Getting Closer

Many Pessukim in Parshas Pinchas that are dedicated to a thorough census of Klal Yisroel that took place after the Magefa in Shitim. This counting was also used to determine the Chalukas HaAretz which would take place in short order, and was based on the size of the Shevatim: “L’Rav Tarbeh Nachlaso V’Lameat Tamit Nachlaso.” Following these Pessukim, the Torah relates the story of the Bnos Tzelfchad, who approached Moshe Rabbeinu with a simple claim. Because their father had not been blessed with sons, and had died in the Midbar, it seemed that his Chelek in Eretz Yisroel would be lost, and his offspring left with nothing. This did not seem fair, they claimed: “Lama Yigara Shem Avinu Mitoch Mishpachto”, why should his children not benefit from the same Yerusha as other members of his family?

Directly after the Bnos Tzelafchad made their plea, the Torah tells us: “Vayakrev Moshe Es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem”, Moshe brought their case to Hashem, Kavayachol, and asked what the Halacha should be. The following Pessukim tell us that Hashem agreed with Bnos Tzelafchad, and a new Parsha of Nachalos is learned.

Rashi, here, explains why Moshe brought the case of the Bnos Tzelafchad to Hashem rather than ruling on his own: “Nisalma Halacha Mimenu”, the Halacha was hidden from him. It is important to note that Moshe was unable to rule not because of ignorance, Chas V’shalom, or an inability to apply his Chachma to the matter at hand, but because he was meant not to—the correct Halacha was hidden from him. Rashi continues, explaining why this was the case, based on a Gemarah in Sanhedrin, which requires some exposition.

At the beginning of Parshas Devarim, Moshe relates to Klal Yisroel that in the early days of their journey through the Midbar, he was unable to manage the volume of court cases on his own: “Aicha Esa Levadi Torchachem Masachem V’Rivchem”. Therefore, he established a system of judges by which each case was heard by a lower level Bais Din and was escalated only if they were unable to rule. This is the system of Batei Din that was suggested by Yisro and enacted by Moshe Rabbeinu as commanded by Hashem. The Passuk in Devarim concludes that Moshe told the judges: “Vahadavar Asher Yikshe Michem Takrivun Eilai U’Shematem.” If anything was too difficult for even the highlest level judges to resolve, they were to bring the matter to Moshe himself.

The Gemarah in Sanhedrim, quoted by Rashi here, explains that Moseh was in fact punished for this final instruction. There are a variety of explanations as far as what was wrong with his statement, but the consequences are clear in the Gemarah: he was not able to rule on his own in the case of Bnos Tzelafchad. The reason the Halacha was hidden from Moshe Rabbeinu, in this case, is because he said “Vahadavar Asher Yikshe Michem Takrivun Eilai.”

The Midah Kneged Midah here is understandable: Moshe in some way made a mistake in telling the Shoftim to bring their most difficult cases to his attention, and so he was rendered unable to rule in one case. The question we must however ask is: why here? Why was the case of the Bnos Tzelfchad the one that Moshe was unable to Pasken because he said “Vahadavar Asher Yikshe Michem Takrivun Eilai”? There were certainly other times in the Midbar that cases came before Moshe Rabeinu and he was able to clarify the Halacha, it was only here that we are told “Nisalma Halacha Mimenu.” Why?

Before trying to answer this question, we should also clarify which Halacha was hidden from Moshe Rabbeinu.

The simplest reading of the Pessukim seems to indicate that Moshe was unable to discern the Halacha of Yerushas HaBas—what should be done in the case that a person has no sons. This seems to be the crux of the claim put forth by the Bnos Tzelafchad, and the ensuing Pessukim, which teach the Halachos of Yerushas HaBas would seem to indicate this as well.

The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh, based on a Gemarah in Bava Basra, proves that this was not the case. The logic presented by Bnos Tzelfchad was immutable: if they were not able to be Yoresh their father, their mother should have been subject to Yibum. The purpose of the Mitzvah of Yibum is to be Mekayem the name of the deceased brother, because he has no sons to do so, and if his daughter cannot fulfil this role their mother should be Misyabem. We cannot assume, states the Ohr Hachaim, that Moshe was unable to grasp this logic—there was no Halacha to be hidden from him with regard to this basic question.

Rather, explains the Ohr Hachaim, there was another question in play: Tzlefchad was the Bechor of his father, Chafer, and as such was entitled to Pi Shnayim, a Chelek in Eretz Yisroel double that of his brothers. The Bnos Tzelfchad were therefore arguing that not only should they be able to be Yoresh their father’s portion in Eretz Yisroel, but it should be double the size of those of their cousins.

Further, based on other Divrei Chazal, the Ohr Hachaim proves that Moshe had to have known the general Halacha that a Bechor was Zoche to Pi Shnayim, because it must have arisen throughout the years in the Midbar. Rather, there was an even more specific question that Moshe had to answer. The general Halacha is that a Bechor only gets Pi Shnayim in something that the father already had possession of, referred to as something that is Muchzak (held), but not in something that he did not yet own, even if he was entitled to it, which is called Rauy (entitled).

It was clear that Tzelafchad never took possession of his Chelek in Eretz Yisroel, because he was Niftar in the Midbar. Moshe was therefore being asked to rule whether that Chelek was considered Muchazak, in which case his daughters were indeed entitled to Pi Shnayim, or Rauy, in which case they were not. It was this very technically detailed Halacha that was hidden from Moshe Rabbeinu, that forced him to bring the matter to Hashem Himself.

The conclusion of the Ohr Hachaim seems to make our original question a bit stronger: Moshe had to be prevented from issuing a Psak in one matter because he said “Vahadavar Asher Yikshe Michem Takrivun Eilai”, but why did this occur with regard to this very specific, very detailed Halacha in the specific case of the Bnos Tzelafchad?

Upon examining the Pessukim that we are discussing, it is interesting to note there is one word that appears multiple times, albeit in multiple forms.

The Parsha of the Bnos Tzelafchad begins with the words “Vatikravna Bnos Tzelafchad” and ends with the words “Vayakrev Moshe Es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem”. As we have seen, Moshe Rabbienu employed a similar word in his instructions to the Shoftim: “Vahadavar Asher Yikshe Michem Takrivun Eilai.” In all three cases, a form of the word Karav is used, and in all three cases this is notable.

The second Passuk in the Parsha of Bnos Tzelfchad says “Vatamodna Lifnei Moshe”, and they stood before Moshe. The introductory word “Vatikravna” therefore seems extra—the Parsha could easily have begun with the word “Vatamodna.” The word “Vayakrev”, describing the actions of Moshe Rabbienu seems extra as well: there are two other time in the Torah that Moshe had to consult with Hashem as far as a Halacha—with regard to Pesach Sheni, and in reference to the Mekoshesh Eitzim—and neither time does the Torah employ such a Lashon. Rather, in those cases, the Torah relates with the Tzivuy that Moshe received straightaway. The words “Takrivun Eilai” are especially notable because in Parshas Yisro, when the Torah tells us of the orginal conception of this system, the words “Yaviun” is used, indicating that the word “Takrivun” is not specifically necessary, but must have been intentionally used in the Passuk in Devarim.

It is thus clear that the word “Karav” has a specific role in these Pessukim, and a better understanding of its meaning may allow us to explain these Pessukim.

The Ksav V’Hakabala, which is a work that often expounds of the implications and meanings of various words, discusses the term “Karav” at several points and points out two characteristics of this word that may be instructional to us.

In Parshas Mishpatim, when speaking about a Shomer coming to Bais Din, the Torah says “Vinikrav Ba’al Habayis El HaElohim”. Here, explains the Ksav V’Hakabala, the word Karav is used not only in a physical sense, but in a spiritual one: the Shomer who is coming to testify in Bais Din must imagine that he is standing before the “Shofet Kol HaAretz”, and ensure that his testimony reflects this attitude. This is one aspect of this word: it often relates to a closeness of Ruchnias.

In Parshas Achrei Mos, the word Karav is used in regards to certain type of Arayos, and the Ksav V’Hakabala draws a distinction between this word and the word “Nigash”, which also means to approach. The term Karav, he explains, indicates that there was Richuk, distance, between two items and they have no come closer to each other. But, he continues, there may still be space between them, they are not totally adjacent to one another. The term Nigash, however, indicates that the distance has been closed in totality and no Richuk exists. Such is the implication of those Pessukim: when it comes to certain Ervos, even Kiruv—a closeness that is less than complete—is to be avoided.

With these ideas in mind, let us turn back to our Pessukim.

Moshe spoke to the Shoftim and told them that if they were presented with a case that they could not resolve, they should come to him. The Pessukim in Parshas Yisro don’t quote the words of Moshe at the time, but in Parshas Devarim he testifies that he indeed used the word “Takrivun.” Why?

Meforshim point out that the Moshe Rabbeinu imparted upon these Shoftim the totality of his own knowledge: “V’Atzaveh Eschem B’Es HaHi Es Kol HaDevarim Asher Ta’asun”. Therefore, it stands to reason that if a Shofet could not decide a case, it was due on some level to his own inadequacy. Perhaps this is why Moshe used the word “Takrivun”, in the way it is used in Parshas Mishpatim, to hint to them that there was a deficiency in Ruchnias that they must be Misaken if they were to continue as Shoftim. The presumption was that a Shofet would be able to Pasken each case if he was maintaining a proper level of Ruchnias.

When Bnos Tzlafchad approached Moshe, however, they did so with a different view of the word. They knew, as the Ohr Hachaim points out, that they were Zoche to a portion of Eretz Yisroel, but this was not enough. When the lineage of Bnos Tzelafchad is mentioned, Rashi explains that they are traced back to Yosef because they had a level of Chibas HaAretz similar to him. It was this great love of Eretz Yisroel drew them to Moshe Rabbeinu: they realized that perhaps they could have a greater Chelek, if they were to obtain Pi Shnayim in place of their father. This was not a plea made of greed, but out of a desire for a greater Chelek in the Kedusha of Eretz Yisroel.

When the Torah tells us “Vatikravna Bnos Tzelafchad” it is testifying that they realized that there is always room to come closer—one should not be satisfied with a small Chelek in Kedusha if there is a way to obtain a larger one.

Moshe Rabbeinu was unable to Pasken in this case because the great desire of Bnos Tezlafchad had created a situation that was heretofore unanticipated. They raised the question of whether Eretz Yisroel was to be considered Rauy or Muchzak, a question that had never before been raised. It was not a deficiency in Ruchnias that created this reality, but rather an abundance of it—only because they desired to increase their Kirva, to eliminate more Richuk, did the Bnos Tzelafchad even approach the Shoftei Ha’Am. Perhaps this is why the Passuk tells us “Vayakrev Moshe Es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem”, again using the term Karav, to show that Moshe had internalized the message that sometimes Kiruv creates a quandary, and not only Richuk.

As we find ourselves in middle of the period of Ben Hametzarim, our minds turn to the Bias Hamikdash, and the Korbanos for which we yearn and the Kirva Ruchani which they bring. We know that we cannot close the gap completely, and eliminate any Richuk from Hakadosh Barurch Hu, but perhaps if we focus on the Kiruv of the Bnos Tzelafchad—incremental growth and looking for every possible way to increase our grasp on Kedusha, working on growing closer each day, a little at the time, we will be able to bring the day on which the ultimate Kirav is realized as we celebrate the Binyan Bais Hamikdash.