Moshe's death is attested to by God Deutoronimy 34,5 (see Sotah 13b), There were no other witnesses.

At what point did Gershom and Eliezer inherit his posessions and

Assuming he and Tzippora were not divorced. (Moshe's divorcing Tzipora) , would Tzippora have been permitted to remarry?

We do have the famous story that rejects rulings from God so it is not a given that God's attestation is acceptable testimony.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven)

  • 2
    He IS shomer shabbas, after all.... Commented Jan 11, 2019 at 19:18
  • 1
    @Gary, your whole pshet'l is flatly contradicted by the continuation of the Gemara there, that Hashem Himself "laughed and said, "My children have overpowered Me.'" (I'd also like to see some source for your notion that not following R. Eliezer's opinion in halachah is in any way comparable to not listening to a prophet's warnings to do teshuvah.)
    – Meir
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 21:09
  • 1
    @Meir-I'm far from a Talmudic expert, but up until that point, it seems R Eliezer was pretty well respected, especially in Lydda. I compared him to the classical prophets because he could get HaShem to ruin crops(like Samuel), cause things to burn(like Elijah) and kill his brother in law Nasi Gamliel(like Micaiah and Jeremiah did to false prophets). It's my opinion that one Rabbi claiming he met Elijah and heard that HaShem was laughing and saying he was outfoxed by the same bunch of Rabbis that ignored His voice that was heard by a group of them just doesn't ring true. Feel free to disagree.
    – Gary
    Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 1:47
  • 1
    @Gary: he was well respected after that too - see the continuation of the story, where R. Akiva breaks the news to him carefully "lest the world be destroyed," and R. Gamliel knows that a storm threatening him is "because of R. Eliezer ben Horkenus." That prophets were able to ruin crops, etc., isn't because of their stature as prophets, but as righteous people to whose prayers Hashem listens; in that sense R. Eliezer is no different than the many other tzaddikim for whom such things were done (see Berachos 58a and Shabbos 34a for two examples).
    – Meir
    Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 15:33
  • 1
    And if you want to claim that R. Nosson (who met Eliyahu) was lying - "it just doesn't ring true" - then I don't know that you have any basis for believing any part of the previous story either; it's all in the same passage of Gemara. Mind you, R. Nosson is no less than one of the coauthors of the Mishnah (see Bava Metzia 86a), on which the Gemara is based; if you're going to claim that he wasn't telling the truth, then you're not just "far from a Talmudic expert," but someone whose attitude towards the Gemara needs some serious adjustment.
    – Meir
    Commented Jan 14, 2019 at 15:36

3 Answers 3


Tziporah was definitely allowed to get married From Hashem's testimony as Yevamos 122a says: A woman who hears from a BasKol (heavenly voice from a Malach communicating Hashems wishes Sotah 33a) that her husband died can get remaried according to Beis Hillel.

ומשיאין על פי בת קול מעשה באחד שעמד על ראש ההר ואמר איש פלוני בן פלוני ממקום פלוני מת הלכו ולא מצאו שם אדם והשיאו את אשתו

With regards to inheritance from a deceased father we see with the daughters of Tzelofchod that when Moshe asked from Hashem who will inherit Tzelofchod, Hashem told him his daughters shall inherit him and they followed the testimony from Hashem. Bamidbar 36,2:.
ואדני צוה בה' לתת את נחלת צלפחד אחינו לבנתיו.
So so too when Hashem said:.
וימת שם משה - "Moshe died there" (Devarim 34,5)
that meant that Hashem was telling Moshe's sons that their father Passed away and therefore this Passuk applied(Bamidbar 27,8).
איש כי ימות ובן אין לו והעברתם את נחלתו לבתו - "A man who dies and does not have a son his daughter shall inherit him",
So since Moshe had sons after he died they Inheritted him.

In fact this logic could be used according to Bais Shammai who argues (Yevamos 122a) that a BasKol cannot be relied upon, we have to say That Since Hashem declared "וימת שם משה" this testimony is a ruling from Hashem and is better than a baskol was specifically telling Tzipporah to get remarried -just like Hashem forbade a Married woman to another man so too he can permit her- as The Passuk says clearly Devarim 20,7 that a woman gets remarried once her husband is classified as dead as Hashem decreed(see Kiddushin 13b):.
פֶּן־יָמוּת֙ בַּמִּלְחָמָ֔ה וְאִ֥ישׁ אַחֵ֖ר יִקָּחֶֽנָּה- Lest her husband dies and another man may wed her.

  • In Gemara Yebamot this bat kol is a man, ...
    – kouty
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 12:42
  • 1
    @kouty read carefully הלכו ולא מצאו שם אדם והשיאו את אשתו this means there was no man there.
    – user15464
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 13:01
  • The gemara gives a checking to be sure that this is not a shed. i.e. to be sure that this is a man. not right?
    – kouty
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 14:24
  • 1
    @kouty my friend the Gemora is talking about the second case in the Mishna of finding a pit and hearing a voice from the pit and seeing a shadow of a person but not a shadow of a shadow ..thats when we are are worried it is a Sheid not in the case of bas kol see Shulchaqn aruch he.wikisource.org/wiki/…
    – user15464
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 19:39
  • 1
    @kouty the Shulchan Aruch i quoted earlier clearly mentions 2 cases 1. where he didn't see anything,andheard a Bas Kol 2. he saw a shape in a pit where he has to be able to see a Shadow of a Shadow.(the Rambam mishayos also mentions 2 seperate cases) While you brought the Tosfos Yom Tov pshat that does argue Bas kol is a person, It is not mentioned in the Poskim on Shulchan Aruch and He would have explained had a Bas Kol meant anything other than a Heavenly voice. inorder not to cause problems with mamzerim.
    – user15464
    Commented Jan 13, 2019 at 23:07

The case of The Oven of Akhnai in Bava Metzia 59a-b involves a psak Halacha. The Rabbis had all the facts in front of them and were arguing what the halacha should be. As a result, the bas kol could not over rule the final psak.

In the case of Moshe Rabbeinu, the actual facts were unknowable. As a result, Hashem could let the Bnai Yisrael know what the facts of the case were by means of revelation. This was not a matter of bearing witness. As a result of being shown that Moshe was buried by Hashem, the Bnai Yisrael could testify as to what they saw. It is not a matter of Hashem being a witness as in a court case.


See mishna Avot 4, 22:

והוא בעל דין, והוא עתיד לדון; שאין לפניו לא עוולה, ולא שכחה, ולא משוא פנים, ולא מקח שוחד--שהכול שלו.‏

G-d has a special status of witness regarding the accomplishment of the Divine Justice. But I. Bet din it's different. Concerning the death of someone the kol that he's dead is sufficient. Or one posul witness to reach this wife in the rabbinic context, "Isha dayka uminseba" with the rabbinic stringencies explained in mishna Yebamot 10, 1:

האישה שהלך בעלה למדינת הים, באו ואמרו* לה (ברטנורא: שאמר לה עד אחד see mishna 16, 7 מקובל אני מרבן גמליאל הזקן, שמשיאין את האישה על פי עד אחד) מת בעליך, נישאת, ואחר כך בא בעלה--תצא מזה ומזה, וצריכה גט מזה ומזה. ואין לה כתובה, ולא פירות, ולא בליות, ולא מזונות, על זה ועל זה; ואם נטלה מזה ומזה, תחזיר. והוולד ממזר מזה ומזה. ולא זה וזה מיטמאין לה, ולא זה וזה זכאין לא במציאתה, ולא במעשה ידיה, ולא בהפר נדריה. הייתה בת ישראל, נפסלה מן הכהונה; ובת לוי, ממעשר; בת כוהן, מן התרומה. ואין יורשיו של זה ויורשיו של זה יורשים את כתובתה. מתו--אחיו של זה ואחיו של זה חולצים, ולא מייבמין.‏

I assume that G-d isn't bad than an ed posul.

Additionally the death of Moshe was announced and the Mishna says in Gittin

See Tosfot Yom Tov Gittin 7, 4

ועדים לשון עדות בעלמא הוא. כמ"ש במשנה ב' פרק בתרא דיבמות וריש פ"י שם. וכן במשנה ט' פרק ב' דכתובות

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .