July 17th: Mattot - Mas’ay
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
Last week, we read about the Daughters of Zelophehad. As you may recall, Zelophehad dies in the wilderness and leaves no sons to take possession of his portion of the Promised Land. His five daughters approach Moses and ask that the law of male-only succession be amended. Moses turns it over to God Who allows the women to inherit their father’s portion. This is always heralded as a feminist story in the Tradition—a seed which 3000 years later helps to establish egalitarianism in modern Judaism.
The problem is that some of the Israelite tribal leaders object to the inheritance’s implications. In week’s portion, they approach Moses and argue: “The Lord commanded my lord to assign the land to the Israelites as shares by lot, and my lord was further commanded by the Lord to assign the share of our kinsman Zelophehad to his daughters. But, if they marry persons from another Israelite tribe, their share will be cut off from our ancestral portion and be added to the portion of the tribe into which they marry; thus our allotted tribal portion will be diminished.” (Numbers 36.2-3). If Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah, and Tirztah marry someone outside of their tribe, then Manasseh, one of the Josephite half-tribes, loses territory. Moses turns to God, and God makes a compromise. The women’s inheritance is affirmed but with a caveat: they must marry men in their own tribe. It is not exactly the feminist ideal. In fact, as Rabbi Hara Person explains in The Women’s Torah Commentary, since they end up marrying their first cousins, the daughters essentially hand over their inheritance to the same men who would have received the land had they not stood up for themselves in the first place.
So, is the story of the daughters of Zelophehad an important step in women’s rights, or does it reveal a trick of the patriarchy? Or, is this an example of the incremental steps in the long, long fight for female rights? Or, is this a case where there are more issues involved than just feminism?
Or, is this a case of moderns analyzing an ancient story from our modern perspective? Inasmuch as we moderns are supposed to find meaning in the ancient texts, it only stands to reason that we would try to put ourselves and our sensibilities into the stories. Sometimes, this is good, but sometimes, it can skew the story’s context. In this case, I can understand modern frustration with the limited autonomy granted to the daughters of Zelophehad, but these women were given more autonomy than they would have otherwise had. In this ancient patriarchal, male-dominated context, this is a step forward. Is it far enough? Of course, not, but the inertia of social institutions is not easy to break.
This leads me to two debates being held today—debates in which modern sensibilities and agendas are being forced onto historical situations. The debates involve (1) who freed the slaves in America’s South, and (2) who got women the vote.
In the promotional material for a PBS program, The Vote, we hear someone declaring, “Textbooks say women were given the vote. No one gave us anything. We took it!” This is very inspiring and empowering, but it is factually inaccurate. Since women were not allowed to vote, the campaign for Women’s Suffrage involved persuading the men who did vote to change the system. Of course, the work of thousands of suffragettes made a great difference, but the name of the game was persuading male voters.
The same can be said of the argument about the role African-American slaves played in their liberation. Of course, many Africans participated—buying their freedom, running away, fighting in the Union Army, speaking, and manning the Underground Railroad. However, suggesting that the African slaves freed themselves ignores the fact that the White people in the Union gave blood and money in the Civil War—ultimately passing amendments to the Constitution and laws that ended slavery and produced civil rights. In abolition work and in the subsequent civil rights efforts, the main strategy was to persuade White people that Black people should be treated fairly.
It is even true today. What are “White Privilege” and “Woke” and “Black Lives Matter” if not arguments to persuade non-Black people that racism needs to be acknowledged, stopped, and remedied?
What is happening here, I believe, is that historical situations are being reinterpreted to fit modern agendas. Female empowerment remains a goal, and claiming that Women got The Vote for themselves is a way to encourage and inspire modern women to keep up the fight for total gender equity. Similarly, claiming that the Black slaves freed themselves is a way to remind modern African Americans that they have both the responsibility and the ability to help with their own continued liberation and equality. In other words, though couched in the language of history, these are modern rhetorical strategies.
I understand the motivation, but I am still bothered by misreading history. To my mind, we should look at history with both a critical eye and an appreciation for the small steps and principles that eventuate in societal improvements. Less than complete solutions can nonetheless be helpful.
The male-dominated society of ancient Israel does not measure up to our modern ideas of equality. Women like Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah, and Tirztah bat Zelophehad have suffered from unfair treatment since time immemorial. However, the ideals of equality and fairness have always been there, and they have been forwarded in a number of subtle actions and messages. It reminds me of a verse from Psalm 90 and a prayer from the weekday Amidah. In Psalm 90, we read, “Light is planted for the righteous, gladness for the upright in heart.” Then, in the Amidah, we are bidden to pray, “We praise You, O Lord, Matz’mi’ach keren y’shu’a, Who causes salvation to sprout and blossom.” The seeds of righteousness and truth were planted long ago. When they sprout and when they blossom, let us give thanks.