Questions with Answers

משֶׁה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר: וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו הִתִּישׁ כֹּחוֹ

When the Bnos Tzelafchad approach Moshe Rabbienu with their claim, “לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן”, the Torah tells us that Moshe immediately brought the question to HKBH, and was then taught the proper Halacha. Although the Passuk does not mention it outright, the implication is that Moshe did not know the Halacha in this case, requiring him to ask Hashem.

The obvious question is why Moshe, Rabban Shel Yisroel, was unable to issue a Psak in this case. Why, in fact, did he not know the proper Halacha? The Medrash, here, explains that Moshe was unable to Pasken in this case because of something that had happened years before.

In setting up the system of Shoftim, at the behest of Yisro, Moshe instituted a system whereby questions that a lower-level Shofet could not answer were brought to increasingly higher-level courts. Eventually, if all those below him were not able to discern the Halcha, the matter would be brought to Moshe himself. Later, in Parshas Devarim, Moshe describes this system using the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו”. The Medrash explains that when the Bnos Tzelafchad came to Moshe Rabbeinu, “הִתִּישׁ כֹּחוֹ”, his ability to Pasken was weakened, forcing him to seek clarification from HKBH.

Continues the Medrash: “אָמַר לוֹ הקב׳׳ה וְלֹא אָמַרְתָּ: הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם, הַדִּין שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ”. Hashem said to Moshe Rabbeinu “כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת”, indicating that the Bnos Tzelafchad intuited the Halacha that Moshe could not.

The implication of the Medrash is that because Moshe Rabbeinu said “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי” he was later unable to deduce a Halacha that even ladies, such as the Bnos Tzelafchad, understood.

Now, it should be noted that there are other ways to understand the story told by the Pessukim, and specifically the reason that Moshe brought this matter to HKBH.

First, the Gemara in Sanhedrin brings down the same Pshat as the Medrash, noting that Moshe was punished for the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”, but then offers different explanation for the story: “רְאוּיָה פָּרָשַׁת נַחֲלוֹת שֶׁתִּיכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדָן”. Indeed, Moshe Rabbeinu could have taught this Halacha as he did all the others in the Torah, but the Bnos Tzelafchad were Zoche to have the Halacha taught through them.

In addition, the Medrash itself brings another approach to this story:

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה משֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ אֶת הַדִּין הַזֶּה, אֶלָּא בָּאוּ לִפְנֵי שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת תְּחִלָּה, אָמְרוּ דִּין שֶׁל נְחָלוֹת הוּא, וְאֵין זֶה שֶׁלָּנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁל גְּדוֹלִים מִמֶּנּוּ.

The Bnos Tzelafchad did not come straight to Moshe Rabbeinu, but rather they approached the lowest level Shoftim with their question. Those Shoftim felt that they were unable to answer a question of such import and sent them to the higher level Shoftim, and so on: “וְכֵן לְשָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת, וְכֵן לְשָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים, וְכֵן לַנְּשִׂיאִים, הֵשִׁיבוּ לָהֶם כֻּלָּם כָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹא רָצוּ לִפְתּוֹחַ פֶּה לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מֵהֶם”. Each level of Shoftim felt unworthy of issuing a Psak in the case, and sent it on to the next level, until it finally reached Moshe Rabbeinu: “רָאָה משֶׁה שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד כִּבֵּד אֶת מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ...אָמַר לָהֶם אַף אֲנִי יֵשׁ גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנִּי, לְפִיכָךְ וַיַּקְרֵב משֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן”. Although he knew the correct Halacha, Moshe wished to follow the example of those before him and took the question to a greater arbiter—in his case HKBH.

According to this Pshat in the Medrash, Moshe was not punished for saying “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”, but rather this entire episode was an illustration of the system described by those words. Still, the Medrash here assumes that Moshe was unable to discern the proper Halacha because the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”, caused him to be weakened, “הִתִּישׁ כֹּחוֹ”.

Even taking into account the way Chazal understood this story, two questions arise as we learn this Medrash.

The first question concerns the conclusion of the Medrash: “אָמַר לוֹ הקב׳׳ה וְלֹא אָמַרְתָּ: הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם, הַדִּין שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ הַנָּשִׁים דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ”. If we assume that Moshe should not have said “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”, that these words represented some sort of lapse, why did Moshe receive his due specifically now, in the case of Bnos Tzelafchad? Why were the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי” recalled so many years later, when this specific Halacha was hidden from Moshe?

The second question is a little more fundamental: What was the lapse in the character of Moshe Rabbeinu? Rashi, here, uses the term “נָּטַל עֲטָרָה”, which would seem to indicate that Moshe took too much power for himself in instructing the lower Shoftim to bring the more difficult questions to his attention. Similarly, the Medrash here introduces the discussion with a statement: “יֵּשׁ צַדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה וְהִתִּישׁ הקב׳׳ה אֶת כֹּחָן”, indicating that there was an element of Gaiva in Moshe’s actions. How can we understand this?

The Torah itself, in Parshas Behaloscha, testifies as to the character of Moshe Rabbeinu: “וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה”, are we to assume that in this case he was deficient in this, his core Middah? Why, in fact, did Moshe instruct the Shoftim in this way, telling them “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”, if it was a Chisaron in his Middah of Anava? How can we understand this Medrash in light of everything we know about Moshe Rabbeinu?

Perhaps we can answer these questions in a way that will allow us to better understand the Medrash, based on an insight into the story of Bnos Tzelafchad.

When they approached Moshe Rabbeinu, the sisters did not just ask a question, “לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ”, they made a demand: “תְּנָה לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ”. They made their expectation clear: they were to receive a Chelek in Eretz Yisroel as though they were the sons of Tzelafchad. The Sifri, here, tells us: “רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר יָפֶה כֹּחַ נָשִׁים מִכֹּחַ אֲנָשִׁים: אֲנָשִׁים אוֹמְרִים נָתְנָה רֹאשׁ וְנָשׁוּבָה מִצְרַיְמָה וְנָשִׁים אוֹמְרוֹת תְּנָה לָנוּ אֲחֻזָּה”. Whereas the men of Klal Yisroel, at the time of the Meraglim, sought to return to Mitzrayim, the women, namely Bnos Tzelafchad, demanded a Chelek in Eretz Yisroel.

R’ Avrohom Yaffen, the Rosh Yeshiva of Bais Yosef Navardok, in his Sefer HaMussar V’HaDaas, asks a simple question on this Sifri, and really the entire story of Bnos Tzelafchad: what was the great Tzidkus exhibited by their claim, “תְּנָה לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ”? If we think about it, they were looking after their own financial security—Bnei Yisroel was poised to enter Eretz Yisroel, which would be divided up by Nachala. If they were excluded from the process, they would have no land to call their own and face poverty. What elevated level does Chazal sense in their claim, to the extent that we are told “יָפֶה כֹּחַ נָשִׁים מִכֹּחַ אֲנָשִׁים’’?

The Rosh Yeshiva explains that the claim of Bnos Tzelafchad was not rooted in concern for their own security, but something much deeper: they understood that the Ratzon Hashem was that all of Bnei Yisroel should have a share in Eretz Yisroel, so that the Mitzvos HaAretz could be done, and were not willing to allow their father’s Chelek to be omitted. Their claim was not about their own well-being but about having a share in the Kvod Shamayim generated by the Mitzvos HaAretz.

R’ Yaffen relates that when a person understands his role in Ribuy Kvod Shamayim, suppressing his feelings or downplaying his emotions is considered “שִׁפְלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָה”. The Bnos Tzelafchad could have been submissive and allowed matters to play out, but this would have diminished their ability to increase Kvod Shamayim—an eventuality they were not about to accept.

When a person is in this situation, continues the Rosh Yeshiva, he is not allowed to look at “מִעוּט עָרְכוּבא”, his relative insignificance, but rather must view himself as “בָּא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנַת אֲבוֹתָיו”. If a person recognizes the innate stature of one who is a descendant of the Avos HaKedoshim, he will not allow “שִׁפְלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָ” to prevent him from seeking further opportunities for

We now understand that the element of Gadlus exhibited by Bnos Tzelafchad was related to their sense of self, to the desire for רִבּוּי כְּבוֹד שָׁמַיִםrevealed by the words “תְּנָה לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינו”. Based on this idea, a new insight into the words of the Medrash emerges.

When Moshe Rabbeinu gave instructions to the Shoftim, he told them to bring those cases that they found challenging to those who were greater than them, ultimately concluding with the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”. In doing so, he diminished, even in a small way, their sense of self. If a Shofet knew that there was something to be considered a “דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם”, they may be led to a place of “שִׁפְלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָה”, sometimes assuming that they were unworthy of answering a question that they could in fact have addressed. In this way, the fact that Moshe offered to serve as the final arbitrator, that he was “נָּטַל עֲטָרָה” or "נִתְגָּאֶה בִּדְבַר מִצְוָה” in this role, led to a lapse in the belief the Shoftim had in themselves and their ability to bring רִבּוּי כְּבוֹד שָׁמַיִם.

Moshe Rabbeinu, the very personification of the Middah of Anava, did not say “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי” because of his own Gaiva, but in doing so he may have engendered a sense of “וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָה” in the Shoftim. It was this minor lapse that was highlighted by the Bnos Tzelafchad—they approached Moshe with a sense of “בָּא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנַת אֲבוֹתָיו”, recognizing that they had both a responsibility and ability to bring רִבּוּי כְּבוֹד שָׁמַיִם. When Moshe was unable to discern the proper Halacha, it became clear that he had, in even the most minor way, taken a misstep with the words “וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי”. By putting the Shoftim in a position to engage in שִׁפְלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָה, they might miss out on an opportunity to take part in this most sacred task, and themselves suffer.

The lesson of the Bnos Tzelafchad rings true to this day: we must strive to fulfil our legacy of רִבּוּי כְּבוֹד שָׁמַיִם in every situation. Rather than allowing שִׁפְלוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וַעֲנָוָה פְּסוּלָה to take hold, we should look at ourselves as “בָּא מֵחֲמַת טַעֲנַת אֲבוֹתָיו”, taking advantage of our innate abilities in the furtherance of our sacred mission.