-m..."

We do not learn from Erchin, like we learn below, that there was no decree against men [above] 60, from Erchin;

Even though it says in the count of Yisrael "from 20 and above", we do not learn "above" from Erchin [to say that it is only until 60].

Summation of question: Since men above 60 were counted in Arvos Mo'av, the same applies to [those counted] in Midbar Sinai. If so, why does it say in the count in Arvos Mo'av "there was no man counted by Moshe... and no man remained, except for Kalev ben Yefunah and Yehoshua bin Nun?"

Since men above 60 were counted, there remained also Ya'ir ben Menasheh and Machir ben Menasheh, who were born in the days of Yakov, and did not die until after they entered the land!

We say so below that there was no decree against men less than 20 or above 60!

Answer (Rashba): The verse means as follows. There was no man counted by Moshe and Aharon, on whom it was proper to decree, except for Kalev ben Yefunah and Yehoshua bin Nun, who were less than 60 at the first count.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): To [a family] that was large when it left Mitzrayim, give a big portion, even though it is small at the time of entering the land, and to one that was small when it left Mitzrayim, give a small portion, even though now it is big at the time of entering the land;

Support (Rashbam, for himself): It expounds like this in the Sifri, like the Rashbam brought explicitly;

Citation (Sifri): "La'Rav Tarbeh" - if a man left Mitzrayim with 10 sons, and there were only five at the time of entering, I apply to them "la'Rav Tarbeh."

Explanation: The five who remain receive 10 portions. Their inheritance was increased.

Question: The Seifa is unlike what was taught 'if he left Mitzrayim with five sons, and there were 10 at the time of entering, I apply to them "la'Me'at Tam'it"!

Now, the inheritance of those five was not diminished through there being 10 now, for in any case they receive five portions. The five who were born share in their father's portion with the first five.