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.

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.

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.

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.

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.].

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).

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.’”

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.