From: Yeshivat Har Etzion Office <office@etzion.org.il>
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Parsha: 37 - Pinchas
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
PARASHAT PINCHAS
Women's Turf
by Rav Zvi Shimon
I. Women of Valor
In Pinchas, the people of Israel begin preparations
towards their appropriation of the promised land. Moshe
counts the people in order to divide the land amongst the
nation: "Among these the land shall be apportioned as
shares" (Bemidbar 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
Moshe, 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!' Moshe brought their case
before the Lord" (Bemidbar 27:1-5).
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 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'
(Bereishit 50:25), and his daughters cherished the
land, as is stated, 'Give us a possession [among our
father's kinsmen].'
The verse repeats the name Menasheh: "the son of
Menasheh of the families of Menasheh son of Joseph."
Rashi explains that the Torah wanted to highlight the
ideological connection to Joseph (and not merely the
genealogical) and therefore goes out of its way to state
that Menasheh was the son of Joseph. 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 ..." (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 Moshe! 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 which stands out
in the biblical narrative. These women were courageous.
Scripture stresses that "they stood before Moshe, 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" (Shemot 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 [Moshe]" (Bemidbar 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" (Bemidbar 26:65). 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 (Tzelofchad's daughters), however, drew
near to ask for an inheritance in the land (see
Bemidbar 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 (Bemidbar 13-14). The righteousness of the
dof Tzelofchad is one example of the general piety of the
women of Israel.
II. Stumping Moshe
The question raised by the daughters of Tzelofchad
is a good one. In fact, it is so good that it even
baffles Moshe. He is compelled to refer the question to
the final arbiter: "Moshe brought their case before the
Lord" (27:5).
Moshe' 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 Moshe?
The question of Moshe' 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 Moshe is faced with a legal question
for which he has no answer. The first two involve the
perpetration of a sin for which Moshe 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 Moshe ... and he was
placed in custody, until the decision of the Lord
should be made clear to them" (Vayikra 24:11,12).
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 Moshe ... He was placed in custody for it
had not been specified what should be done to him"
(Bemidbar 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 Moshe and Aaron. 'We are ritually
unclean as a result of contact with the dead,' the
men said to [Moshe]. 'Why should we lose out and not
be able to present God's offering at its set time
with the rest of the Israelites?' Moshe said to
them, 'Stand by, and let me here what instructions
the Lord gives regarding your case'" (Bemidbar 9:6-
8).
How could it be that Moshe was unfamiliar with such
basic laws? One approach advanced by our Sages is to
limit the extent of Moshe' unacquaintedness with the law:
"Rabbi Shimon of Shikmona says: 'Moshe 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 ... Moshe,
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).
Moshe 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. Moshe 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 Moshe' 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' (Bemidbar
15:34) - This teaches us that Moshe knew that he
[the Sabbath desecrator] would receive the death
penalty, but did not know which death penalty he
would receive. Rabbi Eliezer b. Rabbi Shimon says,
'Moshe knew neither whether the desecrator deserved
the death penalty nor how [if he did deserve the
death penalty] he should be killed.'" (Sifrei Zuta,
Bemidbar 15:34)
We see that Rabbi Eliezer rejects the attempt to
limit Moshe' doubt to a mere detail. Moshe did not even
know if the desecrator deserved the death penalty.
However, even if we accept the limiting view, we still
find ourselves in a quandary. Limiting Moshe' doubts may
diminish the problem, but it does not resolve it
completely.
According to our Sages, all the commandments with
their minute details were given at Mount Sinai:
"'The Lord spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai...' (Vayikra
25:1) - Why does Scripture relate regarding
'shemitta' (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, 25:1)
If this is the case, if God revealed to Moshe the
commandments with all their details, then how are we to
understand Moshe' unacquaintedness with the law? If we
assume that Moshe heard all the minute details of each
commandment then limiting the extent of Moshe' 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 Moshe
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, it means that
Moshe 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 Moshe
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 Moshe did not know the law is not due to
forgetting, 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 Moshe was
occasionally incapable of inferring the law from the
Torah?
In light of these irresolvable difficulties, our
Sages advanced an alternative approach to Moshe'
unacquaintedness with the law.
Some hold that the law was hidden from Moshe. 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... Moshe had
said, "The case that is too difficult for you, bring
to me"(Devarim 1:17). When the daughters of
Tzelofchad, however, came, He concealed the law from
him. 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!" (Bemidbar Rabba
21:12)
Moshe' unfamiliarity with the law is a punishment!
God purposefully concealed the law from Moshe to teach
him his limitations and to remind him of the source of
all his wisdom. Moshe 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"
(Devarim 1:17). Moshe 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. Moshe 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 Moshe in order to humble him;
the daughters of Tzelofchad know that which you don't!
The approach which views Moshe' 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 answer it?' It is written 'And I
will hear it'" (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin
8a).
Rabbi Nachman points out that Moshe states "The case
that is too difficult for you, bring to me, and I will
HEAR it." Implicit in Moshe' words is the acknowthat he
must hear the answer from God. It is therefore incorrect
to ascribe to Moshe any conceit. The Talmud then
advances a totally different approach:
"In truth, the passage of the laws of inheritance
should have been written through Moshe 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 Moshe
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" (Sanhedrin 8a).
Moshe' unacquaintedness with the law is not a
punishment. In fact, it has nothing to do with Moshe.
Originally, Moshe 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 Moshe; 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 (Bemidbar 15:35), and, we may add, for blasphemy
(Vayikra 24:15ff), in response to the perpetration of
these sins. Similarly, God revealed the laws of female
inheritance (Bemidbar 27:8) and the laws of the 'second
Passover' (Bemidbar 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 (Bemidbar 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 Moshe 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?" ((Bemidbar 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 Moshe. 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 Moshe' unacquaintedness with the law. The first
limited the extent of Moshe' unacquaintedness with the
law, the second viewed it as a punishment for
intellectual arrogance, and the third explained Moshe'
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 derush compiled by R.
David Ha-Adeni):
"'Moshe brought their case before the Lord' (Bemidbar
27:5). Moshe said, 'All future generations will learn
from my seeking advice from a superior.' If Moshe,
about whom God testified 'he is the trusted one in
all my house' (Bemidbar 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
Moshe' unfamiliarity with the law as a punishment for
arrogance, the Midrash Hagadol views it as a paradigm of
humility. Moshe 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 Moshe 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 Moshe of his
impending death: "The Lord said to Moshe, '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'" (27:12,13). Moshe is
approaching the end of his days. Soon, Yehoshua will
replace him as leader (ibid. 18). A primary concern of
Moshe is the future well-being and leadership of Israel.
Even as he prepares the natfor 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
Moshe for guidance. How will the nation conduct itself
once Moshe is no longer? Will it continue to seek
guidance from its spiritual leaders? Moshe wished to
impress upon the people that they should continue to look
to their men of vision for instruction. Moshe 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
"Moshe brought their case before the Lord. And the
Lord said to Moshe, "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.
*********************************************************