Комментарий о цитате к Шмот 6:8

It is possible to understand the word מורשה as referring to the land of Israel so that the meaning of the whole verse is: “due to the merit of Torah which Moses commanded us, we inherited the land of Israel of which it is written: ‘I give it to you as an inheritance I am the Lord’” (Exodus 6,8). The land becomes the inheritance of the community of Yaakov as a result of these people observing its commandments. If we were to transgress its commandments we would be exiled and be deprived of it.
The word מורשה, as distinct from ירושה, refers to something which is continuously to be passed on as an heritage to future generations [as distinct from a normal heritage which the owner could give away during his lifetime without passing it on to his heirs. Ed.].
We find the expression מוריש ומעשיר “G’d makes poor (as opposed to ‘bestows as inheritance’) and enriches” (apparently simultaneously) something that appears very contradictory, in Samuel I 2,7 in Chanah’s prayer. This is not the only word in the Torah which appears to have opposite meanings on occasion. One such example is Numbers 4,13 ודשנו את המזבח, which at first glance could either mean: “and they will clean the altar” (from the remains of pre previous offerings), or it could mean that the priests were to provide the altar with fat, i.e. the fattest, best animals. Everything depends on the intention. When the community of Yaakov relates positively to the Torah, the land of Israel will “behave” positively toward the Jewish people, they will enjoy it as a bountiful inheritance. If the Jewish people disdain the Torah, the land of Israel will disdain the Jewish people. [The dual meaning of דשן when applied to G’d’s Altar, can have similar allegorical meaning. Ed.]

This verse explains that My statutes and My laws bring life to those who practice them — life in this world, and life in the World to Come. Whoever grasps the inner meaning of God’s laws will enjoy eternal life, and never die. Accordingly, the verse concludes with I am God, as I have explained [comment on Exodus 6:8].

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?

נשבע לך HE SWORE UNTO THEE — And where did He swear this unto thee? (Exodus 6:8) “And I will bring you unto the land concerning which I did lift up my hand etc.” (cf. Rashi on this verse where he explains that “lifting up the hand” denotes taking an oath) (Mekhilta).

that You raised Your hand with an oath, like (Exod. 6:8): “...which I raised My hand to give it.”