A Bima-Ready D’var Torah Every Week
17 Tammuz 5780
Parashat Pinchas
Victory in Disguse
Torah Portion: Numbers 25:10-30:1
Haftarah Portion: Jeremiah 1:1-2:3
Shalom!
In this week's Torah portion, we find the first half of the story of Zelophehad's daughters. This is one of the rare stories in the Torah where women play a prominent role, and one of the few occurrences where a commandment is determined by case law. It’s also far more complicated than it initially appears.
The Israelites have just finished a census and have parceled out the land claims in Canaan for all of the tribes. Five sisters[i] bring a case before Moses, saying, “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction... which banded together against Adonai… and he has left no sons. Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (Numbers 27:3-4). Moses brings the petition to God, who replies, “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them” (Numbers 27:7). God then establishes that in the absence of male heirs, a daughter may inherit property.
We typically interpret the story of Zelophehad’s daughters as a favorable portrayal of women, using a feminist lens.[ii] It is lauded as an example wherein “disenfranchised women successfully confront an unjust system and propose a more equitable law.... they dare challenge the tradition and call for change when the tradition is unjust.”[iii]
If we had only this first half of the story in our canon, then such an interpretation would be accurate. However, the story does not end there.
The next time we see Zelophehad's daughters, their male relatives bring a counter-suit to Moses. Their argument is that if the women inherit land, and then marry outside of their tribe, then the land will instead belong to the husband’s tribe, diminishing the total property belonging to Zelophehad's tribe. Moses reflects, and rules in favor of the men, saying that the daughters must marry within their tribe. The Women's Commentary tries to mitigate the ruling, explaining that while “from a modern perspective, this restriction might appear as a step back... Practically speaking... the freedom to choose a spouse from their clan is less constricting than it might seem, given the size of their tribe (one of the largest among the Israelites).”[iv]
But this misses the point. It’s not just about who they might marry, it’s the stipulation that they must marry. The updated ruling requires the daughters to marry, bypassing their ownership of the land entirely. The second half of the story of Zelophehad's daughters actually removes the possibility for women to have economic independence. The land will not remain theirs.
In the original case, the daughters claim the land in order to perpetuate their father's name. Even though the daughters originally won the suit, the goal was not reached. If the women did not marry, then their name would die with them. If they married and had children, they would be incorporated into their husband's tribe, and Zelophehad's name and discrete inherited territory would not endure. Likewise, after the male relatives win their appeal, when the daughters marry someone from their own tribe, it is their husband's name that is perpetuated, not their father's.
The stated goal is never reached, and the daughters' situation is actually made worse, as the cases result in women being incapable of owning and controlling property in their own right or having a say in their marital destiny. Legally, the revised decision actually ensures that Zelophehad's name will not, in fact, endure - the exact opposite of the original purpose of the case. Righteous intent will not automatically ensure success. When we are fighting for legal and social changes, we must keep our ultimate goals in mind, but more than that, we must make sure that the resultant changes actually work towards our goals, not against them.
But what is truly devastating is that the amended law was not dictated by God but by men. The Torah quotes God giving women the right to own property in certain circumstances. Moses is the one who amends this decision without actually bringing the case back to God. The Torah presents the change as being "God's bidding," or "as God commanded," but God is never actually consulted (Numbers 36:5 and 6). It is all Moses’ interpretation; Moses’ ruling.
The story of Zelophehad's daughters is therefore not an example of feminism. Rather, it is a cautionary tale for anyone seeking justice. Even when the written law, the spirit of the law, and the spirit of God all approve of changes in the law that support a group with lesser political and social standing, people in positions of authority can still manipulate the law to maintain and perpetuate their power, undermining any progress made. Successfully changing laws is only the first step when pursuing societal change. We must remain vigilant even after our victories to ensure that the changes we make are properly interpreted, implemented, and protected.
The Israelites have just finished a census and have parceled out the land claims in Canaan for all of the tribes. Five sisters[i] bring a case before Moses, saying, “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction... which banded together against Adonai… and he has left no sons. Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (Numbers 27:3-4). Moses brings the petition to God, who replies, “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them” (Numbers 27:7). God then establishes that in the absence of male heirs, a daughter may inherit property.
We typically interpret the story of Zelophehad’s daughters as a favorable portrayal of women, using a feminist lens.[ii] It is lauded as an example wherein “disenfranchised women successfully confront an unjust system and propose a more equitable law.... they dare challenge the tradition and call for change when the tradition is unjust.”[iii]
If we had only this first half of the story in our canon, then such an interpretation would be accurate. However, the story does not end there.
The next time we see Zelophehad's daughters, their male relatives bring a counter-suit to Moses. Their argument is that if the women inherit land, and then marry outside of their tribe, then the land will instead belong to the husband’s tribe, diminishing the total property belonging to Zelophehad's tribe. Moses reflects, and rules in favor of the men, saying that the daughters must marry within their tribe. The Women's Commentary tries to mitigate the ruling, explaining that while “from a modern perspective, this restriction might appear as a step back... Practically speaking... the freedom to choose a spouse from their clan is less constricting than it might seem, given the size of their tribe (one of the largest among the Israelites).”[iv]
But this misses the point. It’s not just about who they might marry, it’s the stipulation that they must marry. The updated ruling requires the daughters to marry, bypassing their ownership of the land entirely. The second half of the story of Zelophehad's daughters actually removes the possibility for women to have economic independence. The land will not remain theirs.
In the original case, the daughters claim the land in order to perpetuate their father's name. Even though the daughters originally won the suit, the goal was not reached. If the women did not marry, then their name would die with them. If they married and had children, they would be incorporated into their husband's tribe, and Zelophehad's name and discrete inherited territory would not endure. Likewise, after the male relatives win their appeal, when the daughters marry someone from their own tribe, it is their husband's name that is perpetuated, not their father's.
The stated goal is never reached, and the daughters' situation is actually made worse, as the cases result in women being incapable of owning and controlling property in their own right or having a say in their marital destiny. Legally, the revised decision actually ensures that Zelophehad's name will not, in fact, endure - the exact opposite of the original purpose of the case. Righteous intent will not automatically ensure success. When we are fighting for legal and social changes, we must keep our ultimate goals in mind, but more than that, we must make sure that the resultant changes actually work towards our goals, not against them.
But what is truly devastating is that the amended law was not dictated by God but by men. The Torah quotes God giving women the right to own property in certain circumstances. Moses is the one who amends this decision without actually bringing the case back to God. The Torah presents the change as being "God's bidding," or "as God commanded," but God is never actually consulted (Numbers 36:5 and 6). It is all Moses’ interpretation; Moses’ ruling.
The story of Zelophehad's daughters is therefore not an example of feminism. Rather, it is a cautionary tale for anyone seeking justice. Even when the written law, the spirit of the law, and the spirit of God all approve of changes in the law that support a group with lesser political and social standing, people in positions of authority can still manipulate the law to maintain and perpetuate their power, undermining any progress made. Successfully changing laws is only the first step when pursuing societal change. We must remain vigilant even after our victories to ensure that the changes we make are properly interpreted, implemented, and protected.
Shabbat Shalom!
Rabbi Caroline Sim
Director of Rabbinical Services
[i] Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milchah, and Tirzah.
[ii] This is especially true after the publication of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, editor; Andrea L. Weiss, associate editor, The Torah: A Women's Commentary (New York: WRJ, Women of Reform Judaism & URJ Press. 2008) 961 ff.
[iii] Ibid., 971.
[iv] Ibid., 1027.
Shabbat Shalom!
Rabbi Caroline Sim
Director of Rabbinical Services
[i] Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milchah, and Tirzah.
[ii] This is especially true after the publication of Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, editor; Andrea L. Weiss, associate editor, The Torah: A Women's Commentary (New York: WRJ, Women of Reform Judaism & URJ Press. 2008) 961 ff.
[iii] Ibid., 971.
[iv] Ibid., 1027.
Taste of Torah: The Book!
|
Taste of Torah: A Little Nosh of D'rash is a collection of divrei Torah (sermons and essays) from the ISJL's circuit-riding rabbis, as well as traditional Jewish recipes with a Southern twist and much more. A great gift! Thanks to the Lewis Bear Family Foundation, all proceeds go to continuing the mission of the ISJL. Order your copy today!
|