The Torah sets forth the laws of inheritance of the land in two different places – Parashat Pinchas (Bamidbar 26:52-56, following a census) and Parashat Masei (33:54, after the list of Bnei Yisrael's travels).[1] There are a number of differences between the laws in these two places. In ParashatPinchas, the orientation is tribal: there is no mention of families, and the land is divided among individuals ("by the number of names," v. 53). In our parasha, the land is divided among families; each receives a portion in accordance with its size, and the location of the inheritance is determined by lot. In order to understand the meaning of the differences between the parashot, we will discuss both, starting with Parashat Pinchas – where we will discover that in fact, Parashat Pinchas also focuses on families, not individuals.
Three Censuses in the Wilderness
Bnei Yisrael are counted three times in the wilderness: first, when the Mishkan is set up (Parashat Pekudei); then at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar; and again in Parashat Pinchas (26:1-52).
The purpose 5 the first census is to engage Bnei Yisrael in the building of the Mishkan. As part of this census, every male adult donates a half shekel towards the project, and this half shekel also serves as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. The Torah does not explain how the census of the Mishkan construction is conducted, or who is included in it.
In contrast, the two censuses in Sefer Bamidbar are documented in great detail, which provides grounds on which to compare them. In the first count (in Parashat Bamidbar), there is no division by families; each tribe is counted as a single unit. In the second (in Parashat Pinchas), each tribe is divided into families and each family is counted. This division is especially marked when it comes to the sons of Yosef: in the first count, the Torah notes that Menashe and Ephraim are the sons of Yosef, and then it records the number of each tribe separately. In the second count, the Torah opens the count of Yosef's descendants by noting that Menashe and Ephraim belong to the families of Yosef (26:28), counts the families of Menashe and Ephraim separately, and then concludes their count by repeating that these are the families of the sons of Yosef (v. 37). We see, then, that the essential division in Parashat Pinchas is not by tribe but by families; within this framework, the tribes of Ephraim and Menashe can be categorized among "the families of the sons of Yosef."[2]
Another difference between the first and second counts in Sefer Bamidbar is that the first count, in Parashat Bamidbar, is a dry census, while the count in Parashat Pinchas incorporates mention of various events: Korach's rebellion, the request by the daughters of Tzelofchad, and more. This difference indicates that the two counts have different purposes. The first is intended to establish the size of the camp of Israel, and in this context, neither listing the families nor mentioning past events would be relevant; all we are interested in is the number of people in each tribe. The second count is undertaken for the purpose of dividing the land into portions for inheritance (as the Torah states explicitly: "to these shall the land be divided as an inheritance," 26:53), and here the historical events and the families are relevant.[3]
Law and Lots
A major question whose answer is unclear concerns the manner of the division of portions in the land among families: Is the division carried out based on family size, or on the drawing of lots?
The Torah introduces the laws of the division by specifying to whom the land is distributed:
To these (le-eleh) shall the land be divided for an inheritance, by the number of names. (26:53)
The word le-eleh can be understood here in two different ways: the Torah may mean that the land is to be divided among the individuals who were just counted, or it may mean that the land is to be divided among the families.
In addition to the practical difference, there is also a more essential difference between these two possibilities. According to the first, the right to receive a portion in the land is an individual right. This idea is supported by the expression, "by the number of names," which seems to indicate that the division should be based on the number of people in each tribe.
According to the second option, the right to receive a portion in the land is bestowed on the family as a unit. Each family receives a portion of the land and then divides that inheritance among its members. This option is supported by the fact that the Torah enumerates each family separately and by the expression "each according to those numbered of him" (26:54) – which appears to be referring to families (in contrast to "according to the names of their fathers' tribes," v. 55). Moreover, the actual division documented in Sefer Yehoshua does not match the sizes of the tribes, and it makes more sense to say that it is carried out in accordance with the sizes of the families. Further support for this approach can be found in the story of the daughters of Tzelofchad and the units dealing with inheritance, which clearly suggest that the right of inheritance in the land belongs to the family, not necessarily the tribe (since the portion of someone who died without leaving a father, brothers, or uncles is inherited by "his kinsman who is next to him of his family," 27:11).
If we accept this latter view,[4] then we must explain the law of inheritances as follows: Eretz Yisrael is divided among the tribes; each tribe divides its territory among its families, and each family divides its inheritance among its members. The location of the inheritance is determined by lot, while its size is determined in accordance with other criteria.
However, there is a contradiction between division by lot and division by size. If a family inheritance is awarded in accordance with the family's size, it cannot be determined by lot, since the lot defines the location, but the location – in other words, its boundaries with neighbors, and hence the location of the neighbors as well – depends on the size of the inheritance. I therefore propose that the inheritance of the tribe is determined by lots, and the tribe receives a territory whose size is not dependent on the size of the tribe; the inheritance of each family within the tribe is determined in accordance with its size and is not dependent on a lottery; and the inheritance of each individual is fixed in size and is determined by lot. This may be deduced from analysis of the text.
The unit on inheritances in Parashat Pinchas comprises four verses (Bamidbar 26:53-56):
(53) To these shall the land be divided for an inheritance, by the number of names.
(54) To the more numerous, you shall give more inheritance, and to the fewer, you shall give less inheritance; to each according to those numbered of him shall his inheritance be given.
(55) Only, the land shall be divided by lot; according to the names of their fathers' tribes shall they inherit.
(56) According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided, between the numerous and the few."
There seems to be a parallel between verse 53 and verse 55, and also between verse 54 and verse 56. Verses 53 and 55 discuss the division of the land by inheritances, while verses 54 and 56 discuss the division of the inheritance by families.[5] Verses 53-54 stipulate that the division is to be undertaken on a quantitative basis, and they therefore focus on the quantitative division of the territory (v. 53 speaks about the division of the land by inheritances; v. 54 speaks about the division of inheritances among families). Verses 55-56 state that the division is to be executed by lot, and they therefore seem to deal with the location of the territories (v. 55 focuses on the location of the inheritances; v. 56 on the location of the territories of each family).
At the beginning of the parasha, we are told that the land should be divided "by the number of names (be-mispar sheimot)." This expression appears numerous times in the census at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar, but it is entirely absent from our census, in Parashat Pinchas. It is therefore difficult to suggest that what the Torah means here is that the land should be divided in accordance with the number of people.[6] We might propose instead that the meaning of the expression parallels the meaning of "according to the names of their fathers' tribes shall they inherit" (26:55), meaning that the land is divided into twelve portions, as per the number of tribes.
In summary, the land was divided into twelve equivalent portions.[7] Each tribe received a fixed inheritance, whose location was determined by lot. Each tribe divided its inheritance among its families, in accordance with their size,[8] and each family divided its inheritance among its members, by lot.
The Claim of the Daughters of Tzelofchad
"Our father died in the desert… and he had no sons." (27:3)
On the eve of the entry into the land, Tzelofchad's daughters come to Moshe and ask for an inheritance in the land for their father, who died in the desert. This request seems out of order: Tzelofchad died in the desert and was therefore not included in the census of those who would be entering the land. Why should he receive an inheritance?
It seems in his daughters' understanding, every man with offspring is entitled to an inheritance – even if he himself dies before entering the land.[9] We can see in the laws of yibbum that "offspring" is not limited to males: yibbum is required only when a person dies with no offspring at all, neither sons nor daughters. On this basis, Tzelofchad's daughters concluded that since their father had daughters, he (his family) is considered extant, and he is therefore entitled to an inheritance in the land.
However, we are now faced with a different problem: someone like Tzelofchad, who has only daughters, is entitled to receive an inheritance in the land. What about someone who also has sons? Are his sons then entitled to receive a double inheritance – one for themselves and one for their father (since he has offspring)? This seems very strange, and it also negates the point of the census. Can it be that, since all those who left Egypt died in the desert, virtually every male who enters the land is entitled to a double inheritance?![10]
To answer this question, we must return to the principles of the division of the land. As we saw above, the right to an inheritance has two aspects: the entitlement itself, and the size of the inheritance. The head of each family receives an inheritance in accordance with the number of members of the family at the time of the census. If the patriarch is no longer alive, then the inheritance is divided among representatives of each branch of the family.
Tzelofchad's daughters made a two-part claim. First, they argue that they should replace their deceased father as representatives of their families. Second, they argue that they are entitled to receive territory even though they were not included in the census that determined how each family's inheritance would be divided among its members. When God accedes to their request, there is a revolutionary change in the laws of inheritance: the inheritances are not divided only on the basis of the census; rather, each family is entitled to receive at least one portion in the land. If the head of the family has died and he had sons, the sons receive plots as representatives of their subfamilies, based on how many they are. If the head of the family has died and he left only daughters, the daughters receive the portion meant for the family, even though they are not counted among those who enter the land.
Boundaries of the Family Framework
Having established that the daughters of Tzelofchad effectively received an additional portion of the land, we are faced with another question: At whose expense did they receive their portion? Clearly, the borders of the inheritance of the tribe have not changed, so must the inheritance of the entire tribe now be divided differently, or is it only the family's portion that must now be divided among a larger number of people?
It seems that when the Torah stipulates that the framework of inheritance extends as far as the father's brothers, it is laying down a family structure that begins with the father of the deceased.[11]
Indeed, this is the impression that emerges from the story of the daughters of Tzelofchad: the individuals who subsequently come to Moshe to complain that their inheritance will be diminished are "the heads of the households of the family of the children of Gilad, son of Makhir, son of Menashe, of the families of the sons of Yosef" (36:1). Tzelofchad was the son of Chefer, son of Gilad, so we see that the heads of the households of the family of the sons of Gilad – in other words, the brothers of Tzelofchad's father – are the ones who approach Moshe. Again, we see that the framework of the inheriting family begins with the father's brothers.
It would seem, then, that the family that will need to give up part of its inheritance for the daughters of Tzelofchad is the family of the sons of Gilad – in other words, the brothers of Tzelofchad's father.[12] For the purposes of inheritance, the family of the father's brothers constitutes the nuclear family, and it was among these nuclear families that the inheritance of the tribe as a whole was divided.
(Translated by Kaeren Fish; edited by Sarah Rudolph)
[1] Actually, the Torah connects these two units, creating a sort of parenthetical unit out of the chapters separating them. The laws of inheritance appear in ParashatPinchas after the census, while Bnei Yisrael are in the plains of Moav, and the unit on inheritance in Parashat Masei likewise takes place while Bnei Yisrael are in the plains of Moav.
[2] As I shall discuss further below, the census in Parashat Pinchas is intended for the purpose of inheritance of the land. The Torah connects the families of Menashe and Ephraim in order to emphasize that Yosef receives a double portion (as befits a firstborn son).
[3] It may be that the inheritance was originally supposed to be carried out on an individual rather than a family basis, and that there was never meant to be another census. The change in the nature of the inheritance, then, would be connected to the sin of the spies: at first, those who left Egypt were meant to enter the land; only after the sin of the spies did a gap open between the group who left Egypt and the group who would enter the land. Correspondingly, a gap appeared between the count of the families (those who left Egypt) and the count of the people (those entering the land). The Torah then also incorporates the story of Korach into the census, in order to clarify that those involved did not receive an inheritance; see below.
[4] This view sits well with the laws of yibbum, as well. In principle, any male family member could perform yibbum for someone in his family who was deceased (as examples: Yehuda performs yibbum for his son; Boaz performs yibbum for his relative), but the Torah limits the principle in practice to brothers. Another law that reflects this principle is the redemption of land (i.e., when a portion of ancestral land is sold, for whatever reason, the family members have a mitzva to redeem it and return it to the family): the land upon which a person's name is established belongs to his family, and it is therefore the family's responsibility to redeem that land.
[5] The expression ish lefi pikudav ("to each according to those numbered of him," Bamidbar 26:54) is better suited to the head of a household/family than to the head of a tribe. Likewise, the elders argue against the daughters of Tzelofchad that if they marry men from other tribes, the inheritance of the tribe of Menashe will be diminished. If the inheritance of the tribe were determined in accordance with the size of its population, then there would have been no problem with diminishing the territory; they would have received a plot for Tzelofchad anyway, and there would be no room for the claim, "it will be deducted from the lot of our inheritance" (36:3).
[6] In addition, as we have seen, the land is divided by tribe and by family, not by individuals.
[7] Of course, the twelve territories were not equal in size, but in other ways; the tribes that received better portions had less territory.
[8] The division of the tribal territory among the families was not by lot, but on the basis of other considerations, which explains how Kalev was able to request a specific plot (Yehoshua 14:6-13).
[9] One might suggest that the time determining the right to an inheritance was not the entry into the land, but rather some other time (perhaps the Exodus from Egypt, or the receiving of the Torah, the sin of the spies, or any other point in time). Tzelofchad, who was alive at that time, would then be entitled to an inheritance. Indeed, his daughters' emphasis on the fact that their father was not part of Korach's company tells us that those who were aligned with Korach lost their inheritance – which in turn suggests that other people who died in the wilderness (who were not part of Korach's company) did receive an inheritance, even though they did not enter the land. However, the Torah determines portions on the basis of the census carried out before the entry into the land, which tells us that the division is made as per the number of people who entered the land, not the number of people at some other point in time.
[10] As explained in the previous footnote, it cannot be that the land is divided among those who left Egypt, because then there would be no reason for a census of those entering the land.
[11] In the unit on inheritance, the Torah does not state explicitly that a father can inherit from his son, but it does say that the father's brothers inherit from him. Perhaps we might understand this as a kal va-chomer (if the father's brothers can inherit from him, then certainly a father inherits from his son), but then it should still have been stated that a father inherits, in order to determine whether the father has priority over the sons, or whether the sons have priority over the father. It seems, therefore, that the Torah refrains from stipulating that a father can inherit from his son because it is dealing here with the laws of inheritance of a portion of the land, not inheritance of other assets. If the father is alive, the son cannot have any inheritance of land, since the son receives his father's inheritance. It is therefore meaningless to mention the father inheriting.
[12] It is also possible that the family is defined up to the brothers, and therefore the daughters of Tzelofchad married their cousins so that the family would not lose Tzelofchad's portion.
No comments:
Post a Comment