Mattot-Masei 5773 - English

By Rabbi Daniel A. Kripper
Beth Israel - Aruba

At the end of Parashat Pinchas, Zelophehad’s daughters – Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah – offer us a very different view of the rights and potential of biblical women.  Given that Zelophehad had no sons, when the land was distributed among the tribes (Num. 27), the daughters presented their claim before Moses:  “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. 27:4). In virtue of this, Moses consulted with God, and granted them the inheritance of their father.  The story continues in Massei, when the members of the clan of Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah, lodge an appeal before Moses against this decision.  According to them, if the daughters marry men from other tribes, the land of this daughter “will be cut off from our ancestral portion and be added to the portion of the tribe into which they marry” (Num. 36:3).  Therefore, it is decided that if the daughters are to keep their inheritance, they must marry within the tribe of their father, Joseph’s tribe.  They accept this decision, thus retaining their inheritance.

According to Rav Edery, this decision is registered in the context of “the provisions taken by the Torah so that no tribe is dispossessed of its lands.  In an agricultural and farming society, land is the basis of subsistence.  Therefore, the law will zealously protect the idea of ‘non-transferable property’, since the transfer of lands from one tribe to another would enrich a group, impoverishing the other.  Even the person who, due to force majeure reasons, would have to ‘sell his/her land’, won’t have the right to ‘transfer’ it in perpetuity or definitely.”

The Rav continues saying that, regarding the law of inheritance, the Talmud has distinctly improved the situation of heiress daughters.  The Mishnah even says that, in the event of a father’s death, the sons are obliged to maintain their sisters until they reach marriageable age, using their inheritance if the estate is large.  Otherwise, all possessions remain exclusively affected to the needs of the daughters, “even if the brothers are forced to go begging” (Mishnah Baba Batra 9.1).  This process occurred within Judaism while other civilizations restricted the rights of women.

One of the most outstanding features of this story is that the daughters are called by name, not just once but four times (Num. 26:33, 27:1, 36:10, and Jos. 17:3).  This fact should not be ignored, in a text and a world in which women are often treated as beings with no name or personal identity.  According to a modern interpretation, this serves to remind us that women are not only important for their family roles in the household, as mothers and wives, but also as individuals.

Other commentators maintain that they are shown respect because these young girls stand out for their union to each other, which significantly contrasts with the rivalry that prevails among siblings of other biblical families.

These laws, which result from that episode, undoubtedly constitute a revolutionary break in the family and society of the times.  They clearly display the evolutionary nature of Jewish law, based on the cultural changes concerning female rights and possibilities.

The battle of Zelophehad’s daughters was a well-acknowledged triumph and, without a doubt, a significant precedent.  But none the less, it is important to observe that from the daughters of Zelophehad to the women of the Kotel of our days, the battle for complete equality continues to be a pending subject.

Rabbi Daniel A. Kripper