Pinchas פנחס

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

פינחס בן אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן PHINEAS THE SON OF ELEAZAR THE SON OF AARON THE PRIEST — Because the tribes spoke disparagingly of him, saying, “Have you seen this grandson of Puti the father of whose mother used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous sacrifices (see Exodus 6:25 that Eleazar his father had married a daughter of Putiel who is identified with Jethro; see Rashi on that verse and Exodus 18:1), and he has dared to slay a prince of one of Israel’s tribes!”, therefore Scripture comes and connects his genealogy with Aaron (Sanhedrin 82b).

בקנאו את קנאתי means “when he executed my vengeance” (more lit., when he avenged my avenging) — when he displayed the anger that I should have displayed. The expression קנאה always denotes glowing with anger to execute vengeance for a thing; in O. F. emportment (cf. Rashi on 11:29).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

את בריתי שלום [I GIVE TO HIM] MY COVENANT — PEACE — This means: I give him my covenant that it should be to him as a covenant of peace; just like a man who shows gratitude and friendliness to one who has done him a kindness. So here, too, the Holy One, blessed be He, expressed to him His peaceful feelings towards him.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והיתה לו AND IT SHALL BE UNTO HIM — this covenant of Mine shall be unto him —

‎ברית כהנת עולם A COVENANT OF AN EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD — for although the priesthood had already been given to Aaron’s descendants (cf. Exodus 28:40-41), it was given only to Aaron and his sons who had been anointed together with him and to their offspring whom they might beget after they had been anointed. But Phineas who had been born prior to that and had not been anointed, had not as yet attained the status of priesthood until now. So, too, do we read in Zevachim 101b: Phineas did not become a priest until he had slain Zimri.

לאלהיו means [HE WAS ZEALOUS] FOR THE SAKE OF HIS GOD, just as, (Numbers 11:29) “Are you zealous for My sake (לי)?” and (Zechariah 8:2) “I am zealous לציון", i.e., for Zion’s sake.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושם איש ישראל וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE ISRAELITE [WHO WAS SMITTEN] — Wherever it gives the genealogy of a good man in praise of him, it gives the genealogy of a bad man mentioned in the same story to disparage him (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

נשיא בית אב לשמעני A PRINCE OF A FATHER’S HOUSE AMONGST THE SIMEONITES — of one of the five 'father’s houses' which were of the tribe of Simeon. — Another explanation: This is stated to tell the praiseworthiness of Phineas: that although this man was a prince he did not refrain from showing his zeal against the profanation of the Divine Name — on this account Scripture tells you who it was (a prince!) that was smitten by him.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושם האשה המכה וגו׳ AND THE NAME OF THE [MIDIANITISH] WOMAN WHO WAS SMITTEN etc. — This is stated to show you the hatred the Midianites bore to Israel — that they abandoned even a princess to prostitution in order to make Israel sin (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

ראש אמות [HE WAS] THE HEAD OF THE PEOPLE — He was one of the five kings of Midian, Evi and Rekem and Zur etc. (31:8). He, however, was the most important of all of them, as it is said, “the head of the people”, but because he made himself despicable by abandoning his daughter to prostitution it enumerates him not first but only third (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 2).

בית אב — Midian had five fathers’ houses: Ephah and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida and Eldoah (Genesis 25:4) — and this man was king of one of them.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

צרור — This grammatical form is similar to זכור and שמור: it expresses the idea of continuous present action — You must [constantly] show enmity toward them.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי צררים הם לכם וגו׳ על דבר פעור FOR THEY SHOWED THEMSELVES YOUR ENEMIES etc. IN THE MATTER OF PEOR — i.e., in that they abandoned their daughters to prostitution in order to lead you astray after Peor; but He did not command them to destroy the Moabites — on account of Ruth who would later on issue from them, just as we state in Bava Kamma 38b.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויהי אחרי המגפה AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER THE PESTILENCE [THAT THE LORD SPOKE TO MOSES … TAKE THE SUM OF ALL THE CONGREGATION] — A parable! This may be compared to the case of a shepherd amongst whose flock wolves found their way and slew some of them, and he counted them to discover the number of those that were left. — Another explanation: When they left Egypt and were entrusted to Moses' care, they were entrusted to him by number, now when he is close to death and has to hand back his sheep, he hands them back by number (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לבית אבתם [TAKE THE SUM OF THE CONGREGATION] ACCORDING TO THEIR FATHERS’ HOUSE — after their fathers’ tribes shall they reckon their descent, and not after their mothers’ (Bava Batra 109b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וידבר משה ואלעזר הכהן אתם AND MOSES AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST SPOKE WITH THEM — They spoke with them (אתם; cf. 5:5) regarding this: that the Omnipresent had (given command to count them.

לאמר SAYING they said to them (what they said to them was): You must be counted FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND UPWARDS.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה כאשר צוה וגו׳ FROM TWENTY YEARS OLD AND ONWARDS, EVEN AS [THE LORD] HAS COMMANDED [MOSES AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, WHO CAME FORTH FROM EGYPT] that the counting of them (of those who came out from Egypt) should be from twenty years old and upwards, as it is said. (Exodus 30:14): “Every one that passeth amongst them that are numbered [shall be from twenty years old and upwards]”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

משפחת החנכי THE FAMILY OF THE HANOCHITES — Because the heathen nations spoke slightingly of Israel, saying, “How can these trace their descent by their tribes? Do they think that the Egyptians did not overmaster their mothers? If they showed themselves master of their bodies, it is quite certain that they did so over those of their wives!”. On this account the Holy One, blessed be He, set His name upon them: the letter ה on one side of their name and the letter י on the other side (חנכיה), to intimate: I bear testimony for them that they are the sons of their reputed fathers (and not of the Egyptians) (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:12). This it is that is expressed by David, (Psalms 122:4) שבטי יה עדות לישראל: “that the tribes bear the name of the Lord (יה) is a testimony regarding Israel” — this Divine Name (יה) bears testimony regarding their tribes (i.e. that they rightly attach themselves to those tribes to which they claim to belong). On this account in the case of all of them it is written החנכי and הפלואי but in the case of ימנה (v. 44) it was not felt necessary to state “of the family of הימני”, because the Divine Name is already attached to it — the י at the beginning and the ה at the end (ימנה) (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 773).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אשר הצו WHO INCITED — i.e., who incited Israel, על משה AGAINST MOSES,

בהצתם WHEN THEY INCITED the people AGAINST THE LORD.

הצו means they persuaded Israel to strive against Moses — it is a grammatical form denoting “they caused someone to do something".

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויהיו לנס AND THEY BECAME A נס — a sign and a reminder in order that no stranger should bring himself near to raise further dispute concerning the priesthood (cf. Numbers 17:5).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ובני קרח לא מתו BUT THE SONS OF KORAH DID NOT DIE — They were in the plot originally, but at the moment when the rebellion broke out they had thoughts of repentance in their hearts; therefore a high spot was fenced round for them in Gehinnom and they stayed there (Sanhedrin 110a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לזרח OF ZERAH — He is identical with Zohar (mentioned in Exodus 6:15 as a son of Simeon), which is an expression equivalent to צהר, shining (a synonym of זרח). However, the family of אהוד (mentioned there) had ceased to exist by now. The same was the case with five families of the tribe of Benjamin, for with ten sons did Benjamin go down to Egypt and here it enumerates only five. Similarly with Ezbon of the tribe of Gad. So you have seven families that had become extinct (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5). — And I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 1:2 the reason why these seven families were now extinct: that when Aaron died the clouds of glory departed and the Canaanites came to wage war against Israel. These therefore set their hearts on returning to Egypt and turned back eight stages from Mount Hor to Moserah, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 10:6) “And the children of Israel journeyed from Bene Jaakon to Moserah; there Aaron died”. But did he not die at Mount Hor and from Moserah to Mount Hor there were eight stages in a backward direction? But the explanation is that they turned back, and the Levites pursued them to force them to return and slew of them seven families. And besides these, of the sons of Levi there fell four families: the families of Shimei and Uzzieli, and of the three sons of Izhar (Exodus 6:21) only the family of one son, Korah, is enumerated here, v. 58, so that the family of Izhar may be regarded as extinct — making three families missing. And as regards the fourth family I do not know which of those mentioned in 3:21, 27, 33, it was that had become extinct by now (Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10; Yoma 1:1). But Rabbi Tanchuma (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5) explained that they (the families not mentioned here) died by the plague in the matter of Balaam. But this can hardly be so, because according to the deficiency that shows itself in the tribe of Simeon in this census, as compared with the first census in the wilderness of Sinai (1:23), it would appear that all the twenty four thousand who died of that plague (Numbers 25:9) must have fallen from the tribe of Simeon.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לאזני OF OZNI — I say (cf. Rashi on v. 13) that this is the family of Ezbon, (Genesis 46:16), but I do not know why his family was not called directly by his name.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לישוב OF JASHUB — He must be identical with Job (Genesis 46:13) who is mentioned amongst those who went down to Egypt, for all the families were called by the names of those who went down to Egypt. But as for those who were born from that time and onwards their families were not called by their own names, except the families of Ephraim and Manasseh, both of whom wore born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin (v. 40). And I have found in the work of R. Moses the Preacher why this was so in the case of the two latter — that their mother went down to Egypt when she was already pregnant with them so that they may be regarded as being among those who went down to Egypt, and on this account they formed separate families, just as Chamul and Chezron who were grandchildren of Judah (v. 21), and Cheber and Malkiel who were Asher’s grandchildren (v. 45). If this is an Agada, well and good; but if not, then I say that Bela had many grandchildren and that from these two, Ard and Naaman, there issued from each a large family, and the offspring of the other sons were called after Bela’s name, but the offspring of these two were called after their name. So, too, I say about the sons of Machir who formed two different families, one called after his name, and one called after the name of Gilead, his son, because it was a very large family. Five families are missing from Benjamin’s sons as stated before: here (i.e., by the fact that five of the families had become extinct) there was fulfilled part of his mother’s prophecy which is alluded to in the fact that she called him Ben Oni (my unfortunate son), (Genesis 35:18), whilst by the incident of the concubine in Gibea (Judges 20:35), the whole of it was fulfilled for practically the entire tribe was exterminated. This I found in the work of R. Moses the Preacher.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואלה בני שותלח וגו׳ AND THESE ARE THE SONS OF SHUTHELAH etc. — As for the other sons of Shuthelah their offspring were called after Shuthelah’s name; but out of Eron there issued a large family which was therefore called after his own name so that the children of Shuthelah were reckoned as two different families (the family of Shuthelah and the family of Eron). — Go and reckon and you will find in this section fifty seven families, and of the sons of Levi eight, so that there are sixty five in all. This is the meaning of what is said, (Deuteronomy 7:7): “For you are the least (המעט) [of all the peoples etc.].” The word המעט may be taken to signify: you are five (ה) less (מעט) than the families of all the nations, who are seventy in number. This, also, I understand from the work of R. Moses the Preacher, only that I have been compelled to omit from or add to his words.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לאחירם OF AHIRAM — He is identical with Ehi (אחי) who went down to Egypt (Genesis 46:21), and because he was called after Joseph’s name (Sotah 36b), who was his (Benjamin’s) brother (אח) and greater, (רם) than he, he was also called Achiram.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לשפופם OF SHEFUFAM - he was identical with Muppim, but was so called also after Joseph because Joseph became enfeebled (שפוף) through his sufferings among the nations.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לשוחם OF SHUHAM — he is identical with Hushim (Genesis 46:23).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושם בת אשר שרח AND THE NAME OF THE DAUGHTER OF ASHER WAS SERAH — Because she still remained alive after all these long years (Sotah 13a) it exceptionally mentions her here (Seder Olam 9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לאלה תחלק הארץ TO THESE THE LAND SHALL BE DIVIDED, and not to any who are now less than twenty years old; even though they become included among those who are twenty before the division of the land, — for they were seven years in conquering it and seven years did they take in dividing it — for no one received a portion in the land except these 601,000 and if one of these had six sons, they received only their father’s portion (cf. Bava Batra 117a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לרב תרבה נחלתו TO THE NUMEROUS THOU SHALT GIVE MORE INHERITANCE — To the tribe that had a numerous population they gave a large portion of land. Although the portions were not of equal area because, as we have now said, in all cases they assigned the portions according to the size of the tribe, yet they did so only by aid of the lot, but the lot fell by the utterance of the Holy Spirit, as is explained in Baba Batra 122a: Eleazar the Priest was clothed with the Urim and Thummim, and spake by the Holy Spirit, “If such-and-such a tribe comes up, such-and-such a territory shall come up with him”. The names of the tribes were written on twelve tablets, and those of twelve districts on twelve tablets. They mixed them in an urn, and the prince of a tribe inserted his hand in it and took out two tablets. There came up in his hand the tablet bearing the name of his tribe and the tablet relating to the district that had been declared by the Urim and Tummim to be intended for it. The lot, itself cried out, saying, “I, the lot, have come up for such-and-such a district for such-and-such a tribe”, as it is said, (v. 56) על פי הגורל by the mouth (utterance) of the lot [shall the possession thereof be divided]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 6). The land was not divided by measurement alone because one district is superior to another but it was divided by estimating its fertility: a bad piece of land sufficient to sow a Kor was regarded as the equivalent of a good piece of land sufficient to sow a Seah (the thirtieth part of a Kor) — all depended upon the value of the soil.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לשמות מטה אבתם ACCORDING TO THE NAMES OF THE TRIBES OF THEIR FATHERS [THEY SHALL INHERIT] — These (the fathers referred to) were they who came out of Egypt. — Scripture treated this inheritance differently to all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, for in the case of all other inheritances the living become heirs to the dead, whilst here the dead become heirs to the living. How is this so? Two brothers who were of those who came out of Egypt who had sons at least twenty years old amongst those who came into the Land, one son to this and three to that, the one son took one portion, and the three took three portions, for it is said, (v. 53) “To these (enumerated in the census taken immediately before they entered Palestine) shall the land be divided”. Their inheritance (that of these four) returns to (is regarded as having belonged to) their fathers’ father, and they (the two brothers who have four sons between them), divide equally. This is what is stated, “according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” — that after the sons have received they divide it according to the fathers who came out of Egypt. If, however, they had straightway divided it according to the number of those who came out of Egypt these four would have taken only two portions, whilst now they take four portions (Bava Batra 117a; Sifrei Bamidbar 132:1).

אך בגורל — Joshua and Caleb are excepted from this method of division (since אך is a limiting term) and so indeed it states, (Judges 1:20) “And they gave Hebron to Caleb as Moses had said” (cf. Rashi on Numbers XlV. 24), and it further states, (Joshua 19:50) “According to the command of the Lord they gave him (Joshua) the city which he had asked” (Sifrei Bamidbar 132:3).

מטות אבתם THE TRIBES OF THEIR FATHERS — Consequently proselytes and slaves were excepted (Sifrei Bamidbar 132:4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

על פי הגורל ACCORDING TO (more lit., by the mouth of) THE LOT [SHALL THE POSSESSION BE DIVIDED] — The lot itself spoke as I have already explained; this tells us that the division took place by the Holy Spirit (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אלה משפחת לוי THESE ARE THE FAMILIES OF LEVI — there are missing here the families of Shimei and Uzziel and part of that of Jizhar (cf. Exodus 6:16 ff. and Rashi on v. 13).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אשר ילדה אתה ללוי במצרים WHOM HER MOTHER BORE TO LEVI IN EGYPT — she was born in Egypt but was not conceived in Egypt; when they came “between the walls” (within the confines of Egypt), she gave birth to her, and she (Jochebed) made up the number of seventy; because in the enumeration of them (Genesis 46:8—27) you will find only sixty-nine (Numbers Rabbah 13:20; cf. Rashi Genesis 46:15).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כי לא התפקדו בתוך בני ישראל FOR THEY WERE NOT NUMBERED AMONGST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, that they should also be numbered from twenty years old and upwards. What was the reason that they were not numbered from twenty years old? כי לא נתן להם נחלה BECAUSE NO INHERITANCE WAS TO BE GIVEN THEM, while those who were counted from twenty years old were persons who were recipients of an inheritance, as it is said, (v. 54) “to everyone shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of them”, (consequently the Levites had to form a different group for the census).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ובאלה לא היה איש וגו׳ BUT AMONG THESE THERE WAS NO MAN [OF THEM WHOM MOSES AND AARON NUMBERED] — no man; but the decree consequent upon the incident of the spies had not been enacted upon the women, because they held the Promised Land dear. The men had said, (Numbers 14:4) “Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt”, while the women said, (Numbers 27:4) “Give us a possession in the Land”. On this account, too, the chapter regarding the daughters of Zelophehad follows immediately here (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

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, (Genesis 50:25) “And ye shall bring my bones up (to Palestine) 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 Bamidbar 133:1).

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 Bamidbar 133:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לפני משה ולפני אלעזר [AND THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE ELEAZAR [THE PRIEST] — The fact that they approached Eleazar the Priest and not Aaron tells us that they stood before them (i.e., that this incident occurred) only (not earlier than) in the fortieth year after the Exodus indeed after Aaron’s death (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3).

לפני משה [THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES, and afterwards לפני אלעזר, BEFORE ELEAZAR?! But is it possible if Moses did not know what reply to give them that Eleazar should know it? Rather, invert the words of the text and so expound it (before Eleazar and before Moses). This is the view of R. Josiah; but Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar that this inversion is unnecessary: they were sitting in the House of Study and they (the daughters of Zelophehad) stood before all of those who were present (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3; Bava Batra 119b and Rashi on Numbers 9:6).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

למה יגרע שם אבינו WHY SHOULD THE NAME OF OUR FATHER BE DONE AWAY — We stand in the place of male children, and if you say that females are not regarded as issue in respect to inheritance, then our mother should marry her deceased husband’s brother (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5, 6) (Bava Batra 119b).

כי אין לו בן [WHY SHOULD OUR FATHER'S NAME BE DONE AWAY WITH] BECAUSE HE HATH NO SON — Thus it follows that if he had had a son they would have made no claim of any kind: this tells us that they were women of intelligence (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:4; cf. Bava Batra 119b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקרב משה את משפטן AND MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE [BEFORE THE LORD] — The law on this subject escaped him (Sanhedrin 8a). Here he received punishment because he had assumed a “crown” (he had set himself up as the supreme judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17) “And the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring to me”. Another explanation: This chapter ought to have been written by Moses (i.e., like most laws in the Torah it should have been spoken to the people by Moses without his having waited until some incident made its promulgation necessary), but for the fact that the daughters of Zelophehad had so much merit, it was therefore written through them (it was their complaint which gave occasion for stating it) (Bava Batra 119a; Sanhedrin 8a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).

כן בנות צלפחד דברת — “They have made a fair claim”. Happy is the person with whose words the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1).

נתן תתן lit., GIVING THOU SHALT GIVE [A POSSESSION OF AN INHERITANCE AMONGST THEIR FATHER’S BRETHREN] — This suggests: thou shalt give two portions, viz., the portion of their father (אחזת נחלה) who was one of those who came out of Egypt, and his portion that he should have had together with his brothers (נחלה בתוך אחי אביהם) in the property of his father Hefer (who also was one of those who left Egypt) (cf. Rashi on Numbers 26:55) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1; Bava Batra 118b).

והעברת — This is an expression (also) denoting “wrath” and it is used here instead of a form of נתן found throughout the chapter to suggest that God’s wrath is directed against one who leaves no son to be his heir (Bava Batra 116a). Another explanation is that the form of העבר “causing to pass” is exceptionally used in the case of a daughter being her father’s heiress because a daughter as heiress ordinarily causes the inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe, since her son and her husband are her heirs (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:2; Bava Batra 147a), for it must be born in mind that the command (Numbers 36:7), “The inheritance shall not move from tribe to tribe” was laid only upon that generation (Bava Batra 120a). And so, for the same reason, we have this verb used in (v. 8): “Then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter”, for you see that in all of them (the other cases mentioned here) it says, ונתתם, “and ye shall give” (vv. 9, 10, 11), but in the case of a daughter it says, והעברתם, “and ye shall cause it to pass”.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

לשארו הקרוב אליו ממשפחתו TO HIS KIN THAT IS NEXT TO HIM OF HIS FAMILY — The term משפחה used in connection with inheritance denotes kinship only on the father’s side (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:3; Bava Batra 119b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עלה אל הר העברים GO UP INTO [THIS] MOUNT ABARIM — Why does this follow immediately here? Because when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, (v. 7) “Thou shalt surely give them an inheritance in the land” he (Moses) said, “It is me that the Omnipresent has commanded to apportion the inheritance. Perhaps then the decree that I must die in the wilderness is annulled and I shall enter the Promised Land!” Whereupon God said to him, “My decree remains exactly as it was” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Another explanation: As soon as Moses entered into the territory of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben (the eastern side of the Jordan, which, having been assigned to these tribes, might be regarded as part of the Promised Land), he rejoiced, saying, “It seems to me that the vow regarding me has been annulled in my favour”. God, therefore, said to him, My decree remains exactly as it was. A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king who decreed against his son that he should not enter the door of his palace. He (the king) entered within the gate, and he (the son) went after him (without the father raising any objection); to the audience chamber, and he after him. But as soon as he was about to enter his sleeping-chamber (his private room) he said to him, “My son, from here and further on you may not go” (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:4).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך [THOU SHALT BE GATHERED TO THY PEOPLE] AS AARON THY BROTHER WAS GATHERED — From this it is evident that Moses longed for a death similar to that of Aaron (cf. Rashi on Numbers 20:26). — Another explanation: you will die as he died (in the wilderness) because you are no better than he (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). — Such indeed is suggested by (Deuteronomy 32:50. 51): “[and die … as Aaron thy brother died …] because you sanctified me not”. Thus it follows, if ye (both of you) had sanctified me your time would not have yet come to depart this life and you would not have died in the wilderness (Sifrei Bamidbar 137:1). In every passage where it writes about their death you will find that it writes about their offence. Because a decree had been made against the generation of the wilderness (those who left Egypt) that they should die in the wilderness on account of the sin that they did not have faith in God, therefore Moses requested that the nature of his offence should be stated in the Torah, so that people might not say, “He, too, was one of those “rebels”. A parable: It may be compared to the case of two women who were punished by the Court; one was an immoral woman and one had merely eaten unripe figs of the sabbatical year’s growth. The latter, therefore, requested that the nature of her offence might be made public, and they did so by proclamation. So, too, here: wherever it mentions their death it mentions also their misdeed, in order to make it known that there was only this single sin in them (Tanchuma 4:6:10 on חקת; Yoma 86b; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 137:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

המה מי מריבת קדש THEY, THE WATERS OF MERIBA IN KADESH — they alone were the cause of their death: there was no other sin in them. — Another explanation is: it was they (the waters) which were the cause of their rebellion at Marah (Exodus 16:23-24), it was they which made them rebel at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:11—12) and yet it was they which made them rebel here in the wilderness of Zin.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

'וידבר משה אל ה‎‎‎ וגו׳ AND AND MOSES SPAKE TO THE LORD, [LET THE LORD … SET A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — This statement serves to show the praise of the righteous: when they are about to depart from the world, they abandon all thought of their own affairs and occupy themselves with the affairs of the community (Sifrei Bamidbar 138).

לאמר saying (more lit., to say, i.e., that God should say, or answer him) — He said to Him, “Answer me whether You will appoint a leader for them or not” (Sifrei Bamidbar 138).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

יפקד ה׳ LET THE LORD … SET [A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION] — When Moses heard that the Omnipresent said to him, “Give the inheritance of Zelophehad to his daughters”, he said to himself, “The time has come that I should ask something that I want — that my sons should inherit my high position”. God replied to him, “Not thus has entered My mind; Joshua deserves to receive the reward of his ministrations, because “he has never departed from out the tent” (Exodus XXXIII 11). — This is what Solomon said, (Proverbs 27:18) ‘‘Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the fruit thereof, [and he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11).

אלהי הרוחת GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — Why is this expression used? (i.e., why does it not state simply אלהי כל בשר?) He said to Him: “Lord of the Universe! the personality of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 10; cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

אשר יצא לפניהם ONE WHO MAY GO BEFORE THEM — not as is the way of the kings of the nations who sit at home and send their armies to battle, but as “I” have done — I who fought against Sihon and against Og, as it is said, (Numbers 21:34) “Do not fear him: “[for I have delivered him into thy hand … and thou shall do to him as thou didst unto Sihon, etc.]” and as is the way that Joshua followed, as it is said, (Joshua 5:3) “And Joshua went to him and said, Art thou for us [or for our adversaries]”. And so, too, in the case of David, it says, (I Samuel 18:16) “For he went out and came in before them” — went out at their head, and came in at their head (Sifrei Bamidbar 139:2).

ואשר יוציאם AND WHO WILL LEAD THEM OUT, safely through his merits,

ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN, safely through his merits (Siphre). Another explanation: ואשר יביאם AND WHO WILL BRING THEM IN — I ask that You should not do to him, as You have done to me' for I may not bring them into the Land. (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

קח לך TAKE TO THEE [JOSHUA] — take him through fine words, saying,“Fortunate are you that you have merited to lead the children of the Omnipresent!” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16).

לך [TAKE] TO THEE — take one who has been examined by you, the one with whom you are familiar.

אשר רוח בו [A MAN] IN WHOM THERE IS SPIRIT — As you requested; someone able to deal with the character of each one. (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1).

וסמכת את ידך עליו AND LAY THY HAND UPON HIM — Give him an interpreter, so that he will hold Halachic discourses during your life-time, — in order that people may not say about him if he does this only after your death: he dared not raise his head during Moses days but did so only at his death (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 140:1).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וצויתה אתו AND GIVE HIM A CHARGE concerning Israel; say to him, “Know that they are troublesome, that they are refractory — accept your office having in mind that you will have to take upon yourself all this (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92 on 11:16).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונתתה מהודך עליו AND THOU SHALT PUT SOME OF THY GLORY UPON HIM — This refers to the shining of the skin of his countenance (see Exodus 34:29—30).

מהודך SOME OF THY GLORY, and not all thy glory; consequently we learn from this: Moses’ face beamed like the sun, Joshua's face only like the moon (Sifrei Bamidbar 140:2; Bava Batra 75a).

למען ישמעו כל עדת ישראל THAT ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHOULD BE OBEDIENT TO HIM — that they should comport themselves towards him with respect and reverence, in the same way as they comport themselves towards you (cf. Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 776).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד AND HE SHALL STAND BEFORE ELEAZAR THE PRIEST — Here you have the request that you have made: that this honour should not depart from your father’s house, for Joshua, too, will need Eleazar (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 11).

ושאל לו AND HE SHALL ASK OF HIM, whenever he finds it necessary to go forth to war (cf. Targum Jonathan on).

על פיו AT HIS WORD [SHALL THEY GO FORTH] — at Eleazar’s.

וכל העדה AND ALL THE CONGREGATION — the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 16a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויקח את יהושע AND HE TOOK JOSHUA — he took him by fine words and told him the reward that will be given to Israel’s leaders in the world to come (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ויסמך את ידיו AND HE LAID HIS HANDS [UPON HIM] — generously (in full measure), even more than he had been commanded, for the Holy One, blessed be He, had said, (v. 18) “Lay thy hand [upon him]”, but he did this with his two hands (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 960), and so made of him a full and heaped up vessel (Sifrei Bamidbar 141:3) and filled him generously with his own wisdom.

כאשר דבר ה׳ AS THE LORD SPAKE, in respect also of the glory: he put some of his glory upon him.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

צו את בני ישראל COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — What is said above? Moses said, “Let the Lord set [a man over the congregation]” (Numbers 27:16). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Instead of giving Me a command regarding My children, command My children regarding Me!” A parable! It may be compared to the case of a princess who was departing this world and gave her husband charge concerning her children, etc., as it is related in Sifrei Bamidbar 142:1.

קרבני MY OFFERING — this refers to the blood.

לחמי MY FOOD — this refers to the fat-portions, and so it states, (Leviticus 3:16) “And the priest shall burn them (the fat-portions) on the altar, it is the food of the fire-offerings” (Sifrei Bamidbar 142:2).

לאשי [MY FOOD] FOR MY FIRE OFFERING — i.e., the fat-portions that are assigned for the fire offerings of My altar (Sifrei Bamidbar 142:2).

תשמרו YE (the children of Israel) SHALL WATCH [TO OFFER TO ME] — This implies that priests, Levites and ordinary Israelites shall stand by watching when the sacrifices are offered (Sifrei Bamidbar 142:2). From this command they (the Rabbis) derived the law of, and instituted the Maamadot (representatives of the people who were present when the sacrificial service was performed) (Taanit 27a).

במועדו [YE SHALL OFFER TO ME] IN ITS APPOINTED SEASON — Every day is the “appointed season” for the continual offerings.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ואמרת להם AND THOU SHALT SAY TO THEM — This is an instruction to the Beth Din (Sifrei Bamidbar 142:3).

שנים ליום This may be understood according to its plain sense: TWO [LAMBS] FOR EACH DAY, But in the main it is intended to teach that they should be slaughtered at a spot opposite the day (i.e. the sun) — the morning continual offerings at the west and that of the evening at the east of the rings fixed in the ground and in which were inserted the animals feet (Sifrei Bamidbar 142:3; Yoma 62b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

את הכבש אחד THE ONE LAMB [SHALT THOU OFFER IN THE MORNING] — Although it has already been stated in the section beginning with the words ,ואתה תצוה (Exodus 29:38 39): “Now this is what thou shalt offer … [The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning]”, that was an instruction for the days of the installation ceremony of the priests, but here it states the commands for all generations.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

סלת למנחה FLOUR FOR A MEAL OFFERING — the meal offering that usually accompanies drink offerings (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 23:37).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

העשיה בהר סיני WHICH WAS OFFERED BY MOUNT SINAI — i.e., like those continual burnt offerings which were offered during the days of the installation ceremony (which took place whilst the people were encamped by Mount Sinai). — Another explanation of העשיה בהר סיני is: It compares the continual burnt offering to the burnt offering of Mount Sinai — to that which was offered on the fifth day of the third month, before the Giving of the Torah (see Rashi on Exodus 19:11), of which it is written, (Exodus 24:6) “And he put it (the blood) in basins”: this teaches, therefore, that it (the continual burnt-offering) requires a vessel for the reception of the blood (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 18 8).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ונסכו (more lit., its pouring forth — i.e. its offering that was poured forth) — wine (cf. Numbers 15:5).

בקדש הסך CAUSING IT TO BE POURED FORTH ON THE HOLY SPOT — upon the altar they shall be poured out.

נסך שכר A POURING FORTH OF STRONG DRINK — wine that has intoxicating power. This excludes wine straight out of its vine press (new wine which is non-intoxicating) (Bava Batra 97a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ריח ניחח A SMELL OF ניחח — one that causes satisfaction (נחת רוח) to Me, that I gave commands and My will was executed (Sifrei Bamidbar 143:3; see Rashi on Leviticus 1:9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

עלת שבת בשבתו lit., THE BURNT OFFERING OF A SABBATH ON ITS SABBATH — and not the burnt offering of this Sabbath on another Sabbath. Take the case that one had not offered the sacrifice on this Sabbath, I might think that he might offer two on the following Sabbath! However, it states “on its Sabbath’, thus showing that if its day (the Sabbath on which it had to be brought) be past, its (that Sabbath’s) offering is cancelled (Sifrei Bamidbar 144:2).

על עלת התמיד BESIDES THE CONTINUAL BURNT OFFERING — these two lambs are additional offerings for the Sabbath besides (על) those two lambs of the continual burnt offering. And this tells us that these additional offerings must be brought only between the two continual offerings (Sifrei Bamidbar 144:2). Similarly in the case of all additional offerings it is stated that they are to be brought על עלת התמיד to point to this deduction.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושלשה עשרנים AND THREE TENTH DEALS [OF FLOUR] — according to the rule of the drink-offerings which are brought with a bullock, for so are they (three tenth deals) fixed in the chapter dealing with the drink offerings (Numbers 15:9).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

זאת עלת חדש בחדשו THIS IS THE BURNT OFFERING OF EVERY MONTH IN ITS MONTH — so that if its day is past its offering is cancelled, and there is no supplementary period for it (Sifrei Bamidbar 145:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ושעיר עזים וגו׳ AND ONE KID OF THE GOATS [FOR A SIN OFFERING] — All goats brought as additional offerings are intended to atone for those sins committed by causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary or its holy things, — all as is set forth in Treatise Shevuot 9a. The goat of the New Moon differs from other goats brought as additional offerings in the fact that the word לה׳ is stated of it: that it is a sin offering to the Lord. The Halachic explanation of this is: it is to teach you that it only makes atonement for uncleanness where there is no consciousness of having caused it either before or after it has been done (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 16:16 and Note thereon), so that no one is cognisant of the sin except the Holy One, blessed be He, alone. (It is a חטאת לה׳, a sin offering for a sin known only to God). And that the same applies to other goats (i. e., that they atone for uncleanness under the same conditions) we derive from the law about this goat. — But its Aggadic explanation is as follows: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Bring an atonement offering for My sake, because I diminished the size of the Moon" (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:16; Shevuot 9a, Chullin 60b).

על עלת התמיד יעשה BESIDES THE CONTINUAL BURNT OFFERING SHALL IT BE DONE — It means: shall all this sacrificial rite (not the kid of the goats just mentioned) be done,

ונסכו AND ITS DRINK OFFERING — the words “and its drink-offering” do not refer to the goat, because sin-offerings have no drink-offerings.

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כל מלאכת עבדה [YE SHALL DO] NO SERVILE WORK — even work that is a necessity for you, as, for instance, a matter that may become lost (that cannot be postponed without irretrievable loss) and which is permissible on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles (lit., the week days of the Festival) is forbidden on the Festival itself (see Rashi on Leviticus 23:8).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

פרים BULLOCKS — in allusion to Abraham, as it is said, (Genesis 18:7) “And unto the herd (the bullock) Abraham ran”,

אילים RAMS — in allusion to the ram of Isaac (Genesis 22:13).

כבשים LAMBS — in allusion to Jacob, as it is said, (Genesis 30:40) “And the lambs did Jacob set aside”. I saw this in the work of R. Moses the Preacher (see Rashi on Numbers 7:21).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

כאלו תעשו ליום LIKE THESE YE SHALL OFFER ON EACH DAY — Like these mentioned: this implies that they are not continuously to decrease in number on each day as do the bullocks brought on the Feast of Tabernacles (Numbers 29:12—34) (Sifrei Bamidbar 147:2).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

וביום הבכורים AND ON THE DAY OF THE FIRSTLINGS — The Feast of Weeks is called the firstlings of the wheat harvest (Exodus 34:22) because of the two loaves (Leviticus 23:17) which were the first of the wheat meal offerings which were brought from the new grain (Menachot 84b).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

תמימים יהיו לכם ונסכיהם THEY SHALL BE TO YOU WITHOUT BLEMISH, AND THEIR DRINK OFFERINGS — i.e. the drink offerings, too, shall be without blemish. Our Rabbis learned from this that wine upon which mold shows itself is unfit for drink-offerings (Menachot 87a).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מלבד עלת החדש BESIDES THE BURNT OFFERING OF THE NEW MOON — besides the additional offerings of the New Moon which is on the New Year Festival (the New Moon of the seventh month).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

מלבד חטאת הכפורים BESIDES THE SIN OFFERING OF EXPIATION — i.e. the goat whose rite was performed within the Holy of Holies, which is mentioned in the Sedrah אחרי מות — for it, too, was a חטאת, a sin offering, (Leviticus 16:9).

ועלת התמיד AND THE CONTINUAL BURNT OFFERING — This means: and besides the continual burnt offering, ye shall offer these burnt offerings mentioned in v. 8.

ונסכיהם AND THEIR DRINK OFFERINGS — This word refers to the additional offerings which have been written about (v. 8) and to the word תעשו (which Rashi has supplied). It expresses a command: [besides the sin offering of expiation and] besides the continual burnt offering [and its drink offering] ye shall offer these (mentioned in v. 8) and their drink-offerings. Similar, too, is the meaning every time the expression נסכיהם is mentioned in connection with the offerings of the Festivals (that it alludes to the drink-offerings brought with the additional sacrifices of that Festival), except when used of those of the Feast of Tabernacles, (vv. 17—38) where all such expressions, — ונסכה and ונסכיהם and ונסכיה — which occur in the paragraph about them refer to the תמיד (cf. e.g., v. 15: עלת התמיד מנחתה ונסכה). Nor do they there express a command, for, indeed, the drink offerings that accompany the additional offerings are written down separately for each day (i.e., are specifically commanded for each day, cf. e. g., v. 18: ומנחתם).

Rashi — M. Rosenbaum & A. M. Silbermann

ומנחתם ונסכיהם לפרים AND THEIR MEAL OFFERING AND THEIR DRINK OFFERINGS FOR THE BULLOCKS — The bullocks offered on the Feast of Tabernacles are seventy in all, in allusion to the seventy nations of the world, and they gradually decrease in number each day, an omen to them of gradual annihilation, but during the period when the Temple existed and these sacrifices were offered they protected them against this misfortune (cf. Sukkah 55b).

ולכבשים AND FOR THE LAMBS — in allusion to the Israelites who are called ( 50:17) “scattered lambs”. — They (the lambs) are of fixed number each day (a symbol that the Israelites are fixed, imperishable), and their total is ninety-eight, serving to avert from them the ninety-eight curses which are set forth in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 28:15 ff.) — In the paragraph dealing with the second day of the Festival, it is said, (v. 19) ונסכיהם, and this is in reference to the two daily continual offerings (while the usual term is ונסכה corresponding to ומנחתה that precedes it), and it sometimes uses a modification of the terms usually employed in those paragraphs only in order that some teaching may be deduced from it, as our Rabbis, may their memory be for a blessing, said: in the case of the second day we have ונסכיהם, of the sixth ונסכיה, of the seventh כמשפטם (instead of the usual כמשפטה): the additional letters are מ and י and מ — so you have here מים, “water”, — a suggestion that the libation of water on Tabernacles is of Biblical origin (מן התורה) (Sifrei Bamidbar 150; Shabbat 103b).