פרשת פינחס תש"ה - בנות צלפחד

Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah.

מחלה נעה וגו׳ MAHLAH, NOAH, etc. — But further on (Numbers 36:11) states, “And Mahlah, Tirzah were” (changing the position of the names within the verse): this is to tell you that they all were of equal worth one with another, and on this account it is that it changed their order (i.e. the order of their names) (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:2).

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).

And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting, saying:

לפני משה [THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES, and afterwards לפני אלעזר, BEFORE ELEAZAR?! But is it possible if Moses did not know what reply to give them that Eleazar should know it? Rather, invert the words of the text and so expound it (before Eleazar and before Moses). This is the view of R. Josiah; but Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar that this inversion is unnecessary: they were sitting in the House of Study and they (the daughters of Zelophehad) stood before all of those who were present (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3; Bava Batra 119b and Rashi on Numbers 9:6).

’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.

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.

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).

But he was not. Rashi wrote: “Since they were going to say that he died because of his sin, they needed to say: Not the sin of the complainers, nor with Korach’s assembly, who incited [the people] against the Holy One, Blessed is He — was he. Rather, he died by his sin alone, without provoking others to sin with him.” However, Rashi did not explain why they needed to say he died because of his own sin. They could have simply said, “Our father died in the Wilderness without leaving any sons.” According to the view of our Sages (Baba Basra 117b) they needed to say he was not part of Korach’s assembly, because Korach’s assembly lost their portion in the Land of Israel, as did the complainers. The daughters knew this because the Beis Din of Moshe spread this information among the people. Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) explained this way as well, and wrote that the daughters thought that the group that banded together against Hashem would not inherit in the Land. In my view, according to the plain meaning, they said this because they thought Moshe hated Korach’s assembly more than all the other sinners who died in the Wilderness, since they rebelled against him and denounced all his deeds. They thought that maybe Moshe would say about Korach’s assembly, due to his hatred of them: “May he have none who extends kindness, and may no one be gracious to his orphans” (Tehillim 109:12); “May the iniquity against his forefathers be remembered by Adonoy” (ibid. 14). Therefore, the daughters informed him that their father was not a part of that assembly, and hinted that he was not among those who died in the plague; rather, he died in the Wilderness upon his bed. The meaning of, but he died because of his own sin, was that he died because of his sin in the Wilderness and did not merit to enter the Land.

’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.

But he was not. Rashi wrote: “Since they were going to say that he died because of his sin, they needed to say: Not the sin of the complainers, nor with Korach’s assembly, who incited [the people] against the Holy One, Blessed is He — was he. Rather, he died by his sin alone, without provoking others to sin with him.” However, Rashi did not explain why they needed to say he died because of his own sin. They could have simply said, “Our father died in the Wilderness without leaving any sons.” According to the view of our Sages (Baba Basra 117b) they needed to say he was not part of Korach’s assembly, because Korach’s assembly lost their portion in the Land of Israel, as did the complainers. The daughters knew this because the Beis Din of Moshe spread this information among the people. Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) explained this way as well, and wrote that the daughters thought that the group that banded together against Hashem would not inherit in the Land. In my view, according to the plain meaning, they said this because they thought Moshe hated Korach’s assembly more than all the other sinners who died in the Wilderness, since they rebelled against him and denounced all his deeds. They thought that maybe Moshe would say about Korach’s assembly, due to his hatred of them: “May he have none who extends kindness, and may no one be gracious to his orphans” (Tehillim 109:12); “May the iniquity against his forefathers be remembered by Adonoy” (ibid. 14). Therefore, the daughters informed him that their father was not a part of that assembly, and hinted that he was not among those who died in the plague; rather, he died in the Wilderness upon his bed. The meaning of, but he died because of his own sin, was that he died because of his sin in the Wilderness and did not merit to enter the Land.

Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he had no son? Give unto us a possession among the brethren of our father.’

כי אין לו בן [WHY SHOULD OUR FATHER'S NAME BE DONE AWAY WITH] BECAUSE HE HATH NO SON — Thus it follows that if he had had a son they would have made no claim of any kind: this tells us that they were women of intelligence (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:4; cf. Bava Batra 119b).

And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren.

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.

And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.