פרשת פינחס תש"ל - בנות צלפחד
א. שאלות ודיוקים ברש"י
ד"ה ובאלה לא היה איש: אבל על הנשים לא נגזרה גזירת המרגלים, לפי שהן היו מחבבות את הארץ. האנשים אומרים (במדבר י"ד): "ניתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה", והנשים אומרות (כ"ז ד'): "תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו".
ובאלה לא היה איש וגו׳ BUT AMONG THESE THERE WAS NO MAN [OF THEM WHOM MOSES AND AARON NUMBERED] — no man; but the decree consequent upon the incident of the spies had not been enacted upon the women, because they held the Promised Land dear. The men had said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt”, while the women said, (Numbers 27:4) “Give us a possession in the Land”. On this account, too, the chapter regarding the daughters of Zelophehad follows immediately here (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).
מניין לרש"י הרמז בפסוק לכך שעל הנשים לא נגזרה הגזירה?
ד"ה למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף: למה נאמר? והלוא כבר נאמר "בן מנשה"? אלא לומר לך: יוסף חיבב את הארץ, שנאמר (בראשית נ') "והעליתם את עצמותי מזה" – ובנותיו חיבבו את הארץ, שנאמר "תנה לנו אחוזה" (כ"ז ד').
למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף OF THE FAMILIES OF MANASSEH THE SON OF JOSEPH — Why is this stated? Has it not already been said בן מנשה, and consequently we know that they belonged to the family of Manasseh the son of Joseph?! But it is to suggest the following idea to you: Just as Joseph held the Promised Land dear, as it is said, (Genesis 50:25) “And ye shall bring my bones up (to Palestine) from hence”, so, too, his daughters held the Land dear, as it is said, (v. 4) “Give us an inheritance”; and further to teach you that they were righteous all of them (everyone here mentioned in the pedigree), for in every case where a person’s doings and his ancestors’ doings are nowhere plainly described and Scripture somewhere enters into the details of the pedigree in respect to one of them, tracing his genealogy back to someone worthy of praise, it is evident that the person in question is himself a righteous man and a son of a righteous father. But if it gives his genealogy in connection with something deserving of reprobation, — as, for example, (2 Kings 25:25) “Ishmael the son of Nethanian the son of Elishama came … and smote Gedaliah”, then it is quite certain that all who are mentioned in connection with him were wicked people (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).
א. מה קשה לו?
**
מה ראיה היא זו שחיבבו את ארץ-ישראל? וכי היה להם עצה לשוב מצרימה? ומה זה חידוש שביקשו נחלה בארץ ישראל?
ענה לקושייתו!
ד"ה ויקרב משה את משפטן: נתעלמה הלכה ממנו, וכאן נפרע על שנטל עטרה לומר (דברים א'): "והדבר אשר יקשה מכם תקריבו אלי".
ויקרב משה את משפטן AND MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE [BEFORE THE LORD] — The law on this subject escaped him (Sanhedrin 8a). Here he received punishment because he had assumed a “crown” (he had set himself up as the supreme judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17) “And the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring to me”. Another explanation: This chapter ought to have been written by Moses (i.e., like most laws in the Torah it should have been spoken to the people by Moses without his having waited until some incident made its promulgation necessary), but for the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad had so much merit, it was therefore written through them (it was their complaint which gave occasion for stating it) (Bava Batra 119a; Sanhedrin 8a).
ומקשה בעל ספר הזכרון:
והלוא נתעלם ממנו דין מקושש (במדבר ט"ו ל"ב-ל"ו) ודין אנשים אשר היו טמאים (במדבר ט' א'-ח'), עד שהוזקק לשאול, ולמה לא נאמר באחד מהם שנתעלמה ממנו הלכה על צד העונש?
יישב קושייתו!
ב. "ויקרב משה..." - מדוע?
"וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה'"
And Moses brought their cause before the LORD.
ד"ה ויקרב משה את משפטן: נתעלמה הלכה ממנו, וכאן נפרע על שנטל עטרה לומר (דברים א'): "והדבר אשר יקשה מכם תקריבו אלי".
ויקרב משה את משפטן AND MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE [BEFORE THE LORD] — The law on this subject escaped him (Sanhedrin 8a). Here he received punishment because he had assumed a “crown” (he had set himself up as the supreme judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17) “And the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring to me”. Another explanation: This chapter ought to have been written by Moses (i.e., like most laws in the Torah it should have been spoken to the people by Moses without his having waited until some incident made its promulgation necessary), but for the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad had so much merit, it was therefore written through them (it was their complaint which gave occasion for stating it) (Bava Batra 119a; Sanhedrin 8a).
בעל צידה לדרך:
יש שפירשו, כי כיון שגילו בנות צלפחד בטענותיהן שלא היה אביהן מעדת שונאיו של משה, היה בזה קירוב הדעת למשה, ואילו היה דן את דינם, כאילו נוטל שוחד דברים. ועל כן חשך עצמו מן הדין ולא רצה לדון אותם, ולא משום שנתעלמה הלכה ממנו. ואין זה נראה נכון!
התוכל להסביר מהי חולשת הפירוש הזה, ובעל כורחנו נקבל דעת רש"י, שנתעלמה ממנו הלכה דרך עונש?
ג. "כן בנות צלפחד דוברות" - שאלות ברש"י
"כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת"
כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).
כתרגומו יאות. כך כתובה פרשה זו לפני במרום, מגיד שראתה עינן מה שלא ראתה עינו של משה.
כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).
1. בעל באר יצחק, מתקן גירסת רש"י:
נראה לי שצריך לגרוס: כתרגומו: יאות. ומדרשו: כך כתובה פרשה זו וגו'.
הסבר, מה טעם לתיקון גירסא זו?
2. מה ראה תרגום אונקלוס לתרגם "כן" במקומנו במלת "יאות", ולא כפי שתרגם בבראשית י"ח ה' כן תעשה – כן תעבד ובשמות ז' ו' כן עשו – כן עבדו?
ד"ה כן בנות צלפחד דוברות: יפה תבעו, אשרי אדם שהקדוש ברוך הוא מודה לדבריו.
כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).
מה תיקן בפירושו זה?
ד. "והוא לא היה..."
"וְהוּא לֹא הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל ה' בַּעֲדַת קֹרַח"
’Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons.
"והוא לא היה בתוך העדה" – זו עדת המרגלים, "הנועדים על ה'" – אלו המתלוננים, "בעדת קרח" – כמשמעו.
But according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, what does the verse: “To the more you shall give the more inheritance” teach? It is obvious that larger families will receive more land due to their greater numbers. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty to one who holds that opinion. The Gemara presents the second question. And Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Granted, according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, this is why the daughters of Zelophehad cried out in protest of the fact that they would be denied their father’s portion, to which he was entitled as one who left Egypt. But according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, why did they cry out in protest; after all, Zelophehad was not there to take his portion, so his daughters should have no claim to the land? Abaye answers: Rather, according to this opinion, the protest of Zelophehad’s daughters was in reference to the returning of the portions from the generation that entered Eretz Yisrael to the generation that left Egypt, as described in the baraita above. And accordingly, Zelophehad’s daughters demanded to take their portion in the property of their grandfather Hepher, who received land posthumously through his children, their uncles. The Gemara presents Rav Pappa’s third question: Granted, according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, this is why the descendants of Joseph cried out in protest of the fact that they would receive an inadequate portion of land due to the fact that they had proliferated greatly in the wilderness. As it is written: “And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying: Why have you given me but one lot and one part for an inheritance, seeing I am a great people, because the Lord has blessed me thus” (Joshua 17:14). But according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, what is the reason they were crying out? They were all entitled to take their own portion of land and should have had no cause for complaint. The Gemara answers: They protested due to the children, as they had many children who were not entitled to a portion of the land. Abaye said: Learn from the fact that the Bible records the complaints of only the daughters of Zelophehad and the descendants of Joseph that there was not one other individual who did not take a portion of land; as if it enters your mind that there was even one other who did not take a portion of land, he should have cried out in protest. And if you would say: The verse wrote about one who cried out and his protest was effective, and the verse did not write about one who cried out and his protest was not effective, that is difficult. But there is the counterexample of the descendants of Joseph, who cried out and their protest was not effective, and the verse wrote about them. The Gemara rejects Abaye’s inference: Generally, the verse would not record an instance where one cried out if his protest was not effective, and there, the verse includes the protest of Joseph’s descendants in order to teach us a measure of good advice: That a person should be wary of the evil eye. And this is what Joshua said to them, as it is written: “And Joshua said unto them: If you be a great people, go up to the forest, and cut down for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim” (Joshua 17:15). Joshua said to them: Go and conceal yourselves in the forests so that the evil eye will not have dominion over you.
ד"ה והוא לא היה: לפי שהיו באות לומר בחטאו מת, נזקקו לומר לא בחטא מתלוננים ולא בעדת קרח שהיצו על ה' היה, אלא בחטאו לבדו מת, ולא החטיא אחרים עמו.
והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).
מנא ליה לדרוש כך, דילמא כמשמעו, שלא היה בעדת קרח?
יישב שאלתו!
2. למה שינה הדרשן מסדר המאורעות, שהוא (א) מתלוננים (ב) מרגלים (ג) עדת קרח?