Rashi says this was done not by that solemn lot by which the Lord gave the tribes [their] inheritance, but by a certain private [lot] which all the tribes themselves, among themselves, cast by agreement. For he will [have it] that, from
(col. 1191)
[…continued from col. 1190.] For he will [have it] that, from Jacob’s testament (Gen. 49), on account of the crime committed against the Shechemites, both Levi and Simeon [were] disinherited; but [that], since for that one [Levi it] was provided by God, while this one [Simeon] would remain without any share of inheritance, the other tribes — having pity on him — cast a lot [to see] which of all [of them] would receive him into its possession, and would sprinkle [bestow] on him one little ounce, as it were, of inheritance; and [that] this lot fell upon the tribe of Judah. But the Rabbi [Rashi] here contradicts the text entirely. For the solemn and public lot, which was cast at Shiloh before the ark of the Lord, is described; and from it [it] is said [that] “the lot of the children of Simeon came forth, and indeed the second.” How [is it] “second,” except in respect of a first? and how [is it] “second in respect of a first,” unless the same kind of lot [was] observed? How, likewise, [is] the lot of Zabulon afterward “third” (v. 10), except in respect of this second one? And so of all the rest. And what reason, what sign or seal of that “private” lot, can be brought forward? Indeed, by those tablets of his testament, Jacob excluded neither Levi nor Simeon from obtaining an inheritance — as [was] expounded (ch. 13, q. 6 & 7) concerning the Levitic tribe — but only said (Gen. 49:7): “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.” Which [prophecy], even if the Simeonic [tribe] has now obtained an inheritance by lot like the other tribes, we nevertheless see [to be] most aptly fulfilled, in that [it] is placed within the boundaries of another tribe, in another’s lodging, as it were.