민수기 27:8의 미드라쉬

(Fol. 115) R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "He who leaves no son to succeed him, the Holy One, praised be He! is filled with anger at him, for it is written here (Num. 27, 8) Then shall ye cause his inheritance to pass (Haabartem), and it is written there (Zeph. 1, 15) That day is a day of wrath (Ebrah)." (Ps. 55, 20) Those who leave no changes fear no God. R, Jochanan and R. Joshua b. Levi differ. According to one a son is meant, and according to the other a disciple. We can infer that R. Jochanan is the one who holds that it refers to a disciple; for R. Jochanan said: "This is the bone of my tenth son [whom I have buried]." The inference is sustained. Now, if R. Jochanan refers to a disciple then R. Joshua b. Levi refers to a son, if so, why do we find that R. Joshua b. Levi did not go to a funeral unless the deceased was childless, because it is written (Jer. 22, 10) Weep sorely for him that goeth away, which R. Juda in the name of Rab interpreted to refer to one who passeth away without a son! It must be concluded that R. Joshua b. Levi was the one who said it refers to a disciple. Now since R. Joshua b. Levi is the one who holds it refers to a disciple, we must say that R. Jochanan is the one who holds it refers to a son. If so, then it means that R. Jochanan contradicts himself, [for above it was inferred that he held it referred to a disciple]. This is not difficult to explain, for one he said in his own name, and the other in the name of his teacher.

(Fol. 141) Shall we assume that a daughter is better for him than a son (as the Mishnah says, "If a male one hundred, and a daughter two hundred)?" Has not R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "The Holy One, praised be He! is full of wrath against the one who leaves no son to succeed him, for it is written (Num. 27, 8) And if a man die and leave no son, then shall you cause his inheritance to pass (v'ha'vartem) unto his daughter. And the word 'avarah has the meaning of evrah (meaning wrath), as is written (Zeph. 1, 15) That day is a day of wrath (evrah)?" Concerning inheritance, a male is better for him [as he bears his name]; but as to comfort for the house, a daughter is better for him. Samuel explained: "The Mishnah treats of a woman who is pregnant with her first child." And it is in accordance with R. Chisda, who said elsewhere: "If the first child is a female, it is a good sign for future children." According to some, because she will educate the sons; and according to others, that she should not he afflicted by a covetous eye. Said R. Chisda: "As for me, I always give preference to females over males." And if you wish, it may be said that our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Juda, for we are taught in a Baraitha: It is a meritorious act for one to support his daughters, and so much the more his sons who occupy themselves with the Torah. So is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Juda, however, says: "It is a meritorious act to support the sons, and so much the more to support the daughters, because of their humiliation [if they should have to beg]."

(Exodus 13:12) "Veha'avarta every firstling": "ha'avarata" is "setting apart," as in (Numbers 278) "veha'avartem his inheritance for his daughter." Shimon b. Azzai says: What is the intent of "Veha'avarta"? From (Leviticus 27:32) "Whatever (beast) passes ('ya'avor') under the staff" (for tithing), I would think that an orphan, too, (is tithed). And this would follow, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not fit for the altar, enters the shed for tithing, then an orphan, which is fit for the altar, how much more so! __ (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) a purchased animal, which, although it is fit for the altar, does not enter the shed for tithing. __ No, this may be true of a purchased animal, which was not born in his domain, wherefore it does not enter the shed for tithing, as opposed to an orphan, which was born in his domain, wherefore it should enter the shed for tithing. I have not succeeded (in deriving the halachah) by logic alone. (I must, therefore, derive it thus:) It is written here (Exodus) "Veha'avarta," and there (Leviticus) "ya'avor." Just as here, sanctity attaches to it only in the lifetime of its mother, so, there. In that case, why not say: Just as here, (in the instance of the firstling, only) males (are indicated), there, too, (only) males (should be tithed)? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Whatever passes under the staff" — either males or females.

And thou shalt set apart unto the Lord all that openeth the womb (ibid. 12). Set apart means to put aside, as in the matter of an inheritance. Then ye shall cause his inheritance to be set apart unto his daughter (Num. 27:8). Simeon the son of Azzai said: Why does Scripture mention Thou shalt set apart all that openeth the womb (Exod. 13:12)? Since it states elsewhere: Whatsoever passeth under the rod,¹⁸Word-play on haavarta (“set apart”) and yavaor (“passeth under”). the tenth shall be holy unto Me the Lord (Lev. 27:32). Does this say (I might deduce) that this includes an orphaned animal? Since the word set aside is used in the former verse, just as in the latter verse, one may not sanctify the priests’ share of the offering except during the life of its mother, so in this instance one may not sanctify the priests’ share except during the lifetime of its mother. If this is so, then just as the latter verse refers only to male animals, so the former verse applies only to male animals. Hence, when Scripture says Whatsoever passeth under the rod, it means (to include) male and female. All that openeth the womb indicates that a prematurely born offspring is exempted from the law of the firstborn. The one that is born after the premature offspring is also considered not to be the firstborn.

12 And it is written (in Numb. 27:5) “Moses brought their cause [before the Lord]”: Some say that [God] made this become too hard for Moses, as there are righteous people that become [overly] proud in matters of a commandment, and [so] the Holy One, blessed be He, weakens their ability. You find that David said (in Ps. 119:54), “Your statutes were songs for me,” [meaning] they are light and customary for me like songs. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, your end will be to err about something that [even] the schoolchildren know about.” At the time that he brought up the ark, he erred and put in on a cart, as stated (in II Sam. 6:3),” They loaded the ark of God onto a new cart.” [So God] suspended the ark in the air and the oxen became dislodged from under it. [Then] Uzzah approached to support it, but (according to II Sam. 6:7,) “God struck him down on the spot,” as an error in study is considered as wanton. Immediately (in II Sam. 6:8), “David was distressed because the Lord had inflicted a breach upon Uzzah.” [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Did you not say, ‘Your statutes were songs for me?’ Did you not learn (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the Kohathites he did not give; since theirs was the service of the [most] sacred objects, their porterage was by shoulder?’” [So David] began to ponder and say (in I Chron. 15:13), “The Lord our God burst out against us, for we did not seek Him like the law.” And so too, [this happened] with Moses. Because he said (in Deut. 1:17), “But the case which is too hard for you, you shall bring unto me and I will hear it,” [the Holy One, blessed be He,] weakened his ability.¹³ Sifre to Deut. 1:17 (17); Sanh. 8a. The matter is comparable to a moneychanger who said to his student, “If coins come to you to be exchanged, exchange them, but if pearls should come to you, bring them to me.” [When] a ring of baubles came to him, [the student] brought it to [this] teacher. [But] then the teacher went and showed it to another [money changer]. So too here. Moses said (in Deut. 1:17), “The case which is too hard for you, [you shall bring unto me and I will hear it].” [But] when the daughters of Zelophehad came to him, [God] made it too hard for him. (Numb. 27:5-7) “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord. [And the Lord said…,] ‘The daughters of Zelophehad speak correctly,’” such is the law. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Did you not say (ibid.), ‘The case which is too hard for you, [you shall bring unto me]?’ In the case of the judgment which you do not know, [see that even] the women determine it.” 13 Another interpretation (of Numb. 27:5), “Moses brought their cause [before the Lord]”: R. Simeon ben Laqish said, “Our master Moses knew this judgment, but they first came before chiefs of tens. They said to them, ‘It is a judgment concerning inheritance, and this is not for us but for those greater than us.’ They came before the chiefs of fifties. [When] they saw that the chiefs of ten had shown them honor, the chiefs of fifty said, ‘[In our case] also there are those greater than us.’ So also [they came before] the chiefs of hundreds, the chiefs of thousands, and the princes. They all responded to them in a similar way, because they did not want to open their mouths before one who was greater than them. [So] they went in front of Elazar. He said to them, Behold there is Moses our teacher’ These and those came in front of Moses. Moses said, ‘If I tell them the decision, I shall be appropriating the greatness.’ He said to them, ‘In my case also there is One greater than I.’ Therefore (in Numb. 27:5), ‘Moses brought their cause [before the Lord].’” He answered him with (in vs. 7), “The daughters of Zelophehad speak correctly.” Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, acknowledged their utterance. (Numb. 27:7, cont.) “You shall indeed grant them [possession of an inheritance among the brothers of their father]”: Give them [also] chattel and their father's birthright in the assets of Hepher. They took three portions: The portion of their father, who was among those who had come out from Egypt; his portion with his brothers in the assets of Hepher; and since he was the first born, he took two portions. Another interpretation (of Numb. 27:7), “you shall indeed grant them [possession of an inheritance among the brothers of their father]”: After they [already] received [their share] on the other side of the Jordan, they came before Joshua and Elazar in the land of Canaan, as stated (in Josh. 17:4), “Now they (i.e., the daughters of Zelophehad) came before Elazar the priest, Joshua ben Nun, and the princes and said, ‘The Lord commanded Moses [to give us an inheritance along with our male kin’].” Moreover, our ancestor Jacob also knew that they were receiving [an inheritance] on this side [of the Jordan as well as on that side], since it is stated (in Gen. 49:22), “daughters¹⁴English versions generally read “boughs” or the like. step over a wall.” This [wall] is the Jordan, which became a wall [for Moses] so that he would not enter the land. Thus Jacob said to Joseph, “Your daughters shall receive a share on this [side of the Jordan] as well as on that [side].” (Numb. 27:7, cont.) “And you shall transfer to them the inheritance of their father”: With reference to inheritance of a son it is stated (in vs. 9), “and you shall give,” but with reference to a daughter, [it says (in vs. 8),] “and you shall transfer.”¹⁵The Hebrew is slightly different here from what is written in vs. 7. There the word you is singular while here the “you” is plural, as in vs. 8. Thus she may transfer an inheritance from tribe to tribe.¹⁶So BB 109b. (Numb. 27:11) “And it shall be a statutory judgment for the Children of Israel”: [The word judgment] teaches that inheritances [can only] be carried out through judges.

(Bamidbar 27:8) "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying": This tells us only of the immediate situation (i.e., that of Tzelafchad's daughters). Whence do we derive (the same for) future generations? From "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: A man, if he die, and he have no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter." Rebbi says: In all instances (of inheritance) the term "giving" is used, but in this instance "passing" is the term employed. For only a daughter can "pass" an inheritance (from one tribe to another), her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e., what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written "then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter." Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)? And whence is it derived that the son's daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e., an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations! Whence is it derived that females stand in the place of males (in all the "inheritances" of the Torah)? It follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons inherit and the brothers of the (deceased) father inherit, then just as with sons, females are equated with males, so, with all inheritors, females are equated with males. And just as with sons, males take precedence to females, so, with all inheritors, males take precedence to females. And just as with redeemers (of land) sons are equated with their fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with all inheritors, sons are equated with their fathers. And whence is it derived that a daughter inherits (her mother's possessions)? It is written (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc." This tells me only of a daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter, whose power (of inheritance) is attenuated where there is a son, inherits (her mother), how much more so, a son! And whence is it derived that a man inherits his wife? From (Ibid. 27:11) "… and he shall inherit (lit.,) her." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.", and (Ibid. 7) "And an inheritance of the children of Israel shall not go around from tribe to tribe," and (Joshua 24:33) "And Elazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Pinchas, his son … in the mountain of Ephraim." Now whence did Pinchas have (land) in the mountain of Ephraim? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Ephraim, who died and whom he inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles 2:22) "And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad." Now whence did Yair have (land) in the land of Gilad? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Menasheh, who died and whom he inherited.

Variantly: "and they bear him sons": Sons come under this ordinance (of bechor) and not daughters. Because we find that daughters divide the inheritance where there are no brothers, (viz. Bamidbar 27:8), we might think that this ordinance obtains with them (as well as with sons); it is, therefore, written "and they bear him sons" — Sons come under this ordinance and not daughters.