Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 21, 2017 | 讻状讛 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 119

How did the daughters of Tzlofchad inherit Tzlofchad’s double portion from his father if one only inherits a double portion that the eldest inherited in his lifetime? 聽One opinion is brought to explain what exactly it was that Moshe didn’t know with regard to both the daughters of Tzolfchad and the man who was chopping trees on Shabbat, both cases where Moshe had to turn to God for an advice. 聽This opinion minimizes what Moshe didn’t know. 聽He says that it was specifically regarding the double portion and not the inheritance in general. 聽The virtues of the daughters of Tzlofchad are delineated聽– their intelligence, their ability to interpret the verses in the Torah and their聽righteousness.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇注讜诇诐 讘转讬 讗讘讜转 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗诇诪讗 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathers鈥 houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehad鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讛讘谞讬诐 谞讟诇讜 讘讝讻讜转 讗讘讬 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讘讝讻讜转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜转讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讝讻讜转 注爪诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讘讗讬 讛讗专抓

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 诇讘讗讬 讛讗专抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

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.

讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转讚讜转 讗讛诇讬诐

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讞诇拽讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬驻诇讜 讞讘诇讬 诪谞砖讛 注砖专讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 讛讬讗

Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd ten parts fell to Manasseh鈥 (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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖拽诪讜谞讬 讛讬讛 诇讬 讞讘专 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖拽诪讜谞讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讬讜专砖讜转 讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讜讟诇讜转 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 诇讗讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi 岣deka 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鈥檚 portion, as well as his share in Hepher鈥檚 portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepher鈥檚 portion or not.

讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 驻专砖转 谞讞诇讜转 诇讬讻转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讝讻讜 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讜谞讻转讘讛 注诇 讬讚谉

Rabbi 岣deka 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鈥檚 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.

讜讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讛诪拽讜砖砖 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬 讝讜 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讬诪讜转 讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 驻专砖转 诪拽讜砖砖 砖转讻转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 诪拽讜砖砖 讜谞讻转讘讛 注诇 讬讚讜 诇诇诪讚讱

Rabbi 岣deka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32鈥36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: 鈥淓very one that profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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

砖诪讙诇讙诇讬诐 讝讻讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讝讻讗讬 讜讞讜讘讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘

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 岣deka鈥檚 citation of Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 daughters to collect a double portion; after all, Hepher鈥檚 portion in the land was in his possession, and Zelophehad was the firstborn?

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 讗转讛 诇讻诐 诪讜专砖讛 讗谞讬 讛壮 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诪讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: This matter itself is what Moses was uncertain about, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will give it to you for a heritage [morasha]: I am the Lord鈥 (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.

讜驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讬专讜砖讛 诇讻诐 诪讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讜诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转讘讬讗诪讜 讜转讟注诪讜 讘讛专 谞讞诇转讱 转讘讬讗谞讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 转讘讬讗诪讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讘讗讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诪讛 诪转谞讘讗讬谉

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: 鈥淵ou will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance鈥 (Exodus 15:17). It is not stated: You will bring us in, rather: 鈥淵ou will bring them in,鈥 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.

讜转注诪讚谞讛 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讛 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讛谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讗驻砖专 注诪讚讜 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讛 讻讜壮 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讚讘专 讜注诪讚讜 诇驻谞讬 讛谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident involving Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters. The verse states: 鈥淎nd they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:2). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that Zelophehad鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 住专住 讛诪拽专讗 讜讚专砖讛讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讜 讜注诪讚讜 诇讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讻讜诇谉

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 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Those enumerated in the verse were all sitting in the house of study, and Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters went and stood before all of them at once. They were not asked separately; rather, the order of the verse reflects their stature.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讻讘讜讚 诇转诇诪讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Abba 岣nan, 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.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讬拽专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讬拽专讗

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.

转谞讗 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讞讻诪谞讬讜转 讛谉 讚专砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉

搂 The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.

讞讻诪谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖诇驻讬 砖注讛 讚讘专讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讘驻专砖转 讬讘诪讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻讘谉 讗谞讜 讞砖讜讘讬谉 转谞讛 诇谞讜 谞讞诇讛 讻讘谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 转转讬讘诐 讗诪谞讜 诪讬讚 讜讬拽专讘 诪砖讛 讗转 诪砖驻讟谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

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 Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淚f 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鈥檚 brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Moses brought their cause before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 27:5).

讚专砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讜转 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘谉 诇讗 讚讘专谞讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 讘转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 讘转 诇讘谉 诇讗 讚讘专谞讜

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鈥檛 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.

爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讙讜谉 诇讛谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讗 谞砖讗转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛

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鈥檃kov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讬住转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 注讚 砖砖讬诐 讘转 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讘转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 谞注砖讛 诇讛谉 谞住 讻讬讜讻讘讚 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讱 讗讬砖 诪讘讬转 诇讜讬 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讘转 诇讜讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi鈥 (Exodus 2:1).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 119

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 119

诇注讜诇诐 讘转讬 讗讘讜转 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗诇诪讗 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathers鈥 houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehad鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讛讘谞讬诐 谞讟诇讜 讘讝讻讜转 讗讘讬 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讘讝讻讜转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜转讬讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讝讻讜转 注爪诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讜爪讗讬 诪爪专讬诐 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讘讗讬 讛讗专抓

搂 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鈥檛 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 诇讘讗讬 讛讗专抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讛讜讛 讘谉 注砖专讬诐 讛讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘谉 注砖专讬诐

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.

讜砖讛讬讛 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 砖谞讬 讞诇拽讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬转讚讜转 讗讛诇讬诐

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 谞讟诇讜 讗专讘注讛 讞诇拽讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬驻诇讜 讞讘诇讬 诪谞砖讛 注砖专讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 讛讬讗

Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd ten parts fell to Manasseh鈥 (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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讚拽讗 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖拽诪讜谞讬 讛讬讛 诇讬 讞讘专 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讻讱 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛砖拽诪讜谞讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讬讜专砖讜转 讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讗诐 谞讜讟诇讜转 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗诐 诇讗讜

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi 岣deka 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鈥檚 portion, as well as his share in Hepher鈥檚 portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepher鈥檚 portion or not.

讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 驻专砖转 谞讞诇讜转 诇讬讻转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖讝讻讜 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讜谞讻转讘讛 注诇 讬讚谉

Rabbi 岣deka 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鈥檚 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.

讜讬讜讚注 讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖讛诪拽讜砖砖 讘诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬 讝讜 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讬诪讜转 讜专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 驻专砖转 诪拽讜砖砖 砖转讻转讘 注诇 讬讚讬 诪砖讛 讗诇讗 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 诪拽讜砖砖 讜谞讻转讘讛 注诇 讬讚讜 诇诇诪讚讱

Rabbi 岣deka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32鈥36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: 鈥淓very one that profanes it shall be put to death鈥 (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

砖诪讙诇讙诇讬诐 讝讻讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讝讻讗讬 讜讞讜讘讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讞讬讬讘

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 岣deka鈥檚 citation of Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讞讝拽转 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 daughters to collect a double portion; after all, Hepher鈥檚 portion in the land was in his possession, and Zelophehad was the firstborn?

讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 讗转讛 诇讻诐 诪讜专砖讛 讗谞讬 讛壮 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 诪讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

The Gemara answers: This matter itself is what Moses was uncertain about, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will give it to you for a heritage [morasha]: I am the Lord鈥 (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.

讜驻砖讟讜 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讬专讜砖讛 诇讻诐 诪讗讘讜转讬讻诐 讜诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 转讘讬讗诪讜 讜转讟注诪讜 讘讛专 谞讞诇转讱 转讘讬讗谞讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 转讘讬讗诪讜 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讘讗讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 诪讛 诪转谞讘讗讬谉

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: 鈥淵ou will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance鈥 (Exodus 15:17). It is not stated: You will bring us in, rather: 鈥淵ou will bring them in,鈥 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.

讜转注诪讚谞讛 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讛 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讜诇驻谞讬 讛谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讗驻砖专 注诪讚讜 诇驻谞讬 诪砖讛 讻讜壮 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讚讘专 讜注诪讚讜 诇驻谞讬 讛谞砖讬讗讬诐 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident involving Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters. The verse states: 鈥淎nd they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:2). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that Zelophehad鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 住专住 讛诪拽专讗 讜讚专砖讛讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讘讗 讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 讛讬讜 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜讛诇讻讜 讜注诪讚讜 诇讛谉 诇驻谞讬 讻讜诇谉

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 岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Those enumerated in the verse were all sitting in the house of study, and Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters went and stood before all of them at once. They were not asked separately; rather, the order of the verse reflects their stature.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讻讘讜讚 诇转诇诪讬讚 讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Abba 岣nan, 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.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讬拽专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讬讛 专讘讬讛 讬拽专讗

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.

转谞讗 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讞讻诪谞讬讜转 讛谉 讚专砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉

搂 The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.

讞讻诪谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖诇驻讬 砖注讛 讚讘专讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘 讜讚讜专砖 讘驻专砖转 讬讘诪讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬砖讘讜 讗讞讬诐 讬讞讚讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻讘谉 讗谞讜 讞砖讜讘讬谉 转谞讛 诇谞讜 谞讞诇讛 讻讘谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 转转讬讘诐 讗诪谞讜 诪讬讚 讜讬拽专讘 诪砖讛 讗转 诪砖驻讟谉 诇驻谞讬 讛壮

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 Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淚f 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鈥檚 brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Moses brought their cause before the Lord鈥 (Numbers 27:5).

讚专砖谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讜转 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘谉 诇讗 讚讘专谞讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 讘转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讛 讘转 诇讘谉 诇讗 讚讘专谞讜

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鈥檛 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.

爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 砖诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讙讜谉 诇讛谉 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 砖讘讛谉 诇讗 谞砖讗转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛

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鈥檃kov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讬住转 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 注讚 砖砖讬诐 讘转 注砖专讬诐 讬讜诇讚转 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讘转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖爪讚拽谞讬讜转 讛谉 谞注砖讛 诇讛谉 谞住 讻讬讜讻讘讚 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬诇讱 讗讬砖 诪讘讬转 诇讜讬 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讘转 诇讜讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi鈥 (Exodus 2:1).

Scroll To Top