Pinchas: Our True Inheritance

When enumerating the mitzvos at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah (and similarly, in his Sefer HaMitzvos), Rambam lists as the final positive commandment the charge “to judge the laws concerning inheritance, as it is written,1 ‘When a man dies without a son….’ ”

It is well known that Rambam structured his work in extremely precise order.2 Thus, it can be presumed that the placement of the commandment concerning the laws of inheritance as the final positive commandment was deliberate, indicating3 that these laws embody the most apt conclusion to the positive commandments.

Similar logic applies to Rambam’s choice of the first positive commandment, “to know that there is a G‑d, as it is written,4 ‘I am G‑d your L‑rd.’ ” The reason for that choice is obvious: It is the first and the most fundamental of all the mitzvos that follow, as Rambam writes in the beginning of Mishneh Torah, “The foundation of [all] foundations and the pillar of [all] knowledge is to know that there is a Primary Being.” Rambam emphasizes the prominence of this mitzvah when listing the mitzvos in his introduction, referring to it as “the first mitzvah.”5

Likewise, it is understood that the choice of the final positive commandment, the mitzvah – “judge the laws concerning inheritance” – is precise. He selected it because its message is appropriate to finish and conclude the reckoning of all the mitzvos.

At first glance, the reason for concluding with this mitzvah can be explained as follows: All of the other mitzvos are to be fulfilled during a person’s lifetime. By contrast, the mitzvah of inheritance applies only after a person’s lifetime. Therefore, Rambam lists this mitzvah as the last and as the conclusion of all the mitzvos.

Obviously, this is a very forced explanation. Firstly, there are several other mitzvos which Rambam mentions previously that involve a person’s death6 and matters that follow it.7 Furthermore, the mitzvah of inheritance is not incumbent on the person himself, but rather upon the Jewish court.8 It is their responsibility “to judge the laws of inheritance,” as the Rambam explains in detail when discussing these laws. In the Mishneh Torah, he clarifies the order of inheritance according to which the court adjudicates9 the division of the estate among the living heirs; it is readily apparent that this mitzvah does not concern itself with the deceased. Therefore, it is not appropriate to explain that it is listed last in the order of the mitzvos because it is connected with the passing of the testator.10

Another point requires explanation: As a prooftext for the mitzvah to judge the laws of inheritance, Rambam cites the verse,1 “When a man dies without a son….” On the surface, these words do not appear to communicate the theme of the mitzvah.11

There are versions of the text12 that include additional words from the verse, “you shall transfer his inheritance….” And some others12 also conclude the text with a portion of a later verse,13 “It shall be14 for you a statute of judgment,”15 for these are the words that communicate the theme of the mitzvah concerning inheritance.

Nevertheless, since the standard printed texts of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah only cite the words, “When a man dies without a son…,”16 it is necessary to say that these words also communicate the theme of this mitzvah.

Simply put, it could be said that by citing the first words of the passage, Rambam has in mind the entire continuation of the passage. (Indeed, we find such a pattern regarding other mitzvos in the Mishneh Torah.)17 Nevertheless, since all the aspects of the Torah are characterized by exact precision, it is reasonable to say that these words alone communicate a fundamental concept regarding inheritance. In particular, this appears appropriate in this instance, since Rambam does not add the word vegomar, which would indicate that he is referring to the continuation of the passage.18

It is possible to say that Rambam’s conclusion of the listing of the positive mitzvos with the mitzvah “to judge the laws of inheritance” resembles the conclusion of the six orders of the Mishnah,19 which states: “In the [Ultimate] Future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bestow an inheritance upon every tzadik…, as it is written,20 ‘To endow those who love Me with an inheritance of substance.’ ” There are commentators21 who explain that the Mishnah concludes with this teaching22 specifically because it speaks of the reward for the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos, a reward that comes after the conclusion and completion of the study of the Torah and the fulfillment of its mitzvos. The Mishnah is precise in its wording, “In the [Ultimate] Future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bestow an inheritance…,” because the reward which comes after the conclusion of one’s service of the Torah and its mitzvos is the inheritance that will be granted in that Future Era.

It is possible to say that similar concepts apply to the passage from the Mishneh Torah under discussion. Rambam concludes with the mitzvah concerning inheritance because the conclusion and completion of all the mitzvos of the Torah is connected with the concept of inheritance, as stated above.

It is possible to explain the above by first introducing the following concept: The Torah relates the passage concerning inheritance as a continuation of the concept of the division of Eretz Yisrael into ancestral heritages.23 In response to the claim of Tzelofchad’s daughters,24 “Grant us an ancestral heritage together with our father’s brothers,” G‑d answered, beginning with the words, “When a man dies without a son….” With regard to the division of Eretz Yisrael, in addition to the general concept of dividing the Land into ancestral heritages,25 there were three specific concepts involved:

a) The Land of Israel was granted to the Nation of Israel as an inheritance and divided into ancestral heritages among the tribes.

b) It was divided according to the pattern, “to the more populous [tribes], you shall give a larger inheritance and to the less populous [tribes], you shall give a smaller inheritance.”26

c) “Specifically, by lot, should the Land be divided.”27

The implication is that, in particular, there are three ways through which the connection between Eretz Yisrael and the Jewish people is expressed:28 a) as a heritage, b) a division according to logic (“to a more populous [tribes]…”), and c) a division according to a lottery.29

It is possible to say that the reason why all three ways of division were necessary is that the giving of Eretz Yisrael to the Nation of Israel as an everlasting heritage involved more than simply transferring and allocating plots of the land to the people. Eretz Yisrael is “G‑d’s heritage,”30 and “The eyes of G‑d are always [focused] on it from the beginning of the year until the end of the year.”31 Therefore, it was appropriate that it be given specifically to the Jewish people for they, too, are the “inheritance of G‑d,”32 and intrinsically bound up with Him. Thus, our Sages say,33 “The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, ‘Let Israel who became My portion inherit the Land that became My portion.’ ” Granting Eretz Yisrael – “G‑d’s inheritance” – to the Nation of Israel thus reveals and expresses the Jewish people’s bond with Him.34

We find that there are three expressions of the Jews’ bond with G‑d, as we say in our preliminary morning prayers,35 “We are fortunate! How good is our portion! How pleasant is our lot! And how beautiful is our inheritance!” Likewise, there are three ways of describing the manner in which G‑d granted Eretz Yisrael to the Jews: as a portion, a lot, and an inheritance.

These three expressions – a portion, a lot, and an inheritance – follow an order, implying a pattern of successive ascents. Since “how beautiful is our inheritance” is the last, it can be understood36 that an inheritance possesses a deeper and superior dimension than the other two expressions.

Clarification is thus necessary:

a) How are these three categories defined and how do they differ vis-à-vis the nature of the relationship between the Jews and G‑d?37

b) How is it at all appropriate to speak of an inheritance – to quote the verse, “When a man dies…” – with regard to the connection between the Jews and G‑d?38

It can be said that the difference between “our portion” and “our lot” resembles the difference between a sale and a gift. A sale is dependent primarily on the money the purchaser pays for the item.39 By contrast, a gift is dependent upon the goodwill of the giver; he does not receive any payment from the recipient.

Similar concepts apply regarding the Divine beneficence bestowed upon the Jewish people. There are two general ways in which G‑d grants this beneficence:40

a) as reward for the observance of the mitzvos; this beneficence is elicited by man’s Divine service, in the lexicon of Chassidus, it comes from “an arousal from below;”

b) as a gift granted on G‑d’s own initiative, as a result of His “goodness, grace, kindness, and mercy,”41 and an “arousal from Above.”

In general, this reflects the distinction between “our portion” and “our lot.” “Our portion” points to the connection between the Jewish people and G‑d established through the Jews’ Divine service – and thus resembles “a sale.”42 “Our lot” describes the bond between the Jewish people and G‑d that results from G‑d’s having “chose[n] us from all nations.”43 The true concept of choice – free choice – is when an entity is not chosen for a reason or due to a calculated decision, i.e., because of the virtues, qualities, or the like that it possesses. Instead, it is chosen solely as a result of the will of the one who chooses. This resembles one who chooses by lot, for when a lot is cast, there is no reason or logic involved; there is no recognition of the merits of the article on which the lot falls. Instead, one relies on the lot entirely without knowing how it will fall – to cite the wording of the verse,44 “The lot is cast in the lap, but the entire outcome is dependent on G‑d.”

This resembles a gift which is dependent solely on the will of the giver – except that there is an aspect of a gift that resembles a sale. Although a gift is given because of the desire of the giver, there is a reason why he gives which is connected with the recipient, as our Sages state,45 “If [the recipient] did not do something that brought [the giver]satisfaction, he would not have given him a gift.”46 By contrast, a lottery has no connection to reason or logic whatsoever.

From a deeper perspective, “our portion” is connected not only with the Divine service of the Jewish people, but also with the very essence of their existence. The phrase,47 “G‑d’s portion is His people,” refers to (the soul of) a Jew;48 to cite the wording of Tanya,49 “the second soul within a Jew is an actual part of G‑d from Above.”

It could be said that, in this aspect, the quality possessed by the Jews alluded to by the term “our portion” surpasses that alluded to by the term “our lot.” Describing a Jew’s soul as “an actual part of G‑d from Above” expresses the innate virtue and holiness of a Jew’s very being. It could be said that this is the reason the Alter Rebbe associates the Jews as embodying “an actual part of G‑d” with their description as “children of the Omnipresent,”50 “children unto G‑d your L‑rd.”51

On this physical plane, the connection between a father and a son relates to the very being of the son. Similarly, in the analogue, describing the Jews as “G‑d’s children,” as it were, defines their very being. As such, the aspect of the Jews’ relationship to G‑d implied by the term “our portion” reflects the spiritual qualities they possess and their inherent virtues. In this way, that term bears a similarity to a sale which is dependent on the purchaser’s payment of something of value.52

By contrast, the aspect of the Jews’ relationship to G‑d implied by the term “our lot” – which reflects G‑d’s choice of the Jews – does not focus on the virtues of their being. In relation to Him, no matter how lofty their being is, it is, by definition, limited since their virtue and holiness is connected with their individual existence, which has inherent bounds. From this perspective, “our lot” highlights a loftier dimension, the connection between the Jews and G‑d that comes entirely because of the initiative of G‑d, the One Who chooses.53 He is entirely boundless and unlimited and, thus, the connection stemming from this rung is of an entirely unlimited nature.54

It can be said that this is the implication of the twofold declaration,55 “For you are a holy nation unto G‑d your L‑rd and G‑d chose you,” as Rashi56 comments, “You are a holy nation, your [innate] holiness [stems] from your ancestors. Furthermore, G‑d chose you .” The Jewish people are “a holy nation” because “you are children unto G‑d your L‑rd;”57 this reflects their innate holiness. In addition, they possess a loftier dimension: “Furthermore, G‑d chose you”– in them, is manifest G‑d’s choice that stems from His Essence.58

Although a gift is initiated by the giver, there still exists a connection to the recipient. After all, is not a gift59 something that the giver grants to another person, the recipient? Moreover, the giver is attracted to the recipient; he grants the gift because the recipient generated satisfaction for him.

In this, there is a similarity to the concept of a lottery. Even though choosing an object by means of casting a lot is not connected with the positive qualities of the object that is thus chosen, there is nonetheless a dimension of acquisition – a transfer of something of substance – involved, for, when properties are divided by casting lots, the person casting the lots wants to receive one of several entities and he casts the lots to determine how he will divide those entities with another person. It is only that the entity he receives is not determined by his choice, but by the lottery.

An inheritance represents a third – and distinctly different – concept. Inheritance does not involve giving something to a recipient. On the contrary, in a legal context, the heir is the embodiment of the person whose estate he is inheriting; he is not a separate person to whom the estate from his parent or relative is transferred. Instead – to borrow the wording of a verse,60 “In the place of your forbearers will be your sons” – the heir assumes the position of the person whose estate he is inheriting because he is essentially one with him. Accordingly, as a matter of course, he assumes ownership of the property.61

As such, an inheritance possesses an advantage over a sale and a gift. A sale and a gift (and a lottery) involve something being given or transferred from one person to another. They do not involve a person as he exists for himself, but rather as he transfers an entity to another person outside of himself. The difference between a sale and a gift concerns only the reason for the transfer. With regard to a sale, the purchaser (more precisely, his money) is the reason for the transfer, while the reason for a gift is the desire of the giver. However, even the desire of the giver is to convey the gift to another person.

By contrast, an inheritance is not being transferred to a person other than the owner of the estate. The heir receives the property because he assumes the identity of the owner of the estate.62

This is the novel and unique dimension that our relationship with G‑d described with the phrase, “How beautiful is our inheritance,” possesses, elevating it above the relationships implied by “our portion” and “our lot.”

“Our portion” describes the Jews’ connection to G‑d as G‑d contracts and limits Himself, as it were, to enable the Divine service and the inherent virtues of the Jewish people to take on significance for Him. However, with regard to G‑d Himself, it is said,63 “He has neither a son nor a brother.” The description of the Jews as G‑d’s children applies to G‑d only64 as He limits Himself, as it were, to been described as a Father.65

“Our lot” – which reflects how “He has chosen us” – refers to the connection between G‑d and the Jewish people that stems from the level within G‑dliness and within the Jewish people where independent existence is of no significance. The Jews’ connection to G‑d is solely dependent upon G‑d’s free choice.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that, on this level, the Jews do not possess any significance at all. Saying that G‑d chose us necessitates G‑d choosing something – an entity that is not Him – for choosing implies a relationship with something else. It is only that the reason for this choice is not because of the positive virtues of the entity that is chosen, but solely because of the will and choice of the One who chooses.66

By contrast, the description of our relationship with G‑d as “our inheritance” implies that the Jewish people are, as it were, intrinsically and absolutely one with G‑d’s Essence; “Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one.”67 The bond between the Jews and G‑d involves His Essence, which transcends any conception of tzimtzum (contraction and self-limitation) whatsoever.68 Therefore, the connection at this level is referred to as “our inheritance.” In this instance, the heir becomes entirely identified with the one from whom he is inheriting because he shares the essence of that person. His individual identity is not relevant at all.

These three dimensions of the connection between the Jews and G‑d – our portion, our lot, and our inheritance – are, as a whole, connected with three general eras in the history of our people: a) the era before the Giving of the Torah, b) the era following the Giving of the Torah, i.e., the time during which the Jews carry out their Divine service in the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos, and c) the Ultimate Future, the time when the Jews will receive their reward for their observance, including the ultimate perfection of the reward.

It is possible to explain the above as follows: Even before the Giving of the Torah, the Jews were referred to as G‑d’s children, as stated in connection with the Exodus from Egypt,69 “My son, my firstborn, Israel.” Although that event changed the nature of the Jews’ relationship with G‑d, even beforehand, the unique quality of the Jewish people in relation to other nations was manifest. Indeed, this is what led to the Exodus from Egypt. However, this uniqueness was a quality manifest in their individual existence70 and their Divine service and measured according to the limits of a mortal being.

At Sinai, it was revealed that “You chose us from all the nations and tongues”71 – G‑d’s choice of the Jewish people became manifest, as explained above.72 This was expressed through the Giving of the Torah and its mitzvos to the Jewish people.73 G‑d’s choice of the Jewish people introduced a new and unique quality to the Jews’ observance of the Torah and its mitzvos as they were given at Sinai in relation to their Divine service – and even that of the Patriarchs – before the Giving of the Torah. In that era, Divine service was measured according to the power that could be generated for it by a created being, each person according to his own strength. By contrast, at the Giving of the Torah – when G‑d “gave us His Torah”74 – the power of the Creator became vested in the Torah and its mitzvos.

In the Ultimate Future, after the the Jews reach consummate perfection in the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos, there will be revealed the essential virtue of the Jewish people – “how beautiful is our inheritance!” – the relationship the Jews share with G‑d as an inheritance. It will be manifest that the Jews and G‑d’s Essence are one, as it were.68

It could be said that this is the explanation of the conclusion of the six orders of the Mishnah,19 “In the [Ultimate] Future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bestow an inheritance upon every tzadik…, as it is written, ‘to endow those who love Me with an inheritance of substance.’ ”

Rambam75 interprets the term yesh used in that teaching, which was translated as “of substance,” as referring to “the eternal existence76 that has no end,” i.e., the Yesh HaAmiti,77 G‑d’s Essence,78 the only entity that can truly be said to exist. The phrase, “to endow those who love Me with an inheritance of substance,” refers to the Jews becoming one with the Yesh HaAmiti, as it were. The precise wording used, “to endow those who love Me with an inheritance of substance,” implies that the Jews’ bond with Yesh HaAmiti, G‑d’s absolute existence,79 stems from the concept of inheritance – that the Jews are the essence of the One Who is the source of their inheritance, as explained above.79

Based on this explanation, we can understand why Rambam cites the verse, “When a man dies without a son…,” as a prooftext for the mitzvah of inheritance. The inner spiritual meaning of the concept of inheritance is communicated specifically regarding one “without a son.”

The qualities implied by the terms “our portion” and “our lot” relate to levels of G‑dliness through which G‑d limits Himself and descends to a rung where He can be “a Father,” i.e., one who allows for the existence of another entity.80 This potential brings into being such an existence, “a son,” i.e., the Jewish people. Even the term “our lot,” which refers to G‑d’s choice of the Jewish people, refers to a level of G‑dliness that allows for existence outside of Himself. For the concept of choice implies that He is choosing something else, the Jewish people, and by manifesting His choice in them, they become His “children.”81

By contrast, “our inheritance,” bonds us with G‑d’s Essence – this is a level of G‑dliness where He is “without a son,” i.e., He transcends any possibility of there being an entity outside of Him, even one that He chooses. This level is the ultimate source of the Jewish people, for “Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one.”67

Adapted from sichos delivered on 13 Nissan and Shabbos Parshas Pinchas, 5745 (1985) Likkutei Sichos, Volume 28, P. 174ff.