פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף במדבר 36:8

So far a daughter²³In all paragraphs dealing with the laws of inheritance, Num. 27:6–11, 36:8–9, Deut. 21:15–17, only the father is mentioned. One might infer that these laws do not apply to the mother’s estate. Since Num. 36:8 mentions the daughter as heiress, one infers that the daughter inherits from her mother (Sifry Num. 134).. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe²⁴Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna²⁵One has to read Rebbi Huna; the second generation Babylonian Rav Huna could not sit in a court together with two Galilean fourth generation judges, even though in the Babli, 111a, Rav Huna is reported to have erroneously followed R. Zachariah., Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman²⁶From here it seems that “bar Naḥman” was his family name. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. ²⁴Babli 111a; Tosephta 7:10. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He²⁷R. Yannai. the senior authority. said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son²⁸This is R. Yudan the Prince’s objection.? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him²⁹Probably one should read, parallel to the Babli: He said to R. Joḥanan; since the student R. Joḥanan could not tell his teacher R. Yannai to insult the patriarch to his face., let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear⁵⁰The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Ex. 20:16 and Deut. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”⁵¹The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Babli, Šebuot 20b, this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut. 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep⁵²From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num. 3; a radically different one in Babli Ḥulin109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together⁵³The first verse is Ex. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Num. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover⁵⁴Lev. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her⁵⁵Deut. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together⁵⁶On the face of it, both verses, Num. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Num. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Num. 36:8–9 is the exception from Num. 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together⁵⁷In Deut. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Num. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says⁵⁸Ps. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”