Comentario sobre Números 36:15

ויקרבו ראשי האבות למשפחת בני גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה, “the heads of the families of the sons of Gilead son of Machir, son of Menasheh approached;” this paragraph too is a continuation of the paragraphs dealing with the distribution of the cities to the Levites, land taken from the heritage of the ordinary Israelites. The term ראשי האבות refers to the princes. (Compare Ibn Ezra).

Kap. 36. V. 1. ויקרבו. Wie bereits früher bemerkt, wird der Begriff משפחה enger und weiter gefasst. Der Großvater Zelafchads hatte, wie Kap. 26, 30 f. ersichtlich, sechs Söhne, die jeder das Haupt einer Familie waren. Diese sechs Familien wurden in weiterem Sinne zusammen als eine משפחה, als die משפחה des Giladiten gefasst, und die Häupter dieser sechs Zweige der Giladitischen Familie, es waren die Großonkel der Töchter Zelaschads, traten mit ihrer Vorstellung an Mosche und die Fürsten heran.

ויקרבו ראשי האבות, “the heads of the father’s houses approached, etc.” the reason that this paragraph is appended here is that Moses had recently issued instructions about how the land is to be distributed and according to what criteria, especially the status of the cities of the Levites.

בנחלה בגורל, if a tribe would occupy land belonging to that of another tribe the purpose of sharing out the land by lottery would not have been carried out. [the Torah speaks of the daughters of Tzelofchod possibly marrying out of their tribe and their ancestral heritage therefore becoming part of another tribe, that of their husbands. Ed.]

V. 2. ויאמרו וגו׳. Wie wir zu V. 6 zu bemerken haben, war die hier von den Häuptern der Giladitenfamilie provozierte Verordnung nur für das damalige Geschlecht gegeben, an welches zuerst das Land in Verteilung kam. Der Antrag selbst weist auf eine solche Beschränkung hin. Oben (Kap. 27, 3) lautet der Antrag der Töchter Zelafchads ganz allgemein, knüpft nur an die persönlichen Verhältnisse des Vaters an und bittet um Erbrecht für die Töchter, da kein Sohn vorhanden. Da wird mit keiner Silbe der bevorstehenden Landesverteilung gedacht. Darum gilt auch die dort erflossene Entscheidung für alle Zeiten und alle Verhältnisse. Hier aber geht der Antrag ganz eigentlich von der bevorstehenden Landesverteilung aus und weist auf Konsequenzen hin, die die dort ergangene Bestimmung für diese Verteilung haben werde. Es liegt daher schon dadurch nahe, dass die hier erfolgende Bestimmung nur die Zeit des an der Verteilung des Landes partizipierenden Geschlechts im Auge habe. Ginge der Antrag und dessen Erledigung darüber hinaus, so wäre das erste Faktum, an welches der Vortrag der Familienhäupter erinnert, את אדני צוה ד׳ usw. ganz müßig, es hätte genügt: אדני צוה בד׳ לתת וגו׳, dann hätte es sich um Beseitigung eines Bedenkens gehandelt, das bei allen künftigen Verlassenschaften durch das Töchtern erteilte Erbrecht zu heben gewesen wäre. ואדני צוה בד׳ — את אדני צוה ד׳, bei dem ersten Auftrag war die Initiative von Gott, der zweite erfolgte auf eine Vorstellung von Mosche. לתת את הארץ בנחלה וגו׳, sie erinnern daran, nach der ersten Anordnung solle das Land בנחלה, das heißt: also erteilt werden, dass jeder Anteil "stromgleich" in das "angewiesene Bette abwärts fließe", dies ist ja der eigentliche Begriff des Erbrechts als נחל. Die Grundabsicht sei also, dass es innerhalb des angewiesenen Besitzgebietes des Hauses, der Familie, des Stammes verharre, zumal, da es gleichzeitig בגורל, also, wie zu Kap. 26, 55 erläutert, unter Mitwirkung der אורים ותומים verteilt werden soll, jede Zuweisung irgend eines Besitzteils somit als göttliche Anordnung in Erfüllung gebracht werden müsse, also z. B. wenn irgend ein Teil dem Stamme Juda überwiesen worden, sollte es nicht von einem anderen Stamme in Besitz genommen werden. ואדני צוה בד׳ וגו׳, dieser dem ganzen Landesverteilungsmodus aufgeprägten Tendenz stände aber die zweite Anordnung, welche den Töchtern Zelafchads bei der Landesverteilung das Zuerteilungsrecht ihres verstorbenen Vaters einräumt, entgegen. Denn

Through the casting of lots to Bnei Yisroel. From this we can understand that the inheriting of Eretz Yisroel is a matter of holiness, not like the dividing up of an inheritance by brothers, which does not have to be done by lots, but can be done with the agreement of the brothers, according to what they want.

Our master was commanded by Adonoy. The first command [Adonoy commanded our master] mentioned in this verse was not that Moshe should give the land as an inheritance himself, but that he should command Yehoshua and Elozor to do it when they come to Eretz Yisroel. The second command mentioned here, however, was to Moshe himself, as it is written (27:7): “Give them a hereditary portion of land”; and in fact, the portion of the daughters of Tzelofchad was already given to them by Moshe. For this reason it was written in the first phrase, Adonoy commanded our master, and in the second one, our master was commanded by Adonoy.

ונוסף על נחלת המטה AND IF THEY BECOME WIVES TO ANY SONS OF THE OTHER TRIBES … THEN WILL THEIR INHERITANCE] BE ADDED TO THE INHERITANCE OF THE TRIBE [WHEREUNTO THEY SHALL BELONG] — for her son will be her heir and the son reckons his pedigree after his father’s tribe.

V. 3. והיו וגו׳, in dem Kap. 27, 8 den Töchtern erteilten bedingten Erbrecht ist zugleich die Bestimmung enthalten, dass das ihnen in Ermangelung von Brüdern oder deren Deszendenten zufallende Erbgut nach ihrem Tode an ihre Söhne (je nach der Auffassung auch an ihre Männer, — siehe daselbst V. 11) übergehe, jedenfalls somit, wenn der Mann, folglich auch die mit ihm erzeugten Kinder einem anderen Stamme angehören, das Erbgut von einem Stamme in das Besitzgebiet eines anderen Stammes übergeht, weshalb ja auch dort das Töchtern erteilte Erbrecht allgemein העברה heißt (siehe daselbst). Werden nun die Töchter Zelafchads außerhalb ihres Stammes sich verheiraten und das oben erwähnte Erbrecht auch mit allen seinen Konsequenzen bei ihnen in Anwendung kommen, so würde schon sofort bei der nach Stämmen zu geschehenen Landesverteilung eine solche העברה vorkommen, ja es könnte geschehen, wenn die Töchter Zelafchads sich jetzt außerhalb ihres Stammes verheiraten und etwa vor der Verteilung mit Hinterlassung von Deszendenten (eventuell ihrer Ehemänner) stürben: so würde bei der Verteilung ein nach göttlicher Bestimmung dem Stamme Menasche überwiesener Landesteil einem anderen Stamme anzuweisen sein.

ואם יהיה היבל may mean AND IF THERE WILL BE THE JUBILEE — From this R. Judah said: The observance of the Jubilee will cease at some time or other (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 1 on Leviticus 2:14).

ואם יהיה היובל...יגרע נחלתן, even in the event that we will not now conquer the whole land, as predicted in Exodus 23,30 that the land would be conquered in stages, progressively, so that each tribe would have to conquer the area it laid claim to, a person who had sold his share or potential share could not claim exemption form the war of conquest seeing that the land he had sold would be restored to him in the Jubilee year. In any event it would remain part of his tribe’s ancestral heritage. However, the share given to the daughters of Tzelofchod which would not be restored to their tribe in the Jubilee year, would furnish an excuse to members of their tribe not to bother to fight for that piece of land, and they would allow the present owners to remain there. At any rate, the argument of the family of Machir of Menashe was that the most recent legislation could result in the whole principle of sharing out the land by lottery being partially aborted.

ואם יהיה היובל לבני ישראל, “and when the Jubilee year will arrive for the Children of Israel, etc.” These people argued that if the daughters of Tzelofchod were to marry someone outside their tribe, the heritage they had been given would then pass over to their husbands and as a result would never revert to their tribe even in the Jubilee year. The result would be an increase of ancestral land of some other tribe at the expense of the tribe of Menashe. The legal reason was that inherited property is not subject to the Yovel legislation.

R’ Yehudah said. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it written ואם ["and if"], since it should have said וכי יהיה ["and when [the yoveil] occurs"]. For ואם implies that there is doubt as to whether there would be a yoveil. When Rashi writes afterwards “so even if yoveil occurs” he does not mean to explain ואם as meaning אפילו ["even when"], for if so he would be contradicting what he said above, that the word ואם implies doubt. Rather, the word “even” is part of Rashi’s usage of language, and it is not meant to be an explanation of the word אם.

V. 4. ואם יהיה היובל וגו׳, und diese Zuweisung würde einer direkten durchs Los bestimmten Zuerteilung ganz gleichkommen, sie wird keine vorübergehende, wie etwa durch Verkauf entstehende, sondern eine durchaus bleibende Entziehung und Entfremdung des eigentlich dem Stamme Menasche zufallenden Gutes bewirken, da ירושה auch im Jobel nicht zurückkehrt. (Die Familienhäupter der Giladiten sprechen [V. 31] von einer Verkürzung des Erbteils ihrer Väter, מנחלת אבתינו und nicht מנחלתנו. Es erscheint dies im Geiste der dem Verteilungsmodus zu Grunde liegenden Tatsache gesprochen zu sein, dass den באי הארץ das Land nur als Erbe der וצאי מצרים zuerteilt wurde, — siehe Kap. 26, 55.)

ואם יהיה היבל may mean, too: AND WHEN THERE WILL BE THE JUBILEE [THEN WILL THEIR INHERITANCE BE ADDED TO THE INHERITANCE OF THE TRIBE TO WHICH THEY SHALL BELONG] — meaning: This is no sale of land so that it returns to the original owner at the Jubilee, for a heritage never returns. Therefore even when the Jubilee will be, the inheritance will not return to its tribe, and it will follow that it will be added על נחלת המטה אשר תהיינה להם TO THE INHERITANCE OF THE TRIBE TO WHICH THEY SHALL BELONG.

To discontinue. Meaning that the Temple will be destroyed and shmittah and yoveil will be discontinued.

ויצו משה את בני ישראל, Moses commanded the children of Israel, etc. The meaning of the verse is that Moses commanded them at the behest of G'd who had commanded him to address the children of Israel. What was the content of that command? "The tribes of the sons of Joseph are correct in what they are saying." The whole verse is a compliment to the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe.

Correctly are the descendants of Yoseif’s tribe speaking. Even though in any case this claim was not effectual except for that generation, that is because the holiness of the Land is not uprooted after it has already been completely defined, for the sake of a minority, and the Yoveil will also not be uprooted because of this. However it is fitting that the initial entry and fixing of the holiness should be in the best way possible, therefore in that generation the claim was justified.

זה הדבר, "this is the thing, etc." This expression is explained in Baba Batra 120 as follows: "the daughters of Tzelofchod were permitted free choice of husbands, including husbands who were from different tribes, as it says in our verse לטוב בעיניהם תהײנה לנשים, 'let them be married to whom they think best;'" the question then arises how we can can reconcile this with the words "but let them be married to members of the tribe of their father?" The Talmud answers that these words are not a condition but merely sound advice by the Torah to these girls. Thus far the Talmud. When the Torah said זה הדבר these words were necessary because what preceded them was the Torah's acknowledgment that legally speaking the tribes of Joseph had a sound claim. The Torah therefore had to go on record that the justice of the claim of the tribes of Joseph extended to other daughters inheriting land through their fathers which might become lost to their tribe if such daughters married someone out of their tribe and the Jubilee regulation might alienate such land to the original tribe forever. However, in this single instance of the daughters of Tzelofchod, the general rule did not apply and these daughters were free to be married to men of their choosing even men outside their tribes. The word זה is restrictive and makes an exception of the daughters of Tzelofchod. This is also alluded to in the unnecessary word לאמור in this verse. G'd went out of His way to pay great honour to these girls.

לטוב בעיניהם, belonging to their tribe, according to the plain meaning.

VV. 6 u. 7. זה הדבר וגו׳ (siehe zu Kap. 30, 2). Die mit זה הדבר eingeleiteten Anordnungen sind in der Regel nur momentaner, zeitlicher Geltung, und, wie bereits zu V. 2 bemerkt, gilt die hier erfolgende Heiratsbeschränkung erbberechtigter Töchter nur für das damalige Geschlecht der an der Besitznahme vom Lande zu Beteiligenden. Ja, nach Baba Batra 120 a ist für die Töchter Zelafchads das אך למשפחת מטה אביהם תהיינה לנשים keine diktatorische Rechtsbeschränkung, sondern nur עצה טובה, ein guter Rat, der ihnen die Heirat innerhalb ihres Stammes als wünschenswert bezeichnet. Ihr Recht wäre durch das לטוב בעיניהם תהיינה לנשים in absoluter Unbeschränktheit geblieben, wie es ihnen ja auch in der Tat durch das והעברת את נחלת אביה להן (Kap. 27, 7) eingeräumt erscheint, wenn man nicht den Ausdruck העברה für das Erbrecht der Töchter Zelafchads in uneigentlicher Bedeutung und nur in Folge der allgemein zu treffenden Bezeichnung des Töchtererbrechts angewandt wissen will. Die Beschränkung erbberechtigter Töchter auf Verheiratung innerhalb ihres väterlichen Stammes habe nur für alle anderen erbberechtigten Töchter ihrer Zeit gegolten.

Das ולא תסב נחלה וגו׳ kann ja überhaupt nicht in absoluter Schärfe gemeint sein. Ein solches Übergehen eines Erbgutes von Stamm zu Stamm tritt ja unbedingt in jedem Falle ein, wenn etwa die Brüder erst nach Verheiratung der Töchter in einen anderen Stamm verstorben sind. Es kann daher ja an sich überhaupt nur beabsichtigt sein, einer Entfremdung der Erbgüter von dem ursprünglichen Stamme möglichst vorzubeugen. Durch die gesetzliche Statuierung der העברת נחלה bei Erteilung des bedingten Erbrechts an Töchter in der allgemeinen Erbrechtsordnung (Kap. 27), sowie durch die einleitenden Worte זה הדבר אשר צוה ד׳ ist aber diese möglichste Verhütung der Erbgutsentfremdung selbst nur für die Dauer des damaligen Geschlechts Gegenstand dieser Gesetzesmaßregel, und hätten wir uns nur nach dem Interesse umzusehen, welches durch diese vorübergehende Maßregel seine gesetzliche Pflege dürfte gefunden haben sollen.

Wir haben schon bei Betrachtung der Jobelinstitution im Wajikra Kap. 25, 10 den hohen Wert erwogen, den das Gesetz auf das Innehalten der Stammesgrenzen und das unvermischte Wohnen der Stämme in den angewiesenen Landesteilen legt. Es sollte dadurch, wie wir meinten, der Lösung der einheitlichen Gesamtaufgabe der Nation in aller Mannigfaltigkeit ihrer verschiedenen Stammeseigentümlichkeiten möglichster Vorschub geleistet werden und dazu der Entwicklung eines jeden Stammes in einem eigenen Gebiete der möglichst reine und freie Raum gewährt und gewahrt sein. Dass von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus vor allem für die erste Besitznahme des Landes und die erste darauf folgende Zeit es noch in einem höheren Grade angezeigt sein konnte, ein jedes Gebiet in seiner angewiesenen Integrität dem betreffenden Stamme zu überweisen und zu erhalten, und einem Vermischen der Stammesangehörigen durch das gesetzliche Erbrecht möglichst wenig Vorschub zu leisten, dürfte, wie wir meinen, von selbst einleuchten. Je weniger in aller Zukunft dem gegenseitigen Verkehr und der Verheiratung unter den Stämmen irgend ein gesetzliches Hindernis im Wege stehen sollte, vielmehr der völligen nationalen Vereinheitlichung durch das dreimalige Gesamtzusammenfinden der Nation um das eine Gesamtheiligtum die wirksamste Institution geschaffen war, umsomehr durfte es notwendig sein, dass zuerst ein jeder Landesteil von der Eigentümlichkeit seiner Leute erfasst werde, und die Leute eines jeden Stammes sich mit ihrer Eigentümlichkeit in das ihnen überwiesene Land hineinleben und beide gegenseitig so fest ineinander wurzeln, dass die beabsichtigte Einzelentfaltung der Stämme ihren gesicherten Boden erhalte. Wir glauben, dass sich aus diesem Gesichtspunkte sowohl die Beschränkung erbberechtigter Töchter zur Verheiratung innerhalb ihres Stammes, als die Begrenzung dieser Maßregel auf das erste Geschlecht der im Lande zu Besitz Kommenden sehr wohl begreifen lasse. —

ידבקו sich anschließen, wie ודבק באשתו (Bereschit 2, 24), ותדבק בגערות בועז (Ruth 2, 23).

V’LO THISOV NACHALAH’ (SO SHALL NO INHERITANCE) OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MOVE FROM TRIBE TO TRIBE. Scripture was only concerned to improve the situation at that time [i.e., for the daughters of Zelophehad who had raised that problem]. For if there were [then] women in Israel [already] married to [men of] another tribe, and they [the women] inherited [a portion of the Land] at that time, or would inherit at some future time if their brothers or fathers died without sons, their inheritance would perforce move from one tribe to another [because their husbands, who were of a different tribe, or their sons, would inherit them when they died], and who can straighten out in time what they have made crooked!¹¹⁵Ecclesiastes 7:13. The Torah, furthermore, did not want to command that the sons or husbands of these women should not inherit them [if they were not of the same tribe], because it did not deem it fit to abrogate [in this case] the [regular] law of inheritance. Similarly Scripture did not concern itself with events which would occur in the future; for even if those daughters who do not possess an inheritance [before they are married] would be permitted to marry [men from] any of the tribes, yet it is possible that at some future time they might inherit some property, if [all] their brothers die in the lifetime of their father, and thus their father’s inheritance, or that of their relatives would pass on to them.¹¹⁶In other words, if not for the opinion of the Rabbis on the meaning of Scripture we could say that this prohibition is for all times, applying to such women as the daughters of Zelophehad who stood to be married and who already possessed an inheritance. But women who were already married at that time to men of other tribes and are [like the daughters of Zelophehad] inheriting now [because their fathers who were among those who left Egypt, died without sons], and similarly, women who stand to be married and may yet inherit their fathers if they die without sons — with all these possibilities Scripture was not concerned. Instead, the law for all times was specifically applying to women who stand to be married and have already an inheritance of the tribe, just like the daughters of Zelophehad. All this we might be inclined to say. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis etc. (see text) — (Kur Zahav, quoting Aboab).
But according to the opinion of our Rabbis who interpreted:¹¹⁷Baba Bathra 117a. “This law¹¹⁸Literally: “this thing,” based upon Verse 6 which reads: ‘This is the thing’ which the Eternal hath commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad — that they marry men of their father’s tribe. only applies to that particular generation,” it is possible¹¹⁹The gist of Ramban’s thought is as follows: In the light of the saying of our Rabbis, that this law did not apply for all times [as explained above in Note 116] but only to that particular generation, it is possible then to say that Scripture was also concerned with the above-mentioned possibilities. As for those women who were already married to men of other tribes and are now inheriting, it is possible to say that there was no other case in that generation similar to that of Zelophehad’s daughters, the proof being that no other tribe complained. And as for the other possibility, of women who stand to be married and may yet inherit their fathers if they die without sons, we answer, G-d in Whose hand etc. (see text) — (Kur Zahav, in the name of Aboab). that [at that time] there were no daughters who inherited a portion amongst all those who were to come into the Land [of Israel] except for the daughters of Zelophehad, and therefore [we do not find that] they [i.e., other women] asked [Moses about it as the daughters of Zelophehad did]. Scripture, then, is commanding that if anyone dies from that day onwards until the Land is divided up amongst their tribes, and his daughter inherits him, she should not marry [anyone] from another tribe, in order that when the Land is divided up, that man should not come to take himself an inheritance amongst another tribe. For the [Torah’s] concern about them [i.e., about the separate inheritance of each tribe] was greater at the time of the division of the Land [than afterwards], so that the [different] tribes should not become mixed up with each other when taking their inheritance, whereas afterwards their [separate] inheritance will have already become known, and they would not be so concerned about it. But since the [exact] time of the division [of the Land] was not yet known, He imposed the prohibition on the whole of that generation. And G-d in Whose hand is the soul of every living thing¹²⁰Job 12:10. Ramban’s intent is to state that He in Whose hand is the soul of every living thing knew that “until the division of the Land no man would die without leaving a son, so that his daughters would be inheriting him” (Aboab). But such an assurance could naturally not apply if we were to say that the prohibition was for all generations. did not have to be concerned with future events [which might in certain cases result in the transfer of a particular inheritance from one tribe to another].
This explanation is correct according to the plain meaning of Scripture, for [the phrase in Verse 9] v’lo thisov nachalah is not a reason [for prohibiting the marriage of a woman who has already an inheritance, with a man from another tribe] “in order that the inheritance shall not be moved [from tribe to tribe],” but there are two separate commandments [in this section]. He commanded [first, in Verses 6-8] that those women who already possess an inheritance [such as the daughters of Zelophehad, who were not married] should only marry into their father’s tribe, and then [in Verse 9] He commanded that [in the case of] those who are already married [to men of other tribes and have no inheritance], or [in the case of all those women] who will come into an inheritance [later on] after they marry a man [of another tribe], the inheritance shall not move from one tribe to another tribe, but their brothers or their relatives are to inherit them, and not their sons or their husbands. Thus at first [in Verses 6-7] He commanded [the law] in connection with the daughters of Zelophehad, and afterwards [in Verse 8] concerning every daughter that possesseth an inheritance; and then He said in connection with all Israel that an inheritance shall not move from one tribe to another tribe [as stated in Verse 9, meaning] that even in the case of women who are [already] married [to men of another tribe], or [unmarried] women who have been commanded [not to marry men of another tribe] and who transgress this commandment, the men of their tribes [i.e., the women’s brothers or other relatives] should inherit them, in order that they should be closely attached to the inheritance of their fathers’ tribes, and their inheritance should not be severed from them, nor they from the inheritance of their fathers. And all these [restrictions] applied only to the generation which took possession of the Land, at the time that it was divided up. Thus He advised them about unmarried women, concerning whom they had asked, and He also made provision for those that were already married.

36, 7 ולא תסוב נחלה, “an inheritance shall not make the rounds.” Our sages state that this decree applied only during the first generation of the settlers to whom the land had been allocated. Nachmanides writes that what the verse teaches is that if anyone who qualifies for a share in the land on the day this legislation was published dies before he has a chance to physically take possession of his share of the land, and he left a daughter who is qualified to inherit his share of the land, she is not to marry a member of another tribe, in order that her father’s share will not eventually wind up as part of the holdings of her husband’s tribe. Once the physical distribution of the land had been completed, however, such a daughter is free to marry males from any other tribe. The reason is that by that time her original inheritance being a piece of land belonging to her father’s tribe is a well known fact which prevents a land grab by a member of another tribe. Seeing that at the time this legislation was published the exact date of when the distribution would occur had not been known, the legislation is written as if it applied to the entire generation. According to the plain meaning of the text the words ולא תסוב נחלה are not to be understood as providing a rationale for this legislation, i.e. that this legislation is designed to prevent the swapping of ancestral land, but we are dealing here with two separate commandments, each part of the laws of inheritance. 1) Girls inheriting the father’s estate are not to marry outside their tribe. 2) Women, who were daughters of fathers that had no male issue, and were married prior to the publication of this legislation, and who will inherit their father’s share of the land when the time came for distribution, cannot transfer by inheritance or other device their father’s share, but must allow such share upon their death to be inherited by the nearest relatives of their father’s tribe. The immediate application of this legislation was designed to solve the problem of the daughters of Tzelofchod, but they were only the role model for applying this legislation in the future. In other words, in the future this basic condition of ancestral lands remaining non-transferable to other tribes is valid even for women who had already been married when they became heirs to such land. If their sons who were members of their father’s tribe did not belong to the same tribe as their mother’s inheritance, they could not claim this land.

ולא תסב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה אל מטה אחר, “so that ancestral property will not make the rounds from tribe to another tribe.” This commandment was valid only for the generation of the Israelites entering the land of Canaan at that time (Baba Batra 120). At that time the twelve tribes of the Israelites on terrestrial earth corresponded to their exact counterparts in the celestial spheres (Zohar Bamidbar 118). If one tribe would have sold part of its ancestral territory to another, the result would have been an imbalance of the forces representing the tribes in the celestial regions. Once the people had settled in Eretz Yisrael which is the terrestrial counterpart of the sum total of all these celestial forces of the tribes, this did not matter anymore.

Thus is completed the Book of the Censuses¹²¹Such is the name given by the Sages to the fourth book of the Torah: “the Fifth of the Censuses” (Sotah 36b). [i.e., the Book of Numbers] and the standards of the hosts;
And to G-d, the G-d of hosts, be praises and thanksgivings, in hundreds, thousands, and myriads.
And as He has done for our ancestors great and awesome deeds,¹²²See Deuteronomy 10:21. may He bring about speedily in our days the end of the wonders.¹²³Daniel 12:6. A reference to the Messianic era.
May He build the House and the chambers and the border before the cells.¹²⁴Ezekiel 40:12.
And prepare there the thrones of the house of David,¹²⁵Psalms 122:5. This may also be a reference to the mysteries of the Cabala. See at end of Ramban’s Introduction to the Book of Genesis: “And He will show those who are pleasing to Him wonders from His Torah” (Vol. I, p. 16). and may our eyes behold it!
And may He in His mercies purify us of all [our] hidden [faults] and all errors,¹²⁶See ibid., 19:13.
And show us wondrous things from His Torah!¹²⁷See ibid., 119:18.
Amen. May His Will be so!
Finished and completed.

וכל בת ירשת נחלה AND EVERY DAUGHTER THAT INHERITS A POSSESSION because her father had no son, [SHALL BE WIFE, etc.]

וכל בת יורשת נחלה ממטות בני ישראל, “and any daughter inheriting ancestral land, etc.” A girl whose father did not have a son who could inherit the land. This is why the Torah had to write a second time (verse 9) “so that the inheritance shall not make the rounds, etc.” (Ibn Ezra).
As a result of this verse it became a custom in Israel that if a girl who had inherited ancestral land married out of her tribe to describe her as a זונה, “a harlot.” She would therefore be deprived of the inheritance from her father.
This is the meaning of the words in Judges 11,1 that Yiftach the Gileadi was the son of a woman known as זונה, harlot [i.e. it is not a reference to her sexual mores. Ed.] The prophet is merely telling us that his mother had belonged to a different tribe than his father. Yonathan ben Uzziel also translates the word זונה in Judges 11,1 in the same way [cited by R' David Kimchi ibid., but is not found in our editions of Targum Yonathan].
Perhaps the meaning of the word לא תסב נחלה refers to persons, not landed property, and this would account for the Torah writing the same words twice. [It would be an oblique reference to the transmigration of the souls. If injustice would occur through the incorrect handling of ancestral property, certain souls thus deprived might have to be placed inside other bodies to right the wrong during another cycle of life on earth. Ed.]
This may also account for the use of the word ידבקו, “they shall cleave” (verse 9), seeing that this is a term applicable to both souls and bodies but not to land. The first time (verse 7) the Torah writes the word it refers to the body, the second time to the soul.

V. 8. וכל בת ירשת נחלה ממטות וגו׳. Baba Batra 111 a wird an dem Ausdruck בת ירשת נחלה ממטות בני ישראל, womit eine Tochter als Erbnehmerin aus zwei Stämmen bezeichnet wird, der Rechtssatz gelehrt, dass bei Hinterlassenschaften von Müttern deren Kindern ganz dasselbe Erbrecht zusteht, wie bei Hinterlassenschaften von Vätern, eine Tochter daher, deren Vater und Mutter verschiedenen Stämmen angehören, bei deren Tode Erbnehmerin aus zwei Stämmen wird. Es wird sodann (daselbst 112 a) die Frage verhandelt, ob bei der Verheiratung einer solchen aus zwei Stämmen erbberechtigten Tochter auch auf die Stammesentfremdung des mütterlichen Erbes also Rücksicht zu nehmen wäre, dass der zu wählende Ehemann auch von mütterlicher und väterlicher Seite denselben Stämmen wie die zu verheiratende Tochter angehöre, oder die Rücksicht für das mütterliche Erbe bei der Verheiratung wegfalle, שכבר הוסבה, da eine Entfremdung desselben bereits bei dem Erbanfall an die dem Vaterstamme angehörende Tochter gegeben war. Auch aus diesem Problem ist ersichtlich, wie eine absolute Verhütung der Stammesentfremdung der Erbgüter gar, nicht in Absicht des Gesetzes gelegen sein könne.

ולא תסב נחלה, "so that an inheritance not move (from one tribe to another), etc. The reason the Torah repeats this both negatively and positively is as I have explained already that it was only well meant advice not legislation. The Torah therefore had to repeat that in all instances other than the daughters of Tzelofchod this was a matter of legislation.

V. 9. תסב נחלה וגו׳. Die den Stämmen zugewiesenen Landesteile sollen nicht schon von vornherein teilweise einem anderen Stamme zugewendet werden, כי איש בנחלתו ידבקו מטות בני ישראל denn jeder Stamm mit allen seinen Angehörigen soll zunächst sich an das angewiesene Landesteil anschließen. Jeder Landesteil soll zunächst möglichst rein das eigentümliche Gepräge des Stammes erhalten, welchem er zugewiesen wird, und jeder Stamm sich zunächst möglichst ausnahmlos mit seinen Eigentümlichkeiten in das Land hineinleben, sich gleichsam mit ihm "vermählen" das ihm für die Entwicklung seiner Eigentümlichkeit auf der Basis der nationalen Gesamtaufgabe angewiesen wird (siehe zu Verse 6 u.7).

כן עשו במות צלפחד, they endeavoured to conform to the will of their Creator, כאשר צוה את משה, not because these husbands were the ones they would have chosen had they been allowed unrestricted choice.

כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה כן עשו, "they did as G'd had commanded Moses." We have to understand why the Torah departed from its usual syntax of first reporting the execution and subsequently the fact that it corresponded to the command, whereas here the Torah reverses the order by writing כן עשו only at the end of the verse.

VV. 10 — 19. כאשר צוה וגו׳. Dieser ausführliche Bericht, dass sämtliche Töchter Zelafchads sich der Weisung gemäß innerhalb ihres väterlichen Stammes verheirateten, dürfte die zu V. 6 mitgeteilte Auffassung bestätigen, dass diese Weisung ihnen nur als "guter Rat" erteilt wurde, sie somit ohne Nachteil und ohne geradezu ungesetzlich zu handeln, auch eine andere Wahl hätten treffen können. Um so höher darf es ihnen angerechnet werden, dass sie sämtlich das ihnen als dem allgemeinen Interesse entsprechend Bezeichnete bei ihrer Wahl sich maßgebend sein ließen.

It appears that the reason is that seeing that in this case the Torah had made an exception and allowed the daughters of Tzelofchod free choice in their marriage partners, the Torah wanted us to know that the daughters of Tzelofchod did not take advantage of the special latitude which G'd had granted to them but abided by the general rule laid down for future generations and married within their tribe. The words כאשר צוה השם refer to what G'd had commanded to daughters in the future who would inherit their father's estate. These girls did not take advantage of the special permission granted to them. Had the Torah used its usual syntax here all we would have learned from the verse would have been that the daughters of Tzelofchod did not contravene G'd's command.

Der Tag, an welchem, nach völligem Hinscheiden des ersten in den Besitz des Landes getretenen Geschlechts, der nunmehrige Wegfall dieser Verheiratungsbeschränkung unter Stämmen von der nationalen Gesetzesautorität promulgiert wurde, יום שהותרו שבטים לבא זה בזה, der fünfzehnte Ab, חמשה עשר באב, erhielt bleibend den heiteren Charakter eines allgemeinen Volksfestes (Baba Batra 121a).

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).

מחלה, תרצה, “Machlah, Tirtzah;” earlier the Torah mentioned the names of these girls in the chronological order of their births, whereas here the Torah mentions them in the order of their getting married. When the Torah describes their husbands as “sons of their uncles,” this does not mean that the husbands were all brothers of one another (Ibn Ezra).

And they were married. Rashi is answering the question: In Parshas Pinchas (27:1) Scripture mentioned Sirtzah at the end, while here she is mentioned second. He answers that here they are listed in the order of seniority [i.e., age], meaning that here it is written, “They were…wives to their cousins” and it is customary for sisters to marry in order of their birth, first the oldest and afterward the younger ones in order of their age, as it is written [referring to marrying the younger daughter before the older] (Bereishis 29:26), “Such is not done in our place…”

Throughout Scripture. [You might ask why] Rashi did not make any comment in Parshas Pinchas (26:33) in the section dealing with the order of the families and the counting of the tribes, where the daughters of Tzelofchad were mentioned. You cannot say that it was because Rashi had no difficulty until now that the order has been changed, for if so, why in Parshas Pinchas did Rashi comment on the verse, “And the daughters of Tzelofchad approached” (27:1), given that there was not [yet] any change [in their order]. Yet Rashi there wrote, “Below it says, ‘Machlah and Sirtzah were…’” Thus, with regards to [order of Tzelofchad’s daughters] in the count of the generations of the tribes he should also have said “below…” There is an additional difficulty that regarding, “They approached” Rashi only explained, “This teaches that they were all equal,” while here he elaborates, commenting, “According to their wisdom, this teaches that they were all equal” meaning that [they were equal] in righteousness and in performing good deeds. It appears that initially in Parshas Pinchas, regarding the order in the counting of the tribes, it would have been incongruous to comment, “Below it changes [the order] in order to teach that they were all equal.” For there would have been the difficulty as to how we could know that they were equal, since perhaps Scripture changed the order and listed them in order of their wisdom. However, regarding “they approached” Scripture still had not changed the original order. Thus, we would have said that since it was not changed in those two cases, we cannot say that below [i.e., here] it was changed on account of their wisdom. For if so, Scripture should have changed the order in the verse “they approached” given that there their wisdom was demonstrated, as Rashi explains (27:4), “[This teaches] that they were learned.” Now, since it was not changed there, one can say it is certain that the change in the order of their listing below [i.e., here] teaches that they were equal [and is not in order of their wisdom]. At this stage, we would have said that on the first two occasions they were listed in order of their birth. However, here it is clear that this is the order of their birth, since they married in order [of their age], if so, in on the first two occasions the order was changed. Rather, [the answer is that] this was to demonstrate that there are listed in accordance with two reasons, “According to their wisdom” and “Teaches that they were equal,” given that the order was changed twice. R.Yaakov Triosh.

ממשפחות בני מנשה, seeing that they had realised that it was G’d’s will that the land should not be transferred from one tribe to another, even though He had given permission for them to choose a husband from any family of their tribe in accordance with their wishes, they chose the sons of their uncles over other families of their tribe as these were more closely related to them ותהי נחלתן על מטה משפחת אביהן, so that there was no transfer of any land to another tribe by reason of their marriages. In fact, no land was reassigned to another family within the same tribe.

V. 13. אלה המצות וגו׳: Die vom 22. Kapitel bis hier berichteten Gebote und Rechtsordnungen: die erneute Volkszählung, die Landesverteilungsordnung, die Einsetzung Josuas, die nationalen Pflichtopfer, das Recht der freiwilligen Gesetzgebung, die Behandlung aus nichtjüdischem Besitze übergehender Speisegeräte, Rechte und Pflichten der in den transjordanischen Besitz gelangenden Stämme, die Säuberung des Landes vom polytheistischen Unwesen, die Grenzbestimmungen des Landes, die Miklatstädte, die transitorische Maßregel bei Verheiratung erbberechtigter Töchter, alle diese Gebote und Verordnungen stehen mehr und minder im Zusammenhange mit der bevorstehenden Besitznahme des Landes und wurden daher an der Grenze, im Anblick desselben, erteilt, בערבות מואב על ירדן ירחו.

אלה המצות, “these are the commandments;” this concludes the list of sacrificial offerings, vows and oaths, purification of loot captured in war, and treatment of vessels that had become ritually contaminated, as well as the paragraphs dealing with murder and unintentional killing and ancestral lands and their distribution. (Compare Ibn Ezra)