פרשה: פינחס · עלייה: שלישי (תפארת)

וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd spoke to Moses to say. Moses was to tell Joshua and the elders that Joshua would lead them into the land to take possession of it. The word לאמור in this instance does not refer to the people at large. If this were not so, the word לאלה in the next verse would not make sense.

לאלה תחלק הארץ בנחלה, "To these the land will be shared out as an inheritance, etc." On the word לאלה our sages in Baba Batra 117 comment as follows: Rabbi Yoshiah holds that the subject of the word are the people who participated in the Exodus. He bases himself on the additional data in verse 55 לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, 'they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.' How do I then fulfil the instruction of the Torah which wrote לאלה, i.e. 'to these' i.e. to people present now at this time? The word is meant to exclude people who were not yet 20 years of age at the time they left Egypt." Rabbi Yonathan holds that the land was distributed only to the people who actually set foot in the land, i.e. the men under the leadership of Joshua. He bases himself on the word לאלה. As to the meaning of the words לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan feels that in this instance the Torah applied yardsticks other than the normal ones to the laws of inheritance. Usually the living inherit the dead; in this instance the dead inherited the living. Thus far the statements of these two scholars.

I have seen a Baraitha in the Sifri which offers a third approach to our verse. The word לאלה is understood to exclude the unworthy members of the Jewish people, the wicked. As proof they cite the sons of the spies and the people who had complained against Moses and G'd on various occasions. In order to bring the approach of the Baraitha into accord with that of Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed to the people who participated in the Exodus, we have to translate the word לאלה as כאלה, i.e. "to people such as these righteous ones who make up the nation as of this day." Just as only the righteous ones who left Egypt share in the inheritance, seeing they and their children died already, so also at this time only Israelites who were righteous would receive their share of the land. It would appear that this exegesis which denies the wicked their share in the Holy Land is not at odds with our own approach (that of Rabbi Yoshiah) that the word was intended to exclude the people who were below the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. The word לאלה simply excludes anyone who does not meet the standards, be it because he was too young or because he was too wicked.

I have noted that Rashi explains the word לאלה as reflecting the approach of Rabbi Yonathan i.e. not to those who are below 20 even though they had reached that age before the actual distribution took place. This seems hard to understand. After all, Rabbi Yonathan already exploited the exegetical value of the word ואלה to inform us that the land was distributed according to the present number of Israelites as distinct from the number of Israelites (of comparable age) who participated in the Exodus. By referring to the line לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan had already proved that the number of people present now were not the only criterion in determining who was to get how much. How then can Rabbi Yonathan use the word לאלה to teach us also that youngsters under the age of twenty did not participate in the division of the land?

I am certainly not prepared to quarrel with Rashi regarding the principle that people under twenty were not included in the lottery for distribution of the land even though Rabbi Yonathan did not say so specifically. It is possible that the word לאלה could supply us with two separate למודים, exegetical insights. However, it does not necessarily have to be so. It is equally possible that the word only excluded the principle that the key to the distribution were the people who had participated in the Exodus. What we have to examine is why Rashi did not follow the accepted way of understanding Rabbi Yonathan's words.

I have seen a comment by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who explains the words of Rashi and did not even mention the difficulty there is in Rashi's commentary when we consider the words of the Baraitha. I claim that Rashi was perfectly aware of the thrust of Rabbi Yonathan's interpretation. However, Rashi thought that the words לאלה prove conclusively that the land was to be distributed only to people who were alive at that time and who had reached the age of twenty. It was the latter detail Rashi wanted to tell us as something new. Rashi took for granted that the land was to be distributed only to people who actually would enter the Holy Land.

במספר שמות, according to the number of names. The Torah means that the number of families which have been enumerated in chapter 26 were to be the basis for the distribution, i.e. 57 families. Each of these 57 families was to be given a tract of land commensurate with the size of the family. This can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan. According to Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed basically to the people who left Egypt the land should have been distributed between 63 families instead of between 57 as we have learned from Bamidbar Rabbah 21 that 6 families of those enumerated at the time of the first count no longer appeared in the count. According to Rabbi Yoshiah the tribes of these 6 families would be accorded their share instead. It is, possible however, that even Rabbi Yoshiah would agree that the words "according to the number of families" would refer to the families who participated in the Exodus. [I believe there is a misprint here and it should say that even Rabbi Yonathan agreed that only the words במספר שמות refer to the people who participated in the Exodus taking part in the distribution. Ed.]

לרב תרבה נחלתו, "to the more numerous you will give a larger share in his inheritance, etc." Baba Batra 117 has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "according to the theory of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who partook in the Exodus, this verse makes sense; however, how does one explain these instructions according to the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only the generation who was counted in the wilderness would share in the distribution of the land? What purpose was there for the Torah to distinguish between the numerous ones and the less numerous ones?" Whereas Abbaye is not reported as having furnished Rav Pappa with an answer, this question is not so serious that no answer could have been found in the very text itself. Moreover, these words (Rabbi Yonathan's) were not the ones of an Amora (teacher of the Talmud) but of a Tanna, a teacher of the Mishnah. As an Amora, Rav Pappa was not allowed to challenge the words of a Tanna, hence it was not urgent to answer a question which would not result in changes of the halachah even if it went unanswered. We have a principle that whenever the Talmud concludes a question with the word קשיא (as in this instance), there is an answer but it did not suit the editors to provide it at this point.

According to my commentary that the words במספר שמות mean that the land should be distributed amongst the 57 families enumerated in the count here in our Parshah, the words לרב תרבה mean that they were not to make 57 equal shares according to the number of the families, but that they were to consider also the size of the respective families before distributing land to each family. A family comprising 20,000 souls was to receive a share twice as large as a family comprising only 10,000 souls.

Furthermore, if we adopt Rashi's approach that Rabbi Yonathan included only people who were counted -meaning they had reached the age of twenty- at the time of the present census, the following situation could arise. Suppose a father had ten sons each above the age of 20 at this time, and another father had 8 sons, 4 of whom were above the age of twenty the other 4 being younger. By the time they all entered the Holy land the first father had lost 4 of his sons because they had died, whereas the other father's sons by then had all reached the age of 20, the last mentioned family would have received a larger share than the family which had ten eligible sons at this time. To prevent such a mistake from being made the Torah wrote לרב תרבה, i.e. that the determining criterion was the respective number of eligible sons a family comprised at the time the commandment was given, i.e. at the time of this census. Any change in the status of the family between now and the actual time of distribution was to be disregarded. Perhaps Rashi's commentary was designed to answer this question before it was even articulated.

איש לפי פקודיו, each one according to those that were numbered of it, etc. Sifri on this verse comments as follows: "the land was distributed to the tribes in accordance with their present number." This does not contradict what I have written that the words "according to the number of names" refer to the 57 families enumerated in this count. The distribution of the land between the tribes on the one hand and the families on the other may have proceeded along the following lines: The land was divided up into 12 sections, one each for each tribe. These sections in turn were divided up into 57 parcels. A tribe which comprised 2 families would receive 2 parcels whereas a tribe comprising 4 families would receive 4 parcels of land. According to Rabbi Yoshiah each parcel would be sized in accordance with the number of families at the time of the present census, whereas according to Rabbi Yonathan it would be sized according to the number of families at the time of the Exodus. As to the question that if the families were the decisive factor, why was the number of tribes relevant to the distribution at all, the answer is that each tribe was accorded a parcel in accordance with the lottery, something that would not be the case if the only factor determining the distribution would have been the total number of families. Without the lottery families of different tribes might wind up being situated next to each other instead of their parcel of land being situated within the tribal area allocated to each tribe separately.

Baba Batra 121 raises the point that the scholars were not certain whether the land was distributed in accordance with the number of tribes or in accordance with the number of individual people. They tried to answer this by reference to the verse in our portion where the Torah said "be they numerous or few" meaning that it was not divided in accordance with the number of individuals over the age of twenty (verse 36). They quoted a Baraitha according to which the land of Israel will be divided up amongst 13 tribes in messianic times, whereas in Joshua's time it was divided amongst 12 tribes. Thus far the Talmud there. The Talmud apparently was unaware of the Baraitha we mentioned in the Sifri, where this point is derived from the words איש לפי פקודיו. It is reasonable to assume that the scholar in the Talmud who said that in the future the land of Israel would be shared out between thirteen tribes also based his opinion on these words.

According to Rabbi Yonathan who holds that the division was based on the people actually entering the land, we still need to find out if he referred to people over twenty only or if he meant that even youngsters who had not attained that age were qualified to receive a separate share in the land. The Torah therefore had to write the words לפי פקודיו to let us know that only men over the age of twenty were assigned separate shares.

לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the tribes of their respective fathers, etc. According to the view of Rabbi Yoshiah this verse merely demolishes the apparent meaning of the word לאלה. It tells us that the word לאלה was not meant to apply to the people counted in the wilderness of Moav but rather meant כאלה, that the people to be given land were to be כאלה like the ones who were counted at the Exodus, i.e. the ones who were twenty and over. Rabbi Yonathan, however, holds that although in the first instance the people who had been counted now were to inherit the land, they in turn would confer rights of inheritance on the people who had participated in the Exodus as has been explained in the Baraitha in the Sifri. The exact wording there is as follows: Assuming one (family) would inherit 1 acre and another (family) of the same בית אב, branch of this tribe, 3 acres by applying the yardstick of the number of 20 year olds in the families at present, then the combined amount would be inherited by the previous generation (the dead) of this family. This inheritance in turn would now be allocated on an equal basis to the younger generation so that both families of the younger generation would receive 2 acres although one family was more numerous than the other at this time. [Our example assumes that there had been only two sons of the family which participated in the Exodus. Ed.] By following this approach the word ינחלו "they will inherit" at the end of verse 35 becomes very relevant as it refers to the people who had now been counted not inheriting now, but only via their fathers. This also explains why the Torah wrote תחלק הארץ, "the land will be divided," instead of writing "they will divide the land." The same consideration also prompted the Torah to write the words תרבה נחלתו in the future tense. Also the expression יותן נחלתו "his inheritance will be given," instead of יקח נחלתו "he will take his inheritance" points to the explanation of Rabbi Yonathan that the generation of the people who left Egypt were the key to the distribution of the land is correct. Our verse teaches then that up until this point the Torah speaks about what Joshua is to do at the time he will make the Israelites inherit the land. From this point on, however, the people who do the inheriting have to consider their share in terms of לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the members of the family groups who had left Egypt.

בין רב למעט, be they numerous or few. We have already referred to the discussion in Baba Batra 122 about how the division was to proceed, if according to the number of individuals or according to the number of tribes, and we have mentioned that in the future the land would be divided between 13 tribes. In addition to that the Talmud stated that the key to the division was the monetary value of a piece of land, not just its size. Rabbi Yehudah adds that the amount of land needed to grow a bushel of wheat in the tribal area of Yehudah was one fifth of the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of wheat in the Galil. Rashbam comments on the words בין רב למעט that every tribe had to accept the piece of land allocated in the general הגרלה, lottery, regardless of whether they thought they ought to have received a larger share due to the number of men over 20 in that tribe, as all the tribes received equal shares. The difficulty with this approach is that there is no need to accept such a simplistic view based on the text seeing we have a Baraitha according to which the words בין רב למעט are understood to refer to the relative distance from Jerusalem of the various parcels of land allocated to the tribes, i.e. that land close to Jerusalem was considered worth more than land which was a long way from Jerusalem. According to the Baraitha the word רב would refer to land close to Jerusalem being worth more.

In addition, an examination of the text by the Talmud leads us to conclude that the Talmud is self-contradictory. At the outset the Talmud understands the words to mean that the lottery had to be accepted and there was no compensation for the apparent injustice if a tribe with a large population had drawn a smaller parcel of land in the lottery. The parcels of land were equal in size. In the course of the Talmud's discussion, when it emerges that the words בין רב למעט refer to the distance of the land from Jerusalem, it is clear that the principle of each tribe inheriting equally was not accepted, and would be rectified in the distribution of the land in the future when 12 equal shares would go to the 12 tribes and the ruler would receive the thirteenth share. How could the same words in our verse be used to support both theories?

Furthermore, once we accept the principle that the land was divided into 12 equal shares to the 12 tribes, the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Rabbi Yonathan would apply to each tribe as the numbers varied between the first count and the census in our portion. If all this were correct, why does the Talmud in Baba Batra 118 raise the problem of the complaints of the tribe of Joseph in Joshua 17,14? If the land had been divided according to the present number of men over 20 why would the tribe of Joseph complain? They received an allocation in accordance with their number. Their complaint would only make sense if their allocation was based on the number of men they had at the time of the Exodus; if the land was distributed according to the present census why did they complain? The Talmud answers that they complained that too many of their number had turned twenty between the present census and the actual distribution and many of those had no father who would have qualified in their stead at this time. I do not understand the problem. Seeing that according to all opinions all tribes received an equal amount of land, i.e. everyone is agreed that the tribe of Joseph received an amount equal to that of each of the other tribes, their complaint would be equally justified regardless of whether we accept the principle of distribution according to Rabbi Yoshiah or that according to Rabbi Yonathan. We are forced to conclude therefore that the Talmud bases the complaint of the tribe of Joseph on a lottery which allocated differently sized parcels of lands to different tribes according to both the view of Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonathan. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the tribes all received the same amount of land, it was the tribe of Yehudah who should have complained as they were the most numerous and had not received more land than the least numerous tribe. The result of such a distribution would have been that Yehudah who numbered 76,500 fighting men received one parcel of land whereas the two tribes Menashe and Ephrayim who numbered only some 8,700 men more received double the amount of land!

As a result of these considerations I have concluded that the Talmud never meant to imply that the 12 tribes each received the same amount of land as described by Rashbam. The correct interpretation of the Talmud's paragraph starting with the words תא שמע is that the words בין רב למעט mean that the Torah confirms that indeed some tribes received a larger share of land than did others. The reason for this was that the distribution was by lottery. This was the major reason why the lottery was necessary in order to head off complaints. If you even envisaged the possibility that the land was distributed in accordance with the number of people in the present census, what point was there to engage in a lottery at all? Why would the Torah have to mention:- "be they many or few?" The meaning of these words is: "regardless of whether the tribe in question is numerous or small in number the distribution will be based on the lottery concerning the location of their land allocation." The second Baraitha where we are told something about the distribution of the land in the future means to clarify the matter still further by telling us that the lack of consideration for numbers refers only to the fact that the basic consideration is the number of tribes and not the number of individuals in the nation. Such clarification was necessary as one could have argued, based on the wording of the Torah, that the only thing the words בין רב למעט prove is that the land was not going to be distributed on the basis of the individual number of people in the nation, but that it would still be possible to adjust the size of the tribal allocations according to the number of families. This is why the Talmud quotes the Baraitha that even in the future the basic approach to the distribution of the land will be the number of tribes. There would be 12 distinct areas, [like provinces, Ed.] but that the tribal areas would not be identical in size but there would be larger areas (which presumably would be drawn in the lottery by the more numerous tribes) as well as smaller tribal areas. All this is in agreement with the Sifri on the words איש לפי פקודיו which I have mentioned earlier.

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד, The daughters of Tzelofchod approached, etc. The reason the Torah writes the additional word ותקרבנה and was not satisfied with writing ותעמדנה in verse two is that before appearing before Moses they consulted with each other and had become convinced that they had a valid claim. למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, "of the families of Menashe the son of Joseph, etc." This means that they consulted the elders of their tribe for reasons of common courtesy. Perhaps when the Torah wrote בנותיו this is a hint that they based themselves on the expression איש לפי פקודיו, "each man according to the number that had been counted (in his family)." Sifri on that expression interprets the word איש as excluding women. The daughters of Tzelofchod challenged that ruling. ותקרבנה, "they approached;" this tells us that actually they were quite bashful, hesitant to appear before Moses himself. Once they had consulted with the משפחות מנשה they shed their veil of timidity and stood upright facing Moses. According to the opinion that we are dealing with a mutilated verse and that they found themselves unable to face Moses, we must interpret that after they turned to the elders of their own tribe they developed sufficient self-assurance to face Moses directly.

בנות צלפחד בן חפר, the daughters of Tzelofchod son of Chefer. We must analyse why the Torah lists their genealogy here instead of contenting itself with what we have already been told about them in 26,33 where the Torah mentions Tzelofchod and his five daughters by name. Our sages in Sifri have indulged in homiletical comments. Perhaps we can see here the reason that the daughters all combined to seek counsel. They had read the regulations and had examined them just as did the Talmud in Baba Batra 118. The Talmud there claims that if we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who had participated in the Exodus, the complaint of the daughters of Tzelofchod made sense. Why should they be deprived of their father's share merely because their father did not leave behind a son? If we accept the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only people who were part of the present census were included in the distribution of the land, what did the daughters of Tzelofchod base their claim on? There had never been a member of their family who could have staked a claim in the first place and had forfeited it in the interval? If they would have had a brother who was a minor he would not have received a share either! The principle of the sons returning their share to their fathers who had participated in the Exodus and who in turn would now share it out amongst their surviving sons could not have been applied in their case? Thus far the Talmud. What the Talmud meant was that even according to the view that the distribution of the land was based on people who now entered the land, the operative clause in the Torah was לשמות מטות אביהם, "according to the names of the tribes of their fathers." This meant that the sons of Chefer (including Tzelofchod) would "return" their share of the inheritance to their father who had been a participant in the Exodus and who in turn would parcel out his share amongst his heirs so that the daughters of Tzelofchod would share the inheritance also. This is precisely the argument used here by the daughters of Tzelofchod, i.e. if the distribution is to be handled according to the view that the people who participated in the Exodus are the primary heirs, they, Tzelofchod's daughters, should receive the share of their father as well as that of their grandfather Chefer who had been amongst the men leaving Egypt at the time of the Exodus. If, on the other hand, the land was to be distributed primarily to the people who were now about to enter the Holy Land, then they based their claim on the fact that the sons of Chefer (excluding their father) had to first return their shares to Chefer who in turn would allocate his share to his various sons, including Tzelofchod who had died in the meantime. They should therefore be allowed to participate in the shares allocated to their uncles as representatives of their father.

בן גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה, son of Gilead, who was a son of Machir who was a son of Menashe. Our sages in the Sifri already explained that just as their father Tzelofchod was a firstborn, so the ancestors mentioned were all firstborns of their respective fathers. In view of this it is clear that the daughters also insisted in inheriting the double share their father had been entitled to by reason of his being a firstborn. Sifri also comments that the reason the Torah mentions all these antecedents of the daughters of Tzelofchod was to inform us that all of them were righteous people. Rashi comments in a similar vein adding that when people are mentioned by name without their specific accomplishments being detailed this means that they were righteous. The reason the Torah introduces the names of the daughters with the conjunctive letter ו preceding the word אלה, "these," is to tell us that just as the aforementioned people were righteous so these daughters of Tzelofchod were also all righteous in their own right.

ואלה שמות בנותיו, and these are the names of his daughters, etc. The word בנותיו appears superfluous as all the Torah had to write was ואלה שמותם, "and these were their names," seeing that the words "daughters of Tzelofchod" have already been mentioned in this verse.

In order to understand what the Torah had in mind with its phraseology it pays to observe that the names of the daughters do not appear in the same sequence on the various occasions when the Torah mentions them. In Numbers 36,11 the order is different from the order in which the Torah lists these names here. Baba Batra 120 states that whereas in Numbers 36 the names appear in chronological order, here in Pinchas they appear in order of their relative intelligence. Rashbam explains the reason for this as being that when they married, i.e. in chapter 36, it was appropriate to list their names chronologically; here where they had to face Moses in negotiations it was appropriate to list their names in order of their relative intelligence. I do not agree with Rashbam for a number of reasons. 1) How do we know that just because the Torah tells us who these girls were married to that they were married in chronological order? 2) If the reason they were listed in a different order in our Parshah is that we were to be informed who was the more intelligent, why did the Torah not list their names in 26,33 in chronological order just like in 36,11? Surely in the context in which the Torah mentions their names in chapter 26 their relative intelligence was quite irrelevant! 3) The wording of the Talmud itself presents a difficulty. The Talmud speaks first about the order in which these names are listed להלן, i.e. in chapter 36, whereas it then speaks about the order in which they are listed כאן, i.e. "in our context in Parshat Pinchas." The fact is that the word להלן which means "there" may just as easily refer to the previous time the Torah listed these names, i.e. in chapter 26 where the marriages of these girls is not an issue so that there is no compelling reason to believe that the list is in chronological order.

I feel therefore that the chronological order of these daughters is the one listed when the tribe of Menashe was counted in chapter 26 as well as in our chapter here. In chapter 36 where the Torah tells us who these girls were married to, they appear in the order of their intelligence. This is the reason the Talmud uses the word להלן. The reason is that the Talmud described them as righteous in not having married until they found compatible partners although they had the whole tribe of Menashe to choose from. They demonstrated their righteousness by not marrying until they had found someone compatible. The Talmud uses the word להלן to remind us of the difference between then and the time they appeared in the count of the tribe of Menashe. The word applies to their having been listed prior to their getting married. This was the appropriate way to introduce people of whom we hear for the first time. In our verse, however, they are listed in order of their relative intelligence. This was the only time they were listed in that order. When the Talmud applies the word וכאן to the order in which they are listed in our verse this is perfectly appropriate then.

This will also enable us to solve the problem we had as to why the Torah had to write ואלה שמות בנותם. In this instance the Torah used the stratagem of naming them in the order of their birth. If the Torah had merely written ואלה שמותם and I would have looked at the list, I would have assumed that here they were listed in order of their intelligence, something that was simply not so. By repeating ואלה שמות בנותיו the Torah reminded us that they are listed in order of their births. You will find a similar extra word in chapter 26,33 where the Torah wrote: ושם בנות צלפחד, "and the names of the daughters of Tzelofchod" although there was no need to repeat the name of their father whose name had appeared earlier in the same verse. While it is true that also in 36,11 the Torah bothered to mention the name of Tzelofchod apparently needlessly, his name appearing at the end of verse 10, the difference is that in 36,11 the name of their father appears after their names, whereas both in chapter 26 and chapter 27 the name of the father appears before that of his daughters. I have already explained in connection with Genesis 6,10 about the three sons of Noach that when the name of the father appears before the names of his children we are entitled to assume that the names of the children are listed in order of their births.

ותעמדנה לפני משה, They stood before Moses, etc. I have explained the argument between Rabbi Abba Chanan and Rabbi Yoshiah on Numbers 9,6 concerning the question if one accords honour to a learned student in the presence of his teacher or not. I also mentioned there why these two Rabbis also disagreed concerning the meaning of our verse here (see my translation page 1396). When you review what I have written there you will understand why the Torah here mentions the presence of Eleazar, the princes, and the entire congregation although they certainly could not be expected to know an answer which even Moses did not know. The principal reason for the presence of this whole assembly of people was to ensure that they would all hear Moses' reply firsthand on an issue as sensitive as the right of inheritance of women.

The Zohar on Balak comments as follows: The Israelites were guilty in the desert of having spoken out against Moses. They thought that Moses was full of hate or bore a grudge and this is why they approached him when he was in the presence of Eleazar, the princes and the heads of the various families. These words suggest that the reason that the daughters of Tzelofchod made a point of confronting Moses in the presence of all these people was that they were afraid Moses would harbour some feelings of hatred against them because of the sin their father had committed which had resulted in his having been executed. According to the Zohar the words וכל העדה refer to the heads of the community as it certainly would not have been within the power of these girls to assemble the whole people on account of their complaint or enquiry.

Nonetheless we must try and understand how the Zohar could impute such base motives to either Moses or even the daughters of Tzelofchod. Why would girls who have been described as righteous by the Talmud assume that Moses had hatred in his heart against them or their late father? Perhaps all the Zohar had in mind was to describe normal human reactions. The Zohar itself writes that we learn from the example of the daughters of Tzelofchod that if one is afraid of the outcome of litigation one should ensure the presence of other people while one's case is being heard. Our sages in Baba Batra 119 already said that these girls were both extremely intelligent and pious. This means that they were quite certain that Moses would not rule unfairly because of any negative feelings he might harbour against them or their late father. It is possible that they were afraid that Moses would rule that just as the people who had complained in Parshat Beha-a-lotcha, as well as the spies who had forfeited their inheritance in the land because they had raised their voices against Moses and against G'd, Moses would rule similarly against them on account of the sin of their late father. To forestall this they assembled all these people so that they could side with the claim of their late father in order that Moses should not decide against them. It is also possible that these girls were astute enough to do what they did in order to cause Moses to disqualify himself from judging the case seeing there was a suspicion that he was prejudiced in the matter. According to the Zohar this was the reason why Moses left the matter to G'd. He could have given a ruling immediately had he wanted to. Personally, I believe that Moses was fully aware that these girls were entitled to a share in the land, but he wanted to teach the other leaders the lesson that if a judge is suspected by an interested party of being prejudiced against a claimant he must disqualify himself in the matter. Alternatively, Moses felt that the attitude of the girls was not much better than those of the מתלוננים in Numbers 10,1 so that he preferred to let G'd give the ruling Himself.

אבינו מת במדבר, "our father died in the desert, etc." The reason they said: "in the desert," was to emphasise that he did not die in Egypt because he was not worthy of the redemption. They wanted to establish immediately that their claim was based not only according to the opinion that the people who participated in the Exodus inherited the land but also according to the view of those who held that those present at the last census would inherit the land. Concerning those who held that the decisive factor was participation in the Exodus, they said that their father died in the desert, i.e. after the Exodus. By using the word במדבר, they also implied that he was amongst those whose death in the desert had been decreed by G'd as a result of the debacle with the spies when G'd had said (Numbers 14,29) "your carcasses will fall in the desert." This teaches that a) he had been over twenty years old at the time of the Exodus, and b) that he had not died as a result of a specific sin which carries the death penalty. According to those who held that the land was distributed in accordance with the people who participated in the latest census, they hinted that even those opinions were based on the inheritance first "returning" to the previous generation who had participated in the Exodus and that as a result they would be entitled to participate in the distribution.

Furthermore, according to Zohar volume 2 page 157 where we were told that the desert was the domain of Samael/Satan and this was the reason people who committed sins were punished promptly, they indicated that had their father committed his particular sin in any place other than the desert his punishment would have been delayed giving him a chance to rehabilitate himself in time. In other words, they said that the only reason he died prematurely was that he was in the desert at the wrong time.

Another way at looking at the word במדבר is to recall that the root of the word is דבר, speak. The daughters wanted to convince Moses that they harboured no enmity against him seeing that it was public knowledge that their father had spoken out publicly against G'd and Moses. This is why G'd had killed him; it was therefore quite impossible to imagine that they, the daughters, would hold Moses responsible for their father's death and would be afraid that he in turn might be prejudiced against them in their demand to share in the land distribution. As proof that their father's sin had not been that of the people who had followed the majority report of the spies, they stated outright that he had not died as part of the עדה, the ten spies whom G'd had described as an "evil congregation" in Numbers 14,27. According to Sifri the term עדה רעה also included the people reported as complaining in Numbers chapter 11, as well as the supporters of Korach. Tzelofchod had not been one of any of these, the daughters said. They emphasised that בחטאו מת, that their father had died on account of his individual sin, not connected to any of the instances of communal disobedience against Moses' leadership. Perhaps this is the reason they insisted on saying what they had to say in the presence of the princes and the congregation. They wanted to show that they fully relied on Moses to judge their case truthfully, without prejudice. This is why they said the word לאמור before commencing their speech. The word לאמור refers to someone saying something. The daughters indicated that their father's sin consisted of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person although apart from this one grievous mistake he was perfectly righteous.

If we follow this approach we can also solve a difficulty raised by Tossaphot in Baba Batra 118 commencing with the words ולמאן דאמר לבאי הארץ. Tossaphot ask that from the discussion in the Talmud it emerges that according to the view that the primary claimants to distribution of the land were the people who had been counted in the present census, the daughters of Tzelofchod did not receive the share that their father was entitled to in his own right, but they received only the part which their father had claimed being the firstborn son of Chefer. If so, ask Tossaphot, what was the meaning of: "he died because of his own sin," seeing his sin or his death was not relevant to their claim? After all, even the sons of the ten spies who had died at the hands of G'd all inherited on the basis of their grandfathers' claim! According to our approach, however, there was a good reason for what these daughters of Tzelofchod said. They had to emphasise that their father's situation had been different from that of all the other people who had been described as an evil congregation. If you do not accept our approach one may answer the question raised by Tossaphot by saying that the daughters were not aware that the penalty suffered by the spies did not include that their sons could not stake a claim based on their grandfathers' entitlement. They had thought that with the death of these ten spies both their own as well as their sons' claim to any share in the land had expired. This is why they had to make the point that their father's sin did not fall into such a category.

ובנים לא היו לו. "He never had any sons." They did not say אין לו, "he does not have (or he will not have)." This is best explained according to the view expressed in Yevamot 62 that grandsons are equivalent to sons." They applied this principle also to granddaughters and that is why they had to be careful with phrasing the reference to Tzelofchod not having sons in the past tense only. They did not preclude that he would have grandsons in the future, the ones which his daughters would bear and who would also be known as "his sons."

למה יגרע, "Why should his name be lost, etc?" We need to understand this claim on the basis of a statement in Baba Batra 116 in the Mishnah that the daughters of Tzelofchod received three separate shares of land in the distribution; 1) the share of their father who had participated in the Exodus; 2) part of the inheritance which their father shared with his brothers of the claim of Chefer; 3) the additional share Chefer had claimed being a firstborn. Thus far the Mishnah. In our verse the daughters of Tzelofchod address three points. By saying למה יגרע, they referred to Tzelofchod's personal share in the inheritance; by adding תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו, "give us an inheritance amongst that of our father's brothers," they referred to Chefer's share in the inheritance seeing that Chefer himself had participated in the Exodus. The words בתוך אחי are the reference to the double share which Chefer had been entitled to as a firstborn. This interpretation is possible only according to the view that the land was distributed basically to the people who participated in the Exodus. According to the view that the primary claimants were the people of the last census, Tzelofchod personally had no share as he was not present at that census. We must therefore explain our verse in accordance with what we learned in Baba Batra 118. The Talmud has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "I can understand Joshua 17,5 'Ten districts fell to Menashe, apart from the lands of Gilead and Bashan which are across the Jordan.' The ten shares are made up of 6 בתי אבות and four shares of their own. These four are arrived at by 1 district being Tzelofchod's share, the second one being the share of Chefer; the third one being the extra share of Chefer who was a firstborn, the fourth one being his share amongst the inheritance of his brothers. However, if we accept the view that the land was distributed primarily to the people who were part of the last census there should have been a total of only eight districts, i.e. the six pertaining to the number of בתי אבות in the tribe of Menashe and two of their own (the two shares Chefer inherited being a firstborn). Abbaye answered that Tzelofchod had two brothers (who died after their father Chefer so that they had already inherited Chefer's share). Thus far the discussion in the Talmud. We have established therefore that even according to the view that the distribution was based primarily on the people present at the most recent census, the daughters of Tzelofchod had a valid claim to two inheritances comprising a total of four shares. Accordingly then: the words למה יגרע referred to the inheritance belonging to Chefer their grandfather through the stratagem of the dead inheriting the living; the words תנה לנו introduce their claim to the share of Tzelofchod's brothers which Tzelofchod had staked a claim to after Chefer died but before he died. Those shares had been allocated to him after they had first "gone back" via Chefer. [The discussion in the Talmud is based on G'd's decision that where there are no sons the daughters inherit instead. Ed.]

There is another way of explaining the words of the daughters of Tzelofchod as being appropriate regardless of whose view we adopt concerning the key to the distribution of the land. They said למה יגרע שם אבינו, "why shall the name of our father be lost, etc," instead of saying למה תגרע נחלת אבינו, "why shall the inheritance of our father be lost?" Furthermore, why did they repeat: "for he has no son," when they had already explained in the previous verse that Tzelofchod their father had never had any sons? Baba Batra 119 explains the wording these girls chose as follows: "The daughters of Tzelofchod were very astute; they made certain that they presented the facts of their case as they appeared at that time. Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok said that at this particular time Moses was busy explaining the laws of the levirate marriage. The passage in the Torah (Deut. 25,5) which introduces that subject commences with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו "when brothers dwell together and one of them dies and he has no son, etc." The daughters of Tzelofchod argued as follows: "If you want to treat us as the sons our father never had, give us his share in the land; if not, treat us as you treat a brother who dies without children and whose widow makes certain that his name (and property) lives on by means of the levirate marriage to a surviving brother. Let our mother marry a brother in-law." Their reference to the name of their father becoming lost was well calculated then. Should Moses retort that the levirate marriage solution applies only when there are also no daughters, the daughters of Tzelofchod countered that in that case they demanded to be treated as if they were sons of Tzelofchod. This argument makes sense regardless of whether we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah or the view of Rabbi Yonathan regarding the key to the distribution of the land.

ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם, "Moses submitted their claim for G'd to adjudge." It is possible, that Moses used the last mentioned arguments of these daughters and wanted to know from G'd if to treat these girls as the missing sons or if to treat their mother as a potential candidate for some kind of levirate marriage in order to preserve the name of their father. Moses hoped that in the event G'd would deny them an inheritance, He would at the same time give him a reason why the principle underlying the levirate marriage legislation did not apply to them, i.e. why their mother could not marry a brother-in-law and the son born from such a marriage would inherit Tzelofchod's or Chefer's inheritance.

Another way of explaining Moses' action may be based on something reported in the name of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni in Baba Batra 119. This rabbi said that Moses was fully aware that the daughters of Tzelofchod were entitled to inherit land in the Holy Land. What Moses did not know was if they were also entitled to inherit a second share in lieu of the share their grandfather had inherited by reason of his being a firstborn. Actually, the whole paragraph dealing with the laws of inheritance should have been written by Moses; the reason it was written as a result of the claim presented by the daughters of Tzelofchod was because these daughters were very meritorious so that they became the catalyst of this legislation being presented at this point. Moses also knew that the מקשש עצים was guilty of the death penalty seeing the Torah had written that he who desecrates the Sabbath is to be executed (Exodus 31,15); he only did not know which of the four death penalties he was to apply. The reason that portion was written as a direct result of the sin of the מקשש was to teach that if the Torah wishes to confer an entitlement on someone it chooses as an example people who are the beneficiaries of that entitlement. Similarly, when there was an immediate need for the Torah to legislate guilt it chose a person who was guilty under the heading of that legislation to be the catalyst for revealing this legislation. Thus far Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni. Tossaphot comment that although the whole legislation about inheritance had not yet been divulged, Moses knew all about the argument the daughters of Tzelofchod presented, i.e. that they wished to be treated either as sons or that their mother should be allowed to marry a brother-in-law.

This sounds very puzzling. We have learned in Zevachim 115 that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael argued about the order in which the written Torah was recorded. Both Rabbis agree, however, that both the general rules as well as their applications were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. According to what we just read in Baba Batra it sounds as if portions of the Torah had not been revealed to Moses even in the last months of his life after Aaron had died already! Why else would the Torah describe the daughters of Tzelofchod as appearing in the presence of "Eleazar The Priest?" [This would mean that Aaron died without being aware of a crucial part of the written Torah. Ed.] We have no problem with the part of the Baraitha which discusses the guilt of the מקשש, the man who gathered firewood on the Sabbath, as this occurred either during the first year or the early part of the second year that the Israelites were in the desert (compare Sifri section 1 item 113). We could say therefore that G'd had told Moses at Mount Sinai what the penalty of the מקשש was, as the Israelites were still camped around the Mountain at the time. Where did G'd tell Moses about the right of daughters to inherit the double portion of a deceased father who was a firstborn?

We must conclude that Moses heard all general rules as well as all detailed הלכות at Mount Sinai, including the details about the laws of inheritance and that he even knew about the daughters receiving the part of the inheritance which Tzelofchod or Chefer had come by only by dint of being firstborn. When the Baraitha described Moses as not knowing if the daughters were entitled to that share also, this applied only to this exceptional inheritance of land in the land of Israel. The problem was whether a person who had stood to inherit from someone who personally had not owned, i.e. possessed the land in question, was to be treated as ראוי or as מוחזק, i.e. as a potential rather than as an actual heir. The rule about inheriting a double share applies only to property left by the father when the father had possession of it at the time of his death; if the father's assets were in the form of outstanding loans for instance, the sons are considered as only potential heirs and the firstborn enjoys no special privilege. The fact that Moses did not know this detail is not to be construed as a deficiency in knowing the laws of the Torah. This evaluation is confirmed by what the Talmud basing itself on the statement of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni asks Rava who holds that possession of the land of Israel by Israelites who have never set foot in it is still considered as actual possession. The Talmud asks that seeing we have Rava's statement what doubts did Moses entertain? The Talmud answers that the interpretation of the verse from which this concept is supposedly taken is the subject of the debate. The Torah writes in Exodus 6,8: "and I will give it (the land of Canaan) to you as a heritage." This means that if the word מורשה means heritage, i.e. ירושה, then the firstborn will be entitled to a double share in it. However, it is possible that the correct translation for the word מורשה is that it is a land which you may pass on to your children, etc. The latter meaning implies that only after the Israelites had actually taken possession of the land could they in turn bequeath their shares to their children. If the latter interpretation is correct this would reflect what is written in Exodus 15,17: "You bring them in and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance." According to the Talmud these words, spoken during the song of thanksgiving for G'd having led the Israelites through the sea of reeds, were in the nature of a prophecy not understood at that time by the people who uttered it. [The exegetical detail is that the word תביאמו means "You will bring it (or them)," whereas we would have expected the Israelites to sing: תביאנו, "You will bring us." Ed.] The concensus seems to be that the wording מורשה means that it will become your inheritance for you to pass on as an inheritance as well as an immediate inheritance and that Moses was aware of the dual meaning of the word מורשה. At any rate, all of these considerations make sense only if the section dealing with laws of inheritance had already been revealed to Moses. If not, how could the Talmud have described Moses as being in doubt when and how the legislation applied seeing that the whole legislation had not yet been revealed?

We can prove from the Talmud that the laws of inheritance as they applied to the land of Israel, i.e. if one's claim to it is merely potential or if the Israelites were already considered as in possession of it, had been mentioned in the Torah already. This is what the Talmud meant when it stated that the Israelites prophesied without being aware of what they prophesied when they said the words תביאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך in the Song in Exodus 15,17. The only thing is that even Moses had not paid attention to the implication of what is written there. Let us now examine carefully what the Torah had in mind here. The words ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם refer to the claim for the share of the firstborn; concerning this enquiry G'd answered (verse 7) והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, "you are to transfer their father's inheritance to them." The word והעברת is in itself an allusion to the firstborn as we encounter this expression in Exodus 13,12 in the legislation concerning the firstborn. Although we find that the Torah spells out details of the legislation here this does not mean it had not been divulged at Sinai already. According to Sanhedrin 59 we have similar examples when the Torah records the law of circumcision in Genesis chapter 17 or the law about the גיד הנשה, the sinew of the femoral vein, in Genesis chapter 32. The Torah saw fit to record details of a certain law in connection with its being observed in fact, although, legislatively speaking it was promulgated only at Sinai (compare Chulin 100). What remains to be clarified is where the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves alluded to the claim for the share of the firstborn which alone prompted Moses to submit their claim to G'd. Perhaps there was not even any need for them to spell this out. We have a rule that if the judge is aware that a litigant has a valid claim to something he either did not know about or had forgotten to mention and the judge is in some doubt about such a claim being valid, he has to submit it to G'd for a decision. It is also possible that when the daughters said: "why should the name of our father be lost," they meant that Moses should consider it as if their father himself was about to cross into the land of Canaan and was now presenting his claim. Moses would understand then that the subject under discussion was the additional share which the firstborn is entitled to. This is why the Torah said that Moses presented משפטן, the doubtful part of their claim, i.e. the claim to the share of the firstborn.