Question III. Why [was] the Simeonic [portion] placed within the bounds of the Judaic [tribe] rather than of any other tribe whatsoever?

The text answers (v. 9): “This is the inheritance of the children of Simeon according to their kindreds, in the possession and cord [portion] of the children of Juda, because it was greater [too large].” For “in the possession and cord,” in the Hebrew [it] is “from the cord,” that is, according to the 70, “ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ Ἰούδα [apo tou klērou tou Iouda]” [“from the lot of Judah”]. But this possession of Judah, when [it] is called “greater,” with what other [possession] is [it] compared? Is [it] with the Simeonic [portion] itself? But in the same way [Judah] ought to have received the Benjaminite [tribe] into [its] part and bosom, as it were, as its own — because this [Judah] was greater than it too; and again, [it ought] similarly to have admitted any other smaller [tribe] into a share of its own lot. [It is] to be said [that] the tribe of Judah is compared to itself, and was greater than would suit it [i.e. larger than it needed]; and so a particle [was] cut off from it, which would furnish a seat for the Simeonic tribe. Word for word in the Hebrew [it] is: “because the portion of the children of Judah was much [too much], or great, beyond them” — namely, beyond the children of Judah — that is, greater than was necessary for them, [greater] than was owed to them. And so the 70: “ὅτι ἐγενήθη ἡ μερὶς υἱῶν Ἰούδα μείζων ἢ αὐτῶν [hoti egenēthē hē meris huiōn Iouda meizōn ē autōn]” [“because the portion of the children of Judah became greater than they [could use]”].