민수기 27:25의 주석

למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף OF THE FAMILIES OF MANASSEH THE SON OF JOSEPH — Why is this stated? Has it not already been said בן מנשה, and consequently we know that they belonged to the family of Manasseh the son of Joseph?! But it is to suggest the following idea to you: Just as Joseph held the Promised Land dear, as it is said, (Genesis 50:25) “And ye shall bring my bones up (to Palestine) from hence”, so, too, his daughters held the Land dear, as it is said, (v. 4) “Give us an inheritance”; and further to teach you that they were righteous all of them (everyone here mentioned in the pedigree), for in every case where a person’s doings and his ancestors’ doings are nowhere plainly described and Scripture somewhere enters into the details of the pedigree in respect to one of them, tracing his genealogy back to someone worthy of praise, it is evident that the person in question is himself a righteous man and a son of a righteous father. But if it gives his genealogy in connection with something deserving of reprobation, — as, for example, (2 Kings 25:25) “Ishmael the son of Nethanian the son of Elishama came … and smote Gedaliah”, then it is quite certain that all who are mentioned in connection with him were wicked people (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).

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.

למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, “of the family of Menashe, son of Joseph.” The reason the Torah went out of its way to trace the ancestry of these girls all the way back to Joseph was their fondness of the land of Israel, a fondness which had also characterized their ancestor Joseph who had commanded his surviving brothers to take his remains with them to the Holy Land when the time of the redemption from Egypt would arrive (Genesis 50,28).
Furthermore, this teaches that all the ancestors of the daughters of Tzelofchod were righteous seeing that we have a rule that when the Bible mentions a person to his credit and it mentions his ancestors without reporting anything specific about the deeds of his or her ancestors, both he and his ancestors may be presumed to have been righteous, i.e. a צדיק בן צדיק. If, on the other hand, that person is singled out because of something improper he had done and the Torah also mentions the names of his ancestors without describing them as meritorious, it is clear that not only he but also these ancestors were wicked. The classic example is found in Kings II 25,25: “Yishmael, son of Natanya son of Elishama of royal descent came with ten men and murdered Gedalyah.” You may be certain that not only this Yishmael but also all the forebears of his who are listed were wicked people.

To teach you that they were all righteous. That is to say this is another reason why it said “Menashe the son of Yosef.” (Kitzur Mizrochi) [Rashi states that they were all righteous] even though regarding Tzelofchad it states (v. 3), “But he died because of his own sin” and the Rabbis disagree as to what was the sin. The answer is that he only had this sin and since he died on account of it, his death was his atonement. Thus he was counted among the righteous. You might ask: Surely it is written “Korach son of Yitzhar, son of Kehos”; and Korach was known to have been wicked, yet the righteous were mentioned along with him. The answer is that the Torah would say this only regarding a person who's actions, and the actions of his forefathers were clearly known, like Korach who was known to have been wicked. Thus regarding Yitzhar, Kehos and Levi who were [clearly] righteous, it would have been impossible to change that which was known.

Kap. 27. V. 1. למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף. Wir haben bereits oben zu V. 5 bemerkt, wie der Stamm Menasche derjenige ist, bei welchem die Vereinzelung in besondere Familienzweige am meisten hervortritt. Während z. B. im Stamm Reuben nur die unmittelbaren Söhne eigene Familienzweige bildeten, haben hier von Menasche, der doch selbst nur ein Zweig des Gesamtstammes Josef war, Machir, Gilad, Chefer; Sohn, Enkel und Urenkel, eigene Familienzweige gebildet. Bei dieser in dem Stamme vorherrschenden Neigung zur eigentümlichen, selbständigen Familiensonderung gewinnt das: למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו im Munde der Töchter Zelafchads (V. 4) eine über das bloße Besitzinteresse hinausgehende erhöhte ethische Bedeutung. Vater, Großvater, Urgroßvater hatten eigene Familienzweige gebildet, in deren Nachkommen bei der nun sich nach Familien gruppierenden Verteilung des Landes ihr Name in gesondertem Besitztum fortleben wird. In Zelafchad soll nun eine solche Familiensprosse schon in der nächsten Generation so völlig erlöschen, dass ihrer selbst bei einer so außerordentlichen Gelegenheit, wie die Verteilung des Landes auf Familien und Familienhäuser, nicht mehr gedacht werde. — ואלה שמות בנתיו, sie werden Kap. 36, 11 in anderer Reihenfolge genannt, um, wie in ספרי bemerkt, ihre durchaus gleiche Würdigkeit zu bezeichnen, מלמד .שכולן שקולות זו כזו

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד בן חפר, “The daughters of Tz’lofchod son of Chefer, approached; when they realised that only the males were being counted preparatory to the division of the land in the Land of Israel, including those of the family of Chefer, but not including them, and Tz’lofchod their father had also not been included.

מחלה נעה וגו׳ MAHLAH, NOAH, etc. — But further on (Numbers 36:11) states, “And Mahlah, Tirzah were” (changing the position of the names within the verse): this is to tell you that they all were of equal worth one with another, and on this account it is that it changed their order (i.e. the order of their names) (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:2).

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.

לפני משה ולפני אלעזר [AND THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE ELEAZAR [THE PRIEST] — The fact that they approached Eleazar the Priest and not Aaron tells us that they stood before them (i.e., that this incident occurred) only (not earlier than) in the fortieth year after the Exodus indeed after Aaron’s death (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3).

And the daughters of Tzelofchad ben Chefer approached etc - look, it is written "Joyfully shall you draw water from the fountains of salvation" (Isaiah 12:3). Salvation is called in the aspect of the High Holy Crown, which is where exists the fountain/origin of salvation, lovingkindness and compassion. And the two springs that come from it are Yud and Hey, which are Chochmah and Binah. And from there comes the Flow and the Salvation to the five aspects that are called the Five Salvations. And this is what we say in Havdalah "the cup of salvations I raise etc" since just as the cup is a vessel that receives the wine that is poured into it, so too is the level of "the one who claims needs to show proof", which is the Higher Sovereingty, as it were. This is the vessel to receive the Five Salvations, through the aspect of "the tzadik is the life of the worlds", since he is connected to all, and joyfully draws, and this is the secret of "the tzadik is the life of the worlds". The sages have said that JOY is a metaphor for the covenant, which is the Flow and Filling of the cup of salvation, and "the one who claims needs to show proof" is the one that wants to raise oneself up to their source and their root of Holiness. And the holy Zohar says that the five fingers around the cup are a hint of the five salvations that come from the Upper World, which is the World of Freedom, as known to those who know. ... And those are symbolized by the letters mem-nun-tzadi-pei-chaf, which are both simple and double. And those five salvations are called "daughters of Tzelofchad", and this is the explanation of the verse "and the daughters of Tzelofchad approached": they approached themselves to their higher root, that are the five salvations spoken of above, since they are called daughters that surround the Shechinah since they receive the flow from the Higher Source. And they are called daughters of Tzelofchad - [break this word into] tzalap chad [one mark], those who are one since they have no dispersion, in the secret meaning of two rays that do not separate. OR you can also say - daughters of Tzelofchad [break this word into] tzel pachad [shadow of fear] since the five letters mem-nun-tzadi-pei-chaf are double they are the hint to the Holy Strengths, and from there come Fear and Awe into those who hate Israel and all who do evil, that they are unable to come to the higher holiness. They are not able to do evil to Israel, because they [Israel] desire and want those five salvations, which are symbolized by the settling and inheriting the holy land. And that they [the daughters] were able to go up to their Source and their High Root so as to make the flow descend and fill up the cup of salvations, which is the secret of the Holy Sovereignty. And their desire was to bring about salvation and redemption, which is the messianic times, which is "and the daughters of Tzelofchad ben Chefer approached", since it is known that the secret of Exile is to raise the 288 (Refech) holy sparks, hinted in the letters of Chefer. And "Son of Gilead" - through Yaakov Our Father who called him Gal-ed, and this is also a hint to the world of freedom, in which there is the sweetening of the judgments, and there one is an E"D (witness) that the ability of changing Names for God is how we conquer our enemies, which are the ones that try to cross over the GaL (wall of stones), like the way Lavan the Aramean tried to fool Yaakov, crossing over the wall of stones to do evil to Israel. OR one can say Ben Gila"d, E"D (witness) Ayin and Dalet. Ayin and Dalet are augmented in the verse Shema etc Echad, which are the letters of E"D. Since we are with the Blessed One and we unify God's name, above and below, and we give witness to God's unity, Blessed be the Name.And what is left of the letters of Shema is SH"M, and from Echa"d, A"CH; so we can make the combination ASHMA"CH (which is Shem Ach due to our witnessing of the unity of the Holy Blessed One, and this is Ben Gil"ad, that it becomes revealed to us the Name A"ch brother/ an idea of God as Brother, through the E"D written augmented.) Ben Machir - Ben Machir with patach - that he will recognize and know and reveal and publicize the Holy One of Blessing to Israel. And as it is written "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders...in token of abundant authority and of peace without limit" (Isaiah 9:5-6). Ben Menashe. From the expression "God has made me forget completely my hardship" (Genesis 41:51). That is, through him Israel forgot completely all their hardship in exile. And these are the names of his daughters: the five salvations spoken above, each with her specific name, due to the good action that each has. The name of the first is Machl"ah - from the expression machul lah - it is forgiven to her, there is the source of Forgiveness (Selichah); or the expression "forgiven to the righteous." The name of the second is to be read together with the name of the first: Machla"h Noa"h, meaning constantly advancing [n"a] sickness from the seed of Israel due to the sweetening of judgments. The name of the third Chogla"h: from the expression Cha"g La"h (a festival to her), happiness and rejoicing there. The name of the fourth Milka"h: the revealing of the holy sovereignty (Malkhut). The name of the fifth Tirtza"h: a hint that Kneset Israel (?) is happy in the presence of the Holy One of Blessing, to do all according to their will after the revelation of the higher light, the world of freedom. And to become sorry (metzerah), wanted (ratzah) from the sweetening of judgment, and all becomes Compassion. And THIS IS the explanation of "and they stood (fem. verb) - the five salvations spoken of above. In front of Moshe - the aspect of Awareness (Da'at). And in front of Eleazar haKohen - the higher (sphere). And in front of etc, why will the name of our father be diminished etc give us a holding etc - since through Israel Sh"en A"ch (the name Brother) is remembered (and expanded) influencing (the world) - this is "among the brothers of our father". A"v (father) is an expression of will, like "and they did not want" Av"u (Judges, 19:25; I Samuel 15:9) - our will is that we have a holding on the aspect of Brother A"ch remembered/male. And this is "among the brother of our father". And this is "they brought their claim to Moshe" - the world of freedom, the 50 levels of Binah. In front of Hashem - specifically. "And Moshe spoke to Ad-nai" - the aspect of Awareness. "

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.

But rearrange the passage. And it is as if it had said, “They stood before Elozor the kohein” and afterwards [it said], “Before Moshe.”

לפני משה [THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES, and afterwards לפני אלעזר, BEFORE ELEAZAR?! But is it possible if Moses did not know what reply to give them that Eleazar should know it? Rather, invert the words of the text and so expound it (before Eleazar and before Moses). This is the view of R. Josiah; but Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar that this inversion is unnecessary: they were sitting in the House of Study and they (the daughters of Zelophehad) stood before all of those who were present (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3; Bava Batra 119b and Rashi on Numbers 9:6).

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.

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."

למה יגרע שם אבינו WHY SHOULD THE NAME OF OUR FATHER BE DONE AWAY — We stand in the place of male children, and if you say that females are not regarded as issue in respect to inheritance, then our mother should marry her deceased husband’s brother (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5, 6) (Bava Batra 119b).

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.]

But if he had a son… Rashi wishes to answer the question: The word כי ["because"] always denotes a reason for that which precedes it. However, how is this giving a reason for that which came before? On the contrary, it was because he did not have a son that [his name was] omitted. Thus Rashi explains that they were saying as follows: Why should it be omitted? Give us the inheritance because he did not have a son. “But if he had [a son]…”

V. 4. למה יגרע וגו׳. Die משפחת החפרי (Kap. 26, 32) wird den ihr zugewiesen werdenden Grundbesitz unter Chefers Söhne, als die Häupter dieser Familie, verteilen und wenn einer dieser Söhne verstorben ist, aber einen Sohn hinterlassen hat, so wird diesem Sohne als dem Namensträger seines Vaters dessen Anteil zugeteilt werden. Warum soll nun der Name unseres Vaters, weil er keinen Sohn und nur Töchter hinterlassen hat, gar nicht mitzählen in der Familie und völlig verschwinden? תנה לנו וגו׳. Lasse uns an unseres Vaters Stelle mitzählen in der Reihe seiner Brüder und gib uns den Besitzanteil, den er als Chefers Sohn, wenn er leben würde, unter seinen Brüdern zu beanspruchen gehabt hätte.

כי אין לו בן [WHY SHOULD OUR FATHER'S NAME BE DONE AWAY WITH] BECAUSE HE HATH NO SON — Thus it follows that if he had had a son they would have made no claim of any kind: this tells us that they were women of intelligence (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:4; cf. Bava Batra 119b).

That they were learned. Maharan raises a difficulty: In Perek Yesh Nochalin (Bava Basra 119b) it says that when they said, “Because he did not have a son” this teaches that they were demanding. And when they said, “We are in place of a son” this teaches that they were learned. The matter requires investigation.

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 AND MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE [BEFORE THE LORD] — The law on this subject escaped him (Sanhedrin 8a). Here he received punishment because he had assumed a “crown” (he had set himself up as the supreme judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17) “And the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring to me”. Another explanation: This chapter ought to have been written by Moses (i.e., like most laws in the Torah it should have been spoken to the people by Moses without his having waited until some incident made its promulgation necessary), but for the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad had so much merit, it was therefore written through them (it was their complaint which gave occasion for stating it) (Bava Batra 119a; Sanhedrin 8a).

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.

The halachah was concealed from him. For if not so, later in Parshas Masei it merely writes, “Moshe instructed [Bnei Yisroel] according to command of Hashem, [saying]: ‘Correctly are the descendants of Yosef’s tribe speaking’” (Bamidbar 36:5), but here he had to bring their case before Hashem. Rather, [the halachah] “was concealed…”

V. 5. נון רבתי .את משפטן (siehe V. 6).

ויקרב משה את משפטן, “he submitted their legal claim to G-d;” Moses knew that women are entitled to inherit. What he did not know or agreed with, was if people such as Tz’lofchod had only a potential claim to such land, and that seeing that he never set foot on the land that he was still entitled to pass on that claim to his daughters.

Another interpretation: It was fitting [for this chapter]… According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to how [do we know that] the halachah was concealed from him? Perhaps Moshe did not want to rule on the halachah without Hashem’s instruction, as is written above in Parshas Beha'aloscha concerning “There were men…” (Bamidbar 9:6). There Rashi did not explain, “Here he was punished,” so the same should hold true here. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why here it is not written, “Stand and I will listen…” as it does there (v. 8). Therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.

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.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לאמור, G'd told Moses to say, etc. The reason G'd said לאמור was to make certain Moses would not think that when G'd told him that the daughters of Tzelofchod had a valid claim he was to keep this information to himself and need not reveal it. It is even possible that the word לאמור implies that Moses was not only to acknowledge the daughters' claim to them but that he was to tell the whole Jewish people about it. This is why the Torah did not write לאמור להן "to tell them." It is also possible that seeing the Torah writes ואל בני ישראל "and to the children of Israel you shall say" in verse 8 the Torah wanted to reveal that what G'd had told Moses prior to verse eight did not need to be mentioned except to the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves. The word לאמור in our verse then applied only to the daughters.

V. 6. ויאמר ד׳ אל משה לאמר. Indem die folgenden Bestimmungen durch ויאמר und nicht durch וידבר eingeleitet sind, so erscheinen sie damit nicht als ein ganz neuer Gesetzestitel, sondern als Erläuterung eines bereits gegebenen Kanons. In der Tat war ja auch durch die beiden Sätze des oben gegebenen Landesverteilungsmodus: לאלה תחלק הארץ, also den Männern, und לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, wodurch diese Verteilung als Erblassteilung charakterisiert ist, bereits die Grundnorm gegeben, dass das Erbgut sich auf die männlichen Deszendenten vererbe, wie dies ja auch schon der Satz Wajikra 25, 46 והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם אחריכם לרשת אחזה implizite enthielt. Es muss ja auch dieser Kanon den Töchtern Zelafchads bereits bekannt gewesen sein, wie er sich ja auch ganz klar in ihrer Motivierung: כי אין לו בן ausspricht. Wäre von ihm ein Sohn, oder wie es aus dem ובנים לא היו לו scheint, ein Sohnesnachkomme, vorhanden gewesen, sie hätten gar keine Veranlassung zur Erhebung eines Anspruchs gehabt. Es ist daher auch nicht unmöglich, dass eben darum das Suffixum ן in משפטן des vorangehenden Verses so bedeutsam hervorgehoben ist, um eben zu sagen, dass Mosche über das Erbrecht im allgemeinen bereits völlig aufgeklärt war, nur über den speziellen Fall Entscheidung zu erbitten hatte. Ja insbesondere, wenn das von uns zu V. 55 dargestellte Prinzip der חזרה der für die Verteilung des Landes massgebende Modus gewesen ist, so kann die normale Bestimmung, dass bei nicht vorhandenen Söhnen oder Sohnesnachkommen die Töchter erbberechtigt sind, Mosche vollkommen bereits bekannt gewesen sein und für ihn nur hinsichtlich deren Anwendung bei der Landesverteilung und der Ausdehnung ihrer Anwendung Zweifel obgewaltet haben, so dass die Frage für ihn in der Tat nur משפטן, nur ihren ganz speziellen Fall betraf. Es dürfte nämlich die Frage gewesen sein, ob, so wie bei wirklichen Erblassteilungen fünf Töchter, in Ermangelung von Söhnen oder Sohnesnachkommen, völlig die Rechte von fünf Söhnen haben, so auch hier die fünf Töchter Zelafchads als fünf באי הארץ fünf Anteile erhielten, die dann mit den anderen באי הארץ der Nachkommenschaft Chefers nach dem Prinzipe der חזרה zusammen auf diesen zurückgingen und als dessen Hinterlassenschaft nach dem normalen Erbrechte unter dessen Erben zur Verteilung kommen sollten, oder — wie wirklich die Erbteilung lautete (siehe Baba Batra 118b רשב׳׳ם ד׳׳ה ותרי דידהו) — die Töchter Zelafchads nicht als selbständige באי הארץ Anteil erhielten, sondern nur als Erben ihres Vaters für seinen Teil an der Verteilung der Erbschaftsmasse partizipierten, die, von den männlichen באי הארץ unter der Cheferschen Nachkommenschaft in Besitz erhalten, von diesen durch חזרה auf Chefer zurückgegangen, zu gleichen Teilen zwischen dessen Söhnen, Zelafchad und seinen Brüdern resp. deren Erben zu verteilen waren.

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.

ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמור, “and to the Children of Israel, you are to say, etc.” The Israelites were commanded this legislation at the instigation of the women. It is possible to explain the reason for this legislation in terms of the whole legislation of inheritance being the result of man’s mortality, which in turn was caused initially by women, i.e. by Chavah eating from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. In other words, women brought death into the world (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 2). It was therefore appropriate for the section of laws dealing with inheritance, i.e. transferring remnants of the dead to the living, to have been triggered by women. The reason the daughters of Tzelofchod are the women with whom the recording of this legislation is associated is their love of Eretz Yisrael. The land of Israel is also called the “hereditary land of G’d” in Joshua 22,19 corresponding to the expression ארץ החיים, “the land of the living” (Psalms 142,6). [In other words, women who have caused death are primary causes of salvaging whatever can be salvaged from death, Ed.].

V. 8. ואל בני ישראלי וגו׳: Das hier zur Geltung kommende Grundprinzip des Erbrechts hat allgemeine bleibende Geltung. —

והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “you are to transfer his estate to his daughter.” In all the other verses dealing with the daughters of Tz’lofchod, this “transfer” is defined by the word: ונתתם, “you are to give.” Why is it described here as only a “transfer?” If this ”transfer” occurs to a married daughter who has inherited it from her father, it will subsequently become the husband’s, i.e. it will be known as her husband’s property.

איש כי ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “when a man dies and does not have a son you are to transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” In referring to this wording, our sages in Baba Batra 115 state that if the deceased has a son he has total precedence in all matters of inheritance (does not share with any sisters). By the same token, the daughter of such a son (if she has no brother) precedes any other surviving relative of the deceased in her claim to inheritance from her father down the generations. A surviving daughter of the original owner of the estate in question has a claim to the inheritance from her father only when or after there is no male heir of the original owner even several generations down the line.
The allusion to this halachah is found in the word אין in the words אין לו being spelled with the letter י; our sages in Baba Batra allow for an alternative reading of that word as עיין לו, “make research concerning the existence of such a male descendant.” The word אין spelled without the letter י in the sense of denial, absence, refusal, is found in Deut. 25,7 מאן יבמי, “my brother-in-law refuses, etc” (compare Rashbam there). [This example makes the manner in which the sages derive this law more plausible than at first sight, seeing that in over 800 examples in the Bible the word אין is always spelled with the letter י so that its presence here hardly seems to give rise to any special exegesis. Ed.].

ובן אין לו. Baba Batra 115a lehrt die Halacha die Negation אין in diesem und den folgenden Sätzen in erschöpfender Bedeutung zu fassen. Das Erbrecht geht vom Sohne auf die Tochter nur dann über, wenn die Existenz dem Sohne in weitestem Sinne versagt ist, wenn er auch in der Idee nicht mehr existiert, sein Dasein durch keine Nachkommenschaft repräsentiert ist. Ist aber von dem Sohne ein Sohn, eine Tochter, ein Enkel, eine Enkelin etc. vorhanden, so geht sein Erbrecht auf diese seine Nachkommenschaft über und nicht auf die Schwester. So geht auch V. 9 die Erbschaft auf die Brüder des Verstorbenen (V. 10), auf Vaterbruder nur über, wenn im ersten Falle von der Tochter, im zweiten Falle von den Brüdern keinerlei Nachkommenschaft vorhanden ist. Jeder Erbberechtigte wird durch seine Deszendenz repräsentiert und geht sein Erbrecht nur dann auf eine andere Linie über, wenn von ihm keinerlei Nachkommenschaft, wenn auch im fernsten Gliede, vorhanden ist. כל הקודם בנחלה יוצאי יריכו קודמין. So ward ja auch in dem vorliegenden Falle Zelafchad bei der mit seinen Brüdern zu teilenden Hinterlassenschaft ihres Vaters Chefer durch seine Töchter repräsentiert. Die Halacha drückt diese emphatische Bedeutung des אין לו durch עיין עליו aus, d. h.: ehe du "אין לו" sprichst, עיין עליו: untersuche erst; es kann der Sohn in einem Nachkommen vorhanden sein, dann ist die Voraussetzung des Gesetzes: ובן אין לו nicht erfüllt (siehe zu Dewarim 25, 5).

והעברתם וגו׳ (siehe zu V. 7). Der Sinn des Gesetzes ist klar: das Erbrecht der Tochter tritt nur ein, wenn kein Sohn oder Sohnes Nachkommen da ist. Dem Erbrecht des Sohnes gegenüber heißt das Erbrecht der Tochter העברה: Ablenkung. Wäre ein Sohn vorhanden, so verbliebe das Erbgut beim Vaterstamme. Indem es der Tochter zufällt, ist es der "Ablenkung" in einen anderen Stamm ausgesetzt, dies tritt daher nur ein במקום שאין בן. Und selbst, wenn der Sohn beim Tode des Vaters bereits verstorben war und eine Tochter hinterlassen, die ihn nach dem obigen Kanon repräsentiert, geht diese Enkelin als Rechtsträgerin ihres Vaters der Tochter vor, ebenso wie die Sohnestochter gleiche Rechte mit den Söhnen hat (wie aus Zelafchads Töchtern klar ist), während die Tochter ihnen gegenüber zurücksteht (Baba Batra 115b und 116a).

AND IF HE HAVE NO DAUGHTER, THEN YE SHALL GIVE HIS INHERITANCE UNTO HIS BRETHREN. Our Rabbis have received a tradition¹⁶⁴Baba Bathra 115a. that a father inherits his son if he [the son] dies without any children, but Scripture, however, did not mention this. The reason [for this omission] is that in the laws of inheritance [the rule is]: “Whoever can bequeath an inheritance to his relations can inherit [from them],” since their relationship is mutual. Now since Scripture stated that a son inherits his father, [it is self-understood that] the father also inherits his son [if the son died without direct descendants, but left, for example, brothers]. And furthermore, the [primary law of] inheritance is [that it follows the direct] line of [descent of] successors [of the progenitor] according to his [direct] descendants, and does not go by means of a side-succession [such as to a brother; hence the father gets it back from his son].¹⁶⁴Baba Bathra 115a. If so [the meaning of the verse] then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren is the inheritance which the father inherits in the grave [in a direct line back from his son]; and from him [the father, who is already dead], it comes [again in a direct line] to the brothers [who survive the deceased son]. But [although according to the tradition of our Rabbis, a father inherits his son who dies without any children, even if the son has surviving brothers], Scripture yet did not want to say: “And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto ‘his [surviving] father,’” [but instead states that you shall give his inheritance ‘to his brothers’] since the Torah speaks “in a way of blessing” [and therefore mentions only the children or brothers who inherit], for it does not [want to speak about] those who are “cut off” [i.e., a case where the dead man is “cut off” in his youth, during the lifetime of his father]. And perhaps [the reason why Scripture does not mention it explicitly is] because it did not happen to any of those who entered the Land, that a father [outlived and] inherited his son, but the sons always had direct descendants to inherit them; for it is about them [those who entered the Land] that Scripture speaks.

ואם אין לו בת ונתתם את נחלתו לאחיו, “and if he had no daughter either, you will give his inheritance to his surviving brother.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understands the word “his brother” to include either a brother by his father or a brother by his mother, all of whom take precedence in their claim over brothers of the deceased father, and, of course, over the brothers of the deceased’s mother. However, our sages in Baba Batra 110 state that the mother is not included in the term משפחה mentioned in verse 11 so that there cannot be a question of brothers of the mother being in line for this inheritance at all. Whereas a son inherits his mother, his mother does not inherit him (if he predeceases her) under any circumstances (Baba Batra 108).
A sister inherits her brother if he has neither a surviving father nor brother, just as the daughter inherits when there is no surviving male heir. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Nachalot 1,3). Accordingly, the word לאחיו in our verse includes both brother or sister as the case may be. After the paragraph has informed us that the son inherits the father, it follows that if the sequence of death of father and son is reversed, the father inherits his son. The Torah did not want to spell this out directly as the fact that a father has to mourn the death of his son is a tragic occurrence. Whereas the Torah delights in mentioning instances of blissful occurrences it shrinks from outright references to tragic occurrences when avoidable. The principle we derive from all this is that anyone who is entitled to inherit from a certain person can also bequeath to such a person as the family relationship is identical in either direction. Seeing this matter is simple logic, the Torah did not have to spell it out as it wanted to avoid the painful emotional associations involved in contemplating fathers inheriting their children. Alternatively, the fact that the Torah did not bother to spell out this aspect of the legislation is a concealed blessing, i.e. in an Eretz Yisrael in which society follows the Torah-oriented way of life fathers will never have occasion to inherit their sons, i.e. make use in practice of this legislation. (Compare Nachmanides).

VV. 9-11. ואם אין לו בת וגו׳ ואם אין לו אחים וגו׳ ואם אין אחים לאביו וגו׳: ונתתם נחלתו לשארו הקרב אליו ממשפחתו. Die Verse 9-11 besprochenen Fälle sind nur Beispiele, für welche hier zuletzt das Grundprinzip gegeben wird, nach welchem diese und alle ferneren hier nicht weiter ausgeführten Fälle zu beurteilen sind. Dies Grundprinzip konstruiert sich aus drei Begriffen: שארו, die Blutsverwandtschaft, — הקרב, die Nähe dieser Verwandtschaft, so dass הקרוב קרוב קודם: der nächste Verwandte dem entfernteren vorangeht, und endlich: ממשפחתו, die Verwandtschaft muss innerhalb des Begriffs משפחה liegen, die Verwandten müssen zur משפחה der Verstorbenen gehören. Der Begriff משפחה konstruiert sich aber nur durch die Abstammung von einem Vater, nicht aber durch die Mutter. אחים, Brüder im Erbrecht sind z. B. nur die von einem Vater Erzeugten, nicht die von einer Mutter Geborenen. Söhne einer Mutter von verschiedenen Vätern gehören zu verschiedenen משפחות. Söhne eines Vaters von verschiedenen Müttern zu derselben:משפחה משפחת אב קרויה משפחה משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה דכתיב למשפחותם לבית אבותם (Baba Batra 109b). Die nächsten Verwandten eines Verstorbenen sind fürs Erbrecht seine Kinder und zwar in erster Linie seine Söhne. Vertritt doch der Sohn auch den Vater in יעוד (Schmot 21, 9) und שדה אהוזה (Wajikra 25, 25 und Baba Batra 108b). Ist kein Sohn und keines Sohnes Nachkomme da, so ist nach Vers 8 die Tochter oder ihre Nachkommenschaft die Erbin.

Nächst den Kindern ist שאר הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו der Vater. So nahe wie in absteigender Linie dem Verstorbenen der Sohn, ist ihm in aufsteigender Linie der Vater. Sind von dem Verstorbenen keine Kinder oder deren Deszendenten vorhanden, so geht das Erbgut an den Vater als den nächsten Verwandten in aufsteigender Linie oder dessen Deszendenten, die Brüder, event. Schwestern des Verstorbenen, oder deren Nachkommen. Ist kein Vater und keine Nachkommenschaft desselben vorhanden, so geht das Erbgut wieder an den dann nächsten שאר הקרוב אליו משפחתו, an den Vater des Vaters, den Großvater des Verstorbenen väterlicherseits und dessen Nachkommen, die Vaterbrüder, eventuell Schwestern und deren Nachkommen usw.

Immer vererbt sich ein Erbgut in gerader Linie und kann in eine Nebenlinie des Verstorbenen nur als Nachkommen eines in aufsteigend gerader Linie Erbberechtigten kommen, an die Geschwister nur als Nachkommen des Vaters, an die Onkel und Tanten nur als Nachkommen des Großvaters. So lange daher der Vater lebt, können die Brüder nicht erben, so lange der Großvater nicht die Onkel usw. סדר נחלות כך הוא איש כי ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם נחלתו לבתו בן קודם לבת כל יוצאי ירכו של בן קודמין לבת בת קודמת לאחין יוצאי ירבה של בת קודמין לאחין אחין קודמין לאחי האב יוצאי יריכו של אחין קודמין לאחי האב זה הכלל כל הקודם בנחלה יוצאי ירבו קודמין והאב קודם לכל יוצאי ירכו (Baba Batra 115a). Durch die Regel: ונתתם נחלתו לשארו הקרוב אלין erläutern sich die Sätze ונתתם וגו׳ לאחיו (V. 9) ונתתם וגו׳ לאחי אביו (V. 10) von selbst dahin, dass im ersten Falle der Vater, im zweiten Falle der Großvater nicht mehr lebt. אחי אביו sind doch nur durch אביו mit dem Verstorbenen verwandt, אביו ist ihm daher mehr קרוב als אחי אביו und kommt das Erbe erst an אביו und dessen Deszendenten, bevor es an אחי אביו gelangen kann. Nicht unmöglich ist es, dass sich die Verse 8 u. 9 gegebene Norm unmittelbar an den zunächst zur Entscheidung vorliegenden Fall anschließt, wo חפר, des Verstorbenen Vater, bereits verstorben war und es sich nur darum handelte, ob das Erbgut Zelafchads Töchtern oder Brüdern zufallen sollte. In Beziehung hierauf heißt es, dass in einem solchen Fall איש כי ימות ובן אין לו, die נחלה den Töchtern und nicht den Brüdern gegeben werden solle, obgleich bei den Brüdern das Gut bei dem Stamme verbliebe, durch die Töchter aber möglichenfalls dem Stamme entfremdet würde, und nur, wenn keine Tochter oder deren Deszendenz da ist, ונתתם נחלתו לאחיו.

Diese Erbrechtsnorm, dass das Erbe zuerst abwärts den nächsten vorhandenen Deszendenten, sodann den nächsten Aszendenten oder dessen Deszendenten, sodann den zweitnächsten Aszendenten oder dessen Deszendenten usw. sucht, bis es in dieser Reihenfolge den vorhandenen שאר הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו des Verstorbenen findet, heißt: משמוש (von משש) herumtasten.

Ganz so wie der Nachlass eines Vaters, so geht auch der Nachlass einer Mutter auf deren Kinder oder deren Deszendenten mit Vorrecht der Söhne vor Töchtern und in Ermangelung von Kindern oder deren Nachkommen auf den nächsten männlichen Vorfahren oder dessen Deszendenten über, jedoch mit der Beschränkung, dass ein mütterlicher Nachlass sich nur in direkter Deszendentenlinie vererbt, nicht aber, wenn diese beim Todesfall der Erblasserin bereits ohne Nachkommen verstorben, auf deren Halbgeschwister von väterlicher Seite übergeht, vielmehr in solchem Falle der משפחה der Erblasserin, d. i. deren nächstem männlichen Vorfahren oder dessen Deszendenten zufällt. Dieser Grundsatz heißt: אין הבן יורש את אמו בקבר להנחיל לאחין מן האב, d.h. אין הבן בקבר יורש וכו׳ (Baba Batra 114b). Während jedoch der Erblass der Mutter auf deren Kinder und Nachkommen übergeht, erben die Mütter nicht den Nachlass ihrer Kinder, dieser geht vielmehr, wie bereits bemerkt, in Ermangelung von Deszendenten auf die männlichen Aszendenten oder deren Nachkommen über, ein Grundsatz, der schon durch den maßgebenden Begriff ממשפחתו unseres Verses gegeben ist, da משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה (daselbst 115 a).

Baba Batra 111b wird endlich unter dem Begriff לשארו unseres Textes auch noch, und zwar in erster Linie, die durch die Ehe gestiftete Verwandtschaft des Mannes und seiner Ehefrau begriffen (siehe zu Wajikra 21, 2), und würde damit ein solches gegenseitiges Erbrecht zwischen Mann und Frau statuiert sein, dass, mit Übergehung aller anderen Verwandten, der nächste Erbe eines verstorbenen Mannes die Frau, sowie der nächste Erbe einer verstorbenen Frau der Mann wäre, wenn dieses Erbrecht der Frau an dem Nachlass des Mannes nicht durch andere Andeutungen im Gesetze und, wie תוספו׳ daselbst bemerkt, schon dadurch negiert wäre, dass dann ja auch bei jeder Verheiratung eines Mannes eine הסבה, eine Ablenkung des Stammgutes in einen andern Stamm durch die Frau gegeben wäre, während das Gesetz eine solche Befürchtung nur bei Verheiratung der Frauen mit Männern aus einem anderen Stamme kennt. Hinsichtlich des Erbrechts des Mannes an dem Nachlass der Frau bleibt aber dieser Grundsatz aufrecht, jedoch mit der doppelten Beschränkung, die in dem einen Satze ihren Ausdruck findet: אין הבעל יורש את אשתו בקבר (Baba Batra 114b). Es heißt dies sowohl: der Mann erbt nicht das, was seiner Frau erst nach deren Tode zufällt, was im Momente ihres Todes für sie nur ראוי, noch nicht מוחזק war. Es geht dies vielmehr an ihre Deszendenten oder ihre männlichen Aszendenten und deren Nachkommen über. Und es heißt auch: der Mann beerbt die Frau nur, wenn er sie überlebt, אין הבעל בקבר יורש את אשתו. Während andere Erbberechtigte auch noch im Grabe nach dem משמושPrinzipe durch deren Deszendenten repräsentiert werden, und diesen der Nachlass zufällt, der ihrem verstorbenen Vorfahren, wenn derselbe leben würde, zugefallen wäre, findet dieses Prinzip hinsichtlich des Erbrechts des Mannes an dem Nachlass der Frau nicht statt. Wie die ihren Mann überlebende Witwe berechtigt ist, eine Ehe mit einem anderen Manne einzugehen, so hat auch mit dem Absterben ihres Mannes dessen eventuelles Erbrecht an ihrem einstigen Nachlass aufgehört und geht dieser an den sie überlebenden zweiten Mann oder in Ermangelung dessen an ihre Deszendenten oder männlichen Aszendenten und deren Nachkommen über (siehe תוספו׳ Baba Batra 114 b ד׳׳ה מה אשה und רמב׳׳ן daselbst).

Ob übrigens ירושת הבעל דאוריתא oder nur תקנת חכמים ist, ist nicht ganz entschieden. Nach einer Auffassung ist dieses Erbrecht des Ehemannes nur דרבנן (siehe Ketubot 83 b u. 84 a).

Siehe ferner über das jüdische Erbrecht zu Dewarim 21, 15 f.

לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו TO HIS KIN THAT IS NEXT TO HIM OF HIS FAMILY — The term משפחה used in connection with inheritance denotes kinship only on the father’s side (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:3; Bava Batra 119b).

AND IT SHALL BE UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL A STATUTE OF JUDGMENT. The meaning thereof is that this judgment should be for all [future] generations, and not only for now when they inherited the Land [hence the expression “a statute, i.e., a permanent one, for all the children of Israel in all future generations”].

והיתה לבני ישראל לחוקת משפט, “This shall be for the Children of Israel as a decree of justice.” This will be a law from now on not only for the people that were about to enter the Holy Land.

ונתתם את נחלתו לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו, “and you will give his inheritance to the closest (surviving) member of his family.” This verse is the source of the sages in Baba Batra 11 ruling that the husband inherits his wife. The sages use the letter ל in the word ונתתם and the letter ו in the word לשארו to construct a new word, i.e., לו, which is the basis for assigning the wife’s property to the husband upon her death. The word שארו is understood as “his wife.”

Nothing constitutes family except from the father’s side. (Divrei Dovid) Though Scripture often writes “According to their families, their paternal house,” nonetheless, here concerning inheritance where a daughter is considered like a son when he has no son, males and females are inevitably equated. Thus, one might have said that the mother’s [family] was also termed “family” in this matter, so Rashi informs us [that this is not so].

AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. This means: “as I have commanded you,” and the usage here is similar to [that in the verse], This is the statute of the law which the Eternal hath commanded.¹⁶⁵Above, 19:2. Since G-d Himself is speaking, one would have expected the verse to say: “This is the statute which I have commanded.” There are many similar cases.

כאשר צוה ה', “as the Lord had commanded.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write; “as I have commanded you,” seeing the whole paragraph is G’d’s dictation. However, we have to use this stylistic change as being similar to Exodus 24,1 “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend to the Lord.’”

עלה אל הר העברים GO UP INTO [THIS] MOUNT ABARIM — Why does this follow immediately here? Because when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, (v. 7) “Thou shalt surely give them an inheritance in the land” he (Moses) said, “It is me that the Omnipresent has commanded to apportion the inheritance. Perhaps then the decree that I must die in the wilderness is annulled and I shall enter the Promised Land!” Whereupon God said to him, “My decree remains exactly as it was” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Another explanation: As soon as Moses entered into the territory of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben (the eastern side of the Jordan, which, having been assigned to these tribes, might be regarded as part of the Promised Land), he rejoiced, saying, “It seems to me that the vow regarding me has been annulled in my favour”. God, therefore, said to him, My decree remains exactly as it was. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king who decreed against his son that he should not enter the door of his palace. He (the king) entered within the gate, and he (the son) went after him (without the father raising any objection); to the audience chamber, and he after him. But as soon as he was about to enter his sleeping-chamber (his private room) he said to him, “My son, from here and further on you may not go” (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:4).

GET THEE UP INTO THIS MOUNTAIN OF ABARIM. The name of this mountain was Mount Nebo, as is stated explicitly in the sections of Ha’azinu,¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 32:49. and ‘V’zoth Habrachah;¹⁶⁷Ibid., 34:1. but it is [here] called the mountain of Abarim [meaning “fords”] because it is situated by the fords of the Jordan, from which one passes over into the land of Canaan, as it says here, that is over against Jericho,¹⁶⁸Ibid., (32:49; 34:1). The word “here” in Ramban cannot be explained literally, since in this section here, the phrase over against Jericho is not found. It must therefore refer to the verse in Ha’azinu and V’zoth Habracha which Ramban has just referred to. and it was from there that they [actually] crossed over the Jordan, as it is said, And the people came up out of the Jordan … and encamped in Gilgal, on the east border of Jericho.¹⁶⁹Joshua 4:19. Now this [statement get thee up] is not a commandment which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses to fulfill now, for if so he would have had to go up there at once [and we do not find that he did so], but it means: “you shall go up into the mountain of Abarim and shall behold the Land [but you shall not enter it].” For since He had commanded Moses, Unto these the Land shall be divided,¹⁷⁰Above, 26:53. He informed him that “it will not be divided by you, but you shall go up into the top of the mountain of Abarim before Israel journeys away from the land of Moab, and you will die therein, and all you will have of the Land will be the sight thereof.” Similarly [Verse 18 which says] Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, means that “when your time [to die] comes, you shall take Joshua,” [but is not a command to do so now]. And Scripture completed [this episode] by saying that Moses did so whole-heartedly,¹⁷¹Ibid., Verses 22-23. This refers to the fact that although Moses was only commanded (in Verse 18) to lay “his [single] hand upon him,” he laid his ‘hands’ upon him, which shows that he appointed his successor whole-heartedly, although he knew that he was now to die. and this is the [same] act which is mentioned at [the time of] Moses’ departure [from the world],¹⁷²Deuteronomy 31:7-8. when he and Hoshea the son of Nun spoke [the words of] the Song.¹⁷³Ibid., 32:44. Thus Scripture points out there that Moses and Joshua said the Song together, with equal enthusiasm and equally whole-heartedly.

עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend Mount Avarim, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the true name of the mountain was Nebo, as has been spelled out in Deut. 32,49 and elsewhere. The reason it has been referred to here by a different name, one that reflects its precise location, is that it is near the place where the river Jordan would be crossed by the Israelites. It is approximately directly opposite the ancient city of Jericho. The word עלה!, an imperative, was not meant to be complied with immediately, otherwise how could Moses have waited until after the 12000 men engaged in the punitive expedition against Midian had returned from there before ascending that mountain?. The reason why this command is reported here is that the Torah wanted to tell us that when Moses would ascend that mountain he would be shown the various locations where the different tribes would settle, and he would, at least, have the satisfaction of having seen all this with his own eyes.

עלה אל הר העברים הזה, “ascend this mountain of Avarim.” The reason this paragraph is appended to the legislation about inheritance is that Moses wanted to know who would inherit his status (Ibn Ezra).

Why is this placed here. Meaning that Mount Avarim is Mount Nevo, and when Moshe went up to Mount Nevo he did not come down. [Rather] he died there immediately, as is written in Parshas Vezos Haberachah (Devarim 32:49). Thus, “Why was this placed here…”

V. 12. ויאמר וגו׳. Es ist dies noch nicht der Befehl, den Berg zu besteigen. Dieser erfolgt erst später (Dewarim 32, 48) וידבר וגו׳. Hier ist es nur erläuternder Anschluss an das Vorangehende und Veranlassung des Folgenden. Mit dem Vorangehenden ist die Anordnung zur Verteilung des Landes abgeschlossen, daran fügt sich die Erläuterung, dass Mosche selbst das Land nicht betreten werde. Mit dem Anblick des Landes soll sein tätiges Wirken auf Erden sein Ende gefunden haben. Führung des Volkes zum Lande des Gesetzes und vollständige Vorbereitung des Volkes für dessen Besitz und für die Erfüllung seiner Bestimmung in demselben, darin begrenzt sich Mosche Aufgabe. Die Verwirklichung selbst soll er nicht vermitteln. Er soll sterben im Anblick des Landes, zu welchem, nicht aber in welches er das Volk zu führen hatte. Es ward damit Mosche nichts neues angekündigt. Es war ihm dieses göttliche Verhängnis bereits seit dem Vorgange in Kadesch bekannt. Allein es sollte Mosche zum Bewusstsein bringen, dass er sich jetzt am Ziele, seiner irdischen Wallfahrt befinde, damit er nun von innen heraus alles das noch tue, was er vor seinem Abgange noch getan haben möchte, damit vor allem zunächst die Bestellung seines Nachfolgers als ein Wunsch und eine Bitte seines eigenen treuen Herzens gewährt und noch von ihm selbst vollzogen werde. — הר העברים Berg der Übergänge; es ist der Berg, bei welchem man, den Jordan von einem Ufer zu dem andern überschreitend, in das Land gelangte.

Go up this Avarim Mountain. This poses a difficulty: Why was this section juxtaposed to here?

Mount Eivarim. [So called] because there are two passes. On one side is the passage to Israel, while on the other side is the passage close to Moab. As it will be clarified in Deuteronomy 32:49.

עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend the Mount Avarim!;” what is missing before this verse is that Moses had prayed to cross the Jordan, even as a private in order to see the Holy and, and that G-d had told him that he would see it only from afar, i.e. from the top of Mount Avarim. [Compare Deuteronomy 3,23, Ed.]

Another interpretation: When Moshe entered. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why he rejoiced, perhaps when it is written “give them,” it means through your command, as it is written in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 34:13), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why this [section] was placed here, therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.

The answer is that it says earlier (v. 8): “His hereditary property shall be transferred to his daughter.” Rashi explained there: “The word עברה (the root of והעברתם — shall be transferred) connotes anger. Hashem is angry when someone does not leave a son to inherit him.” It says specifically “a son to inherit him” to teach that even if he leaves a son, but he is not fit to inherit him, i.e., he is not fit to inherit the spiritual attainment of his father in Torah, wisdom, and leadership, then Hashem is angry at him that he did not educate his son to take his place. Rashi derived this from the juxtaposition of the section on the daughters of Tzelofchad to the section of this Avarim Mountain. This is the reason Mount Nevo was called Avarim (העברים) Mountain, for Hashem was angry (עברה) at Moshe for not educating his sons to be fit to inherit his level.

The chamber. לקיטון means “to the chamber.” Similarly ויבא החדרה ["and he came to the chamber"] (Bereishis 43:30) is rendered by Targum Yonasan as ועל לקיטונא.

כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך [THOU SHALT BE GATHERED TO THY PEOPLE] AS AARON THY BROTHER WAS GATHERED — From this it is evident that Moses longed for a death similar to that of Aaron (cf. Rashi on Numbers 20:26). — Another explanation: you will die as he died (in the wilderness) because you are no better than he (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Such indeed is suggested by (Deuteronomy 32:50. 51): “[and die … as Aaron thy brother died …] because you sanctified me not”. Thus it follows, if ye (both of you) had sanctified me your time would not have yet come to depart this life and you would not have died in the wilderness (Sifrei Bamidbar 137:1). In every passage where it writes about their death you will find that it writes about their offence. Because a decree had been made against the generation of the wilderness (those who left Egypt) that they should die in the wilderness on account of the sin that they did not have faith in God, therefore Moses requested that the nature of his offence should be stated in the Torah, so that people might not say, “He, too, was one of those “rebels”. A parable: It may be compared to the case of two women who were punished by the Court; one was an immoral woman and one had merely eaten unripe figs of the sabbatical year’s growth. The latter, therefore, requested that the nature of her offence might be made public, and they did so by proclamation. So, too, here: wherever it mentions their death it mentions also their misdeed, in order to make it known that there was only this single sin in them (Tanchuma 4:6:10 on חקת; Yoma 86b; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 137:2).

וראיתה אתה "and when you have seen it, etc." G'd did not limit Himself to the previous words וראה את הארץ, "and view the land, etc," in verse 12. The Torah wanted to indicate that Moses was enabled to see the land by means of a miracle, i.e. his power of vision was expanded. What Moses beheld could not be seen by ordinary man who is equipped to see only with the help of sunlight; rather it was required that G'd put at Moses' disposal the light which G'd had hidden after Adam had sinned, the light created on the first day of creation (compare Sifri volume 1 item 136). This is also the light G'd put at Moses' disposal in Deut. 34,1. where He showed him the whole of the land of Israel.

From here we derive that Moshe yearned… [Rashi knows this] because it is not written, “As Avraham was gathered” or as any one of the other righteous people [were gathered].

V. 13. וראיתה. Durch das ה paragogicon dürfte dieses Sehen für jetzt noch nicht als augenblicklich zu erfüllendes Gebot ausgesprochen, sondern hinsichtlich der Zeit der Erfüllung noch seiner Wahl überlassen sein. ונאספת אל עמיך (siehe Bereschit 25, 8).

כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך, “just as your brother Aaron has been gathered.” G-d refers to the reason of their dying before entering the Holy Land, not to the manner of their death, seeing that Moses had buried his brother Aaron, whereas no none was present at his own death. Their “premature” death had been due to their having failed to exploit an opportunity to sanctify the Holy Name of Hashem. (Numbers 20,12). This is what Rashi comments on our verse. He adds that this verse is really not at the place where we would have expected it. It really belonged to the portion of Haazinu, where the Torah describes the sin of Moses and Aaron in different terms, i.e. violating a negative commandment not just failing to observe a positive commandment. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,51) According to the commentary in Sifri, the verse is appropriate here as the sin Moses and Aaron had been guilty of occurred in the desert of Tzin, immediately after Miriam had died and been buried, not in the fields of Moav where Moses made his final speech to the nation. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is on record as saying that both Moses and Aaron died prematurely as a result of failing to sanctify the name of G-d as stated in Numbers 20. It is possible that out of deference to the image of Moses and Aaron, Rashi preferred not to mention the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. He only quoted the last item in that comment by Sifri.

Another interpretation: You are no better than he. That is to say, that just as he died because of this sin, so too will you die. [One might ask why] Rashi brings the other interpretation here? He does not [mention it] later in Parshas Haazinu (Devarim 32:50) where he only explains “that he yearned.” Similarly, [why he did not bring it] above in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:26)? It appears that usually the Torah writes, “As was gathered … על אשר מריתם ["because you disobeyed"]" but here it writes, “As was gathered … כאשר מריתם [lit. "like you (pl.) disobeyed"]” which implies that the reason why he would be gathered in like Aharon was because he sinned like him. Therefore Rashi also explains the other interpretation that “You are no better than he.” R. Yaakov Triosh.

גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרון, "also you, just as Aaron was gathered in, etc." This is best explained by reference to Yalkut Shimoni at the beginning of Parshat Massay. We are told there that when Aaron was about to die he told Moses that had he known death was something so pleasant he would have wanted to die even sooner. The Torah wrote גם אתה "also you" immediately next to the word ונאספת, "you will die," in order for Moses to understand that his own death would be just as pleasant as that of his brother Aaron had been. When Moses would realise the nature of his death he too would wish that he had died even sooner. An additional meaning of these words is that G'd wanted Moses to do what all righteous people are supposed to do before they die, namely to acknowledge that G'd's justice as applied to them was fair. The person who is about to die should welcome G'd's decision that he die at that time. By saying: "also you will be gathered up to your people," G'd hinted that Moses should acknowledge the justice of G'd's decree in letting him die at this time and at this place. The classic example for this type of attitude is King David in Psalms 31,6 where he said: "I place my spirit in Your hand."

Your time would not yet have arrived… You might ask: Surely in this Parshah it is not written על אשר לא קדשתם ["because you did not sanctify"]. The answer is that according to the other interpretation where Rashi explained that "You are no better than he” it implies that just as Aharon died though his time had not yet arrived, so too Moshe would die even though his time had not yet arrived. However, where do we find that he died before his time? Rashi answers that regarding the death of Moshe it is written, “Because you did not sanctify…” (Devarim 32:51). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that Moshe’s death was not like that of Aharon, for in his lifetime Aharon saw that his position of leadership had been passed to his children, however this was not so regarding Moshe, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. But, according to other interpretation there is the difficulty that that the phrase כאשר מת אהרן ["just as Aharon died"] implies that Aharon died before his time had come, but this is not explicitly said regarding Aharon. Therefore, the first reason is also necessary. (Gur Aryeh) Though it is stated in the first Perek of Rosh Hashanah (11a): “I am one hundred and twenty years of age today” (Devarim 31:2), why does the Torah say “today”? Rather, [it means]: “Today I am completing my days and my years” teaching that Hashem sits and completes the years of the righteous, from day to day and from month to month. The answer is that it is certainly true that he completed his [natural] years, however he should have lived [longer] due to his righteousness, since the fear of Hashem adds to one's years. However, now that he had sinned he was left with this natural lifespan and nothing was added.

The Torah continues "just as Aaron was gathered in," to reflect a further comment by the Yalkut there who quotes Moses as having asked his brother Aaron at the time if he accepted the need to die. When Aaron had replied in the affirmative, Moses said to him: "let us ascend the mountain. Immediately following this suggestion Moses and Aaron (and Eleazar) ascended the mountain. Thus far the Yalkut. This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "as your brother Aaron was gathered in." The reason for all this was that G'd did not want to let a righteous person die without first gaining his consent. This will also afford the person about to die to fulfil the commandment in Deut. 6.5 to love G'd "with all your soul."

One for degenerate behavior. She was adulterous, [but did so] without warning.

The other for eating unripe Shmittah produce. Meaning Shmittah produce that had not yet ripened completely, for the Torah writes, “To eat” (Vayikra 25:6). [From here we derive] "But not to squander" (Pesachim 52b). The one who ate the Shmittah produce requested from the court that they publicize why she was being punished, so that people would not say that she too was [punished for] degenerate behavior; here too…

המה מי מריבת קדש THEY, THE WATERS OF MERIBA IN KADESH — they alone were the cause of their death: there was no other sin in them. — Another explanation is: it was they (the waters) which were the cause of their rebellion at Marah (Exodus 16:23-24), it was they which made them rebel at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:11—12) and yet it was they which made them rebel here in the wilderness of Zin.

הם מי מריבת קדש, “they are the waters of strife at Kadesh.” This verse demonstrates that neither Moses nor Aaron had been guilty of any other sin. the word הם, “they,” means “these only and none other.”

They had no other sins. That is to say, that they had only the sin of the waters of dispute, but no other sin. Accordingly, this refers to Moshe and Aharon.

V. 14. כאשר וגו׳. Wir glauben kaum, dass sonst noch כאשר in der Kausalbedeutung: weil vorkommt, jedenfalls ist die Bedeutung: wie überwiegend und hier umsomehr festzuhalten, da es eben zuvor (V. 13) in dieser Bedeutung steht. Schwierig ist jedoch das Verständnis dieser Gleichstellung. Möglich, dass damit nur Mosche Geschick mit demjenigen Aharons gleichgestellt werden soll. Wie ihr beide dasselbe Vergehen euch habt zu Schulden kommen lassen, um welches Aharon bereits gestorben, so wirst auch du nun aus derselben Veranlassung sterben müssen. Vielleicht jedoch ist es eine Gleichstellung der beiden Faktoren, des Vergehens und ihrer beider Tode im Anblick des so lange ersehnten Landes. Ihr Vergehen war die Vereitelung einer göttlichen Absicht. Es wird gesühnt durch die Versagung eines lange ersehnten Zieles.

The rebellion at Marah. Meaning that those who rebelled at Marah with the waters of dispute were “the same as those who rebelled…” Accordingly this refers to Yisroel. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first interpretation there is the difficulty that it had already said that they had no other sin, therefore Rashi also brings the second interpretation that it refers to Yisroel. However, according to this second interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is necessary to mention here the sin of Yisroel, therefore the first reason is needed.

מריתם פי במדבר צין במריבת העדה להקדישני וגו׳ (siehe zu Kap. 20, 1-13) להקדישני וגו׳ ist Erläuterung des פי. Der göttliche Auftrag hatte die Absicht להקדישני zur הם מי מריבת קדש מדבר צין .und dieser Absicht haben sie entgegen gehandelt וגו׳ Unterscheidung von den מי מריבה in Refidim Schmot 17, 1-7, zu welchen diese מי מריבה in קדש מדבר צין in vollendetem Gegensatz stehen. In Refidim, im Anfange der Wanderung durch die Wüste, sollte das auf den Schlag mit dem Gottesstabe dem Felsen entströmende Wasser die Bürgschaft für die ganze Zeit des Wüstenaufenthalts bringen, dass sie hier zur Zeit der Not und der Befriedigung jedes dringenden Bedürfnisses des unmittelbaren Eingreifens der göttlichen Wundermacht gewärtig sein mögen. Hier am Schlusse dieser Wanderung in קדש מדבר צין, am Ende der Wüste und dem Anfange des zu bewohnenden Landes, sollte eben durch das "Nichtschlagen des Felsens"; durch den Erfolg des Wortes neben dem ungebrauchten Gottesstab, für die nun beginnende Zukunft normaler Menschenverhältnisse auf Erden die Bürgschaft gegeben werden, dass es ferner der offenbaren unmittelbar eingreifenden Gotteswunder, dass es des göttlichen Moschestabes nicht bedürfe, dass das göttliche Moschewort genüge, um inmitten und auf Grund der in der natürlichen Ordnung der Dinge vorhandenen Gottesgewährungen den Weg zu Leben und Heile zu gewinnen. Eine in diesem Gegensatz des Kadeschvorganges zum Refidimvorgange sich aussprechende Wahrheit, die in dem an den ersteren sich knüpfenden Heimgange Mosche und Aharons nur noch an bedeutsamster Prägnanz gewinnt. Mit der Gelangung an die Grenze des Landes war Mosches und Aharons Sendung erfüllt. Was Gott durch Mosche und Aharon im Volke vollbringen und dem Geiste und den Lebensgewöhnungen des Volkes hatte überantworten lassen, das war abgeschlossen und genügte für alle Zukunft weiter. Keiner יציאת מצרים-Wunder und מתן תורה-Offenbarungen bedurfte es weiter. Mosche und Aharon durften heimgenommen werden zu ihren jenseitigen Völkern. Ihren Volksgenossen hienieden blieb, was sie in ihrer Mitte auf Gottes Geheiß gewirkt und gelehrt. לא בשמים היא hieß es fortan mit ihrem Heimgange für beides, ושמרתם ועשיתם: "Wahren und Erfüllen" sollte fortan die Aufgabe des Volkes bedeuten und des göttlichen Beistandes und Segens gewiss sein lassen. Wie nicht der Moschestab, sondern das Moschewort an der Grenze des zu betretenden Landes aus dem im Felsen vorhandenen Wasser den Trunk des Lebens hatte spenden sollen: so, nachdem diese Bekundung durch Mosches und Aharons Verirrung vereitelt worden, sprach ihr Tod vor der Grenze des Landes diese Wahrheit in noch beredterer Weise aus. Sollte nicht vielleicht hierin auch die wahre Erklärung des oben "כאשר" besprochenen, Mosches und Aharons Heimgang mit ihrem Vergehen gleichstellenden liegen?

So spricht noch einer der letzten Propheten an der Schlussgrenze der Prophetie: "Eure Väter, wo sind sie, und werden denn die Propheten ewig leben? Allein meine Worte und meine Gesetze, die ich meinen Dienern, den Propheten aufgetragen, wahrlich, die sind euren Vätern geworden!" (Secharja 1, 5 u. 6).

'וידבר משה אל ה‎‎‎ וגו׳ AND AND MOSES SPAKE TO THE LORD, [LET THE LORD … SET A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — This statement serves to show the praise of the righteous: when they are about to depart from the world, they abandon all thought of their own affairs and occupy themselves with the affairs of the community (Sifrei Bamidbar 138).

וידבר משה אל השם, Moses spoke (sternly) to G'd, etc. In view of our always having said that the term וידבר reflects "tough" talk, it seems most unseemly for Moses to have addressed G'd in such a fashion. Moreover, how are we to explain the word לאמר? To whom was G'd supposed to relay Moses' words? Perhaps Moses argued that he did not see why he had to die at this time. He did not mean this egoistically, but felt that he should be allowed to go on living for the sake of the Jewish people. We will explain Moses' words in detail. This would account for the fact that the Torah describes his words as דבור. In view of the fact that Moses' entire speech reflected only his loving concern for his people the purpose of his words was not in consonance with our first impression when we read the word וידבר. To make sure we do not misunderstand, the Torah added the word לאמור, i.e. "watch the words and not the tone of voice."

וידבר משה אל ה' לאמור “Moses spoke to the Lord, saying.” What reason was there for Moses to use the word לאמור “to say,” when he spoke directly to G’d? To whom was G’d supposed to tell what Moses had been saying? The Torah uses a form of introduction which fits the great stature of Moses, i.e. compliments him. Just as when G’d addressed Moses we normally find that the formula is לאמור, “to say,” the Torah now chose a stylistically similar formula to compare the student to his master, his teacher. This idea is reflected in a Midrash which says: (quoting G’d) “I have spoken to you using both דבור and אמירה, now when you speak to Me it will also be considered as both דבור and אמירה.

To make the virtue of the righteous known. Meaning, why did Moshe say this rather than praying that he would enter?

V. 15. וידבר וגו׳ לאמר. Diese Form der Einleitung kennzeichnet das folgende nicht sowohl als eine Bitte, sondern als eine Maßregel, deren Notwendigkeit sich Mosche sofort aus der Vorstellung seines ihm als nahe angekündigten Heimganges darstellte, Da es sich nicht um sein, sondern um seines Volkes Heil handelte, wagte er den Ausspruch in dieser Form. כל מי שמבקש צרכי צבור כאלו בא בזרוע (מ׳׳ר z. St.).

לאמר saying (more lit., to say, i.e., that God should say, or answer him) — He said to Him, “Answer me whether You will appoint a leader for them or not” (Sifrei Bamidbar 138).

Answer me… For if not so, why is it written, “Saying”? It is understandable regarding, “Hashem spoke … saying” for this has already been explained as meaning “Go and say overpowering words to them” or “Go and say my words to them, and bring back [word], as to whether they will accept them” as it is written, “Moshe brought back the word of the people to Hashem” (Shemos 19:8). However, here these two explanations are not feasible. Therefore Rashi explains: “Answer me…” See also Parshas Vaeschanan (Devarim 3:23).

יפקד ה׳ LET THE LORD … SET [A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — When Moses heard that the Omnipresent said to him, “Give the inheritance of Zelophehad to his daughters”, he said to himself, “The time has come that I should ask something that I want — that my sons should inherit my high position”. God replied to him, “Not thus has entered My mind; Joshua deserves to receive the reward of his ministrations, because “he has never departed from out the tent” (Exodus XXXIII 11). — This is what Solomon said, (Proverbs 27:18) ‘‘Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof, [and he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11).

יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, "Let the Lord, the G'd of the spirits appoint, etc." 1) Why did Moses choose this most unusual way of describing G'd's virtues? 2) Why was Moses so long-winded in describing the functions of a leader of the people such as אשר..יצא…ואשר יבא? 3) Why did he add "let not the Lord's congregation be as a flock without shepherd?" Whatever possessed Moses to imagine that but for him the Jewish people would remain leaderless and that G'd would abandon them?

יפקוד ה' אלו-הי הרוחות לכל בשר, “May Hashem, G’d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint, etc.” “You Who know the spirit of each individual are surely aware of who is appropriate to be appointed as leader for them.”

He said, “The time has come for me to ask.” It appears that Rashi is answering the question: According to the Rabbis who explain “saying” as meaning Moshe said to Him, “Answer me…” would the generation be without a leader? Rather, his question was whether it was necessary to appoint a leader, or whether his children would inherit his position of leadership, as it says, “Give Tzelofchad’s inheritance to his daughters.” This was why the Rabbis expound so, and therefore Rashi also followed the words of the Rabbis. (Nachalas Yaakov) It appears that this contradicts Rashi’s comment above that they [i.e., the leaders] ignore their own needs and concern themselves with the needs of the community, yet here he says that the time had come to ask for his personal needs! However in truth there is no difficulty, because by way of concerning himself with the needs of the community, to appoint a leader for them, he also concerned himself with the needs of his sons. [He asked] that they would be the leaders. Hashem answered him, “He who keeps watch over the fig tree…”

V. 16. :אלקי הרוחות לכל בשר מגיד הכתוב שכל הרוחות אין יוצאות אלא מלפניו ר׳ אליעזר בנו של ר׳ יוסי הגלילי אומר סימן זה יהיה בידך שכל זמן שאדם נתון בחיים נפשו פקודה ביד קונו שנא אשר בידו נפש כל חי מת נתונה באוצר שנא והיתה נפש אדני צרורה בצרור החיים (ספרי z. St.). Es heißt nicht: אלקי רוחות כל בשר, sondern: א׳ הרוחות לכל בשר Gott ists, von dem aus jeder Geist in die ihm entsprechende irdische Hülle eingeht, es ist Gott, der die רוחות jedem בשר fügt. "Denn von mir aus", heißt es ja auch Jes. 57, 16, "geht der Geist in seine Hülle ein, und die Seelen habe ich gebildet" כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי, R. Elieser fügt aber hinzu: daran halte fest, so lange der Mensch dem Leben gegeben ist, so lange ist seine Seele in der Hand seines Schöpfers und Eigners gewahrt, denn es heißt: in dessen Hand die Seele jedes Lebendigen. Ist er gestorben, wird sie im Gottesschatze aufgehoben, denn es heißt: deine Seele wird aufgehoben in dem Schatze des Lebens. In zweifacher Beziehung ist danach Gott אלקי הרוחות לכל בשר: Er ists, durch den der Geist jedem Fleische wird, und Er ist es, durch den der Geist jedem Fleische bleibt. Er sendet den Geist in den irdischen Leib, und so lange der Geist in dieser irdischen Verbindung bleiben soll, erhält Er ihn in dieser Verbindung, und schützt ihn und stärkt ihn und nährt ihn mit Begabung und Fortschritt, und ist somit jedem Geiste im irdischen Leben für dies irdische Leben in einem noch viel höheren Grade persönlich nahe, als wenn nach seiner irdischen Wallfahrt dereinst die Seele im "Bunde des Lebens" mit allen übrigen eingesammelten Seelen für eine neue Zukunft bewahrt bleibt. Eine Wahrheit, die R. Elieser für unser hieniediges Bewusstsein so bedeutungsvoll und folgereich erschien, dass er uns mahnt, sie für unsere Wanderung durchs Leben stets als Wahrzeichen in Händen zu haben: סימן זה יהיה בידך! Also Gott, der, als אלקי הרוחות לכל בשר alle in irdische Leiber von ihm gesandten Geister kennt und überwacht, Er weiß den rechten Mann zum Nachfolger Mosche zu finden, Er möge ihn bestellen. Denn wenn es auch keines Mosche und Aharons weiter bedarf (siehe zu V. 14), so bedarfs doch auch zur Erfüllung der nun zur Verwirklichung kommenden göttlichen Aufgabe eines Mannes,

ה' אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “Lord, G-d of the spirits of all flesh;” compare Ezekiel 1,12 for a better understanding of this expression; Moses describes G-d as inspiring the spirit in man proceeds with any worthwhile undertaking and his perseverance in pursuing it undaunted.

...And I have not known what forced the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that they should say that this section is connected with the distant section of inheritances (27:7); and not to "Go up to the mountain..." (27:12-15), which is adjacent to it - meaning to say that once Moses heard that the decree upon him was in force, and he gave up asking for himself, he requested to appoint someone else in his place?...

אלהי הרוחת GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — Why is this expression used? (i.e., why does it not state simply אלהי כל בשר?) He said to Him: “Lord of the Universe! the personality of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 10; cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

אשר יצא לפניהם, “who is to go out ahead of them.” It means: who is to lead them in war.
ואשר יבא לפניהם ואשר יוציאם, “and who shall come in before them and who shall take them out.” The emphasis here is on the fact that the leader personally and not some deputy should always be in front. Whereas among the Gentile nations the king or top general generally remains behind the danger zone in the rear, Moses requests that the kind of leader that would be appointed should emulate him when he had faced Sichon and Og in battle at the head of the army. We know hat Moses had been in the front, why else would G’d have reassured him when He said to him not to be afraid of Og (21,34)? We know that Joshua was at the front of the army, as when the angel with his drawn sword in his hand confronted him he asked: “do you belong to us or to our enemies?” (Joshua 5,13) We also find that David was at the head of his army as reported in Samuel I 18,16: “for he would go out and come in at their head.”

As he never moved. Meaning that he sat in his tent and studied Torah.

We have to explain the whole matter in the following vein. [I have to paraphrase the author's words here. Ed.] The fact that G'd has equipped all of us with both a free will and unequal levels of intelligence makes it an almost foregone conclusion that each one of us reacts, -i.e. uses this freedom of will- differently when confronted with identical data. In other words, it is in the nature of things that no two people react identically to what happens around them. In discussing the effect on the victim when one visits the sick, the Talmud Nedarim 39 claims that each visit by a friend removes 1/60th of the sick person's sickness, provided the person who visits him is of (similar) or identical age. This latter statement suggests that unless two people share the same mazzal, horoscopic influences, they cannot really expect to have a definitive impact on one another. Unless two people are on the "same wavelength," the empathy which one shows to the other does not really leave sufficient encouragement to be a healing influence. In view of what we have just said it is clear that the 600,000 people Moses was in charge of comprised 600,000 different personalities. How could they be expected to be fused into a uniform, like-minded congregation? The reason that Moses was able to find a common denominator with each one of them, i.e. "to tune in to the wavelength of each Israelite," was the fact that his soul was the root of all their souls (compare Tikkuney Hazohar chapter 69). This is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 63,11: "G'd remembered the days of old, Moses His people." Compare what we have written on Numbers 11,12 in connection with the words: "Have I conceived them?" This was the reason that Moses was so concerned that no one but he would be able to truly understand these people and lead them.

Why was this said. Rather than saying “God of the heavens” or “God of the earth.”

This is also the reason why G'd commanded that the judges to be appointed for the people should be of their respective tribes. A judge who grew up amongst the tribe of, say Issachar, would be more likely to understand what motivations governed the actions of another member of his tribe than a judge who was a Levite, for instance. For considerations such as these, Moses reacted to the news that he was about to die by asking G'd יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, that G'd in His capacity of understanding the immense variety of spirits, i.e. personalities of the people, should appoint someone who could "tune in" to all these various spirits. When Moses said that such a leader "should go out ahead of them and ….lead them," he referred to the ability of the people to agree with the initiative of their leader. At the same time, Moses said: "and who will come home with them," i.e. that the leader should also be able to align his thinking to their thinking. He must be capable of accepting suggestions by the people. The reason Moses phrased all this in what sounds like an autocratic manner, i.e. harping on what the leader would do all the time, was that he himself had occupied the position of king amongst the Israelites. Moses added that if the Israelites would not have such a leader, they would be no better off than a flock without a shepherd. Moses' words to G'd could be summarised as follows: "I am prepared to do what You have told me; however, I cannot die with my mind at ease (as You promise me) unless I know that You have appointed a new leader who possesses the qualities I have mentioned. If not, the people will, for all practical purposes, be like a flock without a shepherd." Reading between the lines of what Moses said we may conclude that subject to his request being fulfilled he was just as willing to die as was his brother Aaron seven months earlier.

אשר יצא לפניהם ONE WHO MAY GO BEFORE THEM — not as is the way of the kings of the nations who sit at home and send their armies to battle, but as “I” have done — I who fought against Sihon and against Og, as it is said, (Numbers 21:34) “Do not fear him: “[for I have delivered him into thy hand … and thou shall do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, etc.]” and as is the way that Joshua followed, as it is said, (Joshua 5:3) “And Joshua went to him and said, Art thou for us [or for our adversaries]”. And so, too, in the case of David, it says, (I Samuel 18:16) “For he went out and came in before them” — went out at their head, and came in at their head (Sifrei Bamidbar 139:2).

אשר יצא לפניהם, when they would go to war;

Another interpretation [of “and bring them in”]: That You will not treat him in the way You treat me. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why it states, “And who will lead them out” for what merit is needed for leading out? It is understandable that to bring them in requires merit that they not perish, [but regarding leading them out there is a difficulty]. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. And according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that, “Who would lead them out” is not the same as, “Who will go forth before them.” There, his main prayer was for the people, while, “Who would lead them out” is explained as his prayer for the benefit of the leader. Since the vav conjunctive in ואשר יוציאם ["and who would lead them out"] implies that his prayers were [also] entirely for the benefit of Yisroel, Rashi also brings the first reason.

V. 17. יצא ובא לפני־ .אשר יצא לפניהם וגו׳ bezeichnet durchaus nicht nur die Heeresführung im Kriege. Als Salomo sich zur Erfüllung seiner Königspflichten ein לב שמע לשפט את עמו להבין בין טוב לרע erbat, ohne welches er zur Erfüllung seiner Obliegenheiten unfähig wäre, da bezeichnet er diese Unfähigkeit: ואנכי גער קטן לא אדע צאת ובא (Kön. I. 3, 7 u. 9). יצא ובא ist somit Ausdruck für die Gesamtwirksamkeit eines an die Spitze eines Volkes gestellten Mannes. Ja, Josua 14, 11 unterscheidet Kaleb offenbar לצאת ולבא von מלחמה, er sagt: ככחי אז וככחי עתה למלחמה ולצאת ולבא und fasst somit unter לצאת ולבא außer der Kriegstüchtigkeit noch überhaupt die Fähigkeit zu öffentlicher Wirksamkeit jeder Art. יצא ist überhaupt das Hinaustreten in die Öffentlichkeit, im Gegensatz zu בא, dem Zurücktreten in den Privatkreis. Es bedarf eines Mannes, אשר יצא לפניהם ואשר יבא לפניהם, der dem Volke im öffentlichen und im Privatleben mustergültig vorangeht, ואשר יוציאם ואשר יביאם und der durch sein Beispiel vor allem, dann aber auch überhaupt durch seinen Einfluss, das Volk zu gleicher pflichtgetreuer Lösung aller öffentlichen und Privatobliegenheiten zu bringen vermag. Daß bei dem: אשר יצא לפניהם וגו׳ nicht nur speziell an die Führung im Kriege gedacht ist, dafür dürfte auch schon das: ולא תהיה וגו׳ בצאן אשר אין להם רעה bürgen, da die Tätigkeit eines Hirten ja das Gesamtgedeihen und Heil der Herde umfasst.

ואשר יוציאם AND WHO WILL LEAD THEM OUT, safely through his merits,

ואשר יוציאם, by means of someone else. This refers to political management of the affairs of the people.

ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN, safely through his merits (Siphre). Another explanation: ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN — I ask that You should not do to him, as You have done to me' for I may not bring them into the Land. (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

קח לך TAKE TO THEE [JOSHUA] — take him through fine words, saying,“Fortunate are you that you have merited to lead the children of the Omnipresent!” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16).

איש אשר רוח בו; someone who is ready and worthy to be presented to the King of Kings. We have a similar expression in Exodus 31,6 ובלב כל חכם לב נתתי חכמה, where the Torah speaks about people equipped, endowed with the necessary amount of Holy Spirit to enable them to perform the tasks allocated to them.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why did G'd say to Moses: "take for yourself?" What did G'd mean when He said of Joshua that he was איש אשר רוח בו, "a man possessed of spirit?" Is there then any man devoid of spirit? Besides, what precisely is the significance of וסמכת את ידך "you will place your hand?" What will this achieve? We must understand the whole verse in terms of Moses' request to G'd previously, as we explained. When G'd said to Moses: "take for yourself," the meaning is: "I want to put at rest your fears. If you will appoint Joshua the Israelites will have a leader who has a similar spirit to yours, i.e. his soul emanates from a background not much different than yours." This is why G'd underlined that Joshua was a man אשר רוח בו. He shares many of the psychological factors which predominate in this generation. G'd ordered Moses to place his hand on Joshua to transfer some of the qualities of Moses' soul to Joshua. At the end of the instruction (verse 20) G'd adds: "in order that the whole congregation of the children of Israel will hear." Seeing these words are next to the words "and you transfer from your authority to him," they mean that Moses transferred some of the properties of his soul to Joshua, i.e. that he too would become a root of their combined souls. This would ensure that the people would accept Joshua's authority over them. When the Torah refers to the "whole congregation of the children of Israel," it refers to the spiritual elite of the people as being pleased with the new leader Moses would appoint now.

קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take to yourself Joshua son of Nun;” this too was a reference to the day on which Moses was to die. The Torah concludes with reporting that Moses displayed no reluctance in carrying out these orders, on the contrary, he asked G’d to appoint a suitable successor who would take his place when the time came.

קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take for yourself Joshua son of Nun.” The word “for you” in this verse means: “the one whom you yourself have already examined minutely, the one whom you know thoroughly.” It is now appropriate that he reap the reward for having been your faithful disciple all these years, never departing from your immediate presence. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 27,18: “he who stands guard over the fig tree will eventually enjoy its fruit.”

Take him with words of persuasion. Rashi has already explained on numerous occasions that the term קיחה ["taking"] is inappropriate for people, therefore he explains…

V. 18. רוח .איש אשר דוח בו als Wind ein unsichtbares, nur in seinen Wirkungen zu erkennendes, bewegtes und bewegendes Agens, ist im Menschen das Erkennende und Wollende (siehe Schmot Kap. 25, Ende). Dieses geistige und sittliche Prinzipium fehlt in keinem Menschen. Wenn gleichwohl hier von Josua gesagt wird, dass er sich zur Bestellung als Mosche Nachfolger eigne, weil er ein איש אשר רוח בו sei, so kann hier רוח nur in emphatischer Bedeutung gesagt sein, wie wir ja auch durch einen Mann von Geist einen solchen bezeichnen, der diese Fähigkeit in eminentem Sinne besitzt. So heißt Hosea 9, 7 der Prophet: איש הרוח. In Josua war "Geist" ungeschwächt von leiblicher Trübung. Dewarim 34, 9 heißt es: ויהושע בן נון מלא רוח חכמה כי סמך משה את ידיו עליו nach seiner Bestellung zum Nachfolger Mosches erhielt seine natürliche Begabung noch erhöhte Bereicherung, sein רוח ward רות חכמה und erfüllte ihn ganz.

And lay your hand on him. The leaders of the nation need to accept upon themselves to be an atonement and a guilt-offering for the entire people, as it says (Devorim 1:13): “And I will designate them (ואשימם) your leaders.” The Sages derived from here that the guilt (אשמה) of the nation is hung on their leaders. Laying one’s hand on an offering is intended to place the disgrace and blemish of the one who is laying his hands unto the offering. In the same way, the laying of hands on a leader is to place the disgrace and blemish of the entire people of Israel unto their leaders, for the nation’s guilt is hung on their leaders.

לך [TAKE] TO THEE — take one who has been examined by you, the one with whom you are familiar.

איש אשר רוח בו, “a man in whom there is spirit.” A reference to Holy Spirit. Our sages in Sifri Pinchas 140 understand this to mean that he has the emotional fortitude to brave all opposition.

Someone scrutinized by yourself. Although the manner of Scripture is to use the word לך ["yourself"] without any need, such as in עלה לך היערה ["ascend to the forest"] (Yehoshua 17:15) and other similar instances, nonetheless wherever we can expound, we expound. Re’m: It appears to me that Rashi is answering the [following] question: Since Moshe’s request was that his sons would inherit his position, as Rashi explained above, it should not have said לך ["yourself"] which implies that his initial request was for Yehoshua, since this was not the case. He answers, “Someone scrutinized by you…”

וסמכת את ידך עליו (siehe zu Wajikra 1, 4).

A man in whom there is spirit. That is, he is independent in his views and he is not drawn after urges for his own pleasure or that of others.

אשר רוח בו [A MAN] IN WHOM THERE IS SPIRIT — As you requested; someone able to deal with the character of each one. (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1).

וסמכת את ידך עליו, “you are to lean your hand upon him.” This was to demonstrate to all the Israelites that he will replace you. Our sages in Sifri 140 understand this to mean that Moses was to provide Joshua with an interpreter who would announce all he had to say to the people (while Moses was alive) so the people would not say later that Joshua would never have dared speak up while Moses was still alive.

As you requested… Meaning that above you asked saying “The thought of every individual is known before You…” (Rashi v. 16), thus I shall do so, and I will choose Yehoshua whom you know and in whom there is a spirit, as you requested…

And lay your hand on him so that he will have Divine assistance to reach the truth and straight thinking; this is similar to semicha lehora’ah (traditional authorization to judge cases) which provides the benefit of Divine assistance. For this reason, one [who does not have semicha] may not render judgment even though he is qualified, because he does not have the Divine assistance needed for this.

וסמכת את ידך עליו AND LAY THY HAND UPON HIM — Give him an interpreter, so that he will hold Halachic discourses during your life-time, — in order that people may not say about him if he does this only after your death: he dared not raise his head during Moses days but did so only at his death (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1).

Provide a public announcer for him. For it is written afterwards (v. 20), “So that the entire community of Bnei Yisroel will hear.” But what would they hear? Rather [this means] to provide a public announcer.

That he might preach in your lifetime. One must say that the laying of hands of a Rabbi upon his student is related to his being given permission to instruct and give rulings [whether] to forbid or to permit [an issue]. Therefore here, concerning Yehoshua, if the laying of hand was [to take effect] after Moshe’s death, why did he do it? After his death there would be no need for [Yehoshua to receive] permission. Rather [permission was given] during the lifetime of Moshe. You cannot say that perhaps the laying of hands was the bestowing of radiance, for if this were so it should have juxtaposed the statement of bestowing your radiance (v. 20) to the words, “And lay your hand…” Rather, one must say that “Lay your hand” is another matter and it is the giving of permission.

וצויתה אתו AND GIVE HIM A CHARGE concerning Israel; say to him, “Know that they are troublesome, that they are refractory — accept your office having in mind that you will have to take upon yourself all this (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16).

AND THOU SHALT COMMAND HIM [Joshua] — “concerning Israel, [saying to him]: ‘Know that they are troublesome, that they are stubborn. [Accept this position of leadership over them with full awareness of this and] on condition that you take upon yourself [all this].’” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct in my opinion, because it says [and thou shalt command him] before their eyes [and Moses would not have told Joshua to say such words in their presence], for this matter ought rather to have been told to him [Joshua] between the two of them [Moses and Joshua]; for if he would say it in their presence, it would [only] have caused them to break off all restraint. And it would have been more fitting that he [Moses] should chastise the people, warning them separately [and not in Joshua’s presence] not to be troublesome and stubborn any more [rather than to tell Joshua, in their presence, that they were a troublesome and stubborn people]! But [the meaning of] and thou shalt command him before their eyes is that you should instruct him in the duties of a prince and judge, since it was because he [Joshua] was to be their leader that he entrusted them to his care. [Therefore] he should [indeed] have warned him to exert himself exceedingly on their behalf, and to fight the battles of the Eternal, and that he should be the one to go out before them [in battle] and to bring them in,¹⁷⁴Above, Verse 17. and that he should be careful in matters of judgment. These [instructions] indeed ought to be said in their presence, in order that they should trust him and listen to him, for they would then know that he will treat their affairs in a truthful manner, since his master had so commanded him. And this is what Moses [actually] did, as it is said there, And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel: ‘Be strong and of good courage etc. fear not, neither be dismayed.’¹⁷²Deuteronomy 31:7-8. And in the Sifre [we find the following text]:¹⁷⁵I have not found this exact text in our editions of Sifre. For the closest approximation, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 316, Note 93. “And command Joshua¹⁷⁶Deuteronomy 3:28. — concerning instruction [learning and teaching Torah].¹⁷⁷Moses is hereby told to transmit the Torah to Joshua, and to command him to teach it further to Israel. See Aboth 1:1 — “Moses received the Torah on Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, etc.” And encourage ‘him,’ and strengthen ‘him.’¹⁷⁶Deuteronomy 3:28. This teaches us that there cannot be two leaders in one generation.” Now these are duties of the prince, to be firm and not to be afraid of the people.
In my opinion the plain meaning of Scripture is that the explanation of [the expression] ‘v’tzav’ (and thou shalt command) him before their eyes is [that it refers to] appointing [him officially as their leader], for Moses was to appoint Joshua in the presence of the people to be the ruler over them. This is similar to [the expression], from the time ‘tzivah othi’ (I was appointed) to be their governor etc.¹⁷⁸Nehemiah 5:14. So also: ‘vayetzaveihu’ (and the Eternal hath appointed him) to be the prince over His people.¹⁷⁹I Samuel 13:14. Similarly, Even from the day that ‘tzivithi’(‘I commanded’) judges to be over My people Israel,¹⁸⁰II Samuel 7:11. which means “I appointed” [and likewise all these expressions of ‘tzav,’ which literally mean “command,” here mean “appoint”].

וצויתה אותו לעיניהם, you appoint him as leader in their very presence so that they will accept his authority willingly and will be obedient to his directives. The expression צווי meaning appointment is not unique; we find it in Samuel I 25,30 וצוך לנגיד, “He will appoint you as leader.” (Avigail speaking to David) We find it also in Samuel II 7,11 למן היום אשר צוותי שופטים, “from the day I have appointed Judges, etc.” (G’d giving a message to the prophet Nathan for David)

וצוית אותו לעיניהם, “you will command him before their eyes;” Rashi comments that Moses presented the Israelites to Joshua as a nation that sorely tried any of its leaders, a people most difficult to govern, their having assumed that Moses would tolerate their difficult behaviour as a matter of course. [He wanted Joshua to know what kind of a burden he would assume by becoming leader. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s comment is not correct, as it would not be good manners for Moses to make such statements in public at that time. On the contrary, instead of being effective, psychologically speaking, such a comment by Moses at a time such as this would have a counterproductive effect and the people would become even more difficult. Accordingly, Nachmanides understands the words וצוית אותו לעיניהם as G’d’s instruction to Moses to impress upon Joshua, that now that he would assume such an awesome responsibility he must become very sensitive to the needs of the people, to their sense of dignity, etc. At the same time, he must know that the final responsibility rested on him when major decisions had to be made and he must be firm and fearless. When the people would hear how Moses had publicly impressed upon Joshua the qualities that a leader must display at all times, they in turn would feel confident that a man so instructed by the incomparable Moses would indeed do everything to live up to the task entrusted to him. Moses acted precisely in this manner, as we know from verses 22 and 23. According to my personal opinion (Nachmanides speaking) the plain meaning of the text is that the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor had to be made in public, in the presence of all the people so that it could not be challenged later on, or so that it could not be viewed as an high handed act by Moses. Nachmanides quotes several examples from Scripture where the expression ויצוהו על is used to describe the appointing of someone as a prominent leader with wide ranging powers.

V. 19. והעמדת אתו וגו׳ (vergl. Kap. 3, 6). Jemanden einem andern vorstellen heißt: ihn in dessen Dienst stellen. Indem Josua vor Elasar und vor die Gemeinde hingestellt wird, wird er in den Dienst des Gesetzesheiligtums und der nationalen Gesamtheit gestellt. So sprach Rabban Gamliel zu zwei Jüngern, die aus Bescheidenheit ein öffentliches Amt, zu welchem er sie erheben wollte, anzunehmen zögerten: כמדומין אתם ששרדה אני נותן לכם עבדות אני נותן לכם, ihr meint, ich gebe euch eine Hoheit, einen Dienst gebe ich euch (Horiot 10 a). צוה .וצויתה אתו לעיניהם ist der spezielle Ausdruck für: jemanden hinsichtlich eines zu übertragenden Amtes in Pflicht zu nehmen. So: וצוך לנגיד על ישראל (Sam. I. 25, 30), צויתי שופטים על עמי ישראל (Sam. II. 7. 11), לצות אותי נגיד (daselbst 6, 21), ויצום אל בני ישראל (Schmot 6, 13). So auch Wajikra 3, 28 וצויתה .וצו את יהושע וחזקהו ואמצהו: du sollst ihm in Gegenwart des Volkes die Pflichten seines Amtes auftragen, damit er als der von dir Beauftragte dastehe und sein künftiges Wirken von deiner Autorität getragen sei.

And you shall set him, etc.: This setting is [to give him] authority over them. And nevertheless it is only service, as he is obligated to serve them in that which he has authority over them. Therefore, it is written with the wording, "And you shall set him in front of " - with the same wording as later on [in verse] 21, which demonstrates subservience. This is because authority is truly also subservience.

Before Elozor the kohein. Yehoshua had authority over Elozor who was appointed over the service in the Mishkan, for Yehoshua was like a king, and a king has authority over the Beis HaMikdash, as explained in the Yerushalmi: The constant offering was sacrificed at the fourth hour in the days of Shlomo, because the keys were in his possession.

ונתתה מהודך עליו AND THOU SHALT PUT SOME OF THY GLORY UPON HIM — This refers to the shining of the skin of his countenance (see Exodus 34:29—30).

ונתתה מהודך עליו, you are to confer upon him some of the aura of your regal authority while you are still alive, so that the people will get into the habit of treating him with respect.

ונתת מהודך עליו, “and you will impart some of your stature to him.” This means that Moses was to display some deference to Joshua. According to Baba Batra 75 the important letter in this verse is the letter מ in front of the word הודך, i.e. that Moses was to impart only part of his majesty to Joshua, not all of it. This also reflects the statement by our sages that Joshua compared to Moses much like the moon compares to the sun. Whereas the latter only reflects light received from an outside source the sun generates light. Nonetheless, we must not forget that the sun too received its original input from G’d as we know from Genesis 1,14 where both the sun and the moon are described as מאורות, “luminaries,” as opposed to אורים, “sources of original light.” Moses too had received his initial spiritual input from Hashem.

The face of Moshe was like the sun. Meaning: The face of Moshe shone more than that of Yehoshua. There are those who explain that like the sun takes its light from Hashem and the moon takes light from the sun, so too Moshe took the rays of light [which shone from] his face from Hashem, and Yehoshua took them from Moshe.

V. 20. הוד .ונתתה מהודך עליו, lautverwandt mit אוד, dem Begriff der wirkenden Kraft, des Mittels, und עוד, dem Begriff des dauernden Seins, ist הוד die Fülle des Seins und der Kraft in der Erscheinung. Es ist intensiv das, was הדר extensiv bedeutet. הוד ist die Größe der Persönlichkeit, הדר die Größe des Machtgebietes in der Erscheinung. למען ישמעו, es kommt שמע absolut, ohne Präposition, als gehorchen vor. So: והנה לא שמעת עד כה (Schmot 7, 16), אם תאבו ושמעתם (Jes. 1. 19) etc. Es ist aber hier vielleicht deshalb diese absolute Ausdrucksweise gebraucht und nicht למען ישמעו אליו, weil der Josua zu zollende Gehorsam im Grunde nur ein Gehorsam gegen den durch Mosche dem Josua kundgewordenen Gotteswillen sein sollte.

ונתתה מהודן עליו, “and you shall divert part of your majesty to him;” we find a similar formulation to this in Daniel 11,21: ולא נתנו עליו הוד מלכות, “upon whom they did not confer the majesty of kingship.” Moses is asked by G-d to honour Joshua publicly as his successor, so that the people will accept him as such and will obey his instructions.

מהודך SOME OF THY GLORY, and not all thy glory; consequently we learn from this: Moses’ face beamed like the sun, Joshua's face only like the moon (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:2; Bava Batra 75a).

למען ישמעו, the reason why you are to appoint him in full view of the people is so that the whole עדה, i.e. the Supreme Court, the leaders of the nation, will get into the habit of listening to what he has to say with reverence.

That they will treat him with reverence. Meaning: So that they will hear about the radiance that you gave him, and consequently they will treat him with reverence. However, one cannot explain that “will hear” means “will accept” because if so, the word אליו ["to him"] would be missing, because accordingly the meaning would be, “So that all of Yisroel will accept his words and his decrees.”

למען ישמעו כל עדת ישראל THAT ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE OBEDIENT TO HIM — that they should comport themselves towards him with respect and reverence, in the same way as they comport themselves towards you (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד AND HE SHALL STAND BEFORE ELEAZAR THE PRIEST — Here you have the request that you have made: that this honour should not depart from your father’s house, for Joshua, too, will need Eleazar (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11).

על פיו יצאו, "at his command they will go out (to war), etc." This was a reference to Moses having said that a leader must be capable of commanding the people to follow him, i.e. ואשר יוציאם. All of this would occur after Eleazar had obtained G'd's approval through consulting the Urim VeTumim, the breastplate of the High Priest whose letters would flash in answer to questions posed to G'd.

ושאל לו במשפט האורים, “He will inquire on his behalf of the Judgment of the Urim.” It is remarkable that the Tumim have not been mentioned here. This appears to prove that the Urim were the principal carriers of the holy names of G’d and that they illuminated the letters on the breastplate of the High Priest from which the latter received the answer to his inquiries from the Lord. The Tumim, apparently only contained the matching letters needed to complete certain words so that the High Priest could make heads or tails of them. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Urim and Tumim always work in tandem. Basically, the two are two sides of the same coin and they reposed inside the folds of the breastplate.
Our sages in Yuma 83 derive from this verse that whereas a decree which issued forth from the mouth of a prophet is reversible, a decree communicated by means of the Urim and Tumim is not reversible. They base this on the expression משפט used in our verse in connection with the Urim. Just as משפט, judgment, is something which cannot be reversed, so an answer provided by means of the Urim and Tumim cannot be reversed.
In our verse G’d tells Moses that Joshua will be in his place and that he and all of Israel shall go out (to war) at his command, i.e. as communicated through the High Priest Eleazar. It is an assurance to Moses that the final authority will not depart from his tribe.

Here is [the reply] to your request. That is to say, how was this matter relevant here, for what relevance did Elozor have to [the appointment of] Yehoshua? (Gur Aryeh) For if not so, why did He command Moshe, He should have commanded Yehoshua directly.

V. 21. ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד. Er wird aber nicht als Autokrat eingesetzt, vielmehr hat er in allen Angelegenheiten des nationalen Gesamtinteresses, wo es sich nicht um nach dem geoffenbarten Gesetz zu entscheidendes Recht und Unrecht, sondern um Zweckmäßigkeit oder Zweckwidrigkeit eines allgemeinen Vorhabens handelt, den Gottesausspruch durch die auf der Brust des nationalen Repräsentanten des Gesetzesheiligtums, des כהן גדול, ruhenden Urim zu erfragen und zu befolgen. ולפני וגו׳ יעמוד (siehe zu V. 19) ושאל לו. Elasar erfragt für ihn die Entscheidung der Urim vor Gott (siehe Schmot Kap. 28, Ende). — שאל ב־ gewöhnlicher Ausdruck für: das Erbitten einer Entscheidung durch Gott hinsichtlich eines Unternehmens. So: Richter 20, 18 f.; Sam. I. 10. 23; Sam. I. 22, 10; 23, 2; 28, 6; 30, 8 1 etc. ושאל לו כד׳ ,וישאלו באלקי Daher auch: עמי בעצו ישאל (Hosea 4, 12). Da der nachgesuchte Ausspruch nicht direkt von Gott, auch nicht direkt von den Urim an den Anfragenden gelangt, so scheint dieses ב den Begriff der Vermittlung, Veranlassung, durch zu bedeuten. Der Anfragende erbittet sich durch Gott, d. h. durch seine Veranlassung Antwort. Die Frage ist an Gott gerichtet und Gott veranlasst die Antwort durch die Urim und Elasar. Nicht aber ist Elasar der Veranlasser der Antwort. Er ist selbst nur passives Organ. — על פיו: nach Elasars Ausspruch. וכל העדה, nachdem bereits כל בני ישראל genannt sind, kann hier העדה nur das ב׳׳ד הגדול bezeichnen, wie Kap. 25, 6 u.7 und Wajikra 4, 13.

ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד, “and he will stand in the presence of the High Priest Elazar;” so that he will not consider himself as superior to him and become boastful.

ושאל לו AND HE SHALL ASK OF HIM, whenever he finds it necessary to go forth to war (cf. Targum Jonathan on).

הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה, “he and all the Children of Israel with him and the whole congregation.” Seeing that the “congregation” is part of the term “the Children of Israel,” what is the point of appending this word? It teaches that even Israelites who disagree with Joshua as their new leader are not thereby excluded from the all-encompassing statement “all the Children of Israel.” This means that the dissidents are not free to opt out from the obligations which already devolved upon them as members of “the Children of Israel.”
Our sages in Yuma 73 understand the words וכל העדה to mean the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), which acts as the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the “unique, special” people of the congregation. When the Torah commanded that just these people had to be presented before Eleazar the High Priest and before “the entire congregation,” this is proof that the sages in Yuma were correct in their interpretation of the words כל העדה in our verse, i.e. those who represented the entire congregation.

The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this] because right before [in this verse] it is written, “And all Yisroel with him.” Why then is it necessary to say “And the entire community”? Rather, this refers to the Sanhedrin.

על פיו AT HIS WORD [SHALL THEY GO FORTH] — at Eleazar’s.

וכל העדה AND ALL THE CONGREGATION — the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 16a).

ויקח את יהושע AND HE TOOK JOSHUA — he took him by fine words and told him the reward that will be given to Israel’s leaders in the world to come (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:2).

ויעש משה כאשר צוה ה׳ אותו, Moses did as G'd had instructed him, etc. The reason the Torah mentions something so obvious as Moses complying with G'd's instructions, is only to tell us that he did so promptly after having been so instructed. It also means that had Moses not specifically requested that G'd appoint a suitable leader now, G'd would not yet have given such instructions. Seeing that Moses' death was not that near at hand, and that there was no immediate need to appoint Joshua, Moses' conduct was a credit to him.

He persuaded him verbally. Rashi is answering the question: It is already written, “Moshe did as Hashem commanded him,” so why is it necessary to say, “He took Yehoshua”? Rashi answers that “He persuaded him…” meaning that he said more to him than Hashem had said. For Hashem only commanded him to say, “You are fortunate that you have merited this…” However Moshe informed him “of the reward…” The reason was so that he would not say, “Of what benefit is this aggravation to me?” given that Moshe and Aharon had been punished because of the people. He therefore informs him of the reward.

VV. 22 u. 23. ויעש וגו׳ ויסמך וגו׳. Auch die Bestellung Josuas zu seinem Nachfolger war vielleicht nur als Erwiderung auf Mosche durch den ihm bevorstehenden Heimgang veranlasste Bitte im allgemeinen erfolgt, ohne bereits für die augenblickliche Ausführung geboten zu sein. Es war Mosche nur erwidert, dass er vor seinem Tode Josua in Gegenwart des Volkes einsetzen solle, der wirkliche Vorgang erfolgte erst kurz vor seinem Tode (Dewarim 31, 7). Es wäre sodann das ויעש וגו׳ ויסמך וגו׳ unserer Stelle nur abschließender Bericht, dass Mosche später den Auftrag treu vollzogen habe. Möglich ist es jedoch, dass dieser Bestellungsakt gleich zu vollziehen war und vollzogen worden, und ist dann ויקרא משה ליהושע וגו׳. (Dewarim 31, 7) ebenso wie ja (daselbst V. 23) ויצו את יהושע וגו׳ nur wiederholte Ermahnung und Befestigung für die Erfüllung der bereits übertragenen Pflichten. — ויסמך את ידיו עליו. Das Gebot V. 18 lautete nur וסמכת את ידך עליו, freudig und mit "beiden Händen" vollzog Mosche den Auftrag und machte, wie der Ausdruck im ספרי lautet, Josua ככלי מלא וגדוש zu einem vollen reich gefüllten Gefäße, d. h. zum Träger seines Geistes und seines Ansehens in vollstem Maße.

ויסמך את ידיו AND HE LAID HIS HANDS [UPON HIM] — generously (in full measure), even more than he had been commanded, for the Holy One, blessed be He, had said, (v. 18) “Lay thy hand [upon him]”, but he did this with his two hands (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 960), and so made of him a full and heaped up vessel (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:3) and filled him generously with his own wisdom.

ויסמך את ידיו, he placed both his hands, etc. The word ויצוהו in our verse is derived from צות, team, association; the Torah tells us that Joshua became part of the leadership team, or in a more abstract sense that he now was able to radiate some of Moses' royal authority along the lines I have explained earlier on the word וסמכת. כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה, as G'd had said by means of Moses. This part of the verse makes sense only in connection with the way we have explained the word ויצוהו, as Moses had not been commanded to place both his hands on Joshua. Besides, why would the Torah not have written: "as G'd had said to Moses, instead of ביד משה?" The meaning therefore must be that Moses was the instrument through whom this הוד, royal authority, was transferred to Joshua. The word ויצוהו is also an allusion to Royalty as our sages have taught us in connection with Samuel I 13,24 where the prophet records: ויצוהו ה׳ לנגיד, "G'd gave him (Saul's replacement David) authority over His people. Another nuance that we can derive from the word ביד משה, is that G'd had said for royal authority to reside in the hand of Moses in lieu of the anointing oil (used to crown kings of the tribe of Yehudah formally.)

ויסמוך את ידיו עליו, “he leaned (both) his hands upon him.” Although G’d had commanded Moses that he needs to place “a hand” upon Joshua, Moses put both his hands on him to indicate that he harbored no ill will over handing over his authority to someone else (compare Rashi). According to Sifri 141 the meaning is that he filled Joshua with wisdom as one fills a container right to the top of its capacity.

Generously. Here also there is also the difficulty as to why was it necessary to write [that he laid his hands] as I explained above (v. 22).

ויסמוך את ידיו, “he laid his hands upon him.” This was similar to people offering animal sacrifices placing their hands and weight on these animals prior to their being slaughtered. The owner of the animals symbolically transferred his essence to the animal which would take his place instead, seeing that he really should have been the sacrifice. From this action it became clear that Moses transferred his authority to Joshua willingly, as instead of placing only one hand on him as G-d had commanded him, he did so with both of his hands. Army commanders in the future would also be appointed by their superiors placing their hands on their juniors when promoting them. Compare author on Numbers 2,2.

כאשר דבר ה׳ AS THE LORD SPAKE, in respect also of the glory: he put some of his glory upon him.