Parshat Pinhas – Fairness for the Zelaphehad’s daughters, and a great deal more
Can executed felons bequeath their assets? Can daughters inherit? What if there are no immediate heirs? We owe the answers to Zelphehad’s daughters.
It is popular these days to credit the daughters of Zelaphehad with being proto-feminists who dared to break the glass ceiling of inheritance by demanding their father’s parcel in the Land of Israel, as he had no male heirs.
The sisters Mahlah, Noah, Haglah, Milkah and Tirzah – daughters of a convicted and executed felon – have certainly earned their spot of immortality in the annals of Jewish legal history. Yet the ripple effects of their complaint have far broader impact.
For openers, the very fact they presumed that Zelaphehad’s heirs – even had they been male – should be entitled to any share at all is novel. As an executed felon one could assume that Zelaphehad’s property might have been reclaimed by the state, and even male heirs would receive nothing. Hence the daughters’ query was doubly revolutionary, proving that capital offense does not result in forfeiture of property; that the line of inheritance obtains even for the children of a criminal.
As well, since Torah stipulates that only males over age twenty who have served in the army (which would exclude 100% of men who claim to be learning Torah instead) one might assume that others who cannot fulfill these two criteria i.e., male and military, would be written out of any legacy to land in Israel.
Implicit froinm Parshat Pinhas is the fact that the landed legacy in Eretz Israel belonged to the original Israelites who were liberated from bondage in Egypt, even though none but two (Calev and Yehoshua) survived the sojourn in the desert. The actual settlers in The Land were in fact only receiving what had retroactively belonged to their fathers.
Indeed the parsha indicates that land in Israel was actually the original legacy of the twelve sons of Yaakov, transmitted via their sons and ultimately subdivided among their descendants. This explains why the two sons of Yehudah who died without progeny – Er and Onan – are mentioned here (26:19) in the census of the Israelite tribes. This indicates that had they, or any of Yaakov’s sons, had progeny – yet somehow not experienced the exile in Egypt – they, too, would have been entitled to property in The Land.
Yet, from a pragmatic standpoint, the most critical impact of the Zelaphehad episode is the clear lines of familial inheritance which had not previously existed.
וַתִּקְרַ֜בְנָה בְּנ֣וֹת צְלפְחָ֗ד בֶּן־חֵ֤פֶר בֶּן־גִּלְעָד֙ בֶּן־מָכִ֣יר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹ֖ת מְנַשֶּׁ֣ה בֶן־יוֹסֵ֑ף וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ שְׁמ֣וֹת בְּנֹתָ֔יו מַחְלָ֣ה נֹעָ֔ה וְחגְלָ֥ה וּמִלְכָּ֖ה וְתִרְצָֽה׃
וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכל־הָעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃
אָבִ֘ינוּ֮ מֵ֣ת בַּמִּדְבָּר֒ וְה֨וּא לֹא־הָיָ֜ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעֵדָ֗ה הַנּוֹעָדִ֛ים עַל־יְהֹוָ֖ה בַּעֲדַת־קֹ֑רַח כִּֽי־בְחֶטְא֣וֹ מֵ֔ת וּבָנִ֖ים לֹא־הָ֥יוּ לֽוֹ׃
לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃
וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}
וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃
וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ כִּֽי־יָמ֗וּת וּבֵן֙ אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְהַֽעֲבַרְתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְבִתּֽוֹ׃
וְאִם־אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בַּ֑ת וּנְתַתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לְאֶחָֽיו׃
וְאִם־אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ אַחִ֑ים וּנְתַתֶּ֥ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֖וֹ לַאֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽיו׃
וְאִם־אֵ֣ין אַחִים֮ לְאָבִיו֒ וּנְתַתֶּ֣ם אֶת־נַחֲלָת֗וֹ לִשְׁאֵר֞וֹ הַקָּרֹ֥ב אֵלָ֛יו מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּ֖וֹ וְיָרַ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑הּ וְֽהָ֨יְתָ֜ה לִבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לְחֻקַּ֣ת מִשְׁפָּ֔ט כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ}
6 And the Lord said to Moshe, 7 “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them. 8 “Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.’ This shall be the law of procedure for the Israelites, in accordance with the Lord’s command to Moses.”
Bamidbar/Numbers 27:1-11
Indeed, were it not for the daughters’ plea, we might have no idea who inherits property belonging to a childless man, or how the legacy lines are drawn.
Hence this episode teaches us four things
- The land of which the Children of Israel took possession had been in their families since the time of Yaakov’s sons and, certainly, belonged to their fathers who perished in the desert;
- That convicted and executed felons do not lose their property rights as a result of their transgressions;
- That the daughters of son-less fathers inherit their father’s property despite not being male; despite not necessarily being 20 years of age; and despite never having served in the military;
- That there is a clear order as to how the property of a childless man is bequeathed, and to whom.
Ultimately we owe a great deal to these girls – proto-feminists or not.