So What Did He
Really Do?
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parashat
Pinchas, 5766
During the course of their
presentation to the Jewish leadership to have their father’s assigned portion in
the land of Israel turned over to them, the
daughters of Tzelofchad discuss their parent’s death and how the particular
context in which he died justifies their claim:
BaMidbar
27:1-4
And the daughters of Tzelofchad
ben Chefer ben Gilad ben Machir ben Menashe of the families of Menashe the son
of Yosef approached. And these are the names of his daughters: Machla, No’a and
Chegla and Milka and Tirtza.
And they stood before Moshe and
before Elazar the Kohen and before the princes and the entire congregation at
the doorway of the Tent of Meeting, saying:
“Our father died in the desert,
and he was not part of the group that stood against HaShem in the group of
Korach, “Ki BeCheto Meit” (but rather he died as the result of his own sin)
and he had no son.
“Why should the name of our father
be removed from the midst of his family (the assumption of the verse is once
there are no heirs to inherit an individual’s estate, for all intents and
purposes his line has stopped and he will soon be forgotten) just because he has
no son? Give us a holding amongst the brothers of our
father.”
The technical rationale for why
Tzelofchad’s daughters are insistent that he was neither part of the
“Mitlonenim”[1]
(lit. complainers), the general response of the people to the report of the
spies (BaMidbar 13:1-14:39) nor the Korach rebellion (Ibid., 16-17), but
rather died due to some singular, personal transgression is explained by a
number of Biblical commentators down through the ages.
RaShI on BaMidbar
27:3
(Sifrei) Since they came to say
that he died due to “his sin”,[2]
they had to clarify that this sin was not that of the “Mitlonenim” (after the
spies’ report) or the congregation of Korach where the attacks were directed
against HaShem, but due to his own sin he died, and he did not cause the
masses to sin with him.
The qualitative difference between
a sin which only affects the sinner and one that influences others and causes
them to follow suit is not only understandable intuitively and rationally, i.e.,
there is a greater broad-ranging affect when an act causes others to sin than
when it is confined to oneself, but also can have specific Halachic
ramifications:
Bava Batra
118b
The share (in the
The “Mitlonenim” (as a result of
the report of the spies) and the congregation of Korach received no share of the
land (of
Once these individuals aligned
themselves with groups that stood outside the parameters of the general
community—either by refusing to trust in HaShem and enter the land, or objecting
to His Chosen leader for them—it is fitting that their respective punishments
include being disowned by that community.
According to another commentator,
not only did the “Mitlonenim” and the followers of Korach lose out on future
possessions in the
Sephorno on
27:3
Their (Korach’s and his
followers’) verdict[3]
was that they would lose all of their property by having it declared “Cheirem”
(belonging to God, and not subject to human acquisition).[4]
Moshe had imposed this status on their property when he said (to the rest of the
Jewish people), (BaMidbar
Another commentator reaches the
same conclusion as Sephorno, but rather than framing the sins of the
“Mitlonenim” and Korach and his followers as directed against God, resulting in
their property being declared “Cheirem”, defines the matter in terms of their
attacks against Moshe, in contrast to Tzelophchad, whose sin had nothing to do
with Moshe.
Meshech Chachma on
27:3
It is possible that they were
“Darshaniot” (interpreters of the nuance of the law)[6]
and they knew that those executed by Beit Din, their property is turned over to
their heirs (Sanhedrin 48b), whereas those executed by the king (for some form
of treason or rebellion against the king’s authority), the king becomes the
owner of their property. Moshe had the status of king, as it is stated, (Devarim
33:4-5) “And Moshe commanded to us a Tora, the inheritance of the
Congregation of Yaakov. And he was king of Yeshurun[7]
when the heads of the people and the tribes of
At the same time as these women
assert that their father Tzelofchad did not participate in the mass sins of the
spies (BaMidbar 13:1-14:39) and the Korach rebellion (Ibid., 16-17), they
nevertheless do associate his death with some other sort of sin—“Ki BeCheto
Meit”—as opposed to simply stating that he had died naturally of old age. The
reason for this would appear to be that by definition, deaths among the Jewish
people in the desert, as opposed to previously in
BaMidbar 14:33
And your children will graze in
the desert 40 years and you will bear your unfaithfulness until your bodies will
be consumed in the desert.
Therefore there would seem to be
only 4 possibilities whereby Tzlophchad’s death could be accounted for: a) he
died at the hand of other human beings,[9]
b) he died as a member of the Generation of the Desert whose fate was determined
after the sin of the spies, c) he died as the result of one of the Divine
Plagues that broke out due to various transgressions,[10]
or d) he died as a result of some personal sin.[11]
R. Akiva and his Tannaitic[12]
colleague[13]
debate as to which of the aforementioned possibilities, a) or d), applied to
Tzelophchad:
Shabbat
96b-97a
Our Rabbis taught: The stick
gatherer—d)—(on Shabbat and therefore a capital offense—BaMidbar
Said R. Yehuda ben
Beteira[15]
to him: In either case, you will have to be answerable for the assertion that
you have just made. If you are right, the Tora shielded him (did not identify
who the wood gatherer was in order to protect him and his family) and you reveal
him. If you are wrong, you impugn a righteous man.
But R. Akiva learns (and thereby
arrives at his conclusion) by means of a “Gezeira Shava”?[16]
He (R. Yehuda ben Beteira) did not accept/receive the “Gezeira Shava”.[17]
But then to which group of sinners
(his daughters attributed his death to his “sin”) did he belong (according to R.
Yehuda ben Beteira)? He was one of the “Ma’apilim”—a)—(they presumed to
go to the top of the mountain).[18]
Whereas, R. Yehuda ben Beteira’s
view does associate Tzelofchad’s death with a supernatural element, i.e., the
absence of Divine Protection that could be ordinarily counted on when the Jews would go into
battle with God’s Approval, consequently leading to an Amaleki victory, in
contrast to the earlier Amaleki defeat in Shemot 17:8-16, R. Akiva’s assumption
is that Tzelofchad was put to death by the community via public ritual
execution—(BaMidbar 15:36) “And the entire congregation took him (the stick
gatherer) outside of the encampment, and they pelted him with stones and he
died, as God had Commanded Moshe.” It is true that their act was authorized
by God, but the difference between losing one’s life as the result of a plague
or the absence of Divine Protection constitutes a qualitatively different form
of death than execution carried out by a human court. In the former cases, it is
not always clear what wrong has been committed by someone who loses his life,
and sometimes a plague or the removal of Divine Protection indiscriminately
applies to the evildoer and the righteous simultaneously,[19]
once Heavenly Wrath is incurred. But with respect to judicial executions, the
crime is usually blatant and clearly premeditated, allowing one to conclude that
the individual should take full responsibility for what has happened to
him
Even if it could be contended that
what Tzelofchad’s daughters meant by the phrase “Ki BeCheto Meit”, was that he
had been killed due to his stick gathering on Shabbat, and since violating a Shabbat prohibition
is not as serious as joining in the complaining that resulted from the report of
the spies or taking up Korach’s cries for rebellion, nevertheless, it would
hardly appear to be a badge of honor for their father. Does the daughters’
publicizing their father’s sin, even with the best of intentions with regard to
inheriting land in Israel, constitute a violation of the Commandment to respect
one’s parents? Could such a concern contribute to the innovative Midrashic
interpretation of Tzelophchad’s actions?
Tosafot,[20]
Bava Batra 119b, d.h. Afilu Ketana SheBahem Lo Nisait Pachot MiArbaim
Shana
It appears to RaShBA that he
agrees with the view (R. Akiva) that Tzelophchad was the stick gatherer, and the
incident of the stick gatherer occurred at the beginning of the 40 years in the
desert, immediately after the sin of the spies, as it is stated in the
Midrash, that he (Tzelophchad) did this (violated Shabbat by gathering sticks)
“LeSheim Shamayim” (for the sake of Heaven).
Since Israel were saying: If it
has been decreed that we will not enter the land of Israel as a result of the
sin of the spies, we are no longer obligated to observe the Commandments
(i.e., the
purpose of the Commandments is to allow us the merit to enter the land of
Israel. If that no longer is possible, then we should not be held to observance
any longer).
He stood up and desecrated Shabbat
in order to be executed and thereby show others that the Commandments are still
in force.
Such a view makes Tzelophchad a
much more complex character. It is true that he violated Shabbat and was killed
for his trouble, but he did it sacrificially and idealistically, with the intent
to sanctify God’s Name rather than desecrate it. Now his daughters can cite his
spiritual example; gathering the sticks might have been an “Aveira”, but it was
paradoxically an “Aveira LiShma” (for the sake of God), and for such an act, a
man’s name deserves to be remembered and his holdings transferred to his
daughters.
[1] The name associated with this group
is based upon the verb in BaMidbar 14:2 “VaYilonu” (and they
complained).
[2] Gur Aryeh notes that without the
text’s additional clarifications of Tzelophchad’s non-participation in the sins
of the “Mitlonenim” and Korach, one could understand the term “his sin” to refer
to one of these notable transgressions, since each individual participating in
these incidents also died as a result of committing “his sin”.
[3] RaMBaN on 27:3 claims that this
verdict was handed down by the Beit Din of Moshe. A similar judgment of
disenfranchisement according to RaShI was rendered by this court against the
child of the Egyptian father and the Jewish mother, leading this individual to
blaspheme—see RaShI on VaYikra 24:10.
[4] A paradigm for property of people
who die as a result miraculous Divine Punishment belonging to God and not
subject to repossession by private individuals once their original owners have
been eliminated is the conquest of
[5] This phrase is superfluous in terms
of the practical need for everyone to leave the immediate area where Korach and
his followers are encamped prior to the rebels being swallowed up by the earth.
Consequently Sephorno interprets the words to suggest that even after the deaths
of Korach and his followers, their property is not to be “touched”, i.e., taken
by others since it is “Cheirem”.
[6]
Bava Batra
119 b
The Rabbis taught: The daughters of
Tzelophchad were wise, “Darshaniot”, and
righteous...
“Darshaniot”—for they said: If he
(Tzelophchad) had a son, we would not have spoken.
RaShBaM
As it is written, (BaMidbar 27:4)
“…And he had no son”, and it was
already known that a son inherits from his father, because they were familiar
with the section of the Tora dealing with inheritance…and
their knowledge of how to be “Doreish” is reflected by their comment “...and he
had no son. Give us a holding...”, implying that if he (Tzlophchad) had a son,
then he naturally would take precedence over a daughter...
[7] Meshech Chachma follows the
interpretation of Ibn Ezra, who understands the antecedent of verse 5 as the
subject of verse 4, i.e., Moshe, as opposed to RaShI, RaMBaN, Rabeinu Bachayai,
Da’at Zekeinim MiBa’alei HaTosafot, Sephorno, etc. who understand v. 5 as
referring to HaShem.
[8] Levi received 48 cities rather than
an actual portion of
[9] An example of people dying in the
desert due to human violence is the casualties resulting from the battle with
Amalek (Devarim 25:18). (The Amalekites were responsible for the deaths of the
“Ma’apilim” as well—see fn. 18 below. However, since the text states explicitly
that God Withheld protection from them, it makes the Jews’ deaths seem to be a
“reverse plague”, i.e., just as death can come about as the result of some type
of metaphysical plague, it can also happen due to not what God Does, but rather
what He Chooses not to Do, I do not see these deaths as in the same
category as those associated with the attack immediately after the Exodus from
Egypt. Whereas it could be argued that the stragglers at the edges of the
encampment did not receive the Divine Protections as symbolized by the seven
clouds [see Sifrei BeHa’alotcha #25] that were supposed to surround the people
and protect them from the scourges of the desert, animal, human, meteorological,
etc., it is equally possible to suggest that these people chose to place
themselves outside of the protected zone by non-compliance with the
Commandments, and therefore tempted fate as well as brought upon themselves
their eventual destruction at the hands of the Amalekites.) While it is logical
to assume that there must have been losses when the Jews battled the kingdoms of
Sichon (Ibid.
[10] E.g., BaMidbar
[11] While the decree after the sin of
the spies called for everyone above the age of 20 eventually dying during the 40
years of wandering in the desert—naturally some people died prematurely due to
their involvement in sins, including even Moshe and Aharon—it would appear that
their deaths will occur as a result of old-age rather than some sort of plague
or infirmity.
[12] A Rabbinic personality who lived
prior to and during the period when the Mishna was composed by R. Yehuda
HaNasi.
[13] Different primary sources identify
R. Akiva’s opponent in this dispute as either R. Shimon or R. Yehuda ben
Beteira.
[14] R. Akiva is resorting to the common
hermeneutic principle of “Gezeira Shava” (a common word) whereby it is assumed
that when a similar—it does not always even have to be identical—word appears in
two different places in the Biblical text, that the two places share some sort
of commonality. Generally, since there is a finite number of words in Biblical
Hebrew and therefore the repetition of forms of the same word is inevitable,
leading to an infinite number of potential associations, a “Gezeira Shava” is
not to be made as the result of human initiative, but rather it is passed down
through the generations as part of the Oral Tradition that emanates from Sinai.
When a controversy exists and at least one side holds up such an interpretation
as proof for its position, the counterargument contends that such a “Gezeira
Shava” was not part of the Oral Tradition that it was not taught by the
disputant’s Rabbi and therefore is fallacious. Another means by which the thrust
of a “Gezeira Shava” can be blunted is by admitting that there exists such a
literary connection between the two topics, but to maintain that the commonality
to be derived is something other than what is being claimed. See ArtScroll
Siddur, pp. 48-50, including the footnotes.
[15] RaShI on BaMidbar 27:3 quotes R.
Shimon as authoring this view. See fn. 1 above.
[16] The Oral Tradition treats an
accepted “Gezeira Shava” as if the point that is derived is explicitly written
in the Biblical text. Consequently there should be no room for R. Yehuda ben
Beteira to disagree.
[17] See fn.
4.
[18] Once the Divine Decree was
Pronounced that as a result of the peoples’ acceptance of the report of the
spies that Canaan was unconquerable, those who were above 20 at the time of the
Exodus—with the exceptions of the tribe of Levi, Kalev and Yehoshua—would die in
the desert, a group of Jews decided to attempt to take matters into their own
hands. But their efforts were not only to no avail; they died trying:
BaMidbar
14:40-45
And they got up early in the
morning and they went up to the top of the mountain, saying, “We are here and we
will go up to the place that HaShem has Promised, for we have
sinned.
And Moshe said, “Why now are you
transgressing the Commandment of HaShem? It (your attempt to enter the land)
will not be successful for HaShem is not among you, so that you will not be
smitten by your enemies.
“Because the Amalekites and the
Canaanites are there before you, and you shall fall by the sword because you
have turned away from HaShem. Therefore HaShem will not be with
you.”
“VaYa’apilu” (And they
presumptuously/spitefully) went up to the top of the mountain. And the Ark of
the Covenant of HaShem and did not leave the camp (symbolizing that those trying
to enter the land had no spiritual support).
Then the Amalekites came down and
the Canaanites who dwelled in the mountain, and smote them and discomfited them
as far as Chorma.
[19] Although Avraham complains about
such indiscriminate loss of life during periods of Divine Punishment independent
of the moral and spiritual standing of the victims prior to the destruction of
Sodom and Amora in Beraishit 18:25, and God’s Readiness to consider preserving
the cities if 10 righteous people can be found within them gives the impression
that God will pointedly Avoid destroying the righteous together with evil doers,
numerous sources suggest that this indeed has and continues to occur throughout
history, e.g.,
Bava Kamma 92a
Rava said to Raba bar Mari: From
where can the proverbial saying be derived that together with the thorn, the
cabbage is smitten (i.e., during the process of eliminating that which has no
human benefit, harm often comes to that which is useful for food)?
He replied: As it is written,
(Yirmiyahu
It could be argued that if the
society in which a righteous person finds himself is corrupt, then he bares some
of the responsibility for this state of affairs; nevertheless it is obvious that
in most contexts such an individual is powerless to change the moral condition
of his environment. But then the question arises why the individual remains in
such a perverse setting. Shouldn’t he be concerned that his family members, let
alone himself might become corrupted by those around him? Unfortunately, not everyone,
particularly during the Biblical and Talmudic periods, has the wherewithal to
simply pick up and relocate.
[20] It is interesting to note that we
have no record of this Midrash other than in its citation by Tosafot. Dr. Haim
Soloveitchik has pointed out that the Ba’alei Tosafot often justified
questionable actions on the part of the Jewish community. Is promoting such a
Midrash doing the same for Tzelophchad and allowing us to give him the benefit
of the doubt, at least to some
extent?