Comentário sobre Números 27:4

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.