Dividing the Land by Lot: The Bible’s Postfacto, Is Plato’s Utopia

After laying out the borders of the land in great detail (34:3–12), Moses states that it will be divided among the tribes entering the Cisjordan by way of lot,^[1] but gives no details about this lot:

^{במדבר לד:יג} וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּתְנַחֲלוּ אֹתָהּ בְּגוֹרָל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הוָה לָתֵת לְתִשְׁעַת הַמַּטּוֹת וַחֲצִי הַמַּטֶּה.

^{Num 34:13} Moses instructed the Israelites, saying: This is the land you are to receive by lot as your hereditary portion, which YHWH has commanded to be given to the nine and a half tribes.^[2]

Instead, Numbers continues with a list of the leaders of the tribes who will be involved in the division (34:16–29), a list of Levitical cities (35:1–8), the cities of refuge law (35:9–34), and a revision of the inheritance law for daughters (ch. 36).

The Tribal Lottery in Joshua

The lottery for tribal allocation appears again in the section in the book of Joshua which describes the division of the land. After reminding readers that the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Manasseh settled in the Transjordan (ch. 13), it continues with a general statement that Joshua and the tribal leaders will conduct the lottery for the remaining nine (and a half) tribes, but does not initially explain the mechanism, or how the borders between tribes will be determined:

^{יהושע יד:א} וְאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נָחֲלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן אֲשֶׁר נִחֲלוּ אוֹתָם אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְרָאשֵׁי אֲבוֹת הַמַּטּוֹת לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. ^יד:ב בְּגוֹרַל נַחֲלָתָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הוָה בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה לְתִשְׁעַת הַמַּטּוֹת וַחֲצִי הַמַּטֶּה... ^יד:ה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּחְלְקוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ.

^{Josh 14:1} And these are the allotments of the Israelites in the land of Canaan, that were apportioned to them by the priest Eleazar, by Joshua son of Nun, and by the heads of the ancestral houses of the Israelite tribes, ^14:2 the portions that fell to them by lot, as YHWH had commanded through Moses for the nine and a half tribes…. ^14:5 Just as YHWH had commanded Moses, so the Israelites did when they apportioned the land.

The text then continues with the borders and main cities of the tribe of Judah (ch. 15) and then the Joseph tribes (chs. 16–17)—the largest and politically most important tribes—without explaining how they were determined. At this point, Joshua complains that the people from the seven remaining tribes^[3] are being lazy about settling their lands:

^{יהושע יח:ב} וַיִּוָּתְרוּ בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר לֹא חָלְקוּ אֶת נַחֲלָתָם שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים. ^יח:ג וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אָנָה אַתֶּם מִתְרַפִּים לָבוֹא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָכֶם יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם.

^{Josh 18:2} But there remained seven tribes of the Israelites which had not yet received their portions. ^18:3 So Joshua said to the Israelites, “How long will you be slack about going and taking possession of the land which YHWH, the God of your fathers, has assigned to you?”

Joshua then offers more specific instructions on the division by lot between the remaining tribes, beginning with the need to map out the seven territories:

^{יהושע יח:ד} הָבוּ לָכֶם שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים לַשָּׁבֶט וְאֶשְׁלָחֵם וְיָקֻמוּ וְיִתְהַלְּכוּ בָאָרֶץ וְיִכְתְּבוּ אוֹתָהּ לְפִי נַחֲלָתָם וְיָבֹאוּ אֵלָי.

^{Josh 18:4} Appoint three men of each tribe; I will send them out to go through the country and write down a description of it for purposes of apportionment, and then come back to me.

The passage does not explains how the men were to determine the borders of each territory: was eat allotted a territory of equal size?  Of equal quality?  All it says is that it should be divided by lot into seven plots:  

^יח:ה וְהִתְחַלְּקוּ אֹתָהּ לְשִׁבְעָה חֲלָקִים יְהוּדָה יַעֲמֹד עַל גְּבוּלוֹ מִנֶּגֶב וּבֵית יוֹסֵף יַעַמְדוּ עַל גְּבוּלָם מִצָּפוֹן. ^יח:ו וְאַתֶּם תִּכְתְּבוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ שִׁבְעָה חֲלָקִים וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֵלַי הֵנָּה וְיָרִיתִי לָכֶם גּוֹרָל פֹּה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ.

^18:5 They shall divide it into seven parts—Judah shall remain by its territory in the south, and the house of Joseph shall remain by its territory in the north.—^18:6 When you have written down the description of the land in seven parts, bring it here to me. Then I will cast lots for you here before YHWH our God.

The men do as Joshua tells them, and we do finally hear about lots being thrown to determine which tribe gets which land.  Yet, the mechanics of the lottery remain murky:

^{יהושע יח:ט} וַיֵּלְכוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיַּעַבְרוּ בָאָרֶץ וַיִּכְתְּבוּהָ לֶעָרִים לְשִׁבְעָה חֲלָקִים עַל סֵפֶר וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁלֹה. ^יח:י וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ לָהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ גּוֹרָל בְּשִׁלֹה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וַיְחַלֶּק שָׁם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת הָאָרֶץ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמַחְלְקֹתָם.

^{Josh 18:9} So the men went and traversed the land; they described it in a document, town by town, in seven parts, and they returned to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh. ^18:10 Joshua cast lots for them at Shiloh before YHWH, and there Joshua apportioned the land among the Israelites according to their divisions.

The book of Joshua then goes on to list the borders of these seven tribes (chs. 18–19). The division by lottery could be described as a technical, random tool, impartially and impersonally distributing inheritance, or as a divinatory instrument that invites divine intervention, or some interaction of the two (humans are being impartial, God makes sure things turn out according to the divine plan). 

The account here envisions a totally fair, idealized planning of the state, run impartially by a revered leader (Joshua) with randomization and/or the help of God (the lots). Such a depiction—despite the continued existence of a local population, which is ignored—has an imaginary, utopian quality, and scholars generally read this as a post facto depiction of what was once a more natural process, lost to history.

Idealized Land Division in Plato’s Laws

Plato (428–424 B.C.E.) offers a similar type of idealized land division in his Laws. Written in Greece at the time of Persian Period Yehud—the two societies were not likely in contact with each other on a cultural level—Laws has an Athenian stranger (the speaker is not Socrates in this work) envision the founding of a theoretical future state. First, a capital city is to be established in the center of the territory: 

^{Plato Laws ch. 5, 745b–e} After this, the legislator’s first job is to locate the city as precisely as possible in the center of the country, provided that the site he chooses is a convenient one for a city in all other respects too (these are details which can be understood and specified easily enough).^[4]

Next a temple is established, from which the land is to be divided into twelve districts: 

Next he must divide the country into twelve sections. But first he ought to reserve a sacred area for Hestia, Zeus, and Athena (calling in the ‘acropolis’), and enclose its boundaries; he will then divide the city itself and the whole country into twelve sections by lines radiating from this central point.

The contour of these districts is to be determined by studying the nature of the land, a factor neither Numbers nor Joshua mention in the land division:

The twelve sections should be made equal in the sense that a section should be smaller if the soil is good, bigger if it is poor.

Next, these districts need to be subdivided based on the number of family units that will settle upon them, and each family is then given two holdings, one near the capital city and one distant from it, factoring in the total amount of good land and poor land:

The legislator must then mark out five thousand and forty holdings, and further divide each into two parts; he should then make an individual holding consist of two such parts coupled so that each has a partner near the center or the boundary of the state as the case may be. (A part near the city and a part next to the boundary should form one holding, the second nearest the city with the second from the boundary should form another and so on.) He must apply to the two parts the rule I’ve just mentioned about the relative quality of the soil, making them equal by varying their size.

The people are then divided into tribes to inhabit these districts—the inverse direction from the biblical text,^[5] in which Israelites are first tribes, then subdivided into family units:

He should also divide the population into twelve sections, and arrange to distribute among them as equally as possible all wealth over and above the actual holdings (a comprehensive list will be compiled.)

Each tribe/district is then given its specific deity to adopt/protect:

Finally, they must allocate the sections as twelve “holdings” for the twelve gods, consecrate each section to the particular god which it has drawn by lot, name it after him, and call it a “tribe.”

Finally, each household in the tribe is given its two holdings, as already set out.

Again, they must divide the city into twelve sections in the same way as they divided the rest of the country; and each man should be allotted two houses, one near the center of the state, one near the boundary. That will finish off the job of getting the state founded.

Although the Athenian does not explain in this passage how to determine which plots each family unit received, earlier on, when laying out the requirement to maintain the same number of plots over time, and not to allow them to switch hands from one family unit to another, he implies the division is to be done by lottery (kleros):

^{Plato Laws ch. 5 §741b} [Y]our first task now is keep up the said number as long as you live, you must respect the upper limits of the total property which you originally distributed as being reasonable, and not buy and sell your holdings among yourselves. The lot by which they were distributed is a god, so there will be no support for you there, or from the legislator either.

In contrast to Plato, Leviticus allows for the temporary selling of plots, although the jubilee law (Lev 25) requires any land sold to return the original family every fifty years. Other similarities between the biblical view of dividing the land and Plato’s are:

• Equality of land grants
• Use of lots
• Connection with divinity
• Central planning

Although the specifics differ from the biblical text, both depict similar elements of central planning in an artificial imagining of the founding of a country. This systematic allotment combines the rational character of using the lot, intended to ensure equality among settlers, with the sacred nature of lottery-based division.

In Plato, the lot, which determines the family’s holdings, is described as divine. Moreover, the lot determines which deity will be associated with which territory and tribe. Responsible for the person’s home and god, the lot defines the individual’s fate, without any agency or personal choice, while at the same time ensuring that the person inherits a fair portion of land.

This might be called: “the paradox of divine lot.” As a practical measure, the division by lot is a human controlled process, allowing a central authority to organize social and religious elements and ground human rights in landed property, while the theological implications portray the citizens as passive pawns in the hands of transcendent forces that dictate their entire existence.

Personal Land Grants: The Other Torah Lottery

Until now, we’ve looked at the biblical description of lots for tribes (Num 34 and Josh 14–19), but Numbers also has a lottery for individual family units.^[6] Following the census conducted on the eve of the conquest, God commands Moses to apportion the land among the Israelite families according to their size:

^{במדבר כו:נג} לָאֵלֶּה תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ בְּנַחֲלָה בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת. ^כו:נד לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט נַחֲלָתוֹ אִישׁ לְפִי פְקֻדָיו יֻתַּן נַחֲלָתוֹ.

^{Num 26:53} Among these shall the land be apportioned as shares, according to the listed names: ^26:54 with larger groups increase the share, with smaller groups reduce the share. Each is to be assigned its share according to its enrollment.

A division based on the differing size of the family groups would not seem to be amenable to lots. As we saw above Plato’s Laws, lots are designed for plots of equivalent size and value, as a way of randomizing who gets what and involving the deity in the final choice. Nevertheless,  the command here continues with a lottery:

^כו:נה אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ. ^כו:נו עַל פִּי הַגּוֹרָל תֵּחָלֵק נַחֲלָתוֹ בֵּין רַב לִמְעָט.

^26:55 But the land is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes. ^26:56 Each portion shall be assigned by lot, whether for larger or smaller groups.

As long noted by commentators, rabbinic, medieval, and modern, there is little sense in using a lottery under these circumstances: if the land was measured and equally divided before casting the lot, then each portion should be equal, leaving no possibility to differentiate between the larger and smaller tribes. But if the size of the tribe is considered, how then can a lot be used?

Most commentators adopt a harmonistic approach. One relatively simple model, for instance, was suggested by Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800–1865), who proposed a two-step process of allotment by lottery first, followed by an adjustment based on population size:

^{שד"ל במדבר כו:נה} הגורל היה קובע הצד שבו ינחל כל בית אב, אך השיעור היה לפי המספר.

^{Shadal Num 26:55} The lot would determine on which part of the land each household would get, but the size of the plot would be determined based on the number.

Nevertheless, as argued by Itamar Kislev in “Apportioning the Land: By Lot and By Population?!” (TheTorah 2016), the two halves of the legislation more likely reflect two opposing traditions as to how the land should be apportioned. He argues that the first half reflects the older, egalitarian tradition, and that the returnees from Babylonian exile revised this text, replacing the rational division based on population with a lottery system associated with God. The literary argument for the revision is compelling, both because of the contradiction and the use of the transition term אַךְ “but,” which often marks a supplement,^[7] nevertheless, the reason for this revision is unclear.

Unlike the lottery for tribal lands in the Book of Joshua, no mention is made here of casting the lot in a sacred place with priestly presence and divine intervention. On the contrary, the phrasing here is very human, with a possible emphasis on the randomness of a lottery to avoid problems of bias or favoritism in the distribution. Moreover, by bringing the lottery here, the division among tribal families parallels the division among the tribes, since all land division thus becomes subject to lottery division.

Allegorical Interpretation in Qumran

The sectarian Treatise of the Two Spirits [1QS 3:13–4:26], found in Qumran,^[8] offered an allegorical interpretation of the division among family units, according to which the division by lottery in the Torah is not about land but about who will be chosen as connected to God. Each individual receives a relative portion in the divine lot, belonging either the sons of light or the sons of darkness (the bolded words show the usage of the biblical passage):

^{מגילת הסרכים ד:טו–יז} באלה תולדות כל בני-איש ובמפלגיהן ינחלו כל צבאותם לדורותם ובדרכיהן יתהלכו וכול פעולת| מעשיהם במפלגיהן לפי נחלת איש בין רוב למועט לכול קיצי עולמים כיא אל שמן בד בבד עד קץ| אחרון ויתן איבת עולם בין מפלגותם...^[9]

^{Rule Scroll 4:15–17} These are the generations of all the sons of man. In their divisions, all their hosts shall inherit throughout their generations. They shall walk in their ways. All their deeds are in their divisions, according to each man's inheritance, whether large or small, for all eternal periods. For God has set them side by side until the final end, and He placed everlasting enmity between their divisions….

^{מגילת הסרכים ד:כד–כו} וכפי נחלת איש באמת יצדק וכן ישנא עולה וכירושתו בגורל עול ירשע בו וכן| יתעב אמת

^{Rule Scroll 4:24–26} According to each man’s inheritance shall he be justified in truth or hate injustice. According to his inheritance in the lot of injustice, he shall be wicked therein and detest the truth.

כיא בד בבד שמן אל עד קץ נחרצה ועשות חדשה והוא ידע פעולת מעשיהן לכל קצי| [פקודתן] וינחילן לבני איש לדעת טוב [ורע כיא א]ל  [ה]פיל גורלות לכול חי לפי רוחו בם [מועד] הפקודה.

For side by side has God placed them until the decreed end and the renewal of creation. He knows the deeds of their actions for all appointed times and assigns to mankind knowledge of good and evil. For God cast lots for all living according to their spirits at the time of visitation.

The passage can be seen as a kind of pesher, elucidating the contemporary relevance of the biblical inheritance by lot. Like many biblical passages, that of the inheritance lots from the Book of Numbers had little meaning for a nation that was no longer divided into tribes living on a land under foreign rule. Moreover, the Community Rule apparently opposed private property ownership (1.11–12),  and thus developed an allegorical reading of a law having to deal with private inheritance.

At the same time, this is not merely an allegorical reading, but a way of solving the interpretive difficulty in the biblical verses. According to “The Two Spirits,” Scripture does not describe two conflicting criteria for dividing the land—by population vs. by lot. Rather, both portray divine activity: God distributes the land—that is, the spiritual inheritance—in an unequal manner, between many and few. This is the lot that God casts for humanity.