About Tzelofehad’s sons who were learning in a yeshiva … (Parshat Pinhas)
Parshat Pinhas opens with the Almighty’s appreciation of Pinhas, who had taken it upon himself to serve as a proxy for God’s jealous rage over the spreading popularity of pagan Pe’or worship among the Israelites. By murdering Zimri ben Salu and Kozbi bat Zur in flagrante delicto, Pinhas assuages God’s anger, thereby rescuing the Israelites from annihilation.
Clearly, from a Torah perspective, legitimate jealous anger is a valid emotion, as is righteous vindictiveness. Validating such emotions and reactions is not very popular in the west because Christianity, despite a 1500-year murder spree of its own, succeeded in brainwashing society with the concept of ‘turning the other cheek’. Not so our God.
It is hardly surprising that those sectors of the Jewish community whose thinking and theology have been shaped and inspired by Christian values are lacking the core zealousness necessary for survival and continuity. Indeed, even among Christians, it is precisely those denominations for whom “the meek shall inherit the earth” and “turn the other cheek” are the summum bonum of their belief system, whose church pews are emptying as rapidly as those of the liberal Jewish congregations that mimic them. (And – not coincidentally – it is precisely these liberal Christian denominations and, increasingly, their Jewish imitators who are most hostile to Israel as a Jewish State and the actions it takes to protect itself.)
The Census of the Israelites
It is immediately following the debacle of Pe’or – an indication of the abject spiritual state of the Israelites – that God commands Moshe to undertake a census of the Israelite people. For those who are uninformed, Pe’or worship involved defecating in front of a sculpture of the god Pe’or and then wiping oneself by rubbing their backsides on Pe’or’s nose.
A census has a purpose. The core objective is to have a count of those members of a society who matter.
For the Torah, the purpose of the Israelite census is made manifest: namely, to determine who is eligible to receive property in the land of Israel
שְׂא֞וּ אֶת־רֹ֣אשׁ ׀ כּל־עֲדַ֣ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל מִבֶּ֨ן עֶשְׂרִ֥ים שָׁנָ֛ה וָמַ֖עְלָה לְבֵ֣ית אֲבֹתָ֑ם כּל־יֹצֵ֥א צָבָ֖א בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from 20 years old and upward, by their fathers’ houses, all that go forth in the army of Israel —
Bamidbar/Numbers 26:2
Notice that the word כל/all appears twice; that the Torah defines the entirety of the Jewish People who are counted as being exclusively comprised of those males over the age of 20 who serve in the military.
We are then told:
לָאֵ֗לֶּה תֵּחָלֵ֥ק הָאָ֛רֶץ בְּנַחֲלָ֖ה בְּמִסְפַּ֥ר שֵׁמֽוֹת׃
‘Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to
the number of names. —
26:53
Having listed the names of the eligible Israelite families and defined the criteria of who is counted among “all the congregation” we are now told that it is “unto these” that the land shall be divided “for an inheritance”. In other words, not only is the land to be parceled out exclusively to those who fulfill the criteria, i.e. being over 20 and having served in the army, but that such ‘inheritance’ is, for all time, predicated on the same criteria.
By contrast, Levite sons are separately counted from infancy as they receive no inherited land and therefore are not required to serve in the military. The Torah is very clear. The Levite gets no land because he is not counted among the Israelites, i.e. he does not serve in the military. Israelites get land, but only only if they serve.
וַיִּהְי֣וּ פְקֻדֵיהֶ֗ם שְׁלֹשָׁ֤ה וְעֶשְׂרִים֙ אֶ֔לֶף כּל־זָכָ֖ר מִבֶּן־חֹ֣דֶשׁ וָמָ֑עְלָה כִּ֣י ׀ לֹ֣א התְפָּקְד֗וּ בְּתוֹךְ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כִּ֠י לֹא־נִתַּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
And they (the Levites) that were counted were twenty-three thousand, every male from a month old and upward; because they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel
26:62
It is absolutely clear from this that male offspring do not automatically inherit their father’s allocated property unless they are over age 20 and have served the military.
The fact that Levites received no land makes perfect sense as their role was to be itinerants who accompanied the Mishkan/Tabernacle on its peregrinations. Hence they would have no time or wherewithal to plant fields and raise and harvest crops. In this, the Levites had much in common with those who spend their lives in a yeshiva today, as they, too, would never have the time to farm their fields.
Indeed, it is no surprise that the tens of thousands of men who spend their lives in yeshivas claim that they are the Levites of our time and deserve to live off the labor of others. The difference, of course, being that the Levites did not choose to become Levites and live off the tithes and offerings of the other 11 tribes. By contrast, today’s yeshiva people are self-designated as worthy of public largesse even as they live lives that contravene every dictum of Torah and of later rabbis to work for an honest living six days a week
The missing sons of Tzelofehad?
At this point, the Torah segues to its ruling regarding the daughters of Tzelofehad who argue that they should not be disenfranchised simply because their father had no sons (i.e. that he had no sons that were eligible for inheritance.) For surely if Tzelofehad had a son who, for example, had chosen to sit in a kolel rather than serve in the army, that son would, for all intents and purposes, not exist among those counted as כל עדת בני ישראל according to the criteria spelled out in verse 26:2.
The Torah provides one reason why the girls might be disinherited – because they were female. But the Talmud, in a midrashic flight of fancy attributed to R. Akiva (Shabbat 72:b) also provides another possible reason: namely because Tzelofehad was the hewer of wood on Shabbat who was stoned to death for his transgression. Hence, one might assume that his property was revoked as part of his punishment.
So the first significant conclusion we might draw – based on R. Akiva’s midrash – is that capital punishment does not prevent the heirs of the condemned from inheriting his property.
But we are primarily concerned with the issue of whether, absent a male heir, a daughter can inherit from her father.
There is but one way to understand the Torah’s ruling which is:
וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ כִּֽי־יָמ֗וּת וּבֵן֙ אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְהַֽעֲבַרְתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְבִתּֽוֹ׃
If a man (איש) dies, and has no son, then his inheritance should pass on to his daughter.
Bamidbar /Numbers 27:8
The Torah consistently uses the word איש (man) to describe only those males who are 20 or older and have served in the army.
We see this clearly by contrasting the census of the מחצית השקל/half shekel in Parshat Ki Tisa (Shemot/Exodus 30:11-15) with the census described here and in the opening chapter of Bamidbar.
Back in the case of the mahatzit ha-shekel (the mandatory half shekel census fee), every male over age 20 was required to make the half shekel contribution, including those who chose to shirk military service by, for example, learning in a kolel. Hence the term איש is not used in the Ki Tisa count. Because a male who has not served is not considered an איש, he is not a man in the full sense according to the Torah.
Hence, if you will indulge a midrashic flight of fancy of my own, we see that Tzelofehad could conceivably have had a son or sons, but they would not have been eligible to receive the inheritance of land as they were excluded from כל עדת בני ישראל if, for example, they had opted to sit in Ponovezh, Mir or Slabodka rather than protect their nation.
Of course, it is possible, if not probable, that Tzelofehad had no sons. But clearly the Torah is teaching us that in order for a son to inherit patrimonial land, he must first be an איש i.e. at least 20 years of age and having served in the army. No exceptions.
This may explain why girls were not eligible to inherit land from their fathers’ patrimony, as they did not meet the basic criterion for being entitled to such land i.e., being over 20 and having served in the military.
But the default assumption was that girls would have brothers who did serve, hence the property would remain in the family. The Torah here makes a radical and honorable exception in a case where there are daughters but no legitimate male heirs (i.e., men over age 20 who have served in the military.)
As for the zealous Pinhas, it is entirely possible that had there indeed been shirkers who chose to study Talmud instead of serving in the army as God had commanded, he might have speared them in his zealotry as well. For even Gemara can become a form of idolatry, as well as an addiction, if it results in turning one away from fulfilling the Torah’s commandment to work six days a week and to serve in the military. Indeed, for those whose entire Judaism in centered on Talmud, every tractate could be considered Avodah Zarah (idolatry).
Tragically, we live in a time when tens of thousands of able-bodied young men prefer Talmudolatry and the shirking of honest labor over leading productive and protective lives. We can see just how able-bodied they are by way of their violent demonstrations, and fearless attacks on everyone from pregnant women drivers to police seeking to restore order. By our allowing this disgrace to go on, and being complicit ourselves by funding such an aberration, we all fly in the face of Torah’s teachings, and we have a great deal to answer for.