To teach you that they were all righteous. That is to say this is another reason why it said “Menashe the son of Yosef.” (Kitzur Mizrochi) [Rashi states that they were all righteous] even though regarding Tzelofchad it states (v. 3), “But he died because of his own sin” and the Rabbis disagree as to what was the sin. The answer is that he only had this sin and since he died on account of it, his death was his atonement. Thus he was counted among the righteous. You might ask: Surely it is written “Korach son of Yitzhar, son of Kehos”; and Korach was known to have been wicked, yet the righteous were mentioned along with him. The answer is that the Torah would say this only regarding a person who's actions, and the actions of his forefathers were clearly known, like Korach who was known to have been wicked. Thus regarding Yitzhar, Kehos and Levi who were [clearly] righteous, it would have been impossible to change that which was known.

But rearrange the passage. And it is as if it had said, “They stood before Elozor the kohein” and afterwards [it said], “Before Moshe.”

He died by his sin alone… For if not so, what difference is it if he died because of his sin?

He was the wood gatherer. Here it says, “Our father died in the wilderness” and there it states “Bnei Yisroel were in the wilderness and they found him…” (Bamidbar 15:32). Therefore [we can learn a gezeirah shavah] — just as there it referred to the wood gatherer, so too here it refers to the wood gatherer.

Among those who ascended defiantly. As it is written in Parshas Shelach ויעפילו לעלות ["they defiantly went up"] (Bamidbar 14:44) where ויעפילו has the numerical value [of 212 which is equivalent] to צלפחד ["Tzelofchad"]. Because the Torah hid this, without revealing [his identity,] Rabbi Shimon said that he was among those who ascended defiantly, but not that he was so wicked as to have profaned Shabbos.

But if he had a son… Rashi wishes to answer the question: The word כי ["because"] always denotes a reason for that which precedes it. However, how is this giving a reason for that which came before? On the contrary, it was because he did not have a son that [his name was] omitted. Thus Rashi explains that they were saying as follows: Why should it be omitted? Give us the inheritance because he did not have a son. “But if he had [a son]…”

That they were learned. Maharan raises a difficulty: In Perek Yesh Nochalin (Bava Basra 119b) it says that when they said, “Because he did not have a son” this teaches that they were demanding. And when they said, “We are in place of a son” this teaches that they were learned. The matter requires investigation.

The halachah was concealed from him. For if not so, later in Parshas Masei it merely writes, “Moshe instructed [Bnei Yisroel] according to command of Hashem, [saying]: ‘Correctly are the descendants of Yosef’s tribe speaking’” (Bamidbar 36:5), but here he had to bring their case before Hashem. Rather, [the halachah] “was concealed…”

Another interpretation: It was fitting [for this chapter]… According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to how [do we know that] the halachah was concealed from him? Perhaps Moshe did not want to rule on the halachah without Hashem’s instruction, as is written above in Parshas Beha'aloscha concerning “There were men…” (Bamidbar 9:6). There Rashi did not explain, “Here he was punished,” so the same should hold true here. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why here it is not written, “Stand and I will listen…” as it does there (v. 8). Therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.

As Targum renders יאות [as] “correctly.” Meaning that Rashi wishes to explain the word יאות used by the Targum; that it means that the daughters of Tzelofchad had made a correct claim. For this is how the Rabbis expound the verse [teaching]: “Tzelofchad’s daughters speak correctly” because thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. Re’m. It appears that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written “they speak צדק ["justly"]" or “[they speak] משפט ["lawfully"]”? Because the term כן ["correctly"] has the connotation of כמו כן ["similarly" implying a reference to something] written and explained elsewhere. Therefore, Rashi brings the words of the Rabbis that thus is this chapter inscribed before Me. However, since this matter is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, Rashi therefore brings the Targum who uses the word יאות. R. Yaakov Triosh.

Two portions. Re’m expands here, but his conclusion is that Rashi used the terminology of the beraysa (Bava Basra 116b). Even though the beraysa is according to the opinion that the land was divided among those who left Egypt, Rashi did not [use it] because he holds like this. Rather, from there one can learn that according to the opinion that [it was divided among] those who came to the land. נתן תתן ["give, you shall give"] refers to two portions in the property of Cheifer, which were considered “returned” [to him]. For the portions taken by the sons of Cheifer who were from among those who came to the land, were all “returned” to Cheifer who was one of those who left Egypt, as it is written “according to the names of their fathers’ tribes should they inherit it” (26:55). Thus it would emerge that it is as if Cheifer had [posthumously] received all of these portions and then bequeathed them to each of his sons. Tzelofchad would inherit two portions because he was the firstborn, while the other brothers would each get one portion. Consequently, the daughters of Tzelofchad would receive the two portions of their father from the property of Cheifer, and regarding these two portions the verse wrote, “Give, you shall give.” Rashi uses the language, “The portion of their father… and his portion with his brothers in the property of Cheifer” like the language of the beraysa. His intention was merely to say that they had the two portions of their father among his brothers in the property of Cheifer. However [this raises a difficulty:] His daughters could not have taken anything from Cheifer himself, since the land was divided among those who came there, not those who left Egypt. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to consider anything [as] returned to him, because he did not have any sons who entered the land such that they would return to him the portions that they took there. Re’m concludes that the matter requires investigation.

Denotes anger. Meaning that Hashem has fury and anger against him, therefore He does not leave a son to inherit him.

Only on that generation. Meaning: One should not raise the difficulty that in Parshas Masei it is written (Bamidbar 36:9), “No inheritance will be transferred [from one tribe to another]…” teaching that a woman from one tribe is not permitted to marry a man from another tribe. Rashi [there] explains that this command was only for that generation, but not for subsequent generations. [Both interpretations brought by Rashi are necessary:] According to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have been punctuated as והעברת with a segol, given that it was in the sense of anger, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is written the term “transfer” regarding the daughters of Tzelofchad, for they were permitted to marry only their cousins. Therefore he also brings the first reason.

Nothing constitutes family except from the father’s side. (Divrei Dovid) Though Scripture often writes “According to their families, their paternal house,” nonetheless, here concerning inheritance where a daughter is considered like a son when he has no son, males and females are inevitably equated. Thus, one might have said that the mother’s [family] was also termed “family” in this matter, so Rashi informs us [that this is not so].

Why is this placed here. Meaning that Mount Avarim is Mount Nevo, and when Moshe went up to Mount Nevo he did not come down. [Rather] he died there immediately, as is written in Parshas Vezos Haberachah (Devarim 32:49). Thus, “Why was this placed here…”

Another interpretation: When Moshe entered. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why he rejoiced, perhaps when it is written “give them,” it means through your command, as it is written in Parshas Masei (Bamidbar 34:13), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the other interpretation there is the difficulty as to why this [section] was placed here, therefore Rashi also brings the first reason.

The chamber. לקיטון means “to the chamber.” Similarly ויבא החדרה ["and he came to the chamber"] (Bereishis 43:30) is rendered by Targum Yonasan as ועל לקיטונא.

From here we derive that Moshe yearned… [Rashi knows this] because it is not written, “As Avraham was gathered” or as any one of the other righteous people [were gathered].

Another interpretation: You are no better than he. That is to say, that just as he died because of this sin, so too will you die. [One might ask why] Rashi brings the other interpretation here? He does not [mention it] later in Parshas Haazinu (Devarim 32:50) where he only explains “that he yearned.” Similarly, [why he did not bring it] above in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:26)? It appears that usually the Torah writes, “As was gathered … על אשר מריתם ["because you disobeyed"]" but here it writes, “As was gathered … כאשר מריתם [lit. "like you (pl.) disobeyed"]” which implies that the reason why he would be gathered in like Aharon was because he sinned like him. Therefore Rashi also explains the other interpretation that “You are no better than he.” R. Yaakov Triosh.

Your time would not yet have arrived… You might ask: Surely in this Parshah it is not written על אשר לא קדשתם ["because you did not sanctify"]. The answer is that according to the other interpretation where Rashi explained that "You are no better than he” it implies that just as Aharon died though his time had not yet arrived, so too Moshe would die even though his time had not yet arrived. However, where do we find that he died before his time? Rashi answers that regarding the death of Moshe it is written, “Because you did not sanctify…” (Devarim 32:51). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that Moshe’s death was not like that of Aharon, for in his lifetime Aharon saw that his position of leadership had been passed to his children, however this was not so regarding Moshe, therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. But, according to other interpretation there is the difficulty that that the phrase כאשר מת אהרן ["just as Aharon died"] implies that Aharon died before his time had come, but this is not explicitly said regarding Aharon. Therefore, the first reason is also necessary. (Gur Aryeh) Though it is stated in the first Perek of Rosh Hashanah (11a): “I am one hundred and twenty years of age today” (Devarim 31:2), why does the Torah say “today”? Rather, [it means]: “Today I am completing my days and my years” teaching that Hashem sits and completes the years of the righteous, from day to day and from month to month. The answer is that it is certainly true that he completed his [natural] years, however he should have lived [longer] due to his righteousness, since the fear of Hashem adds to one's years. However, now that he had sinned he was left with this natural lifespan and nothing was added.

One for degenerate behavior. She was adulterous, [but did so] without warning.

The other for eating unripe Shmittah produce. Meaning Shmittah produce that had not yet ripened completely, for the Torah writes, “To eat” (Vayikra 25:6). [From here we derive] "But not to squander" (Pesachim 52b). The one who ate the Shmittah produce requested from the court that they publicize why she was being punished, so that people would not say that she too was [punished for] degenerate behavior; here too…

They had no other sins. That is to say, that they had only the sin of the waters of dispute, but no other sin. Accordingly, this refers to Moshe and Aharon.

The rebellion at Marah. Meaning that those who rebelled at Marah with the waters of dispute were “the same as those who rebelled…” Accordingly this refers to Yisroel. The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first interpretation there is the difficulty that it had already said that they had no other sin, therefore Rashi also brings the second interpretation that it refers to Yisroel. However, according to this second interpretation there is the difficulty as to why it is necessary to mention here the sin of Yisroel, therefore the first reason is needed.

To make the virtue of the righteous known. Meaning, why did Moshe say this rather than praying that he would enter?

Answer me… For if not so, why is it written, “Saying”? It is understandable regarding, “Hashem spoke … saying” for this has already been explained as meaning “Go and say overpowering words to them” or “Go and say my words to them, and bring back [word], as to whether they will accept them” as it is written, “Moshe brought back the word of the people to Hashem” (Shemos 19:8). However, here these two explanations are not feasible. Therefore Rashi explains: “Answer me…” See also Parshas Vaeschanan (Devarim 3:23).

He said, “The time has come for me to ask.” It appears that Rashi is answering the question: According to the Rabbis who explain “saying” as meaning Moshe said to Him, “Answer me…” would the generation be without a leader? Rather, his question was whether it was necessary to appoint a leader, or whether his children would inherit his position of leadership, as it says, “Give Tzelofchad’s inheritance to his daughters.” This was why the Rabbis expound so, and therefore Rashi also followed the words of the Rabbis. (Nachalas Yaakov) It appears that this contradicts Rashi’s comment above that they [i.e., the leaders] ignore their own needs and concern themselves with the needs of the community, yet here he says that the time had come to ask for his personal needs! However in truth there is no difficulty, because by way of concerning himself with the needs of the community, to appoint a leader for them, he also concerned himself with the needs of his sons. [He asked] that they would be the leaders. Hashem answered him, “He who keeps watch over the fig tree…”

As he never moved. Meaning that he sat in his tent and studied Torah.

Why was this said. Rather than saying “God of the heavens” or “God of the earth.”

Another interpretation [of “and bring them in”]: That You will not treat him in the way You treat me. According to the first reason there is the difficulty as to why it states, “And who will lead them out” for what merit is needed for leading out? It is understandable that to bring them in requires merit that they not perish, [but regarding leading them out there is a difficulty]. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. And according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that, “Who would lead them out” is not the same as, “Who will go forth before them.” There, his main prayer was for the people, while, “Who would lead them out” is explained as his prayer for the benefit of the leader. Since the vav conjunctive in ואשר יוציאם ["andwho would lead them out"] implies that his prayers were [also] entirely for the benefit of Yisroel, Rashi also brings the first reason.

Take him with words of persuasion. Rashi has already explained on numerous occasions that the term קיחה ["taking"] is inappropriate for people, therefore he explains…

Someone scrutinized by yourself. Although the manner of Scripture is to use the word לך ["yourself"] without any need, such as in עלה לך היערה ["ascend to the forest"] (Yehoshua 17:15) and other similar instances, nonetheless wherever we can expound, we expound. Re’m: It appears to me that Rashi is answering the [following] question: Since Moshe’s request was that his sons would inherit his position, as Rashi explained above, it should not have said לך ["yourself"] which implies that his initial request was for Yehoshua, since this was not the case. He answers, “Someone scrutinized by you…”

As you requested… Meaning that above you asked saying “The thought of every individual is known before You…” (Rashi v. 16), thus I shall do so, and I will choose Yehoshua whom you know and in whom there is a spirit, as you requested…

Provide a public announcer for him. For it is written afterwards (v. 20), “So that the entire community of Bnei Yisroel will hear.” But what would they hear? Rather [this means] to provide a public announcer.

That he might preach in your lifetime. One must say that the laying of hands of a Rabbi upon his student is related to his being given permission to instruct and give rulings [whether] to forbid or to permit [an issue]. Therefore here, concerning Yehoshua, if the laying of hand was [to take effect] after Moshe’s death, why did he do it? After his death there would be no need for [Yehoshua to receive] permission. Rather [permission was given] during the lifetime of Moshe. You cannot say that perhaps the laying of hands was the bestowing of radiance, for if this were so it should have juxtaposed the statement of bestowing your radiance (v. 20) to the words, “And lay your hand…” Rather, one must say that “Lay your hand” is another matter and it is the giving of permission.

The face of Moshe was like the sun. Meaning: The face of Moshe shone more than that of Yehoshua. There are those who explain that like the sun takes its light from Hashem and the moon takes light from the sun, so too Moshe took the rays of light [which shone from] his face from Hashem, and Yehoshua took them from Moshe.

That they will treat him with reverence. Meaning: So that they will hear about the radiance that you gave him, and consequently they will treat him with reverence. However, one cannot explain that “will hear” means “will accept” because if so, the word אליו ["to him"] would be missing, because accordingly the meaning would be, “So that all of Yisroel will accept his words and his decrees.”

Here is [the reply] to your request. That is to say, how was this matter relevant here, for what relevance did Elozor have to [the appointment of] Yehoshua? (Gur Aryeh) For if not so, why did He command Moshe, He should have commanded Yehoshua directly.

The Sanhedrin. [Rashi knows this] because right before [in this verse] it is written, “And all Yisroel with him.” Why then is it necessary to say “And the entire community”? Rather, this refers to the Sanhedrin.

He persuaded him verbally. Rashi is answering the question: It is already written, “Moshe did as Hashem commanded him,” so why is it necessary to say, “He took Yehoshua”? Rashi answers that “He persuaded him…” meaning that he said more to him than Hashem had said. For Hashem only commanded him to say, “You are fortunate that you have merited this…” However Moshe informed him “of the reward…” The reason was so that he would not say, “Of what benefit is this aggravation to me?” given that Moshe and Aharon had been punished because of the people. He therefore informs him of the reward.

Generously. Here also there is also the difficulty as to why was it necessary to write [that he laid his hands] as I explained above (v. 22).