[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,¹⁵⁸, 11:1. 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 Rabbis¹⁵⁹ 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 Eternal¹⁶⁰ 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 them¹⁶¹ [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.¹⁶² 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,¹⁶³ 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.”

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Ibid. ¹⁵⁹ Baba Bathra 118b. ¹⁶⁰ Above, 16:11. ¹⁶¹ See Deuteronomy 9:28. ¹⁶² Psalms 109:12. ¹⁶³ This is the great Hebrew poet and philosopher of the Spanish Golden Era (1085-1142 Common Era). According to his interpretation, the daughters of Zelophehad were saying that “because of his sins, he died without any sons” and hence the problem arose what to do with his inheritance. This therefore answers Ramban’s question above, “why the daughters of Zelophehad found it necessary to mention their father’s death because of his sin.” This explanation is mentioned by Ibn Ezra, who remarks: “It is not remote, [it is indeed probable].”

AND IF HE HAVE NO DAUGHTER, THEN YE SHALL GIVE HIS INHERITANCE UNTO HIS BRETHREN. Our Rabbis have received a tradition¹⁶⁴ 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].¹⁶⁴ 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.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ Baba Bathra 115a. ¹⁶⁴ Baba Bathra 115a.

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.¹⁶⁵ There are many similar cases.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ Above, 19:2. Since G-d Himself is speaking, one would have expected the verse to say: “This is the statute which I have commanded.”

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,¹⁶⁶ and *‘V’zoth Habrachah;*¹⁶⁷, 34:1. 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,¹⁶⁸, (32:49; 34:1). The word “here” in Ramban cannot be explained literally, since in this section here, the phrase over against Jericho is not found. It must therefore refer to the verse in Ha’azinu and V’zoth Habracha which Ramban has just referred to. 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.¹⁶⁹ 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,¹⁷⁰ 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,¹⁷¹, Verses 22-23. This refers to the fact that although Moses was only commanded (in Verse 18) to lay “his [single] hand upon him,” he laid his ‘hands’ upon him, which shows that he appointed his successor whole-heartedly, although he knew that he was now to die. and this is the [same] act which is mentioned at [the time of] Moses’ departure [from the world],¹⁷² when he and Hoshea the son of Nun spoke [the words of] the Song.¹⁷³, 32:44. Thus Scripture points out there that Moses and Joshua said the Song together, with equal enthusiasm and equally whole-heartedly.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ Deuteronomy 32:49. ¹⁶⁷ Ibid. ¹⁶⁸ Ibid. ¹⁶⁹ Joshua 4:19. ¹⁷⁰ Above, 26:53. ¹⁷¹ Ibid. ¹⁷² Deuteronomy 31:7-8. ¹⁷³ Ibid.

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,¹⁷⁴ 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.’*¹⁷² And in the Sifre [we find the following text]:¹⁷⁵ “And command Joshua¹⁷⁶ — concerning instruction [learning and teaching Torah].¹⁷⁷ And encourage ‘him,’ and strengthen ‘him.’¹⁷⁶ 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.¹⁷⁸ So also: ‘vayetzaveihu’ (and the Eternal hath appointed him) to be the prince over His people.¹⁷⁹ Similarly, Even from the day that ‘tzivithi’(‘I commanded’) judges to be over My people Israel,¹⁸⁰ which means “I appointed” [and likewise all these expressions of ‘tzav,’ which literally mean “command,” here mean “appoint”].

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Above, Verse 17. ¹⁷² Deuteronomy 31:7-8. ¹⁷⁵ I have not found this exact text in our editions of Sifre. For the closest approximation, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 316, Note 93. ¹⁷⁶ Deuteronomy 3:28. ¹⁷⁷ Moses is hereby told to transmit the Torah to Joshua, and to command him to teach it further to Israel. See Aboth 1:1 — “Moses received the Torah on Sinai, and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, etc.” ¹⁷⁶ Deuteronomy 3:28. ¹⁷⁸ Nehemiah 5:14. ¹⁷⁹ I Samuel 13:14. ¹⁸⁰ II Samuel 7:11.