English translation — פנחס א

(in the portion of the daughters of Zelophehad¹)

"And they stood before Moses and before Eleazar the priest and before the princes and all the congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, saying,"

is brought in the Sifri²

a dispute in the interpretation of the verse: "If Moses did not know, would Eleazar know?

Rather, reverse the text and interpret it,

the words of Rabbi Yashia,

Abba Chanan would say ..

In the study hall they were and they came and stood before them."

The same dispute is brought in the Sifri in two more places —

A.

(a)

in the portion of the Second Passover

(in the portion of Beha'alotecha),

On the verse

on the verse³

"And they drew near before Moses and before Aaron";

(b)

in the portion of the wood-gatherer

(in the portion of Shelach on the verse⁴

"And they brought him ..

to Moses and to Aaron and to all the congregation."

And here one sees a perplexing matter in Rashi's commentary:

In parshas Beha'aloscha he explains: "Before Moshe and before Aharon — when both were sitting in the study hall they came and asked them,

And it is not possible to say this one after the other,

that if Moshe did not know, Aharon from where would he know" — he assumes simply according to the opinion of Abba Chanan; on "To Moshe and to Aharon and to all the congregation"

(in parshas Shelach)

Rashi does not comment at all; and in our parsha he brings both opinions⁵,

That which Rashi is not at all explaining in parshas Shlach<sup>7</sup>,

one can answer,

that he relies that one will remember his explanation in the previous parshah

(Beha'aloscha)

— but that which in our parshah he brings both opinions

And in the name of "Omrim"⁶

(and in the name of Omerim)

is entirely not understandable:

From that which Rashi brings in parshas Beha'aloscha only the explanation ,

"when both of them are sitting etc." it is understood,

that only the explanation

(of Abba Chanan)

is consistent with the plain meaning of Scripture

that "seres hamiqra" is not smooth in peshuto shel miqra,

and as R. Yoshiyah himself emphasizes "seres hamiqra <b>vedarshehu</b>"⁸

that one must arrive at the way of derush]

In contrast, in his commentary in our parshah,

since he brings <b>both </b>opinions,

it is proven that also the view of R. Yoshiyah is in accordance with peshuto shel miqra;

The contradiction is even stronger with this,

that R. Yoshi's explanation is that he even <b>precedes</b> the explanation of Abba Chanan.

Even more: in parshas Beha'aloscha it says only "before Moshe and before Aharon",

and consequently one needs only to reverse the order of two; but in our parshah where it says "before Moshe and before Elazar the Kohen and before the princes" it turns out,

that the

"Sirus HaMikra" is regarding three

(Nesi'im⁹,

Elazar and Moshe)

— and nevertheless Rashi brings the explanation of R' Yashiyah specifically here?

B.

At first glance one could explain,

that the difference between the two explanations of Rashi

(in P' Beha'aloscha and in our parshah)

— is connected with the change of language in the verses:

In Parshas Beha'aloscha it only says "before Moshe and before Aharon,"

therefore it is plausible

(according to the simple meaning of the plain text)

to explain "&lt;b&gt;when both of them &lt;/b&gt;were sitting &lt;b&gt;in the Beis HaMidrash &lt;/b&gt;etc."; but not so in our parshah,

where the verse adds also "and the entire congregation,"

therefore

Rashi here does not explain

(in the first and primary explanation)

that "they were sitting in the Beis HaMidrash,"

because simply it is not applicable that "the entire congregation" should be in "the Beis HaMidrash."

In truth, one can however not learn this way,

because

since that also there the verse adds "

(to Moshe and to Aharon)

and to all the congregation”,

and consequently one can already not say

(as above)

that he relies there on his commentary in parshas Beha'aloscha "when they sit in the study hall" — is in addition to this difficult]

Rashi himself explicitly said at the end of Parshas Tisa&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

: "How was the order of the Mishnah ..

&lt;b&gt;Entered &lt;/b&gt;all the people",

That

is

that in that place

("the study hall")

where Moses taught Torah to Jews, "all the people" entered,

then consequently also in our case there is no difficulty how "the entire congregation" was found in the study hall.

And the reason for this: "all the people",

and likewise "the entire congregation",

does not mean literally all Jews,

but those who wanted to learn and the like&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

and consequently there is no difficulty&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

to explain that all of them

(Moses,

Eleazar,

the princes and the entire congregation)

were in the study hall.

Furthermore: in our verse it is even smoother to learn that "in the Beis HaMidrash they were sitting",

because here it states the language "all &lt;b&gt;the congregation&lt;/b&gt;"

(not "all the people")

— and Rashi had already explained earlier

several times¹³

that "all the congregation" can also mean only the Sanhedrin.

And if so, the question returns to its place: Why is Rashi also here not explaining like earlier that "they were sitting in the study hall" — as the first and primary explanation?

3.

There is another difference between the verse in our portion and the verse in parshas Beha'aloscha,

with which one could seemingly explain the reason why Rashi here changes from his earlier explanation:

In Parshas Beha'aloscha it is not hinted in the verse where Moshe and Aharon were — therefore Rashi can explain "when both of them were sitting in the Beis HaMidrash they came and asked them"; but in our parshah it states explicitly in the verse that they were "at the entrance of the Ohel Moed,"

one can say that therefore Rashi does not want to learn in his first and primary explanation that "they were sitting in the Beis HaMidrash."

But also this reasoning is not sufficient,

because:

a)

Simply, "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" and "the Study Hall" were both in one place: "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" refers to the courtyard of the Tabernacle¹⁴,

and also the Study Hall was in the courtyard of the Tabernacle,

near the altar,

as <b>Rashi</b> says at the beginning of Parshat Mishpatim¹⁵

: "that you place the Sanhedrin near the altar."

Consequently, one can say that "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" means "in the Study Hall."

b)

Even if you would say,

that one cannot say that <b>the</b> verse intends by "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" "the Study Hall",

then this itself requires a reason; and furthermore — what is the necessity at all

(according to this explanation)

to specify that "in the Study Hall they were"?

Rashi should have only said

(<b>as earlier</b>)

"before all of them they stood",

and where this was, is it not stated <b>in the verse</b> "entrance of the Tent of Meeting"?

4.

will be understood as above with the introduction of the explanation in the totality of the precision "If Moshe did not know etc.":

From Rashi's commentary¹⁶

it is implied,

that the <b>simple meaning </b>of the language of the verse proves that the question

(of the "men who were etc." and of "the daughters of Tzelafchad")

was asked before each of those asked separately.

But in this there can be two manners: in one utterance

(at the same time),

one after the other.

Therefore,

is <b>afterwards </b>as Rashi

(in Parshat Beha'alotcha)

explained "when both were sitting in the study hall they came and asked them",

he elaborates

(not as his way in every place)

to <b>negate </b>the manner of one after the other: "And it is not possible to say one after the other,

that if Moshe did not know, Aharon from where would he have it"; and likewise in our parshah,

where he cautions in his commentary "Perhaps if Moshe did not know, Elazar knows";

And more than this: after Rashi in his commentary

(in our parshah)

quotes from the verse "before Moshe" he continues and adds "&lt;b&gt;and afterwards &lt;/b&gt;before Elazar"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

— which one can say,

that with this Rashi intends to emphasize that the word "and before" means exactly as if it stood in the verse "and afterwards before

(Elazar)

And one can say the explanation in this: If in the verse it had stood "before Moshe &lt;b&gt;and&lt;/b&gt; Aharon"

(and similarly — "before Moshe &lt;b&gt;and&lt;/b&gt; Elazar etc."),

it would have been understood that the question was asked one time,

before Moshe being together with Aharon

(and the like),

this can also mean that the question was asked primarily before Moshe,

and that which is mentioned also Aharon

(and the like),

is only because in reality he was then together with Moshe&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

Since however the verse says a separate "before" — "and before Aharon"

(and likewise "and before Elazar etc.")¹⁹,

this compels Rashi to learn that the question was asked separately by Aharon

(and Elazar etc.²⁰).

And since "it is impossible to say this after that"

(according to the order in the Scriptures,

that after asking Moshe they asked Aharon),

therefore Rashi says "when both were sitting in the Beis HaMidrash they came and asked them",

in which manner the question was directed to Aharon exactly as to Moshe²¹,

as follows.

H.

"Beis HaMidrash" is a place where one learns Torah together

(not a place where Jews gather to hear Torah,

halachah,

a sermon and the like from a wise man),

D.

H.

Although in the Beis HaMidrash there is a

rav,

rosh yeshivah and the like and there are students

(and among the students themselves there are differences in their level),

nevertheless the essence of the Beis HaMidrash is,

that all "those who sit in the Beis HaMidrash" participate in the study: hear the question,

discussion about it etc.

From this it is also understood that questions which are asked in "Beis HaMidrash" are in a different manner than the questions that one asks in the place of the session of Beis Din,

dayan,

by a rav: when one asks a question by Beis Din,

dayan,

a rav,

even when students stand there,

it is understood that the question is asked specifically by Beis Din; but not so a question that is asked in Beis &lt;b&gt;HaMidrash&lt;/b&gt;,

it is addressed

(not to the head of Beis HaMidrash,

rosh yeshiva and the like,

but)

to all "those who sit in Beis HaMidrash" — they all delve into the question and each one of them can state his opinion on this.

And this is what Rashi says "when both of them sit &lt;b&gt;in Beis HaMidrash &lt;/b&gt;they came and asked them": that which Aharon heard the question,

it is because they both were

(and learned Torah together)

in Beis HaMidrash — therefore the question was asked in the same manner by both of them — "&lt;b&gt;before &lt;/b&gt;Moshe &lt;b&gt;and before &lt;/b&gt;Aharon"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

This is also the reason why Rashi in our parshah changes

(in the second explanation)

from the language of the verse "entrance of the Tent of Meeting",

and says "&lt;b&gt;in the study hall &lt;/b&gt;they were sitting"

— because the reasoning stands here,

as mentioned,

in that they were in the study hall and not in the detail that they were together.

6.

Based on this, it is understandable why in our parshah Rashi does not accept the explanation as the primary and fundamental explanation:

Rashi teaches,

that with "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" the verse is not intended

(thus)

to indicate the place where they were

(and what is the practical difference?)

rather it describes

(mainly)

<![CDATA[<b>how </b>they were gathered there: "entrance of the Tent of Meeting" is the place²³]]>

where the entire congregation assembles

(not to sit and learn together,

but)

to hear what Moshe Rabbeinu will say to them.

It turns out,

that in our verse — in its simple meaning — <b>not</b> the subject of "in the study hall they were",

but rather "the entrance of the Tent of Meeting",

as above,

"they were".

With difficulty one can say,

that "the entrance of the Tent of Meeting"

(in its <b>content</b> — as a place of assembly)

pertains only to the

(last)

words "and all the congregation":

Moshe, Elazar, and the princes were in the Beis HaMidrash

(and the question of the daughters of Tzelafchad was asked before all of them equally,

in the manner of questions that are asked in the Beis HaMidrash,

as above),

and at that time the entire assembly stood "at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting"

(in a state of assembly)

to hear what would be the answer to the claim of the daughters of Tzelafchad²⁴.

However, since it is a very great difficulty to divide the verse

(that "Moshe...

Elazar...

the princes" were sitting in the Beis HaMidrash,

"and the entire assembly

(were standing)

at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting"²⁵)

Therefore Rashi brings as the first and primary explanation "reverse the text",

that what the verse says "before Moses &lt;b&gt;and before &lt;/b&gt;Eleazar the priest

(&lt;b&gt;and before &lt;/b&gt;the princes)

" is because they asked them "one after another",

only the &lt;b&gt;order &lt;/b&gt;of the questions is reversed from the order in the verse;

that according to this explanation it turns out that all the words of the text are literal,

and the difficulty is only in that the verse changes the &lt;b&gt;order &lt;/b&gt;of those asked&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

And this is also the reason that Rashi cites the two explanations in the name of Omrim — R. Yashia and Abba Chanan — to emphasize,

that the two opinions regarding how to interpret the verse

— whether one should say "seres hamiqra"

(that in one and the same verse the words should not be in order),

or that it is better to be forced in the interpretation of the Scriptural text than to say "seres hamiqra"²⁷

Is not only regarding <b>the </b>verse,

but this is a consistent view of his

(in several places)

between R' Yoshi' and Abba Chanan.

One finds in many places that R' Yoshi'²⁸

says "Reverse

the text",

and the view of Abba Chanan²⁹

is,

that one must enter into a difficulty in <b>the interpretation </b>of the verses but not say "Reverse the text"²⁷.

8.

According to all the above, one will also understand why Rashi does not warn the same question in his commentary on the portion of the wood-gatherer:

Since the question consists in that the Jews turned with a question in halacha also to Aaron etc.

(after asking Moses our teacher)

— this is in the portion of the wood-gatherer no question: Rashi says³⁰

"They did not know by which death he would die, but they knew that the desecrator of the Sabbath is [liable to] death."

4.

5.

That their bringing him to Moses and Aaron and the entire congregation is

(mainly)

was

(not for a question in halacha,

rather they went)

to <b>hand him over</b> to the public authority,

so that the public should carry out the death penalty.

Which death — that the public must clarify.

Consequently, it is not difficult why one compares Aharon and the entire congregation to Moshe,

because here it is about transfer to the public domain — Moshe and Aharon and the entire congregation³¹.

9.

Based on this, one will understand another matter similar to the above:

In the portion of the blasphemer

(in Parshat Emor&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;)

it says in the verse — "And they brought him to Moses,"

only to Moses himself.

And superficially it is not understood: The wood-gatherer and the blasphemer were "in one chapter"

(as Rashi

says there&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;)

— then why by the blasphemer was the bringing only to Moses,

and by the wood-gatherer — to Moses and Aaron and the entire congregation?

And according to the above it is understood: &lt;b&gt;Rashi &lt;/b&gt;says there&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

“They knew that the wood-gatherer [is liable to] death ..

but it was not clarified to them by which death ..

but regarding the blasphemer He says to clarify to them because they did not know if he is liable to death or not.”

That is: regarding the blasphemer there was a matter of a question in halacha

(whether he is liable to death or not),

it is understood that one must turn to Moshe Rabbeinu; but not so regarding the wood-gatherer,

regarding whom “they knew” that he is liable to death,

therefore

(mainly)

it was only that they brought the one liable to death to the public,

Moshe, Aharon, and the entire congregation.

Yud-Dalet.

From the yina shel Torah in Rashi's commentary:

The reason

(Inner)

Why Rashi brings the interpretations specifically by the portion of the Second Passover and the portion of the daughters of Tzelofchad

(And not by the portion of the wood gatherer)

— One can say because the <b>content</b> of the interpretations has a connection to the manner in which the portions were said:

The novelty in the two portions is,

that they were drawn down and said from above through a claim and request of <b>the staff</b>³⁴

: the portion of the Second Passover came through the claim

(of the "people who were impure")

"Why should we be diminished so as not to offer etc."³⁵

; and through the claim and request of the daughters of Tzelafchad "Why should the name of our father be diminished etc. give us a possession etc."³⁶

was said the portion of inheritances.

And this is also the connection to the two matters of "seres haMikra" and "in the Beis HaMidrash they were sitting" — because both emphasize the importance of the study of Torah through &lt;b&gt;the staff&lt;/b&gt;:

"Seres haMikra" — the "Mikra" as it comes "from above",

is not understood; and specifically through the person learning and "seres"ing the Mikra,

it comes to be revealed in understanding.

Similarly, also in the matter of "in the study hall they were": the study of Torah in the study hall emphasizes the virtue of the study of the human,

the one who inclines,

as opposed to the congregation

(opening the Ohel Moed — hearing the word of Hashem through Moshe,

gather the people in the year of Hakhel — hearing the word of Hashem through the king and the like)

where the virtue of the giver is emphasized,

the gathered ones are only hearers and receivers of the words,

Until that it is impossible for a study hall without innovation&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

through the sharp discussion of colleagues etc. matters in Torah become innovated.

; the Written Torah is like Torah as it is from the aspect of "above",

and the details of the commandments are not revealed; in the Oral Torah they are drawn down and revealed through the toil of man "from below",

until that "many matters were actually innovated in the Oral Torah and only alluded to in the verse"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;].

11.

Based on this one will also understand the reason

(in the inwardness of the matters),

why in Parshat Beha'alotcha Rashi brings only the explanation "when both of them are sitting in the study hall",

and by the daughters of Tzelafchad he brings both explanations

(and the primary explanation is "rearrange the verse")

The difference between "Sares HaMikra" and "Yoshvin Beis HaMidrash" is: "Sares HaMikra" emphasizes the order as the matter is &lt;b&gt;written &lt;/b&gt;in the Torah; in contrast, "Beis HaMidrash" emphasizes the &lt;b&gt;study &lt;/b&gt;through which the law becomes &lt;b&gt;renewed from its source&lt;/b&gt;.

And therefore: in the portion of Pesach Sheni,

that the claim of "Lama Nigra" had

(according to all opinions&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;)

opened up a &lt;b&gt;new law&lt;/b&gt;,

a new portion was &lt;b&gt;said &lt;/b&gt;— the main innovation consists in the matter of "Yoshvin Beis HaMidrash"

(the place where laws are renewed)

But not so in the portion of the daughters of Tzelofchad,

says <b>Rashi</b>⁴¹

that “the law was <b>hidden</b> from him

(from Moses)

" — the law had <b>already been stated</b> to Moses,

and the deed of the daughters of Tzelofchad was

(as Rashi infers⁴²)

“they merited ..

and it was <b>written</b> through them”

(that through them the law was again revealed to Moses and then <b>written</b> in the Torah),

and therefore the primary and essential interpretation is — “reverse the text”,

that this was <b>pre-</b>

<b>written</b> in a manner that emphasizes the matter of the work of the staff.

However, since there is also an opinion&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

that also the laws of inheritance were entirely renewed through the daughters of Tzelafchad&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

Rashi then brings also the opinion of Abba Chanan,

that "they were sitting in the study hall."

12.

May it be His will,

that just as the request and claim of the daughters of Tzelafchad "give us a possession" drew down from above the section of inheritances,

and the main thing is the deed — the giving of the inheritance in the Land of Israel&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

in actuality to the daughters of Tzelafchad,

Should be so in our days,

at the conclusion of the time of exile,

that the request which Jews continuously ask of the Most High "The shoot of David Your servant &lt;b&gt;speedily &lt;/b&gt;sprout forth",

"And our eyes shall see when You return to Zion with mercy",

Should bring down the true and complete redemption through Moshiach our righteous one,

that then every Jew will have with clarity and openly his inheritance in the Holy Land,

through that which "The Holy One, blessed be He, distributes to them Himself"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5738)