Halakhah sobre Números 27:27

And now I will begin mentioning each and every commandment, and I will explain their designation - as we set our goal at the beginning of our essay - for this is the intention of the book. Behold that I find it proper to add an addition to this intention: And that is that when I mention the commandment for which one receives a punishment - whether it be a positive or a negative commandment - I will mention its punishment. And I will say, "One who transgresses it will be liable for death, or excision, or a certain sacrifice, or lashes, or one of the death penalties of the court or payments." And you should know that that about which we do not mention any punishment: If it is a negative commandment, it is like that which they said, "It is like he is transgressing the commandment of the King," such that it is not for us to punish him. However with all positive commandments - whenever one is obligated to do one of them, we should give lashes to the one who refrains from doing it until he dies or does it. But if the time [for it] has passed, we refrain from this. Like, for instance, with one who transgressed and did not dwell in a sukkah - we do not give him lashes after Sukkot for his transgression. And know this. And also when I mention commandments for which women are not obligated - both positive and negative commandments - I will say this: "And women are not obligated in it." However it is well known that women do not judge, or testify, or bring sacrifices on their own or fight optional wars. So for all commandments that are contingent upon the court, or witnesses, or the Temple service or optional wars, I do not need to say, "And women are not obligated in this." For this [would be] extraneous speech and there is no need for it. Moreover, when I mention commandments that are only practiced in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple - be they positive or negative commandments - I will say, "These are only obligated in the Land of Israel or in the presence of the Temple." However, it is also well known that all of the sacrifices are only done in the Temple and that the Temple service is only permitted in [its] courtyard; and likewise that capital punishments are only judged when the Temple is standing. And the language of the Mekhilta is, "From where [do we know] that we only sentence to death in the presence of the Temple? [Hence] we learn to say, 'from My altar you will take him to die' (Exodus 21:14) - behold, if you have the Temple you put him to death, if you don't have the Temple you do not put him to death." And there it also says, "From where do we know that the Sanhedrin needs to be close to the altar? As it is stated, 'from My altar.'" And it is also known that both prophecy and monarchy have departed from us until we refrain from our constant transgressions. And then He will atone for us and be merciful to us - as He set out - and bring them back, as it is stated (Joel 2:28), "And it will be after that, I will pour My spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy." And regarding the return of the monarchy, He said, "On that day I will restore the fallen sukkah of David, and I will repair its breaches, etc., I will build it as in the days of old" (Amos 9:11). And it is well known that war and conquering of the cities cannot be without a king and without the counsel of the Great Sanhedrin and without a high priest, as it is stated (Numbers 27:21), "And he shall present himself in front of Elazar the Priest." And hence all of these are well-known to most people - all the positive or negative commandments that are contingent upon sacrifices, Temple rituals, capital punishments, the Sanhedrin, a prophet, a king or optional wars - so that I will not need to say about it, "This is only obligated in the presence of the Temple," since it is [already] clear, as we explained. But, with God's help, I will draw attention to that about which it is possible to have a doubt and about which some would err. And now I will begin the mentioning of each and every commandment of the Omnipresent.

Although Torah law dictates that wives do not inherit their husbands’ estates and that daughters inherit nothing from a testator who has sons, the most commonly desired distribution today is for sons and daughters to share equally in the estate and for one’s wife (if she is the mother of his children) to inherit the entire estate if he predeceases her. How can one achieve this personal objective without violating the halachic requirements of yerushah? One cannot simply stipulate that he wants his wife¹Rav Mordechai Willig notes (in an essay entitled “Inheritance Without a Fight,” available at www.torahweb.org) that in the common case of joint ownership of a home or other assets, the surviving spouse probably is the owner according to the Halachah as well (as we discussed in an earlier chapter). and/or daughters to inherit, as Halachah regards this as an invalid stipulation (Bava Batra 8:5). Even though we accept the opinion of Rabi Yehudah that “B’davar sheb’mamon tena’o kayam” (monetary stipulations are valid even if they contradict Torah law; Bava Metzia 94a and Shulchan Aruch E.H. 38:5), stipulations made in contradiction to the Torah rules of yerushah are invalid. The Rambam (Hilchot Nachalot 6:1) explains that the Torah (Bemidbar 27:11) describes the rules of inheritance as “chukat mishpat” (a decree of judgment), meaning that it applies in all circumstances and cannot be overridden by stipulations.

The Torah (Bemidbar 27:8-11) outlines the halachic order of succession:

The extent to which Jews abided by the provisions of Jewish jurisprudence and were willing to forego recourse to non-Jewish courts even when a litigant would have found it financially advantageous to do so is reflected in a statement of R. Chaim Pelaggi, Masa Hayyim, ma'arekhet dalet, no. 23, in which he reports that from his earliest youth and throughout his life in the city of Izmir he never heard of an instance in which a person sought to enforce a claim to a share in the estate of a deceased to which he or she was not entitled according to the laws of the Torah, despite the fact that such a claim would have been routinely recognized by the Turkish courts of the time. One contemporary writer has remarked that "even today, among the orthodox everywhere from New York to Bombay, it was considered a disgrace for a Jew to summon a fellow Jew before the courts of the land."³George Horowitz, The Spirit of Jewish Law (New York, 1973), p. 651. This is not to say that instinctive obedience to Halakhah in all its facets was uniform at all times and in all places. In some locales it was necessary to reinforce the statutory prohibition against seeking redress in a secular judicial forum, particularly with regard to matters of inheritance, by issuing formal bans against such conduct.⁴See Teshuvot Maharashdam, Even ha-Ezer, no. 131. Rabbi Jacob Kuli, Yalkut Me-am Lo'ez, Numbers 27:11, found it necessary to warn that, in the long run, not only will a person fail to profit from a recovery in a civil court, but he will be punished by loss of his fortune as well.

The question of whether a preemptive war is included in the category of milḥemet mizvah or milḥemet reshut is crucial with regard to yet another aspect of Halakhah. The Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2a, stipulates that a discretionary war may be undertaken only upon the acquiescence of the Great Sanhedrin composed of seventy-one members. A subsequent Mishnah, Sanhedrin 20a, implies that a discretionary war may be undertaken only by a monarch. Thus, a discretionary war cannot be justified unless undertaken by the king⁴Ramban, addenda to Rambam’s Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 4, states that the requirement that war be undertaken only by a king must be understood as including not only a monarch but any sovereign authority. Thus he states that war may be undertaken by “a king, a judge or whosoever exercises jurisdiction over the people.” For sources discussing Rambam’s possible disagreement regarding this point, see Contemporary Halakhic Problems, II, 207, note 27. with the permission of the Great Sanhedrin.⁵Rabbi Judah Gershuni, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XIII (5731), 150f., advances the thesis that approval of the Sanhedrin is required only if the monarch finds it necessary to compel the populace to go to war and to conscript soldiers against their will, but that when the nation voluntarily agrees to go to battle approval of the Sanhedrin is not required. A similar view is advanced by Einayim la-Mishpat, Sanhedrin 16a. This view is supported by the comments of Me’iri, Sanhedrin 16a, who remarks that approval of the Sanhedrin is required in order to compel the populace to go out to battle. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, no. 145, and R. Saul Israeli, Amud ha-Yemini, no. 14 and no. 16, chap. 5, secs. 6-7. Cf., Amud ha-Yemini, no. 16, chap. 5, sec. 24. Moreover, in the context of a discussion of discretionary war, the Gemara, Berakhot 3b and Sanhedrin 16a, declares that the king may not undertake military action other than upon the approval of the urim ve-tumim.⁶Upon the twelve precious stones of the urim ve-tumim were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. In response to a specific query, various letters became illuminated. By means of the Divine Spirit the High Priest was enabled to combine the letters in order to discern the intended response.
Since no discretionary war could be undertaken other than upon approval of the urim ve-tumim, even discretionary war must be deemed to be undertaken with explicit divine approval and, conversely, no war could be undertaken other than with such divine sanction. Thus Abigail addresses King David and declares, “… for the Lord will certainly make a sure house for my lord because my lord fights the battles of the Lord” (I Samuel 25:28). Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 7:15, cites this verse and applies it to discretionary wars in stating:
Moreover, many ritual prohibitions are suspended even when discretionary wars are fought. Thus, once a discretionary war has been undertaken, it is permissible to wage such war on the Sabbath and combatants are permitted to partake of forbidden foods. The woman of “beautiful countenance” described in Deuteronomy 20:11 is permitted only to combatants engaged in discretionary wars but not to those engaged in commanded wars. It is thus clearly evident that even discretionary wars, when undertaken in accordance with the prescriptions of Halakhah, must be understood as undertaken by virtue of divine mandate. See Hilkhot Medinah, II, sha’ar 4, chapter 1, sec. 6. Indeed, Mekom Shmu’el, no. 8, suggests that the term “reshut” should be understood not as “permitted” or “discretionary” but as “licensed” or “sanctioned” in the sense that such war requires reshut Bet Din, i.e., sanction of the Sanhedrin, as distinct from wars that are obligatory by reason of explicit scriptural mandate. Although in Hilkhot Melakhim Rambam fails to mention consultation of the urim ve-tumim as a necessary precondition,⁷Cf., R. Yechiel Michael Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid, Hilkhot Mela-khim 74:7, who suggests that, even with regard to discretionary wars, consultation of the urim ve-tumim, although biblically mandated, is “perhaps” not a necessary condition of war. Although consultation of the urim ve-tumim constitutes a miẓvah and is required by virtue of biblical command, failure to engage in prior consultation, contends Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid, does not affect the legitimacy of the war itself. See also, Le-Or ha-Halakhah, p. 12, and cf., Einayim la-Mishpat, Sanhedrin 16a. nevertheless, in the introduction to his Sefer ha-Mizvot, shoresh 14, Rambam does state that a High Priest is required for the undertaking of war; i.e., the king and the Sanhedrin may not undertake military action other than upon acquiescence of the urim ve-tumim which is attached to the breast-plate worn by the High Priest. Hence, absent a High Priest⁸See, however, Rambam’s reference to the function of the urim ve-tumim in Hilkhot Klei ha-Mikdash 10:11. who can consult the urim ve-tumim, offensive war in conformity with the stipulations of Jewish law is impossible. Ramban, in his addenda to Rambam's Sefer ha-Mizvot, mizvot lo ta'aseh, no. 17, declares that the requirement for consultation and approval of the urim ve-tumim is not limited to discretionary wars but applies with equal force to obligatory wars as well.⁹Rashi, in his commentary on the verse “and he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the decree of the Urim before the Lord” (Numbers 27:21), remarks that “even Joshua” was required to consult the urim ve-tumim “when he had need to go out to battle.” Since the wars of Joshua were all commanded wars, i.e., for the conquest of the territory inhabited by the Seven Nations, it must be inferred that Rashi agrees with Rambam in maintaining that consultation of the urim ve-tumim was necessary even in conjunction with commanded wars. See R. Judah Gershuni, Mishpat ha-Melukhah, Hilkhot Melak-him 5:2.
For a discussion of whether war against Amalek requires consultation of the urim ve-tumim, see R. Judah Gershuni, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XIII (5731); cf., Contemporary Halakhic Problems, I, 16-18.

The commandment of the laws of inheritance: That we were commanded with the laws of inheritances; that is, that it is a commandment upon us to act and rule in the matter of inheritance, as the Torah ruled about it, as it is stated (Numbers 27:8-9), "If a man dies and has no son, you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter. And if he has no daughter, etc." And the end of the section [is], "and this shall be for the Children of Israel as an eternal statute, as the Lord commanded Moshe." But do not think that its stating in this that in the matter of inheritance we act as the Torah ruled about it, means to say that a man is commanded by God to give what he has to his heirs in all cases; as God, blessed be He, did not wish to extract the properties of a person from his control, for the sake of his heir, that he should not do all of his desire [with them], so long as his soul is in him, as [is the view] of the wise men of the nations. Rather, it informs us that the right of the heirs is entwined with the property of their [progenitor]. And [so] when the [ownership] of the bequeather elapses with his death, the right of the heirs immediately rests upon them; like the matter of procreation that the Creator, blessed be He, wanted without interruption. Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, designated this right of assertion of the heir in the properties of his bequeather, with the expression, "touching," as in the expression in their statement in many places (e. g. Bava Batra 115b), "Inheritance touches and continues." [This] means that the right of the heir upon the bequeather is like two bodies clinging to each other, such that what comes out from one, rests upon the other.

And we never set up a sanhedrin - whether big or small - except [with] ordained judges. And Moshe, our teacher, ordained Yehoshua, his student, with his hands (by pressing his hands upon him), as it is written (Numbers 27:23), "He pressed his hands upon him." And likewise, he ordained the seventy elders that he gathered to himself; and those elders ordained others, and others, others, until the end of all those ordained. However the ordination of all the generations was not with the hand, like the ordination of Moshe; but rather they would check if the one they wanted to ordain was an expert in the wisdom of the Torah and if he was healthy and complete in his intellect and if was a man that loves truth and hates wrongdoing and all of its content. And after great investigation into his makeup and his wisdom, three ordained sages - or even if only one of them was ordained - would say to him, "Behold, you are ordained." And from that time, they call him, "rabbi," and he has permission afterwards to even adjudicate cases of penalties. And the law that a judge [who is] very old, a eunuch, blind even in one of his eyes or does not have children is not fit to be on a sanhedrin; the law that the kings of the House of David judge and we judge them, but not the [other] kings of Israel, since they are not assumed to be fit like [the House of David]; the law [about] until when the Great Sanhedrin or a small one or a court of three sit [in judgement]; and the rest of its details are [all] elucidated in Tractate Sanhedrin.

“The order of the reading of the Torah and of circumcision on Yom Kippur” - Containing six paragraphs.
We take out (from the ark) two Torah scrolls.¹⁶⁸Two Torah scrolls are taken out on the festivals because portions from two separate sections of the Torah are read. The Torahs can be set before hand so that they can be opened to the correct portion without the necessity of rolling the scroll from one portion to the next. In the first Torah six men read from the portion “אחרי מות”, (Leviticus 16:1-18:30) until “and he did as the Lord commanded (Moses)”, (Leviticus 16:34). But if (Yom Kippur) falls on Shabbat, seven (men read from the first Torah), and the Maftir¹⁶⁹Maftir, מפטיר, means literally "one who concludes". It is the name given to the man who is the last to read in the Torah and he also usually reads the haftarah (see footnote 170), the section of the prophets that corresponds to the Torah reading. Maftir is also the name given to the three or more concluding verses of the regular weekly Torah portion as well as to the final verses read on festivals and public fast days.
Editorial Staff, E. J., v. 11, p. 685. (the last reader) reads from the second (Torah scroll) from the portion, Pinḥas, (Numbers 25:10-30:1), the section “and you shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month”, (Numbers 29:7-11). The Maftir (the Haftarah section from the Prophets¹⁷⁰The Haftarah, הפטרה, is a portion from the Prophets section of the Bible read after the Torah is read on Sabbaths, festivals, and fast days. On Sabbaths and festivals the haftarah is read during the Morning, Shaḥarit Service (see footnote 17), but on fast days it is read only during the Afternoon, Minḥah Service (see footnote 40). The exception to this is Yom Kippur and Tishah be-Av (see footnote 102) where there is a haftarah after the Torah reading in both the Morning and the Afternoon Service.
The Torah in its regular portions is read straight through during the year but such is not the case on festivals and some special Sabbaths. The haftarot are selected in parts from both the Former and Latter Prophets. Only two prophetic books are read in their entirety as haftarot, the Book of Obadiah which has only twenty-one verses and is read after the Torah portion Va-Yishlaḥ (Genesis 32:4-36-43) according to the Sephardi rite, and the Book of Jonah which is the haftarah for the Minḥah Service on Yom Kippur (see the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 622:2).
Haftarot were usually selected so there would be some similarity in content between the Pentateuchal and the Prophetic portions, but often this did not happen and haftarot were chosen because of historical events or because of some special date. Special haftarot are read on special Sabbaths and the haftarah for each festival is based on the nature of the festival.
When the custom of reading the haftarah got started is not known for sure, but it is thought that it began during the persecutions of the Antiochus Epiphanes which preceded the Hasmonean revolt. The Torah was not permitted to be read by the Jews during the persecution for it was felt that the reading of it kept the Jews together and gave them a special strength. As a substitute for the Torah reading, sections form the Prophets were chosen that would remind the Jews of the corresponding Torah portion. Appearantly when the ban against reading the Torah was lifted, the practice of reading the haftarah continued. The first mention of the practice of the reading of the haftarah is found in the New Testament. Acts 13:15 states, "after the reading of the law and the prophets". Haftarot are also discussed in the Talmud as to which are to be read at specific times and festivals. In Mishnaic times different communities read different haftarot, and a set order was probably not established until talmudic times. Some haftarot today differ from those recorded in the Talmud, and there are differences in the Sephardi and Ashkenazi rites.
The maftir, the one who reads the haftarah also reads the last part of the weekly portion, (i.e., the Torah reader reads it for him). On the Sabbath, after the seventh reader from the Torah, the maftir usually rereads the last three verses of the weekly portion. On festivals and the four special Sabbaths, the maftir reads the special section from the second scroll which is usually a short description of of the festival found in the Torah. Before the haftarah is read (or chanted) the maftir precedes the haftarah with two blessings and after he ends the haftarah he recites three blessings to which a fourth one is added on Sabbaths and festivals. This fourth blessing changes with the nature of the day. The Sabbath haftarah usually has a minimum of twenty-one verses while the festival has at least fifteen verses. Lately it has become the custom for the Bar Mitzvah boy (a man upon reaching the age of thirteen) to chant the haftarah to display his ability with a Hebrew text.
Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, E. J., v. 16, pp. 1342-44.) comes from Isaiah, “and shall say, cast you up, cast you up, prepare the way” until “for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it”, (Isaiah 57:14-58:14).