For The Love of the Land

There are a wide range of topics discussed in this week’s Parsha, from the Brachos that Pinchas was given to the various Korbanos Mussaf that are brought throughout the year. Toward the beginning of the Parsha, quite a few Pessukim are dedicated to a full counting of Klal Yisroel, which followed the Magefa caused by the Aveiros we read about at the end of Parshas Balak. By way of this counting, which is very detailed down to each individual family, we are told that there was a man named Tzelafchad who had five daughters and no sons.

Following this census, Hashem briefly speaks to Moshe with regard to the Nachlas HaAretz, explaining the process by which Eretz Yisroel will be divided amongst the Shevatim. The counting of Bnei Yisroel and the Tzivuy regarding the Nachlas HaAretz are obviously closely connected, because each Shevet was given their portion in Eretz Yisroel according to their size, as the Passuk says: “L’Rav Tarbeh Nachlaso, ViLaMeat Tamit Nachlaso.”

A few Pessukim later, the daughters of Tzelafchad make another appearance. They appear before Moshe with a claim: their father had died in the Midbar—through his own sins, and not as part of Adas Korach—and it seemed that because he had no sons he would not be able to have a Chelek in Eretz Yisroel. This seemed unfair to the daughters of Tzelafchad, and so they brought this claim to Moshe Rabbeinu himself. The Passuk then says that Moshe brought their claim to Hashem, asking what the Halacha should be. In response the Bnos Tzelafchad are indeed granted their father’s share in Eretz Yisroel, and Hashem gives Moshe a new set of Dinei Nachalos, which outline the Halachos in cases where there are no sons to inherit the father’s possessions.

A simple reading of these Pessukim brings to mind a similar story that we learn about earlier in Sefer Bamidbar: the Tammeim L’Nafesh whose claims were the source of Pesach Sheni. In that case as well, there was a group that felt that the current Halachos, as presented by Moshe Rabbeinu, were unfair to their own circumstances. There too Moshe brought the question to Hashem, and a new Halacha was taught. In fact, both use similar terms in their claims. The Bnos Tzelafchad said “Lama Yigara Shem Avinu M’Toch Mishpachto” and the Temmeim L’Nefesh famously asked “Lama Nigara.” The terms Yigara and Nigara of course connote a sense of loss and denigration caused by their circumstances.

There are, however, a variety of differences between the two.

The response that Moshe receives to the question about Bnos Tzelafchad is proceeded by a four word introduction: “Ken Bnos Tzelachad Dobros”, in affect Hashem says “They are correct.” This is no minor concurrence, indeed Rashi on those words brings the Medrash: “Ashrei Adam SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Modeh L’Dvarav: Praise be the one that Hashem agrees with his words.”

In the case of Pesach Sheni, however, no such introduction is given. We are told that Moshe brought the question to Hashem, and the next Passuk is the Tzivuy of Pesach Sheni. Obviously there is an implicit agreement with their claim, but we are never told that they were correct, and certainly they do no seem to rise to the level of “Ashrei Adam SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Modeh L’Dvarav.”

Further, the Halachos that are taught as a result of the Bnos Tzelafchad are relatively extensive. Rather that just tell Moshe what the Halacha should be in their specific case—that the Bnos Tzelafchad should inherit their father’s portion in Eretz Yisroel—or even just the general rule of daughters inheriting where there are no sons, the Torah teaches the entire set of Hilchos Yerusha as a result of the daughter’s claims. This is a far greater impact than the Temeim L’Nefesh, on whose account only the specific Halachos of Pesach Sheni were taught.

It would therefore seem that though their claims were similar in nature, and even in syntax, Bnos Tzelafchad had a bigger Zechus than the Temmeim L’Nefesh that brought the Mitzvah of Pesach Sheni.

This notion, that Bnos Tzelafchad had a specifically great Zechus, seems to be present in the words of Chazal. Rashi, on the words “VaYikrav Moshe Es Mishpatan” brings a Medrash that says that the Parsha of Nachlos should have been said through Moshe, like most other Parshios in the Torah, “Elah Shezachu Bnos Tzelafchad, V’nichtiva Al Yadan: but the Bnos Tzelafchad were Zoche and it was written through them.” We see that the daughters of Tzelafchad had a great Zechus and were rewarded for that.

What was there Zechus, why were they Zoche to have the Parsha of Nachlos “Nichtiva Al Yaddan?” Why were they on the level of Ashrei Adam SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Modeh L’Dvarav.?” It would seem that they were making an almost commercial claim: they did not wish their family to be shortchanged when it came to the Yerushas HaAretz, they wanted to receive their fair share regardless of a lack of male heirs. Why did this cause them to be placed on such a pedestal, to be Zoche to such great heights?

The truth is that in the Parsha of the Bnos Tzelafchad is rather short--only four Pessukim--and it is hard to determine where their greatness lies, but there is perhaps a starting point at the very beginning of the story.

The entire episode is prefaced with a Passuk that seems to be entirely extraneous: “VaTikravna Bnos Tzelafchad Ben Chefer, Ben Gilad, Ben Mechir, Ben Menashe, Limishpachas Menashe Ben Yosef” and the Passuk goes on to list their names. Only in the next Passuk does it say where they came close to: “VaTamodna Lifnei Moshe.” It would appear that this Passuk and the next could have easily been combined and the word VaTikravna eliminated. Further, why does the Torah provide us with their entire lineage and then repeat that they were from “Mishpachas Menashe Ben Yosef?” Not only did the Pasuk just say “Ben Mechir, Ben Menashe” but we were just told of their entire lineage in the counting of Bnei Yisroel earlier in the Parsha. What is the Torah stressing by repeating this fact?

Rashi cites a Medrash that explains why the Yichus of Menashe Ben Yosef is repeated: Just as Yosef showed Chibas HaAretz, when he said “V’Haalisem Es Atzmosei MiZeh” asking his brothers to bring his remains out of Mitzrayim to Eretz Yisroel, the Bnos Tzelafchad showed Chibas HaAretz when they said “Tena Lanu Achuzah.”

Perhaps it is here that we can begin to see the Zechus of Bnos Tzelafchad. Chazal seem to connect the Chibas HaAretz of Yosef HaTzaddik with that of his great-great-great-great granddaughters. Just as Yosef showed a connection to Eretz Yisroel when he requested to be brought to Kevurah there, so to when the daughters of Tzelafchad requested their Chelek in Eretz Yisrael they too showed Chibas HaAretz.

If we are to understand that this Chibas HaAretz of Bnos Tzelafchad, which mirrored that of their ancestor Yosef, is the reason that they were Zoche to have the Parshas HaNachlos written in their name and to a level of Hakadosh Baruch Hu Modeah L’Dvarav, we must understand why this Chibas HaAretz is such an impressive Middah. Why would a mere desire for a Chelek in Eretz Yisrael engender such great Zechuyos?

This question becomes even a bit stronger if we consider the Chibas HaAretz shown by Yosef. The Gemarah in Kesubos, asks: if those buried outside Eretz Yisroel are going to be Zoche to Techiyas HaMesim, why did Yosef insist on being brought to Eretz Yisroel? There would seem to be no practical difference between Kevurah in Mitzrayim and Eretz Yisroel? The Gemarah explains that Yosef knew that he would be Zoche to Techias HaMesim even if he was buried in Mitzrayim, but wished to avoid the process of reaching Eretz Yisroel, which involves the person’s body rolling through tunnels.

It appears from this Gemarah that Yosef made his brothers promise to have his body transported to Eretz Yisroel out of a desire to avoid suffering at the time of Techia Hamesim—a measure of Chibas HaAretz does not seem to play a role in Yosef’s request at all. What then is the comparison between Yosef and Bnos Tzelafchad, and why do Chazal attribute a Chibas HaAretz to Yosef at all?

The Netziv, in his Pirush on the Sifri, asks a similar question, and points to a Medrah in Parshas V’Eschanan that may be instructional:

The Medrash tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu, when asking Hashem to let him enter Eretz Yisroel, or at least have his Kevurah there, compared himself to Yosef HaTzaddik. Yosef was the one to sustain Bnei Yisroel when they journeyed down to Mitzrayim, and his remains were being brought (by Moshe himself) to Eretz Yisroel for Kevurah. I, said Moshe Rabbeinu, sustained Bnei Yisroel for forty years in the Midbar, and should therefore be similarly Zoche to enter Eretz Yisroel.

Hashem responded that Yosef had an additional Zechus: Eishes Potifar refered to Yosef as an Ivri, and he did not deny that fact, rather when he was speaking to the Sar HaMashkim he said: “Ganav Ganavti M’Eretz HaIvrim: I was taken from the Eretz Ivri.” He could have said Eretz Canaan, and hidden his true origins, but instead he proudly stated that he was from Eretz Ivrim. Moshe, however, lacked that Zechus—when the daughters of Yisro referred to him as Ish Mitzri, he did not protest or correct them. Therefore Yosef was Zoche to be brought to Eretz Yisroel and Moshe was not. (It is interesting to note that Moshe was actually from Mitzrayim, and had never lived Eretz Yisroel, but it seems that there was a Teviah on him, on his level, for not protesting being called Ish Mitzri.)

Perhaps based on this Medrash we can understand the Sifri quoted by Rashi here. Yes, Yosef requested to be taken to Kevura in Eretz Yisroel he wished to avoid the tunnels L’Asid Lavo. But he knew that he had the right to ask for this because he had the Zechus of Chibas HaAretz from all those years ago in the Beis HaSohar. When he was in his darkest time, he stood proud and declared that he was from Eretz Ivriim, and therefore he had the Zechus to enter Eretz Yisroel with Bnei Yisroel. Yosef’s Zechus came from the Chibas HaAretz which he displayed despite the danger and discomfort of doing so.

It seems that Bnos Tzelafchad had a similar Zechus. Let us consider the circumstances under which the Bnos Tzelafchad made their claim.

There is a Machlokes among Chazal how Tzelafchad died. His daughters say: “Ki B’Chetao Mes” which indicates that he died as a result of his own actions. R’ Akiva says that Tzelafchad was the Mekoshesh Etzim that was put to death for Chilul Shabbos at the end of Parshas Shelach, and R’ Shimon says he was one of the Mafilim—a group of men who defied the words of Hashem and sought to enter Eretz Yisroel on their own—who were killed by Amalek and the Kanani in Parshas Shelach. In either case, it would seem that Tzeelafchad was likely not seen as the most upstanding member of his Shevet.

As the Halachos that had already been taught to Klal Yisroel would indicate, the faily of Tzelafchad would have no Chelek in Eretz Yisroel, leaving a larger portion for other members of the Shevet. Nonetheless, his daughters came forth with a claim, that they too should receive a share. This claim would very likely have been unpopular among the other families.

In addition, the Chasam Sofer points out that Shevet Menashe had two parts of their Chelek: one was Ever L’Yarden and one in Eretz Yisroel proper. If there was a need to placate Bnos Tzelafchad, they could easily have taken their portion in the part of Menashe that was Ever L’Yarden. Bnos Tzelafchad were not willing to settle however: they said “Lama Yigara Shem Avinu Mitoch Mishpachto.” They wanted their portion of the land to be in the same part as the rest of the family of Gilad, in Eretz Yisroel itself.

The courage and audacity that it must have taken for these five women to bring their claim in front of Moshe Rabbeinu was astounding. Yet they stood in the face of what was sure to be opposition because they identified with the land of Eretz Yisroel. This notion if reinforced if we contemplate the words used by the Passuk to describe the mission. Earlier we noted that the word VaTikravna seems to be extra—the Torah could have just said VaTamodna. The Tiferes Shlomo writes that the word VaTiravna indicates Misiras Nefesh, from the same root as a Korban, which is slaughtered and sacrificed to Hashem. When the Lashon of HaKrava is used in the Passuk, it indicates a measure of Mesiras Nefesh on the part of the one who the Torah is speaking about.

Indeed, Bnos Tzelafchad displayed Mesiras Nefesh in demanding their place in Eretz Yisroel. This was not merely a question of Nachla, it was no small monetary claim: they felt that they too wanted a Nachla in Artzeynu HaKedosha and were willing to proudly stand in the face of opposition and fight it. In doing so they displayed a Chibas HaAretz equal to that of their ancestor Yosef HaTazadik, who was similarly willing to proclaim his identity whatever it may cost.

Now we can understand why Bnos Tzelafchad are Zoche to such greatness: they acted with Mesiras Nefesh in displaying their true Chibas HaAretz. They therefore merited that the entire Parsha of Yerusha is said on their account, and indeed were Zoche to a level of “Ashrei Adam SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Modeh L’Dvarav”.

We now find ourselves in the period of Bein HaMetzarim, a time when we remember the loss of Eretz Yisroel that came with the Churban Bais HaMikdash, and each of us pine for the Zechus to return Artzeinu HaKedosha as it once was. Perhaps we can take a lesson from the family of Yosef: if we are proud of our identity as Ivriim, if we are willing to proclaim our connection to Am Yisroel and the Torah regardless of circumstance or repercussion, we to will reach a level of Chibas HaAretz that will allow us to fulfill our longing with the coming of Moshiach.