Zelophehad's Daughters Marry

Ariel Rathaus

The Book of Numbers ends

with the mention of a festive event, the marriage of Zelophehad's

daughters with their cousins, "the families of the sons of Manasseh the

son of Joseph." However, as often happens even today, tension and

contention preceded this wedding.

At the end of Parashat Masa'ey, the second

episode in the story of Zelophehad's daughters is told (Numbers 36:1-10), and it may be said

that this episode creates a new conceptual balance, giving the story additional

meanings and, to a degree, even suggesting conclusions contrary to those that

could have been drawn from the story of Zelophehad's

daughters in Parashat Pinhas

(Numbers

27:1-11). Whereas

in the first episode of the story, we saw how those five "intelligent,

inquisitive, and righteous" daughters (Bavli, Baba Batra 119b) insist on their right to inherit their late father's

portion in the Land of Israel, since the deceased had no sons, and how they won

the ideological and Halakhic battle hands down, now,

in Parashat Masa'ey, other

winds are blowing, and the sisters suffer a certain setback.

Although Moses confirms

their right, he gives in to the claims of the heads of the families of Sons of Gil'ad, who had expressed their opposition and

apprehension: if the daughters inherit, and if they marry men who do not belong

to the same tribe, then the tribe's portion will be transferred, by marriage,

to other tribes, and, even worse, that which was transferred "shall be

taken from the lot of our inheritance" (Numbers 36:3). Moses accepts this argument and

decrees, according to God, that the freedom of Zelophehad's daughters to marry out of their tribe must be

restricted, so that their father's portion will not be transferred to other

tribes.

Zelophehad's daughters obey Moses,

because they are "righteous," but this restriction most definitely

limits the right to choose a spouse, within the categories of marriage

permitted by the Torah, and it is not surprising that the Gemara

states that the Bible was merely giving "good advice" to Zelophehad's daughters with respect to their choice of

husbands (Bavli, Baba Batra 120a), and in any event this

restriction was not for all generations, if similar circumstances should arise,

but only for the members of that generation (Baba Batra 121a). Furthermore: according

to Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel,

the date of the Hebrew festival of love and matchmaking, the fifteenth of Ab, was set to celebrate the day "the tribes were

permitted to intermarry" (Baba Batra 121a; Bavli, Ta'anit 30b) – i.e. the cancellation

of the prohibition that had been imposed initially upon "every daughter

who inherited an estate." Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, in his commentary on Ein Ya'aqov, speaks

at length of the feeling of relief that prevailed and spread among the people

after the cancellation of this prohibition (actually from the men's point of

view and not that of the women), that great joy in the removal of barriers.

[This was the day] when the commandment of marriage spread

the most among the Jews, when the tribes were permitted to intermarry, several

passages were opened before every single Jew, to take a wife from there, and

therefore on that day we say to a young man: raise your eyes and look at any

maiden you wish, for you are not required to take a wife from among your

relatives in particular, but you may take whatever your heart wishes. (Ben Yehoyada,

Ta'anit, the end of Ch. 4).

However, all this took

place much later. In Moses' generation, as we have noted, the claim of the

heads of the families of the Sons of Gil'ad was

accepted, as, previously, the claim of Zelophehad's

daughters had been accepted when they demanded their right of inheritance. The

Torah offers a compromise between these positions, between the claim that

daughters have the right to inherit an estate and the argument that this right

of inheritance could cause disorder in the division of property.

What was the basis of

these two arguments? The urge of Zelophehad's

daughters to appeal to Moses, almost impertinently, to tell him that he had

forgotten them, as it were, is understandable. Ownership of property was to be the

main source of livelihood in the in the agricultural society that was to arise

in the Land of Israel, and Zelophehad's daughters

simply demanded the right to make a living on their own. The Midrash greatly heightens the pathos and the moral

foundation of their claim by attributing a feminist argument to them in the

full sense of the term, the absolute demand for an egalitrian

relationship toward women with respect to earning a livelihood:

Since Zelophehad's

daughters heard that the land was to be divided according to tribe [meaning to

the men in each tribe] and not to the women, they all gathered together to take

council, saying: The mercy of the Place is not like the mercy of flesh and

blood. Flesh and blood are merciful toward men more than toward women, but He

who spoke and the world came into being is not like that, but His mercy is upon

everyone, men and women, as it is said (Ps. 145:9): "God is good to everyone, and His mercy

is on His creations." (Sifri, Pinhas,

133)

While it is true that Zelophehad's daughters make their argument from a personal

motive, to solve their individual problem, according to this Midrash, their words draw upon deep theological sources,

from seeing God as merciful. From this insight and inner truth, that God is far

more merciful and forgiving than people are, they set out to ask Moses for

their dead father's portion. While these ideas are not exactly the simple

meaning of the Bible, where the emphasis, at least formally is still on

retaining the father's name and not on the daughters' requirements (see Numbers 27:4), nevertheless they do

not contradict the literal meaning.

In contrast, the demand

made by the heads of the families of the Sons of Gil'ad

is less clear with respect to its essential values. What exactly motivates

them? Should we not say that their claim is only advanced to protect the

territorial interests of the Sons of Menassah, which

is to say only the egotistical-tribal element? Does their claim not testify to

a desire for property that demands satisfaction at any price, even at the

expense of the right of Zelophehad's orphaned

daughters to marry whomever they please?

In his commentary on the

Torah, Meshekh hokhma

(The Sowing of Wisdom), R. Meir Simha of Dvinsk presents the heads of the families as the ones who

sought to forbid Zelophehad's daughters from marrying

out of the tribe, though they knew very well that their demand was not

justified with the respect to the value of bringing people together, a value

that the Torah wishes to instil. "For they

understood that something like this could not be permanent, for then the

and bound together with one another." Therefore they knew that their

demand was invalid from the start, but nevertheless they did not advance it for

unworthy [egotistical] reasons. They regarded it as an immediate imperative, a

ruling that must be enforced temporarily, "until they hold [the Land of

Israel] and everyone will be solidly ensconced in his estate" (Meshekh hokhma,

Numbers 36:1). Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch writes about the need to retain the

original estates and the tribal borders until all the families and tribes will

hold their lands securely and begin to live the life of a nation rooted in its

land:

The Torah attributes great value to preserving the

boundaries of the tribes and the dwelling of each tribe in its own estate. This

is meant to assist in the maintenance of the general and uniform functioning of

the nation in all the variety of virtues particular to each tribe, and for that

reason there is a need to permit each tribe to develop properly in its area and

estate. From this point of view, there is special importance in retaining the

estates at the start of the inheritance of the land and in the period soon

after it… In all following times the Torah does not forbid the tribes to

mingle with each other and intermarry; on the contrary: three times a year the

nation as a whole comes together around the general Temple, and this

commandment will lead to flexibility and actually lead to the entire unity of

the nation. (Commentary

on Numbers 36:6-7 by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch; cf. Nachmanides

on that passage).

When we weave these midrashic and exegetical threads together into a single

fabric, we find that we have here a controversy on principles in which two

opposing demands, both just and well-founded confront one another. Neither of

these demands is entirely personal. Both are based on an ethical value (either

with respect to individual or general needs).

Moreover, the Torah

itself emphasizes strongly that both Zelophehad's daughters and the heads of

the families were right, each in their own way, because it repeats an

expression twice: "Zelophehad's daughters speak

right" (Numbers

27:7),

which corresponds with, "The tribe of the sons of Joseph have said

well" (Numbers

36:5). The

confrontation between the demands of Zelophehad's

daughters and those of the heads of the tribe are in fact presented as a

"disagreement in the name of Heaven," of which one may say, as one

says of the controversies between the House of Shamai

and the House of Hillel, "both these and these are the words of the Living

God."

A controversy in the

name of Heaven means, among other things, that the disagreeing sides are also

close to each other, sharing the same purpose, united in their desire to

sanctify the name of Heaven in their positions. Probably one of the most

important conclusions that can be drawn from comparing the episodes in Parashat Pinhas to the one

here in Parashat Masa'ey is

that there is great similarity in the principled position from which

those in disagreement start out: beyond the fact that they say the opposite

things, and there is a conflict of interest between them, there is also

agreement between the sides about the way in which a Jew should relate to the

spiritual and Halakhic authority to which he or she

is subject.

According to the Midrash presented above, Zelophehad's

daughters are not willing to accept the laws of the division or property as

presented by Moses until then, because they do not relate to the status of

women whose fathers have died, leaving no male heirs. Such an omission is

impossible in their view, because it contradicts the very conception of God as having

mercy on all His creatures, and therefor they

dare to approach Moses and argue that a mistake has been made – and the Holy

One Himself makes a Halakhic ruling in their support.

On the other hand, the

heads of the tribes do not easily submit to this "Torah opinion,"

expressed by the Holy One Himself, and they do not believe that they must

submit to it unquestioningly. The ruling that was issued according to the

justified demands of Zelophehad's daughters conflicts

with their conception of the process of establishing an orderly society in the

Land of Israel, a process that demands at first – according to Rabbi Samson

Raphael Hirsch – the separation of the tribes, so that they can develop their

specific virtues, and in this manner, lay a richer and more varied foundation

for the unity of the Jews. Hence, the heads of the tribes do not hesitate to

appear before Moses and submit the entire issue for review from their point of

view.

Zelophehad's daughters speak in the

name of pure ethics, whereas the the heads of

the tribes speak in the name of social reform, national-social need. What

they have in common is that both of them agree that that the system for

determining the Halakhah does not function in an

abstract realm, entirely separate and autonomous; neither side is prepared to

silence the voice of human morality or the voice of logic and common sense in

response to Halakhic decisions, even if they have

been issued in the very highest tribunal of the Torah.

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider

contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via

  email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in

honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must

be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to

appear in the English email.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting

the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been

central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a

central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the

national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish

law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that

co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page

peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published

by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are

distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our

web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available

on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il