Pinhas 5773

By Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik
Kol Shearith Israel - Panama

At the end of the tribes’ census, aimed at obtaining the information required to organize the distribution of the lots in the promised land, Parashat Pinhas brings us the inheritance demand of the daughters of Zelophechad.

With no brother, the five girls – Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah – come before Moses, Eleazar, and the chieftains, to request the inheritance of the lands that belonged to their dead father:

 Our father died in the wilderness.  He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; 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!  (Num. 27:3-4)

Moses consults on the decision with God and grants the five women the right to inherit from their father; thus, the law is established:  “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Num. 27: 8).

Apart from all the important implications inherent to this passage concerning legal, economic, and geographical issues, tribal relations, etc., our sages, always interested in helping us build a complete image of the biblical characters, have tried to learn more about Zelophechad, taking into account the puzzling phrase of his daughters: “died for his own sin.”

We know, from the mouth of his daughters, that he didn’t participate in Korach’s revolt.  According to the Talmud (Baba Batra 117b), those who took part in that event would not receive any lands (that is, their descendants had no claim over them), and the same applied to the people “who spoke” against God (Num. Chapter 11) and to those who joined in the criticism of the scouts (Num. 14).  Hence, we should also dismiss his involvement in these events.

In another Talmudic passage (Shabbat 96b-97a), two 2nd century Tanaites point out Zelophechad’s fault.  Rabbi Akiva identifies him as the man who was gathering wood during Shabat, who was punished with the capital sentence (Num. 15:32-36), whereas Yehuda ben Betheyra maintains that he was part of the group who went up the hill, despite Moses’ explicit prohibition against it, and who were exterminated by the Amalekites and Canaanites, after the scout episode (Num. 14:44-45).

Although both events occurred very close in time, more precisely in the second year after the departure from Egypt, they constitute, in essence, two totally different types of sin.

While in the first case we witness an individual act, the second involves a group of people.  The woodcutter violates the divine order on his own behalf, whereas the ones who climbed the hill aspired to redeem the entire people.

Nevertheless, the main difference lies in the fact that Rabbi Akiva considered Zelophechad a heretic (he disobeys the Sabbath rules), whereas Yehuda ben Betheyra considers him a fanatic (he chooses to blindly pursue his objective, even though Moses told him not to do so).

Either one or the other, heretic or fanatic, Zelophechad represented a great challenge for the Israelite’s emerging society, as well as for the Judaism of the 2nd century, and he still represents a challenge in our times.

Ultimately, licentiousness and fundamentalism eat away the bases of any structure, constituting a threat for the full and healthy development of the human experience.

Building a solid spirituality, with steady foundations; wisdom and critical thinking; with a warm heart and an open mind; willingness for dialogue and joining with others.  Such is the antidote for the followers of Zelophechad.

Shabbat shalom,

Gustavo