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.