Bava Batra 119
לְעוֹלָם בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת קָא חָשֵׁיב, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דִּבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה; אַלְמָא אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּחְזֶקֶת הִיא.
The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathers’ houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehad’s daughters, the verse teaches us this: That the daughters of Zelophehad took the portion of the firstborn due their father. Evidently, Eretz Yisrael is considered already in possession of one who was entitled to his portion of the land, even before the land was assigned. Although a firstborn son does not take a double portion of the property due to his deceased father as he does the property his father possessed, it is considered that Hepher possessed the portion that would eventually be assigned to him, and that Zelophehad was entitled to a double portion.
אָמַר מָר: וְהַבָּנִים נָטְלוּ בִּזְכוּת אֲבִי אֲבִיהֶם, וּבִזְכוּת אֲבִי אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן. וְהָתַנְיָא: בִּזְכוּת עַצְמָן! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. The Master says: And the sons of the spies and of the protesters took portions of the land in the merit of their paternal grandfathers and in the merit of their maternal grandfathers if those grandfathers were among those who left Egypt. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:10): The sons of the spies and of the protesters took portions in their own merit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita, which states they took portions in the merit of their grandfathers, is written in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt; and that baraita, which states that they took portions in their own merit, is written in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דַּהֲוָה בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים. הָא דְּלָא הֲוָה בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים.
The Gemara suggests another answer. And if you wish, say instead: This baraita and that baraita are written in accordance with the opinion that asserts that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult: This baraita is discussing one who was twenty years old when the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, and therefore he took a portion in his own merit, and that baraita is discussing one who was not twenty years old.
וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים. וְאַמַּאי? רָאוּי הוּא, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּיִתְדוֹת אֹהָלִים.
§ The mishna teaches: And Zelophehad took an additional portion that he received from Hepher, because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father. The Gemara asks: But why was he entitled to the double portion of the firstborn? His portion of land is property merely due to Hepher, as Hepher never actually possessed the land, and the halakha is that a firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to the deceased as he does of property the deceased possessed. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This clause of the mishna is stated with regard to tent pegs and other assorted movable property that Hepher possessed.
מֵתִיב רַבָּה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ אַרְבָּעָה חֲלָקִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפְּלוּ חַבְלֵי מְנַשֶּׁה עֲשָׂרָה״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּחְזֶקֶת הִיא.
Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: “And ten parts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). Clearly, this is referring to portions of land, and not simply movable property. Rather, Rabba says: Eretz Yisrael is considered already in possession of one who was entitled to his portion of inheritance land, even before the land was assigned.
מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִידְקָא: שִׁמְעוֹן הַשִּׁקְמוֹנִי הָיָה לִי חָבֵר מִתַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְכָךְ הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַשִּׁקְמוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁבְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד יוֹרְשׁוֹת הֵן, אֲבָל לֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ אִם נוֹטְלוֹת חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה אִם לָאו;
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Ḥideka said: Shimon HaShikmoni was my colleague among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and so would Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni say: Even before turning to God for guidance, Moses our teacher knew that the daughters of Zelophehad were inheritors and that they were entitled to their father’s portion, as well as his share in Hepher’s portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepher’s portion or not.
וּרְאוּיָה הָיְתָה פָּרָשַׁת נַחֲלוֹת לִיכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדָן.
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.
וְיוֹדֵעַ הָיָה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁהַמְקוֹשֵׁשׁ בְּמִיתָה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״, אֲבָל לֹא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵי זוֹ מִיתָה הוּא יָמוּת; וּרְאוּיָהּ הָיְתָה פָּרָשַׁת מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁתִּכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדוֹ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ,
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
שֶׁמְּגַלְגְּלִים זְכוּת עַל יְדֵי זַכַּאי, וְחוֹבָה עַל יְדֵי חַיָּיב.
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.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּחְזֶקֶת, מַאי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ?
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?
הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַתִּי אֹתָהּ לָכֶם מוֹרָשָׁה אֲנִי ה׳״ – יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא לָכֶם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם; אוֹ דִלְמָא, שֶׁמּוֹרִישִׁין וְאֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין?
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.
וּפְשַׁטוּ לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: יְרוּשָּׁה לָכֶם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם, וּמוֹרִישִׁין וְאֵינָן יוֹרְשִׁין. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תְּבִיאֵמוֹ וְתִטָּעֵמוֹ בְּהַר נַחֲלָתְךָ״ – ״תְּבִיאֵנוּ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״תְּבִיאֵמוֹ״; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַבְּאִין, וְאֵינָן יוֹדְעִין מָה מִתְנַבְּאִין.
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.
״וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִים וְכׇל הָעֵדָה״ – אֶפְשָׁר עָמְדוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה כּוּ׳ וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָהֶן דָּבָר, וְעָמְדוּ לִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִים וְכׇל הָעֵדָה?!
§ 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?
אֶלָּא סָרֵס הַמִּקְרָא וְדׇרְשֵׁהוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה. אַבָּא חָנָן אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין, וְהָלְכוּ וְעָמְדוּ לָהֶן לִפְנֵי כּוּלָּן.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: חוֹלְקִין כָּבוֹד לְתַלְמִיד בִּמְקוֹם הָרַב, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין חוֹלְקִין.
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.
וְהִלְכְתָא: חוֹלְקִין, וְהִלְכְתָא: אֵין חוֹלְקִין. קַשְׁיָא הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא! הִלְכְתָא אַהִלְכְתָא לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דִּפְלִיג לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ יְקָרָא, הָא דְּלָא פְּלִיג לֵיהּ רַבֵּיהּ יְקָרָא.
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.
תָּנָא: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד חַכְמָנִיּוֹת הֵן, דַּרְשָׁנִיּוֹת הֵן, צִדְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן.
§ The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.
חַכְמָנִיּוֹת הֵן – שֶׁלְּפִי שָׁעָה דִּבְּרוּ. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ יוֹשֵׁב וְדוֹרֵשׁ בְּפָרָשַׁת יְבָמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כְּבֵן אָנוּ חֲשׁוּבִין – תְּנָה לָנוּ נַחֲלָה כְּבֵן; אִם לָאו – תִּתְיַבֵּם אִמֵּנוּ! מִיָּד – ״וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
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).
דַּרְשָׁנִיּוֹת הֵן – שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרוֹת: אִילּוּ הָיָה לוֹ בֵּן, לֹא דִּבַּרְנוּ. וְהָתַנְיָא: ״בַּת״! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: סְמִי מִכָּאן ״בַּת״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הָיָה בַּת לַבֵּן – לֹא דִּבַּרְנוּ.
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.
צִדְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן – שֶׁלֹּא נִישְּׂאוּ אֶלָּא לְהָגוּן לָהֶן. תָּנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אֲפִילּוּ קְטַנָּה שֶׁבָּהֶן לֹא נִשֵּׂאת פְּחוּתָה מֵאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה.
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.
אִינִי?! וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נִיסַּת פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת עֶשְׂרִים – יוֹלֶדֶת עַד שִׁשִּׁים, בַּת עֶשְׂרִים – יוֹלֶדֶת עַד אַרְבָּעִים, בַּת אַרְבָּעִים – שׁוּב אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת! אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁצִּדְקָנִיּוֹת הֵן, נַעֲשָׂה לָהֶן נֵס – כְּיוֹכֶבֶד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי, וַיִּקַּח אֶת בַּת לֵוִי״ –
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).
