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." This meant that the sons of Chefer (including Tzelofchod) would "return" their share of the inheritance to their father who had been a participant in the Exodus and who in turn would parcel out his share amongst his heirs so that the daughters of Tzelofchod would share the inheritance also. This is precisely the argument used here by the daughters of Tzelofchod, i.e. if the distribution is to be handled according to the view that the people who participated in the Exodus are the primary heirs, they, Tzelofchod's daughters, should receive the share of their father as well as that of their grandfather Chefer who had been amongst the men leaving Egypt at the time of the Exodus. If, on the other hand, the land was to be distributed primarily to the people who were now about to enter the Holy Land, then they based their claim on the fact that the sons of Chefer (excluding their father) had to first return their shares to Chefer who in turn would allocate his share to his various sons, including Tzelofchod who had died in the meantime. They should therefore be allowed to participate in the shares allocated to their uncles as representatives of their father.

בן גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה, son of Gilead, who was a son of Machir who was a son of Menashe. Our sages in the Sifri already explained that just as their father Tzelofchod was a firstborn, so the ancestors mentioned were all firstborns of their respective fathers. In view of this it is clear that the daughters also insisted in inheriting the double share their father had been entitled to by reason of his being a firstborn. Sifri also comments that the reason the Torah mentions all these antecedents of the daughters of Tzelofchod was to inform us that all of them were righteous people. Rashi comments in a similar vein adding that when people are mentioned by name without their specific accomplishments being detailed this means that they were righteous. The reason the Torah introduces the names of the daughters with the conjunctive letter ו preceding the word אלה, "these," is to tell us that just as the aforementioned people were righteous so these daughters of Tzelofchod were also all righteous in their own right.

ואלה שמות בנותיו, and these are the names of his daughters, etc. The word בנותיו appears superfluous as all the Torah had to write was ואלה שמותם, "and these were their names," seeing that the words "daughters of Tzelofchod" have already been mentioned in this verse.

In order to understand what the Torah had in mind with its phraseology it pays to observe that the names of the daughters do not appear in the same sequence on the various occasions when the Torah mentions them. In Numbers 36,11 the order is different from the order in which the Torah lists these names here. Baba Batra 120 states that whereas in Numbers 36 the names appear in chronological order, here in Pinchas they appear in order of their relative intelligence. Rashbam explains the reason for this as being that when they married, i.e. in chapter 36, it was appropriate to list their names chronologically; here where they had to face Moses in negotiations it was appropriate to list their names in order of their relative intelligence. I do not agree with Rashbam for a number of reasons. 1) How do we know that just because the Torah tells us who these girls were married to that they were married in chronological order? 2) If the reason they were listed in a different order in our Parshah is that we were to be informed who was the more intelligent, why did the Torah not list their names in 26,33 in chronological order just like in 36,11? Surely in the context in which the Torah mentions their names in chapter 26 their relative intelligence was quite irrelevant! 3) The wording of the Talmud itself presents a difficulty. The Talmud speaks first about the order in which these names are listed להלן, i.e. in chapter 36, whereas it then speaks about the order in which they are listed כאן, i.e. "in our context in Parshat Pinchas." The fact is that the word להלן which means "there" may just as easily refer to the previous time the Torah listed these names, i.e. in chapter 26 where the marriages of these girls is not an issue so that there is no compelling reason to believe that the list is in chronological order.

I feel therefore that the chronological order of these daughters is the one listed when the tribe of Menashe was counted in chapter 26 as well as in our chapter here. In chapter 36 where the Torah tells us who these girls were married to, they appear in the order of their intelligence. This is the reason the Talmud uses the word להלן. The reason is that the Talmud described them as righteous in not having married until they found compatible partners although they had the whole tribe of Menashe to choose from. They demonstrated their righteousness by not marrying until they had found someone compatible. The Talmud uses the word להלן to remind us of the difference between then and the time they appeared in the count of the tribe of Menashe. The word applies to their having been listed prior to their getting married. This was the appropriate way to introduce people of whom we hear for the first time. In our verse, however, they are listed in order of their relative intelligence. This was the only time they were listed in that order. When the Talmud applies the word וכאן to the order in which they are listed in our verse this is perfectly appropriate then.

This will also enable us to solve the problem we had as to why the Torah had to write ואלה שמות בנותם. In this instance the Torah used the stratagem of naming them in the order of their birth. If the Torah had merely written ואלה שמותם and I would have looked at the list, I would have assumed that here they were listed in order of their intelligence, something that was simply not so. By repeating ואלה שמות בנותיו the Torah reminded us that they are listed in order of their births. You will find a similar extra word in chapter 26,33 where the Torah wrote: ושם בנות צלפחד, "and the names of the daughters of Tzelofchod" although there was no need to repeat the name of their father whose name had appeared earlier in the same verse. While it is true that also in 36,11 the Torah bothered to mention the name of Tzelofchod apparently needlessly, his name appearing at the end of verse 10, the difference is that in 36,11 the name of their father appears after their names, whereas both in chapter 26 and chapter 27 the name of the father appears before that of his daughters. I have already explained in connection with Genesis 6,10 about the three sons of Noach that when the name of the father appears before the names of his children we are entitled to assume that the names of the children are listed in order of their births.

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 them. It is also possible that these girls were astute enough to do what they did in order to cause Moses to disqualify himself from judging the case seeing there was a suspicion that he was prejudiced in the matter. According to the Zohar this was the reason why Moses left the matter to G'd. He could have given a ruling immediately had he wanted to. Personally, I believe that Moses was fully aware that these girls were entitled to a share in the land, but he wanted to teach the other leaders the lesson that if a judge is suspected by an interested party of being prejudiced against a claimant he must disqualify himself in the matter. Alternatively, Moses felt that the attitude of the girls was not much better than those of the מתלוננים in Numbers 10,1 so that he preferred to let G'd give the ruling Himself.

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 connected to any of the instances of communal disobedience against Moses' leadership. Perhaps this is the reason they insisted on saying what they had to say in the presence of the princes and the congregation. They wanted to show that they fully relied on Moses to judge their case truthfully, without prejudice. This is why they said the word לאמור before commencing their speech. The word לאמור refers to someone saying something. The daughters indicated that their father's sin consisted of saying the wrong thing to the wrong person although apart from this one grievous mistake he was perfectly righteous.

If we follow this approach we can also solve a difficulty raised by Tossaphot in Baba Batra 118 commencing with the words ולמאן דאמר לבאי הארץ. Tossaphot ask that from the discussion in the Talmud it emerges that according to the view that the primary claimants to distribution of the land were the people who had been counted in the present census, the daughters of Tzelofchod did not receive the share that their father was entitled to in his own right, but they received only the part which their father had claimed being the firstborn son of Chefer. If so, ask Tossaphot, what was the meaning of: "he died because of his own sin," seeing his sin or his death was not relevant to their claim? After all, even the sons of the ten spies who had died at the hands of G'd all inherited on the basis of their grandfathers' claim! According to our approach, however, there was a good reason for what these daughters of Tzelofchod said. They had to emphasise that their father's situation had been different from that of all the other people who had been described as an evil congregation. If you do not accept our approach one may answer the question raised by Tossaphot by saying that the daughters were not aware that the penalty suffered by the spies did not include that their sons could not stake a claim based on their grandfathers' entitlement. They had thought that with the death of these ten spies both their own as well as their sons' claim to any share in the land had expired. This is why they had to make the point that their father's sin did not fall into such a category.

ובנים לא היו לו. "He never had any sons." They did not say אין לו, "he does not have (or he will not have)." This is best explained according to the view expressed in Yevamot 62 that grandsons are equivalent to sons." They applied this principle also to granddaughters and that is why they had to be careful with phrasing the reference to Tzelofchod not having sons in the past tense only. They did not preclude that he would have grandsons in the future, the ones which his daughters would bear and who would also be known as "his sons."

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 the Talmud is based on G'd's decision that where there are no sons the daughters inherit instead. Ed.]

There is another way of explaining the words of the daughters of Tzelofchod as being appropriate regardless of whose view we adopt concerning the key to the distribution of the land. They said למה יגרע שם אבינו, "why shall the name of our father be lost, etc," instead of saying למה תגרע נחלת אבינו, "why shall the inheritance of our father be lost?" Furthermore, why did they repeat: "for he has no son," when they had already explained in the previous verse that Tzelofchod their father had never had any sons? Baba Batra 119 explains the wording these girls chose as follows: "The daughters of Tzelofchod were very astute; they made certain that they presented the facts of their case as they appeared at that time. Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok said that at this particular time Moses was busy explaining the laws of the levirate marriage. The passage in the Torah (Deut. 25,5) which introduces that subject commences with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו "when brothers dwell together and one of them dies and he has no son, etc." The daughters of Tzelofchod argued as follows: "If you want to treat us as the sons our father never had, give us his share in the land; if not, treat us as you treat a brother who dies without children and whose widow makes certain that his name (and property) lives on by means of the levirate marriage to a surviving brother. Let our mother marry a brother in-law." Their reference to the name of their father becoming lost was well calculated then. Should Moses retort that the levirate marriage solution applies only when there are also no daughters, the daughters of Tzelofchod countered that in that case they demanded to be treated as if they were sons of Tzelofchod. This argument makes sense regardless of whether we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah or the view of Rabbi Yonathan regarding the key to the distribution of the land.

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 the presence of "Eleazar The Priest?" [This would mean that Aaron died without being aware of a crucial part of the written Torah. Ed.] We have no problem with the part of the Baraitha which discusses the guilt of the מקשש, the man who gathered firewood on the Sabbath, as this occurred either during the first year or the early part of the second year that the Israelites were in the desert (compare Sifri section 1 item 113). We could say therefore that G'd had told Moses at Mount Sinai what the penalty of the מקשש was, as the Israelites were still camped around the Mountain at the time. Where did G'd tell Moses about the right of daughters to inherit the double portion of a deceased father who was a firstborn?

We must conclude that Moses heard all general rules as well as all detailed הלכות at Mount Sinai, including the details about the laws of inheritance and that he even knew about the daughters receiving the part of the inheritance which Tzelofchod or Chefer had come by only by dint of being firstborn. When the Baraitha described Moses as not knowing if the daughters were entitled to that share also, this applied only to this exceptional inheritance of land in the land of Israel. The problem was whether a person who had stood to inherit from someone who personally had not owned, i.e. possessed the land in question, was to be treated as ראוי or as מוחזק, i.e. as a potential rather than as an actual heir. The rule about inheriting a double share applies only to property left by the father when the father had possession of it at the time of his death; if the father's assets were in the form of outstanding loans for instance, the sons are considered as only potential heirs and the firstborn enjoys no special privilege. The fact that Moses did not know this detail is not to be construed as a deficiency in knowing the laws of the Torah. This evaluation is confirmed by what the Talmud basing itself on the statement of Rabbi Shimon Hashekimoni asks Rava who holds that possession of the land of Israel by Israelites who have never set foot in it is still considered as actual possession. The Talmud asks that seeing we have Rava's statement what doubts did Moses entertain? The Talmud answers that the interpretation of the verse from which this concept is supposedly taken is the subject of the debate. The Torah writes in Exodus 6,8: "and I will give it (the land of Canaan) to you as a heritage." This means that if the word מורשה means heritage, i.e. ירושה, then the firstborn will be entitled to a double share in it. However, it is possible that the correct translation for the word מורשה is that it is a land which you may pass on to your children, etc. The latter meaning implies that only after the Israelites had actually taken possession of the land could they in turn bequeath their shares to their children. If the latter interpretation is correct this would reflect what is written in Exodus 15,17: "You bring them in and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance." According to the Talmud these words, spoken during the song of thanksgiving for G'd having led the Israelites through the sea of reeds, were in the nature of a prophecy not understood at that time by the people who uttered it. [The exegetical detail is that the word תביאמו means "You will bring it (or them)," whereas we would have expected the Israelites to sing: תביאנו, "You will bring us." Ed.] The concensus seems to be that the wording מורשה means that it will become your inheritance for you to pass on as an inheritance as well as an immediate inheritance and that Moses was aware of the dual meaning of the word מורשה. At any rate, all of these considerations make sense only if the section dealing with laws of inheritance had already been revealed to Moses. If not, how could the Talmud have described Moses as being in doubt when and how the legislation applied seeing that the whole legislation had not yet been revealed?

We can prove from the Talmud that the laws of inheritance as they applied to the land of Israel, i.e. if one's claim to it is merely potential or if the Israelites were already considered as in possession of it, had been mentioned in the Torah already. This is what the Talmud meant when it stated that the Israelites prophesied without being aware of what they prophesied when they said the words תביאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך in the Song in Exodus 15,17. The only thing is that even Moses had not paid attention to the implication of what is written there. Let us now examine carefully what the Torah had in mind here. The words ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני השם refer to the claim for the share of the firstborn; concerning this enquiry G'd answered (verse 7) והעברת את נחלת אביהן להן, "you are to transfer their father's inheritance to them." The word והעברת is in itself an allusion to the firstborn as we encounter this expression in Exodus 13,12 in the legislation concerning the firstborn. Although we find that the Torah spells out details of the legislation here this does not mean it had not been divulged at Sinai already. According to Sanhedrin 59 we have similar examples when the Torah records the law of circumcision in Genesis chapter 17 or the law about the גיד הנשה, the sinew of the femoral vein, in Genesis chapter 32. The Torah saw fit to record details of a certain law in connection with its being observed in fact, although, legislatively speaking it was promulgated only at Sinai (compare Chulin 100). What remains to be clarified is where the daughters of Tzelofchod themselves alluded to the claim for the share of the firstborn which alone prompted Moses to submit their claim to G'd. Perhaps there was not even any need for them to spell this out. We have a rule that if the judge is aware that a litigant has a valid claim to something he either did not know about or had forgotten to mention and the judge is in some doubt about such a claim being valid, he has to submit it to G'd for a decision. It is also possible that when the daughters said: "why should the name of our father be lost," they meant that Moses should consider it as if their father himself was about to cross into the land of Canaan and was now presenting his claim. Moses would understand then that the subject under discussion was the additional share which the firstborn is entitled to. This is why the Torah said that Moses presented משפטן, the doubtful part of their claim, i.e. the claim to the share of the firstborn.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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 and ….lead them," he referred to the ability of the people to agree with the initiative of their leader. At the same time, Moses said: "and who will come home with them," i.e. that the leader should also be able to align his thinking to their thinking. He must be capable of accepting suggestions by the people. The reason Moses phrased all this in what sounds like an autocratic manner, i.e. harping on what the leader would do all the time, was that he himself had occupied the position of king amongst the Israelites. Moses added that if the Israelites would not have such a leader, they would be no better off than a flock without a shepherd. Moses' words to G'd could be summarised as follows: "I am prepared to do what You have told me; however, I cannot die with my mind at ease (as You promise me) unless I know that You have appointed a new leader who possesses the qualities I have mentioned. If not, the people will, for all practical purposes, be like a flock without a shepherd." Reading between the lines of what Moses said we may conclude that subject to his request being fulfilled he was just as willing to die as was his brother Aaron seven months earlier.

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.

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.

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.

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.)