(ו) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (ז) כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלׇפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃ (ח) וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ כִּֽי־יָמ֗וּת וּבֵן֙ אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְהַֽעֲבַרְתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְבִתּֽוֹ׃ (ט) וְאִם־אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בַּ֑ת וּנְתַתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְאֶחָֽיו׃ (י) וְאִם־אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ אַחִ֑ים וּנְתַתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לַאֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽיו׃ (יא) וְאִם־אֵ֣ין אַחִים֮ לְאָבִיו֒ וּנְתַתֶּ֣ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֗וֹ לִשְׁאֵר֞וֹ הַקָּרֹ֥ב אֵלָ֛יו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּ֖וֹ וְיָרַ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ וְֽהָ֨יְתָ֜ה לִבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לְחֻקַּ֣ת מִשְׁפָּ֔ט כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ}
Jacob Milgrom lists four narrative cases in the Torah which entail a law asked of Moshe which he presented to God for His determination:
- How to deal with a blasphemer (Lev. 24)
- Is there a way to enable individuals who were unable to observe Passover on 14 Nisan to do so later?(Num. 9)
- How to deal with one who has violated Shabbat; "m'koshesh eizim" (Num. 15)
- The inquiry by Zelophad's daughters regarding inheritance of daughters
He notes that these cases share a common structural model:
- Identification of the involved parties (sometimes with a genealogy)
- These parties "come forth"
- The cases state that the petitioner "stood before" a party/parties who is to determine the law
- Case is stated by the concerned party
- Moshe brings the question to God
- God's decision is presented, often with the formula - "Speak to B'nai Yisrael...."
- The law is often restated casuistically, "If/when such and such occurs, then (you do) 1, 2, 3, etc.
The objective of the petition of these women was to receive an allotment of land and to sustain the name of their father. According to the Midrash and commentaries, however, their virtues and character enabled them to "come forth?"
...(א) ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד – כיון ששמעו בנות צלפחד שהארץ מתחלקת לשבטים ולא לנקבות, נתקבצו כולן זו על זו ליטול עצה. אמרו: לא כרחמי ב"ו רחמי המקום! ב"ו רחמיו על הזכרים יותר מן הנקבות, אבל מי שאמר והיה העולם אינו כן, אלא על הזכרים ועל הנקבות, רחמיו על הכל, שנאמר (תהלים קמה) טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו:....
ר' נתן אומר יפה כח נשים מכח אנשים: אנשים אומרים (במדבר י״ד:ד׳) נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה, ונשים אומרות תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו:
(1) (Bamidbar 27:1) "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad": When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: Not as the mercies of flesh and blood are the mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females. Not so the mercies of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His mercies are for males and females (equally). His mercies are for all! As it is written (Psalms 145:9) "The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are upon all of His creations." ....
R. Nathan says: It is written above (26:65) "For the L-rd had said of them: They will surely die in the desert. And there was left not a man of them, etc.", followed by "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." What is the connection?
Scripture comes to teach us that the strength of the women in that generation was greater than that of the men, the men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) "Let us make a leader and return to Egypt, and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4) "Give us a holding, etc." ....
What does "he died for his own sin" mean?
(א) ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר Vימצאו איש מקושש עצים, תולש מן הקרקע היה.... ומי היה? צלפחד, דברי R עKיבא. נאמר כאן מדבר ונאמר להלן מדבר (במדבר כז), מה מדבר האמור להלן צלפחד, אף מדבר האמור כאן צלפחד. ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר, עתיד ליתן את הדין כל האומר צלפחד מקושש היה. אם מי שאמר והיה העולם כסה עליו, ואתה מגלה עליו. אלא מאין היה, מן המעפילים היה שנאמר ויעפילו לעלות אל ראש ההר....
(1) (Bamidbar 15:32) "And the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath day." (mekoshesh" =) pulling (wood) up from the ground.... And who was that man? Tzelafchad. It is written here (32) "desert," and elsewhere (27:23) ("Our father died in the) desert." Just as there, Tzelafchad; here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the words of R. Akiva.
R. Yehudah b. Betheira said to him: In either case, you are destined to give an accounting if it is as you say — He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him, and you bring it to light! And you are libeling that tzaddik! But who was it? It was one of "the bold ones," viz. (Ibid. 14:44) "And they made bold to go up to the top of the mountain." (Ibid. 15:32) .
Is death always a punishment for sin? R. Ami and Kohelet
אָמַר רַב אַמֵּי: אֵין מִיתָה בְּלֹא חֵטְא, וְאֵין יִסּוּרִין בְּלֹא עָוֹן. אֵין מִיתָה בְּלֹא חֵטְא — דִּכְתִיב: ״הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחוֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת בֵּן לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הָאָב וְאָב לֹא יִשָּׂא בַּעֲוֹן הַבֵּן צִדְקַת הַצַּדִּיק עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה וְרִשְׁעַת הָרָשָׁע עָלָיו תִּהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״. אֵין יִסּוּרִין בְּלֹא עָוֹן — דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וּבִנְגָעִים עֲוֹנָם״.
The Gemara continues its discussion of punishment in general and the relationship between a person’s actions and the punishments meted out against him in particular: Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity. The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death without sin, as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalms 89:33).
(ג) זֶ֣ה ׀ רָ֗ע בְּכֹ֤ל אֲשֶֽׁר־נַעֲשָׂה֙ תַּ֣חַת הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ כִּֽי־מִקְרֶ֥ה אֶחָ֖ד לַכֹּ֑ל וְגַ֣ם לֵ֣ב בְּֽנֵי־הָ֠אָדָ֠ם מָלֵא־רָ֨ע וְהוֹלֵל֤וֹת בִּלְבָבָם֙ בְּחַיֵּיהֶ֔ם וְאַחֲרָ֖יו אֶל־הַמֵּתִֽים׃ (ד) כִּי־מִי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר (יבחר) [יְחֻבַּ֔ר] אֶ֥ל כׇּל־הַחַיִּ֖ים יֵ֣שׁ בִּטָּח֑וֹן כִּֽי־לְכֶ֤לֶב חַי֙ ה֣וּא ט֔וֹב מִן־הָאַרְיֵ֖ה הַמֵּֽת׃ (ה) כִּ֧י הַֽחַיִּ֛ים יוֹדְעִ֖ים שֶׁיָּמֻ֑תוּ וְהַמֵּתִ֞ים אֵינָ֧ם יוֹדְעִ֣ים מְא֗וּמָה וְאֵֽין־ע֤וֹד לָהֶם֙ שָׂכָ֔ר כִּ֥י נִשְׁכַּ֖ח זִכְרָֽם׃ (ו) גַּ֣ם אַהֲבָתָ֧ם גַּם־שִׂנְאָתָ֛ם גַּם־קִנְאָתָ֖ם כְּבָ֣ר אָבָ֑דָה וְחֵ֨לֶק אֵין־לָהֶ֥ם עוֹד֙ לְעוֹלָ֔ם בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶֽׁר־נַעֲשָׂ֖ה תַּ֥חַת הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃
(3) That is the sad thing about all that goes on under the sun: that the same fate is in store for all. (Not only that, but men’s hearts are full of sadness, and their minds of madness, while they live; and then—to the dead!) (4) For he who is reckoned among-g the living has something to look forward to—even a live dog is better than a dead lion— (5) since the living know they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more recompense, for even the memory of them has died. (6) Their loves, their hates, their jealousies have long since perished; and they have no more share till the end of time in all that goes on under the sun.
כי בחטאו מת. אמר ר' יהודה הלוי הספרדי כי פי' כי בחטאו מת דבק עם ובנים לא היו לו כאשר יאמר היום בעונותיו אירע לפלוני כך וכך. ואיננו רחוק:
BUT HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN. Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi the Spaniard says but he died in his own sin is to be understood as connected to and he had no sons. It is as we say today, such and such occurred to so and so because of his sins. This interpretation is not far off.
Medieval commentators to Numbers 36
(א) ולא תסב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה אל מטה לא חשש הכתוב אלא לתקן העת ההיא....
ועל דעת רבותינו (בבא בתרא קכ) שדרשו דבר זה לא יהא נוהג אלא בדור זה בלבד יתכן שלא היו בכל הדור ההוא הבא בארץ בנות יורשות נחלה זולתי בנות צלפחד כי על כן לא דברו וצוה הכתוב שאם ימות אדם מן היום ההוא עד שתחלק הארץ לשבטיהם, ותהיה בתו יורשת אותו, לא תנשא לשבט אחר שלא יבא האיש ההוא בעת חלוק הארץ לקחת לו נחלה בתוך מטה אחר כי הקפדה להם תהיה יותר גדולה בעת החלוק שלא יתערבו השבטים זה עם זה בנחלה כי אחרי כן כבר נודעה נחלתן ולא יקפידו כל כך.
(1) V’LO THISOV NACHALAH’ (SO SHALL NO INHERITANCE) OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MOVE FROM TRIBE TO TRIBE. Scripture was only concerned to improve the situation at that time [i.e., for the daughters of Zelophehad who had raised that problem]....
But according to the opinion of our Rabbis who interpreted: “This law only applies to that particular generation,” it is possible that [at that time] there were no daughters who inherited a portion amongst all those who were to come into the Land [of Israel] except for the daughters of Zelophehad, and therefore [we do not find that] they [i.e., other women] asked [Moses about it as the daughters of Zelophehad did]. Scripture, then, is commanding that if anyone dies from that day onwards until the Land is divided up amongst their tribes, and his daughter inherits him, she should not marry [anyone] from another tribe, in order that when the Land is divided up, that man should not come to take himself an inheritance amongst another tribe. For the [Torah’s] concern about them [i.e., about the separate inheritance of each tribe] was greater at the time of the division of the Land [than afterwards], so that the [different] tribes should not become mixed up with each other when taking their inheritance, whereas afterwards their [separate] inheritance will have already become known, and they would not be so concerned about it.
Inhertaince by women in the ancient Middle East
Jacob Milgrom notes that in many, if not most, countries in the ancient world, women had some sort of inhertance rights. He notes that in the following places or cultures, women inherited in varies ways:
Sumer, Nuzi, Ugarit, Hamurabi, Elam, Egypt, Hittites, Karaites (whose Torah text is the same as ours in this unit, but is interpreted to relate only to the initial division of the Promised Land. Inheritance subsequently was to males and females). The Ramban (above) commented that the Rabbis understood this passage as limited to the generation of the Conquest.
משנה: יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין. נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין. לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין....
הלכה: יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין כול׳. כְּתִיב אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שִׁינָּה הַכָּתוּב נַחֲלָה זֹאת מִכָּל נְחָלוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. שֶׁבְּכוּלָּן כָּתוּב וּנְתַתֶּם וְכָאן כָּתוּב וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם. עִיבּוּר הַדִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא הַבַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת. חַכְמֵי גוֹיִם אוֹמְרִים. בֵּן וּבַת שָׁוִין כְּאַחַת. דְּאִינּוּן דָּֽרְשֵׁי. וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. הָתִיבוֹן. וְהָֽכְתִיב. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַּת. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. וְאַתּוּן מוֹדִין דְּלֵיתֵי בַּר אוּף הָכָא לֵיתֵי בַּר. הַצַּדּוּקִין אוֹמְרִים. בַּת הַבֵּן וְהַבַּת שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. דְּאִינּוּן דָּֽרְשֵׁי....
..
MISHNAH: Some inherit and bequeath; inherit but do not bequeath, bequeath but do not inherit, neither inherit nor bequeath....
HALAKHAH: “Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man die without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.” Rebbi Ismael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile Sages say, son and daughter are equal, for they explain “if he have no son;” therefore, if he has one both are equal....
The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, for they explain....