מסעי

The Conclusion to Bamidbar - A Story of Two Parts

The final passage of Sefer Bamidbar ends with the protest of the tribal leaders of Menashe to Moshe, that the ability for the daughters of Tzelofchad to inherit where there are no sons infringes on their territorial rights. If the daughters end up marrying someone from outside the tribe then the land will transfer to that other tribe.  

Like the petition of the daughters back in parashat Pinchas, God recognises the merits of their claim:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן לָהֶן׃ (במדבר כז:ו-ז)

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־פִּי ה’ לֵאמֹר כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי־יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים (במדבר לו:ה)

The solution provided is that the daughters will need to marry within the tribe. This represents a compromise seeking to balance the competing claims of the individuals and the tribe. Notwithstanding their distance in the text, one would assume that the two sides made their cases to Moshe around or at the same time. The similarity in structure and wording only strengthens the sense that we are dealing with a single story broken in two. The question therefore arises why the two claims are separated by eight chapters, to the extent that the sequel only appears as a conclusion or appendix to the book.

On a basic level, there appears to be a powerful literary value in separating the stories so that the counter claims of the tribal heads do not diminish the achievements of the daughters. If the two stories would have been presented together as a single unit, the feat of the daughters would have been obfuscated by the ensuing disappointment that their marriage prospects had become restricted as a result. It would thus have felt like a sour victory. Moreover, the reader's sympathy for the women would have been restrained by the presence of the opposing side. It seems that the Torah wanted to shine a light on the plight of the daughters and enlist the reader's support for their position and not have them overshadowed by the competing claims of the tribal heads. By separating the two parts, both claims are given validation without one marginalising the other.

Beyond the point of separation for the sake of separation, their respective locations are particularly suited to their context. The petition of the daughters of Tzelofchad follows the command to distribute the land. The focus of that command is that each individual (male over the age of 20) who was included in the national census just undertaken should receive a portion in the land:

אֵלֶּה פְּקוּדֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ־מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וָאָלֶף שְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים׃ וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ לָאֵלֶּה תֵּחָלֵק הָאָרֶץ בְּנַחֲלָה בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת׃ לָרַב תַּרְבֶּה נַחֲלָתוֹ וְלַמְעַט תַּמְעִיט נַחֲלָתוֹ אִישׁ לְפִי פְקֻדָיו יֻתַּן נַחֲלָתוֹ׃ (במדבר כו:נא-נד)

It is upon hearing that the land will be distributed only to the males who were included in the count, that the daughters take up their case with Moshe. The petition of the daughters is located here as it relates to the issue of individual rights in the land which is the subject matter of the distribution laws appearing immediately beforehand. To be sure, the tribal allocations are referenced, but only as a means by which the individuals and families will receive their respective portions.   

This stands in contrast to the inheritance section at the end of the book which regards the inheritance of the tribes as independent rights of the tribe:

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּתְנַחֲלוּ אֹתָהּ בְּגוֹרָל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ לָתֵת לְתִשְׁעַת הַמַּטּוֹת וַחֲצִי הַמַּטֶּה (במדבר לד:יג)

In this later section, the representatives of each of the tribes are listed by name and it is they who will inherit on behalf of their respective tribes. Moreover, there is no reference to the clans and individuals which were dominant in the earlier inheritance section. Since the appeal of the leaders of Menashe relates to the potential loss of tribal territory, it makes sense to report it only once the rights of each tribe as a collective, have been specified. Only once the rights of each side have become apparent, can the conflict between the tribe and the individual be addressed.[1]

Fitting ending to Bamidbar

The above brings us to the next point, namely that the resolution of the conflicting interests between individual and community forms an appropriate close to the book as a whole. As can be seen in the table below, individual initiative emerges as a core theme in almost all the closing narratives:[2]

Pinchas acts without instruction to execute Zimri and Kosbi	וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל־אֶחָיו אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ׃ וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (במדבר כה:ו-ח)
Daughters of Zelofchad challenge Moshe regarding the inheritance laws	וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד בֶּן־חֵפֶר בֶּן־גִּלְעָד בֶּן־מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן־יוֹסֵף וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֹתָיו מַחְלָה נֹעָה וְחָגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה׃ וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִם וְכָל־הָעֵדָה פֶּתַח אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר׃ (במדבר כז:א)
The appointment of a successor to Moshe is presented as an initiative driven by Moshe	וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־ה’ לֵאמֹר׃ יִפְקֹד ה’ אלקי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל־בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל־הָעֵדָה׃ אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה’ כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה׃ (במדבר כז:טו-יז)
Inclusion of freewill offerings in the context of the sacrifices, and the subsequent laws of nedarim introduce human initiative as an integral part of Divine service	אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה’ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם לְבַד מִנִּדְרֵיכֶם וְנִדְבֹתֵיכֶם לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם וּלְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם וּלְנִסְכֵּיכֶם וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם׃ (במדבר כט:לט) אִישׁ כִּי־יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה’ אוֹ־הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל־נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ כְּכָל־הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה׃ (במדבר ל:ג)
Following the battle with Midian, the officers step forward to propose additional gifts as a token of gratitude to the fact that all the soldiers survived	וַיִּקְרְבוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה הַפְּקֻדִים אֲשֶׁר לְאַלְפֵי הַצָּבָא שָׂרֵי הָאֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמֵּאוֹת׃ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה עֲבָדֶיךָ נָשְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ אַנְשֵׁי הַמִּלְחָמָה אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֵנוּ וְלֹא־נִפְקַד מִמֶּנּוּ אִישׁ׃ וַנַּקְרֵב אֶת־קָרְבַּן ה’ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר מָצָא כְלִי־זָהָב אֶצְעָדָה וְצָמִיד טַבַּעַת עָגִיל וְכוּמָז לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵינוּ לִפְנֵי ה’׃ (במדבר מח:נ)
B'nei Reuven and Gad request to settle the east side of the Jordan	וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי־גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל־אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶל־נְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר׃ (במדבר לב:ב) וַיִּגְּשׁוּ אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמְרוּ גִּדְרֹת צֹאן נִבְנֶה לְמִקְנֵנוּ פֹּה וְעָרִים לְטַפֵּנוּ׃ וַאֲנַחְנוּ נֵחָלֵץ חֻשִׁים לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם־הֲבִיאֹנֻם אֶל־מְקוֹמָם וְיָשַׁב טַפֵּנוּ בְּעָרֵי הַמִּבְצָר מִפְּנֵי יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ׃ לֹא נָשׁוּב אֶל־בָּתֵּינוּ עַד הִתְנַחֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ נַחֲלָתוֹ׃ (במדבר לב:טז-יח)
Representatives of Menashe engage in individual acts of conquest	וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּנֵי מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה גִּלְעָדָה וַיִּלְכְּדֻהָ וַיּוֹרֶשׁ אֶת־הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ׃ וַיִּתֵּן מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַגִּלְעָד לְמָכִיר   בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהּ׃ וְיָאִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה הָלַךְ וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת־חַוֺּתֵיהֶם וַיִּקְרָא אֶתְהֶן חַוֺּת יָאִיר׃ וְנֹבַח הָלַךְ וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת־קְנָת וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא לָה נֹבַח בִּשְׁמוֹ׃ (במדבר לב:לט-מב)

In this context, the 'initiative' in the last chapter inverts the trend described above. The tribal leaders step forward as they are unhappy with the new law on the basis that it infringes on their territorial rights. This dynamic reflects a wider challenge associated with individual initiatives, and progressive changes more generally. Left unchecked, they have the potential to harm existing communal structures resulting in social (and religious) tension. As Rambam emphasizes, change must be gradual to gain acceptance and take root.[3] Accordingly, it was necessary for the Torah to act within the constraints of prevailing cultural norms to effect a change in the long run.

It is with respect to this challenge that the final chapter provides a moderating force. Perhaps in an ideal world the daughters should inherit pari passu with the sons, as suggested by the Midrash (see below), in which case the problem would not have arisen. At the very least, it seems fair that the daughters should be able to marry as they please and not be tied down for the sake of preserving the hegemony of the tribe. The concession to the tribal leaders therefore appears to be such an instance of necessary compromise between individual initiative and idealism on the one hand, and communal acceptance on the other. Indeed, a number of textual considerations support this reading.

1. Differences in the response to the two petitions

Though both sides receive a positive response from God, there is an important difference between them. With respect to the petition of the daughters, the details of God's response are reported first-hand:

וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה’׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן לָהֶן׃ (במדבר כז:ה-ז)

Not only are we privy to the direct words of God but the verse employs the term ויאמר instead of the standard וידבר. This precise format occurs only four times in the Torah, each one being a particularly momentous, even celebratory, occasion. When it comes to the petition of the heads of Menashe, on the other hand, God's response is reported only through Moshe:

וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־פִּי ה’ לֵאמֹר כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי־יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים׃ זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה ה’ לִבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד לֵאמֹר... (במדבר לו:ה-ו)

One may counter that this is for the sake of conciseness, however it is extremely rare for the Torah to report God's word indirectly. Furthermore, the brevity could have been preserved by only reporting the direct speech of God to Moshe. The difference in presentation seems to highlight a more favourable disposition to the claims of the former.

2. Underlying sympathy for the daughters

A careful study shows that the sympathy for the daughters permeates throughout. The lamed preposition in the word לִבְנוֹת  takes the meaning of 'concerning…' instead of the more common 'to…'. Nevertheless, the literary impression is that God is communicating directly to the daughters. It is as if God takes responsibility to inform them directly of the compromise which had the potential give rise to personal hardship. This sensitivity is also reflected in the directive itself:

...לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים אַךְ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים׃ (במדבר לו:ה-ו)

The first clause is redundant as it doesn't appear to change the status quo. The new restriction is entirely embedded in the second clause which would have been sufficient on its own.[5] It therefore seems that the function of the first clause is to display compassion towards the daughters by consoling them that they will still enjoy a wide selection despite the new restriction. Consistent with this sensitivity, it is poignant that the book of Bamidbar ends only once it is reported that each of the daughters have successfully found life partners within the tribe.

3. Gender appropriation and equality

The use of the term לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם in connection with a female is surprising as it was traditionally thought to be the role of the male to actively choose a partner, whereas the female was passive (consent being somewhat of a novelty).[6] It seems that part of the consolation is that God assures them that their independence will ensure that they are indeed able to choose a fitting partner. This seems to also be reflected in the masculine (בעיניהם) use instead of the feminine (בעיניהן).

Though a simple reading suggests that the daughters were protecting the legacy of their deceased father, at least one view expressed in the Midrash considers gender equality as a key theme:

ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד – כיון ששמעו בנות צלפחד שהארץ מתחלקת לשבטים ולא לנקבות, נתקבצו כולן זו על זו ליטול עצה. אמרו: לא כרחמי בשר ודם רחמי המקום! בשר ודם רחמיו על הזכרים יותר מן הנקבות, אבל מי שאמר והיה העולם אינו כן, אלא על הזכרים ועל הנקבות, רחמיו על הכל, שנאמר (תהלים קמה) טוב ה' לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו: (ספרי במדבר קלג)

According to this interpretation, it would seem that the ideal system should have provided for equal inheritance to sons and daughters, but the constraints of a patriarchal society made such a claim impossible.[7] Their petition was therefore limited to the case at hand where there were no brothers and even then, expressed in terms of the father's legacy rather than their own fundamental rights.

If this last point is correct, then the entire story from beginning to end represents a concession to prevailing social laws. Even if we do not ascribe to this approach in full, the status of women appears to be an important undercurrent throughout the narratives.[8]

In summary, in this final chapter, we see the initiatives of the new generation set on collision course with the traditional order. At this critical juncture, the Divine instruction emerges to resolve the tensions. Indeed, part of the greatness of the daughters appears to be that their initial boldness was subsequently matched with an unreserved willingness to act in accordance with the word of God, thus ensuring the changes did not result in communal discord:

כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה’ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד׃ (במדבר לו:י)

 

---

[1] R Elchanan Samet, פרשת מסעי - היחיד והשבט בנחלת הארץ, here

[2] Jonathan Grossman sees #1-4 in particular as linked and forming part of a wider pattern justifying the separation of the command to wage battle against Midyanim (ch. 26) and the battle itself (ch. 31). See article פרשת מטות - מדוע דין נדרי נשים פותח את פרשת מטות - here

[3] See for example Guide for the Perplexed, 3:32

[4] See Rashi Shemot 35:4. Compare to Vayikra 8:5

[5] The Talmud (Bava Batra 120a) quotes the view of Rav Yehuda that the second clause represents good counsel (עצה טובה) and the daughters (of Tzelofchad at least) were in fact permitted to marry the other tribes. For obvious reasons it is difficult to accept this as the pshat and little wonder that Rashi does not quote this view in his commentary. 

[6] See Kiddushin 2b; Rashi, Bereishit 24:57. Compare to Bereishit 18:8:

הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי־עַל־כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי׃

[7] The Netziv in Ha'amek Davar reinterprets the Midrash to reconcile with the text, however his explanation seems forced.

[8] I find it difficult to accept that these stories have nothing whatsoever to do with gender status as argued by R. Elchanan Samet (here) in his article האם היו בנות צלפחד פמיניסטיות ישראליות קדומות