Comentário sobre Números 27:1

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.

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. "