- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The Torah gives us B’nos Tzlofchad’s claim as to why they (in place of their father) should inherit their portion in the land when they entered Eretz Yisrael. They are right, and Moshe learns after speaking to Hashem that they will inherit the land. Now, the Halachah wasn’t changed because of their complaint or the perceived unfairness. After all, HKBH is perfect and always fair. Rather, He waited until now to teach this Halachah because He wanted to give B’nos Tzlofchad the opportunity to show how much they loved Eretz Yisrael and ask for it themselves, and therefore they would be Zochos to have 2 Parshiyos in the Torah written because of them.
What intrigued me today was part of their claim. They said that there father had not died B’Adas Korach and hadn’t complained. Rather, he died for his own sin (which one opinion in the Gemara (maybe R’ Akiva?) learns to mean that he was the Mekoshesh). Now, what was the point of the Torah telling this? It is understandable that B’nos Tzlofchad said it. After all, they would make every possible argument to earn themselves their portion. But in the end of the day, that fact is irrelevant. A daughter without brothers inherits no matter what. Even if Tzlofchad had been part of Adas Korach they still would have received the land. So why does the Torah add that line?
I also don’t think the line is there just to tell us who the Mekoshesh was. After all, just knowing his name doesn’t add anything (especially because, if I recall correctly, another opinion in the Gemara attacks that opinion as Lashon Harah). I had a thought that maybe it’s even more respect for how much they loved Eretz Yisrael. Not only did the Torah record that they asked for it, but it even records an extraneous part of their conversation (from which we could also possibly learn who the Mekoshesh was).
Could be they just wanted to point out he wasn’t in the adas korach, the meraglim (or any other type mentioned in gemarah), or a machtei, which would minimize or disqualify his share in the land.
Someone said a dvar Torah on this at my shabbos table. i dont remember the source offhand tho. The answer he said was that at the beginning of the machlokes, the wives of the men involved in the machlokes did not approve or want to participate. Their husbands were suspicious of this, and accused their wives of znus with Moshe. They went through the process of Isha Sotah, and were found innocent. The bnos Tzlofchad were backing up their claim by saying that their father wasnt involved in adas korach, or else their mother wld have gone through sota and been given a bracha of sons. being that there were no sons, he wasnt part of adas korach.
i personally still wasnt completely satisfied with this, because it was still repetitious, but we came up with the comparison to Chana, who ‘challenged’ Hashem to give her a son, or else she’d put herself in the position of sota and go through the process to be proven innocent and been bentched with a child….
Seems to be that it’s discussed at length in (talmud) seforim. They were excluding all groups who had no portion in the land.
Rabbeinu Bachya says they were afraid that Moshe Rabbeinu would say on him Yehi Banav Yesomim. Look at it.
Malbim on Sifre says so. He quotes gemarah. He also adds another point.
The chofetz chaim zatzal has a beautiful vort on this that does not explain why they said their father was not involved with korach but does explain why moshe had to ask hashem and did not answer himself.
He says that the reason he asked hashem is not because it was too difficult for him to answer, but that once they had said ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ? ???? ???, then ??? felt he can no longer judge their case as that could be considered a bribe, ????. Our father was not with ??? ‘s group against you but was on your side.
So he had to go ask hashem got a teshuva!
But the question is a great question and SaysMe I like your answer!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.