"בנות צלפחד חכמניות הן": עיון בסיפור בנות צלפחד

Then drew near the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph; and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, at the door of the tent of meeting, saying: ’Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he had no son? Give unto us a possession among the brethren of our father.’ And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: ’The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it. And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.’

If a woman says, “I was married and I am divorced”, she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was married, and she says, “I am divorced”, she is not believed. If she says, “I was taken captive but I have remained clean”, she is believed, for the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. But if there are witnesses that she was taken captive and she says, “I have remained clean” she is not believed. But if the witnesses came after she had married, she shall not go out. Two women were taken captive: one says, “I was taken captive and I am pure”, and the other one says, “I was taken captive and I am pure”-- they are not believed. But when they testify regarding one another, they are believed.

(Numb. 27:1:) “Then came forward the daughters of Zelophehad.” In that generation the women were fencing¹¹On raising a fence about the Law, see Avot 1:1. that which the men were breaching.¹²Numb. R. 21:10. Accordingly you find that Aaron said to them (i.e., the men in Exod. 32:2), “Take off the gold rings [that are in the ears of your wives…]”; but the women were unwilling and protested against their husbands. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3), “So all the people took off the gold rings that were in their¹³Since “their” is masculine here, there is an implication that the men only took their own earrings. ears.” Thus the women did not take part in making the [golden] calf. So also in the case of the spies who had spread slander (according to Numb. 14:36), “when they returned, they made [the whole congregation] murmur against him.” A decree was issued against them, because they had said (in Numb. 13:31), “We are unable to go up [against this people for they are stronger than us].” The women, however, were not with them in their counsel. What is written above the matter (in Numb. 26:65)? “Because the Lord had said to them, ‘They shall surely die in the wilderness,’ not a man of them remained.” [Note that Scripture speaks of] “a man,” and not of "a woman.” Because they (i.e., the men) did not want to enter the land, but the women came forward to ask for an inheritance [in the land]; (Numb. 27:1) “Then came forward the daughters of Zelophehad.” Therefore the parashah [about the death of that generation] was written next to this parashah, because what the men broke down the women fenced in. Another interpretation (of Numb. 27:1), “Then came forward [the daughters of Zelophehad ben Hepher ben Gilead ben Machir ben Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh ben Joseph”: [Their action was] an honor to them. [It was also] an honor to their father, an honor to Machir, an honor to Manasseh and an honor to Joseph that such righteous and wise women had issued from him.¹⁴Numb. R. 21:11. But what was their wisdom? They [only] spoke up at the proper time, when Moses was busy with the parashah about inheritance (in accordance with Numb. 26:53), “To these shall you apportion the land [for an inheritance].” [So what was their wisdom? That] they said to him, “If we are like a son, let us inherit; but if not, let our mother perform levirate marriage (marry her husband's brother).”¹⁵His duty would be to rear children in the name of the deceased father. On levirate marriage generally, see Deut. 25:5-6: also Gen. 38:8-9; Ruth 4:5. Immediately (in Numb. 27:5), “Moses brought their cause before the Lord.” They were righteous, In that they had never been married to someone unworthy of them. Then why did they meet with Moses now? So that he would not [put on airs] over having abstained from his wife for forty years.¹⁶Since Moses regularly stood in the Divine Presence, he needed to preserve an unbroken state of purity. The Holy One, blessed be He, informed him through these [women], saying, “Here are women who without being commanded [remained unmarried] for forty years, until they were married to someone worthy of them.”

Rabbi Ḥideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And the Torah portion concerning the laws of inheritances was fit to have been written through God initiating a commandment to Moses, without mentioning Zelophehad’s daughters. But by demonstrating their desire for land in Eretz Yisrael the daughters of Zelophehad merited that the portion was written through a response to them. Rabbi Ḥideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32–36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: “Every one that profanes it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14), but he did not know by which death penalty the wood gatherer must die. And the Torah portion concerning the punishment of the wood gatherer was fit to have been written through God initiating a commandment to Moses, to teach which form of court-imposed capital punishment is administered to one who violates Shabbat. But the wood gatherer was found guilty, and the portion was written through the incident involving him. This is to teach you that merit is brought about by means of one who is meritorious and liability by means of one who is liable. Accordingly, the daughters of Zelophehad merited that the Torah portion concerning a positive matter be written through them, and the wood gatherer deserved that a portion concerning a negative matter be written through him. This concludes Rabbi Ḥideka’s citation of Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni. The Gemara states its objection: And if it enters your mind to say that Eretz Yisrael was already in possession of the Jewish people even before the land was assigned, what was Moses uncertain about with regard to the right of Zelophehad’s daughters to collect a double portion; after all, Hepher’s portion in the land was in his possession, and Zelophehad was the firstborn? The Gemara answers: This matter itself is what Moses was uncertain about, as it is written: “And I will give it to you for a heritage [morasha]: I am the Lord” (Exodus 6:8). Moses was unsure if the verse should be understood: It is an inheritance [yerusha] for you from your fathers, such that it is considered in the possession of those who left Egypt; or perhaps the verse indicates another matter, that the generation of those who left Egypt bequeath [morishin] the portions to others but they do not inherit [yoreshin] the portions themselves, because they are destined to die in the wilderness. The Gemara continues: And God resolved the question for him: The verse teaches both of them. It is an inheritance for you from your fathers and is considered in your possession; and also the generation that left Egypt bequeath but they do not inherit. And this is the meaning of that which is written in the song that the Jewish people sang after the splitting of the Red Sea: “You will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance” (Exodus 15:17). It is not stated: You will bring us in, rather: “You will bring them in,” which teaches that in their song, the Jewish people were prophesying that their generation would never enter Eretz Yisrael, but they did not know what they were prophesying. § The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident involving Zelophehad’s daughters. The verse states: “And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation” (Numbers 27:2). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that Zelophehad’s daughters stood before Moses and then Eleazar to ask their question, and they said nothing to them; and then the daughters stood before the princes and all the congregation to ask them? How would the princes or the congregation know an answer if Moses and Eleazar did not? The Gemara answers: Rather, transpose the verse and interpret it: First, the daughters went to the congregation and ultimately came to Moses, this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Those enumerated in the verse were all sitting in the house of study, and Zelophehad’s daughters went and stood before all of them at once. They were not asked separately; rather, the order of the verse reflects their stature. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Abba Ḥanan, holds that one may show honor to a student in the presence of the teacher, such that the verse would mention all the others even though they were in the presence of Moses; and one Sage, Rabbi Yoshiya, holds one may not show honor to a student in the presence of the teacher, such that only Moses would have been mentioned if they were all in the same place. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one may show honor to a student, and the halakha is that one may not show honor. The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the one halakha and the other halakha. The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the one halakha and the other halakha is not difficult, as this ruling, that one may show honor, was stated where his teacher himself accords the student honor. In such a case, others also may show the student honor. And that ruling, that one may not show honor, was stated where his teacher does not accord him honor. § The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous. The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5). That they are interpreters of verses can be seen from the fact that they were saying: If our father had had a son, we would not have spoken; but because he had no son, we are filling the role of the heir. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They would say, if he had had a daughter, we would not have spoken? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Delete from the baraita here the word: Daughter. As they were themselves daughters, this cannot have been their claim. Abaye said that the baraita need not be emended, and should be understood as follows: Even if there was a daughter of a son of Zelophehad, we would not have spoken, for she would have been the heir. That they are righteous can be seen from the fact that they did not rush to marry, but rather waited to marry those fit for them. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If a woman marries when she is less than twenty years old, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of sixty; if she marries when she is twenty years old or older, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of forty; if she marries when she is forty years old or older, she is no longer able to give birth at all. If so, how could Zelophehad’s daughters have waited until the age of forty to marry? Rather, since they are righteous women, a miracle was performed for them, like the one done for Jochebed. As it is written: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1).