Their love for the land was palpable. Even their timing was perfect. A look at the different ways our commentators described the daughters' viewpoint.
The Torah, in our Parasha (Pinchas), relates ( 26:52 ) that ‘Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: ’To these shall the Land be divided as an inheritance, according to the number of names..( 26:56 ) Only by lot shall the Land be divided, according to the names of their fathers’ tribe shall they inherit.’
Upon hearing this decree, ( 27:1-7 ):’The’ four ‘daughters of Zelophehad , son of Hepher, son of Machir, son of Menashe, son of Yosef, drew near..and they stood before Moshe, before Elazar the Kohen, and before the leaders and the entire assembly at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, saying:’Our father died in the Wilderness, but he was not among the assembly of Korach, but he died of his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no sons? Give us a possession among our father’s brothers’. And Moshe brought their claim before Hashem.
‘Hashem said to Moshe, saying: The daughters of Tzelophehad speak properly. You shall surely give them a possession of inheritance of their father to pass over to them.’
Rashi comments on the unusually lengthy listing of the genealogy of the claimants, all the way back to Yosef :’Why is this said? Has it not already said, ‘the son of Menashe’, who we know to have been the son of Yosef.
‘But to inform you that Yosef cherished the Land’, as he directed that his bones be brought there, for burial, ‘and’ these four daughters similarly ‘cherished the Land, as it says:’Give us a portion’’, in our Parasha.
The Malbim adds:’This comes to teach that the women of that generation were more righteous than the men - the men said: (Shelach 14:4 )’Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt’, whilst the women said:’Give us a possession among our father’s brothers, in the Land.
Continues the Malbim:’ The Torah relates their being ‘of the families of Menashe, son of Yosef’, to allude to one half of the tribe having chosen as their inheritance land on the other side of the Jordan River, as that half did not cherish the Land, whereas the lineage of the four daughters is traced back by the Torah to Yosef, they cherishing the Land as he had, he forswearing his brothers not to bury him in Egypt, but to inter his bones in the Land.’
The Netziv finds an allusion to this split in their tribe, in the words ‘among our father’s brothers’, expounding:’These words are superfluous, as what relevance to their claim is there to their uncles? But they mentioned it because half their tribe had chosen not to enter the Land, but to settle on the other side of the Jordan River, but their yearning was to inherit in the Land ‘among our father’s brothers’, and not among the brothers of their father’s father, Hefer, as our Rashi explains.
‘Here we ask: what proof is this, did they have a thought to return to Egypt? What is new in their claim for an inheritance in the Land?
‘The proof is that their claim was for an inheritance in the Land which had not yet been conquered, and not in the land east of the River, which had already been conquered, proving that they cherished the Land of Israel.’
Rav Moshe Sternbuch also notes that the daughters claimed their inheritance before the Land had yet been conquered, as the question of the share in the Land was far from the minds and the hearts of the men, whilst they were still in the desert.
‘The daughters, as evidenced by their claim for a share, had complete Emunah in the promise of Hashem, and, in their eyes, the Land was already as if conquered- and therefore made their claim to Moshe:’Give us a possession..’
‘
They thereby merited to be a lesson to the men in their Emunah.’
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin also stresses the issue of Emunah, in contrasting the attitudes of the daughters, as against that of the men.
He expounds:’ The Torah notes in several instances, the fear of the men from the local inhabitants,, they even taking five steps back to Egypt, before the Leviim fought them, and forced them to return.
‘Even after Moshe has defeated the two mighty kings of the Emorites, Bnei Israel were still fearful of the Canaanites who then inhabited the Land, as evidenced by the plea of the tribes of Reuben and Gad to Moshe, to be given the lands of Sichon and Og, and not be compelled ‘to cross the Jordan’.
‘As the Torah relates, Moshe rebuked them for going in the path of the meraglim, and causing the rest of the people to say that their claim suggested that they were afraid to do battle with the Canaanites, and therefore sought their share east of the River.
‘The righteous daughters, who clearly must have heard the dire words of the men on these occasions, made their claim to Moshe before the Land was conquered, and before any man demanded a share in it, thereby proving that they cherished the Land, and, as our Sages ( Tanchuma ) praise them, for ‘drawing near to claim a portion’, before any man did so, as alluded to the Torah stating ותקרבנה: and they drew near: they preceded - not merely saying:’they claimed a portion’.’
Rav Chaim Shmuelewitz contrasts the attitudes of the men, as compared to that of the women, regarding the Land, noting:’The women were not subject to the decree against the meraglim, because, as Rashi comments they cherished the Land.
‘The menhad rebelled, demanding to return to Egypt, unlike the women, as evidenced by the daughters, who yearned for ‘a possession among our father’s brothers’.
‘Our Sages therefore deduced that the claim of the daughters was not purely a property claim, but sprung from their love of the Land.
‘They therefore merited to enter the Land, and to be spared from the fate of the meraglim, which was because they despised the Land, and did not want it.
‘This might also be the reason why the sin of the golden calf was forgiven, whilst the sin of the meraglim was not, and that whole generation perished in the desert, because their transgression was that they ‘bad-mouthed’ the Land and did not want it, so therefore forgiveness was not appropriate, as they showed that they are not connected to the Land, and certainly were not worthy to enter it.’
Rav Moshe Feinstein brings our Rashi, “that the Torah refers to the lineage to Yosef, to allude to the daughters cherishing the Land, just as Yosef did.’
The Rav queries the proof, commenting:’There is no proof from this that their claim was not for property, rather than that they cherished the Land.
‘They would surely have entered the Land even if they were not to receive a portion, so this would not a reason to claim a portion.
‘We have to therefore say, that when one cherishes something, he yearns to make it his, rather than someone else’s, even though he can enjoy it when it belongs to someone else.
‘The Torah testifies that because they cherished the Land, they wanted and claimed that they be given a portion, so that it should be theirs.
‘For this reason, the Torah obliges us to have our own Sefer Torah, and holy tomes, and not be satisfied to borrow these from others, as for the love of the mitzvah of engaging in learning Torah, these need to be one’s own.
‘Might we not think that it would be more praise of the daughters, if they, of their own accord - rather than what they learned from their ancestors - they cherished the Land? ‘From the Torah here, we learn that this is not the case, but it is more praiseworthy to do so because we learned this from our ancestors.
‘The reason is that one who does a laudable thing ‘from himself’, may become haughty and prideful as to ‘his’ great deed; not so one who does the same laudable deed because he learned it from his ancestors, and whose simcha in the mitzvah is pure leshem mitzvah.’
Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch comments on the long geneology in our Parasha:’This reference to family branches is especially noted with regards ti the tribe of Menashe, where we find that Machir, Gilad and Hefer - the son, the grandson and the great-grandson - all created branches of the family, for themselves, and this though the tribe of Menashe was itself a branch of the tribe of Yosef.’
Might I venture to say that this stemmed from their ancestor having been passed over, in favor of his younger brother, Ephraim, by Yaakov in Parashat Vayechi, leading them to strive to emphasize their identity and position.
Continues the Rav:‘This ‘separate-ness’ of the tribe, also pours light on the claim of the daughters:’Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family?’
‘Their claim has at its root a deeper meaning than a simple property claim: the father, the grandfather and the great-grandfather each created for themselves families, and their names will continue to live in their descendants - in the special portions that will be given to them when the Land is divided to families.
‘At that time, the name of Zelophehad’, claimed his daughters, ‘already in the second generation, will be obliterated, and his name will no longer be remembered.’
This theme of continuity, is developed at length, by Rav Chaim Friedlander, in a masterful exposition.
Expounds the Rav:’The purity of the yearning of the daughters is proven by they meriting to have a Parasha revealed by them; their yearning was for the spiritual root of their avodat Hashem.
‘Yet - we ask - on the face of things, their claim was for an inheritance, that their father’s portion not be lost, but be given to them.
‘From the praise lavished on them by our Sages, it is clear that this is not the case.
‘Their wisdom - for which our Sages praised them - was that they chose the propitious moment to make their claim - the subject of the inheritance of their father’s portion was on their mind for forty years, during all of which the people knew that they were destined to enter the Land, yet they waited till now - in the fortieth year to make their claim, and at the very moment that Moshe Rabbeinu was expounding the laws of levirate marriage, to the people, which included the issue of maintaining the name of the deceased, including taking over his portion.
‘The relevance of this exposition to their claim - as Rav Dessler points out - is that the underlying purpose of the inheritance of a son inheriting his father’s portion - and of the levirate marriage - is to continue the avodat Hashem of the deceased, for which purpose is given, not only the father’s physical means, but also the spiritual qualities to do so.
‘The wise daughters argued before Moshe, that there was a need for the continuation of their deceased father’s avodat Hashem, an essential ingredient of which was the inheritance of his portion in the Land, as each portion in the Land was given to accord to that person’s role in serving Hashem.
‘This was the root of their claim: to inherit the portion of the Land, so that they could continue the avodat Hashem of their father - not for any base property gain.’
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/393753
No comments:
Post a Comment