B'not Tzelafchad, Our Jewish Mesora (tradition) and Inheritance

(1) The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. (2) They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, (3) “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against the LORD, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. (4) Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (5) Moses brought their case before the LORD. (6) And the LORD said to Moses, (7) “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them. (8) “Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter.

(2) כי אין לו בן [WHY SHOULD OUR FATHER'S NAME BE DONE AWAY WITH] BECAUSE HE HATH NO SON — Thus it follows that if he had had a son they would have made no claim of any kind: this tells us that they were women of intelligence (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:4; cf. Bava Batra 119b).

(1) כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).

If not so, why is the word "dibrot" used? The pasuk could have written, 'I will surely give them the land.' So why is the word "dibrot" specifically written? But, to tell you 'it is praiseworthy for a person that Hashem is agreeing to his words.'

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal in stature, as it is stated: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were [vatihyena] married.” The word “vatihyena” demonstrates: There was one uniform existence [havaya], i.e., spiritual level, for all of them.

They were smart women and righteous. What was their intelligence? They spoke in a timely manner. Moshe was busy with the topic of inheritance (when they raised their question about inheritance).

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

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... 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).

(2) There is another way of explaining the words of the daughters of Tzelofchod as being appropriate regardless of whose view we adopt concerning the key to the distribution of the land. They said למה יגרע שם אבינו, "why shall the name of our father be lost, etc," instead of saying למה תגרע נחלת אבינו, "why shall the inheritance of our father be lost?" Furthermore, why did they repeat: "for he has no son," when they had already explained in the previous verse that Tzelofchod their father had never had any sons? Baba Batra 119 explains the wording these girls chose as follows: "The daughters of Tzelofchod were very astute; they made certain that they presented the facts of their case as they appeared at that time. Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok said that at this particular time Moses was busy explaining the laws of the levirate marriage. The passage in the Torah (Deut. 25,5) which introduces that subject commences with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו "when brothers dwell together and one of them dies and he has no son, etc." The daughters of Tzelofchod argued as follows: "If you want to treat us as the sons our father never had, give us his share in the land; if not, treat us as you treat a brother who dies without children and whose widow makes certain that his name (and property) lives on by means of the levirate marriage to a surviving brother. Let our mother marry a brother in-law." Their reference to the name of their father becoming lost was well calculated then. Should Moses retort that the levirate marriage solution applies only when there are also no daughters, the daughters of Tzelofchod countered that in that case they demanded to be treated as if they were sons of Tzelofchod. This argument makes sense regardless of whether we adopt the view of Rabbi Yoshiah or the view of Rabbi Yonathan regarding the key to the distribution of the land.

(7) Seven things are [found] in an unformed person and seven in a wise man. A wise man does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom or in number; and he does not interrupt the words of his fellow; and is not impulsive in answering; and he asks to the point and answers as is proper; and he speaks to the first [point] first and the last [point] last; and about that which he has not heard [anything], says, "I have not heard [anything]"; and he concedes to the truth. And their opposites [are the case] with an unformed person.

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.

In any event, they showed that they anticipated an outcome for the other girls who's brothers died... They said, "Give us a portion in the land of our father's brother..." We see in the medrash, that they are women that loved Eretz Yisrael.

The B'not Tzelafchad are establishing a Halacha for the many daughters after them. For the benefit of the knowledge of others, for the future generations, They stood up for their beliefs. They are asking for a piece of land because they loved Eretz Yisrael.

(2) All the Israelites railed against Moses and Aaron. “If only we had died in the land of Egypt,” the whole community shouted at them, “or if only we might die in this wilderness! (3) Why is the LORD taking us to that land to fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be carried off! It would be better for us to go back to Egypt!” (4) And they said to one another, “Let us head back for Egypt.”

(1) But he was not. Rashi wrote: “Since they were going to say that he died because of his sin, they needed to say: Not the sin of the complainers, nor with Korach’s assembly, who incited [the people] against the Holy One, Blessed is He — was he. Rather, he died by his sin alone, without provoking others to sin with him.” ...Therefore, the daughters informed him that their father was not a part of that assembly, and hinted that he was not among those who died in the plague; rather, he died in the Wilderness upon his bed. The meaning of, but he died because of his own sin, was that he died because of his sin in the Wilderness and did not merit to enter the Land.

If we are considered like sons, give us the land (inheritance) and if not our mother will do Yibum. Our intention is that why should our father's name be lost from his offspring... 2)That Tzelafchad had a quality that he said he wanted to go and return to mitzrayim. And about the daughters of Tzelafchad, it attributed a high level. To say they were righteous and they didn't learn from the example of their father because they desired Eretz Yisrael.

(1) A psalm of Asaph. O God, heathens have entered Your domain, defiled Your holy temple, and turned Jerusalem into ruins.

(59) The following were those who came up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer—they were unable to tell whether their father’s house and descent were Israelite... (62) these searched for their genealogical records, but they could not be found, so they were disqualified for the priesthood.

(14) For the LORD will not forsake His people; He will not abandon His very own.

These are the two things that fell in His portion, Blessed be He. The land of Israel and Yisrael (his people). And Heaven Forbid, "He will not abandon.." He in His Merciful ways until Justice comes That it is the Divine Presence, that returns Judgement that it is the ultimate truth. That he will build the ultimate dwelling of David and there will be redemption. That it writes in Bava Batra "Hashem will build Jerusalem and from the scattered Isreal will enter." Like it says in the holy Zohar, "And the ones who follow Him will have the purity of heart."

The abandonment is more than the action of leaving, that the action is separated by force. And it says above, "don't abandon me and it adds don't leave me" And in another place, it says "It will be that Hashem will be with us and won't leave us and don't reject us we should be close to Him through our heart. That our rabbi's learn, that he should be with us like He was with our forefathers and not leave us. And so, don't reject us with an additional distance because if so, our hearts will turn towards Him from forceful troubles. Like I explained already that there is a difference between a nation and the land (inheritance). That the land is from their connection, that it says about it, though (the connection) the land is His inheritance forever because of their holiness. And about this (nation) it says, from the side that they are his nation, also that He will sometimes leave them because of their bad actions, but he will not reject them. And from the side that they are His inheritance, he also doesn't leave them, that he acts lighter than complete abandonment.

(3) It is well to remember that the Tabernacle in Gilgal was the very same which the Israelites had carried with them by dismantling it and putting it together again for the last 38 years. Once the people arrived at Shiloh we find for the first time that the “Tabernacle” is referred to as בית, “house” in Samuel I 1,24. [This “house” though it had solid walls as distinct from the Tabernacle in the desert, did not have a permanent solid roof. This is why it was also known as משכן as we know from Psalms 78,60: “He abandoned the Tabernacle in Shiloh, the tent He had set among men.” At that time private altars were forbidden once again. All of this is reflected in the two terms מנוחה and נחלה used by Moses in our verse. Had Moses not said that in the first instance the people would not come to מנוחה, we would not have had a source for permitting private altars while the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal. This was a period of 14 years. After the destruction of the Tabernacle/House in Shiloh, the Tabernacle which had served as such in the desert was erected in the towns Nov and Givon respectively where it remained for 57 years. The private altars were once again permitted during that period [seeing there were neither camps nor a “house.” Ed.]. Finally, when the Temple was erected in Jerusalem, i.e. נחלה, private altars were outlawed once and for all. By mentioning both the words מנוחה and נחלה, Moses indicates that in the interval between these two stages of “Rest” private altars would once again be permitted, i.e. during the period of Nov and Givon.
Our sages in Zevachim 119 explain the separation between the words מנוחה and נחלה by the word ואל as indicative of the permission to offer sacrifices on private altars during the periods between when the Temple stood in Shiloh and when it was built in Yerushalayim. The reason the Torah applied the term מנוחה to the period when the Temple/Tabernacle stood in Shiloh is that the verse (10) promising מנוחה from all our enemies (i.e. the end of the conquest) was fulfilled at that time. The reason that the word נחלה is used by Moses to describe the Temple in Yerushalayim is that David speaks about G’d never abandoning (permanently) עמו ונחלתו in Psalms 94,14. Psalms 132,13 had already mentioned that G’d had selected Zion as His residence which He wanted. Another verse in Psalms 135, כי יעקב בחר לו י-ה לסגולתו, is interpreted by Maimonides as expressing the same thought.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.

(12) It is not in the heavens, that you should say, “Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?”