Original Torah: Ancient Words in a Modern Light

There are two transmissions in parashat pinhas, the transmission of authority to Joshua before Moses is “gathered unto his people”(27:13), and the apportioning of the land of Canaan to the males living at that time.

There are two traditions regarding how the torah was given. Reish Lakish says at Sinai all at once (???? ????? ?????), whereas R’ Yohanan says it was given scroll by scroll (????? ????? ?????) (Gitin 60a). This parashah strongly supports the latter theory as not only does Moses not know the answer to whether fatherless, brotherless daughters should inherit their ancestral land (27:1-11), but that this divine decision is later challenged and changed at the end of the book (31:1-13). The Revelation at Sinai clearly was not enough to rule in this case.

The word used for Moses to transmit his authority is SMK ???, meaning to lean. The words normal usage in this sense is that the an animal to be offered was leaned upon to display the selection of the animal and, in some cases, the transmission of sins to the animal.

Now, the word for inheriting land that is used for males is YRSh/??? or NTN/???, both the more common usage. The word used in this parashah for daughters inheriting land is ‘BR/?????, passing or transmission of the land. The distinction being made is that men rightfully inherit land that is theirs, whereas women are “passed the land”??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??: ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????” (Sifri beMidbar 134). “It is passed from the appropriate, to the not appropriate.??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? (ibn Ezra, Olam haTanakh p.169)” Moreover, only the fatherless, brotherless daughters can be passed the ancestral land. Mothers, Aunts, Sisters, etc. cannot.

In other words, the triumph of the women in this story is very clearly within an established patriarchy, where even the language belies that women are only passed the land so that it stays within the (patriarchical) tribe.

Both the language of transmitting authority and inheriting land denote a direct interaction between the giver and the receiver. The Torah is essentially allowing women a passive role in transmitting land from male to male.

The story, therefore, teaches us two things. One, that the revelation is open to challenge and to rewriting. And two, that even the revisions may be revised. The Torah may have been progressive in its time, but in our time, we must used its own principles to judge its conclusions.