1)

What are the implications of "Zeh ha'Davar"?

1.

Ta'anis, 30b: It implies that the prohibition of Hasavas Nachalah was confined to that generation only 1 - and the decree came to an end on Chamishah-Asar be'Av . 2

1

See also Torah Temimah note 4 citing Bava Basra 120a. See also Oznayim la'Torah, who gives another reason as to why it did not extend to other generations.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 6.

2)

Since when is a woman who inherits forbidden to marry into a different tribe than that of her father?

1.

Rashi (on 27:7), Ramban and Targum Yonasan: The prohibition of marrying into a different tribe ("Lo Sisov Nachalah") 1 was restricted to that generation only. 2

1

Refer to 36:2:1:1 & 36:6:0.1:1.

2

Ramban (citing Bava Basra, 120a): At the time, the B'nos Tzelofchad were the only women in that generation who inherited, which explains why they were the only family to lodge a complaint.

3)

How will we reconcile "la'Tov be'Eineihen Tih'yenah le'Nashim" (implying anyone they fancied) with "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah" in Pauk 7?

1.

Bava Basra, 120a: By interpreting "Lo Sisov Nachalah" regarding the B'nos Tz'lofchad, not as a command, 1 but as a piece of advice, 2

2.

Oznayim la'Torah (citing the Rashbam in Bava Basra, 120a): The Pasuk is referring to the advice that Hashem - the Father of orphans - gave the B'nos T'lofchad, 3 who had no parents to advise them, that their cousins were the most suitable men.

1

As opposed to any other daughter of that generation who inherited from her father and for whom "ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah" in Pasuk 9 was a prohibition. See Oznayim la'Torah.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 7, who elaborates at length.

3

See answer #1.

4)

Why was the Torah not similarly concerned regarding an heiress who was already married, or a woman whose father or brothers would die later (leaving behind no sons) after she already married into a different tribe?

1.

Ramban #1: The Torah was only concerned about something that was rectifiable, which those cases were not. And it did not want to change the laws of inheritance in such a case by prohibiting her husband or her son from inheriting her.

2.

Ramban #2: Pasuk 5 and Pasuk 6 are talking about two different Mitzvos. 1 Pasuk 5 is a prohibition against an heiress marrying into a different tribe, whereas Pasuk 6 teaches that if a woman marries into a different tribe and then inherits property, her sons or husband do not inherit her. 2

1

Ramban: Both of which only applied to that generation.

2

Ramban: But the property goes to her blood relatives.

5)

?Zeh ha?Davar asher Tzivah Hashem li?Venos Tz?lofchad?. Why does the Torah only discuss the B?nos Tz?lofchad and not other daughters who inherited?

1.

Ramban (on Pasuk 7): Because, ?Lo Sisov Nachalah? was confined to that generation, 1 and the B?nos Tz?lofchad were the only daughters of that generation to inherit.

1

Refer to 36:7:2:1.

6)

Why was "Lo Sisov Nachalah" said to that generation?

1.

Ramban: The Torah was concerned that the portions of the tribes should not get mixed up even as they were dividing the land. 1

1

Ramban: And it extended it to the whole generation because the exact time of distribution was not yet known.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & Donations • Readers' Feedback • Mailing Lists • Talmud Archives • Ask the Kollel • Dafyomi Weblinks • Dafyomi Calendar • Other Yomi calendars