Women's Turf
INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
*********************************************************
Dedicated by
the Wise and Etshalom families
in memory of Rabbi Aaron M. Wise, whose yahrzeit is 21 Tamuz.
Y'hi Zikhro Barukh.
*********************************************************
In memory of our
beloved father and grandfather,
Fred Stone, Ya'acov Ben Yitzchak,
whose yahrzeit will be Sunday 25 Tammuz, July 15th.
Ellen, Stanley, Jacob Chaya, Zack, Yael, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana, and Gabi Stone.
*********************************************************
PARASHAT PINCHAS
Women's Turf
I. Women of Valor
In the section of 'Pinchas' (Numbers 25:10-30:1), the people of Israel
begin preparations towards their appropriation of the promised land. Moses counts the people in order to
divide the land amongst the nation: "Among these the land shall be apportioned
as shares" (Numbers 26:53). Our
section lists the number of people in each tribe and their different families. Each family will be apportioned a
part of the greater tribal inheritance and divide it amongst the sons of the
family. One family, however, feels
this method of division to be lacking:
"The daughters of Tzelofchad, the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of
Machir the son of Menasheh, of the families of Menasheh the son of Joseph came
forward. The names of the daughters
were Machla, Noa, Chogla, Milka and Tirza.
They stood before Moses, Elazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole
assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, 'Our father
died in the wilderness. He was not
one of the faction, Korach's faction, which banded together against the Lord,
but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Why should our father's name be lost
to his clan just because he had no son!
Give us a possession among our father's kinsmen!' Moses brought their case before the
Lord" (Numbers 27:1-5).
The daughters of Tzelofchad come before Moses and the leaders of the
community with an interesting claim.
Their father, Tzelofchad passed away, leaving behind him five daughters
but no sons. According to the plans
for dividing the land, only sons were to inherit the family plots. Daughters would marry, join the
tribe of their husbands and live on their lands.
Thus, for example, if a woman from the tribe of Dan would marry a man
from the tribe of Judah, the woman would move from Dan to Judah and live on her
husband's plot of land. The sons,
on the other hand, were slated to inherit their fathers' land and continue his
name. Now, with Tzelofchad, there
was nobody to continue his name! He
had only daughters. Who would
inherit his lands? Who would
continue his name? The daughters of
Tzelofchad decide to take their problem to the very top, to the leaders of the
nation.
The opening verse of our narrative recounts the lineage of the daughters
of Tzelofchad: "The daughters of Tzelofchad, the son of Chefer, the son of
Gilad, the son of Machir the son of Menasheh, of the families of Menasheh the
son of Joseph came forward." In
addition to being unusually detailed and tracing the ancestry of the daughters
of Tzelofchad six generations, the verse is, as Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben
Yitzchak, France, 1040-1105) notes, unnecessarily repetitive:
"'Of the families of Menasheh the son of Joseph' (27:1) - Why is this stated? Was it not already stated, 'the son
of Menasheh?' It is to inform you
that Joseph cherished the land, as it is stated, 'you shall carry up my bones'
(Genesis 50:25) and his daughters cherished the land, as it is stated, 'Give us
a possession [among our father's kinsmen]'" (Numbers 27:4).
The verse repeats the name Menasheh: "the son of Menasheh of the families
of Menasheh son of Joseph." Rashi,
citing our Sages, explains that the Torah wanted to highlight the connection to
Joseph and therefore goes out of its way to state that Menasheh was the son of
Joseph. This lineage does not only
reveal blood ties; it points to a common ideology. Just as Joseph loved the land
of Israel and requested that his remains be brought out from Egypt and buried in
Israel, so do the daughters of Tzelofchad relish inheriting a part in the land. Although not yet in the promised
land, their hearts yearn for it just as Joseph did while he was in Egypt.
Rabbi Hirsch emphasizes that the daughter's primary motivation was not
the acquisition of land but rather the perpetuation of their father's name:
"'Let not our father's name be lost to his clan' (27:4) in the mouth of the
daughters has an ethical meaning above the mere material interest in vested
property. Father, grandfather and
great-grandfather had all formed separate branches of the family and in the
forthcoming distribution of the land according to families, their names would be
perpetuated in the name of the property allotted to them. However, in the case of Tzelofchad
the perpetuation of his name would come to an end ... and the extraordinary
opportunity for its perpetuation through the distribution of the land in the
names of the family would be lost and his name would cease to be remembered."
The daughters of Tzelofchad were concerned lest their father's name be
forgotten. They felt a
responsibility to see to the perpetuation of
his name. They combine both
future and past. They eagerly
anticipate the nation's entry to and inheritance of the land of Israel and,
simultaneously, wish to insure the commemoration of their father, of the
previous generation. Entry into a
new land does not mean a disconnection or negation of the past. To the contrary, the daughters of
Tzelofchad demonstrate how the land of Israel can promote and deepen our link to
the past.
Now that we understand their motivation, let us attempt to appreciate the
character of these women. What may
we infer from the biblical narrative about their character? Our Sages recount the praise of
these women:
"The daughters of Tzelofchad were wise, learned and righteous ..." (Babylonian
Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra 119b).
These women were smart. They
knew how to present their case in a most convincing manner. According to our Sages, they could
even hold their own in a legal debate with Moses! However, they were not only clever,
they were also learned in Jewish law.
Our Sages state that they were able to infer from Scripture the minutiae
of the laws of inheritance.
Finally, they are regarded as righteous women for their commitment to the
perpetuation of their father's name.
We might add an additional quality of these ladies which stands out in
the biblical narrative. These women
were courageous. Scripture stresses
that "they stood before Moses, Elazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole
assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (27:2). The Torah stresses how they were
willing to present their case before the entire leadership of the nation. One could imagine the pressure they
must have felt when standing before the greatest of all prophets and before the
entire assembly. They,
nevertheless, did not shy away from their convictions. They believed they were right and
they were willing to take their case to the highest court in the nation.
Interestingly, our Sages note a general spiritual advantage of the women
of Israel over the men during the travels in the wilderness:
"In that generation the women repaired that which the men blundered. Thus you find [in the sin of the
golden calf] that Aaron told [the Israelites], 'Take off the gold rings that are
on the ears of your wives' (Exodus 32:2), but the women refused ... as is proved
by the fact that it says, 'And all the people took off the gold rings that were
in THEIR ears' (ibid. 3), the women not participating in making the calf. It was the same in the case of the
spies who uttered an evil report: 'And the MEN ... when they returned, they
caused the whole community to mutter against him [Moses]' (Numbers 14:36). The women, however, were not with
them in their plot, as may be inferred from the fact that it is written ...'For
the Lord had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. There was not left a man of them
save Calev the son of Yefuneh' (Numbers 26:65).
Thus the text speaks of 'a man' but not of 'a woman.' This was because the men had been
unwilling to enter the land. The
women, however, drew near to ask for an inheritance in the land (see Numbers
27:4)" (Bemidbar Rabba 21:10).
According to our Sages, the women did not take part in the sin of the
golden calf (Exodus 32) and in the sin of the scouts (Numbers 13-14). The righteousness of the daughters
of Tzelofchad is one example of the general piety of the women of Israel.
II. Stumping Moses
The question raised by the daughters of Tzelofchad is a good one. In fact, it is so good that it even
baffles Moses. He is compelled to
refer the question to the final arbiter: "Moses brought their case before the
Lord" (27:5).
Moses' unfamiliarity with the laws of female land inheritance is
surprising. It is a fairly basic
component of the laws of inheritance.
How could it be that this issue was unknown to Moses?
The question of Moses' unfamiliarity with the law does not only relate to
the episode of the daughters of Tzelofchad.
There are three other instances recounted in the Torah in which Moses is
faced with a legal question for which he has no answer. The first two involve the
perpetration of a sin for which Moses does not know the consequent punishment. Torah recounts in relation to the
blasphemer that:
"The Israelite's woman's son then blasphemed God's name, and he was brought to
Moses ... and he was placed in custody, until the decision of the Lord should be
made clear to them" (Leviticus 24:11,12).
Moses did not know the punishment that was coming to the blasphemer. Similarly, with regard to the
desecrator of the Sabbath:
"While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they discovered a man collecting
wood on the Sabbath day. Those who
found him as he was gathering wood brought him before Moses ... He was placed in
custody for it had not been specified what should be done to him" (Numbers
15:32-34).
The third case relates to the Israelites who, due to their being ritually
impure, could not partake of the Passover sacrifice:
"There were, however, some men who had come in contact with the dead, and were
therefore ritually unclean, so that they could not prepare the Passover offering
on that day. During the course of
that day, they approached Moses and Aaron.
'We are ritually unclean as a result of contact with the dead,' the men
said to [Moses]. 'Why should we
lose out and not be able to present God's offering at its set time with the rest
of the Israelites?' Moses said to
them, 'Stand by, and let me here what instructions the Lord gives regarding your
case'" (Numbers 9:6-8).
How could it be that Moses was unfamiliar with such basic laws? One approach advanced by our Sages
is to limit the extent of Moses' unacquaintedness with the law:
"Rabbi Shimon of Shikmona says: 'Moses our master knew that the daughters of
Tzelofchad were to be heiresses, but he did not know whether or not they were to
take the portion of the firstborn ... Moses, furthermore, knew that the man who
gathered sticks [on the Sabbath] was to be put to death ... but he did not know
by which [kind of] death he was to die" (Bava Batra 119a).
Moses knew that the daughters of Tzelofchad deserved to inherit their
father's land; he simply didn't know how much of it they should inherit. He was unsure whether, according to
law, they should inherit also their father's additional rights as the firstborn. Similarly, with regard to the
desecrator of the Sabbath. Moses
knew that the desecrator's punishment would be death. He did not know which form of death
would be administered. Thus, our
Sages limit the extent of Moses' doubts, thereby, mitigating our bewilderment at
his unacquaintedness with the law.
However, this approach is not unanimous amongst our Sages:
"'He was placed in custody for it had not been specified what should be done to
him' (Numbers 15:34) - This teaches us that Moses knew that he [the Sabbath
desecrator] would receive the death penalty, but did not know which death
penalty he would receive. Rabbi
Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says, 'Moses knew neither whether the desecrator
deserved the death penalty nor how [if he did deserve the death penalty] he
should be killed.'" (Sifrei Zuta, Numbers 15:34)
We see that Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon rejects the attempt to
limit Moses' doubt to a mere detail.
Moses did not even know if the desecrator deserved the death penalty. However, even if we accept the
former view, that Moses' doubts related to the details of the punishment, we
still find ourselves in a quandary.
Limiting Moses' doubts may diminish the problem, but it does not resolve it
completely.
According to our Sages, as cited in the Sifra (Legal exegesis of the
Sages to the book of Leviticus) all the commandments with their minute details
were given at Mount Sinai:
"'The Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai ...' (Leviticus 25:1) - Why does
Scripture relate regarding 'shemitta' (the seventh year of the agricultural
cycle during which it is forbidden to work the land) [that it was commanded] at
Mount Sinai? Were not all the
commandments given at Mount Sinai?
[The Torah states this to teach us that] just as the general principles and the
fine details of 'shemitta' were conveyed at Mount Sinai, so were the general
principles and the fine details of all the commandments conveyed at Mount Sinai"
(Sifra, Leviticus 25:1)
Why does the Torah open the section dealing with the laws of 'shemitta'
by informing us that they were given at Mount Sinai? Our Sages reply that the Torah uses
the commandment of 'shemitta' to teach us that not only the underlying
principles of the commandments, but also their details were transmitted at
Sinai.
If this is the case, if God revealed to Moses the commandments with all
their details, then how are we to understand Moses' unacquaintedness with the
law? If we assume that Moses heard
all the minute details of each commandment then limiting the extent of Moses'
doubts does not help us. He should
have been familiar with the details as well!
The Maharal, in his commentary to the section of the blasphemer, asks
this very question:
"If, according to tradition the whole Torah, its general principles, specific
details and minutiae were given at Mount Sinai, then how is it that Moses did
not know the law [of the blasphemer]?
It would therefore seem that when we state that the whole Torah, its
general principles, specific details and minutiae were given at Mount Sinai, the
intent is that Moses was given the exegetic tools to infer the law by comparing,
generalizing or interpreting the text, and any instance in which he was
incapable of understanding, then God would have to explicitly reveal to him the
law" (Gur Arieh, Leviticus 24:13).
The Maharal reinterprets the tradition that Moses received the whole
Torah to its finest details at Mount Sinai to refer to the capacity to infer the
law from Scripture. According to
this approach, every instance in which Moses did not know the law is not due to
his forgetting the law, but rather, to his incapacity to infer it from the
Scripture. Once again, this
approach may alleviate the problem, but it does not resolve it completely. We must still understand why Moses
was occasionally incapable of inferring the law from the Torah?
In light of these irresolvable difficulties, our Sages advanced an
alternative approach to Moses' unacquaintedness with the law.
"Some hold that the law was hidden from Moses. There are cases where righteous
men have boasted of some matter connected with a precept and the Holy One,
blessed be He, weakened their power...Moses had said, "The case that is too
difficult for you, bring to me"(Deuteronomy 1:17). When the daughters of
Zelophhad, however, came He concealed the law from him. "Moses brought their
case before the Lord. The plea of Zelophhad's daughter is just" (Numbers
27:5)...The holy one, blessed be He, said to him, "Did you not say, 'The case
that is too difficult for you, bring to me'. The law with which you are
acquainted is decided by the women!" (Numbers Rabba 21:12)
Moses' unfamiliarity with the law is a punishment! God purposefully concealed the law
from Moses to teach him his limitations and to remind him of the source of all
his wisdom. Moses sinned when
stating, after selecting the judges of Israel, "The case that is too difficult
for you, bring to me, and I will hear it" (Deuteronomy 1:17). Moses evinces a certain haughtiness
in addressing the judges. He
highlights his superiority and gives the impression that he is the 'seat of
wisdom,' when, in fact, God is.
Moses should have said "The case that is too difficult for you bring to GOD." The punishment for intellectual
haughtiness is ignorance. God
conceals the law from Moses in order to humble him; the daughters of Tzelofchad
know that which you don't!
The approach which views Moses' unacquaintedness with the law as a
punishment for haughtiness is disputed by the Sages:
"Rabbi Nachman son of Rabbi Yitzchak objected: 'Is it written 'And I will cause
you to hear it?' It is written 'And
I will hear it'" (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 8a).
Rabbi Nachman son of Rabbi Isaac the Sage points out that Moses states
"The case that is too difficult for you, bring to me, and I will HEAR it." Implicit in Moses' words is the
acknowledgment that he must hear the answer from God. It is therefore incorrect to ascribe
to Moses any conceit. The Talmud
then advances a totally different approach:
"In truth, the passage of the laws of inheritance should have been written
through Moses our teacher, but since the daughters of Tzelofchad were
meritorious, it was written through them.
[Similarly the passage] of the gatherer of wood [who desecrated the
Sabbath] should have been written through Moses our teacher but since the wood
gatherer was guilty, it was written through him, to teach you that harm is
imparted through one who is guilty and benefit through one who is meritorious"
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 8a).
Moses' unacquaintedness with the law is not a punishment. In fact, it has nothing to do with
Moses. Originally, Moses was
supposed to teach all the commandments.
However, circumstances led to the teaching of certain commandments in
response to events which occurred in the Israelite camp. These circumstances were of a dual
and opposing nature. Occasionally,
sins were perpetrated which called for immediate retribution. On other occasions, positive and
commendable initiatives led to the revelation of commandments. God could have revealed all the
commandments directly to Moses; however, He preferred withholding some
commandments and revealing them in response to historical events. This principle is formulated in the
Talmud as: "Harm is imparted through one who is guilty and benefit through one
who is meritorious." Certain
sinners brought about the revelation of the punishments for their sins. God revealed the punishment for the
desecration of the Sabbath (Numbers 15:35), and, we may add, for blasphemy
(Leviticus 24:15ff), in response to the perpetration of these sins. Similarly, God revealed the laws of
female inheritance (Numbers 27:8) and
the laws of the 'second Passover' (Numbers 9:9) in response to claims
raised by the Israelites.
This principle "Harm is imparted through one who is guilty and benefit
through one who is meritorious" may be understood in several ways. One possible understanding is that
God preferred to reveal commandments in response to actual events due to
pedagogical considerations. The
Torah is not simply a law book listing edicts.
It includes large narrative portions.
The Torah attaches great value to 'the story.' In fact, the appreciation of the
value of stories is a fairly universal phenomenon. The power of the story is in its
capacity to rouse the listener and to leave a lasting impression on him. From an educational perspective, it
is preferable to teach commandments through a narrative. While this was not always possible,
when such an opportunity arose, the Torah preferred to convey commandments in
conjunction with the relevant narratives.
We are far more likely to remember the severity of the sin of blasphemy
after reading about the punishment of one who is guilty of such a sin than by
just reading a theoretical formulation of the punishment.
A second, and perhaps simpler understanding of the principle "Harm is
imparted through one who is guilty and benefit through one who is meritorious,"
is that God wished to further punish the sinners and praise the righteous. Thus, God revealed the punishments
for the sins of blasphemy and the desecration of the Sabbath conjointly with the
perpetration of these sins thereby further denigrating the sinners. Similarly, with regard to the
righteous daughters of Tzelofchad and the Israelites who were concerned about
missing the Passover sacrifice; God wished to reward them for their
righteousness and therefore revealed commandments conjointly with their
commendable behavior eternally binding them to their respective commandments.
The two cases of the sinners, the blasphemer and the desecrator of the
Sabbath, are similar; both instances involve a rebellion against God, placement
of the sinner in custody until his punishment is clarified, and subsequent
dispensing of justice.
What about the other two cases, the daughters of Tzelofchad and the
second Passover (Numbers 9:6-8)?
Are there any similarities between these two episodes? Do they have a common denominator
which may help explain why, in these two instances, laws were not revealed
directly through Moses but rather as a consequence of questions raised by
Israelites? Let us compare the
claim of the daughters of Tzelofchad to that advanced by the Israelites who were
ritually unclean and could not take part in the Passover offering.
The daughters of Tzelofchad ask: "Why should our father's name be LOST to his
clan" (27:4).
The ritually unclean Israelites ask: ""Why should we LOSE out and not be able to
present God's offering at its set time with the rest of the Israelites?"
((Numbers 9:7)
Both claims contain the Hebrew root "garra," translated "lost." Although the claims belong to
totally different domains, land inheritance as opposed to sacrificial worship,
both share a common attitude towards commandments and towards the worship of
God. In both instances, the parties
involved do not want to lose out on an opportunity. The daughters of Tzelofchad do not
want their father's name to be forgotten and therefore request to receive an
inheritance which would preserve their father's name. Similarly, the ritually impure
Israelites did not want to forego the Passover sacrifice. Both parties faced a predicament in
which, according to the existing known laws, involved a loss of an opportunity. In both instances, the parties did
not resign themselves to their unfortunate fate, but decided to raise their
plight with Moses. The daughters of
Tzelofchad longed for the land of Israel and desired to preserve their father's
name amongst the rest of the Israelite families.
The ritually impure Israelites longed to perform the Passover sacrifice
and worship God with the rest of Israel.
Passion and commitment are the common denominator of the two cases and
the reason for the unique status attributed to each of the parties.
So far, we have seen three approaches to grappling with Moses'
unacquaintedness with the law. The
first limited the extent of Moses' unacquaintedness with the law, the second
viewed it as a punishment for intellectual arrogance, and the third explained
Moses' unfamiliarity with the law on the bases of the principle, "Harm is
imparted through one who is guilty and benefit through one who is meritorious." We will conclude with the
explanation our Sages in the Midrash Hagadol (14th century Yemenite collection
of homiletical interpretations of our sages compiled by Rabbi David Haedni):
"'Moses brought their case before the Lord' (Numbers 27:5) - Moses said, 'All
future generations will learn from my seeking advice from a superior.' If Moses, about whom God testified 'he is the trusted one in all my
house' (Numbers 12:7), did not judge the case of the daughters of Tzelofchad
without seeking advice from God, all the more so should no man speak [i.e., pass
judgment] before one who is wiser than he ... but should seek the opinion of
those who are greater."
In direct opposition to the opinion which viewed Moses' unfamiliarity
with the law as a punishment for arrogance, the Midrash Hagadol views it as a
paradigm of humility. Moses knew
the law in the case of the daughters of Tzelofchad. He nevertheless opted to seek advice
from God before passing judgment, thereby teaching the generations humility in
passing judgment.
What prompts Moses to give us a lesson in humility specifically in
relation to the claim of the daughters of Tzelofchad? I would like to propose that the
answer to this question lies in the section immediately following the episode of
the daughters of Tzelofchad. After
God reveals the laws of inheritance, He informs Moses of his impending death:
"The Lord said to Moses, 'Ascend the heights of Avarim and view the land that I
have given to the Israelite people.
When you have seen it, you, too, shall be gathered to your kin'" (Numbers
27:12,13). Moses is approaching the
end of his days. Soon, Joshua will
replace him as leader (ibid. 18). A
primary concern of Moses is the future well-being and leadership of Israel. Even as he prepares the nation for
the future division of the land of Israel amongst the tribes and families, he
wishes to demonstrate to them how to grapple with future queries. The people have grown accustomed to
asking Moses for guidance. How will
the nation conduct itself once Moses is no longer? Will it continue to seek guidance
from its spiritual leaders? Moses
wished to impress upon the people that they should continue to look to their men
of vision for instruction. Moses
himself is not self-sufficient; he seeks the advice of God. Future leaders must emulate this and
always look for divine guidance.
The nation, in turn, must also continue seeking the word of God from its future
prophets and leaders.
III. The Verdict
"Moses brought their case before the Lord.
And the Lord said to Moses, "The plea of Tzelofchad's daughters is just:
you should give them a hereditary holding amongst their father's kinsmen;
transfer their father's share to them" (27:5-7).
Tzelofchad's daughters' claim is correct.
They will inherit their father's share of the land and perpetuate their
father's name. Ironically, in
attempting to insure that their father's name would not be forgotten, they
themselves earned eternal fame and a place in the book of books.