English translation — פנחס ב

A.

In the verse "Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the assembly that gathered against the L-rd in the assembly of Korach, for he died in his own sin etc." ¹,

Rashi stands on "And he was not etc." and explains: "Because they were coming to say 'in his sin he died,'

they needed to say 'not in the sin of the complainers²

and not in the assembly of Korach who challenged the Holy One, blessed be He,

but in his own sin alone he died, and he did not cause others to sin with him'"

(and afterwards Rashi brings two opinions as to what the sin of Tzelafchad consisted of,

as below section 3).

In this it is not understood: why did they need the introduction "not in the sin of the complainers and not in the assembly of Korach etc." in order to be able to say "in his sin he died"?

Commentators explain<sup>3</sup>,

that by prefacing "not in sin do they complain nor in the assembly of Korach etc." — sins that are connected with causing others to sin — they made clear,

that with "in his sin" they mean "in his sin <b>alone</b> etc."

They could not, however, content themselves with saying only "and he was not in the assembly etc. in the assembly of Korach",

because that alone does not yet exclude that he committed other sins with which he caused others to sin.

They therefore added "in his sin he died",

and thus — by saying both things: "and he was not etc." and "in his sin he died" — their intention became clear that "in his sin alone he died and did not cause others to sin with him."

It is, however, not understood: they could have said explicitly "in his sin <b>alone</b>",

which would have precluded the entire lengthy discussion of "and he was not in the assembly etc."?

2.

In addition to this, that the necessity of the introduction "והוא לא הי׳ גו׳" before saying "בחטאו מת" is not understood,

this itself is not understood: why did they need to say "בחטאו מת"⁴ at all?

Commentators learn ⁵,

that they needed to say "בחטאו מת" which means "בחטאו לבדו ולא החטיא את אחרים עמו״,

in order to clarify that Tzelofchad has a portion in the Land of Israel.

It is however difficult to learn in such a way.

Because

a)

One does not find anywhere,

that one who causes others to sin had no portion in the Land⁶.

b)

From the fact that the words "בחטאו לבדו etc." Rashi writes only after he explains "נזקקו לומר לא בחטא מתלוננים etc.",

but earlier — when he says "לפי שהיו באות לומר בחטאו מת",

he does <b>not</b> explain "בחטאו לבדו etc.",

it is evident,

that with their saying "בחטאו מת" they had yet another intention

(aside from "בחטאו לבדו"),

and that that intention is so simple — that Rashi need not explain it at all.

c.

Then Rashi continues

(in the same discourse)

: ר׳ עקיבא says he was a wood gatherer and ר׳ שמעון says he was from the maapilim.

Is also in this not understanding:

a)

In the verse it only says "in his sin he died",

It does not say, however, &lt;b&gt;which&lt;/b&gt; sin this was.

So from where does Rashi take that according to "the plain meaning of Scripture" it is "he was a wood gatherer",

or "he was of the maapilim"?

b)

Whenever Rashi brings two explanations,

it is because in each of them there is a certain advantage.

One must understand: What is the advantage of the explanation "the wood gatherer was" over "of the ma'apilim was"; and what is the advantage of the explanation "of the ma'apilim was" over "the wood gatherer was"?

c)

As already discussed many times,

Rashi does not bring the name of the author of the statement in his commentary,

except in a case where through this comes an additional explanation

(according to the way of &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning&lt;/b&gt;)

in the brought explanation of the author of the statement.

d)

In our case,

that in the books ⁷

and Gemara ⁸

the interpretation "from the haughty ones was" stands in the name of <b>Riv"b</b> ⁹,

and Rashi brings the interpretation specifically in the name of <b>R"Sh</b>

(certainly according to a version that he found in a "discarded" midrash¹⁰)

— it is thus understood that this is because specifically through the version that <b>R"Sh</b> says "from the haughty ones was" — an additional explanation will come in this interpretation ¹¹.

One must understand: what is added in the interpretations,

by emphasizing that the interpretation of the gatherer of wood was said by R' Akiva and the interpretation of "from the haughty ones was" was said by R' Shimon?

4.

Is the explanation in this,

That with his bringing the two interpretations "He was a gatherer of sticks" and "He was of the maapilim" Rashi explains,

That the intention of the daughters of Tzelafchad with the words "In his sin he died" was

(<b>Not</b> only to emphasize "In his sin <b>alone</b>",

That "he did not cause others to sin with him",

Rather the primary and main intention of theirs was)

To make known in what consisted the sin of their father because of which he died: They wanted to announce that he was the gatherer of sticks,

Or,

According to the second interpretation — that he was of the maapilim.

Only because from the side of honoring a father they could not say explicitly that their father was a desecrator of Shabbos,

Or that he was of the maapilim

(About whom Moshe said "Why are you transgressing the word of Hashem"¹²)

— And especially further,

That their words were "before Moshe and before Elazar the Kohen and before the princes and all the congregation"¹³,

Would it have been the greatest disgrace to say about their father '"Gatherer of sticks" or "Of the maapilim" — they therefore only said "In his sin he died"¹⁴,

And in order that they should know which sin they mean,

They had previously prefaced that he was not in the sin of the complainers and not of the congregation of Korach,

So that then they will investigate and search and find out that he was "a gatherer of sticks" or

(According to the second interpretation)

Of the maapilim¹⁵.

5.

What was so relevant to them that one should know that their father was a wood-gatherer or from the ma'apilim — one must first explain the claim of the daughters of Tzelafchad "Why should the name of our father be diminished? Give us a possession among our father's brothers"¹⁶

(And their account "Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the assembly that gathered against Hashem in the assembly of Korach, but he died in his own sin" was an introduction to that claim)

From the wording "Why should the name of <b>our father</b> be diminished" it is proven simply,

that their claim was

which his other sons took

(and grandchildren),

they should take¹⁷

"the portion of Tzelafchad with his brothers in the property of Chefer"¹⁸,

but also]

that they should take "the portion of their father" itself¹⁹,

Although "the land was divided to those who came into the land"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

and Tzelafchad was indeed not among those who came into the land,

nevertheless they argued,

that just as if Tzelafchad had left a son

(a son of twenty years)

he would have taken a portion in the land,

so now that "he has no son" and "we stand in place of a son"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

the portion comes to them.

But at first glance the argument has no place: since "the land was divided to those who came into the land",

so even if Tzelafchad had a son among those who came into the land,

he would have taken not the portion of Tzelafchad,

but his own portion

(because the son would have been among those who came into the land).

Now what place does the argument have that because "we stand in place of a son" therefore the portion of &lt;b&gt;Tzelafchad&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; comes to them

6.

So the explanation in this is:

Before the Jews went out of Egypt,

the Almighty promised them "And I will bring you out from under the burdens of Egypt etc. and I will bring you to the land etc. and I will give it <b>to you</b> as a heritage etc." ²³

That the Almighty promised to give the Land of Israel to the ones who left Egypt.

Only after the sin of "And all the children of Israel murmured etc. and said etc. 'And why is the Lord bringing us to this land etc.'"²⁴,

the Almighty said

("measure for measure")

"<b>As</b> you have spoken in My ears, <b>so</b> I will do to you ..

if you will come into the land etc."²⁵.

Nevertheless,

the Most High did not take away <b>entirely</b> their merit in the Land of Israel,

but He gave over their merit to "your little ones,"

that "I will bring them and they will know the land, etc."²⁶.

d.

D.

h.

E.

That that which the entrants of the land had a portion in the Land of Israel,

it is by virtue of that which they are "your little ones" — the little ones of the ones who left Egypt.

And since it is so,

it follows to say,

that just as according to the one who says "to the ones who left Egypt the land was divided," the entrants of the land <b>inherited</b> the Land of Israel from their parents, the ones who left Egypt,

so too is it also according to the one who says "to the <b>entrants</b> of the <b>land</b> the land was divided,"

was not an inheritance from the ones who left Egypt,

therefore when one of the ones who left Egypt had, for example, three sons among the entrants to the land,

they took &lt;b&gt;three&lt;/b&gt; portions],

But this very thing that the entrants to the land were the ones to whom "the land was divided",

is because they were the children and heirs of the ones who left Egypt&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore the daughters of Tzelafchad argued that since "we stand in the place of a son,"

must consequently the merit of our father pass over to us&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

just as the merit of all the other ones who left Egypt passed over to their sons:

The daughters of Tzelafchad held,

that that which other women have no portion in the Land,

is it &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; because of that which they are &lt;b&gt;essentially&lt;/b&gt; not in the category of "to these shall the land be divided,"

who were excluded from the word "to these"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;],

but because of that,

that they have brothers,

and since a daughter in place of a son does not inherit,

they cannot be counted as the heirs of the ones who left Egypt,

And since so,

must it indeed turn out that in their case,

that "our father died etc." and "&lt;b&gt;he had&lt;/b&gt; no son"

(also not any son who is less than twenty years old &lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;),

they are the heirs of their father,

and consequently the right of their father must pass to them,

and they should take a portion in the land&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

From where did the daughters of Zelophehad take that that which women &lt;b&gt;in general&lt;/b&gt; have no portion in the land is because "a daughter in place of a son does not inherit" and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; because &lt;b&gt;essentially&lt;/b&gt; they have no portion in the land

(like those less than twenty years old)

Upon this they prefaced "and he was not within the congregation etc. because in his sin he died": since "&lt;b&gt;in his sin&lt;/b&gt; he died", he died over &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt; sin

(that he was "the gatherer of sticks" or from the "would-be infiltrators"),

and &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; like the other dead of the wilderness whose sin was the saying "and why is the Lord bringing us to this land",

it can certainly not be painted,

that the promise which the Almighty promised to each one of the exiles from Egypt "and I will give it to you as an inheritance etc.",

should be taken away from him &lt;b&gt;entirely&lt;/b&gt;,

until that he should not have even any children who should take a portion in the land because of him,

or their children were less than twenty years old],

For since he did not commit a sin that is connected with Eretz Yisrael³³,

therefore there is no reason for it and it asks itself why — “<b>Why</b> — should the name of our father be diminished”,

And since "the Judge of all the earth will not do justice"

(in wonder)&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

this itself proves that also the daughters of those who left Egypt,

in a case when "he has no son",

inherit the right of their father to take a portion in the Land.

8.

According to all the above,

one will also understand why the daughters of Tzelofchad had to say "he died in his sin":

Since their first words are "Our father died &lt;b&gt;in the desert&lt;/b&gt;"

in order to emphasize that he did not die in Egypt,

and consequently he was among the &lt;b&gt;those who left Egypt&lt;/b&gt; — to whom the Almighty promised "and I will give it to you as an inheritance"]

would one then have thought,

that he was from the die of the wilderness,

who died over the sin of "and we complained G-d and why does G-d bring us to this land",

they therefore needed to say "by his sin he died",

indicating at least the sin for which he died,

so that they should know that he is not from the complainers.

And although they said explicitly,

"And he was not in the congregation etc.,"

which means

(as Rashi says)

"not in the sin of the complainers" &lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

— but since regarding the sin of the complainers it says "And the &lt;b&gt;entire&lt;/b&gt; congregation of the children of Israel complained etc.,"

then if they had said only "And he was &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; etc."

(but did not say "in his sin he died"),

it would have been unbelievable — therefore they said "in his sin he died,"

that he died because of &lt;b&gt;his own&lt;/b&gt; sin,

which &lt;b&gt;negates&lt;/b&gt; the sin of the complainers &lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

According to the interpretation "he was the wood gatherer," this certainly negates the sin of the complainers,

for the incident of the wood gatherer occurred a year before the complainers&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;?

And also according to the explanation "he was from the ma'apilim",

is since that the ma'apilim repented for the sin of not wanting to enter Eretz Yisrael,

so that even when Moshe Rabbeinu warned them "do not go up etc. for Amalek etc." nevertheless "they persisted to go up to the top of the mountain"³⁸

— can therefore not be depicted,

that from him should be taken away his merit in Eretz Yisrael.

And based on this it is also simply understandable what Rashi adds "he was a gatherer of wood" or "he was from the ma'apilim" — because these are the only possibilities in "his sin",

which negate the sin of the complainers.

9.

It requires further explanation, however: Since in the <b>words</b> "in his sin he died"

(from the verse),

there is <b>no</b> hint as to what was the sin of Tzelafchad,

and that which Rashi says "the wood-gatherer ...

from the Maapilim he was" he takes it out

but]

from the fact that these are the only sins that are excluded from the sin of the complainers — it follows automatically,

that the two possibilities are <b>not</b> <b>interpretations</b> of the verse — because from the verse one does not know whether Tzelafchad was the wood-gatherer or from the Maapilim.

Now if so,

Rashi should have written both possibilities in one breath — the wood-gatherer or from the Maapilim he was

(and the like)

— and not make them into two interpretations?

Regarding the possibility "the wood-gatherer he was",

one can explain that Rashi adopts it as an interpretation of the verse,

because from the plain sense of the text it is implied,

that the claim of the daughters of Tzelafchad lay in the words "in his sin he died" themselves.

Therefore it is plausible to say "the wood-gatherer he was" — because then it is understandable how with their words they pointed to his sin

(the wood-gatherer),

since the meaning of "in his sin"

(<b>his</b> sin)

is — a singular sin,

and the only singular sin

(of the known sins)

in the generation of the wilderness,

was the sin of the wood-gatherer³⁹

(unlike if "from the Maapilim — plural — he was",

one would have to force [the interpretation],

that by saying "in his sin he died" the daughters of Tzelafchad relied that through this Moshe and Elazar etc. would themselves investigate and find out that their father was from the Maapilim).

It remains however difficult,

that also "from the Maapilim he was" Rashi writes as an explanation — and in this manner there is certainly no proof from the verse.

So the question is answered by Rashi with his bringing the names of the authors of the statement — <b>R. Akiva</b> says he was a wood-gatherer <b>R. Shimon</b> says he was from the Maapilim — that although from the verse itself there is indeed no proof what the sin of Tzelafchad was,

there is however an advantage in each of the two manners — according to the views of the authors of the statement R. Akiva and R. Shimon,

as follows.

10.

The sin of the wood-gatherer is

(according to the simple interpretation⁴⁰)

was smaller than the sin of the Maapilim,

in that

(a)

In the sin of the wood-gatherer there was no participation of other Jews,

and consequently — it was entirely excluded from "causing others to sin."

(b)

The sin of the wood-gatherer was committed on the first Shabbat that the Jews were in the desert³⁷,

<b>before</b> the Giving of the Torah — and this is also understood simply⁴¹,

that before the Giving of the Torah there was not the severity as after the Giving of the Torah.

But despite that the sin of the Ma'apilim was more severe than the sin of the wood-gatherer,

nevertheless the claim "Why should our father's name be diminished"

(that Tzelofchad deserves a portion in the Land of Israel)

is brought forth more strongly according to the explanation "He was from the Ma'apilim" —

Because through the fact that Tzelafchad was from the maapilim,

he not only did teshuvah and removed the sin of the complainers,

but this very thing is also a positive reason that he deserves a portion in Eretz Yisrael — because of the fact that he sacrificed himself for Eretz Yisrael.

And this Rashi hints at with his bringing the names of the authors of the maamar, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon:

R. Akiva was accustomed to find merit for Israel ⁴².

And therefore,

when one can learn Tzelofchad's sin in two ways — he chooses the lighter sin;

But R. Shimon is "derish ta'ama dikra"⁴³

— and therefore it is tastier to him to learn "from the ma'apilim it was",

in order that it should come out that with their saying "in his sin he died" they

(also)

said a <b>reason</b> why to him <b>comes</b> a portion in the Land,

as above.

11.

Another matter is safeguarded by the fact that Rashi brings here <b>R. Akiva</b> says;

The daughters of Tzelafchad had not yet married after that,

as it says further in parshas Masei⁴⁴.

Is it not smooth: the incident of the wood-gatherer was

(as above end of section 10)

on the first Shabbos that the Jews were in the desert,

so how is it that in the fortieth year they had still not married⁴⁵?

because the incident of the maapilim was only one year after the incident of the wood-gatherer]

this is guarded with "&lt;b&gt;Rabbi Akiva&lt;/b&gt; says" — because also Rabbi Akiva&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

got married only at forty years old&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

12.

from the matters of "the wine of Torah" in Rashi of our —

Parshat Pinchas is read on the first Shabbat of Bein HaMetzarim,

or on the Shabbat that is before that.

In this there is the lesson:

Just as in the first entry into the Land of Israel,

notwithstanding the decree "If you will come into the land etc.," through the repentance of "and they presumptuously ascended etc." not only

removed the decree,

but even more: the "and they presumptuously ascended etc." was actually a &lt;b&gt;reason&lt;/b&gt; to &lt;b&gt;receive&lt;/b&gt; a portion in the Land.

That

is

that the "and they presumptuously ascended" brought about a stronger connection to Eretz Yisrael than that which existed before the sin of the complainants;

So too will it be at the entry into Eretz Yisrael through Mashiach our righteousness,

that the repentance for "our sins,"

will not only remove the "He exiled us from our land"

(which came "&lt;b&gt;because of&lt;/b&gt; our sins"),

Only she will also bring,

that the entry into Eretz Yisrael will be in a much greater and stronger manner than before "our sin" — great will be the glory of this latter house than the former⁴⁹

— in the true and complete redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu,

he will come and redeem us speedily, truly

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5728)