Netzach Thoughts For The Week - Parshat Pinchas 5780

‫בס"ד‬

‫פרשת פינחס‬ 

[Type here]

To submit a Dvar Torah please contact Rabbi Alan Wilkinson

Thoughts for Parshas Pinchas 5780

By Rabbi Alan Wilkinson I hope that everyone is well. I thought I would try something different this week and start with a short quiz: 1.

2.

3.

4.

What are the names of Yitzchok’s sons?

What are the names of Ya’akov’s sons?

What are the names of Moshe’s sons?

What are the names of Tzelofchad’s daughters?

Interestingly more people struggle with question 4 than with the first three questions…

In Pinchas, the Bnei Yisroel finally begin preparations towards their appropriation of the promised land.

Moshe counts the people in order to divide the land amongst the nation: "Among these the land shall be apportioned as shares" (Bemidbar 26:53). The parasha lists the number of people in each tribe and their different families. Each family are apportioned a part of the greater tribal inheritance and divide it amongst the sons of the family. One family, however, has an issue with the division: "The daughters of Tzelofchad, the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of Machir the son of Menasheh, of the families of Menasheh the son of Yosef came forward. The names of the daughters were Machla, Noa, Chogla, Milka and Tirza. They stood before Moshe, Elazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, 'Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korach's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Why should our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son!

Give us a possession among our father's kinsmen!' Moshe brought their case before the Lord" (Bemidbar 27:1-5).”

Rashi comments that the verse is unnecessarily repetitive: 'Of the families of Menasheh the son of Yosef' (27:1) - Why is this stated? Was it not already stated, 'the son of Menasheh?' It is to inform you that Yosef cherished the land, as it is stated, 'you shall carry up my bones' (Bereishit 50:25), and his daughters cherished the land, as is stated, 'Give us a possession [among our father's kinsmen].'

The verse repeats the name Menasheh: "the son of Menasheh of the families of Menasheh son of Yosef."

Rashi explains that the Torah wanted to highlight the ideological connection to Yosef (and not merely the genealogical) and therefore goes out of its way to state that Menasheh was the son of Yosef. Just as Yosef loved the land of Israel and requested that his remains be brought out from Egypt and buried in Israel, so do the daughters of Tzelofchad relish inheriting a part in the land. Although not yet in the promised land, their hearts yearn for it just as Yosef did while he was in Egypt.

[Type here]

The wife of the Sefas Emes asked her son (the Imrei Emes) a question on this Rashi: What is the proof that the daughters of Tzelafchad loved the Land of Israel? Perhaps they were just interested in their inheritance as a monetary matter.

The Imrei Emes gave his mother a very good answer. There are two opinions regarding the identity of Tzelafchad. One opinion is that he was the chopper of wood [Bamdibar 15:32]. Another opinion is that he was from the group who tried to force their way into Canaan after the decree of the spies [Bamidbar 14:40]. Either way, Tzelafchad died in Parshas Shlach, prior to beginning of the decreed 40 years of wandering. His death occurred some 38 years prior to the events in Parshas Pinchas. If Tzelafchad’s daughters were interested in their father’s estate from a strictly financial perspective, why would they have waited 38 years to ask for it? Inheritance is not limited to land. What about his cattle? What about his other property? Apparently, they were not interested in that. It was only now, when they were on the doorstep of Eretz Yisrael that they came pressing their claim for inheritance of their father’s portion. This is the demonstration of their love for the Land. They were silent regarding the cash and moveable property. However, their inheritance in the Land of Israel mattered greatly to them. They inherited this affinity to the Land from their great grandfather, Menashe son of Yosef.

Rav Shimshon Raphoel Hirsch ztl has a different answer and stresses that the daughter's primary motivation was the perpetuation of their father's name: "'Let not our father's name be lost to his clan' (27:4) in the mouth of the daughters has an ethical meaning above the mere material interest in vested property. Father, grandfather and great-grandfather had all formed separate branches of the family and in the forthcoming distribution of the land according to families, their names would be perpetuated in the name of the property allotted to them. However, in the case of Tzelafchad the perpetuation of his name would come to an end... and the extraordinary opportunity for its perpetuation through the distribution of the land in the names of the family would be lost and his name would cease to be remembered."

The bnos Tzelafchad were concerned lest their father's name be forgotten. They felt a responsibility to see to the perpetuation of his name. They combine both future and past. They eagerly anticipate the nation's entry to and inheritance of the land of Israel and, simultaneously, wish to insure the commemoration of their father, of the previous generation. Entry into a new land does not mean a disconnection or negation of the past. To the contrary, the daughters of Tzelafchad demonstrate how the land of Israel can promote and deepen our link to the past.

Whatever their motivation, the daughters were clearly outstanding individuals as we are told: "The daughters of Tzelafchad were wise, learned and righteous ..." (Bava Batra 119b).

Good Shabbos.

Page 2