Previous daf

1)

(a) Initially, we establish that the Beraisa which rules that the children of the Meraglim and the Mislonenim (the Adas Korach, who were Levi'im, did not receive a portion anyway) received a portion via their paternal or maternal grandparents, holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah', whereas the Beraisa which maintains that they received it on their own merit, holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'. This is possible, despite the fact that the Reisha of the latter Beraisa ('Meraglim, Yehoshua ve'Kalev Natlu Chelkan') holds 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah' - if we view this as the final statement of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(b) Aternatively, we establish even the first Beraisa like those who hold 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah' - if the children of the Meraglim and the Mislonenim were under twenty when they entered the Land.

(c) The 'B'nei ha'Mislonenim really inherited - from their great-grandfathers (the fathers of the Mislonenim). They cannot have been literally the sons of the Mislonenim, since the uprising of Korach (to which the Mislonenim pertain, as we learned earlier) took place thirty-eight years earlier, after the decree of the Meraglim (in which case their children could not possibly have been under twenty when they entered Eretz Yisrael?)

(d) Assuming the author to be ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (as we just suggested) they inherited from their greatgrandfathers - who left Egypt over the age of twenty (just like the B'nos Tz'lofchad inherited from Chefer).
2. ... Rebbi Yonasan - then they inherited from them by way of Chazarah, via brothers of the Mislonenim, who had been under twenty at the time of the decree of the Meraglim, but who were well over twenty when they entered Eretz Yisrael, and who therefore received a portion. Those portions now went back by way of Chazarah to their parents who left Egypt when they were twenty, and from whom all their descendants who entered Eretz Yisrael (even those who were under twenty) inherited.

(a) We established that the daughters of Tzlofchad inherited their father's Cheilek Bechorah in the property of his father. We already cited Rabah's answer to the Kashya ('Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi'), that since neither Chefer nor Tz'lofchad had yet received their portion in Eretz Yisrael, it ought to have been considered Ra'uy, and a Bechor does not inherit a double portion in Ra'uy. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel initially answers it - by establishing it by Metaltelin (such as tent-pegs, which everybody in the desert possessed).

(b) This does not mean that the entire Beraisa is talking about the inheritance of Metaltelin - only the Cheilek Bechorah.

(c) We ask on this however, from Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa regarding the ten Batei Avos of Menasheh (that we discussed earlier) - including the Cheilek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in his father Chefer's property (and the Tana is referring to Eretz Yisrael, not to Metaltelin).

(d) The Pasuk refers to portions of land of the ten Batei Avos as "Chevlei Menasheh" - because they used to measure portions of land by means of a rope ('Chevel').

(a) Eretz Yisrael was indeed Muchzekes from the time they left Egypt (as Rabah explains) - but that we only know after Hashem resolved Moshe's She'eilah. Initially, Moshe himself was uncertain whether the daughters of Tz'lofchad were entitled to the Cheilek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in Chefer's property or not (as we shall see shortly)?

(b) This is based on a Beraisa of Rebbi Chidka, who quotes Rebbi Shimon ha'Shikmoni - a Talmid of Rebbi Akiva.

(c) As we just explained, the Tana interprets Moshe's doubt concerning the B'nos Tz'lofchad's Cheilek ha'Bechorah. As far as their right to their father's Cheilek Pashut is concerned - Moshe knew full-well that they were entitled to receive it.

(d) Even though the Dinim of unheritance were not yet recorded, Moshe would have known them - from Marah, in Paeshas Beshalach, where they were taught the Dinei Mamonos ("Sham Sam Lo Chok *u'Mishpat* ... ").

(a) Rebbi Shimon ha'Shikmoni says that ...

1. ... Parshas Nachalos ought to have been taught by Moshe straight, like he did the major part of the Torah, and - that it only came about through the B'nos Tz'lofchad, because they merited that it should be said in their name.
2. ... Parshas Mekoshesh ought to have been taught by Moshe straight, like he did the major part of the Torah, and - that it only came about through the Mekoshesh Eitzim (Tz'lofchad), because he deserved the disgrace that it should be said in his name.

(b) Moshe knew that a Mechalel-Shabbos earns the death-sentence, and what he asked Hashem was - because he did not know which of the four deaths he should receive, Sekilah (the strictest) or strangulation (the most lenient).

(c) We can learn from these statements - that nothing that belongs in the Torah is omitted (that it does not require an incident for something to be inserted).

5)

(a) Moshe doubted whether we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasati Lachem Morashah, Ani Hashem" teaches us that 'Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi' or not. Perhaps "Morashah", which implies something that one bequeaths without actually inheriting oneself, is written to hint that the generation that left Egypt would not inherit Eretz Yisrael (see also Agados Maharsha).

(b) We know that it *can* also be synonymous with 'Yerushah' - because we have a precedent for it in a Pasuk in Yeshayah "le'Morash Kipod", and because there are many such words with the same format 'Mo'ed, 'Mofes', 'Motze' ... (which like Morashah) are formed from the Hif'il verb).

(c) And we learn that it ...

1. ... *is* - from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen Lahen", 'Zu Cheilek Bechorah' (as we learned on the previous Daf).
2. ... in any event, implies "Morashah", 've'Lo Yerushah' - because, when "ve'Ha'avarta ... " was said, the previous generation had in fact, all died out, indicating retroactively, that that is what "Morashah" must have meant.

(d) According to the other meaning of the word, we make a similar D'rashah from the Pasuk in the Shirah "Tevi'emo ve'Sita'emo be'Har Nachalascha" - where (from the fact that the Torah does not write "Tevi'einu ve'Sita'einu") we translate as "bring them and plant them" (to preclude the generation that was actually singing the Shirah, who were destined not to enter Eretz Yisrael, even though they had not yet sinned).

(a) What appears strange with the Pasuk (in connection with the B'nos Tz'lofchad) "va'Ta'amodnah Lifnei Moshe, ve'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen ve'Lifnei ha'Nesi'im ve'Chol ha'Eidah" - is that, assuming they asked Moshe first, and he did not know, it would have been inappropriate to then ask Elazar, the Princes or the congregation (because if Moshe did not know something, from where would they have known it?)

(b) Rebbi Yashiyah answers 'Sareis ha'Mikra ve'Darsheihu', by which he means - that we must invert the Pasuk and explain that they asked Moshe, after having asked Elazar, the Princes and the congregation (whom they asked first).

(c) The Pasuk prefers to invert the order - in order not to mention Elazar, the Princes and the congregation before Moshe.

(a) According to Aba Chanan in the name of Rebbi Eliezer - they entered the Beis-Hamedrash, and asked all the Talmidei-Chachamim who were sitting there simultaneously.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether it is Kavod ha'Rav to give deference to a Talmid (Elazar, the Princes ... ) in the presence of the Rav (Aba Shaul) or not (Rebbi Yashiyah).

(c) We rule 'Cholkin' - when the Rebbe himself gives Kavod to the Talmid, and 'Ein Cholkin' when he doesn't.

(d) The Tana'im argue - in a case when the Rebbe gives Kavod to the Talmid, because that is what Moshe and all Yisrael used to do (See Ritva). Effectively then, we are ruling like Aba Shaul.

(a) The Beraisa concludes that the daughters of Tz'lofchad were Chochmaniyos, Darshaniyos and Tzidkaniyos. We learn 'Chochmaniyos' from the fact that they spoke up at the right moment - meaning that they asked about Nachalos when Moshe taught the Dinim of Yibum. If a woman is considered like a son, to exempt his mother from Yibum, then why should she not also inherit her father (like a son).

(b) They were Darshaniyos, because, they explained, had Tz'lofchad had a son, they would have remained silent. When Rebbi Yirmiyah learned the Beraisa which states 'Bas' - he reacted by erasing it from the Beraisa.

(c) Abaye however, explained the Beraisa - to mean not 'Bas', but 'Bas ha'Ben'. They even knew that a daughter does not inherit as long as a daughter of a son (her brother) alive.

(d) They knew this from the Parshah of Nachalos (which, as we explained earlier. had already been taught at Marah). Their She'eilah - concerned the Cheilek Bechorah, as we explained above, and not the Cheilek Pashut. (In that case however, it is unclear what they proved from the Parshah of Yibum - see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu').

(a) We know that they were Tzidkaniyos - because, not only did they marry into their own tribe (so as not to move the Yerushah from their tribe, but they also waited a long time before marrying the right partners (their own cousins), in keeping with Hashem's advice (as we shall see later).

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa comments on this - that in their quest to find the right partner, not one of them married before she turned forty.

(c) According to Rav Chisda, a woman who marries before the age of twenty, can have children until she turns sixty. He also says that a woman who marries ...

1. ... after she is twenty - can have children until she is forty.
2. ... from the age of forty - will not have children (though it is feasible that nowadays, the nature of women has changed).

(d) In spite of Rav Chisda, the B'nos Tz'lofchad had children - because they relied on their righteousness, trusting that Hashem would perform a miracle, and bless them with children (although they would probably not have done so had they been obligated to have children, like a man), like He performed a miracle with Yocheved, as we shall now see.