answers to eikev

Eikev 5721
Alef.

1  RaShI posits that Israel is qualitatively superior to Egypt, despite the fact that Egypt was considered truly exceptional when it came to the quality of land. Beraishit 13:10 uses Mitzrayim as the standard when explaining how exceptions Sodom and Amorra were when Lot decides to settle in that area.

    Both RaShBaM and RaMBaN take into consideration the overall context in which the verses about the land of Israel appear at this point, and note that this is all part of the warnings that Moshe is giving. Hence, Israel is an excellent land on the condition that the people act in a virtuous and holy manner. However, should they not do so, since Israel, in contrast to Egypt, is dependent upon rainfall for its irrigation, which in turn is dependent upon the righteousness or lack thereof of the people in any given year, the land has the potential not only to be excellent, when all goes well, but terrible in the event that the people act sinfully. Egypt, which can make use of the annual Nile overflow for its agricultural needs, is therefore less susceptible to Divine Intervention since people can rely on this regularly occurring natural phenomenon to provide water for their farming needs.

2. From the point of view of having free choice with respect to how one wishes to live one’s life, to be threatened with drought as a result of non-compliance with the Tora’s Mitzvot could be looked upon as a stark imposition upon personal liberty. On the other hand, assuming that the people had a sense that they were indebted to God for Extracting them out of Egypt and Preserving them throughout their years in the desert, to the point where they would not dream of going against His Will, then fulfilling the Mitzvot and the concomitant rain and abundance of the land would be a tremendous benefit. If the people were going to comply to the Mitzvot anyway, then these verses are hardly a threat. The danger arises when, as was discussed in the Gilayon for VeEtchanan 5726, several generations after the miraculous events of Egypt, there are no longer eye-witnesses to these miracles and the people do not feel as beholden to God. At that point, when it becomes increasingly likely that the people will sin, their susceptibility to Divine Punishment in Israel by way of the restriction of rainfall could prove devastating to their long-term prospects in the land.

3. RaMBaN suggests that if God really Wanted to, He could Interfere with the Nile’s overflow as well. Afterall, the initial plagues of the Exodus process, Blood, Frogs and Lice all had to do with problems emerging from the Nile. Furthermore, even if the Nile returned to its normal state after the completion of these plagues, additional plagues destroyed the agriculture of Egypt—e.g., Hail. However, since God in general “Prefers” to Work through Nature rather than suspending it—see e.g., RaShBaM on Shemot 14:21—the regularity of the Nile overflowing can basically be relied upon, whereas rainfall patters are far less regular and predictable, allowing for the suspension of rain to fall within the category of normal, natural occurrences.

4. In addition to the plagues mentioned in Shemot and referenced in Alef 3 above, Yeshayahu, in chapter 19, particularly verse 5, threatens Egypt with the Nile drying up.

5. 11:10-11 depicting  Israel as dependent upon rainwater ostensibly contradicts 8:7 that describes the land as full of running streams. It is possible that those streams augmented by the rain that then flows down from the elevations, as opposed to only welling up from beneath the earth, and therefore without precipitation, either the streams would either be severely diminished, or it would become necessary to try to carry the water from its origins to the fields, a daunting task. 

Beit.

1. One might think that for agricultural purposes, it is easier to farm level land that mountains and plains. RaShI points out that such a landscape provides additional surface area, which in turn allows for greater crop abundance.

2. When the RaMBaN emphasizes how dependent Israel is on rainfall, an undulating landscape would make it that much more difficult to transport water from a source like the Nile to higher elevations, therefore putting additional emphasis upon the need for rain if the crops will be sufficient to guarantee that the people will be able to remain on the land.

3. Although there are natural water sources that result in the land being fertile, they in themselves would prove insufficient for the land’s agricultural needs were they not augmented by rain.

4. Emek Davar on 11:11 is digressing from the Peshat which associates “Tishteh” with the subject of the sentence, “VeHaAretz”, i.e., the land will “drink”, a personification of the process of irrigation, and chooses to associate the verb with an entity that literally drinks, i.e., the people. Consequently, not only will the land not be irrigated, but the people will not have drinking water should it not rain.  

Gimel.

    Shema: 6:4-9

          Lilmod: v. 7--VeShinantom LeVanecha.

          LeLameid: Ibid.  VeDibarta Bam… 

          La’asot: v. 8-9 U’Keshartem….U’Ketavtem…

    VeHaya Im Shamoa: 11:13-21

          LeLameid: v. 19 VeLimadtem…

          La’asot: v. 18, 20  U’Keshartem…U’Ketavtem…

    VaYomer: BaMidbar 15:37-41

          La’asot: v. 38 VeAsu… 

Daled.

1. Since 11:14 speaks of Yoreh (RaShI—the rain that falls immediately after the planting that gets the growth of the seed started) and Malkosh (RaShI—the rain that falls near harvest time that fills out and completes the growth process), rains that are specific to the growth cycle of the plants, by the process of elimination, BeIto must therefore mean rain appropriate not for the plants, but rather for the people, i.e., precipitation will fall at times that will not inconvenience the people, either at night in general, or specifically Friday night when people will be safely in their homes.

2. א. In 11:14, the verb declension, “VeAsafta” as well as the possessive pronoun “Deganecha” appear to be superfluous. Assuming that the individual is honest, then they will not be harvesting crops belonging to someone else, but only their own! However another scenario, actually described not only in the NaCh verses cited by RaShI, but also in the Tochecha in the Tora—see e.g., VaYikra 26:16 (while it is possible that you will harvest your own crops and only then will they be taken from you by your enemies, it is also possible that they will take over the entire process)—would maintain the deeply frustrating scenario whereby you do everything to plant and grow your crops, only to have your enemy come and benefit from them rather than yourself.

    ב.Shoftim 6:3-5 Midian, Amalek and Bnai Kedem would regularly come to graze their herds on Israel’s land, thereby destroying the Jews’ crops and causing famine among the people. This isn’t really a proof to the idea that the Jews will both harvest and consume their crops, because in this case, whereas they grew the crops, they were never given the chance to harvest them since the produce would be eaten by the animals of these interlopers.

3. א. Generally the animals of the righteous are herded in uninhabited places, “Midbarot” in order to assure that the animals do not trespass on lands that do not belong to them—Moshe’s herding of Yitro’s flock is the paradigm (RaShI Shemot 3:1); the counterexamples is the basis of the dispute between the shepherds of Lot and Avraham (RaShI Beraishit 13:7). Therefore the word “BeSadcha” implying that there will be enough grazing land on each individuals’ legal share of land saves a lot of time and trouble for the owners and shepherds.

    A second way to look at the verse’s difficulty is by wondering how the same produce was going to feed both the herds and the people. RaShI explains that although you would harvest during the rainy season and place the produce before your animals to allow them to eat, within thirty days before the actual harvest time, it would all regrow so that there would be enough for you.

    ב. One commentary is focused upon the word “BeSadcha”, the other on the juxtaposition of “LiVehemtecha” on the one hand, and “VeAchalta VeSavata” on the other.

    ג. The problem that generates these two interpretations is the meaning of “Eisev”. Typically, Eisev refers to grass, something that ruminants eat but not humans. Consequently, the “VeAchalta VeSavata” was difficult, since it seems to refer to the human beings rather than the animals. The first interpretation deals with associating Eisev with animals. But then how does one account for “VeAchalta VeSavata”? The second interpretation suggests that Eisev refers both to what animals eat as well as people food. But the objection could be: Does this word mean both animal and human food?

   

Parshat Eikev

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/439.html

Parshat Veetchanan answers

VaEtchanan 5726
Alef.

1. Section 1 (1:6-2:1) The people begin their journey from Sinai with the expectation that they would soon enter into the land of Israel. They are a difficult people but Moshe figures that as long as he delegates authority to other leaders, everything will go well. Unfortunately the sin of the spies derails the plans and the Decree is made that the generation that left Egypt (with the exception of the tribe of Levi, as well as the individuals Yehoshua and Kalev) will have to die out over the course of forty years before the Divine Plan can proceed.

    Section 2 (2:2-3:29) The people are finally ready to enter the land. Instructions are given regarding various peoples whose lands will either have to be traversed or circumvented, as opposed to engaging with them in warfare in the interests of conquest. Sichon and Og decide to attack the Jews, they are defeated and their lands are ultimately turned over to the tribes of Reuven and Gad who desire to dwell on the far side of the Jordan River. Moshe enters a plea with God to be allowed to enter the land, but is rebuffed.

    Section 3 (4:1-40) Moshe realizing full well that he will not accompany the people who are about to enter the land, gives them final instructions which he hopes will stand then in good stead in his absence. He emphasizes how important it is for them to recall their experience at Sinai, although he acknowledges that as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer people with first hand knowledge of the event, putting their beliefs and religious observance at risk.

2. In Chapter 4, I would suggest that the sections that deal with the experience of the Revelation at Sinai only peripherally are connected with Moshe adjuring the people to comply with the Mitzvot in order to remain in the land that they are preparing to enter. Verses 9-20, 23-4, 32-7 could be understood to serve as a means to assure that the people not engage in idolatry when they come to Canaan, a distinct possibility due to the cultures among whom they will be living; however these accounts are not directly related to Moshe’s charge to keep the Mitzvot and thereby avoid being exiled as a result.

3. Verses 32-7 resume discussing the seminal Revelation at Sinai where the point was made that God is a Living Entity, rather than some inert idol. However, over time, as reflected in verses 25-31, no one will be left who directly experienced this event. Consequently, there is a fear that future generations that will only have oral or written histories to go by concerning what transpired at Sinai, will be seduced to practice idolatry and thereby incurring God’s Wrath and suffering exile. It will only be as a result of their contemplating their fate that there is a possibility that they will repent and thereby restored to the land as a Jewish nation.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN is commenting on the cause-and-effect relationship between having offspring and living in the land for a long period on the one hand, and the end of the verse which describes religious malfeasance. Furthermore, RaMBaN claims that this is not a possibility or likelihood, but rather a prediction regarding what will inevitably take place over time.

2. The addition of בעבור makes clear where the cause ends, “ובני בנים” and the effect begins, “ונושנתם בארץ...”, by having descendents, you will be in the land a long time and this will almost inevitably lead to religious lapses.

    The addition of “ותשבו לבטח” describes the emotional state that results from living for a long period of time in the same place, i.e., a sense of security and the lack of a necessity to maintain particular standards. Inertia convinces a person that his present state will continue forever, regardless of what he might do or not do.

    The addition of “אולי תשכחו” indicates that while highly likely, this result is not inevitable and could be avoided if people keep in mind the lessons of Sinai and continue to practice the Mitzvot carefully and comprehensively.

3. Whereas RaMBaN discusses future malfeasance as a possibility, however likely, Minchat Chadasha appears to see this as an inevitable prophecy, since he posits that future generations will dismiss outright these warnings as the babblings of the older generation. (It would be interesting to investigate the family/society in which this commentator lived to see if there were particular “generation gap” problems regarding maintaining the traditions, and therefore he was projecting from personal experience, or whether this is simply his understanding of the Peshat.--JB)

Gimel.

1. The paradigm of Sinai also could be seen to include the disaster of the Golden Calf that occurred only forty days later. The giving of a second set of Tablets is associated with God Forgiving the Jewish people as a whole for this sin—many people did die during the plagues associated with the sin as well as at the hands of the Levi’im, and the First Born were replaced by the Levi’im in general, Aharon’s family in particular as a result of the sin—and therefore a conclusion might be drawn that even if the people sin again in this manner in the future, they will be forgiven. RaMBaN therefore interprets these verses as specifically intended to quash such a thought process. HaShem Enacted the Revelation precisely to discourage idolatry; in the future, the people will not get off as “easily” as they did with respect to the Golden Calf.

2. (There is a misprint in the Gilayon—I even checked the original mimeographed one and the same mistake appears—the proof text that Nechama is referring to is in Shemot 20:16 “למען [ובעבור] יהי' יראתו על פניכם”.) RaMBaN wishes to demonstrate that this was one of HaShem’s Objectives when Revealing Himself at Sinai. In effect, the verse in Shemot is not Moshe giving his take on why the experience had such an effect upon the Jews, but rather reporting that this is exactly why God Participated in this very unique occasion, distinguishing the Jews from other peoples, and hopefully permanently influencing them away from idolatry. (Unfortunately, the books of the Nevi’im and Jewish history in general demonstrate that the desired effect did not take place.)

3. Adding the words “שלא תעבוד לזולתו” is again clarifying that the pyrotechnics associated with the Siniatic Revelation were not simply to impress the people regarding the importance and sanctity of the event, but also to emphasize how drastically this powerful God would Look upon their defecting and worshipping other deities.

4. Many times in TaNaCh the verb “R-E-H” is interpreted figuratively, i.e., mental understanding, rather than visual stimulation. Consequently, RaMBaN adds “בעיניך” to emphasize that the visual experience is of the essence in attempting to impress upon the people not to engage in idolatry.

5. In verse 36, there is a dichotomy between the effects from Heaven—God’s Voice—and those that took place on earth—Fire. However, the end of the verse states that God’s Voice was heard from the midst of the Fire—the earthly rather than the Heavenly entity. Consequently RaMBaN explains that while the Fire might have been centered on earth, it extended up to Heaven “בוערת עד לב השמים”, thereby allowing for the Voice to be understood to emanate from Heaven.

6. Nechama recommends to cross-reference this RaMBaN with his comments on Shemot 20:2:

רמב"ן שמות פרק כ פסוק ב

וטעם על פני - כמו אם לא על פניך יברכך (איוב א יא), ועתה הואילו פנו בי ועל פניכם אם אכזב (שם ו כח). יזהיר לא תעשה לך אלהים אחרים, כי על פני הם, שאני מסתכל ומביט בכל עת ובכל מקום בעושים כן. הדבר העשוי בפניו של אדם והוא עומד עליו יקרא "על פניו", וכן ותעבור המנחה על פניו (בראשית לב כב), וכן וימת נדב ואביהוא ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם, שהיה אהרן אביהם רואה ועומד שם, ובדברי הימים (א כד ב) וימת נדב ואביהוא לפני אביהם ובנים לא היו להם. והנה אמר לא תעשה לך אלהים אחרים שאני נמצא עמך תמיד ורואה אותך בסתר ובגלוי. ועל דרך האמת תבין סוד הפנים ממה שכתבנו (לעיל ג ב), כי הכתוב הזהיר במעמד הזה פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם (דברים ה ד), ותדע סוד מלת אחרים, ויבא כל הכתוב כפשוטו ומשמעו. וכן רמז אונקלוס, והוא שנאמר (פסוק כג) לא תעשון אתי וגו':

   “בפניו” is extremely anthropomorphic when used with respect to God. Consequently, RaMBaN interprets the prepositional phrase as referring to the fact that these things cannot be done without God’s Knowledge, compounding the sin, i.e., not only should this not be done, but it is as if in God’s Presence, other gods are being worshipped, making the act that much more arrogant and spiteful.

7. The RaMBaN treats verses 39 and 40 in the manner that some commentators relate to the first statement in the Ten Commandments, i.e., “I am the Lord your God Who Took you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” Not everyone sees this statement as a Commandment, but rather the premise upon which all other Commandments are based. Similarly, the assumption that God is the Deity Who is found in Heaven and on earth has to lead to some sort of action, i.e., the observance of His Commandments.

8. Since “ייטב” and “תאריך” are in the future form in v. 40, RaMBaN makes “ושמרת” parallel to the other verb forms in the verse.

Daled.

ד:יא וַתִּקְרְב֥וּן וַתַּֽעַמְד֖וּן תַּ֣חַת הָהָ֑ר וְהָהָ֞ר בֹּעֵ֤ר בָּאֵשׁ֙ עַד־לֵ֣ב הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם חֹ֖שֶׁךְ עָנָ֥ן וַֽעֲרָפֶֽל׃

1.

ט:ה וַיִּקְח֗וּ אֵ֚ת אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוָּ֣ה מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־פְּנֵ֖י אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַֽיִּקְרְבוּ֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה וַיַּֽעַמְד֖וּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְקוָֽק׃

    The sequence in 4:11, Mercha Tipcha, joins together the approaching with the standing, taking away a sense of action. In contrast, in 9:5, Pashta Zakef Katan is separate from the Tipcha Mercha Sof Pasuk, in effect separating the coming close from the standing. In that way, the coming close is emphasized more and gives a sense of greater activity.

2. In Buber’s translation, the coming close is separated from the standing, paralleling the cantellation in 9:5, in  contrast to 4:11.

3.

ד:יא וַתִּקְרְב֥וּן וַתַּֽעַמְד֖וּן תַּ֣חַת הָהָ֑ר וְהָהָ֞ר בֹּעֵ֤ר בָּאֵשׁ֙ עַד־לֵ֣ב הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם חֹ֖שֶׁךְ עָנָ֥ן וַֽעֲרָפֶֽל׃

    The cantillation for the three final words of 4:11 Tipcha, Mercha, Sof Pasuk would seem to fit MaLBIM’s interpretation better than Hoffmann’s. According to Hoffmann, Arafel should be completely separated from the other two words since it is describing a spiritual rather than a physical phenomenon. MaLBIM sees Arafel as a more intense form of Choshech and Anan and therefore does not have to be separated from the preceding words.

4. The fact that Choshech is relatively separated from Anan and Arafel could be interpreted as darkness is the general terminology for the extent of light that was present in the places where Moshe entered, with Anan and Arafel constituting two different degrees of Choshech, a lesser and a greater degree.

5. A comparison with Yoel 2:2 results in a similar structure, with Choshech and Afeila describing the absence of light in general, followed by two specific degrees of the absence of light, i.e., Anan and Arafel.

Heh.

לב כִּ֣י שְׁאַל־נָא֩ לְיָמִ֨ים רִֽאשֹׁנִ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־הָי֣וּ לְפָנֶ֗יךָ לְמִן־הַיּוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁר֩ בָּרָ֨א אֱ-לֹהִ֤ים ׀ אָדָם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵ֥ה הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְעַד־קְצֵ֣ה הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם הֲנִֽהְיָ֗ה כַּדָּבָ֤ר הַגָּדוֹל֙ הַזֶּ֔ה א֖וֹ הֲנִשְׁמַ֥ע כָּמֹֽהוּ׃

1. According to R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, the verse is instructing that two separate questions be asked, i.e., a) one of time regarding all of the days since Creation and b) one of things that have happened to creatures wherever they may reside on the earth.

2. From the point of view of the cantellation, the phrase U’LeMiktzeh HaShamayim VeAd Ketzeh HaShamayim is separated from the beginning of the verse by the Ta’amim: Mercha Tipcha Zakef Etnachta, lending support that it should be viewed as a new and separate idea.

3. Since there is only one main verb at the beginning of the verse, i.e., “She’al Na”, one might think that it is all a single question. Therefore, RE”M suggests that the verse should be understood as if there is a second verb of “asking” immediately preceding the phrase in question, “U’LeMiktzeh HaShamayim VeAd Ketzeh HaShamayim”.

4. The first Telisha Ketana is on the word “Na” while the second is on “Asher”. The first modifies as an adverb the verb “She’al”, i.e., “Ask now”. The second serves as a conjunction introducing an adjectival phrase that clarifies what is meant by “Yamim Rishonim”. The common denominator is that they both serve as clarifiers, but each in a different way.

Parshat Veetchanan

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/992.html

dvarim answers

Devarim 5716

                             במדבר י"ג-יד     דברים א'

(כג) וייטב בעיני הדבר ואקח מכם שנים עשר אנשים איש אחד לשבט:	(ב) שלח לך אנשים ויתרו את ארץ כנען אשר אני נתן לבני ישראל איש אחד איש אחד למטה אבתיו תשלחו כל נשיא בהם: (ג) וישלח אתם משה ממדבר פארן על פי יקוק כלם אנשים ראשי בני ישראל המה:
כה) ויקחו בידם מפרי הארץ ויורדו אלינו וישבו אתנו דבר...	כו) וילכו ויבאו אל משה ואל אהרן ואל כל עדת בני ישראל אל מדבר פארן קדשה וישיבו אותם דבר ואת כל העדה ויראום את פרי הארץ:
ויאמרו טובה הארץ אשר יקוק אלקינו נתן לנו:	(כז) ויספרו לו ויאמרו באנו אל הארץ אשר שלחתנו וגם זבת חלב ודבש הוא וזה פריה: (כח) אפס כי עז העם הישב בארץ והערים בצרות גדלת מאד וגם ילדי הענק ראינו שם: (כט) עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב והחתי והיבוסי והאמרי יושב בהר והכנעני ישב על הים ועל יד הירדן::
	(ל) ויהס כלב את העם אל משה ויאמר עלה נעלה וירשנו אתה כי יכול נוכל לה: לא) והאנשים אשר עלו עמו אמרו לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו:
	לב) ויוציאו דבת הארץ אשר תרו אתה אל בני ישראל לאמר הארץ אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה ארץ אכלת יושביה הוא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות: (לג) ושם ראינו את הנפילים בני ענק מן הנפלים ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו בעיניהם
כו) ולא אביתם לעלת ותמרו את פי יקוק אלקיכם: (כז) ותרגנו באהליכם...	(א) ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא:
ותאמרו בשנאת יקוק אתנו הוציאנו מארץ מצרים לתת אתנו ביד האמרי להשמידנו: (כח) אנה אנחנו עלים אחינו המסו את לבבנו לאמר עם גדול ורם ממנו ערים גדלת ובצורת בשמים וגם בני ענקים ראינו שם:	(ב) וילנו על משה ועל אהרן כל בני ישראל ויאמרו אלהם כל העדה לו מתנו בארץ מצרים או במדבר הזה לו מתנו: (ג) ולמה יקוק מביא אתנו אל הארץ הזאת לנפל בחרב נשינו וטפנו יהיו לבז הלוא טוב לנו שוב מצרימה:
	(ד) ויאמרו איש אל אחיו נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה:
	ה) ויפל משה ואהרן על פניהם לפני כל קהל עדת בני ישראל: (ו) ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה מן התרים את הארץ קרעו בגדיהם:
כט) ואמר אלכם לא תערצון ולא תיראון מהם: (ל) יקוק אלקיכם ההלך לפניכם הוא ילחם לכם ככל אשר עשה אתכם במצרים לעיניכם: (לא) ובמדבר אשר ראית אשר נשאך יקוק אלקיך כאשר ישא איש את בנו בכל הדרך אשר הלכתם עד באכם עד המקום הזה: (לב) ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינם ביקוק אלקיכם: (לג) ההלך לפניכם בדרך לתור לכם מקום לחנתכם באש לילה לראתכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה ובענן יומם	ז) ויאמרו אל כל עדת בני ישראל לאמר הארץ אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה טובה הארץ מאד מאד: (ח) אם חפץ בנו יקוק והביא אתנו אל הארץ הזאת ונתנה לנו ארץ אשר הוא זבת חלב ודבש: (ט) אך ביקוק אל תמרדו ואתם אל תיראו את עם הארץ כי לחמנו הם סר צלם מעליהם ויקוק אתנו אל תיראם:
	י) ויאמרו כל העדה לרגום אתם באבנים וכבוד יקוק נראה באהל מועד אל כל בני ישראל: פ

Alef.

1. With respect to Moshe’s referring to the spies exclusively as “Anashim” in Devarim, whereas in BaMidbar they are identified as “Nesi’im”, “Roshei Benai Yisrael” in addition to “Anashim”, this might be a reflection of what was learned in hindsight, i.e., while they may have been men of status when they were chosen,  in light of what they reported, they demonstrated that they were  unworthy of their leadership positions. Consequently, Moshe “strips” them of their titles when he recounts the story.

2. Perhaps the reason why Moshe omits the spies’ critique of the land is because he does not wish to reopen the controversy at this point, when the people are poised for a second time to enter the land. The fact that he only quotes the peoples’ refusal to enter the land is because that’s all that mattered. Had the people ignored the arguments of the ten nay-sayers, in favor of the arguments of Yehoshua and Kalev, it would not have mattered what the spies had said with respect to Jewish history, i.e., they would have entered the land immediately rather than having to delay their entry by 38 years. Furthermore, since Moshe is trying to make sure that the people very much want to go into the land, the important contrast is between themselves and the previous generation in terms of their attitudes about wishing to take over Canaan. While the spies served as the immediate reason for the refusal of the past, they only served to provide an excuse for what the people had felt even before they heard the negative reports. Therefore, what matters is what the people as a whole felt both then and now in Devarim.

3. The analogy that Nechama makes between the primordial Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the spies, sharpens the point of answer #2 above, i.e., just as Adam and Chava should have been immune to the wiles of the Serpent, since they had received their “marching orders” from HaShem¹—“from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat”—it should have been irrelevant whatever anyone else said to them, since such a person at best would be a “Talmid” rather than an equal to the “Rav”, so too in the case of the spies, the people should have had the self-discipline to resist anything that anyone would tell them and follow the Divine Plan of their entering the land of Israel, that could be traced back all the way to HaShem’s first Revelation to Avraham at the beginning of Parashat Lech Lecha (Beraishit 12).

4.

רמב"ן במדבר פרק יד פסוק ג

(ג) וטעם (במדבר יד:ג) “ולמה ה' מביא אתנו אל הארץ הזאת לנפל בחרב נשינו וטפנו” - לא יזכירו דבת הארץ לאמר גם כן (שם יג:לב) "והארץ משכלת ורעה",

In 14:3 the only issue mentioned is everyone being killed by the sword, i.e., a fear of the inhabitants of Canaan.

However, in 13:32, the spies also mentioned that the very land itself was difficult to inhabit. Why is this omitted in the people’s later comments?

כי יסתירו העם הדבר הזה ממשה, מפני שלא אמרו השלוחים כן בהשיבם דבר אליו ואל כל העדה,

RaMBaN assumes that 14:2 is a public complaint against Moshe and Aharon. The people in such a complaint will only bring up that which the spies had originally said in Moshe and Aharon’s presence. A distinction is made between their original report in 13:27-29,31 and what is said in v. 32-33, the former mentioning Moshe and Aharon (v. 26), whereas the latter was a private discussion that the spies had with the people, without the knowledge of Moshe and Aharon. A support to such an understanding can be brought from Devarim 1:27, which states that the muttering and crying described in BaMidbar 14:1, took place in their “tents,” therefore away from Moshe and Aharon. Therefore RaMBaN posits that not only did the people cry in their tents, but the attack on the quality of the land (“Dibat HaAretz”—as opposed to the bemoaning of the military might of its inhabitants) was made also in the tents, separate from the original report that focused upon the inhabitants.

כי משה ואהרן יעידו בם כי שקר דברו,

This was done in order that Moshe and Aharon would not get the opportunity to refute their report by saying we were there (at the giving of the first report by the spies), and we never heard anything to that effect.

והמרגלים עצמם הסתירו זה ממשה מדעתם שהוא יודע עניני הארץ ממצרים וממדין השכנים לה כאשר פירשתי (בפסוק ב), על כן היו אומרים הדבה הזאת לעם באהליהם בדרך סוד:

The spies were also concerned that Moshe would refute their reports with his own first-hand knowledge, having spent time in both Egypt (he was raised there in Pharoah’s palace) and Midian (the place he fled after killing the Egyptian taskmaster) which are near the land of Canaan and would have provided him with the opportunity to get to know “the lay of the land” literally and figuratively.

והנה משה אמר במשנה תורה (דברים א כה כו) "וישיבו אותנו דבר ויאמרו טובה הארץ אשר ה' אלקינו נותן לנו ולא אביתם לעלות ותמרו את פי ה'," והטעם כי כן אמרו אליו ואל אהרן ואל כל העדה כי הארץ טובה וגם זבת חלב ודבש היא, והעם מרו את פי ה' כשלא רצו לעלות מפני אמרם כי עז העם, ויש בה' לעזור ולהכשיל וכאשר יפרש שם (פסוק ל) ה' אלקיכם הוא ההולך לפניכם הוא ילחם לכם, כי אחרי שאין המניעה מכלום רק מתוקף העם היה להם לבטוח בשם ה' כי לה' המלחמה.

In Devarim, when Moshe recounts the tale, he says nothing about the spies defaming the quality of the land, because he never heard that from them, only the size of the fruit that they brought back and their own testimony in BaMidbar 13:27 how good the land was. Since it was only a military question, they should have had sufficient faith in God that He would See them through the war. If in fact there was also a question whether the land was inhabitable by the Jews, this would not be susceptible to solving easily in the same manner that carrying out a war could be. With respect to a war, God can Help; but what could He Do if the land was truly caustic and too harsh for habitation? (He could Change the conditions, but that would require ongoing overt miracles, something that God Appears to Use only in the most extenuating of circumstances.)

ולא נצטרך לומר כי על יהושע וכלב אמר משה כן, כי למה ישמעו לשנים ולא יאמינו לעשרה.

While it could have been argued that Moshe left the attack on the quality of the land out because Yehoshua and Kalev did not mention this, or they specifically stated something contrary to this (see RaShI based upon Siphra on Devarim 1:25), and therefore Moshe thought it was not an issue, but that is difficult to say since if the people would have to choose between the reports of the two vs. the reports of the ten, the principle of following the majority would have predicated that they listen to the critique of the spies.

 ועוד, כי שם (פסוק כג) כתיב ואקח מכם שנים עשר אנשים, ועליהם אמר (פסוק כה) וישיבו אותנו דבר:

Furthermore, a textual indication that Yehoshua and Kalev never mentioned anything like this is indicated from v. 23 that implies that all twelve of the spies, including Y. and K. said the same thing upon their return from their mission.

רמב"ן דברים פרק א פסוק כה

(כה) “ויאמרו טובה הארץ אשר ה' אלקינו נתן לנו" - מי הם שאמרו טובתה? יהושע וכלב, לשון רש"י מספרי (דברים כה).

In light of the subsequent attack on the quality of the land in BaMidbar 13:32-3, it does not make sense to say that all the spies gave a good report about the land, but rather that only Y. and K. offered a positive report, with the rest not saying anything about the land, but rather only about the people living in it, publicly at the outset.

 ואני תמה, אם כן מה הטענה הזאת עליהם, וראוי שיאמינו לעשרה יותר מן השנים.

But if only two gave a positive report about the land, while ten did not, wouldn’t the people be justified in following the majority and not listening to Y. and K.? If so, why is Moshe as well as God so Upset by what is happening?

אולי טען עליהם, כיון שהקב"ה הודיע אתכם שהיא ארץ טובה וגדולי השלוחים והצדיקים שבהם אף הם מעידין כן, היה לכם להאמין, כי האחרים מפני מורך לב אמרו מה שאמרו:

Perhaps the reason why the people should have believed Y. and K. was because God had also Promised  a good land, and therefore the cumulative testimony of God as well as Y.and K. should have sufficed. (But obviously, RaMBaN does not think that this is a good enough answer, since he continues, “And the correct (understanding)…”

והנכון מה שפירשתי שם (במדבר יג לב), שכולם הודו לפני משה ואהרן וכל העדה ואמרו (שם יג כז) “באנו אל הארץ אשר שלחתנו וגם זבת חלב ודבש היא וזה פריה”, והנה כלם בהסכמה אחת בטובת הארץ, אבל בחוזק העמים ההם המסו את לבבם. ואחרי כן בראותם כי יהושע וכלב יחזקו את לבם למלחמה, באו שאר המרגלים אל בני ישראל שלא בפני משה והוציאו דבה על הארץ שהיא ארץ אוכלת יושביה, וזהו “ותרגנו באהליכם” (פסוק כז). וגם העם לא יזכירו בפני משה הדבה הזאת, כי יכחישם שלא אמרו כן בתחלה, והודו שהיא טובה וגם זבת חלב ודבש, אבל אמרו למשה (בפסוק כח) “אנה אנחנו עולים אחינו המסו את לבבנו לאמר עם גדול ורם ממנו.” ועל כן יאמר להם משה עתה, אמת הוא כדבריכם שהעם ההוא גדול ורם, אבל ה' ילחם לכם ככל אשר עשה עמכם ממצרים ועד הנה. וזה טעם ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים בה' אלקיכם - שאין העכבה אלא ממיעוט אמנה. הנה כל הפרשה כפשוטה ומשמעה:

RaMBaN then proceeds to reprise what he had written in BaMidbar 14:3, cited above.

The reason why Moshe emphasizes what they did in their tents is because whatever they said publicly, Kalev appeared to refute their complaint (BaMidbar 13:30). There was no subsequent discussion. Consequently if the people changed their minds, or simply hid what they were really thinking in public for fear of antagonizing Moshe, they reinforced their view in the privacy of their tents and this is what Moshe was confronted with the next day. He had thought that the matter had been put to rest. However he saw the next morning how the people had in fact been crying and carrying on about the entire situation. (This is a different approach than adopted by RaMBaN who sees the tents as the demarcation line between the public and private accusations made by the spies about the land of Israel. )

Beit.

1. According to Abrabanel, the fact that the people thought that they could rely on themselves to undo the Divine Decree that they not enter the land was an indication that the very quality that had made them sin in the first place, i.e., a failure to trust God, and appeal to Him for their needs, is being evidenced again by their desire for self-reliance.

    Sephorno posits two possibilities: a) Repentance makes no difference when the crime is Chilul HaShem. Or b) since their change of heart did not come about due to the imploring of Moshe and Kalev, but rather out of fear of the punishment of dying over the course of the forty years of wandering in the desert, it was deemed insincere and ineffectual. Just like the Shomronim,   referred to as Geirei Arayot—the converts of the lions (see Bava Kamma 38b, based on II Melachim 17:26), i.e., the only reason that these people converted was to protect themselves from lions that were marauding through their territory—are not considered full converts due to the ulterior motive that contributed to their conversion, the same could be said for a penitent who repents out of fear of punishment. Although MiToch Lo LiShma Ba’in LiShma (doing something for an ulterior motive can lead to the performance stemming from a pure motivation), but when applied to repentance for the sin being one of Profaning God’s Name, the bar is higher than usual for being forgiven, if in fact one can be forgiven at all for such a sin.

2.

בראשית פרק ד

(יג) ויאמר קין אל יקוק גדול עוני מנשא:

(יד) הן גרשת אתי היום מעל פני האדמה ומפניך אסתר והייתי נע ונד בארץ והיה כל מצאי יהרגני:

(טו) ויאמר לו יקוק לכן כל הרג קין שבעתים יקם וישם יקוק לקין אות לבלתי הכות אתו כל מצאו:

It appears that the only thing that Kayin is worried about is that either Hashem or someone else will kill him, rather than somehow making up for his having killed his brother.

שמואל א פרק טו

(כד) ויאמר שאול אל שמואל חטאתי כי עברתי את פי יקוק ואת דבריך כי יראתי את העם ואשמע בקולם:

(כה) ועתה שא נא את חטאתי ושוב עמי ואשתחוה ליקוק:

(כו) ויאמר שמואל אל שאול לא אשוב עמך כי מאסתה את דבר יקוק וימאסך יקוק מהיות מלך על ישראל: ס

Shaul was concerned about how it would look if Shmuel did not accompany him to participate in public worship. The only reason why he was admitting that he had sinned was to try to avoid being publicly humiliated by virtue of Shmuel’s absence.

שמואל א פרק ב

(כג) ויאמר להם למה תעשון כדברים האלה אשר אנכי שמע את דבריכם רעים מאת כל העם אלה:

(כד) אל בני כי לוא טובה השמעה אשר אנכי שמע מעברים עם יקוק: 

(כה) אם יחטא איש לאיש ופללו אלקים ואם ליקוק יחטא איש מי יתפלל לו ולא ישמעו לקול אביהם כי חפץ יקוק להמיתם:

The implication of their inability to take their father’s advice was due to God’s not Wanting them to repent, suggests that had God not Interfered, they would have repented under the threat of God Punishing them for their actions. If that was the only type of Teshuva possible, then perhaps the reason why God Precluded them from engaging in it was because it was worthless due to being motivated by fear.
(In the Gilayon on Arei Miklat [Parashat Matot 5716 that we studied last week in 5770] R. Bachya notes that when it comes to the fulfillment of Mitzvot and the transgression of Aveirot in general, everything follows the heart, i.e., intention.)

Parshat Devarim

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/573.html

masai answers

(Matot-)  Masai 5715

1. a) RaMBaM: The perpetrator of the manslaughter by consigning him to a city of refuge is out of sight of the Goel HaDam which in turn will help the latter assuage his feelings of anger and revenge.

    b) Sefer HaChinuch:

        i. Exile to a city of refuge is an atonement for the perpetrator who after all caused a death. Therefore he should suffer extreme discomfort and disorientation, but short of his own death.

         ii. Society is better off when there is less murder, so by exiling the perpetrator, the possibility for the GHD taking revenge by killing him is eliminated.

         iii. The relatives of the victim will not be reminded of what took place if the perpetrator is removed from their midst.

         iv. Overarching principle: another example of the principle enunciated in Mishlei 3:17 “It’s ways are ways of pleasantness and all of its paths are for peace.”

c) Rabbeinu Bachaye:

      i. The basis for determining reward for Mitzvot and punishment for Aveirot is the heart. If the perpetrator did not mean to kill the victim, his treatment is different (exile) than if he had intention to do so (death). A person whose heart is not involved in the performance of a Mitzva has not fulfilled the Commandment as was intended and therefore will receive less reward, if any.

      ii. The paradigm for Ihr Miklat is established in the primordial story of the exile from the Garden of Eden. Although Adam was guilty of a transgression that resulted in death not only for himself but also all members of the human race,¹ yet because this was not done deliberately, he is only exiled from the Garden as opposed to suffering immediate death, so too those that come after him who cause death, but not deliberately.

c) ShaDaL:

i. The Tora tried to civilize society by removing the responsibility for avenging the death of a relative from the family, and transferring responsibility for adjudication to the legal system in general and the judges in particular. Premeditated murder could be responded to in a satisfactory fashion from the point of view of the family of the victim, but not so manslaughter. Were the perpetrator to have nothing happen to him, the GHD would feel that he has let the victim down, or others might perceive that the GHD did not care that much about the victim. The Tora’s goal is to turn humanity away from this primitive system, but there was recognition that such a paradigm shift could not be accomplished “overnight.”

ii. No change would take place were the GHD to kill the perpetrator and then in turn be punished himself. He would see his punishment as a necessary price to pay in order to avenge the victim and would sacrifice himself to achieve such an end, despite the fact that this would in effect increase the number of “victims” from a single family, i.e., he now could be considered collateral damage to the initial manslaughter.

iii. Another possible outcome should the perpetrator not suffer any consequence is that the judges will be attacked by family members for letting him off the hook.

iv. Therefore in the interests to achieve a type of balance that will eventually result in the institution of the GHD becoming less and less relevant, the Tora requires the perpetrator to endure exile, appoints a single GHD, but in effect makes it virtually impossible for the latter to carry out an attack on the perpetrator, certainly as long as he resides in the Ihr Miklat.²

2. General rule: If the GHD figures prominently in the explanation, then it is a matter of “flight”. When the focus is the consequence for having caused the loss of life, then “exile” is relevant.
    “Flee”—RaMBaM; Chinuch ii; ShaDaL.
    “Exile”—Chinuch i, iii; Rabbeinu Bachaye.
3. The Gemora discusses three distinct stages in the process:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת מכות דף י עמוד ב

תניא, ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר: (1) בתחלה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד מקדימין לערי מקלט,

(2) וב"ד שולחין ומביאין אותם משם,

      מי שנתחייב מיתה - הרגוהו, שנאמר: (דברים יט:יב) "ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אותו משם ונתנו אותו ביד    גואל הדם ומת,"

      מי שלא נתחייב - פטרוהו, שנאמר: (במדבר לה:כה) "והצילו העדה את הרוצח מיד גואל הדם",

(3) מי שנתחייב גלות - מחזירין אותו למקומו, שנא': (שם) "והשיבו אותו העדה אל עיר מקלטו אשר     נס שמה"

1) After the death of the victim, all murderers flee to an Ihr Miklat.
2) The Beit Din extradites the perpetrator and conducts a trial.

3) In the event that the Beit Din finds that the perpetrator was an inadvertent murderer, he is returned to the Ihr Miklat.

These stages can be detected within the various verses:

a)  The deliberate murderer runs to Ihr Miklat. The Rabbis determine that he is not entitled to   asylum, and hand him over for execution.

דברים פרק יט

(יא) וכי יהיה איש שנא לרעהו וארב לו וקם עליו והכהו נפש ומת ונס אל אחת הערים האל:

(יב) ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אתו משם ונתנו אתו ביד גאל הדם ומת:

(יג) לא תחוס עינך עליו ובערת דם הנקי מישראל וטוב לך:

במדבר פרק לה

(יא) והקריתם לכם ערים ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם ונס שמה רצח מכה נפש בשגגה:

(יב) והיו לכם הערים למקלט מגאל ולא ימות הרצח עד עמדו לפני העדה למשפט:

b) Along with the deliberate murderer, the inadvertent murderer flees to Ihr Miklat immediately after the loss of life, to await determination by Beit Din regarding his status.

(טז) ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:

(יז) ואם באבן יד אשר ימות בה הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:

(יח) או בכלי עץ יד אשר ימות בו הכהו וימת רצח הוא מות יומת הרצח:

(יט) גאל הדם הוא ימית את הרצח בפגעו בו הוא ימיתנו:

(כ) ואם בשנאה יהדפנו או השליך עליו בצדיה וימת:

(כא) או באיבה הכהו בידו וימת מות יומת המכה רצח הוא גאל הדם ימית את הרצח בפגעו בו:

a’) If the evidence indicates that there was premeditated murder, the perpetrator is worthy of execution. (Whether the sentence is actually carried out depends upon witnesses, warning, etc.) 

(כב) ואם בפתע בלא איבה הדפו או השליך עליו כל כלי בלא צדיה:

(כג) או בכל אבן אשר ימות בה בלא ראות ויפל עליו וימת והוא לא אויב לו ולא מבקש רעתו:

(כד) ושפטו העדה בין המכה ובין גאל הדם על המשפטים האלה:

(כה) והצילו העדה את הרצח מיד גאל הדם והשיבו אתו העדה אל עיר מקלטו אשר נס שמה וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדל אשר משח אתו בשמן הקדש:

c) If it is determined that manslaughter was committed, the Beit Din will see the perpetator safely back to the Ihr Miklat where he is to remain until the death of the Kohen Gadol.

Consequently, the term “flee” applies to stage 1), while the term “exile” applies to stage 3).

4. The common denominator in the four instances listed is that people are not acting in the ideal manner that they could, but are rather giving in to base instincts. Rather than completely deny such a possibility, the Tora designs Mitzvot that attempt to sublimate these darker impulses into behaviors that if not in the short run, then perhaps in the long term will contribute to humanity improving its morals, ethics and relationship to God.

a) Ihr Miklat: The blood avenger as well as other members of the victim’s family can’t get over their animus in the event that nothing would happen to an individual guilty of manslaughter. (They should—the perpetrator only did something inadvertently—but they can’t. So something has to be put into place that shows that the perpetrator is subject to consequence in order  to avoid further deaths arising from this situation.

b) Eishet Yefrat Toar: The victorious soldier ideally should leave the female war captive alone. But if he cannot overcome his physical desires, a means for channeling these desires into marriage is constructed. RaShI does add that probably, no good will come to a man’s family when he has married for such reasons; nevertheless this is considered better than were he to rape the woman and then walk away.

c) Melech: The people will only request a king to be like everyone else. Nevertheless, rules will be in place when this occurs that will control the situation at least to some extent so that they will not get their way completely, but will have to incorporate God’s Rules into this institution. (The most fundamental indication that this idea was wrongheaded is that the overwhelming majority of kings were corrupt and refused to comply with God’s Law.)

d) Basar Ta’ava: The eating of meat is an indication of a lowly ethical level that perhaps eventually will be improved, but for the time being, is not. Yet there are restrictions with regard to how meat is prepared and consumed and these serve to put reins upon man’s tendency to indulge his baser instincts.

(Links for the Gilyanot mentioned in question 4:
Ki Tetze 5702 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=1285
Shoftim 5707 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=1177
Re’eh 5705 http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=1109 )

MAsei questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/638.html

pinchas answers

Pinchos 5723
Alef.

1. The problem is that Moshe seems not to know the law of inheritance to the point that he has to inquire of HaShem what to do in the case of the daughters of Tzlophchad. But if he had already been informed of all Halachot on Sinai during his first forty days on the mountain, why is he unaware of what to do in this particular case?

2. The basic difference between the two approaches is whereas the Yesh Omrim hypothesizes that Moshe truly did not know the answer, not because he was never taught it, but rather as the result  of an arrogant statement on his part for which HaShem Wished to Put him in his place, Reish Lakish suggests that not only had Moshe been taught this Halacha, but that he also remembered it at this point. However, because he specifically did not wish to show off in light of the fact that the lower judges had passed the question “up the line”, he wished to do the same. The two views are diametrically opposed, because according to the second, not only was Moshe not arrogant, but it was his very humility that caused him to act outwardly as if he did not know the answer. (One of the cases where a person is permitted to lie is when he is asked a Halachic question and he does not want to show off—Bava Metzia 23b-24a “BeMasechet”—RaShI:

במסכת - יש בידך מסכת פלוני סדורה בגירסא או לאו, ואף על גב שסדורה היא לו - יאמר לו לאו, ומדת ענוה היא.

3. The Yeish Omrim interpret “U’Shmativ”  as “I (Moshe) will make it (the Halachic question that you have) heard to you” implying that he possesses all of the answers, an arrogant thing to say.

4.

ותעמדנה לפני משה ולפני אלעזר הכהן ולפני הנשיאם וכל העדה פתח אהל מועד לאמר:

    Reish Lakish understands that the various personalities listed in the verse in addition to Moshe were the people that Benot Tzlophchad had first approached with their question. Consequently, were Moshe to answer it, he would have demonstrated how superior he was to the others. In order to avoid such a situation, he too passed the question on to a “Higher Authority”.

5. Although what is recorded in Devarim 1 is publicly said by Moshe a week prior to his death, it is a reprise of what took place as a result of Yitro’s advice to him in Shemot 18.

שמות פרק יח

(כד) וישמע משה לקול חתנו ויעש כל אשר אמר:

(כה) ויבחר משה אנשי חיל מכל ישראל ויתן אתם ראשים על העם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים  ושרי עשרת:

    Although at that point, Moshe’s specific instructions to the judges were not mentioned, this is another instance where the words of the Tora are plentiful in one place and anemic in another, with the reader having to patch together the complete story by combining the various accounts.

Beit.

1. Why do the women have to mention that Tzlophchad died because of “his sin”? What relevance does that have in this case? It would have been sufficient to say that he had died without providing a context.

2. According to R. Yehuda HaLevi, the intent of the comment is that due to Tzlophchad’s misfortune, he died with only daughters and no sons. The Zohar on the other hand identifies the sin for which Tzlophchad died with one of the insurrections directed against not only God but also Moshe. It was specifically for this reason that the women had brought their case in the presence of other judges and leaders, in order to demonstrate that they suspected Moshe of prejudice and the inability of judging them fairly. The end of the passage castigates the judges for participating in this confrontation, thereby also implying that they did not summarily dismiss the women’s suspicions, in effect tying them to Tzlophchad’s original sin of casting aspersions on Moshe, the man known as the most humble of men. Someone who is indeed humble, will not take personally a complaint that is leveled against him.

3. The Zohar interprets BaMidbar 21:6 as referring to Tzlophchad because of a phrase that appears in the previous verse, and then again in the petition of his daughters. In 21:5 it says,

במדבר פרק כא

(ה) וידבר העם באלקים ובמשה למה העליתנו ממצרים למות במדבר כי אין לחם ואין מים ונפשנו קצה בלחם הקלקל:

(ו) וישלח יקוק בעם את הנחשים השרפים וינשכו את העם וימת עם רב מישראל:

במדבר פרק כז

(ג) אבינו מת במדבר והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על יקוק בעדת קרח כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו:

   The Zohar suggests that there is a type of Gezeira Shava here that identifies their father as not only participating in the complaining recorded in 21:5, but as the leader of it. “Rav” then refers to someone who has a large family, i.e., 5 daughters, as well as significant status as a descendant of Yosef and in turn Menashe.

    (This is an alternative to R. Akiva’s interpretation who identifies Tzlophchad with the wood gatherer because of a Gezeira Shava of his own—Shabbat 96b.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף צו עמוד ב

תנו רבנן: מקושש זה צלפחד, וכן הוא אומר )במדבר טו( “ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו איש וגו'” ולהלן הוא אומר )במדבר כז( “אבינו מת במדבר” מה להלן צלפחד, אף כאן צלפחד, דברי רבי עקיבא.

Gimel.

The Midrash in Shir HaShirim Rabba in effect accuses Moshe of inappropriately recusing himself from trying to adjudicate the situation of these women. It was one more sign of Moshe’s no longer being able to lead the people and consequently the need for him to be replaced by a new leader.

Daled.

NeTzIV, in his commentary on the Siphre in question, states that the key phrase in this verse that stimulated the Midrash’s comment is “BeToch Achai Avinu.” Since Tzlophchad belonged to the tribe of Menashe, it was fully possible for these women to take up secure residence on the other side of the Jordan, an area that was granted to Reuven, Gad and half of the tribe of Menashe. Although the negotiation that between Moshe and the 2 ½ tribes is recorded in BaMidbar 32, their intention could have been well-known at a prior time, certainly after the battles with the kings whose land was captured, mentioned in BaMidbar 21. But instead of settling for residing in this more secure location, the women insisted that they, as a proper memorial to their father, wanted to have a portion in the as-yet unconquered land of Israel. This demonstrates the power of their desire to enter Israel, in stark contrast to the men who desired to return to Egypt. The contrast between men and women parallels the Midrashic theme that it was because of the women that the Jews were redeemed from Egypt in the first place:

שמות רבה (וילנא) פרשת שמות פרשה א

דרש ר"ע בשכר נשים צדקניות שהיו באותו הדור נגאלו ישראל ממצרים, ומה עשו בשעה שהיו הולכות לשאוב מים, הקב"ה מזמן להם דגים קטנים בכדיהן ושואבין מחצה מים ומחצה דגים, ומוליכות אצל בעליהן ושופתות להם שתי קדרות אחת של חמין ואחת של דגים, ומאכילות אותן ומרחיצות אותן וסכות אותן ומשקות אותן, ונזקקות להם בין שפתים, שנאמר (תהלים סח) אם תשכבון בין שפתים כנפי יונה נחפה בכסף...

This is in contrast with the men, who originally followed Amram’s lead in separating from Yocheved because there was no point in having children if the males would be drowned in the Nile.

Heh.

1. According to the typical cantillation (Kedma followed by Zakef Katan) the word “U’Minchatam” is separated from what follows, i.e., “Solet Belula BaShemen”. In effect, it is as if there is a colon leading to the details that follow.

2. If the cantillation for “U’Minchatam”  is a Mercha, then it is attached to what follows, as if the phrase that follows is a clarification of “U’Minchatam”, or the cantillation mark is equivalent to “i.e.”, “that is to say. The language in VaYikra 23:13 would demonstrate that just as “Yayin Revi’it HaHin” is a clarification of the word “VeNisko”, the same could be true about “Solet Belula BaShemen”’relationship with “U’Minchatam” in BaMidbar 29:3.

3. R. Brecher distinguishes between the two cases. With respect to VaYikra 23:13, where the word in question Is “VeNisko”, since all liquid libations, whether they consist of wine or water, will have the same volume, i.e., “Revi’it HaHin,”  the following phrase clearly defines the tems that precedes them. However, in the case of the meal offering, not every Mincha consists of “Solet”, fine flour. Consequently the phrase that immediately follows “U’Minchatam” does not absolutely define the word, but rather constitutes only a single instance of this type of offering. Therefore it would be more logical to separate “U’Minchatam” from what follows.