1. The Core Question: Who Inherits Eretz Yisrael?
The discussion centers on the complex topic of how the land of Eretz Yisroel was originally divided among the Jewish people. This issue came up in shul, particularly in relation to the daughters of Tzelofchad and their claim to a portion in the land. The Rebbe addresses this subject in his sicha—Torah talk, bringing remarkable clarity to an otherwise confusing area. The essential question is: who is entitled to a piece of Eretz Yisroel? In other words, when dividing the “pie” of the land, who gets a slice?2. Three Opinions on Division of the Land
There are three main opinions regarding who received portions in Eretz Yisroel:The first opinion holds that only those who left Mitzrayim—Egypt were entitled to a share. God promised those leaving Egypt that they would inherit the land, so each of the 600,000 who left received a portion. If someone died without children, their portion returned to the communal pool.
The second opinion is essentially the opposite: only those who were 20 years old at the time of entering Eretz Yisroel received a share. It didn’t matter if they had left Egypt or not; what counted was being present and of age when entering the land.
The third view, which Rashi brings down and elaborates on, is a compromise between these two positions. According to Rashi, while those entering Eretz Yisroel received portions, there was an additional step: after dividing up the land among those entering, it was as if their shares reverted back to their grandfathers (i.e., those who left Egypt), and then were redistributed according to family inheritance.
3. Rashi’s Compromise Explained with an Example
To clarify Rashi’s approach, consider this scenario: Reuven and Shimon both left Egypt but died before entering Eretz Yisroel. Reuven had three sons; Shimon had one son. When dividing up the land among those entering (the four sons), each initially receives a portion. However, according to Rashi’s method, these portions are then “given back” to their grandfather (the original owner from Egypt), and then split equally between Reuven and Shimon’s families.This means that although there are four inheritors present, ultimately Reuven’s three sons together receive two portions (as does Shimon’s one son), reflecting their grandfather’s original share. The number of descendants determines how much each family receives, but it is still fundamentally based on the original division among those who left Egypt.
4. Implications for Large and Small Families
This system creates interesting outcomes for families with different numbers of children. If one family has many children and another has few, both families receive equal shares from their ancestor’s portion—but within each family, that share is divided among more or fewer heirs. Thus, having more children increases the total amount allocated to that family line but also means each individual receives a smaller piece.This approach ensures that every ancestral line receives its due portion based on descent from those who left Mitzrayim while also accounting for how many descendants are actually present at entry into Eretz Yisroel.
5. The Daughters of Tzelofchad: Their Unique Claim
A key question arises regarding Tzelofchad’s daughters: if inheritance is based on either those leaving Egypt or those entering Israel at age 20 or above—and Tzelofchad himself was not alive at entry—on what basis could his daughters claim a share? According to some opinions, if there were no male heirs (sons), daughters could inherit their father’s portion.However, if inheritance depended solely on being present at entry into Eretz Yisroel and Tzelofchad had no living sons or qualifying heirs at that time (only daughters), why should his daughters be entitled? This question becomes even sharper if all his children were under 20 years old at entry—would they be excluded entirely?
6. The Distinction Between Minors and Daughters
The Gemara and later commentators grapple with whether minors under 20 received any portion at all if their father died before entry into Eretz Yisroel. It appears that minors did not inherit in such cases—their youth disqualified them from receiving land.However, according to the Rebbe’s analysis (and possibly Rashi as well), women occupy a unique status: even though they do not inherit when there are sons, in cases where there are no male heirs they do receive a share in Eretz Yisroel. This is rooted in Hashem’s promise that even when entry rights were taken away from certain individuals due to sins like that of the meraglim—spies, Hashem preserved inheritance rights for their children.
7. Why Tzelofchad’s Daughters Were Entitled
The argument made by Tzelofchad’s daughters rests on this distinction: although minors under 20 did not receive portions upon entry into Eretz Yisroel, women without brothers did have an entitlement because Hashem’s promise extended specifically to them as inheritors when no male heirs existed.Therefore, even though Tzelofchad himself did not enter Eretz Yisroel and had no sons eligible for inheritance at entry time, his daughters could rightfully claim his share based on this principle—unlike minors under 20 who would be excluded.
8. Conclusion: The Lasting Lesson
While this topic contains many intricate details requiring further study—especially as presented by the Rebbe—the main takeaway is that inheritance of Eretz Yisroel involved multiple layers: ancestral entitlement from those leaving Mitzrayim, practical allocation among those entering Israel at age 20 or above, and special provisions for cases like daughters without brothers.Ultimately, Hashem’s promise ensured continuity for every Jewish family line in receiving a part of Eretz Yisroel—even through complex scenarios like that of Tzelofchad’s daughters—highlighting both legal nuance and divine compassion in Torah law regarding inheritance of our holy land.