Talmud Yerushalmi
Yerushalmi Bava Batra 8:2 ירושלמי בבא בתרא ח׳:ב׳
Part of: Chapter 8
Reading: Hebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlyHebrew · Simple EnglishHebrew · Faithful translationHebrew onlySimple English onlyFaithful translation onlySide by side
משנה: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים בַּנַּחֲלָה חֵלֶק אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהָיָה עִם יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וְחֶלְקוֹ עִם אֶחָיו בְּנִכְסֵי חֵפֶר וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים.
MISHNAH: Zelophehad’s daughters35He had five daughters but no sons, Num. 27:1–7. took three parts36Cities with the names of the daughters dominate the entire Southern part of Cisjordan Manasseh. The problem to be discussed is how to compute the distribution of land by Joshua according to Num. 26:52–56 which prescribes first that the land be distributed to “those”, i. e., those mentioned in the second desert census, Num. 26:5–51, but computed “by the names of their fathers’ tribes” which means the names of those who left Egypt. in inheritance: Their father’s who was of those who left Egypt, his part among his brothers in the estate of Hepher37Who was supposed to have been alive at the time of the Exodus., and because he was firstborn he was taking two parts38Mishnah 4..
MISHNAH: Zelophehad’s daughters35He had five daughters but no sons, Num. 27:1–7. took three parts36Cities with the names of the daughters dominate the entire Southern part of Cisjordan Manasseh. The problem to be discussed is how to compute the distribution of land by Joshua according to Num. 26:52–56 which prescribes first that the land be distributed to “those”, i. e., those mentioned in the second desert census, Num. 26:5–51, but computed “by the names of their fathers’ tribes” which means the names of those who left Egypt. in inheritance: Their father’s who was of those who left Egypt, his part among his brothers in the estate of Hepher37Who was supposed to have been alive at the time of the Exodus., and because he was firstborn he was taking two parts38Mishnah 4..
הלכה: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד כול׳. בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ. אִם אָנוּ בְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נִירַשׁ אֶת אָבִינוּ. אִם אֵין בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד תִּתְיַיבֵּם אִמֵּינוּ. מִיַּד וַיִּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי יי. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דּוֹבְרוֹת. תֵּן לָהֶן אֲחוּזַּת נַחֲלָה. תֵּן לָהֶן בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת. תֵּן לָהֶן בְּמִטַּלְטֲלִין. תֵּן לָהֶן חֶלֶק אֲבִיהֶן בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶן.
HALAKHAH: “Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. 39Babli 119b; Tanḥuma Pineḥas 6, 9 ,Tanḥuma Buber Pineḥas 8, 9, Num. rabba Pineḥas 11. Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage40If daughters cannot inherit then the widow of a man who dies without sons should be treated like the widow of a childless man, Deut. 25:5–9. Since the latter conclusion obviously is impossible, so is the hypothesis from which it follows.. Immediately, “41Num. 27:5. he brought their suit before the Eternal.” The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “42Num. 27:7–8. Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,” give them real estate, give them movables, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.
HALAKHAH: “Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. 39Babli 119b; Tanḥuma Pineḥas 6, 9 ,Tanḥuma Buber Pineḥas 8, 9, Num. rabba Pineḥas 11. Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage40If daughters cannot inherit then the widow of a man who dies without sons should be treated like the widow of a childless man, Deut. 25:5–9. Since the latter conclusion obviously is impossible, so is the hypothesis from which it follows.. Immediately, “41Num. 27:5. he brought their suit before the Eternal.” The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “42Num. 27:7–8. Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,” give them real estate, give them movables, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.
רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אָמַר. לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ. דִּכְתִיב לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו. וְאִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לָאֵלֶּה. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַנָּשִׁים וּמִפְּנֵי הַקְּטַנִּים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לָאֵלֶּה תֵחָלֵק. אִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָיו. מְשׁוּנָּה נַחֲלָה זוֹ מִכָּל נְחָלוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם. שֶׁכָּל נְחָלוֹת חַיִּים יוֹרְשִׁין מֵתִים וָכָא מֵתִים יוֹרְשִׁין חַיִּים. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר. לְיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וּלְעוֹמְדִים בָּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב נִתְחַלְּקָה הָאָרֶץ. כֵּיצַד. מִי שֶׁהָיָה מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וּמֵעוֹמְדִים בָּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב נָטַל שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים. מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם וְלֹא מֵעוֹמְדִים בָּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב מֵעוֹמְדִים בָּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב וְלֹא מִיּוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם נָטַל חֶלֶק אֶחָד. בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד נָטְלוּ חֲמִשָּׁה חֲלָקִים. חֶלְקָן עִם יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם. וְחֶלְקָן עִם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב. וְשֶׁהָיָה בְּכוֹר נָטְלוּ שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים. וְחֶלֶק אֲבִיהֶן בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא לֹא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֶלָּא נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֵן. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וַיִּפְּלוּ חַבְלֵי מְנַשֶּׁה עֲשָׂרָה.
43Babli 117a; a different version Tanḥuma Pineḥas 5 = Num. rabba21(9). Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.44Num. 26:55, referring to the census Num. 1.” Then why does the verse say: “To those45Num. 26:53. The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26.”? Only because of women46The daughters of Zelophehad. and because of children47As will be explained later, Notes 63 ff.. Rebbi Joḥanan48One has to read with E and the Babli “Jonathan” as contemporary of R. Joshiah. said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land49Each of the persons counted in the second census became a candidate for a piece of land similar in value to that of any other., as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed45Num. 26:53. The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26..” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living50While the number of lots was determined by the second census, the final allotment was made through the first census as explained by Rebbi in the section after the next.. It was stated51117a/b (R. Simeon ben Eleazar), slightly differently Tosephta 7:8 (R. Eliezer ben Jacob).: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts52In the Tosephta: It was given to those who left Egypt and distributed to those who stood in the plains of Moab.. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt54The decree that those who left Egypt could not enter the Land applied neither to women nor to Levites. and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he55Zelophehad. Even though the rule that the firstborn takes a double portion does not apply to expected acquisitions of the estate, here it is considered already acquired because of God’s promise in Egypt (Ex. 6:8). was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise56They only received three parts. The Mishnah can only be interpreted following R. Joshiah.. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.42Num. 27:7–8.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh57Jos. 17:5. It is explained in Jos.17:2 that Gilead and Bashan were given to the seven male clans of Manasseh, and the Cisjordan territory to the five female clans. If together this made ten districts, it follows that the five females in the plains of Moab, while representing only one person of the Exodus, received 3/10 of the entire territory of Manasseh.”.
43Babli 117a; a different version Tanḥuma Pineḥas 5 = Num. rabba21(9). Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.44Num. 26:55, referring to the census Num. 1.” Then why does the verse say: “To those45Num. 26:53. The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26.”? Only because of women46The daughters of Zelophehad. and because of children47As will be explained later, Notes 63 ff.. Rebbi Joḥanan48One has to read with E and the Babli “Jonathan” as contemporary of R. Joshiah. said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land49Each of the persons counted in the second census became a candidate for a piece of land similar in value to that of any other., as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed45Num. 26:53. The verse asserts that the distribution of land has to be based on the census of Num. 26..” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living50While the number of lots was determined by the second census, the final allotment was made through the first census as explained by Rebbi in the section after the next.. It was stated51117a/b (R. Simeon ben Eleazar), slightly differently Tosephta 7:8 (R. Eliezer ben Jacob).: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts52In the Tosephta: It was given to those who left Egypt and distributed to those who stood in the plains of Moab.. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt54The decree that those who left Egypt could not enter the Land applied neither to women nor to Levites. and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he55Zelophehad. Even though the rule that the firstborn takes a double portion does not apply to expected acquisitions of the estate, here it is considered already acquired because of God’s promise in Egypt (Ex. 6:8). was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise56They only received three parts. The Mishnah can only be interpreted following R. Joshiah.. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.42Num. 27:7–8.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh57Jos. 17:5. It is explained in Jos.17:2 that Gilead and Bashan were given to the seven male clans of Manasseh, and the Cisjordan territory to the five female clans. If together this made ten districts, it follows that the five females in the plains of Moab, while representing only one person of the Exodus, received 3/10 of the entire territory of Manasseh.”.
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב נָטְלוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָקִים. חֶלְקָן עִם יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם. וְחֶלְקָן עִם הָעוֹמְדִים בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב. וְנָטְלוּ חֶלֶק מְרַגְּלִים. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב. וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפוּנֶּה חָיוּ מִן הָאֲנָשִׁים וגו׳. אֲבָל חֶלֶק מִתְלוֹנְנִים וַעֲדַת קֹרַח נָפַל לָאֶמְצָע. וּבְנֵיהֶם בִּזְכוּת אֲבִי אֲבִיהֶן וְאִמּוֹתֵיהֶן. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וּבְנֵי קֹרַח לֹא מֵתוּ.
Joshua and Caleb took three parts: Their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab53This applies only to Caleb and Joshua.; in addition they took the parts of the spies58Babli 117b.. This is what is written: “Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Yephuneh lived off the men, etc.59Num. 14:38.” But the part of the complainers60Num. 11:1 ff. and Korah’s gang became common property; their sons [inherited] from their paternal and maternal grandfathers. That is what is written: “Korah’s sons did not die.61Num. 26:11. They were Levites not involved in the distribution of land.”
Joshua and Caleb took three parts: Their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab53This applies only to Caleb and Joshua.; in addition they took the parts of the spies58Babli 117b.. This is what is written: “Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Yephuneh lived off the men, etc.59Num. 14:38.” But the part of the complainers60Num. 11:1 ff. and Korah’s gang became common property; their sons [inherited] from their paternal and maternal grandfathers. That is what is written: “Korah’s sons did not die.61Num. 26:11. They were Levites not involved in the distribution of land.”
רִבִּי מוֹשְׁלוֹ מָשָׁל לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לִשְׁנֵי אַחִים שׁוּתָפִין שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם. לָזֶה תִשְׁעָה בָּנִים וְלָזֶה בֵּן אֶחָד וְיָרְשׁוּ בֵית עֲשֶׂרֶת כּוֹרִין. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹטֵל לֶתֶךְ. הֶחֱזִירוּם לַאֲבוֹתֵיהֶן וְחִלְּקוּם. נִמצָא בֵּן זֶה נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצָה וּבְנֵי זֶה נוֹטְלִין מֶחֱצָה.
Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh62Half a bet kor.. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half63In the Babli, 117a, Rebbi is credited with the explanation by the parable credited here to R. Dositheos ben Jehudah.
The text here is inconsistent in several places. If together they took ten bet kor, each of them took a bet kor rather than a letekh, half a bet kor. If the fathers were above the age of twenty at the Exodus, there is no reason why the sons of one should be co-owners with the son of the other. If they were below age twenty at the Exodus, they should have survived and the entire question could not be raised. Therefore, one has to assume that the grandfather was alive at the time of the Exodus and the entire allotment was returned to the grandfather, from whom each son inherited the claim to half the estate which was then split for the ten grandsons..
Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh62Half a bet kor.. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half63In the Babli, 117a, Rebbi is credited with the explanation by the parable credited here to R. Dositheos ben Jehudah.
The text here is inconsistent in several places. If together they took ten bet kor, each of them took a bet kor rather than a letekh, half a bet kor. If the fathers were above the age of twenty at the Exodus, there is no reason why the sons of one should be co-owners with the son of the other. If they were below age twenty at the Exodus, they should have survived and the entire question could not be raised. Therefore, one has to assume that the grandfather was alive at the time of the Exodus and the entire allotment was returned to the grandfather, from whom each son inherited the claim to half the estate which was then split for the ten grandsons..
רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּי בֶּן יְהוּדָה מוֹשְׁלוֹ מָשָׁל לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה. לִשְׁנֵי אַחִים כֹּהֲנִים שׁוּתָפִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִין עַל הַגּוֹרֶן. לָזֶה ט̇ בָּנִים וְלָזֶה בֵּן אֶחָד וְנָטְלוּ (בֵּית) יֹ קַבִּין. הֶחֱזִירוּם לַאֲבוֹתֵיהֶן וְחִלְּקוּם. נִמְצָא בֵּן זֶה נוֹטֵל מֶחֱצֶה וּבְנֵי זֶה מֶחֱצָה.
Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah64A contemporary of Rebbi. explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners65Both are still living at their father’s house. who stood by a threshing floor66To ask for heave.; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of)67This has to be deleted since one refers here to volumes, not areas. ten qab. They returned it to their father and split68One has to assume that after they collected the heave, the grandfather and the fathers died, since otherwise the grandfather, on whose property the entire family was living, would have received everything for distribution among his dependants. Parables, situated in never-never land, cannot be subjected to stringent logical analysis.. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.
Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah64A contemporary of Rebbi. explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners65Both are still living at their father’s house. who stood by a threshing floor66To ask for heave.; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of)67This has to be deleted since one refers here to volumes, not areas. ten qab. They returned it to their father and split68One has to assume that after they collected the heave, the grandfather and the fathers died, since otherwise the grandfather, on whose property the entire family was living, would have received everything for distribution among his dependants. Parables, situated in never-never land, cannot be subjected to stringent logical analysis.. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מָתִיב. וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם וגו׳. אִם מַתָּנָה לָמָּה יְרוּשָׁה. וְאִם יְרוּשָׁה לָמָּה מַתָּנָה. אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לָהֶן לְשׁוּם מַתָּנָה חָזַר וּנְתָנָהּ לָהֶן לְשׁוּם יְרוּשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מוֹרָשָׁה לְשׁוֹן דִּיהָא. הָתִיבוֹן. וְהָכְתִיב מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִילַּת יַעֲקֹב. אָמַר. לֵית דִּיהָא סוֹגִין מִינֵּיהּ. מָן דּוּ לָעֵי הוּא מַשְׁכַּח כּוּלָּהּ.
Rebbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your forefathers’ land, etc.69A misquote of Ex. 6:8. The verse ends: “I shall give it to you as an inheritance, I, the Eternal.” Giving implies a voluntary act, a gift, whereas inheritance is automatic by law.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance70,The rights of the people of the Exodus were established as gift; then those of the generation of the conquest already were an inheritance (Babli 117b).71E here has a parallel version:
רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מַרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּתוּב וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָֽדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרַע הֵמָּה יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנֶּהּ וְהֵם יְרָשׁוּהָ. אִם מַתָּנָה לָמָּה יְרוּשָׁה. וְאִם יְרוּשָׁה לָמָּה מַתָּנָה. אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לָהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה חָזַר וּנְתָנָהּ לָהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרוּשָׁה.
Rebbi Isaac bar Marion in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written (Deut. 1:39): “Your little ones, of whom you said, they will be taken as prey, and your children who today do not know good or bad, they will come there, to them I shall give it, and they will inherit it.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them in the language of a gift, he turned around and gave it in the language of inheritance.”. Rebbi Hoshaia said, anywhere one mentions מוֹרָשָה it means weariness72It is unclear from which root he derives the word since the only candidate besides yrš “to inherit” would be rwš “to be poor.”. They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance (מוֹרָשָׁה) of the congregation of Jacob73Deut. 33:4: “Moses commended to us Torah, an inheritance …” This verse should not have a negative connotation.”? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. He who studies forgets everything74This is explained in Eccl. rabba on 1:13: “For his own benefit a person studies Torah and forgets it, for if a person could study Torah and not forget it, he would study it for two or three years and then never think of it again” and miss all rewards for the study of Torah..
Rebbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your forefathers’ land, etc.69A misquote of Ex. 6:8. The verse ends: “I shall give it to you as an inheritance, I, the Eternal.” Giving implies a voluntary act, a gift, whereas inheritance is automatic by law.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance70,The rights of the people of the Exodus were established as gift; then those of the generation of the conquest already were an inheritance (Babli 117b).71E here has a parallel version:
רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר מַרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּתוּב וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָֽדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרַע הֵמָּה יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנֶּהּ וְהֵם יְרָשׁוּהָ. אִם מַתָּנָה לָמָּה יְרוּשָׁה. וְאִם יְרוּשָׁה לָמָּה מַתָּנָה. אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ לָהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה חָזַר וּנְתָנָהּ לָהֶן בִּלְשׁוֹן יְרוּשָׁה.
Rebbi Isaac bar Marion in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is written (Deut. 1:39): “Your little ones, of whom you said, they will be taken as prey, and your children who today do not know good or bad, they will come there, to them I shall give it, and they will inherit it.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them in the language of a gift, he turned around and gave it in the language of inheritance.”. Rebbi Hoshaia said, anywhere one mentions מוֹרָשָה it means weariness72It is unclear from which root he derives the word since the only candidate besides yrš “to inherit” would be rwš “to be poor.”. They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance (מוֹרָשָׁה) of the congregation of Jacob73Deut. 33:4: “Moses commended to us Torah, an inheritance …” This verse should not have a negative connotation.”? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. He who studies forgets everything74This is explained in Eccl. rabba on 1:13: “For his own benefit a person studies Torah and forgets it, for if a person could study Torah and not forget it, he would study it for two or three years and then never think of it again” and miss all rewards for the study of Torah..