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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 21, 2017 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื–

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? ย 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. ย This opinion minimizes what Moshe didn’t know. ย He says that it was specifically regarding the double portion and not the inheritance in general. ย The virtues of the daughters of Tzlofchad are delineatedย – their intelligence, their ability to interpret the verses in the Torah and theirย righteousness.


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

ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื ื˜ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืืœืžื ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathersโ€™ houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehadโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื ื™ื ื ื˜ืœื• ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื”ื ื•ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ ืืžื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื•ืฆืื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื”ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื‘ืื™ ื”ืืจืฅ


ยง 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 isnโ€™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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืœื‘ืื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื”ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื:


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.


ื•ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืงื™ื: ื•ืืžืื™ ืจืื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืจืื•ื™ ื›ื‘ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื“ื•ืช ืื”ืœื™ื


ยง 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื ื˜ืœื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื—ืœืงื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื—ื‘ืœื™ ืžื ืฉื” ืขืฉืจื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื™ื


Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: โ€œAnd ten parts fell to Manassehโ€ (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.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื“ืงื ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืœื™ ื—ื‘ืจ ืžืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื•ื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื™ื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื ื•ื˜ืœื•ืช ื—ืœืง ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืื ืœืื•


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi แธคideka 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 fatherโ€™s portion, as well as his share in Hepherโ€™s portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepherโ€™s portion or not.


ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ื ื—ืœื•ืช ืœื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืืœื ืฉื–ื›ื• ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ


Rabbi แธคideka 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 Zelophehadโ€™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.


ื•ื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื”ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืœืœื™ื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ื‘ืื™ ื–ื• ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื™ืžื•ืช ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ืฉืชื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืืœื ืฉื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืœืœืžื“ืš


Rabbi แธคideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32โ€“36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: โ€œEvery one that profanes it shall be put to deathโ€ (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


ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ื ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ื•ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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 แธคidekaโ€™s citation of Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืกืชืคืงื ืœื™ื”


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 Zelophehadโ€™s daughters to collect a double portion; after all, Hepherโ€™s portion in the land was in his possession, and Zelophehad was the firstborn?


ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ืงื ืžืกืชืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืืชื” ืœื›ื ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืื ื™ ื”ืณ ื™ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ืœื›ื ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืฉืžื•ืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ


The Gemara answers: This matter itself is what Moses was uncertain about, as it is written: โ€œAnd I will give it to you for a heritage [morasha]: I am the Lordโ€ (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.


ื•ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื™ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื›ื ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืžื•ืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื‘ื™ืืžื• ื•ืชื˜ืขืžื• ื‘ื”ืจ ื ื—ืœืชืš ืชื‘ื™ืื ื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืชื‘ื™ืืžื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžืชื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืขื™ืŸ ืžื” ืžืชื ื‘ืื™ืŸ


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: โ€œYou will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritanceโ€ (Exodus 15:17). It is not stated: You will bring us in, rather: โ€œYou will bring them in,โ€ 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.


ื•ืชืขืžื“ื ื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื ืฉื™ืื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื” ืืคืฉืจ ืขืžื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ ืžืฉื” ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื ืฉื™ืื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื”


ยง The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident involving Zelophehadโ€™s daughters. The verse states: โ€œAnd they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregationโ€ (Numbers 27:2). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that Zelophehadโ€™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?


ืืœื ืกืจืก ื”ืžืงืจื ื•ื“ืจืฉื”ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืื‘ื ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื”ื™ื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืœื”ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ื•ืœืŸ


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 แธคanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Those enumerated in the verse were all sitting in the house of study, and Zelophehadโ€™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.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ


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


ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื”ืœื›ืชื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื”ืœื›ืชื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื” ื™ืงืจื ื”ื ื“ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื” ื™ืงืจื


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.


ืชื ื ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื—ื›ืžื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื“ืจืฉื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ


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


ื—ื›ืžื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืคื™ ืฉืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื‘ืคืจืฉืช ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื ื›ื‘ืŸ ืื ื• ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื” ืœื ื• ื ื—ืœื” ื›ื‘ืŸ ืื ืœืื• ืชืชื™ื‘ื ืืžื ื• ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ


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 Yitzแธฅak 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: โ€œIf 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 husbandโ€™s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wifeโ€ (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: โ€œAnd Moses brought their cause before the Lordโ€ (Numbers 27:5).


ื“ืจืฉื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื•ืช ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื‘ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื ื• ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื‘ืช ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืช ืœื‘ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื ื•


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 isnโ€™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.


ืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืืœื ืœื”ื’ื•ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื ื ืฉืืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื”


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 Yaโ€™akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age.


ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื ื™ืกืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืขืฉืจื™ื ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืขื“ ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ืช ืขืฉืจื™ื ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืช ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืืœื ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื ืขืฉื” ืœื”ืŸ ื ืก ื›ื™ื•ื›ื‘ื“ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืœืš ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ืงื— ืืช ื‘ืช ืœื•ื™


The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesnโ€™t Rav แธคisda 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 Zelophehadโ€™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: โ€œAnd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Leviโ€ (Exodus 2:1).


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

ืœืขื•ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื ื˜ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืืœืžื ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื™ื


The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathersโ€™ houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehadโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ื ื™ื ื ื˜ืœื• ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื”ื ื•ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ ืืžื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื•ืฆืื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื”ื ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื‘ืื™ ื”ืืจืฅ


ยง 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 isnโ€™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.


ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื•ื”ื ืœื‘ืื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื ื”ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืŸ ืขืฉืจื™ื:


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.


ื•ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืงื™ื: ื•ืืžืื™ ืจืื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื‘ืจืื•ื™ ื›ื‘ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื“ื•ืช ืื”ืœื™ื


ยง 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื ื˜ืœื• ืืจื‘ืขื” ื—ืœืงื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื—ื‘ืœื™ ืžื ืฉื” ืขืฉืจื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ื”ื™ื


Rabba raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: โ€œAnd ten parts fell to Manassehโ€ (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.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื“ืงื ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื•ื ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืœื™ ื—ื‘ืจ ืžืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ืฉืงืžื•ื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื™ื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื ื•ื˜ืœื•ืช ื—ืœืง ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ืื ืœืื•


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi แธคideka 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 fatherโ€™s portion, as well as his share in Hepherโ€™s portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepherโ€™s portion or not.


ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ื ื—ืœื•ืช ืœื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืืœื ืฉื–ื›ื• ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ


Rabbi แธคideka 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 Zelophehadโ€™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.


ื•ื™ื•ื“ืข ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืฉื”ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืœืœื™ื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื•ื“ืข ื‘ืื™ ื–ื• ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื™ืžื•ืช ื•ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ืฉืชื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืืœื ืฉื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืœืœืžื“ืš


Rabbi แธคideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32โ€“36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: โ€œEvery one that profanes it shall be put to deathโ€ (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


ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ื ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื–ื›ืื™ ื•ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘


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 แธคidekaโ€™s citation of Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืจืฅ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ื—ื–ืงืช ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืกืชืคืงื ืœื™ื”


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 Zelophehadโ€™s daughters to collect a double portion; after all, Hepherโ€™s portion in the land was in his possession, and Zelophehad was the firstborn?


ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื” ืงื ืžืกืชืคืงื ืœื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื ืชืชื™ ืืชื” ืœื›ื ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืื ื™ ื”ืณ ื™ืจื•ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ืœื›ื ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืฉืžื•ืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ


The Gemara answers: This matter itself is what Moses was uncertain about, as it is written: โ€œAnd I will give it to you for a heritage [morasha]: I am the Lordโ€ (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.


ื•ืคืฉื˜ื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื™ืจื•ืฉื” ืœื›ื ืžืื‘ื•ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืžื•ืจื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชื‘ื™ืืžื• ื•ืชื˜ืขืžื• ื‘ื”ืจ ื ื—ืœืชืš ืชื‘ื™ืื ื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืชื‘ื™ืืžื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžืชื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื™ื•ื“ืขื™ืŸ ืžื” ืžืชื ื‘ืื™ืŸ


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: โ€œYou will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritanceโ€ (Exodus 15:17). It is not stated: You will bring us in, rather: โ€œYou will bring them in,โ€ 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.


ื•ืชืขืžื“ื ื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžืฉื” ื•ืœืคื ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื ืฉื™ืื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื” ืืคืฉืจ ืขืžื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ ืžืฉื” ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืœื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื ืฉื™ืื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื“ื”


ยง The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident involving Zelophehadโ€™s daughters. The verse states: โ€œAnd they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregationโ€ (Numbers 27:2). The Gemara asks: Is it possible that Zelophehadโ€™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?


ืืœื ืกืจืก ื”ืžืงืจื ื•ื“ืจืฉื”ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืื‘ื ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื”ื™ื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ื• ื•ืขืžื“ื• ืœื”ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ื•ืœืŸ


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 แธคanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Those enumerated in the verse were all sitting in the house of study, and Zelophehadโ€™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.


ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ


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


ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื”ืœื›ืชื ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื”ืœื›ืชื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื” ื™ืงืจื ื”ื ื“ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื” ื™ืงืจื


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.


ืชื ื ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื—ื›ืžื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื“ืจืฉื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ


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


ื—ื›ืžื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉืœืคื™ ืฉืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื‘ืคืจืฉืช ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื ื›ื‘ืŸ ืื ื• ื—ืฉื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื ื” ืœื ื• ื ื—ืœื” ื›ื‘ืŸ ืื ืœืื• ืชืชื™ื‘ื ืืžื ื• ืžื™ื“ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ


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 Yitzแธฅak 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: โ€œIf 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 husbandโ€™s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wifeโ€ (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: โ€œAnd Moses brought their cause before the Lordโ€ (Numbers 27:5).


ื“ืจืฉื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืื•ืžืจื•ืช ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื‘ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื ื• ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื‘ืช ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืช ืœื‘ืŸ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื ื•


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 isnโ€™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.


ืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืืœื ืœื”ื’ื•ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื˜ื ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืœื ื ืฉืืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื”


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 Yaโ€™akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age.


ืื™ื ื™ ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื ื™ืกืช ืคื—ื•ืชื” ืžื‘ืช ืขืฉืจื™ื ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืขื“ ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ืช ืขืฉืจื™ื ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื‘ืช ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืืœื ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืฆื“ืงื ื™ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื ืขืฉื” ืœื”ืŸ ื ืก ื›ื™ื•ื›ื‘ื“ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืœืš ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื•ื™ ื•ื™ืงื— ืืช ื‘ืช ืœื•ื™


The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesnโ€™t Rav แธคisda 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 Zelophehadโ€™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: โ€œAnd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Leviโ€ (Exodus 2:1).


Scroll To Top