- This topic has 20 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This past week’s parsha had an interesting little incident at the end of it that, I believe, warrants some discussion.
The leaders of Menashe were concerned over the fact that Tzelofchad’s daughters would be inheriting land in the Land of Israel. If they should marry out of the tribe, the leaders of Menashe argued, their portions would eventually pass to their children, who would be members of other tribes, which would diminish their own tribal area. Moshe agreed and decreed that any daughter who inherits land must marry within her father’s tribe.
This incident, however, raises several questions:
1. What, exactly, were the leaders of Menashe worried about? It certainly wasn’t about population — they weren’t concerned about any of their daughters marrying out of the tribe, but rather land. But, was Tzelofchad the only person among the Jews who didn’t have any sons? I would think not. In reality, there were probably plenty of people who only had daughters (or other female heirs) from all the tribes. So, so what if Machla married someone from Zevulun? Probably, in the end, it would all average out anyway.
2. While Menashe’s complaint sounds like one that would apply down through the ages, for some reason, it didn’t. The requirement that an inheriting daughter marry within her tribe only applied to that generation. Later generations were not bound by this requirement, and yet, even so, the same logic should apply. So, why didn’t this requirement carry onward?
3. Of course, even if the requirement to marry within the tribe did carry on through the generations, it still wouldn’t prevent the “problem” of “islands” of territory within one tribe belonging to another tribe. After all, no doubt, there were situations where an already married daughter (possibly even with children belonging to another tribe) finds herself an heiress after the death of her last brother.
So, in any event, it seems that there really is no way to prevent this from happening, and after that generation, no effort was made to prevent it. If that’s the case, what was the validity of Menashe’s claims?
The Wolf
BS”D:
Wolf:
The gemorahs and Rishonim in Bava Basra (mid 8th Perek) deal with these issues.
1: The idea was to minimize, not completely prevent transfering land. Tzlafchad had 4 portions of land, so it was more than the average Yankel. IIRC, Rashbam says that Tzelafchad was the only case where there was no male heir., but I could be wrong.
2: Once they were in the land, the Shevet got bigger, meaning a smaller piece for each person, making the land lost less significant.
3: In a case where the men of the shevet did have a lot of land (due to Pilegesh B’giva for Binyamin, for example), similar takanos were made to prevent large transfers of land to another shevet.
Doesnt Moshe give them mussar for giving consideration to their animals before their children (according to Rashi)? I wonder why Moshe didnt give them mussar for being more concerned about their Yerusha than their cousins shidduch?
Wolf: That exact case is brought down by the Rashbam. That is why the solution is only “to minimize, not completely prevent transfering land.”
WolfishMusings said:
Wrong group. That was Reuven and Dan.
The Wolf
It was also half of Shevet Menasha
Lo HaBayshan Lomed!
Lets say a man had a daughter and no sons (when the din was in effect). We would not allow his daughter to marry out of the shevet.
If the man had sons, the daughter can marry who she wants (the mitzva only affects a “Bas Yoreshes”, which she at the weeding is not). Then if the son subsequently dies, she gets the yerusha (when her father dies), but has done no Issur (there was no “Bas Yoreshes” who AT THE TIME OF THE CHASUNA married outside the shevet). Therefore the Nachala will transfer if she dies, and the husband is Yoresh.
The system is not meant to be foolproof, only to remove most cases of land transfer.
Wolf, just checking up if everything’s ok . You seem to be in a very self critical mood today.
BS”D
Wolf:
Remember that the only concern is if there are large pieces of land transfered.
Since land can not be consolidated by one individual (due to yovel returning all purchased land), each time there is a new generation, the land holdings get diluted. If a diluted portion of land gets transfered to another shevet, it is not such a big deal, since it is small.
The problem begins when the land does get consolidated through yerusha to persons other then sons. This happened during Pilegesh B’Giva, when most of Binyamin was wiped out. The land of Binyamin was the yerasha of the remaining 600 members of the shevet (via them being cousins, through the grandfathers). Each member now had a very large piece of land.
Therefore, at that time, they made a Takana to minimize the transfer of land out of the shevet. For example, they were careful not to marry outside the shevet if they got the yerusha (Rashbam BB 116B), and they were also M’Taken other methods to keep the yerusha within the male line (see Gemorah & Rashbam there).
Please feel free to ask any additional questions, or if you don’t understand, please be more specific, and I will (Bezras Hashem) try to help.
G@W
Whether it was Reuven, Dan or Naftali, I think my question still stands. Nevertheless, half of Menashe also received said mussar about putting their property first. Looks like the people of Menashe were still putting their property ahead of their cousins shidduchim.
? ???????????, ???-??????? ?????? ??????, ????? ???-??????? ?????????? ?????????, ??????? ??????????; ????????, ?????? ???????, ????? ???-??????? ????????? ????????, ??????????. ? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????-??????????, ?????????, ??????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????????, ???????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????; ?????????? ???????????, ?????????. ? ?????-??????? ????????, ??????? ??????????, ?????????? ?????????, ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????; ???????????? ?????? ??????????, ???????? ?????????
apushatayid, you assume that the shidduch is more valuble than the correct usage of Eretz Yisroel by a shevet.
Each shevet had its mission within the Klal, and Menashe thought it would be to the detriment of their mission to lose the nachala. And Hashem agreed.
Besides, its not “their” property (as it belonged to Bnos Tzlafchad).
Wolf, Rav Hirsch, Ztz”l, addresses your questions. I did not process his discussion sufficiently to present it, but if you’d like, I can attempt to do so this Shabbos, IY”H.
(Maybe that “Jew of the Decade” award’s not a bad idea, after all. I nominate Wolf, on condition that the prize is a set of Rav Hirsch Chumashim.)
From what I was able to gather, Menashe’s problem was his concern that the divinely divided land would transfer by default to tribes it was not intended for. He did’nt have a better soloution, but he was still worried about the outcome down the road.
Not sure why he was the one to speak up, but that’s how I understood his complaint.
Wolf? Whats with the silly questions? What diffrince is it to you why the leaders of Menashe were upset — the Torah tells us they were upset and gave us the reason. The nesiim were the gedoli hador of the greatest dor of all time. They dont need you questioning them.
Mo- You crack me up!
Reb Gavra, before checking it up, I just have one question (if mosherose lets me ask questions): what kind of Takana was that not to marry out after Pilegesh Begivaa, wasn’t there a sort of Cheirim set up against Shevet Binyamin? Unless the Takana was after the ban was taken away.
mosherose, the Wolf’s questions bother you, but not P-Yid’s?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.