Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Bilang 26:33

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.

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.