“Our father died in the desert, and he was not part of the assembly who gathered against G-d in the congregation of Korach” (Bamidbar 27:3). As a prelude to their request for their father’s inheritance, the daughters of Tzelafchad told Moshe and the other leaders that their father had not been part of Korach’s rebellion. The Talmud (Bava Basra 118b), quoting the Sifre, says that the wording used by the daughters of Tzelafchad referenced three groups; the spies who dissuaded the nation from trying to conquer Canaan, Korach’s “congregation,” and “the complainers.” All three of these groups lost their share in the Promised Land, so before making their case that they should inherit their father’s share, Tzelafchad’s daughters had to make it clear that their father had not lost his portion by being part of any of these groups.

It is rather intuitive that those who spoke negatively about the Promised Land — causing the entire nation to think poorly of it, thereby delaying the nation’s entrance into it by almost four decades — lost their share in it. But what about the other categories? Why was the consequences of those sins also to lose their portion? Before going any further, it must be pointed out that there really weren’t two other categories; the Talmud comes to the conclusion that “the complainers” were really a subset of the Korach rebellion. Whether they were the 250 men who brought the incense (Rashbam, Rashba) or those who, after the rebels died, complained that Moshe had “killed G-d’s nation” (Ri M’gash; see Ritva for another possibility), they were either part of the rebellion or its most ardent supporters (see Rashash). What was it about this rebellion that caused its participants and/or supporters to lose their portion of the Promised Land?

Rashi seems to connect not getting a share in the land with “causing others to sin.” It’s true that anyone who was part of Korach’s rebellion can be said to have “caused others to sin” if they drew others into their misguided cause. However, this could be said about any of the sins committed in the desert; why was this sin singled out? Besides, a closer look at the wording of the Sifre (upon which Rashi is based) indicated that the expression “caused others to sin” is not meant to explain why the previously mentioned categories of sinners lost their share of the Promised Land, but is an additional category; those who caused others to sin, including sins not already listed, cannot get a share in the land.

Netziv (in his commentary on the Sifre) says that for the sake of G-d’s honor it would be inappropriate for these sinners to have a permanent remembrance in Israel (see Rus 4:5 for a similar concept); it is unclear why this applies more to this particular sin than to any others. Meshech Chachmah differentiates between sins whose punishment is meted out through the court system and those carried out by rulers against insurgents, as the possessions and property of the latter are confiscated. This might be what the daughters of Tzelafchad were thinking, but it is unlikely that giving the confiscated property to Yehoshua and Kalev (according to one opinion in the Talmud) or adding it to the rest of the land to be divided among that person’s Tribe (the other opinion in the Talmud) constitutes “being confiscated by the government” (as opposed to if it were given to the Tribe of Levi or to the Kohanim). [In any case, our discussion is about why those involved with Korach lost their land, not why the daughters of Tzelafchad thought they did.]

Another possibility is based on the nature of Korach’s rebellion. Inheriting a portion in the Promised Land is irrelevant to those Levi’im who wanted to be Kohanim, as Levi’im don’t “inherit” land anyway. Those firstborn who were upset that their role in the Temple was given to the Levi’im, on the other hand, would have received a (double) portion in the land had they not rebelled against Moshe and G-d. (Bear in mind that Tzelafchad was a firstborn son.) It could be suggested that expressing their desire to be like Levi’im so forcefully was tantamount to rejecting the land, since, had they been successful in reclaiming that role, they would have had to give up inheriting a portion in the land. Therefore, as a punishment, they lost the land they wanted to turn their backs on. However, the Levi’im not receiving a portion of the land was not communicated until after the rebellion had been quashed (18:23-24); how could the firstborn be accused of rejecting the land if they were unaware that having the status of a Levi meant not getting a portion of it? [This could be another reason why the nation was now more confident that the Levi’im would successfully prevent them from getting too close to the sanctuary than they were before (see http://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/parashas-korach-5773), as they now knew that being a Levi was a full time job, not one split with being a farmer.]

Although Korach may have had ulterior motives, the “cause” he rallied everyone around was that “the entire assembly [is made up of individuals who] are all holy” (bracketed explanation inserted to explain the transition from singular to plural), so there was no need for centralized leadership — “why do you (Moshe) lift yourself up over the congregation of G-d?” (Bamidbar 16:3). Those who complained after the rebels were killed referred to the deceased rebels as “G-d’s nation” (17:6). Even G-d referred to their headquarters as their “Mishkan” (16:24); cynically implying that they had exchanged G-d’s sanctuary for their own. Do motivated, sincere, knowledgeable individuals need leaders to help them reach their potential, or can they do it by themselves? “Make for yourself a Rav” (Avos 1:6). As important as it is to work together with others as a group, for ultimate spiritual growth having a teacher/mentor is indispensable. Those who joined Korach’s rebellion were convinced that such leadership was unnecessary, even counterproductive. (Choosing the wrong leaders would be; one of the main reasons we, as individuals, have to be learned in our own right is to be able to determine who to follow/learn from.)

That leadership is necessary is evident from the very beginning of our Parashah. As Rabbi Moshe Shamah (“Recalling the Covenant”) points out, the fact that the plague was killing those who were enticed by the daughters of Moav did not prevent others from continuing to sin. Wasn’t it obvious that G-d must be upset with those involved with P’or, since a plague was wiping them out? Yet, it wasn’t until Pinachas stepped up and killed Zimri and Kuzbi that they got the message. Left to our own devices, we can’t always see the bigger (or smaller) picture, no matter how obvious it may seem in hindsight. Finding someone to consult with is the only way to ensure a better chance at success. As Moshe beseeched G-d (when he asked Him to appoint a leader to replace him), “G-d’s assembly should not be like sheep that have no shepherd” (27:17). We, as individuals, need a leader, and we, as a nation, need leaders.

Once in the Promised Land, leadership would not be easily accessible. Yes, there were “Cities of Levi’im” dispersed throughout the land, contact with Kohanim and Levi’im was necessary to give them t’rumah and ma’aser, and three times a year every adult male had to make the trip to the Temple and interact with Kohanim and Levi’im in order to bring the required offerings. But being your own boss, farming your own land, has the built-in danger of thinking you are a self-made man, without needing a superior to help guide you through life. Even though agricultural success does not translate to spiritual success, it is often difficult for someone who is financially successful, and is a “leader among men” in the physical world (even if it just means being the “leader” of the family unit) to acknowledge the need to rely on someone else for other matters. Although those who were directly involved with Korach’s rebellion (including “the complainers,” see 17:14) never made it to the Promised Land, taking away their portion sent the message that anyone who thinks they can be spiritually successful without “making for himself a Rav” cannot succeed there. Their children, who received a much smaller portion, “inheriting” only through their grandfather (whose portion was shared with all the other grandchildren) and not through both their father and grandfather, would have a constant reminder of the dangers of not seeking religious guidance.

The daughters of Tzelafchad wanted to inherit their father’s very large share (three times larger than other shares, see Bava Basra 116b). Before doing so, they explained why having such a large share would not be problematic, as their father didn’t have the same shortcomings as those involved with Korach. Even when it came to whom they could marry (36:11), they followed what Moshe told them. (Obviously, making a request of a leader is not incompatible with accepting his leadership.) Once that was established, they could proceed with making their request.