Comentario sobre Números 27:7

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 דברות, the daughters of Tzelofchod are correct in what they said. The Torah needed to write the word כן in addition to handing down the legal decision. By writing the extra word כן, G'd expressed appreciation of the logic demonstrated by the daughters of Tzelofchod when they had presented their case by basing it on either the law of inheritance or the law of the levirate marriage.

כן בנות צלפחד דוברות, “the daughters of Tzelofchod speak properly;” the word כן here is in essence the same as באמת, truthfully, correctly. Sifri 134 comments: “hail to the people whose words are applauded by G’d.”

As Targum renders יאות [as] “correctly.” Meaning that Rashi wishes to explain the word יאות used by the Targum; that it means that the daughters of Tzelofchad had made a correct claim. For this is how the Rabbis expound the verse [teaching]: “Tzelofchad’s daughters speak correctly” because thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. Re’m. It appears that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written “they speak צדק ["justly"]" or “[they speak] משפט ["lawfully"]”? Because the term כן ["correctly"] has the connotation of כמו כן ["similarly" implying a reference to something] written and explained elsewhere. Therefore, Rashi brings the words of the Rabbis that thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. However, since this matter is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, Rashi therefore brings the Targum who uses the word יאות. R. Yaakov Triosh.

V. 7. כן .כן בנות וגו׳ (vergl. Bereschit 42, 11). כנים נחנו, was dort Charakter eines Menschen ist, ist hier Charakter einer Rede, einer Darstellung. Was die Töchter Zelafchads geredet haben, ist ganz so wie es sein soll, ihre Rede entspricht der Wahrheit und dem Rechte. דוברות: Während דבר im Piel mehr die hörbare Darstellung von Gedanken, das Sprechen, Aussprechen im Auge hat, bezieht sich דבר im Kal vorzugsweise auf den Gedankeninhalt, der durchs Wort geäußert wird, דובר שלום ,דובר מישרים ,דובר צדק usw. דבר ist sprechen, אמר sagen, :דבור reden. —נחלה ,אחזת נחלה : ein stromgleich von den Vorfahren auf die Nachkommen "herabfließendes" Gut. אחזה ist wie ישועה ,גאולה ein aktiver abstrakter Begriff: ein Besitztum, das sesshaft macht, das den Besitzer fesselt, ihm eine bleibende Stätte gewährt (siehe Bereschit 47, 27). בתוך אחי אביהם: sie vertreten die Stelle deren verstorbenen Bruders. War der Verteilungsmodus einfach ליוצאי מצרים, zu denen Zelafchad ebenso wie seine Brüder gehörte, so erhalten sie den Teil, der Zelafchad als solchem gebührte, sie sind seine Erben. War aber der Verteilungsmodus der oben dargestellte חזרה-Kanon, nach welchem das Land zunächst unter die באי הארץ verteilt, von ihnen dann auf die יוצאי מצרים zurückging und unter diesen für sich und ihre Erben zu gleichen Teilen als Hinterlassenschaft ihrer Väter zur Verteilung kam, so würden, wenn Zelafchad statt fünf Töchter fünf Söhne hinterlassen hätte, zuerst diese fünf Söhne fünf Anteile ebenso wie ihre Vettern, die Söhne ihrer Vaterbrüder, zur חזרה in der Idee an den Großvater Chefer und zur gleichen Teilung unter dessen Söhnen und deren Erben erhalten haben. Sollten daher Zelafchads Töchter auch hinsichtlich dieses חזרה-Teilungsmodus ganz die Rechte von Söhnen haben erhalten sollen, so hätte die Entscheidung nicht בתוך אחי אביהם, sondern בתוך בני דודיהם gelautet. Da jedoch die Entscheidung sich בתוך אחי אביהם ausspricht, so ist damit gesagt, dass ihnen nicht, wie ihren Vettern, den בני דודיהם, zuerst direkt fünf Landesanteile zur חזרה-Verteilung werden sollen, sondern dass sie nur indirekt durch die, vermittelst des Anteilrechts ihrer Vettern und der חזרה auf חפר unter dessen Söhnen als יוצאי מצרים wozu auch צלפחד gehörte, zur Verteilung kommende Hinterlassenschaft, den auf ihren Vater fallenden Anteil gleich ihren Oheimen erhalten sollen, wie wir dies bereits zu V. 5 angedeutet. Bezeichnend treten hier die auf die Töchter sich beziehende Suffixa: אביהם ,להם in maskuliner Form auf. Der Ausspruch sagt: Geben sollst du ihnen in männlicher Berechtigung Erbbesitz (nach der חזרה-Auffassung jedoch nur) unter den Brüdern ihres Vaters, als wären sie Söhne (oder: nach der חזרה-Auffassung, ihnen gegenüber haben sie männliche Rechte).

נתון תתן להם נחלה, “you are certainly to give them ancestral land as their inheritance.” It was really the inheritance of their father.

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).

נתן תתן להם אחוזת נחלה , “you shall certainly give them the permanent possession of an heritage.” The repetition of the word נתן means that they were to receive a double share of hereditary portion of land in the land of Israel. One share would be the one that accrued to their father who was one of the men of military age who had taken part in the Exodus. As such he should have shared with the other sons of Chefer. Chefer’s father had himself died in the desert so that the daughters of Tzelofchod inherited their father’s portion of his share in the land also. This is because the daughter of a son takes the place of non-existent brothers and shares with them in the inheritance (compare Baba Batra 115). The summary arrived at there is: “direct biological offspring takes precedence in the laws of inheritance.”

Two portions. Re’m expands here, but his conclusion is that Rashi used the terminology of the beraysa (Bava Basra 116b). Even though the beraysa is according to the opinion that the land was divided among those who left Egypt, Rashi did not [use it] because he holds like this. Rather, from there one can learn that according to the opinion that [it was divided among] those who came to the land. נתן תתן ["give, you shall give"] refers to two portions in the property of Cheifer, which were considered “returned” [to him]. For the portions taken by the sons of Cheifer who were from among those who came to the land, were all “returned” to Cheifer who was one of those who left Egypt, as it is written “according to the names of their fathers’ tribes should they inherit it” (26:55). Thus it would emerge that it is as if Cheifer had [posthumously] received all of these portions and then bequeathed them to each of his sons. Tzelofchad would inherit two portions because he was the firstborn, while the other brothers would each get one portion. Consequently, the daughters of Tzelofchad would receive the two portions of their father from the property of Cheifer, and regarding these two portions the verse wrote, “Give, you shall give.” Rashi uses the language, “The portion of their father… and his portion with his brothers in the property of Cheifer” like the language of the beraysa. His intention was merely to say that they had the two portions of their father among his brothers in the property of Cheifer. However [this raises a difficulty:] His daughters could not have taken anything from Cheifer himself, since the land was divided among those who came there, not those who left Egypt. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to consider anything [as] returned to him, because he did not have any sons who entered the land such that they would return to him the portions that they took there. Re’m concludes that the matter requires investigation.

G'd also may have written this word to indicate that He appreciated their piety and that was why He had Moses tell them of the decision separately, i.e. לאמור, not merely by including them as part of the general rules about the order of inheritance the Torah recorded here.

נחלת אביהן ,והעברת נחלת אביהן להן: nach dem יוצאי מצרים-Modus der ihrem Vater als יוצא מצרים zugefallene Anteil. Nach dem חזרה-Modus: der von dem im Verein mit seinen Brüdern infolge der חזרה zwischen ihnen zu teilenden Erbe ihm zufallende Anteil. Jedes einer Erbtochter zugewiesene Erbe heißt: העברה, hinüber führen. Da nämlich eventuell dieses Gut einst durch ihre Verheiratung mit einem Manne aus einem anderen Stamme nach ihrem Tode ihrem dem väterlichen Stamme angehörigem Sohne oder — wenn ירושת הבעל דאוריתא (siehe zu V. 11) — ihrem Manne zufällt, wird dadurch ein Erbgut eventuell seiner ursprünglichen Stammesbestimmung entzogen und einem anderen Stamme zugeführt.

בתוך אחי אביהם, “among the inheritance of their father’s brothers, i.e. this was all a part of their grandfather’s inheritance.

נתן תתן lit., GIVING THOU SHALT GIVE [A POSSESSION OF AN INHERITANCE AMONGST THEIR FATHER’S BRETHREN] — This suggests: thou shalt give two portions, viz., the portion of their father (אחזת נחלה) who was one of those who came out of Egypt, and his portion that he should have had together with his brothers (נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם) in the property of his father Hefer (who also was one of those who left Egypt) (cf. Rashi on Numbers 26:55) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1; Bava Batra 118b).

והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, “you are to transfer the hereditary share of their father to them.” The meaning is: “what their father would have inherited had he lived will be given to his daughters.” The reason the Torah here chose the word והעברת “you shall transfer, instead of “you shall give as permanent heritage, ונתת,” the term used when discussing male heirs receiving their portion (compare verses 9, 10,11), is related to their marrying out of the tribe. Here when the legal status of a daughter inheriting her father’s landed property is legislated the Torah uses a term implying a more transient inheritance.

Denotes anger. Meaning that Hashem has fury and anger against him, therefore He does not leave a son to inherit him.

להם אחוזת נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם, this is already thefourth time that the Torah refers to the daughters of Tz’lofchod with the masculine pronoun instead of the feminine one. [Note that Moses does not refer to them with the masculine pronoun ending. Ed.

והעברת — This is an expression (also) denoting “wrath” and it is used here instead of a form of נתן found throughout the chapter to suggest that God’s wrath is directed against one who leaves no son to be his heir (Bava Batra 116a). Another explanation is that the form of העבר “causing to pass” is exceptionally used in the case of a daughter being her father’s heiress because a daughter as heiress ordinarily causes the inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe, since her son and her husband are her heirs (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:2; Bava Batra 147a), for it must be born in mind that the command (Numbers 36:7), “The inheritance shall not move from tribe to tribe” was laid only upon that generation (Bava Batra 120a). And so, for the same reason, we have this verb used in (v. 8): “Then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter”, for you see that in all of them (the other cases mentioned here) it says, ונתתם, “and ye shall give” (vv. 9, 10, 11), but in the case of a daughter it says, והעברתם, “and ye shall cause it to pass”.

Only on that generation. Meaning: One should not raise the difficulty that in Parshas Masei it is written (Bamidbar 36:9), “No inheritance will be transferred [from one tribe to another]…” teaching that a woman from one tribe is not permitted to marry a man from another tribe. Rashi [there] explains that this command was only for that generation, but not for subsequent generations. [Both interpretations brought by Rashi are necessary:] According to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have been punctuated as והעברת with a segol, given that it was in the sense of anger, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is written the term “transfer” regarding the daughters of Tzelofchad, for they were permitted to marry only their cousins. Therefore he also brings the first reason.