Numbers · Chapter 27

The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, of the lineage of Manasseh son of Joseph, drew near — and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.

למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף OF THE FAMILIES OF MANASSEH THE SON OF JOSEPH — Why is this stated? Has it not already been said בן מנשה, and consequently we know that they belonged to the family of Manasseh the son of Joseph?! But it is to suggest the following idea to you: Just as Joseph held the Promised Land dear, as it is said, (Genesis 50:25) “And ye shall bring my bones up (to Palestine) from hence”, so, too, his daughters held the Land dear, as it is said, (v. 4) “Give us an inheritance”; and further to teach you that they were righteous all of them (everyone here mentioned in the pedigree), for in every case where a person’s doings and his ancestors’ doings are nowhere plainly described and Scripture somewhere enters into the details of the pedigree in respect to one of them, tracing his genealogy back to someone worthy of praise, it is evident that the person in question is himself a righteous man and a son of a righteous father. But if it gives his genealogy in connection with something deserving of reprobation, — as, for example, (2 Kings 25:25) “Ishmael the son of Nethanian the son of Elishama came … and smote Gedaliah”, then it is quite certain that all who are mentioned in connection with him were wicked people (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1). 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).

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד, The daughters of Tzelofchod approached, etc. The reason the Torah writes the additional word ותקרבנה and was not satisfied with writing ותעמדנה in verse two is that before appearing before Moses they consulted with each other and had become convinced that they had a valid claim. למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, "of the families of Menashe the son of Joseph, etc." This means that they consulted the elders of their tribe for reasons of common courtesy. Perhaps when the Torah wrote בנותיו this is a hint that they based themselves on the expression איש לפי פקודיו, "each man according to the number that had been counted (in his family)." Sifri on that expression interprets the word איש as excluding women. The daughters of Tzelofchod challenged that ruling. ותקרבנה, "they approached;" this tells us that actually they were quite bashful, hesitant to appear before Moses himself. Once they had consulted with the משפחות מנשה they shed their veil of timidity and stood upright facing Moses. According to the opinion that we are dealing with a mutilated verse and that they found themselves unable to face Moses, we must interpret that after they turned to the elders of their own tribe they developed sufficient self-assurance to face Moses directly. 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....

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד בן חפר, “The daughters of Tz’lofchod son of Chefer, approached; when they realised that only the males were being counted preparatory to the division of the land in the Land of Israel, including those of the family of Chefer, but not including them, and Tz’lofchod their father had also not been included.

למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף, “of the family of Menashe, son of Joseph.” The reason the Torah went out of its way to trace the ancestry of these girls all the way back to Joseph was their fondness of the land of Israel, a fondness which had also characterized their ancestor Joseph who had commanded his surviving brothers to take his remains with them to the Holy Land when the time of the redemption from Egypt would arrive (Genesis 50,28). Furthermore, this teaches that all the ancestors of the daughters of Tzelofchod were righteous seeing that we have a rule that when the Bible mentions a person to his credit and it mentions his ancestors without reporting anything specific about the deeds of his or her ancestors, both he and his ancestors may be presumed to have been righteous, i.e. a צדיק בן צדיק. If, on the other hand, that person is singled out because of something improper he had done and the Torah also mentions the names of his ancestors without describing them as meritorious, it is clear that not only he but also these ancestors were wicked. The classic example is found in Kings II 25,25: “Yishmael, son of Natanya son of Elishama of royal descent came with ten men and murdered Gedalyah.” You may be certain that not only this Yishmael but also all the forebears of his who are listed were wicked people.

And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders and all the congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, saying:

לפני משה ולפני אלעזר [AND THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE ELEAZAR [THE PRIEST] — The fact that they approached Eleazar the Priest and not Aaron tells us that they stood before them (i.e., that this incident occurred) only (not earlier than) in the fortieth year after the Exodus indeed after Aaron’s death (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). לפני משה [THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES, and afterwards לפני אלעזר, BEFORE ELEAZAR?! But is it possible if Moses did not know what reply to give them that Eleazar should know it? Rather, invert the words of the text and so expound it (before Eleazar and before Moses). This is the view of R. Josiah; but Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar that this inversion is unnecessary: they were sitting in the House of Study and they (the daughters of Zelophehad) stood before all of those who were present (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3; Bava Batra 119b and Rashi on Numbers 9:6).

ותעמדנה לפני משה, They stood before Moses, etc. I have explained the argument between Rabbi Abba Chanan and Rabbi Yoshiah on Numbers 9,6 concerning the question if one accords honour to a learned student in the presence of his teacher or not. I also mentioned there why these two Rabbis also disagreed concerning the meaning of our verse here (see my translation page 1396). When you review what I have written there you will understand why the Torah here mentions the presence of Eleazar, the princes, and the entire congregation although they certainly could not be expected to know an answer which even Moses did not know. The principal reason for the presence of this whole assembly of people was to ensure that they would all hear Moses' reply firsthand on an issue as sensitive as the right of inheritance of women. The Zohar on Balak comments as follows: The Israelites were guilty in the desert of having spoken out against Moses. They thought that Moses was full of hate or bore a grudge and this is why they approached him when he was in the presence of Eleazar, the princes and the heads of the various families. These words suggest that the reason that the daughters of Tzelofchod made a point of confronting Moses in the presence of all these people was that they were afraid Moses would harbour some feelings of hatred against them because of the sin their father had committed which had resulted in his having been executed. According to the Zohar the words וכל העדה refer to the heads of the community as it certainly would not have been within the power of these girls to assemble the whole people on account of their complaint or enquiry. Nonetheless we must try and understand how the Zohar could impute such base motives to either Moses or even the daughters of Tzelofchod. Why would girls who have been described as righteous by the Talmud assume that Moses had hatred in his heart against them or their late father? Perhaps all the Zohar had in mind was to describe normal human reactions. The Zohar itself writes that we learn from the example of the daughters of Tzelofchod that if one is afraid of the outcome of litigation one should ensure the presence of other people while one's case is being heard. Our sages in Baba Batra 119 already said that these girls were both extremely intelligent and pious. This means that they were quite certain that Moses would not rule unfairly because of any negative feelings he might harbour against them or their late father. It is possible that they were afraid that Moses would rule that just as the people who had complained in Parshat Beha-a-lotcha, as well as the spies who had forfeited their inheritance in the land because they had raised their voices against Moses and against G'd, Moses would rule similarly against them on account of the sin of their late father. To forestall this they assembled all these people so that they could side with the claim of their late father in order that Moses should not decide against th...

"Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the congregation that assembled against Hashem — in the congregation of Korah — for he died on account of his own sin, and he had no sons.

והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).

[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. “Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured, nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him.” This is Rashi’s language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: ‘Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!’ For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father’s sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal would not inherit in the Land. In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory, explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: “Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins.”

"And he was not" — The daughters calculated that they would not inherit as [would] the sons of those who assembled against Hashem. "For he died in his own sin" — R. Yehudah ha-Levi the Spaniard explained that the phrase "for he died in his own sin" is connected to "and he had no sons," as one says today, "through his sins such-and-such befell so-and-so" — and this [reading] is not far-fetched.

והוא לא היה, he was not a member of the rebellious people who had made common cause with Korach. Those people had been banished by Moses, i.e. disinherited by him, deprived not only of potential property but even of all their actual belongings, as we have been told in Numbers 16,26. The words כל הרכוש in verse 32 of that chapter make clear that they had forfeited all claims to anything. כי בחטאו מת, he died on account his personal sin, something that did not involve the claims of his heirs to his estate. [The daughters by saying this did not mean to malign their father; rather they meant to say that their father had completely atoned for his sin by his premature judicial execution. Gottlieb]

אבינו מת במדבר, "our father died in the desert, etc." The reason they said: "in the desert," was to emphasise that he did not die in Egypt because he was not worthy of the redemption. They wanted to establish immediately that their claim was based not only according to the opinion that the people who participated in the Exodus inherited the land but also according to the view of those who held that those present at the last census would inherit the land. Concerning those who held that the decisive factor was participation in the Exodus, they said that their father died in the desert, i.e. after the Exodus. By using the word במדבר, they also implied that he was amongst those whose death in the desert had been decreed by G'd as a result of the debacle with the spies when G'd had said (Numbers 14,29) "your carcasses will fall in the desert." This teaches that a) he had been over twenty years old at the time of the Exodus, and b) that he had not died as a result of a specific sin which carries the death penalty. According to those who held that the land was distributed in accordance with the people who participated in the latest census, they hinted that even those opinions were based on the inheritance first "returning" to the previous generation who had participated in the Exodus and that as a result they would be entitled to participate in the distribution. Furthermore, according to Zohar volume 2 page 157 where we were told that the desert was the domain of Samael/Satan and this was the reason people who committed sins were punished promptly, they indicated that had their father committed his particular sin in any place other than the desert his punishment would have been delayed giving him a chance to rehabilitate himself in time. In other words, they said that the only reason he died prematurely was that he was in the desert at the wrong time. Another way at looking at the word במדבר is to recall that the root of the word is דבר, speak. The daughters wanted to convince Moses that they harboured no enmity against him seeing that it was public knowledge that their father had spoken out publicly against G'd and Moses. This is why G'd had killed him; it was therefore quite impossible to imagine that they, the daughters, would hold Moses responsible for their father's death and would be afraid that he in turn might be prejudiced against them in their demand to share in the land distribution. As proof that their father's sin had not been that of the people who had followed the majority report of the spies, they stated outright that he had not died as part of the עדה, the ten spies whom G'd had described as an "evil congregation" in Numbers 14,27. According to Sifri the term עדה רעה also included the people reported as complaining in Numbers chapter 11, as well as the supporters of Korach. Tzelofchod had not been one of any of these, the daughters said. They emphasised that בחטאו מת, that their father had died on account of his individual sin, not c...

והוא לא היה בתוך העדה, “and he had not been among the rebels in the uprising of Korach against Moses;” neither had he been twenty years of age when the debacle with the spies had occurred, so that he could not have been included in the Israelites that G-d had vowed that they would not live to take part in the conquest on the land of Canaan at the appointed time. He had died as the result of a very personal sin, none that would result in his being denied a claim to ancestral land in the Land lof Israel.

אבינו מת במדבר, “our father died in the desert but he had not been,” etc. According to Nachmanides the reason that these girls pointed out that their father’s death had not had any connection with the death of Korach and his rebels was that Moses should not hate them on account of their father having participated in the rebellion against him. They thought that it was only natural that Moses hated Korach more than any other sinners as those people had denied any of Moses’ accomplishments. If he were to judge their request he might be influenced by such considerations. He might even pray to G’d not to grant any special favors to the offspring of such a rebel. We find such a sentiment in Psalms 109,12 where David prays to G’d not to show kindness to Haman or his sons on account of any kindness Haman had ever performed for anyone in his life. These girls also hinted that their father had not died as the result of the pestilence which had killed thousands of Israelites, but that he had died in the desert in his bed. Thus far Nachmanides’ commentary, described as based on the plain meaning of the text. כי בחטאו מת, “rather, he died due to an individual sin committed by him (only).” He was no different from many other people who died on account of individual sins, not connected to some collective misdemeanor. Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi points out that the words כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו, “for he died on account of his sin and he had no sons,” are linked together by the cantillation and imply that the fact that he had no sons was linked to the sin which caused his death.

והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה', “and he had not been among the assembly that had assembled against Hashem, etc.’” The daughters of Tzelofchod had to state publicly that their father had not been a member of the rebels with Korach who had at any rate forfeited their claim to ancestral land in the land of Israel, they had to mention that their father had died on account of another sin. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, the reason that these girls mentioned that their father had not been a member of the gang of rebels with Korach was that they thought that Moses must surely hate anyone who had been connected with that group, as they had targeted him personally in their uprising and incitement of the people against him. They were therefore afraid of not getting a fair hearing from him. They also had to hint that their father had not died during the plague G’d had sent on several occasions in which groups of Israelites had been killed. This is why they had to mention that he had died as a result of a sin committed as an individual, not as part of a group. כי בחטאו מת, “but he died as the direct result of his personal sin.” They meant that he had died in the desert and therefore could not cross the Jordan and take possession of his ancestral heritage. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, the famous poet, comments that the word בחטאו is to be understood as belonging to the words ובנים לא היו לו, meaning that part of his punishment was that he was not granted male offspring. Many people attribute the fact that they have been denied certain normal blessings in life to the fact that they had been guilty of some sin, as a result of which G’d denied them these blessings.

Why should the name of our father be withheld from his lineage because he had no son? Give us an inheritance among our father's brothers."

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). 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).

"For he has no son" — Because he has no son.

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...

And Moses brought their case before Hashem.

ויקרב משה את משפטן AND MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE [BEFORE THE LORD] — The law on this subject escaped him (Sanhedrin 8a). Here he received punishment because he had assumed a “crown” (he had set himself up as the supreme judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17) “And the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring to me”. Another explanation: This chapter ought to have been written by Moses (i.e., like most laws in the Torah it should have been spoken to the people by Moses without his having waited until some incident made its promulgation necessary), but for the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad had so much merit, it was therefore written through them (it was their complaint which gave occasion for stating it) (Bava Batra 119a; Sanhedrin 8a).

ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם, "Moses submitted their claim for G'd to adjudge." It is possible, that Moses used the last mentioned arguments of these daughters and wanted to know from G'd if to treat these girls as the missing sons or if to treat their mother as a potential candidate for some kind of levirate marriage in order to preserve the name of their father. Moses hoped that in the event G'd would deny them an inheritance, He would at the same time give him a reason why the principle underlying the levirate marriage legislation did not apply to them, i.e. why their mother could not marry a brother-in-law and the son born from such a marriage would inherit Tzelofchod's or Chefer's inheritance. Another way of explaining Moses' action may be based on something reported in the name of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni in Baba Batra 119. This rabbi said that Moses was fully aware that the daughters of Tzelofchod were entitled to inherit land in the Holy Land. What Moses did not know was if they were also entitled to inherit a second share in lieu of the share their grandfather had inherited by reason of his being a firstborn. Actually, the whole paragraph dealing with the laws of inheritance should have been written by Moses; the reason it was written as a result of the claim presented by the daughters of Tzelofchod was because these daughters were very meritorious so that they became the catalyst of this legislation being presented at this point. Moses also knew that the מקשש עצים was guilty of the death penalty seeing the Torah had written that he who desecrates the Sabbath is to be executed (Exodus 31,15); he only did not know which of the four death penalties he was to apply. The reason that portion was written as a direct result of the sin of the מקשש was to teach that if the Torah wishes to confer an entitlement on someone it chooses as an example people who are the beneficiaries of that entitlement. Similarly, when there was an immediate need for the Torah to legislate guilt it chose a person who was guilty under the heading of that legislation to be the catalyst for revealing this legislation. Thus far Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni. Tossaphot comment that although the whole legislation about inheritance had not yet been divulged, Moses knew all about the argument the daughters of Tzelofchod presented, i.e. that they wished to be treated either as sons or that their mother should be allowed to marry a brother-in-law. This sounds very puzzling. We have learned in Zevachim 115 that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael argued about the order in which the written Torah was recorded. Both Rabbis agree, however, that both the general rules as well as their applications were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. According to what we just read in Baba Batra it sounds as if portions of the Torah had not been revealed to Moses even in the last months of his life after Aaron had died already! Why else would the Torah describe the daughters of Tzelofchod as appearing in t...

ויקרב משה את משפטן, “he submitted their legal claim to G-d;” Moses knew that women are entitled to inherit. What he did not know or agreed with, was if people such as Tz’lofchod had only a potential claim to such land, and that seeing that he never set foot on the land that he was still entitled to pass on that claim to his daughters.

ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני ה', “Moses presented their judicial claim to the Lord.” Some commentators feel that the reason that Moses disqualified himself from presiding over the court dealing with the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchod was precisely because they had made a point of stating that their father had not been someone who had personally hated, i.e. opposed Moses. If he were to judge their case he might be accused of being prejudiced in their favour as a result of their having made such a statement. I do not believe that this is plausible at all. If this evaluation were correct Moses did not have to turn to G’d but could have let this case be decided by a tribunal from which he personally had excused himself. The truth of the matter is that the reason why Moses turned to G’d is that he himself had forgotten the law on the subject. If he did not know, the less learned judges most certainly would not know either. Seeing that the problem was not complicated and could have been resolved by simply using one’s intellect, and even the Gentile courts have solved it satisfactorily, Moses is faulted for not having known the law on this point. He, who had once said: “if a matter is to difficult for you, present it to me for a decision” (Deut. 31,17) was now denied knowledge of a relatively simple point in law, one that even women were able to work out for themselves. This is why Moses had to present the case of these daughters of Tzelofchod to G’d for a decision. The reason that the final letter ן is written especially large in the word משפטן, is a hint to a Torah scholar who is an outstanding scholar and who has studied not only Torah but also other disciplines, not to preside over a case in the presence of a scholar who outranks him in wisdom. Rather, if he is asked to preside over a case, he is to present this case to the authority on the subject. We learn this from Moses who did not sit in judgment of a case when he was not certain of the law but presented the case to the Expert, i.e. to Hashem. If you accept the premise that Moses did not know the law on this point challenged by the daughters of Tzelofchod, surely we must ask how a person such as Moses who had been described by Hashem as בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is thoroughly at home and trusted in My entire House,” did not know such a simple law as that when there are no sons the daughters have precedence over the brothers of the deceased or his father? This statement surely included the fact that Moses was an expert in all the most difficult laws of the Torah! How could he have failed to know this simple halachah? We must assume that he asked G’d in order to teach the scholars the lesson that if even he did not presume to preside over legislation which had not been spelled out but had to be arrived at by mere logic, then a scholar of lesser stature than himself must certainly not presume to determine a case on the basis of logic when there is a more experienced scholar who can decide it on the basis of precedent. Still, it is the opinion of our sages in Tanchuma Pinchas 9 that Moses had temporarily forgotten this halachah. In that case we may see in the enlarged letter ן at the end of the word משפטן a hint that the 50th level of insight had been denied Moses and that this level is so close to G’d Himself that it may be described as לפני ה' and not be included in the compliment that Moses was so familiar in the “House“ of Hashem. This may be the reason that the Torah added the words לפני ה' after the word משפטן. The Torah meant that just as the 50th level of insight was not attained by Moses so he did not know this particular ruling in the field of inheritance. Even though the reason presented by us for Moses not knowing the halachah in question is not the same (lack of deep knowledge) as saying that the reason it was withheld from him was a punishment for what had sounded a little arrogant at the time, both answers could be derived from the words את משפטן לפני ה'. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Pinchas 9. The daughters of Tzelofchod did not approach Moses, the High Priest and the elders in the first instance, but had first approached judges of lesser stature in order to give them due respect and not make them feel that they had been bypassed. The various levels of judges, i.e. chiefs of fifty, chiefs of a hundred, etc., also displayed their respect for the higher levels by passing the case on, progressively, through the judiciary system. When Moses observed how each layer of the judiciary preserved the honour of the next higher level of their colleagues, he in turn decided to do the same and he paid his respects to the law maker by presenting the case of the daughters of Tzelofchod to G’d Himself for a ruling. This is the only reason we find the Torah reporting that 'ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני ה', “Moses presented their litigation before the Lord.” Our sages in Baba Batra 119 state that although ordinarily this halachah should have been recorded as “written” by Moses, the fact that the daughters of Tzelofchod were careful to preserve the dignity of all the people possibly concerned with this legislation is presented as if it had been “written” by them.

And Hashem said to Moses, saying:

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לאמור, G'd told Moses to say, etc. The reason G'd said לאמור was to make certain Moses would not think that when G'd told him that the daughters of Tzelofchod had a valid claim he was to keep this information to himself and need not reveal it. It is even possible that the word לאמור implies that Moses was not only to acknowledge the daughters' claim to them but that he was to tell the whole Jewish people about it. This is why the Torah did not write לאמור להן "to tell them." It is also possible that seeing the Torah writes ואל בני ישראל "and to the children of Israel you shall say" in verse 8 the Torah wanted to reveal that what G'd had told Moses prior to verse eight did not need to be mentioned except to the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves. The word לאמור in our verse then applied only to the daughters.

"The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly. You shall surely give them a hereditary holding of inheritance among their father's brothers, and you shall transfer their father's inheritance to them.

כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8). כן בנות צלפחד דברת — “They have made a fair claim”. Happy is the person with whose words the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). נתן תתן lit., GIVING THOU SHALT GIVE [A POSSESSION OF AN INHERITANCE AMONGST THEIR FATHER’S BRETHREN] — This suggests: thou shalt give two portions, viz., the portion of their father (אחזת נחלה) who was one of those who came out of Egypt, and his portion that he should have had together with his brothers (נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם) in the property of his father Hefer (who also was one of those who left Egypt) (cf. Rashi on Numbers 26:55) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1; Bava Batra 118b). והעברת — This is an expression (also) denoting “wrath” and it is used here instead of a form of נתן found throughout the chapter to suggest that God’s wrath is directed against one who leaves no son to be his heir (Bava Batra 116a). Another explanation is that the form of העבר “causing to pass” is exceptionally used in the case of a daughter being her father’s heiress because a daughter as heiress ordinarily causes the inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe, since her son and her husband are her heirs (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:2; Bava Batra 147a), for it must be born in mind that the command (Numbers 36:7), “The inheritance shall not move from tribe to tribe” was laid only upon that generation (Bava Batra 120a). And so, for the same reason, we have this verb used in (v. 8): “Then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter”, for you see that in all of them (the other cases mentioned here) it says, ונתתם, “and ye shall give” (vv. 9, 10, 11), but in the case of a daughter it says, והעברתם, “and ye shall cause it to pass”.

"Ken" — [Meaning] "true," or "the matter is so." "And you shall transfer" — Whatever he would have been entitled to take, they [the daughters] shall take.

כן בנות צלפחד דברות, the daughters of Tzelofchod are correct in what they said. The Torah needed to write the word כן in addition to handing down the legal decision. By writing the extra word כן, G'd expressed appreciation of the logic demonstrated by the daughters of Tzelofchod when they had presented their case by basing it on either the law of inheritance or the law of the levirate marriage. G'd also may have written this word to indicate that He appreciated their piety and that was why He had Moses tell them of the decision separately, i.e. לאמור, not merely by including them as part of the general rules about the order of inheritance the Torah recorded here.

נתון תתן להם נחלה, “you are certainly to give them ancestral land as their inheritance.” It was really the inheritance of their father. בתוך אחי אביהם, “among the inheritance of their father’s brothers, i.e. this was all a part of their grandfather’s inheritance. להם אחוזת נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם, this is already thefourth time that the Torah refers to the daughters of Tz’lofchod with the masculine pronoun instead of the feminine one. [Note that Moses does not refer to them with the masculine pronoun ending. Ed.

כן בנות צלפחד דוברות, “the daughters of Tzelofchod speak properly;” the word כן here is in essence the same as באמת, truthfully, correctly. Sifri 134 comments: “hail to the people whose words are applauded by G’d.” נתן תתן להם אחוזת נחלה , “you shall certainly give them the permanent possession of an heritage.” The repetition of the word נתן means that they were to receive a double share of hereditary portion of land in the land of Israel. One share would be the one that accrued to their father who was one of the men of military age who had taken part in the Exodus. As such he should have shared with the other sons of Chefer. Chefer’s father had himself died in the desert so that the daughters of Tzelofchod inherited their father’s portion of his share in the land also. This is because the daughter of a son takes the place of non-existent brothers and shares with them in the inheritance (compare Baba Batra 115). The summary arrived at there is: “direct biological offspring takes precedence in the laws of inheritance.” והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, “you are to transfer the hereditary share of their father to them.” The meaning is: “what their father would have inherited had he lived will be given to his daughters.” The reason the Torah here chose the word והעברת “you shall transfer, instead of “you shall give as permanent heritage, ונתת,” the term used when discussing male heirs receiving their portion (compare verses 9, 10,11), is related to their marrying out of the tribe. Here when the legal status of a daughter inheriting her father’s landed property is legislated the Torah uses a term implying a more transient inheritance.

“You shall surely give them [etc.].” It should have said “lahen” [to them — feminine], and similarly [instead of] among their father’s brothers [the Hebrew] should have said “avihen” [their father — feminine], as it says shortly afterwards and you shall transfer their father’s inheritance to them [feminine]. This is because in matters of inheritance, if he has no son, they stand in place of males for all matters. Therefore it says You shall surely give them [masculine] as if speaking to males, to indicate that they are like males for all matters of inheritance. But afterwards, when it says and you shall transfer, which suggests a language of transgression, or a language of transferring inheritance from tribe to tribe due to them being females, therefore it speaks as if to females: and you shall transfer their father’s inheritance to them [feminine]. Regarding what Rashi explained that they said “We stand in place of a son, and if not, let our mother perform yibum [levirate marriage],” it appears that he derived this from their statement for he died in his own sin and he had no sons, implying that if he had sons, even though now he has no sons, nevertheless, since he had [sons] at one time, after his death they would not be claiming anything at all. And why? Because the “either way” argument would have been nullified, as they would not have been able to say “let our mother perform yibum.” For this reason, Rashi was precise in his language when he interpreted for he has no son [using the present tense], meaning if he had a son [previously], and he did not interpret it as “if he has a son” [in the present tense]. The simple meaning is as follows: When they said Why should our father’s name be diminished, does the inheritance of sons depend on preserving their father’s name? Furthermore, why did they first say he had no sons, implying that if he had sons, even if they are not currently alive, they would not have made this claim? And afterward they said give us a possession [because] he has no son, implying that the matter depends only on the present situation. Rather, this is what they said: Either way — if we are not considered offspring, then he never had sons, so why should our father’s name be diminished? Let our mother perform levirate marriage to establish the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. And if we are considered offspring, then give us a possession, since he has no son now to inherit him, and we are in place of a son. And when they said for he has no son, it refers to what follows, when they said give us a possession. This explanation is clear and correct.

And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: If a man dies and has no son, you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.

"And he has no son" — This is the sign that a son inherits his father.

ואל בני ישראל תדבר לאמור, “and to the Children of Israel, you are to say, etc.” The Israelites were commanded this legislation at the instigation of the women. It is possible to explain the reason for this legislation in terms of the whole legislation of inheritance being the result of man’s mortality, which in turn was caused initially by women, i.e. by Chavah eating from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. In other words, women brought death into the world (Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 2). It was therefore appropriate for the section of laws dealing with inheritance, i.e. transferring remnants of the dead to the living, to have been triggered by women. The reason the daughters of Tzelofchod are the women with whom the recording of this legislation is associated is their love of Eretz Yisrael. The land of Israel is also called the “hereditary land of G’d” in Joshua 22,19 corresponding to the expression ארץ החיים, “the land of the living” (Psalms 142,6). [In other words, women who have caused death are primary causes of salvaging whatever can be salvaged from death, Ed.]. איש כי ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “when a man dies and does not have a son you are to transfer his inheritance to his daughter.” In referring to this wording, our sages in Baba Batra 115 state that if the deceased has a son he has total precedence in all matters of inheritance (does not share with any sisters). By the same token, the daughter of such a son (if she has no brother) precedes any other surviving relative of the deceased in her claim to inheritance from her father down the generations. A surviving daughter of the original owner of the estate in question has a claim to the inheritance from her father only when or after there is no male heir of the original owner even several generations down the line. The allusion to this halachah is found in the word אין in the words אין לו being spelled with the letter י; our sages in Baba Batra allow for an alternative reading of that word as עיין לו, “make research concerning the existence of such a male descendant.” The word אין spelled without the letter י in the sense of denial, absence, refusal, is found in Deut. 25,7 מאן יבמי, “my brother-in-law refuses, etc” (compare Rashbam there). [This example makes the manner in which the sages derive this law more plausible than at first sight, seeing that in over 800 examples in the Bible the word אין is always spelled with the letter י so that its presence here hardly seems to give rise to any special exegesis. Ed.].

והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו, “you are to transfer his estate to his daughter.” In all the other verses dealing with the daughters of Tz’lofchod, this “transfer” is defined by the word: ונתתם, “you are to give.” Why is it described here as only a “transfer?” If this ”transfer” occurs to a married daughter who has inherited it from her father, it will subsequently become the husband’s, i.e. it will be known as her husband’s property.

And if he has no daughter, you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.

AND IF HE HAVE NO DAUGHTER, THEN YE SHALL GIVE HIS INHERITANCE UNTO HIS BRETHREN. Our Rabbis have received a tradition that a father inherits his son if he [the son] dies without any children, but Scripture, however, did not mention this. The reason [for this omission] is that in the laws of inheritance [the rule is]: “Whoever can bequeath an inheritance to his relations can inherit [from them],” since their relationship is mutual. Now since Scripture stated that a son inherits his father, [it is self-understood that] the father also inherits his son [if the son died without direct descendants, but left, for example, brothers]. And furthermore, the [primary law of] inheritance is [that it follows the direct] line of [descent of] successors [of the progenitor] according to his [direct] descendants, and does not go by means of a side-succession [such as to a brother; hence the father gets it back from his son]. If so [the meaning of the verse] then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren is the inheritance which the father inherits in the grave [in a direct line back from his son]; and from him [the father, who is already dead], it comes [again in a direct line] to the brothers [who survive the deceased son]. But [although according to the tradition of our Rabbis, a father inherits his son who dies without any children, even if the son has surviving brothers], Scripture yet did not want to say: “And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto ‘his [surviving] father,’” [but instead states that you shall give his inheritance ‘to his brothers’] since the Torah speaks “in a way of blessing” [and therefore mentions only the children or brothers who inherit], for it does not [want to speak about] those who are “cut off” [i.e., a case where the dead man is “cut off” in his youth, during the lifetime of his father]. And perhaps [the reason why Scripture does not mention it explicitly is] because it did not happen to any of those who entered the Land, that a father [outlived and] inherited his son, but the sons always had direct descendants to inherit them; for it is about them [those who entered the Land] that Scripture speaks.

"To his brothers" — Whether of the same father or the same mother.

ואם אין לו בת ונתתם את נחלתו לאחיו, “and if he had no daughter either, you will give his inheritance to his surviving brother.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understands the word “his brother” to include either a brother by his father or a brother by his mother, all of whom take precedence in their claim over brothers of the deceased father, and, of course, over the brothers of the deceased’s mother. However, our sages in Baba Batra 110 state that the mother is not included in the term משפחה mentioned in verse 11 so that there cannot be a question of brothers of the mother being in line for this inheritance at all. Whereas a son inherits his mother, his mother does not inherit him (if he predeceases her) under any circumstances (Baba Batra 108). A sister inherits her brother if he has neither a surviving father nor brother, just as the daughter inherits when there is no surviving male heir. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Nachalot 1,3). Accordingly, the word לאחיו in our verse includes both brother or sister as the case may be. After the paragraph has informed us that the son inherits the father, it follows that if the sequence of death of father and son is reversed, the father inherits his son. The Torah did not want to spell this out directly as the fact that a father has to mourn the death of his son is a tragic occurrence. Whereas the Torah delights in mentioning instances of blissful occurrences it shrinks from outright references to tragic occurrences when avoidable. The principle we derive from all this is that anyone who is entitled to inherit from a certain person can also bequeath to such a person as the family relationship is identical in either direction. Seeing this matter is simple logic, the Torah did not have to spell it out as it wanted to avoid the painful emotional associations involved in contemplating fathers inheriting their children. Alternatively, the fact that the Torah did not bother to spell out this aspect of the legislation is a concealed blessing, i.e. in an Eretz Yisrael in which society follows the Torah-oriented way of life fathers will never have occasion to inherit their sons, i.e. make use in practice of this legislation. (Compare Nachmanides).

And if he has no brothers, you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers.

And if his father has no brothers, you shall give his inheritance to the one nearest to him from his lineage, and he shall inherit it. This shall be for the children of Israel a statute of law, as Hashem commanded Moses."

לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו TO HIS KIN THAT IS NEXT TO HIM OF HIS FAMILY — The term משפחה used in connection with inheritance denotes kinship only on the father’s side (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:3; Bava Batra 119b).

AND IT SHALL BE UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL A STATUTE OF JUDGMENT. The meaning thereof is that this judgment should be for all [future] generations, and not only for now when they inherited the Land [hence the expression “a statute, i.e., a permanent one, for all the children of Israel in all future generations”]. AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. This means: “as I have commanded you,” and the usage here is similar to [that in the verse], This is the statute of the law which the Eternal hath commanded. There are many similar cases.

"To his nearest kin" — From the entire family. "And he shall inherit it" — [i.e.,] the inheritance. I have already explained the approach of the Sages in [my commentary on] the verse "to a foreign people." As for the rules of inheritance — whether a father or mother inherits from a son, and what a wife inherits — we are dependent on [oral] tradition for these.

ונתתם את נחלתו לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו, “and you will give his inheritance to the closest (surviving) member of his family.” This verse is the source of the sages in Baba Batra 11 ruling that the husband inherits his wife. The sages use the letter ל in the word ונתתם and the letter ו in the word לשארו to construct a new word, i.e., לו, which is the basis for assigning the wife’s property to the husband upon her death. The word שארו is understood as “his wife.” והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט, “this shall be for the Children of Israel as a statute of Justice.” The term חקת משפט used by the Torah here in connection with the laws governing relative precedence in inheritance is used to show that this will be an eternal statute. Seeing that the Torah wants us to understand that the legislation recorded here does not apply only to the people who were about to enter the land of Israel, the expression חקת משפט was chosen, i.e. it was not a law formulated to govern special circumstances only (compare Nachmanides). Our Sages in Baba Batra 130 derives from the use of the word חוקה in our verse that one cannot bequeath one’s fortune to someone who is not legally designated as a potential heir of the deceased. Neither may one disinherit someone who is potentially entitled to be one’s heir. [The use of the word “bequeath,” etc., always means to make the property in question available after one’s death. There are no legal restrictions to someone giving away his property to anyone during his life time. Ed.]. The aforesaid restriction to disinheriting potential heirs applies in spite of the rule that in matters connected with money one is at liberty to make conditions which are at variance with Torah norms. To quote an example: according to Torah law the husband is obligated to look after the needs of his wife, providing, shelter, food, clothing, medical care, etc. If, prior to betrothing said wife, he made the explicit condition that he would not have to accept this financial burden such a condition is legally valid. When the Torah described the law of inheritance as חקת משפט, this means that a father cannot disinherit his son although the subject matter is money or its equivalent. Even if the father only limits the share of his firstborn son to be equal (instead of double) to that of all his other sons, such a condition is invalid. Man cannot override what the Torah has specifically legislated (Maimonides Hilchot Nachalot 6, 1-2). כאשר צוה ה', “as the Lord had commanded.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write; “as I have commanded you,” seeing the whole paragraph is G’d’s dictation. However, we have to use this stylistic change as being similar to Exodus 24,1 “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend to the Lord.’”

והיתה לבני ישראל לחוקת משפט, “This shall be for the Children of Israel as a decree of justice.” This will be a law from now on not only for the people that were about to enter the Holy Land.

And Hashem said to Moses: "Ascend this mountain of Abarim and see the land that I have given to the children of Israel.

עלה אל הר העברים GO UP INTO [THIS] MOUNT ABARIM — Why does this follow immediately here? Because when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, (v. 7) “Thou shalt surely give them an inheritance in the land” he (Moses) said, “It is me that the Omnipresent has commanded to apportion the inheritance. Perhaps then the decree that I must die in the wilderness is annulled and I shall enter the Promised Land!” Whereupon God said to him, “My decree remains exactly as it was” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Another explanation: As soon as Moses entered into the territory of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben (the eastern side of the Jordan, which, having been assigned to these tribes, might be regarded as part of the Promised Land), he rejoiced, saying, “It seems to me that the vow regarding me has been annulled in my favour”. God, therefore, said to him, My decree remains exactly as it was. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king who decreed against his son that he should not enter the door of his palace. He (the king) entered within the gate, and he (the son) went after him (without the father raising any objection); to the audience chamber, and he after him. But as soon as he was about to enter his sleeping-chamber (his private room) he said to him, “My son, from here and further on you may not go” (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:4).

GET THEE UP INTO THIS MOUNTAIN OF ABARIM. The name of this mountain was Mount Nebo, as is stated explicitly in the sections of Ha’azinu, and ‘V’zoth Habrachah; but it is [here] called the mountain of Abarim [meaning “fords”] because it is situated by the fords of the Jordan, from which one passes over into the land of Canaan, as it says here, that is over against Jericho, and it was from there that they [actually] crossed over the Jordan, as it is said, And the people came up out of the Jordan … and encamped in Gilgal, on the east border of Jericho. Now this [statement get thee up] is not a commandment which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses to fulfill now, for if so he would have had to go up there at once [and we do not find that he did so], but it means: “you shall go up into the mountain of Abarim and shall behold the Land [but you shall not enter it].” For since He had commanded Moses, Unto these the Land shall be divided, He informed him that “it will not be divided by you, but you shall go up into the top of the mountain of Abarim before Israel journeys away from the land of Moab, and you will die therein, and all you will have of the Land will be the sight thereof.” Similarly [Verse 18 which says] Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, means that “when your time [to die] comes, you shall take Joshua,” [but is not a command to do so now]. And Scripture completed [this episode] by saying that Moses did so whole-heartedly, and this is the [same] act which is mentioned at [the time of] Moses’ departure [from the world], when he and Hoshea the son of Nun spoke [the words of] the Song.

The Sages said that the passage "go up to the Abarim mountain" was placed adjacent to the laws of inheritance because Moses sought to know who would inherit his greatness.

עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend the Mount Avarim!;” what is missing before this verse is that Moses had prayed to cross the Jordan in order to see the Holy and, and that G-d had told him that he would see it only from afar, i.e. from the top of Mount Avarim. [Compare Deuteronomy 3,23, Ed.]

עלה אל הר העברים הזה, “ascend this mountain of Avarim.” The reason this paragraph is appended to the legislation about inheritance is that Moses wanted to know who would inherit his status (Ibn Ezra).

Ascend to this Mount Abarim, etc. This requires investigation: Why was this passage placed here, and why did He call Mount Nebo Mount Abarim, and when Moses said, Let the God of the spirits appoint a man over the congregation, why did he not request that his sons inherit his position of authority? And what seems most plausible to me to say about this is that because it says above you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter, Rashi explains that the reason it says and you shall transfer [veheavartem] is to teach you that whoever does not leave a son to inherit him, the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath [evra] toward him. One should examine why he said, “to inherit him” — he should have simply said “whoever does not leave a son.” Rather, Rashi means that even if one leaves a son, but the son is not worthy to inherit him, meaning he is not worthy to inherit his father’s level in Torah, wisdom, and authority, then the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath toward him for not guiding his son to be worthy to fill his place. And how did Rashi know this? For from Zelophehad, one cannot learn this, as he had no sons at all. Rather, Rashi relied on its juxtaposition to the passage Go up to this mountain of Avarim, for the Holy One, blessed be He, called it the mountain of Avarim because there the Lord was filled with wrath toward Moses for not guiding his sons to be worthy to inherit his authority and prophecy, which depends on the preparation of the receiver’s capacity. From this language, Moses understood that his honor would not descend to his sons after him. And this is how Moses explained it when he said But the Lord was angry [yitaber] with me for your sakes (Deuteronomy 3:26-28), and right after that, And command Joshua, etc. — pointing directly that this was the wrath that the Lord was angry with him about, that He would give his authority to Joshua and not to his sons. Once Moses realized that the matter was denied to him, he immediately said, Let the Lord, the God of the spirits, etc. See also above in Parashat Lech Lecha (15:4) on the verse This one shall not inherit you. And although the term “to inherit him” does not fit in this manner regarding Zelophehad, nonetheless, this language was used because of Moses, as mentioned. And regarding Zelophehad, it could be that the term and you shall transfer does not depart from its simple meaning, and this is its interpretation: If it had said “and you shall give,” I would say that the name of the deceased would still be called upon his inheritance, for what difference does it make to me if the inheritance is given to his son or to his daughter? But since it says and you shall transfer this implies that even though it is given to his daughter, nevertheless, it is as if his inheritance was transferred from his direct descendants to another tribe, as if he did not merit that his seed would inherit the land. From this we learn that the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath toward him, for he did not merit to establish his name on his inheritance. There is yet another secret in this matter, which flows from the secret of conception, as our Sages of blessed memory said (Berakhot 60): “If the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female.” The commentators explained that the first seed is wasted and the one that comes last remains viable, and thus the female is always born from the woman’s seed. Therefore, it is as if the daughter is not from the father’s seed.

עלה אל הר העברים, “ascend Mount Avarim, etc.” Nachmanides writes that the true name of the mountain was Nebo, as has been spelled out in Deut. 32,49 and elsewhere. The reason it has been referred to here by a different name, one that reflects its precise location, is that it is near the place where the river Jordan would be crossed by the Israelites. It is approximately directly opposite the ancient city of Jericho. The word עלה!, an imperative, was not meant to be complied with immediately, otherwise how could Moses have waited until after the 12000 men engaged in the punitive expedition against Midian had returned from there before ascending that mountain?. The reason why this command is reported here is that the Torah wanted to tell us that when Moses would ascend that mountain he would be shown the various locations where the different tribes would settle, and he would, at least, have the satisfaction of having seen all this with his own eyes.

You shall see it, and then you shall be gathered to your people — even you, just as Aaron your brother was gathered."

כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך [THOU SHALT BE GATHERED TO THY PEOPLE] AS AARON THY BROTHER WAS GATHERED — From this it is evident that Moses longed for a death similar to that of Aaron (cf. Rashi on Numbers 20:26). — Another explanation: you will die as he died (in the wilderness) because you are no better than he (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Such indeed is suggested by (Deuteronomy 32:50. 51): “[and die … as Aaron thy brother died …] because you sanctified me not”. Thus it follows, if ye (both of you) had sanctified me your time would not have yet come to depart this life and you would not have died in the wilderness (Sifrei Bamidbar 137:1). In every passage where it writes about their death you will find that it writes about their offence. Because a decree had been made against the generation of the wilderness (those who left Egypt) that they should die in the wilderness on account of the sin that they did not have faith in God, therefore Moses requested that the nature of his offence should be stated in the Torah, so that people might not say, “He, too, was one of those “rebels”. A parable: It may be compared to the case of two women who were punished by the Court; one was an immoral woman and one had merely eaten unripe figs of the sabbatical year’s growth. The latter, therefore, requested that the nature of her offence might be made public, and they did so by proclamation. So, too, here: wherever it mentions their death it mentions also their misdeed, in order to make it known that there was only this single sin in them (Tanchuma 4:6:10 on חקת; Yoma 86b; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 137:2).

וראיתה אתה "and when you have seen it, etc." G'd did not limit Himself to the previous words וראה את הארץ, "and view the land, etc," in verse 12. The Torah wanted to indicate that Moses was enabled to see the land by means of a miracle, i.e. his power of vision was expanded. What Moses beheld could not be seen by ordinary man who is equipped to see only with the help of sunlight; rather it was required that G'd put at Moses' disposal the light which G'd had hidden after Adam had sinned, the light created on the first day of creation (compare Sifri volume 1 item 136). This is also the light G'd put at Moses' disposal in Deut. 34,1. where He showed him the whole of the land of Israel. גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרון, "also you, just as Aaron was gathered in, etc." This is best explained by reference to Yalkut Shimoni at the beginning of Parshat Massay. We are told there that when Aaron was about to die he told Moses that had he known death was something so pleasant he would have wanted to die even sooner. The Torah wrote גם אתה "also you" immediately next to the word ונאספת, "you will die," in order for Moses to understand that his own death would be just as pleasant as that of his brother Aaron had been. When Moses would realise the nature of his death he too would wish that he had died even sooner. An additional meaning of these words is that G'd wanted Moses to do what all righteous people are supposed to do before they die, namely to acknowledge that G'd's justice as applied to them was fair. The person who is about to die should welcome G'd's decision that he die at that time. By saying: "also you will be gathered up to your people," G'd hinted that Moses should acknowledge the justice of G'd's decree in letting him die at this time and at this place. The classic example for this type of attitude is King David in Psalms 31,6 where he said: "I place my spirit in Your hand." The Torah continues "just as Aaron was gathered in," to reflect a further comment by the Yalkut there who quotes Moses as having asked his brother Aaron at the time if he accepted the need to die. When Aaron had replied in the affirmative, Moses said to him: "let us ascend the mountain. Immediately following this suggestion Moses and Aaron (and Eleazar) ascended the mountain. Thus far the Yalkut. This is what the Torah alludes to with the words: "as your brother Aaron was gathered in." The reason for all this was that G'd did not want to let a righteous person die without first gaining his consent. This will also afford the person about to die to fulfil the commandment in Deut. 6.5 to love G'd "with all your soul."

כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך, “just as your brother Aaron has been gathered.” G-d refers to the reason of their dying before entering the Holy Land, not to the manner of their death, [seeing that Moses had buried his brother Aaron, whereas no one was present at his own death.] Their “premature” death had been due to their having failed to exploit an opportunity to sanctify the Holy Name of Hashem. (Numbers 20,12). This is what Rashi comments on our verse. He adds that this verse is really not at the place where we would have expected it. It really belonged to the portion of Haazinu, where the Torah describes the sin of Moses and Aaron in different terms, [i.e. violating a negative commandment not just failing to observe a positive commandment. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,51)] According to the commentary in Sifri, the verse is appropriate here as the sin Moses and Aaron had been guilty of occurred in the desert of Tzin, immediately after Miriam had died and been buried, not in the fields of Moav where Moses made his final speech to the nation. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is on record as saying that both Moses and Aaron died prematurely as a result of failing to sanctify the name of G-d as stated in Numbers 20. It is possible that out of deference to the image of Moses and Aaron, Rashi preferred not to mention the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. He only quoted the last item in that comment by Sifri.

וראיתה אותה ונאספת אל עמיך גם אתה, “once you have seen it you too will be gathered in to your people.” Why did G’d repeat: “you will see it,” when He had already told Moses in verse 12 that the purpose of ascending mount Avarim was for Moses to see the land? We need to understand the words וראיתה אותה as a reference to the Eretz Yisrael in the celestial regions which Moses would see as soon as he was gathered in to his people (would die). Perhaps the letter ה at the end of וראיתה is to convey that this “seeing” would be thanks to the power of the attribute ה. The land referred to as the celestial ארץ ישראל is symbolised by the last letter ה in the tetragram, a reference to the attribute כבוד ה' which would do the “gathering in” of Moses. This thought is reinforced by the insertion of the letter י in the word עמיך. Moses, after all, belonged to one people, עמך, not to several. Every time the word עמיך appears in connection with Moses the reason is the same. Examples are; Numbers 27,13, Numbers 31,2, Deut. 32,3.

"Because you rebelled against My Word in the wilderness of Zin, at the striving of the congregation, to sanctify Me through the waters before their eyes" — those are the Waters of Strife of Rekem, in the wilderness of Zin.

המה מי מריבת קדש THEY, THE WATERS OF MERIBA IN KADESH — they alone were the cause of their death: there was no other sin in them. — Another explanation is: it was they (the waters) which were the cause of their rebellion at Marah (Exodus 16:23-24), it was they which made them rebel at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:11—12) and yet it was they which made them rebel here in the wilderness of Zin.

"To sanctify Me" — This is connected to "you rebelled," the meaning being: you rebelled in the matter of sanctifying Me. And this is [the import of] "because you did not sanctify," as the text states.

הם מי מריבת קדש, “they are the waters of strife at Kadesh.” This verse demonstrates that neither Moses nor Aaron had been guilty of any other sin. the word הם, “they,” means “these only and none other.”

And Moses spoke before Hashem, saying:

'וידבר משה אל ה וגו׳ AND AND MOSES SPAKE TO THE LORD, [LET THE LORD … SET A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — This statement serves to show the praise of the righteous: when they are about to depart from the world, they abandon all thought of their own affairs and occupy themselves with the affairs of the community (Sifrei Bamidbar 138). לאמר saying (more lit., to say, i.e., that God should say, or answer him) — He said to Him, “Answer me whether You will appoint a leader for them or not” (Sifrei Bamidbar 138).

וידבר משה אל השם, Moses spoke (sternly) to G'd, etc. In view of our always having said that the term וידבר reflects "tough" talk, it seems most unseemly for Moses to have addressed G'd in such a fashion. Moreover, how are we to explain the word לאמר? To whom was G'd supposed to relay Moses' words? Perhaps Moses argued that he did not see why he had to die at this time. He did not mean this egoistically, but felt that he should be allowed to go on living for the sake of the Jewish people. We will explain Moses' words in detail. This would account for the fact that the Torah describes his words as דבור. In view of the fact that Moses' entire speech reflected only his loving concern for his people the purpose of his words was not in consonance with our first impression when we read the word וידבר. To make sure we do not misunderstand, the Torah added the word לאמור, i.e. "watch the words and not the tone of voice."

וידבר משה אל ה' לאמור “Moses spoke to the Lord, saying.” What reason was there for Moses to use the word לאמור “to say,” when he spoke directly to G’d? To whom was G’d supposed to tell what Moses had been saying? The Torah uses a form of introduction which fits the great stature of Moses, i.e. compliments him. Just as when G’d addressed Moses we normally find that the formula is לאמור, “to say,” the Torah now chose a stylistically similar formula to compare the student to his master, his teacher. This idea is reflected in a Midrash which says: (quoting G’d) “I have spoken to you using both דבור and אמירה, now when you speak to Me it will also be considered as both דבור and אמירה.

"May Hashem, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation —

יפקד ה׳ LET THE LORD … SET [A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — When Moses heard that the Omnipresent said to him, “Give the inheritance of Zelophehad to his daughters”, he said to himself, “The time has come that I should ask something that I want — that my sons should inherit my high position”. God replied to him, “Not thus has entered My mind; Joshua deserves to receive the reward of his ministrations, because “he has never departed from out the tent” (Exodus XXXIII 11). — This is what Solomon said, (Proverbs 27:18) ‘‘Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof, [and he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11). אלהי הרוחת GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — Why is this expression used? (i.e., why does it not state simply אלהי כל בשר?) He said to Him: “Lord of the Universe! the personality of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 10; cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

"Hashem, God of the spirits" — For He knows the spirits and which spirit is fitting. The meaning of "yifkod" [shall appoint] — it is derived from the root of "pakid" [officer/appointee].

יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, "Let the Lord, the G'd of the spirits appoint, etc." 1) Why did Moses choose this most unusual way of describing G'd's virtues? 2) Why was Moses so long-winded in describing the functions of a leader of the people such as אשר..יצא…ואשר יבא? 3) Why did he add "let not the Lord's congregation be as a flock without shepherd?" Whatever possessed Moses to imagine that but for him the Jewish people would remain leaderless and that G'd would abandon them? We have to explain the whole matter in the following vein. [I have to paraphrase the author's words here. Ed.] The fact that G'd has equipped all of us with both a free will and unequal levels of intelligence makes it an almost foregone conclusion that each one of us reacts, -i.e. uses this freedom of will- differently when confronted with identical data. In other words, it is in the nature of things that no two people react identically to what happens around them. In discussing the effect on the victim when one visits the sick, the Talmud Nedarim 39 claims that each visit by a friend removes 1/60th of the sick person's sickness, provided the person who visits him is of (similar) or identical age. This latter statement suggests that unless two people share the same mazzal, horoscopic influences, they cannot really expect to have a definitive impact on one another. Unless two people are on the "same wavelength," the empathy which one shows to the other does not really leave sufficient encouragement to be a healing influence. In view of what we have just said it is clear that the 600,000 people Moses was in charge of comprised 600,000 different personalities. How could they be expected to be fused into a uniform, like-minded congregation? The reason that Moses was able to find a common denominator with each one of them, i.e. "to tune in to the wavelength of each Israelite," was the fact that his soul was the root of all their souls (compare Tikkuney Hazohar chapter 69). This is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 63,11: "G'd remembered the days of old, Moses His people." Compare what we have written on Numbers 11,12 in connection with the words: "Have I conceived them?" This was the reason that Moses was so concerned that no one but he would be able to truly understand these people and lead them. This is also the reason why G'd commanded that the judges to be appointed for the people should be of their respective tribes. A judge who grew up amongst the tribe of, say Issachar, would be more likely to understand what motivations governed the actions of another member of his tribe than a judge who was a Levite, for instance. For considerations such as these, Moses reacted to the news that he was about to die by asking G'd יפקד ה׳ אלוקי הרוחות, that G'd in His capacity of understanding the immense variety of spirits, i.e. personalities of the people, should appoint someone who could "tune in" to all these various spirits. When Moses said that such a leader "should go out ahead of them a...

ה' אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “Lord, G-d of the spirits of all flesh;” compare Ezekiel 1,12 for a better understanding of this expression; Moses describes G-d as inspiring the spirit in man to proceed with any worthwhile undertaking and to persevere in pursuing it undaunted.

יפקוד ה' אלו-הי הרוחות לכל בשר, “May Hashem, G’d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint, etc.” “You Who know the spirit of each individual are surely aware of who is appropriate to be appointed as leader for them.” אשר יצא לפניהם, “who is to go out ahead of them.” It means: who is to lead them in war. ואשר יבא לפניהם ואשר יוציאם, “and who shall come in before them and who shall take them out.” The emphasis here is on the fact that the leader personally and not some deputy should always be in front. Whereas among the Gentile nations the king or top general generally remains behind the danger zone in the rear, Moses requests that the kind of leader that would be appointed should emulate him when he had faced Sichon and Og in battle at the head of the army. We know hat Moses had been in the front, why else would G’d have reassured him when He said to him not to be afraid of Og (21,34)? We know that Joshua was at the front of the army, as when the angel with his drawn sword in his hand confronted him he asked: “do you belong to us or to our enemies?” (Joshua 5,13) We also find that David was at the head of his army as reported in Samuel I 18,16: “for he would go out and come in at their head.”

who will go out before them and who will come in before them, and who will lead them out and who will bring them in — so that the congregation of Hashem shall not be like a flock that has no shepherd."

אשר יצא לפניהם ONE WHO MAY GO BEFORE THEM — not as is the way of the kings of the nations who sit at home and send their armies to battle, but as “I” have done — I who fought against Sihon and against Og, as it is said, (Numbers 21:34) “Do not fear him: “[for I have delivered him into thy hand … and thou shall do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, etc.]” and as is the way that Joshua followed, as it is said, (Joshua 5:3) “And Joshua went to him and said, Art thou for us [or for our adversaries]”. And so, too, in the case of David, it says, (I Samuel 18:16) “For he went out and came in before them” — went out at their head, and came in at their head (Sifrei Bamidbar 139:2). ואשר יוציאם AND WHO WILL LEAD THEM OUT, safely through his merits, ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN, safely through his merits (Siphre). Another explanation: ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN — I ask that You should not do to him, as You have done to me' for I may not bring them into the Land. (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

"Who shall go out before them" — In battle. "And who shall lead them out" — through another [leader].

אשר יצא לפניהם, when they would go to war; ואשר יוציאם, This refers to political management of the affairs of the people.

who may go out before them to set battle in array, and may come in before them from the he battle who may bring them out from the hands of their enemies, and bring them into the land of Israel; that the congregation of the Lord may not be without the wise, nor go astray among the nations as sheep who go astray, having no shepherd.

And Hashem said to Moses: "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is a spirit of prophecy, and lay your hand upon him.

קח לך TAKE TO THEE [JOSHUA] — take him through fine words, saying,“Fortunate are you that you have merited to lead the children of the Omnipresent!” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16). לך [TAKE] TO THEE — take one who has been examined by you, the one with whom you are familiar. אשר רוח בו [A MAN] IN WHOM THERE IS SPIRIT — As you requested; someone able to deal with the character of each one. (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1). וסמכת את ידך עליו AND LAY THY HAND UPON HIM — Give him an interpreter, so that he will hold Halachic discourses during your life-time, — in order that people may not say about him if he does this only after your death: he dared not raise his head during Moses days but did so only at his death (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1).

"In whom there is spirit" — Every living person has spirit in him; rather, the meaning is like [the phrase] "be strong and be a man." "And you shall lay your hand upon him" — To show Israel that he stands in [Moses's] place and that [Moses] relies upon him.

איש אשר רוח בו; someone who is ready and worthy to be presented to the King of Kings. We have a similar expression in Exodus 31,6 ובלב כל חכם לב נתתי חכמה, where the Torah speaks about people equipped, endowed with the necessary amount of Holy Spirit to enable them to perform the tasks allocated to them.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why did G'd say to Moses: "take for yourself?" What did G'd mean when He said of Joshua that he was איש אשר רוח בו, "a man possessed of spirit?" Is there then any man devoid of spirit? Besides, what precisely is the significance of וסמכת את ידך "you will place your hand?" What will this achieve? We must understand the whole verse in terms of Moses' request to G'd previously, as we explained. When G'd said to Moses: "take for yourself," the meaning is: "I want to put at rest your fears. If you will appoint Joshua the Israelites will have a leader who has a similar spirit to yours, i.e. his soul emanates from a background not much different than yours." This is why G'd underlined that Joshua was a man אשר רוח בו. He shares many of the psychological factors which predominate in this generation. G'd ordered Moses to place his hand on Joshua to transfer some of the qualities of Moses' soul to Joshua. At the end of the instruction (verse 20) G'd adds: "in order that the whole congregation of the children of Israel will hear." Seeing these words are next to the words "and you transfer from your authority to him," they mean that Moses transferred some of the properties of his soul to Joshua, i.e. that he too would become a root of their combined souls. This would ensure that the people would accept Joshua's authority over them. When the Torah refers to the "whole congregation of the children of Israel," it refers to the spiritual elite of the people as being pleased with the new leader Moses would appoint now.

קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take for yourself Joshua son of Nun.” The word “for you” in this verse means: “the one whom you yourself have already examined minutely, the one whom you know thoroughly.” It is now appropriate that he reap the reward for having been your faithful disciple all these years, never departing from your immediate presence. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 27,18: “he who stands guard over the fig tree will eventually enjoy its fruit.” איש אשר רוח בו, “a man in whom there is spirit.” A reference to Holy Spirit. Our sages in Sifri Pinchas 140 understand this to mean that he has the emotional fortitude to brave all opposition. וסמכת את ידך עליו, “you are to lean your hand upon him.” This was to demonstrate to all the Israelites that he will replace you. Our sages in Sifri 140 understand this to mean that Moses was to provide Joshua with an interpreter who would announce all he had to say to the people (while Moses was alive) so the people would not say later that Joshua would never have dared speak up while Moses was still alive.

“And you shall lay your hand upon him.” The phrase suggests one hand, yet in the actual event it is written, and he laid his hands upon him. Rashi explains that Moses did more than he was commanded, etc. According to his words, it is difficult to understand how Moses transgressed the prohibition of “do not add” [to the commandments]. We find another similar laying of hands where it says, And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering (Leviticus 1:4). This suggests one hand, yet in practice it is written, And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the goat (Leviticus 16:21). Above, in the portion of Vayikra, we explained that it is all one matter, because the leaders of the people need to accept upon themselves to be an atonement and guilt offering for all the people, as it is written, And I will make them heads over you (Deuteronomy 1:13). Our Sages learned from here (Devarim Rabbah 1:9) that the guilt of the people is dependent upon their leaders. Just as the laying of a hand upon a sacrifice is to place some blemish and fault of the one who lays hands onto the one receiving the hands [the sacrifice], so too this laying of hands was to place some blemish and fault of all Israel upon their leaders, saying that the guilt of the people is dependent upon them. Now, for the typical sacrifice of a sinner, there are two types of hand-laying, because the sin of the sinner in his act of transgression is twofold, as there is no action without the thought that precedes the action. Therefore, regarding the scapegoat it says, And Aaron shall lay both his hands, because it comes to atone for both the sin of action and thought. But the burnt offering comes to atone only for the sin of thought; therefore it says, And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, suggesting just one hand. Similarly, the leaders of Israel shall bear the iniquity of the congregation, whether they sin in deed or in thought, because they have the power to protest but do not protest. However, not every shepherd and leader is held accountable for the sin of another when that person sins only in thought, for the hidden things belong to the Lord our God (Deuteronomy 29:28), and who knows the hidden thoughts of his fellow, as Rashi explains in Parashat Nitzavim (29:28). But if the shepherd is a man in whom there is spirit, who knows how to work with the spirit of each and every individual like Joshua, and he knows how to discern all the spirits of each person, then it is appropriate that they should also be held accountable for the sin of thought, since their eyes can see with the holy spirit upon them all that arises in their fellow’s mind, whether good or bad, and they should have protested. And regarding this it is said here, Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, who can work with the spirit of each person, and lay your hand upon him. The verse specifically says your hand [singular] as a significant point, because here it speaks only about the generation’s sin of thought, for which that slight trace of guilt will be attributed to him, and all the more so for sins of action that will be attributed to him. It was not necessary to say that Moses should lay his second hand on him as well, to place upon him a trace of guilt for sins of action, because this is obvious from a logical deduction [kal vachomer]. So there was no need to command about the second hand, for Moses would certainly do this on his own and learn the logical deduction from the hand that places upon [Joshua] all that arises in their thoughts, as it says lay your hand upon him immediately after a man in whom there is spirit. Therefore, when the time came, Moses did so and learned about the second hand through logical deduction from the first, and he laid both his hands upon him. Another explanation. Since it says at the end of the matter as the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses [indicating that] Moses did not change anything and laid upon him one hand, not two, [we must explain] what does it mean when it says “and he laid his hands upon him”? This is its explanation: Moses passed on to Joshua two types of leadership. The first is leadership in Torah and commandments. The second is political leadership. And concerning these it says, who shall go out before them and who shall come in before them and who shall lead them out and who shall lead them in, and from here it is apparent that he passed on to them two [types of] leadership. Regarding the leadership according to the Torah and commandment, it says who shall lead them out and who shall lead them in, and lead them out implies against their will, for we find the language of “going out” and “coming in” in matters of halakhah, as it says, I can no longer go out and come in (Deuteronomy 31:2), which Rashi explains as [referring to] matters of halakhah. And He told him to lead them with a strong hand [to observe] the Torah and divine service, just as Moses had the power over them with his two hands. Thus, he laid his two hands upon Joshua to say that with all his might he should rule over them, compelling them to observe the Torah, and he should lead them out and lead them in regarding matters of halakhah with all strength and might, for it is not appropriate to say in this context that “the left pushes away and the right draws near,” because who can permit [what belongs to] the heavenly portion? And this is the matter entrusted to his two hands, to say that with all his might he should guide them in the way of the Lord. But regarding the political leadership for fixing the situation, he said, who shall go out before them and who shall come before them, meaning that he should lead them gently and not go with them forcefully. And this matter — on which he only placed one of his hands — is to say that in this leadership, because they are a stiff-necked people and their way is to rebel against their leaders, therefore the left hand should push away and the right hand bring close. And he shall go out and come in before them, and they will follow him of their own accord, not like one who holds [them] in his hand and leads him with a strong hand. And it may be that for this reason Moses said to Joshua for you shall come with this people (Deuteronomy 31:7), whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua for you shall bring the children of Israel (ibid. 31:23), which implies against their will. But this is not difficult to understand, because Moses was speaking about political leadership, about which he said for you shall come with this people — all according to their opinion and advice, as Rashi explained in that place. But the Holy One, blessed be He, was encouraging him regarding the leadership of the Torah, about which He said for you shall bring, as will be explained, God willing, in Parashat Vayelech (31:7). And from that which was said in the portion of Va’era (Exodus 6:13) And He commanded them concerning the children of Israel, Rashi explained that He commanded them to lead them gently. We can deduce that wherever the language of command is mentioned here, it refers to political leadership that needs to be conducted gently. For “command” [tzav] always implies urging, and we learn this from what is written and command Joshua, etc. (Deuteronomy 3:28), because a leader especially needs encouragement in political leadership, as people tend to rebel against their leaders. Therefore, when He said to him, Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom there is spirit, who can go against the spirit of each person — meaning in matters of political leadership, to subdue anyone whose spirit is haughty — He said and lay your hand upon him, that is, one hand, to tell him that one hand pushes away the transgressors and one hand draws them near. And concerning this He said, And you shall set him before Eleazar and command him in their sight, and we learn command [ve-tzivita] from He commanded them [va-yetzavem] — just as He commanded them mentioned elsewhere refers to gentleness and speaks of political leadership, so too command mentioned here refers to gentleness, meaning with one hand. And afterward He said “And you shall bestow some of your glory upon him,” concerning prophecy, to lead them through it according to the Torah and commandments. He did not mention “one hand” in this, because whoever gives generously gives [full] prophecy. And likewise, concerning the Torah and commandments, he will certainly compel them to observe them with all strength and might. And regarding this He said, And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord — every hidden and concealed matter in the Torah, by his word they will go out and come in regarding matters of law. And Moses did, etc. and laid both his hands upon him — that is, concerning the leadership of the Torah as mentioned. And he commanded him as the Lord commanded Moses, for and he commanded him indicates political leadership as mentioned. He did as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, meaning with one hand as stated. Even though there is an etnachta [cantillation mark indicating a pause] on the word “vayetzavehu” [and he commanded him], nevertheless, “the words of Torah are like a hammer that shatters rock” — they can be interpreted in many ways for all their purposes. And we can say according to the simple meaning that in giving the glory, one hand was not mentioned because there is no stinginess before the Holy One, Blessed be He. Rather, the Lord wanted to make him a vessel filled and overflowing with God’s blessing, and so He did, in the way that has been explained.

קח לך את יהושע בן נון, “take to yourself Joshua son of Nun;” this too was a reference to the day on which Moses was to die. The Torah concludes with reporting that Moses displayed no reluctance in carrying out these orders, on the contrary, he asked G’d to appoint a suitable successor who would take his place when the time came.

And set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and charge him in their sight.

וצויתה אתו AND GIVE HIM A CHARGE concerning Israel; say to him, “Know that they are troublesome, that they are refractory — accept your office having in mind that you will have to take upon yourself all this (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16).

AND THOU SHALT COMMAND HIM [Joshua] — “concerning Israel, [saying to him]: ‘Know that they are troublesome, that they are stubborn. [Accept this position of leadership over them with full awareness of this and] on condition that you take upon yourself [all this].’” This is the language of Rashi. But it is not correct in my opinion, because it says [and thou shalt command him] before their eyes [and Moses would not have told Joshua to say such words in their presence], for this matter ought rather to have been told to him [Joshua] between the two of them [Moses and Joshua]; for if he would say it in their presence, it would [only] have caused them to break off all restraint. And it would have been more fitting that he [Moses] should chastise the people, warning them separately [and not in Joshua’s presence] not to be troublesome and stubborn any more [rather than to tell Joshua, in their presence, that they were a troublesome and stubborn people]! But [the meaning of] and thou shalt command him before their eyes is that you should instruct him in the duties of a prince and judge, since it was because he [Joshua] was to be their leader that he entrusted them to his care. [Therefore] he should [indeed] have warned him to exert himself exceedingly on their behalf, and to fight the battles of the Eternal, and that he should be the one to go out before them [in battle] and to bring them in, and that he should be careful in matters of judgment. These [instructions] indeed ought to be said in their presence, in order that they should trust him and listen to him, for they would then know that he will treat their affairs in a truthful manner, since his master had so commanded him. And this is what Moses [actually] did, as it is said there, And Moses called unto Joshua, and said unto him in the sight of all Israel: ‘Be strong and of good courage etc. fear not, neither be dismayed.’ And in the Sifre [we find the following text]: “And command Joshua — concerning instruction [learning and teaching Torah]. And encourage ‘him,’ and strengthen ‘him.’ This teaches us that there cannot be two leaders in one generation.” Now these are duties of the prince, to be firm and not to be afraid of the people. In my opinion the plain meaning of Scripture is that the explanation of [the expression] ‘v’tzav’ (and thou shalt command) him before their eyes is [that it refers to] appointing [him officially as their leader], for Moses was to appoint Joshua in the presence of the people to be the ruler over them. This is similar to [the expression], from the time ‘tzivah othi’ (I was appointed) to be their governor etc. So also: ‘vayetzaveihu’ (and the Eternal hath appointed him) to be the prince over His people. Similarly, Even from the day that ‘tzivithi’(‘I commanded’) judges to be over My people Israel, which means “I appointed” [and likewise all these expressions of ‘tzav,’ which literally mean “command,” here mean “appoint”].

וצויתה אותו לעיניהם, you appoint him as leader in their very presence so that they will accept his authority willingly and will be obedient to his directives. The expression צווי meaning appointment is not unique; we find it in Samuel I 25,30 וצוך לנגיד, “He will appoint you as leader.” (Avigail speaking to David) We find it also in Samuel II 7,11 למן היום אשר צוותי שופטים, “from the day I have appointed Judges, etc.” (G’d giving a message to the prophet Nathan for David)

וצוית אותו לעיניהם, “you will command him before their eyes;” Rashi comments that Moses presented the Israelites to Joshua as a nation that sorely tried any of its leaders, a people most difficult to govern, their having assumed that Moses would tolerate their difficult behaviour as a matter of course. [He wanted Joshua to know what kind of a burden he would assume by becoming leader. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s comment is not correct, as it would not be good manners for Moses to make such statements in public at that time. On the contrary, instead of being effective, psychologically speaking, such a comment by Moses at a time such as this would have a counterproductive effect and the people would become even more difficult. Accordingly, Nachmanides understands the words וצוית אותו לעיניהם as G’d’s instruction to Moses to impress upon Joshua, that now that he would assume such an awesome responsibility he must become very sensitive to the needs of the people, to their sense of dignity, etc. At the same time, he must know that the final responsibility rested on him when major decisions had to be made and he must be firm and fearless. When the people would hear how Moses had publicly impressed upon Joshua the qualities that a leader must display at all times, they in turn would feel confident that a man so instructed by the incomparable Moses would indeed do everything to live up to the task entrusted to him. Moses acted precisely in this manner, as we know from verses 22 and 23. According to my personal opinion (Nachmanides speaking) the plain meaning of the text is that the appointment of Joshua as Moses’ successor had to be made in public, in the presence of all the people so that it could not be challenged later on, or so that it could not be viewed as an high handed act by Moses. Nachmanides quotes several examples from Scripture where the expression ויצוהו על is used to describe the appointing of someone as a prominent leader with wide ranging powers.

And you shall confer of your radiance upon him, so that all the congregation of the children of Israel may receive from him.

ונתתה מהודך עליו AND THOU SHALT PUT SOME OF THY GLORY UPON HIM — This refers to the shining of the skin of his countenance (see Exodus 34:29—30). מהודך SOME OF THY GLORY, and not all thy glory; consequently we learn from this: Moses’ face beamed like the sun, Joshua's face only like the moon (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:2; Bava Batra 75a). למען ישמעו כל עדת ישראל THAT ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE OBEDIENT TO HIM — that they should comport themselves towards him with respect and reverence, in the same way as they comport themselves towards you (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

"And you shall bestow of your majesty upon him" — To confer honor upon him before Israel. "So that they will heed" — for they already believe in you, and when they see that you have honored him, they will likewise honor him, for they follow your deeds.

ונתתה מהודך עליו, you are to confer upon him some of the aura of your regal authority while you are still alive, so that the people will get into the habit of treating him with respect. למען ישמעו, the reason why you are to appoint him in full view of the people is so that the whole עדה, i.e. the Supreme Court, the leaders of the nation, will get into the habit of listening to what he has to say with reverence.

ונתתה מהודן עליו, “and you shall divert part of your majesty to him;” we find a similar formulation to this in Daniel 11,21: ולא נתנו עליו הוד מלכות, “upon whom they did not confer the majesty of kingship.” Moses is asked by G-d to honour Joshua publicly as his successor, so that the people will accept him as such and will obey his instructions.

ונתת מהודך עליו, “and you will impart some of your stature to him.” This means that Moses was to display some deference to Joshua. According to Baba Batra 75 the important letter in this verse is the letter מ in front of the word הודך, i.e. that Moses was to impart only part of his majesty to Joshua, not all of it. This also reflects the statement by our sages that Joshua compared to Moses much like the moon compares to the sun. Whereas the latter only reflects light received from an outside source the sun generates light. Nonetheless, we must not forget that the sun too received its original input from G’d as we know from Genesis 1,14 where both the sun and the moon are described as מאורות, “luminaries,” as opposed to אורים, “sources of original light.” Moses too had received his initial spiritual input from Hashem.

And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the ruling of the Urim before Hashem. By the Word of Hashem they shall go out, and by the Word of Hashem they shall come in — he and all the children of Israel with him, and all the congregation."

ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד AND HE SHALL STAND BEFORE ELEAZAR THE PRIEST — Here you have the request that you have made: that this honour should not depart from your father’s house, for Joshua, too, will need Eleazar (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11). ושאל לו AND HE SHALL ASK OF HIM, whenever he finds it necessary to go forth to war (cf. Targum Jonathan on). על פיו AT HIS WORD [SHALL THEY GO FORTH] — at Eleazar’s. וכל העדה AND ALL THE CONGREGATION — the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 16a).

"By his word they shall go out" — By the word of Eleazar, through the judgment of the Urim. Some say: by the word of the judgment of the Urim [directly]. The first interpretation seems correct to me. "He and all the children of Israel" — In a matter that concerned the entire community. "And all the congregation" — In a matter that was specific to the congregation — that is, those who assembled at the Tent of Meeting.

על פיו יצאו, "at his command they will go out (to war), etc." This was a reference to Moses having said that a leader must be capable of commanding the people to follow him, i.e. ואשר יוציאם. All of this would occur after Eleazar had obtained G'd's approval through consulting the Urim VeTumim, the breastplate of the High Priest whose letters would flash in answer to questions posed to G'd.

ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד, “and he will stand in the presence of the High Priest Elazar;” so that he will not consider himself as superior to him and become boastful.

ושאל לו במשפט האורים, “He will inquire on his behalf of the Judgment of the Urim.” It is remarkable that the Tumim have not been mentioned here. This appears to prove that the Urim were the principal carriers of the holy names of G’d and that they illuminated the letters on the breastplate of the High Priest from which the latter received the answer to his inquiries from the Lord. The Tumim, apparently only contained the matching letters needed to complete certain words so that the High Priest could make heads or tails of them. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Urim and Tumim always work in tandem. Basically, the two are two sides of the same coin and they reposed inside the folds of the breastplate. Our sages in Yuma 83 derive from this verse that whereas a decree which issued forth from the mouth of a prophet is reversible, a decree communicated by means of the Urim and Tumim is not reversible. They base this on the expression משפט used in our verse in connection with the Urim. Just as משפט, judgment, is something which cannot be reversed, so an answer provided by means of the Urim and Tumim cannot be reversed. In our verse G’d tells Moses that Joshua will be in his place and that he and all of Israel shall go out (to war) at his command, i.e. as communicated through the High Priest Eleazar. It is an assurance to Moses that the final authority will not depart from his tribe. הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה, “he and all the Children of Israel with him and the whole congregation.” Seeing that the “congregation” is part of the term “the Children of Israel,” what is the point of appending this word? It teaches that even Israelites who disagree with Joshua as their new leader are not thereby excluded from the all-encompassing statement “all the Children of Israel.” This means that the dissidents are not free to opt out from the obligations which already devolved upon them as members of “the Children of Israel.” Our sages in Yuma 73 understand the words וכל העדה to mean the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court), which acts as the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the “unique, special” people of the congregation. When the Torah commanded that just these people had to be presented before Eleazar the High Priest and before “the entire congregation,” this is proof that the sages in Yuma were correct in their interpretation of the words כל העדה in our verse, i.e. those who represented the entire congregation.

And Moses did as Hashem had commanded him: he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation.

ויקח את יהושע AND HE TOOK JOSHUA — he took him by fine words and told him the reward that will be given to Israel’s leaders in the world to come (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:2).

ויעש משה כאשר צוה ה׳ אותו, Moses did as G'd had instructed him, etc. The reason the Torah mentions something so obvious as Moses complying with G'd's instructions, is only to tell us that he did so promptly after having been so instructed. It also means that had Moses not specifically requested that G'd appoint a suitable leader now, G'd would not yet have given such instructions. Seeing that Moses' death was not that near at hand, and that there was no immediate need to appoint Joshua, Moses' conduct was a credit to him.

And he laid his hands upon him and charged him, as Hashem had spoken by the hand of Moses.

ויסמך את ידיו AND HE LAID HIS HANDS [UPON HIM] — generously (in full measure), even more than he had been commanded, for the Holy One, blessed be He, had said, (v. 18) “Lay thy hand [upon him]”, but he did this with his two hands (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 960), and so made of him a full and heaped up vessel (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:3) and filled him generously with his own wisdom. כאשר דבר ה׳ AS THE LORD SPAKE, in respect also of the glory: he put some of his glory upon him.

ויסמך את ידיו, he placed both his hands, etc. The word ויצוהו in our verse is derived from צות, team, association; the Torah tells us that Joshua became part of the leadership team, or in a more abstract sense that he now was able to radiate some of Moses' royal authority along the lines I have explained earlier on the word וסמכת. כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה, as G'd had said by means of Moses. This part of the verse makes sense only in connection with the way we have explained the word ויצוהו, as Moses had not been commanded to place both his hands on Joshua. Besides, why would the Torah not have written: "as G'd had said to Moses, instead of ביד משה?" The meaning therefore must be that Moses was the instrument through whom this הוד, royal authority, was transferred to Joshua. The word ויצוהו is also an allusion to Royalty as our sages have taught us in connection with Samuel I 13,24 where the prophet records: ויצוהו ה׳ לנגיד, "G'd gave him (Saul's replacement David) authority over His people. Another nuance that we can derive from the word ביד משה, is that G'd had said for royal authority to reside in the hand of Moses in lieu of the anointing oil (used to crown kings of the tribe of Yehudah formally.)

ויסמוך את ידיו, “he laid his hands upon him.” This was similar to people offering animal sacrifices placing their hands and weight on these animals prior to their being slaughtered. The owner of the animals symbolically transferred his essence to the animal which would take his place instead, seeing that he really should have been the sacrifice. From this action it became clear that Moses transferred his authority to Joshua willingly, as instead of placing only one hand on him as G-d had commanded him, he did so with both of his hands. [Army commanders in the future would also be appointed by their superiors placing their hands on their juniors when promoting them. Compare author on Numbers 2,2.]

ויסמוך את ידיו עליו, “he leaned (both) his hands upon him.” Although G’d had commanded Moses that he needs to place “a hand” upon Joshua, Moses put both his hands on him to indicate that he harbored no ill will over handing over his authority to someone else (compare Rashi). According to Sifri 141 the meaning is that he filled Joshua with wisdom as one fills a container right to the top of its capacity.