Numbers 36:11

Num 36:11 For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father’s brothers’ sons:

Ver. 11. For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, &c.] The name of these virgins, as one interpreter {a} elsewhere observeth, seem to be not without mystery. For Zelophehad, by interpretation, signifieth the shadow of fear or of dread: his first daughter, Mahlah, infirmity; the second, Noah, wandering; the third, Hoglah, turning about for joy, or dancing; the fourth, Milcah, a queen; the fifth, Tirzah, well-pleasing, or acceptable. By these names we may observe the degrees of our reviving by grace in Christ; for we all are born, as of the shadow of fear, being brought forth in sin, and "for fear of death were all our lifetime subject to bondage." {Heb 2:15} This begetteth infirmity, or sickness, grief of heart for our estate. After which, wandering abroad for help and comfort, we find it in Christ, by whom our "sorrow is turned into joy." He communicates to us of his royalty, making us "kings and priests unto God his Father"; and we shall be presented unto him glorious, "and without blemish." {Eph 5:27} So the Church is beautiful as Tirzah. {Son 6:4}

{a} Mr Ainsworth.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 11. Mahlah, Tirza, &c.] For a curious account of these names, See Clarke on Nu 27:7.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(11) Were married unto their father’s brothers’ sons.—Better, unto the sons of their near kinsmen. The word dod generally denotes an uncle on the father’s side, and probably does so in the present case; but in Jer_32:12 it seems to denote a cousin.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. In accordance with the law, the five women were married to the sons of their paternal uncles.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh, the son of Joseph,.... The family of the Hepherites, of which they were. Aben Ezra observes, that their being married into families, and not a family, is a sign that their uncles' sons were not all of them brethren, or the sons of one man, but of more, though all sons of one or other of their father's, brethren:

and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father; by means of these marriages, even both in their father's tribe and family.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Father. They married their cousin-germans. The original is rather undecisive, as Dod may signify, "an uncle, great uncle, or cousin;" and a son, in Scripture, is often put for any descendant. The marriages of cousins were not expressly forbidden by the law, and if they had, they might have been dispensed with on this occasion, as well as when a brother died without issue. (Calmet) --- Claudius was the first of the Romans who obtained leave of the senate to marry his brother’s daughter. (Suetonius) (Du Hamel)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

It is certain whether brothers or sons be taken strictly and properly, or more large, as those words are oft used in Scripture.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Mahlah, &c. It is a curious instance of the inartificial character of the sacred records that these five names, which have not the least interest in themselves, are repeated thrice in this Book, and once in Joshua. ; (Jos_17:3) It is evident that the case made a deep impression upon the mind of the nation at the time. Their father"s brothers" sons. The Hebrew word dwOD is always translated "father"s brother," or "uncle;" and that seems to be its ordinary meaning, although in Jer_32:12 it stands for uncle"s son. There is no reason to depart from the customary reading here. No doubt the daughters of Zelophehad acted according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and married the nearest male relatives who were open to their choice.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

מחלה תרצה וגו׳ MAHLA, TIRZA etc., — Here it enumerates them according to their superiority over one another in years for they were married in the order in which they were born. But everywhere else in the Bible it enumerates them according to their intelligence: This tells us that they were all equal (cf. Bava Batra 120a; Rashi on Numbers 27:1).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

Machlah, Sirtzah. Scripture mentioned them first in the order in which they were born, and now mentions them in the order that they were married.

Ibn Ezra on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009” (CC BY 4.0); and “Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah - trans. by M. Friedlander, 1873” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.