Commento su Numeri 27:3

והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).

[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. “Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 11:1. nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him.” This is Rashi’s language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: ‘Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!’ For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father’s sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁵⁹Baba Bathra 118b. they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal¹⁶⁰Above, 16:11. would not inherit in the Land.
In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them¹⁶¹See Deuteronomy 9:28. [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children.¹⁶²Psalms 109:12. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory,¹⁶³This is the great Hebrew poet and philosopher of the Spanish Golden Era (1085-1142 Common Era). According to his interpretation, the daughters of Zelophehad were saying that “because of his sins, he died without any sons” and hence the problem arose what to do with his inheritance. This therefore answers Ramban’s question above, “why the daughters of Zelophehad found it necessary to mention their father’s death because of his sin.” This explanation is mentioned by Ibn Ezra, who remarks: “It is not remote, [it is indeed probable].” explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: “Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins.”

והוא לא היה, he was not a member of the rebellious people who had made common cause with Korach. Those people had been banished by Moses, i.e. disinherited by him, deprived not only of potential property but even of all their actual belongings, as we have been told in Numbers 16,26. The words כל הרכוש in verse 32 of that chapter make clear that they had forfeited all claims to anything.

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.

והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה', “and he had not been among the assembly that had assembled against Hashem, etc.’” The daughters of Tzelofchod had to state publicly that their father had not been a member of the rebels with Korach who had at any rate forfeited their claim to ancestral land in the land of Israel, they had to mention that their father had died on account of another sin. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, the reason that these girls mentioned that their father had not been a member of the gang of rebels with Korach was that they thought that Moses must surely hate anyone who had been connected with that group, as they had targeted him personally in their uprising and incitement of the people against him. They were therefore afraid of not getting a fair hearing from him. They also had to hint that their father had not died during the plague G’d had sent on several occasions in which groups of Israelites had been killed. This is why they had to mention that he had died as a result of a sin committed as an individual, not as part of a group.

אבינו מת במדבר, “our father died in the desert but he had not been,” etc. According to Nachmanides the reason that these girls pointed out that their father’s death had not had any connection with the death of Korach and his rebels was that Moses should not hate them on account of their father having participated in the rebellion against him. They thought that it was only natural that Moses hated Korach more than any other sinners as those people had denied any of Moses’ accomplishments. If he were to judge their request he might be influenced by such considerations. He might even pray to G’d not to grant any special favors to the offspring of such a rebel. We find such a sentiment in Psalms 109,12 where David prays to G’d not to show kindness to Haman or his sons on account of any kindness Haman had ever performed for anyone in his life. These girls also hinted that their father had not died as the result of the pestilence which had killed thousands of Israelites, but that he had died in the desert in his bed. Thus far Nachmanides’ commentary, described as based on the plain meaning of the text.

He died by his sin alone… For if not so, what difference is it if he died because of his sin?

V. 3. אבינו מת במדבר usw. Wenn die Weisen bemerken, dass Zelafchads Töchter חכמות ודורשות, gesetzkundig und eindringenden Verstandes gewesen, so spricht sich diese Geistesklarheit und Schärfe in ihrem ganzen Vortrag aus. Sie sagen alles, was zur Sache gehört, und sagen kein Wort zu viel. אבינו מת במדבר: unser Vater, er gehörte mit zu den יוצאי מצרים, über welche das göttliche Verhängnis das Sterben in der Wüste bestimmt hatte, die aber nach dem soeben proklamierten Landesverteilungsgesetz, לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, bei dieser Verteilung gleichwohl zur Berücksichtigung kommen sollen. והוא לא היה בתוך העדה usw. Hätte er zu den Aufständischen der Korachsverschwörung gehört, wir hätten aus seinem Namen keinen Rechtstitel herleiten können. Weder die Nachkommen der מרגלים, noch diejenigen am Aufstande Korachs Beteiligten konnten aus deren Namen einen Anspruch erheben. Es waren dies die einzigen, die von der Norm לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו ausgenommen waren. מרגלים ומתלוננים שבעדת קרח לא היה להם חלק בארץ (Baba Batra 117b u. 118b). כי בחטאו מת, wenn er — wie jeder Mensch — nicht ohne Sünde aus der Welt gegangen ist, so waren das sicherlich individuelle Einzelvergehen, er hat sich nie an einem Nationalverbrechen beteiligt. ובנים לא היו לו: und er hat nie Söhne gehabt. Hätte er deren gehabt, so könnten etwa deren Nachkommen unseren Ansprüchen im Wege stehen. Allein er hat nie Söhne gehabt und sind wir daher seine einzige Nachkommenschaft.

והוא לא היה בתוך העדה, “and he had not been among the rebels in the uprising of Korach against Moses;” neither had he been twenty years of age when the debacle with the spies had occurred, so that he could not have been included in the Israelites that G-d had vowed that they would not live to take part in the conquest on the land of Canaan at the appointed time. He had died as the result of a very personal sin, none that would result in his being denied a claim to ancestral land in the Land lof Israel.

כי בחטאו מת, he died on account his personal sin, something that did not involve the claims of his heirs to his estate. [The daughters by saying this did not mean to malign their father; rather they meant to say that their father had completely atoned for his sin by his premature judicial execution. Gottlieb]

כי בחטאו מת, “but he died as the direct result of his personal sin.” They meant that he had died in the desert and therefore could not cross the Jordan and take possession of his ancestral heritage. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, the famous poet, comments that the word בחטאו is to be understood as belonging to the words ובנים לא היו לו, meaning that part of his punishment was that he was not granted male offspring. Many people attribute the fact that they have been denied certain normal blessings in life to the fact that they had been guilty of some sin, as a result of which G’d denied them these blessings.

כי בחטאו מת, “rather, he died due to an individual sin committed by him (only).” He was no different from many other people who died on account of individual sins, not connected to some collective misdemeanor. Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi points out that the words כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו, “for he died on account of his sin and he had no sons,” are linked together by the cantillation and imply that the fact that he had no sons was linked to the sin which caused his death.

He was the wood gatherer. Here it says, “Our father died in the wilderness” and there it states “Bnei Yisroel were in the wilderness and they found him…” (Bamidbar 15:32). Therefore [we can learn a gezeirah shavah] — just as there it referred to the wood gatherer, so too here it refers to the wood gatherer.

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.

Among those who ascended defiantly. As it is written in Parshas Shelach ויעפילו לעלות ["they defiantly went up"] (Bamidbar 14:44) where ויעפילו has the numerical value [of 212 which is equivalent] to צלפחד ["Tzelofchad"]. Because the Torah hid this, without revealing [his identity,] Rabbi Shimon said that he was among those who ascended defiantly, but not that he was so wicked as to have profaned Shabbos.

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."