The Rambam, towards the end of his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed 3:51) describes the highest spiritual level that a human being can achieve. He notes that attaining closeness to God requires lifelong study and personal development. It demands quenching the “fires of passion” and “increasing intellect” until one reaches the state of perfection that allows for connection to God.
The Rambam goes on to say that this attainment is reached at the end of one’s life and it is called “Mitat Nishika” - death that feels like a kiss.
This exalted level was only reached, in all of history, says the Rambam by three people.
ועל זה הענין רמזו ה'חכמים' במות משה ארהן ומרים ש'שלשתם מתו בנשיקה' - ואמרו שאמרו "וימת שם משה עבד יי בארץ מואב על פי יי" - "מלמד שמת בנשיקה"; וכן נאמר באהרן "על פי יי וימת שם"; וכן אמרו במרים "אף היא בנשיקה מתה"
“To this state our Sages referred, when in reference to the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, they said that death was in these three cases nothing but a kiss. They say thus: We learn from the words, "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 34:5), that his death was a kiss. The same expression is used of Aaron: "And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor . . . by the mouth of the Lord, and died there"
(Num. 33:38) Our Sages said that the same was the case with Miriam…”
Moshe, Aaron and Miriam - that’s it. Only they achieved this exalted level of closeness to God!
Rabbi Yehuda Brandes makes an interesting observation about this very short list. He writes that in all of Rabbinic literature and in the writings of Rambam himself there is not even the hint that this list is surprising or out of the ordinary by virtue of the fact that Miriam is included with her brothers.
The ability for women to achieve spiritual greatness is a given and not even worthy of comment.
What is out of the ordinary and a deviation from what we normally find in the Torah is the episode of the daughters of Tzelafchad - Machlah, Noa, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirzah that we find in this week’s Torah portion.
Generally the land inheritance was based on the house of the father within each tribe. Married women left their tribe and joined the tribe of their husband. Tzelafchad’s daughters had no problem with this arrangement which worked well within the social and economical context of the time. What they did object to was a lacuna - a gap in the law - a specific circumstance that was not covered by existing law.
What happens, they asked, when a man has only daughters. According to existing law, the family will lose its land and the memory of the original owner - their father, would be lost.
They turn to Moshe and protest the lack of fairness embedded in the existing laws of land inheritance. Moshe listens, brings their complaint to God -
וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ - “Moses brought their cause before Hashem.”
As we know, God justifies their words and devises a “fix” of the laws.
What are we to make of the chapter? What lessons can we draw from the insistence by these women that the current state of Halacha was not sufficient to meet the standard of fairness?
Perhaps we can find meaning by examining how Chazal related to this story.
In Avot D’Rabbi Natan (37:13) we find this reaction. “...a wise person has seven traits…” One of them is: admits to what is true - מודה על האמת.
The proof for this claim is a verse from our story.
וכן הקב״ה הודה על האמת שנא׳ (במדבר כ״ז:ז׳) כן בנות צלפחד דוברות
So, too, did the Holy Blessed One admit to what was true, as it says (Numbers 27:7), “The daughters of Tzelafchad have spoken correctly.”
That is our first lesson from this story. We are supposed to imitate God and in this episode God admits to what is true...so should we.
Rashi offers another brilliant answer. It is actually a bit radical
מגיד שראת עינם מה שלא ראת עינו של משה - “This tells us that their eyes saw what Moshe’s' eyes did not see.”
On the surface, this is impressive enough. It reminds us that sometimes another perspective is needed - but not just another perspective, the perspective of the aggrieved...and in this case, the perspective of a woman or a group of women. Moshe was the greatest prophet and the leading Torah scholar of his time, yet, he was not able to see what Tzelafchad’s daughter's saw. I think the reason why is simple. It is not because Moshe was less great than we thought, but because he was a man and so he saw things differently than a woman. His experience was different, his outlook was different and his immediate concerns were different, so he missed it. That’s ok. Rashi says that’s ok. It’s human nature.
It is important to note that what is novel about this episode is not that Zelafchad’s daughters were considered, as Chazal put it - “ צִדְקָנִיּוֹת חַכְמָנִיּוֹת ודַּרְשָׁנִיּוֹת - righteous, wise and interpreters of verses. The novel part is that they took the initiative to operate in an arena wherein, until that moment, women had no standing or authority - the arena of inheritance and land allocations. What is unique is that their action brought about a “fix” if you will, to God’s plan. God “rewrote” the laws of land inheritance.
Rabbi Brandes puts it well when he says that one of the fundamental messages of this story is that the rabbiinc leadership of every generation has to listen carefully to criticism brought by women (but not only women) that point out injustices and offenses in the Halachik system.
Moshe did not muzzle Machlah, Noa, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. He accepted the truth and received God’s approval for a fix to the problem brought to him. It seems like a good model for us to follow as well.
ps.
After I finished this Dvar Torah, I came across a short Dvar Torah by Rav Amnon Bazak. The basic idea is similar to mine. His includes this powerful passage.
מסיפור זה אנו לומדים את הזכות האנושית לבוא ולטעון טענות בשם המוסר והצדק – "לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ", ושחובתם המוסרית של מנהיגיו הרוחניים של הדור היא לשמוע את הטענה ולברר עד הסוף את יכולתה לשנות ממה שהיה מקובל עד אז. לא תמיד אפשר יהיה לפנות ולקבל תשובה ישירה מאת ה', אך לא פעם יוכלו מנהיגי הדור למצוא דרכים כיצד לצמצם ככל האפשר את הפער שבין התורה לבין המוסר הטבעי. לא תמיד גם תהיה אפשרות כזו, ולעיתים התשובה היא "שתוק, כך עלתה במחשבה לפני"; אולם חובת המנהיג היא לברר תמיד שמא המסקנה תהיה הפוכה – "יאות, כך כתובה פרשה זו לפני".
From this story we learn of the right to come and make claims in the name of morality and justice - "Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family", and that the moral duty of the spiritual leaders of the generation is to hear the claim and fully clarify the possibility to change what was accepted until then. It will not always be possible to turn to and receive a direct answer from God, but often the leaders of the generation will be able to find ways to reduce as much as possible the gap between the Torah and natural morality. There will not always be such a possibility either, and sometimes the answer is "silence, this intention arose before"; However, the leader's duty is always to find out whether the conclusion will be the opposite - ״Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High.” (Midrash describing God’s reaction upon hearing the claim of Tzelofchad’s daughters)
Rav Bazak ends his Dvar Torah by quoting a remarkable statement by Rav Yehuda Amital.
ישנה תפיסה נפוצה, הסוברת שלאחר מתן תורה המוסר הטבעי איבד את תוקפו, ואין שום דבר בעולם שמחייב, פרט לתורה. גישה זו סוברת, שנתינת מקום למוסר הטבעי ממעיטה את חשיבות התורה, באשר היא מציבה מקור נוסף לחיוב מצוות בצד התורה. לפי תפיסה זו, המקנאת, לכאורה, לכבודה של תורה, נוצר נתק בין הקב"ה כיוצר האדם, ובין הקב"ה כנותן התורה, שכן מה שהקב"ה נטע בלב האדם כביכול אינו שייך לקב"ה. גישה זו גורמת להחלשת המוסר הטבעי. גם לאחר מתן תורה יש מעמד מיוחד למוסר הטבעי, האמור להדריך את האדם בכל אורחותיו
There is a common perception, which claims that after the giving of Torah natural morality has lost its validity, and there is nothing in the world that obliges, except Torah. This approach believes that giving authority to natural morality diminishes the importance of the Torah, in that it places another source of obligation side by side with the Torah. Accordingly, this view, which ostensibly protects the honor of the Torah, creates a disconnect between God, the creator of humanity, and God, the giver of the Torah, since what God implanted in the heart of people seemingly does not relate to God. This approach weakens natural morality. Even after the giving of the Torah, there is a special status for natural morality, which is supposed to guide humanity in all its ways…”
The Rambam goes on to say that this attainment is reached at the end of one’s life and it is called “Mitat Nishika” - death that feels like a kiss.
This exalted level was only reached, in all of history, says the Rambam by three people.
ועל זה הענין רמזו ה'חכמים' במות משה ארהן ומרים ש'שלשתם מתו בנשיקה' - ואמרו שאמרו "וימת שם משה עבד יי בארץ מואב על פי יי" - "מלמד שמת בנשיקה"; וכן נאמר באהרן "על פי יי וימת שם"; וכן אמרו במרים "אף היא בנשיקה מתה"
“To this state our Sages referred, when in reference to the death of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, they said that death was in these three cases nothing but a kiss. They say thus: We learn from the words, "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 34:5), that his death was a kiss. The same expression is used of Aaron: "And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor . . . by the mouth of the Lord, and died there"
(Num. 33:38) Our Sages said that the same was the case with Miriam…”
Moshe, Aaron and Miriam - that’s it. Only they achieved this exalted level of closeness to God!
Rabbi Yehuda Brandes makes an interesting observation about this very short list. He writes that in all of Rabbinic literature and in the writings of Rambam himself there is not even the hint that this list is surprising or out of the ordinary by virtue of the fact that Miriam is included with her brothers.
The ability for women to achieve spiritual greatness is a given and not even worthy of comment.
What is out of the ordinary and a deviation from what we normally find in the Torah is the episode of the daughters of Tzelafchad - Machlah, Noa, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirzah that we find in this week’s Torah portion.
Generally the land inheritance was based on the house of the father within each tribe. Married women left their tribe and joined the tribe of their husband. Tzelafchad’s daughters had no problem with this arrangement which worked well within the social and economical context of the time. What they did object to was a lacuna - a gap in the law - a specific circumstance that was not covered by existing law.
What happens, they asked, when a man has only daughters. According to existing law, the family will lose its land and the memory of the original owner - their father, would be lost.
They turn to Moshe and protest the lack of fairness embedded in the existing laws of land inheritance. Moshe listens, brings their complaint to God -
וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ - “Moses brought their cause before Hashem.”
As we know, God justifies their words and devises a “fix” of the laws.
What are we to make of the chapter? What lessons can we draw from the insistence by these women that the current state of Halacha was not sufficient to meet the standard of fairness?
Perhaps we can find meaning by examining how Chazal related to this story.
In Avot D’Rabbi Natan (37:13) we find this reaction. “...a wise person has seven traits…” One of them is: admits to what is true - מודה על האמת.
The proof for this claim is a verse from our story.
וכן הקב״ה הודה על האמת שנא׳ (במדבר כ״ז:ז׳) כן בנות צלפחד דוברות
So, too, did the Holy Blessed One admit to what was true, as it says (Numbers 27:7), “The daughters of Tzelafchad have spoken correctly.”
That is our first lesson from this story. We are supposed to imitate God and in this episode God admits to what is true...so should we.
Rashi offers another brilliant answer. It is actually a bit radical
מגיד שראת עינם מה שלא ראת עינו של משה - “This tells us that their eyes saw what Moshe’s' eyes did not see.”
On the surface, this is impressive enough. It reminds us that sometimes another perspective is needed - but not just another perspective, the perspective of the aggrieved...and in this case, the perspective of a woman or a group of women. Moshe was the greatest prophet and the leading Torah scholar of his time, yet, he was not able to see what Tzelafchad’s daughter's saw. I think the reason why is simple. It is not because Moshe was less great than we thought, but because he was a man and so he saw things differently than a woman. His experience was different, his outlook was different and his immediate concerns were different, so he missed it. That’s ok. Rashi says that’s ok. It’s human nature.
It is important to note that what is novel about this episode is not that Zelafchad’s daughters were considered, as Chazal put it - “ צִדְקָנִיּוֹת חַכְמָנִיּוֹת ודַּרְשָׁנִיּוֹת - righteous, wise and interpreters of verses. The novel part is that they took the initiative to operate in an arena wherein, until that moment, women had no standing or authority - the arena of inheritance and land allocations. What is unique is that their action brought about a “fix” if you will, to God’s plan. God “rewrote” the laws of land inheritance.
Rabbi Brandes puts it well when he says that one of the fundamental messages of this story is that the rabbiinc leadership of every generation has to listen carefully to criticism brought by women (but not only women) that point out injustices and offenses in the Halachik system.
Moshe did not muzzle Machlah, Noa, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. He accepted the truth and received God’s approval for a fix to the problem brought to him. It seems like a good model for us to follow as well.
ps.
After I finished this Dvar Torah, I came across a short Dvar Torah by Rav Amnon Bazak. The basic idea is similar to mine. His includes this powerful passage.
מסיפור זה אנו לומדים את הזכות האנושית לבוא ולטעון טענות בשם המוסר והצדק – "לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ", ושחובתם המוסרית של מנהיגיו הרוחניים של הדור היא לשמוע את הטענה ולברר עד הסוף את יכולתה לשנות ממה שהיה מקובל עד אז. לא תמיד אפשר יהיה לפנות ולקבל תשובה ישירה מאת ה', אך לא פעם יוכלו מנהיגי הדור למצוא דרכים כיצד לצמצם ככל האפשר את הפער שבין התורה לבין המוסר הטבעי. לא תמיד גם תהיה אפשרות כזו, ולעיתים התשובה היא "שתוק, כך עלתה במחשבה לפני"; אולם חובת המנהיג היא לברר תמיד שמא המסקנה תהיה הפוכה – "יאות, כך כתובה פרשה זו לפני".
From this story we learn of the right to come and make claims in the name of morality and justice - "Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family", and that the moral duty of the spiritual leaders of the generation is to hear the claim and fully clarify the possibility to change what was accepted until then. It will not always be possible to turn to and receive a direct answer from God, but often the leaders of the generation will be able to find ways to reduce as much as possible the gap between the Torah and natural morality. There will not always be such a possibility either, and sometimes the answer is "silence, this intention arose before"; However, the leader's duty is always to find out whether the conclusion will be the opposite - ״Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High.” (Midrash describing God’s reaction upon hearing the claim of Tzelofchad’s daughters)
Rav Bazak ends his Dvar Torah by quoting a remarkable statement by Rav Yehuda Amital.
ישנה תפיסה נפוצה, הסוברת שלאחר מתן תורה המוסר הטבעי איבד את תוקפו, ואין שום דבר בעולם שמחייב, פרט לתורה. גישה זו סוברת, שנתינת מקום למוסר הטבעי ממעיטה את חשיבות התורה, באשר היא מציבה מקור נוסף לחיוב מצוות בצד התורה. לפי תפיסה זו, המקנאת, לכאורה, לכבודה של תורה, נוצר נתק בין הקב"ה כיוצר האדם, ובין הקב"ה כנותן התורה, שכן מה שהקב"ה נטע בלב האדם כביכול אינו שייך לקב"ה. גישה זו גורמת להחלשת המוסר הטבעי. גם לאחר מתן תורה יש מעמד מיוחד למוסר הטבעי, האמור להדריך את האדם בכל אורחותיו
There is a common perception, which claims that after the giving of Torah natural morality has lost its validity, and there is nothing in the world that obliges, except Torah. This approach believes that giving authority to natural morality diminishes the importance of the Torah, in that it places another source of obligation side by side with the Torah. Accordingly, this view, which ostensibly protects the honor of the Torah, creates a disconnect between God, the creator of humanity, and God, the giver of the Torah, since what God implanted in the heart of people seemingly does not relate to God. This approach weakens natural morality. Even after the giving of the Torah, there is a special status for natural morality, which is supposed to guide humanity in all its ways…”