Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 27
Sources
Medieval Texts
Rashi Bemidbar 27:1רש״י במדבר כ״ז:א׳
למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף OF THE FAMILIES OF MANASSEH THE SON OF JOSEPH – Why is this stated? Has it not already been said בן מנשה, and consequently we know that they belonged to the family of Manasseh the son of Joseph?! But it is to suggest the following idea to you: Just as Joseph held the Promised Land dear, as it is said, (Bereshit 50:25) "And you shall bring my bones up (to Israel) from hence", so, too, his daughters held the Land dear, as it is said, (v. 4) "Give us an inheritance"; and further to teach you that they were righteous all of them (everyone here mentioned in the pedigree), for in every case where a person's doings and his ancestors' doings are nowhere plainly described and Scripture somewhere enters into the details of the pedigree in respect to one of them, tracing his genealogy back to someone worthy of praise, it is evident that the person in question is himself a righteous man and a son of a righteous father. But if it gives his genealogy in connection with something deserving of reprobation, – as, for example, (2 Kings 25:25) "Ishmael the son of Nethanian the son of Elishama came … and smote Gedaliah", then it is quite certain that all who are mentioned in connection with him were wicked people (Sifrei Bemidbar 27). מחלה נעה וגו' MAHLAH, NOAH, etc. – But further on (Numbers 36:11) states, "And Mahlah, Tirzah were" (changing the position of the names within the verse): this is to tell you that they all were of equal worth one with another, and on this account it is that it changed their order (i.e. the order of their names) (Sifrei Bemidbar 27). | למשפחות מנשה בן יוסף – למה נאמר, והלא כבר אמר: בן מנשה? אלא לומר לך: יוסף חיבב את הארץ, שנאמר: והעליתם את עצמותי (בראשית נ׳:כ״ה), ובנותיו חיבבו את הארץ. וללמדך שהיו כולם צדיקים, שכל מי שמעשיו ומעשי אבותיו סתומים ופרט לך הכתוב באחד מהם לייחסו לשבח, הרי זה צדיק בן צדיק. ואם ייחסו לגנאי, כגון: בא ישמעאל בן נתניה בן אלישמע (מלכים ב כ״ה:כ״ה), בידוע שכל הנזכרים עמו רשעים היו. מחלה ונועה – ולהלן הוא אומר: ותהיינה מחלה תרצה וגו׳ (במדבר ל״ו:י״א) – מגיד שכולן שקולות זו כזו, לפיכך שינה את סדרן. |
Ramban Bemidbar 27:3רמב״ן במדבר כ״ז:ג׳
[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. "Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured, nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him." This is Rashi's language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: 'Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!' For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father's sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal would not inherit in the Land. In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory, explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: "Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins." | [והוא לא היה – לפי שבאות לומר: בחטאו מת, נזקקו לומר לא בחטא מתלוננים ולא בעדת קרח שהצו על הקב״ה, אלא בחטאו לבדו, לא החטיא אחרים עמו. לשון רבינו שלמה. ולא פירש למה היו באות לומר: בחטאו מת, אלא שתאמרנה: אבינו מת במדבר ובנים לא היו לו, כי כן הראוי להאמר. אבל על דעת רבותינו (בבלי ב״ב קי״ח:) הוצרכו לומר שלא היה בעדת קרח לפי שעדת קרח לא היה להם חלק בארץ, וכן למתלוננים שבעדת קרח, כי נשמע זה בעם מבית דינו של משה. וכך פירש ר׳ אברהם ואמר: חשבו הבנות כי לא יירשו הנועדים על י״י. ודעתי על דרך הפשט: שאמרו ככה בעבור כי חשבו שמשה רבינו היה שונא עדת קרח יותר מכל החטאים אשר מתו במדבר, שהם הקמים כנגדו והכופרים בכל מעשיו, וחשבו אולי בשנאתו אותם יאמר אל יהי לו מושך חסד ואל יהי חונן ליתומיו, יזכר עון אבותם אל י״י (תהלים ק״ט:י״ב-י״ד). על כן הודיעוהו שאינו מהם, ורמזו עוד שאינו במתי המגפות, אבל מת במדבר על מטתו. וטעם: כי בחטאו מת – אמרו מת במדבר בעונו שלא זכה ליכנס לארץ, או כדברי רבי יהודה הלוי המשורר ז״ל שפירש שהוא דבק עם: ובנים לא היו לו, כאשר יאמר היום: בעונות אירע כך וכך.] |