Save "Parshas Pinchas"
Parshas Pinchas

Do you know the story of the Bnos Tzelafchad? What was the context? What was the significance?

וַתִּקְרַ֜בְנָה בְּנ֣וֹת צְלָפְחָ֗ד בֶּן־חֵ֤פֶר בֶּן־גִּלְעָד֙ בֶּן־מָכִ֣יר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹ֖ת מְנַשֶּׁ֣ה בֶן־יוֹסֵ֑ף וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ שְׁמ֣וֹת בְּנֹתָ֔יו מַחְלָ֣ה נֹעָ֔ה וְחָגְלָ֥ה וּמִלְכָּ֖ה וְתִרְצָֽה׃
The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
מחלה נעה וגו'. וּלְהַלָּן (במדבר לו יא) הוּא אוֹמֵר "וַתִּהְיֶינָה מַחְלָה תִרְצָה", מַגִּיד שֶׁכֻּלָּן שְׁקוּלוֹת — זוֹ כְּזוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ שִׁנָּה אֶת סִדְרָן (שם):
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).
תָּנָא בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד חַכְמָנִיּוֹת הֵן דַּרְשָׁנִיּוֹת הֵן צִדְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן
§ The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.
חַכְמָנִיּוֹת הֵן שֶׁלְּפִי שָׁעָה דִּבְּרוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ בְּפָרָשַׁת יְבָמִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו אָמְרוּ לוֹ אִם כְּבֵן אָנוּ חֲשׁוּבִין תְּנָה לָנוּ נַחֲלָה כְּבֵן אִם לָאו תִּתְיַבֵּם אִמֵּנוּ מִיָּד וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה׳
The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5).
וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכָל־הָעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃
They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said,
לפני משה ולפני אלעזר. מַגִּיד שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם אֶלָּא בִשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים, אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת אַהֲרֹן (שם):
לפני משה ולפני אלעזר [AND THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE ELEAZAR [THE PRIEST] — The fact that they approached Eleazar the Priest and not Aaron tells us that they stood before them (i.e., that this incident occurred) only (not earlier than) in the fortieth year after the Exodus indeed after Aaron’s death (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3).
והוא לא היה וגו'. לְפִי שֶׁהָיוּ בָאוֹת לוֹמַר בחטאו מת, נִזְקְקוּ לוֹמַר לֹא בְחֵטְא מִתְלוֹנְנִים וְלֹא בַעֲדַת קֹרַח שֶׁהִצּוּ עַל הַקָּבָּ"ה הָיָה, אֶלָּא בְּחֶטְאוֹ לְבַדּוֹ מֵת, וְלֹא הֶחֱטִיא אֶת אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ (ספרי); רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים הָיָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מִן הַמַּעְפִּילִים הָיָה (שבת צ"ו):
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).
לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃
Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”
למה יגרע שם אבינו. אָנוּ בִּמְקוֹם בֵּן עוֹמְדוֹת, וְאִם אֵין הַנְּקֵבוֹת חֲשׁוּבוֹת זֶרַע, תִּתְיַבֵּם אִמֵּנוּ לְיָבָם (בבא בתרא קיט):
למה יגרע שם אבינו WHY SHOULD THE NAME OF OUR FATHER BE DONE AWAY — We stand in the place of male children, and if you say that females are not regarded as issue in respect to inheritance, then our mother should marry her deceased husband’s brother (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5, 6) (Bava Batra 119b).
וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃ (ס)
Moses brought their case before the LORD.

Why couldn't Moshe answer this question himself? Isn't it obvious that if there aren't any sons, the daughter(s) should inherit?

ויקרב משה את משפטן. נִתְעַלְּמָה הֲלָכָה מִמֶּנּוּ, וְכָאן נִפְרַע עַל שֶׁנָּטַל עֲטָרָה לוֹמַר (דברים א') "וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי"; דָּ"אַ — רְאוּיָה הָיְתָה פָרָשָׁה זוֹ לְהִכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שֶׁזָּכוּ בְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדָן (בבא בתרא קי"ט; סנהדרין ח'):
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).
Kotzker Rebbe (optional?)
This shouldn't have really been a question; the laws of inheritance are not that complex, and if there were no sons, a daughter should obviously inherit instead. But land in Eretz Yisroel is dependant upon shmiras Shabbos, like it says that if someone keeps Shabbos they merit a portion without boundaries (Shabbos 118a). If their father was indeed the mekoshes etzim, perhaps he would have lost his portion in Eretz Yisroel, so they asked Moshe. However, the mekoshesh etzim was doing it l'shem Shamayim - so his death would show the Jews that chilul Shabbos is chiyuv mesah - but humans don't know his intentions. Moshe had to ask Hashem to find out what their father intended - and, as it turned out, he did, indeed, intend it l'shem Shamayim.
Akeidas Yitzchak (optional?)
Of course, the bnos Tzelafchad should inherit the land if their father had no sons. . . but right before this matter, the topic of kibush v'chiluk was brought up. They were confused - perhaps only those who fight for the land get it, and perhaps this was a more complex inheritance. That's why they had to ask Moshe and Moshe had to ask Hashem - it was more nuanced.
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
And the LORD said to Moses,
כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלָפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃
“The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.
כן בנות צלפחד דברת. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ, "יָאוּת" — כָּךְ כְּתוּבָה פָרָשָׁה זוֹ לְפָנַי בַּמָּרוֹם, מַגִּיד שֶׁרָאֲתָה עֵינָן מַה שֶּׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה עֵינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה (תנחומא):
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).
כן בנות צלפחד דברת. יָפֶה תָּבְעוּ, אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם שֶׁהַקָּבָּ"ה מוֹדֶה לִדְבָרָיו (ספרי):
כן בנות צלפחד דברת — “They have made a fair claim”. Happy is the person with whose words the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1).

What can you learn from this story?