Torah, human judgment, and Jewish exegesis

[cnorman18]

I have often remarked here that Jewish teachings and tradition are not dependent on the Torah or Tanakh, though we Jews do take the Bible seriously; and that it is not fair to take a given passage of Scripture and say, "This is what Judaism teaches" or "This is what God says." The Bible is the beginning of the debate on ethics and morality, and not its end; humans have the responsibility for their own moral decisions and actions, though with an eye to the tradition. The Bible is not to be read and followed slavishly, and that admonition can be traced to the Bible itself.

The following, which is this week's Torah Study from the Jewish Theological Seminary, explains about as well as I can imagine how this approach and process works.

As has become routine with my posts of this sort, I don't anticipate a lot of responses. This is both rational and nondogmatic, and is therefore of little interest to either atheists or fundamentalists, though for different reasons.

---

Parashat Pinhas

Numbers 25:10–30:1
July 11, 2009
19 Tammuz 5769

This week's commentary was written by Rabbi Daniel S. Nevins, Pearl Resnick Dean, The Rabbinical School, JTS

Is there ever a discernible gap between God's morality and the Torah, or is the Torah itself our only window into the realm of divine values? Put another way, is it permissible for a reverent Jew to challenge the morality of a law, and to base this challenge on his or her own understanding of justice and thus God's will?

This is a fundamental question for Judaism, as it is for all faiths that base themselves on a sacred literature. If we say that the Torah as it has been received is the first and final word, then precedent always enjoys the presumption of divine favor. If, however, we say that the Torah provides multiple lessons on the nature of morality, and that some are in tension with others, then it becomes our highest religious obligation to study these lessons and seek out the divine voice within them. The former position is common in Orthodoxy, but the latter view, more common in Conservative Jewish discourse, is also typical of classical rabbinic literature.

A fascinating case in point in this week's portion regards the claim of the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27: 1–11; see also the recap in Numbers 36). This man from the tribe of Manasseh has five daughters but no son. Earlier in the parashah a census of males for the purpose of military conscription is followed by the verse, "to these shall the land be apportioned" (26:53). Apparently this means that only families with male heirs will be granted a portion in the land. Because identity is associated with inheritance, this rule effectively means that Zelophehad's family will soon disappear from both the land and the memory of Israel.

The patent unfairness of this law emboldens Zelophehad's five daughters to rise up and present their case to Moses: "Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!" Moses is apparently flummoxed by this indignant claim, and without even a cursory reply, he turns to the Lord for help. The Lord replies unambiguously: "The plea of Zelophehad's daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father's kinsmen; transfer their father's share to them." As the rabbis observe with awe, "happy is the person whose claim is accepted by God!"

But what gives these women any hope that their claim could be accepted? Hasn't the law already been established by God at Sinai? Sure, the law seems unfair. But what's fair got to do with it? Why should anyone think that his or her own sense of fairness is relevant when the Torah has already been revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai?

This question is the impetus for a remarkable early midrash found in Sifre BeMidbar (133):

The daughters of Zelophehad approached. When the daughters of Zelophehad heard that the Land was to be divided among the tribes, to males and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel in each other. They said, "Not like the mercies of people are the mercies of God. People have more mercy [i.e., preference] for males than females, but the One Who spoke and the World came to Be is not like this; rather, [God's] mercies are for both males and for females, and for all, as it says, "The Lord is good to all; His mercies are over all his creations." (Psalms 145:9)

This early rabbinic text imagines the women citing the book of Psalms to vindicate their trust that God is egalitarian: "His mercies are over all his creations." Preferential treatment for males is not, according to their interpretation, a policy established by God, but rather a bias established by men. The nineteenth-century commentator Barukh HaLevi Epstein asks what makes these women think that people (i.e., rabbis) favor men? He answers his own question with three Talmudic texts that give preferential treatment to men and concludes that "men tend to worry about their own reality more than that of women" (Torah Temimahl to Numbers 27:1, number 1).

One delightful feature of this text is its blithe anachronism. The daughters of Zelophehad cite the book of Psalms, which will not be written for many more centuries, and is not, in any event, a legal text. According to Epstein, they also know their way around the Babylonian Talmud! In the realm of Torah, all ideas and all actors are expected to interact. The conversation of living Torah transcends time and space in its pursuit of the truth. These women know that God is just to all, and they know equally well that the revealed law of inheritance is unjust to women. The rabbis, both ancient and modern, do not dispute the accuracy of the women's complaint of discrimination. Still, it is remarkably audacious for the women to make their claim to Moses, and to assert that divine justice is on their side.

Imagine if Moses were an insecure leader, which would have been quite justified after the past few weeks of rebellions. What would an insecure leader do? Wouldn't he shunt these women and their impertinent request aside? Wouldn't he bristle at their challenge to the fairness of his teaching? It is a mark of the greatness of Moses that instead he listens to the challenge and, upon hearing its reasoning, he turns back to God and waits to discern a new teaching.

What does this mean for us? Are the narratives of the Torah and the interpretations of ancient rabbis just a part of our religious history, or are they meant to teach us how to act today? When we learn of an injustice perpetuated under the banner of religious precedent, should we simply accept this as an unfortunate reality, or should we too seek a solution that is just to all? What would Moses do?

Unfortunately, we are not Moses, nor do we have the inspiration of even the minor prophets of Israel. While it is often tempting to make prophetic pronouncements about justice, our religious culture has evolved a more deliberate process for addressing tensions between precedent and morality, called halakhah. This process is exceptionally delicate. When we become strident in our pronouncements of justice, we lose access to the wisdom of our ancestors and allow a rupture to open in the community of Torah. But when we are obstinate and unwilling to listen to the concerns of the oppressed, then our Torah becomes petrified, like living wood now turned to stone.

It is exceptionally hard to follow the middle path that is both reverent and responsive. It assumes that God's morality is found both in the precedents described in our sacred literature and in the lived reality of our day. Like Moses, we must be attuned to the lives of those who turn to us for guidance, and then we must return in reflection to the voice of the One Who Spoke and the World Came to Be. While we may never hear our vindication spoken from the heavens, we may still hope to discern in time that our words of Torah were wise, reverent, and just.

[kayky]

I've never seen our cnorman so happy. Thank you, Rose.

[Jrosemary]

Wow, equality for women in the "way back when". I'm impressed. I've learned to really like the Jewish religion for its attempt at working in the here and now, and not relying solely on ancient methods to inform today's decisions.

Joey, I don't agree that the passage in question actually posits equality--more on that below--but I do agree with your second sentence (and it's one of the things I like about Judaism too. )

Yes, indeed, Besides the concern for what are today called "women's rights" (and isn't it strange that those who claim that the Hebrew Bible is unrelievedly "sexist" miss this passage), there is the central issue of slavishly following Scripture while explicitly overruling one's own moral sense, as is common among fundamentalists.

CNorman, same deal. I don't agree that we're dealing with women's rights here, but I do agree with your larger point.

Let's look at the passage itself:

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. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, "Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!"

Moses brought their case before the Lord.

And the Lord said to Moses, "The plea of Zelphehad's daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father's kinsmen: transfer their father's share to them.

"Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: 'If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his father's brothers. If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.' This shall be the law of procedure for the Israelites, in accordance with the Lord's command to Moses." (Numbers 27:1-11)

Don't mistake me--it's cool that these girls had the chutzpah to make their demand in front of Moses, the priest and the elders. It's even cooler that Moses recognized the potential validity of their claim and brought it before HaShem. And cooler still that HaShem listened to the case and changed His law accordingly.

However, these girls are not asking for, or receiving, equal treatment. They make their request quite carefully: they're not asking for property for their own sake, they assure Moses. They want to make sure their father's name isn't lost. If their father had had sons, they wouldn't be asking for a thing. They wouldn't expect to inherit if they had brothers.

This passage is a step forward, yes. But it's not about equality. We've got a long ways to go, sisters.

[cnorman18]

Wow, equality for women in the "way back when". I'm impressed. I've learned to really like the Jewish religion for its attempt at working in the here and now, and not relying solely on ancient methods to inform today's decisions.

Joey, I don't agree that the passage in question actually posits equality--more on that below--but I do agree with your second sentence (and it's one of the things I like about Judaism too. )

Yes, indeed, Besides the concern for what are today called "women's rights" (and isn't it strange that those who claim that the Hebrew Bible is unrelievedly "sexist" miss this passage), there is the central issue of slavishly following Scripture while explicitly overruling one's own moral sense, as is common among fundamentalists.

CNorman, same deal. I don't agree that we're dealing with women's rights here, but I do agree with your larger point.

Let's look at the passage itself:

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. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, "Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!"

Moses brought their case before the Lord.

And the Lord said to Moses, "The plea of Zelphehad's daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father's kinsmen: transfer their father's share to them.

"Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: 'If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his father's brothers. If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.' This shall be the law of procedure for the Israelites, in accordance with the Lord's command to Moses." (Numbers 27:1-11)

Don't mistake me--it's cool that these girls had the chutzpah to make their demand in front of Moses, the priest and the elders. It's even cooler that Moses recognized the potential validity of their claim and brought it before HaShem. And cooler still that HaShem listened to the case and changed His law accordingly.

However, these girls are not asking for, or receiving, equal treatment. They make their request quite carefully: they're not asking for property for their own sake, they assure Moses. They want to make sure their father's name isn't lost. If their father had had sons, they wouldn't be asking for a thing. They wouldn't expect to inherit if they had brothers.

This passage is a step forward, yes. But it's not about equality. We've got a long ways to go, sisters.

I don't think that the text teaches equality; my contention there would be that, yes, the Hebrew Bible is sexist, but not unrelievedly sexist.

My contention, rather, is that equality is a basic principle of Jewish tradition and teaching, and has been for far longer than most people credit (not that that principle is consistently or adequately taught or applied, even today).

In fact, I would say that that principle is good evidence for my larger point, that Jewish ethics and law are not, and ought not be, inexorably tied to Scripture in the first place and are subject to the judgment of humans in every generation.

Notice that in the Torah study presented here, the case for the equal treatment of women (or more properly, for not totally ignoring the rights of women) is not made from the text, but from midrash, Talmud, and commentary. Not contemporary with the Torah, to be sure, but still pretty darn early.

The "early rabbinic text" to which Rabbi Nevins refers is Sifre BeMidbar, which is pre-medieval; it dates from the third century CE, and it does unequivocally speak for the equality of women: "Not like the mercies of people are the mercies of God. People have more mercy [i.e., preference] for males than females, but the One Who spoke and the World came to Be is not like this; rather, [God's] mercies are for both males and for females, and for all, as it says, "The Lord is good to all; His mercies are over all his creations." (Psalms 145:9)

As you say, though, the greater point here is not about the equality of the sexes, but about the right and responsibility that humans have to think, as opposed to the tendency to stop thinking in favor of an ossified and rigid interpretation of Scripture.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one place where the difference in those approaches is having an enormous impact on American law and culture as we speak is in the area of homosexuality. I have written elsewhere on that matter, of how the Bible does not seem to be aware (so to speak) of homosexuality as a lifestyle or sexual preference, and that those prohibitions ought to be abandoned just as we have abandoned other Levitical laws. The subject of this thread is, essentially, how that sort of "revision" is entirely legitimate and proper, and, in fact, necessary.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 2 Post 12

Wow, equality for women...

However, these girls are not asking for, or receiving, equal treatment. They make their request quite carefully: they're not asking for property for their own sake, they assure Moses. They want to make sure their father's name isn't lost. If their father had had sons, they wouldn't be asking for a thing. They wouldn't expect to inherit if they had brothers.

I will accept that correction, and point to..

Notice that in the Torah study presented here, the case for the equal treatment of women (or more properly, for not totally ignoring the rights of women) is not made from the text, but from midrash, Talmud, and commentary. Not contemporary with the Torah, to be sure, but still pretty darn early.

In noting this, and the rest of the post, I consider the tale as one where the discussion starts, even if it isn't quite "about the women". For me, the concern for the women's rights is expressed in the decision to secure their father's name, or rights, against a tradition of male heirs.

[Jrosemary]

Excellent responses, Joeyknuccione & Cnorman

However, these girls are not asking for, or receiving, equal treatment. They make their request quite carefully: they're not asking for property for their own sake, they assure Moses. They want to make sure their father's name isn't lost. If their father had had sons, they wouldn't be asking for a thing. They wouldn't expect to inherit if they had brothers.

I will accept that correction, and point to..

Notice that in the Torah study presented here, the case for the equal treatment of women (or more properly, for not totally ignoring the rights of women) is not made from the text, but from midrash, Talmud, and commentary. Not contemporary with the Torah, to be sure, but still pretty darn early.

In noting this, and the rest of the post, I consider the tale as one where the discussion starts, even if it isn't quite "about the women". For me, the concern for the women's rights is expressed in the decision to secure their father's name, or rights, against a tradition of male heirs.

Well said. Zelophehad's daughters--whether the story actually 'happened' or not--helped start a discussion on women and egalitarianism in Judaism that continues to this day.

Notice that in the Torah study presented here, the case for the equal treatment of women (or more properly, for not totally ignoring the rights of women) is not made from the text, but from midrash, Talmud, and commentary. Not contemporary with the Torah, to be sure, but still pretty darn early.

The "early rabbinic text" to which Rabbi Nevins refers is Sifre BeMidbar, which is pre-medieval; it dates from the third century CE, and it does unequivocally speak for the equality of women: "Not like the mercies of people are the mercies of God. People have more mercy [i.e., preference] for males than females, but the One Who spoke and the World came to Be is not like this; rather, [God's] mercies are for both males and for females, and for all, as it says, "The Lord is good to all; His mercies are over all his creations." (Psalms 145:9)

Agreed.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one place where the difference in those approaches is having an enormous impact on American law and culture as we speak is in the area of homosexuality. I have written elsewhere on that matter, of how the Bible does not seem to be aware (so to speak) of homosexuality as a lifestyle or sexual preference, and that those prohibitions ought to be abandoned just as we have abandoned other Levitical laws. The subject of this thread is, essentially, how that sort of "revision" is entirely legitimate and proper, and, in fact, necessary.

Hmmm. Are you saying that America can't base its laws on the Levitical holiness code? In that case I agree.

Or are you saying that Judaism must jettison certain aspects of the Levitical holiness code? In that case, I'd say be careful.

Abraham and Moses both show us that there are things worth arguing with HaShem about--but they argued with him only when human lives were at stake. The daughters of Zelophehad, in their own way, argued with HaShem's law. It was not a life-or-death matter, but an issue of unfairness--and HaShem heard their case and decided in their favor. So we're not working without precedence here.

When it comes to gay marriage, I believe the issue of human dignity is at stake--I believe that we deny people their human dignity by disallowing gay marriage. And that, to me, makes it worth arguing with HaShem about.

However, I think we want to be very careful about disregarding halacha. Conservative Judaism has, I believe, done so on occassion: primarily on a couple of egalitarian issues, if memory serves, such as women serving as witnesses. So we're obviously willing to say that halacha can be wrong--end of subject.

But, as a general principle, I think if we can work within halacha, we should do so. And that's how our branch of Judaism handled the issue of gay marriage. First of all, our Law Committee passed multiple responses to this question, recognizing that you can make a good argument saying gay marriage is not halachic--and an equally good argument saying that gay marriage is halachic. (Our branch did the same thing with the egalitarian issue, which is why even today there are a few Conservative synagogues that are not egalitarian--no women rabbis, no women on the bimah, etc.) So some of our synagogues perform gay marriages; others don't.

Our branch also says there's one act between two men that's is unquestionably forbidden by halacha. Now, if I were a gay guy, frankly I wouldn't let that stop me. I'd personally argue with HaShem about it. (And no one's checking bedrooms.) But this may be the sort of compromise we have to deal with if we want to stay within halacha.

It may be that we should have just jettisoned that one restriction and overturned halacha in this case. I don't know. However, I can live with our compromise. And, in fact, I like the fact that we recognize an argument can be made from either side. I'm comfortable letting each synagogue decide the egalitarian issue and gay marriage issue for themselves. I'll just make sure I attend synagogues that are egalitarian and do permit gay marriage.

[cnorman18]

Well, Rose, sooner or later we'll find an issue on which we disagree; but this isn't it.
A thoughtful and nuanced post that celebrates freedom of thought and a measured approach to the revision of Jewish law - honestly, I can't find a word here with which I'd care to take issue.

And for the record, Leviticus ought to have nothing whatever to do with American civil and criminal law.

[Cathar1950]

Well, Rose, sooner or later we'll find an issue on which we disagree; but this isn't it.
A thoughtful and nuanced post that celebrates freedom of thought and a measured approach to the revision of Jewish law - honestly, I can't find a word here with which I'd care to take issue.

And for the record, Leviticus ought to have nothing whatever to do with American civil and criminal law.

I find it odd that it is the Christians that call upon Leviticus and not Jews.
It seems the Jews have a more mature or adult view of even their own sacred writings while their little sister or God's supposed second wife are still reading in an immature, childish (not to be mistaken for child-like) and literalist (selectively dependent upon the beliefs being read into the writings) ways. I have read "The Bible Unearthed" a number of times and just finished watching the Documentary, but I noticed they as Jews don't feel threatened by the findings that there was no conquest of the Holy Land or great Empire of David and Solomon and that Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Israel were not related except that there were ancient heroes of different groups all tied together by those writing in Judah from Hezekiah to Josiah and Ezra. Even if they find out their ancient history is a fiction form the times of Josiah they still felt closer to their history with the truth.

[Jrosemary]

Well, Rose, sooner or later we'll find an issue on which we disagree; but this isn't it.
A thoughtful and nuanced post that celebrates freedom of thought and a measured approach to the revision of Jewish law - honestly, I can't find a word here with which I'd care to take issue.

And for the record, Leviticus ought to have nothing whatever to do with American civil and criminal law.

I find it odd that it is the Christians that call upon Leviticus and not Jews.
It seems the Jews have a more mature or adult view of even their own sacred writings while their little sister or God's supposed second wife are still reading in an immature, childish (not to be mistaken for child-like) and literalist (selectively dependent upon the beliefs being read into the writings) ways. I have read "The Bible Unearthed" a number of times and just finished watching the Documentary, but I noticed they as Jews don't feel threatened by the findings that there was no conquest of the Holy Land or great Empire of David and Solomon and that Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Israel were not related except that there were ancient heroes of different groups all tied together by those writing in Judah from Hezekiah to Josiah and Ezra. Even if they find out their ancient history is a fiction form the times of Josiah they still felt closer to their history with the truth.

In general, I agree that Jews don't get themselves tangled up in the gay marriage issue or homosexuality issue in the same way that Christians do. As one guy in my synagogue puts it, "Christians are obsessed with sex. Jews are obsessed with food."

That said, there are certainly Jewish opponents to gay marriage and no Chasidic or Orthodox synagogues allow gay marriage. That doesn't mean that there are no gay Orthodox or Chasidic Jews, of course. Some people are totally Orthodox except that they drive to shul on the Sabbath. Some people are totally Orthodox except that they're in a gay relationship. And, of course, lots of people go to Orthodox synagogues even if they're not Orthodox at all in practice. Ultimately, the Orthodox movement is just as wide and varied as every other movement in Judaism.

There are also, for what it's worth, some Orthodox Jews who do take the Bible in a surprisingly literal fashion; in fact, I know a couple of Conservative Jews who do as well. However, our midrash, commentaries, etc. give a different flavor to their literalist reading than to a Conservative or Fundamentalist's Christian's literalist reading, if that makes sense.

Meanwhile, I'm learning not to judge biblical literalists. I still argue against an uncompromising literalist reading, but I've learned to respect many who argue from the other side.