Rabbi Sacks: Parshat Pinchas - The Lost Masterpiece

(1) 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. (2) They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, (3) “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against the LORD, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. (4) 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!”

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The halakha that a son inherits his father’s estate and precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father’s inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: “Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?” (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi Aḥa ben Ya’akov infers: The reason they requested the inheritance is that, as they said: He has no son. One can infer: But if he has a son, the son takes precedence and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this, i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the halakha based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was initiated that a daughter’s right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially, i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). Ravina said: The source for the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is from here: “Who is next to him [hakkarov elav]” (Numbers 27:11), teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance, and a son of the deceased is considered to be a closer relative to the deceased than the daughter.

(1) (Bamidbar 27:1) "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad": When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: Not as the mercies of flesh and blood are the mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females. Not so the mercies of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His mercies are for males and females (equally). His mercies are for all! As it is written (Psalms 145:9) "The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are upon all of His creations." "the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of Machir, the son of Menashe": Scripture apprises us that just as Tzelofchad was a first-born, so, were all of the others first-born, and to apprise us that they (the daughters) were worthy daughters of a worthy man. For all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for praise are righteous ones the seed of righteous ones; and all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for denigration are evildoers the seed of evildoers.

(2) Likewise, (Ovadiah 1:1) "The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom: We have heard a report, etc." Why did Ovadiah prophesy against Edom? To apprise us of the greatness of a tzaddik, who grew up in the lap of an evildoer but did not emulate his deeds, and how great the wickedness of an evildoer, who grew up between two righteous ones and did not emulate their deeds. Esav (Edom) grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds. Ovadiah grew up between two wicked ones, Achan and Izevel, and did not emulate their deeds. Let Ovadiah come, who grew up between two wicked ones and did not emulate their deeds, and prophecy against Esav, who grew up between two righteous ones, Isaac and Rivka, and did not emulate their deeds. Thus — "The vision of Ovadiah: Thus has said the L-rd G-d to Edom, etc." "of the families of Menasheh the son of Joseph." Just as Joseph held Eretz Yisrael dear (viz. Bereshit 50:25), so did the daughters of Tzelofchad. "And these are the names of his daughters: Machlah, Noah, Choglah, Milkah, and Tirtzah." — But perhaps all who are first in Scripture are first in worth? It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 36:11) "And Machlah, Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah, and Noah, the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." (the order being changed to teach us that they were all of equal worth.)

(3) (Bamidbar 27:2) "And they stood before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": Scripture hereby apprises us that they stood there only (after) the fortieth year (of the exodus) after Aaron had died, viz. (Ibid. 33:38) "And Aaron the Cohein went up to Hor Hahar by the 'mouth' of the L-rd, and he died there in the fortieth year, etc." "before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": If Moses did not know (how to answer them), could Elazar know? Invert the verse (i.e., first Elazar, then Moses,) and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They were (all) in the house of study and they came and stood before (all of) them. R. Akiva says: It is written here (27:3) "desert," and elsewhere (Ibid. 15:32) (in respect to a man gathering wood on the Sabbath) "desert." Just as the man here is Tzelofchad, so, the man there. "And he was not in the midst of the congregation": the cavilers (viz. Shemot 16:2). "who gathered against the L-rd": the congregation of the spies. "(nor in) the congregation of Korach." "but he died in his own sin": without inciting others (to sin) with him. "and he left no sons": for if he had a son, we would make no claim.

(4) (Bamidbar 27:4) "Why should the name of our father be withheld from his family because he has no son?" R. Yehudah says: It is written here "name," and elsewhere (Devarim 28:6). "Just as "name" here connotes inheritance, so, "name" there. And just as "name" here connotes seed, so, "name" there. "because he has no son": Why is this written? Is it not already written (3) "and he left no sons"? They were sage women and were expounding: But if there were a daughter of a son, we would make no claim. R. Nathan says: It is written above (26:65) "For the L-rd had said of them: They will surely die in the desert. And there was left not a man of them, etc.", followed by "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." What is the connection? Scripture comes to teach us that the strength of the women in that generation was greater than that of the men, the men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) "Let us make a leader and return to Egypt, and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4) "Give us a holding, etc.". R. Chidka said: Shimon Hashikmoni was a colleague of mine from the disciples of R. Akiva. He said: Moses knew that daughters inherit. Where was the question? As to whether they inherit what is fit to be inherited (in Eretz Yisrael) as well as what is already in their possession. The section on inheritance was fit to be stated by Moses, but the daughters of Tzelofchad merited that it be stated through them. "Merit is effected through the meritorious and liability through the liable."

Send for yourself, men. Specifically, you, use your Holy Spirit to see if these men are suitable for the mission, as most people err when judging people and are deceived by their flattery and charisma, people that portray themselves as worthy, dress the dress and talk the talk. This is why God said to Moshe, specifically choose people that in your eyes are important and not those that are important in the eyes of others, as it may very well be that what you see on the outside does not match the inside.

Therefore I singled out the word 'Men'. As the Rabbis explain in the midrash, the men hated the land and said 'lets go back to Egypt', the women however, loved the land and they said 'give us a portion'. Therefore God says to Moshe, in my view, seeing things from the future, it would be better to send the women that love the land and would never speak negatively of it, but you, from your viewpoint, that think that these men are suitable and assume that they love the land, send the men - send for you, according to your view from my perspective it would have been better to send the women.