A close reading of the story about Zelophehad’s daughters highlights that the order of these women in two different verses are not the same. Numbers 27:1 has this order of the daughters. “The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.” While Numbers 36:11 has this order of the daughters. “Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, Zelophehad’s daughters, became the wives of their uncles’ sons.” The significance of the order is discussed in today’s daf TB Baba Batra 120.
“Later
on, the verse lists them according to their age, stating: “For Mahlah,
Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were
married” (Numbers 36:11), and here the verse lists them in a different
order, according to their wisdom: “And these are the names of his
daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah” (Numbers 27:1).
This supports the ruling of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In the
context of sitting in judgment or learning Torah, follow the
participants’ wisdom in determining the seating, so that the wisest is
granted the highest honor, and in the context of reclining for a
meal, follow the participants’ age. Rav Ashi says: And this is so
only when one is outstanding in wisdom, then wisdom trumps age; and
this is so only when one of the participants is outstanding in
age, i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.” (Sefaria.org translation)
According to this interpretation, we learn the order the women married from the
verse in chapter 36. When the daughters of Zelophehad challenged Moshe for their
right to inherit their father in chapter 27, they approached him according to
their wisdom. Mahlah was the wisest.
The Gemara
provides an alternative interpretation. “The Gemara cites an alternative
opinion: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad
were equal in stature, as it is stated: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and
Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were [vatihyena]
married.” The word “vatihyena” demonstrates: There was one
uniform existence [havaya], i.e., spiritual level, for all of
them.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Torah: A Women’s Commentary writes a third possibility. “The
sisters are introduced by name, not merely as Zelophehad’s daughters. Their
names reoccur in each episode (though the
order varies for no apparent reason-my emphasis). The meanings of their
names remain uncertain but the impact of their actions in the Bible is clear.
In addition, archaeologists have discovered two of these names, Noah and
Hoglah, listed as town names on clay fragments from the eighth century BCE,
known as the Samaria Ostraca. Similarly Tirzal, Milcah, and Mahlah appear as names
of towns or regions in Israelite territory in various biblical texts.” (Page
972) For more about the Samaria Ostraca, see the note on page 973.
Whether or
not the order is significant, their achievement is. “The achievement of
Zelophehad’s daughters was a landmark in women’s rights regarding the
inheritance of land, from those days up to now. In addition, however, the story
of these five women offers a compelling lesson for all those who believe that
their destiny is fixed or that divine justice has abandoned them. It encourages us to think differently-and
provides a message of hope for all those who faced with obstacles.
“Perhaps the
most important legacy of Zelophehad’s daughters is there call to us to take
hold of life with their own hands, to move from the place that others have
given us-or that we have decided to keep because we feel immobile-and to walk,
even to the most holy center, to where nobody seems to be able to go… Thus, this
parashah inspires us to discover that we to have the ability to know what is
right for ourselves and what our rights ought to be. When we believe in our
capacity to shape our history, to the point of being able to change even a law
that came from the revelation at Sinai, then we pay a tribute to Zelophehad’s
daughters.” (page 986)
No comments:
Post a Comment