“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.

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.

“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.