The Daughters of Zelophehad
So Moses brought their case before the Lord. Numbers 27:5 NASB
Their case – At the beginning of chapter 27 in the book of Numbers, certain daughters of in the line of Manasseh, son of Joseph, make a legal claim before Moses and Eleazar. Their argument is that their father died in the wilderness along with all the others of the first generation to leave Egypt, but he died without a son to continue his name and inherit his right to the land. They claim their right to possess his land and continue his line as women.
Zornberg’s analysis of this legal narrative reveals its subtlety. She notes that the two verbs used to set the stage are significant:
“Both verbs, each introducing a separate verse, express audacity: the root karav (‘they came forward’) signifies intimacy, struggle, sacrifice, possibly encroachment. . . Standing, too, implies that they stand their ground ‘in the presence of all of them,’ as Rashi puts it. The roll call of dignitaries represents an intimidating forum . . . Before a word has been spoken, therefore, the narrative has set these sisters in a world that holds no obvious place for them.”[1]
As we read the story, we discover a legal precedent: gender is not the sole determinant in inheritance. The sisters’ claim is endorsed by God Himself. The problem is resolved.
But the implication of this event near the end of Moses’ leadership goes far beyond its legal precedent. Moses is baffled at the sisters’ request. He simply does not know how to resolve it. Should he break tradition and grant them inheritance or should he hold to the cultural expectation of male descent? He takes the case to God for the answer. Zornberg notes:
“In the end, God charges him [Moses] with hubris in his declaration, ‘What is too hard for you, bring to me!’ And then God seemingly taunts Moses: ‘The law that you don’t know, women discuss it!’”[2]
Here’s the problem: “ . . . if in fact the entire Torah, every letter, was received by Moses at Mount Sinai, then he already received not just laws but also the stories about the laws. Thus, there would be an almost absurd paradox here. For on this view Moses would have been told at Mount Sinai that . . . the daughters of Zelophehad would present a case to him, Moses would not know the answer to the problem, and God would enlighten him. It would then mean that, when the time came that the case was actually presented, Moses not only would have forgotten the law, but would be forced to relive the ignorance that he had already been told about. The whole thing has the aroma of the paradoxes of time travel . . .”[3]
The maximalist’s view, like the Christian idea of inerrant inspiration, leaves us claiming truths that appear logically absurd. When we try to defend this position, we appear to be irrational zealots, willing to accept any complication in order to maintain our view. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t help the case.
Perhaps we as Messianic believers, committed to the integrity of Torah, need to reflect on the similarities between Jewish orthodoxy and Christian fundamentalism. Perhaps we need to step back from both positions and ask why people feel the need to defend these views. That seems to take us out of exegesis and into psychology.
Topical Index: Zelophehad, inspiration, inerrancy, Numbers 27:5
[1] Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, Bewilderments: Reflections on the Book of Numbers, p. 264.
[2] Ibid., p. 268.
[3] Gordon Tucker, footnote 2 in Abraham Heschel, Heavenly Torah (Continuum, 2007), p. 553.
