English translation — מסעי ב

A.

In the verse "And they were Machlah, Tirtzah, Chaglah, Milcah, and Noach etc." to wives¹,

Rashi stands on "Machlah Tirtzah etc." and explains²

: Here it counts them according to their greatness from one another in years, and they married in the order of their birth, and in all of Scripture it counts them according to their wisdom

(And afterwards Rashi adds "And it tells etc.'",

as below section 3).

From where does Rashi take that "Here it counts them according to their greatness etc. and in all of Scripture it counts them according to their wisdom"?

As one learns at first glance it comes out³,

That since in most cases the order of marriages in a family is according to the age of the children

"He does not do so in our place to give the younger before the older"],

From this it is understandable,

That in our verse where it is told "And they were etc. to wives" it "counts them according to their greatness",

And consequently one must learn,

That "in all of Scripture" where they are counted in a different order it "counts them according to their wisdom".

But in truth, one cannot learn this way.

Because

a)

According to this, Rashi should have written "Here

(where it speaks about their marriages)

the order of their <b>marriages</b> is according to the order of their births" — and not "Here the order of their <b>greatness</b> etc."?

b)

Even if you say,

then since as a rule people are counted according to their age&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;,

Rashi therefore teaches that here too they are counted

(not only according to the order of their marriages,

but also)

"according to their greatness etc. in years",

It is not understood: since the entire foundation of Rashi that "&lt;b&gt;Here&lt;/b&gt; He counted them according to their greatness"

(although one could learn,

on the contrary "in all of Scripture" He counts — as a rule — according to their greatness etc. and here — only according to the order of their marriages)

is from that which

(certainly)

"they were married in the order of their generations" — he should have written "they were married in the order of their generations" &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; "here He counted them according to their greatness etc."

ג)

It is reasonable to say,

that there where the daughters of Tzelafchad are counted in the verse the <b>first</b> time⁶,

they are enumerated according to the order of their lineage.

Because there it is told "and Tzelafchad the son of Chefer

(not)

<b>had</b> to him

(sons but rather)

<b>daughters</b>",

the reasoning compels,

that when telling that Tzelafchad had daughters,

the verse enumerates them as he had them — according to the order of their lineage.

One would have therefore had to learn,

that the daughters of Tzelafchad married <b>not</b> in the order of their lineage

where the younger married before the older],

and that

In our verse they are counted only according to the order of their marriages,

&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; according to their greatness; and in the verse "And Tzelafchad the son of Chefer etc. had etc. daughters" they are counted according to their lineage.

So why does Rashi teach that "&lt;b&gt;in all&lt;/b&gt; of Scripture"

which tells about their claim "Our father died in the desert etc. why should the name of our father be diminished etc. because he has no son"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

a matter that is connected with wisdom&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

but]

also in the verse "And Tzelafchad etc. had etc. daughters" which speaks

(&lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; about wisdom,

but)

about lineage,

is "counted according to their wisdom",

and specifically in our verse is the counting according to their greatness etc. in years?

2.

One can explain the reason that

(Rashi teaches that)

also the first time the daughters of Tzelafchad are counted "according to their wisdom":

The scriptural narrative "And Tzelafchad etc. had no sons, only daughters" is an introduction¹¹

to that which is later recounted,

that the daughters claimed "Our father died in the desert etc. and sons he had not etc. Give us a possession etc."¹²,

and this is a claim that indicates wisdom,

Therefore they are counted also in the introduction to their claim "according to their wisdom".

This is however only an explanation that one <b>can</b> learn in that verse that "they are counted according to their wisdom".

It is however much simpler to say,

that that verse which <b>actually</b> speaks it <b>not</b> about their claim,

rather it tells that "

(not)

were to him

(sons all)

daughters",

he counts them according to their generations.

It remains nevertheless still difficult: since there are cases where the younger married before the older,

from where does Rashi take that in the verse "And Tzelofchad etc. had for him etc. daughters" they are counted according to their wisdom,

not according to the order of their birth?

3.

After Rashi answers why in our verse the order of the daughters of Tzelofchad is different than in all of Scripture,

that "here he counted according to their greatness etc. and in all of Scripture he counted according to their wisdom",

he adds: "And it tells that they are equal one to another"¹³.

Is in this not understandable:

a)

Since that "in the entire Scripture the counting is according to their wisdom",

it means then that those who are "in the entire Scripture" counted earlier,

they were greater in wisdom,

now why does Rashi say "that they are equal one to the other"?

b)

Even if you say that "they are equal to each other" means their equality in other virtues

(not in wisdom)¹⁴,

it is not understandable: the entire source that "they are equal etc." is apparently from the change of order in the verses.

But since Rashi explains the reason for the change "here it counted according to their greatness ..

and in all of Scripture it counted according to their wisdom",

then there is no source to say that "they are equal to each other"?

And the same question is on the other side: since the verse "and they were Machlah Tirtzah etc." with its change of order from "all of Scripture",

causes us to deduce "that they are equal to each other",

then why should Rashi need to come to the explanation "here it counted according to their greatness etc."?

The question is even stronger; the two matters in Rashi —

(a)

Here it counts according to their greatness ..

And in every place in Scripture it counts according to their wisdom,

and

(b)

they are equal to each other — are seemingly taken from the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;.

But in the Gemara these are indeed &lt;b&gt;disputed&lt;/b&gt; opinions&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.

And Rashi

(in the way of the plain meaning)

includes both matters together?

4.

In addition to the questions on Rashi's commentary on the spot,

there is also a difficulty on this Rashi from an earlier &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; in Parshat Pinchas:

In the verse "And the daughters of Tzelafchad drew near, etc., Machlah, Noa, etc."⁸

Rashi stands on "Machlah, Noa, etc." and explains: And later it says "And Machlah, Tirtzah were,"

It tells that all of them were equal, one like the other,

Therefore He changed their order.

It is not understood: If Rashi

(in our parshah)

assumes,

that in order to explain the change of order in the verses,

it is insufficient to say "that they were equal, one like the other," but one must also arrive at "counting them according to their greatness...

according to their wisdom,"

then Rashi should have explained it at the <b>first</b> time of the change; but there he suffices with the explanation "it tells that all of them were equal,"

and in our verse where he explains for the <b>second</b> time the reason for the change,

he adds "counting them according to their greatness...

according to their wisdom"?

Also it is not understandable: when there is a contradiction between two verses,

Rashi answers the contradiction at the time it becomes a contradiction,

i.e.

that is,

when one comes to the second verse.

Because while one learns the first verse,

nothing is yet difficult.

And as one sees from this same matter itself,

that in the first verse: "And the names of the daughters of Zelophehad: Mahlah and Noah etc." Rashi does not place "And later it says etc."

Thus, according to this, it is not understandable: regarding the verse "ותקרבנה etc.",

where the daughters of Tzelofchad are counted a second time

(with the same order as the first),

then the student has no difficulty at all from the verse in parshas Masei that he has not yet learned.

Now why does Rashi there ask "&lt;b&gt;ולהלן&lt;/b&gt; הוא אומר etc."?

H.

So the explanation of all this is:

What bothers the student in the verse "and they approached" etc. where the daughters of Tzelafchad are counted a second time,

is

which he has not yet learned,

but]

the verse itself "and these are the names of his daughters": why does it need

to count them again,

when he has already counted their names earlier?

One must say,

that in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; verse he is outside

(mainly),

not to say their names,

but to emphasize something through the repetition — in what can there be an emphasis?

In the &lt;b&gt;order&lt;/b&gt;.

It is however not understood: also the first time they stand in the same order,

so what does the verse &lt;b&gt;renew&lt;/b&gt; with the order "Machlah Noach etc."&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;?

that the novelty of the order in the verse "And they approached etc." is,

that also regarding "their wisdom" they are in the same order as their birth — because even without this verse it is &lt;b&gt;simply&lt;/b&gt; logical to say so,

because "days&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

will speak and multitude of years will make wisdom known"].

On this Rashi explains "and later it says and they were Machlah Tirtzah",

that the novelty here in this order "Machlah No'ah etc." is

(<b>not</b> regarding their order earlier,

but)

regarding the order "Machlah Tirtzah" that is stated "later".

And therefore the verse lists the names of the daughters of Tzelafchad in the verse Vatikravnah again¹⁹,

in order to let us hear,

through this change of order regarding parshas Masei,

that "all of them²⁰

are equal one to the other"²¹.

6.

One must still, however, understand: Since also the first time the daughters of Tzelafchad are listed with the order "Machlah and No'ah etc." with a change regarding their order in parshas Masei,

one would seemingly have known that "they are equal one to the other" merely from the two verses.

So the question returns to its place: Why do they need to be listed again in the verse "Vatikravnah"?

Is the explanation in this: in the approach according to the simple meaning²²

to a change

Masei — the order of the count pertains to wisdom,

is consequently the change of the order "Magid

(as Rashi concludes)

that they are equivalent one to the other."

8.

But immediately as Rashi says "here it counted according to their greatness etc.'" — after the conclusion "and it tells that they are equivalent etc.',"

it becomes difficult for the student:

Since "here" speaks about "and they were etc. for wives" and <b>not</b> about lineage,

then how can one say that the order here,

which is different than in the verse "and Tzelafchad had etc. daughters"

(which speaks simply about lineage),

should be according to their greatness etc.?

Therefore Rashi says immediately,

that the connection of "according to their greatness etc." to our verse is from the aspect of that "they are arranged in the order of their generations."

And that which "in all of Scripture" they stand in a different order,

is it because there "he counts them according to their wisdom"

(section b),

that also the order of the counting in the first verse can be learned that it has a connection to "their wisdom"].

And after the student already knows that "here he counts according to their greatness etc.",

Rashi concludes "and tells that they are equivalent one to the other",

because since that also the counting in our verse is according to their &lt;b&gt;greatness&lt;/b&gt;

(which is connected with wisdom as above section 7)

— is the change of the order of our verse relative to the first two times "tells — that they are equivalent one to the other".

9.

According to the above, it is also explained how "they are equal, one to the other" is <b>not</b> a contradiction to "their count was according to their wisdom" — because with "their count was according to their wisdom" Rashi means

but]

that the counting "<b>in the entire</b> Scripture"

(including also our verse)

is <b>relevant</b>

(not as in most places to older in years,

but)

to wisdom,

And since there are <b>variations</b> in this order of the counting — even though <b>everywhere</b> the count is according to their wisdom — it is therefore forced that their order according to their wisdom [is] "they are equal, one to the other".

One cannot, however, write all at once — so the <b>variation</b> in the order indicates that they are equal.

10.

Another manner

(more spacious)

One can explain:

In wisdom there are two types:

(a)

The essence of wisdom — which comes through learning and toiling.

(b)

Wisdom that comes with years²⁷

— "Days speak and multitude of years teach wisdom",

as above.

He begins to say,

that the first two times that they are counted according to their wisdom,

the order is indeed <b>precise</b>²⁸.

D.

E.

that in the essential wisdom that is connected with study and toil,

they were in the order as from "in all of Scripture": "Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah"

(because although Noah was the youngest,

she through her toil surpassed her sisters,

until she is counted the second — immediately after Mahlah)

But nevertheless,

let us hear the superfluous counting of the verse "And they drew near,"

that here there is also a "<b>not</b> specifically" in the order of the counting.

For from the aspect that Tirzah was older than Noah,

when combining both types of wisdom together — the wisdom from the side of abundance of years by Tirzah,

and the wisdom from the side of toil by Noah — it is,

all in all,

"equal one to the other"²⁹.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Mas'ei, 5725)