Zelophehad’s Daughters Challenge the Law and Moses is Speechless

Women and Language

Biblical narrative is male intoned; written by men, it addresses the community through its males and chronicles mostly male speech. It is assumed that women are represented by male discourse, but the female universe is mostly mute. If women were discouraged from expressing themselves, or if their voice was muffled, then by necessity their language skills would not develop as well as men’s did. And yet it appears that verbal dexterity and linguistic creativity characterize many female protagonists in the Bible when they take center stage.

The ability to articulate and communicate often becomes a source of female power that counteracts women’s legal and economic disadvantage within biblical civilization. Women like Hannah, Naomi, Ruth, and Deborah, for instance, exhibit linguistic talents that have a decisive impact on men and their actions, while also advancing their own agenda.

Zelophehad’s Daughters Disrupt the Patriarchal Universe

To divide the land of Canaan after the conquest, Moses takes a census of the Israelites (Num 26). Within each tribe, land grants will be given to each male head of a household. In this context, we meet the daughters of Zelophehad, who died without a male heir:

^{במדבר כו:לג} וּצְלָפְחָד בֶּן חֵפֶר לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ בָּנִים כִּי אִם בָּנוֹת וְשֵׁם בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד מַחְלָה וְנֹעָה חָגְלָה מִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה.

^{Num 26:33} Now Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons, only daughters. The names of Zelophehad’s daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.^[1]

Faced with the prospect of being shut out of the apportionment, the daughters take their case to the leaders of Israel.^[2] They thus disrupt a process that reaffirms patriarchy, a patrilineal listing of the Israelite tribes and subtribes, and separate themselves from the multitude of anonymous women, becoming distinct persons who deserve to have their individual names pronounced again:

^{במדבר כז:א} וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד בֶּן חֵפֶר בֶּן גִּלְעָד בֶּן מָכִיר בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן יוֹסֵף וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֹתָיו מַחְלָה נֹעָה וְחָגְלָה וּמִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה.

^{Num 27:1} 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.

The significance of the women’s daring “coming forward” is apparent in the Hebrew use of the root ק.ר.ב, “to draw near, approach.” The same verb is used later, when Moses approaches YHWH about their case (Num 27:5). It also appears in Deuteronomy, where Moses recalls instructing the people to bring difficult problems to him for adjudication (1:17). To emphasize how daunting it is for these women to plead their case, the text lists all of the male authority figures whom the sisters have to confront as they stand by the entrance of the Tent of Meeting:

^{במדבר כז:ב} וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִם וְכָל הָעֵדָה פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר.

^{Num 27:2} They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said….

The five sisters skillfully structure their plea in three parts. They first present the undeniable facts: they highlight, to their father’s merit, his loyalty to Moses during the insurrection against him (Num 16);^[3] and they note that Zelophehad died without leaving male heirs:

^{במדבר כז:ג} אָבִינוּ מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהוּא לֹא הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל יְ־הוָה בַּעֲדַת קֹרַח כִּי בְחֶטְאוֹ מֵת וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ.

^{Num 27:3} “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against YHWH, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons.

Next, their speech adopts a subtly argumentative tone, when they suggest that their father’s memory should not be erased from the annals of history (by not having a piece of land to his name):

^{במדבר כז:ד} לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן....

^{Num 27:4a} Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son!

Only then do the sisters spell out their request, to be allowed to acquire ownership of the land that would have been granted to their father.

^{במדבר כז:ד} ...תְּנָה לָּנוּ אֲחֻזָּה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אָבִינוּ.

^{Num 27:4b} Give us a holding among the brethren of our father!”

The medieval midrash Yalkut Shimoni presents each of the five daughters strategically stating a part of the argument:

דבר אחר ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד חמשתן אמרו חמשה דברים, הראשונה אמרה אבינו מת במדבר. השניה אמרה והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה' בעדת קרח. השלישית אמרה כי בחטאו מת הוא המקושש, הרביעית אמרה ובנים לא היו לו. החמישית אמרה למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו וכל הפסוק.

Another matter: The five daughters of Zelophehad came forward, and they said five things. The first said, “Our father died in the wilderness.” The second one said, “And he was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against YHWH.” The third said, “But he died for his own sin. He was the gatherer.”^[4] The fourth said, “And he has left no sons.” The fifth said, “Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan” and the whole verse (27:4).^[5]

Although the women implicitly challenge the law, or existing practice, that bars daughters from sharing in their father’s inheritance, their careful and shrewd rhetoric is not openly provocative towards the patriarchal authorities.

Challenging the Law, Not the Patriarchy

Instead of disputing the reasoning behind the law, they make their father and his right to have his name perpetuated the central figure in their address. While the ultimate purpose of their claim is to inherit their father’s land, they couch their request in the lexicon of patriarchy, emphasizing that they want land “among the brethren of our father” and primarily for their father’s sake.

Moses and the elders of Israel may have been convinced that the women meant to reinforce patriarchy by securing the perpetuation of their father’s name, but the words that ring loud in our ears are: “Give us a holding among the brethren of our father.” As biblical scholar Baruch A. Levine (1930–2021) notes:

The concern expressed is for the “name” of the father, which is a way of saying “title to his land”…. Under the existing system, with no male heir, the land would have been inherited by Zelophehad’s brothers, or their heirs, who would give their own names to it…. Thus, the daughters of Zelophehad insisted on receiving [land] alongside the estates of their paternal uncles. One senses the forcefulness of their request.^[6]

The antipatriarchal impulse in the women’s seemingly innocuous speech is brought to light in a midrash that expands upon their words:

^{ספרי במדבר פסקא קלג} כיון ששמעו בנות צלפחד שהארץ מתחלקת לשבטים ולא לנקבות, נתקבצו כולן זו על זו ליטול עצה. אמרו: לא כרחמי בשר ודם רחמי המקום. בשר ודם רחמיו על הזכרים יותר מן הנקבות.

^{Sifrei Numbers 133} When the daughters of Zelophehad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes but not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: “Not as the compassion of men [lit. flesh and blood] is the compassion of the Lord. The compassion of men is greater for males than for females.”

אבל מי שאמר והיה העולם אינו כן, אלא על הזכרים ועל הנקבות, רחמיו על הכל, שנאמר טוב י״י לכל ורחמיו על כל מעשיו (תהלים קמה:ט).

“Not so is the compassion of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His compassion extends equally to men and women and all. As it is written: ‘The Lord is good to all [namely, men and women], and His mercies are upon all of His works’” (Ps 145:9).^[7]

In other words, in the present social structure, there is solidarity among men against women and a tacit agreement to protect men’s rights at women’s expense. According to this midrash, the women blame men, not YHWH, for male bias and dominance.

Moses Is Speechless

The women’s overwhelming rhetoric renders Moses speechless and in immediate need of consultation with YHWH:

^{במדבר כז:ה} וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה.

^{Num 27:5} Moses brought their case before YHWH.^[8]

YHWH seems to be impressed not only with the women’s argument, but with their carefully worded address, as He not only repeats their words nearly verbatim when announcing His decision, but also commends their דבור, speech:

^{במדבר כז:ו} וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ ^כז:ז כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה בְּתוֹךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶם וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ אֶת נַחֲלַת אֲבִיהֶן לָהֶן.

^{Num 27:6} And YHWH said to Moses, ^27:7 “The daughters of Zelophehad speak right; you should give them a hereditary holding among the brethren of their father; transfer their father’s share to them.”^[9]

The Hebrew makes it clearer that YHWH is impressed not only with the justice of their claim but with the language the women used to present their case: דֹּבְרֹת, “they speak,” emphasizes speech, or speaking, rather than the claim itself, and the adjective כֵּן may mean not only “just” but “accurate,” or “correct wording,” again relating to the manner or style of their speech rather than the claim itself.

The midrash similarly explains YHWH’s response as relating to “speaking”:

^{במדבר רבה כא} הֱשִׁיבוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת, שֶׁהוֹדָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדִבּוּרָן

^{Numbers Rabbah 21:12} The Holy One blessed be He answered him: “Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly” – the Holy One blessed be He acknowledged their speech.

The Daughters’ Merit to Reveal Torah

The Sifrei argues that Moses should have been the one to convey this law, but it was instead revealed through the daughters in acknowledgment of their merit:

^{ספרי במדבר פסקא קלג} ראויה היתה פרשת נחלות שתאמר על ידי משה, אלא שזכו בנות צלפחד שנאמרה על ידן. לכך מגלגלים זכות על ידי זכאי וחובה על ידי חייב:

^{Sifrei Numbers 133} The section on inheritance was fit to be stated by Moses, but the daughters of Zelophehad merited that it be stated through them. “Merit is effected through the meritorious and liability through the liable.”

The Sifrei also commends the five sisters for their desire to own a portion of the land of Israel at a time when the Israelites were still in the wilderness and some of the men were doubting whether they would ever reach the land:

^{ספרי במדבר פסקא קלג} רבי נתן אומר יפה כח נשים מכח אנשים: אנשים אומרים (במדבר יד:ד) נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה, ונשים אומרות תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו (כז:ד).

^{Sifrei Numbers 133} R. Nathan says: The strength of the women was greater than the strength of the men, the men saying, “Let us make a leader and return to Egypt” (Num 14:4), and the women saying, “Give us a holding among the brethren of our father” (27:4).^[10]

Thus, the five daughters of Zelophehad successfully bring about an amendment of the law regarding inheritance, replacing a practice that took for granted that only male heirs could acquire their dead father’s estate. YHWH instructs Moses to include in the law not just Zelophehad’s daughters, but any Israelite daughter, in the chain of a man’s potential heirs:

‏^{במדבר כז:ח} וְאֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ. ^כז:ט וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַּת וּנְתַתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְאֶחָיו.

^{Num 27:8} “Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. ^27:9 If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers.’”^[11]

Restricting Women’s Inheritance Rights

The five women’s triumph, however, is partially curtailed when representatives from their own tribe of Joseph approach Moses and the elders of Israel with the complaint that if these women marry men outside the tribe and have sons to inherit after them, then ownership of their land will pass from their father’s tribe to the tribe into which they have married:

^{במדבר לו:ג} וְהָיוּ לְאֶחָד מִבְּנֵי שִׁבְטֵי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָשִׁים וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָן מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּ וְנוֹסַף עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם וּמִגֹּרַל נַחֲלָתֵנוּ יִגָּרֵעַ.

^{Num 36:3} “Now, if they marry persons from another Israelite tribe, their share will be cut off from our ancestral portion and be added to the portion of the tribe into which they marry; thus our allotted portion will be diminished.”

They further argue that the law of the jubilee year, in which inherited land that has been sold outside the family since the previous jubilee reverts to its original owner (Lev 27:24), would provide no relief:

^{במדבר לו:ד} וְאִם יִהְיֶה הַיֹּבֵל לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנוֹסְפָה נַחֲלָתָן עַל נַחֲלַת הַמַּטֶּה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם וּמִנַּחֲלַת מַטֵּה אֲבֹתֵינוּ יִגָּרַע נַחֲלָתָן.

^{Num 36:4} “And even when the Israelites observe the jubilee, their share will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their share will be cut off from the ancestral portion of our tribe.”

Since the land would be inherited, not sold, its transfer to the new tribe would be permanent. Moses’ reply, in YHWH’s name, echoes the language with which YHWH confirmed the justice in the five sisters’ claim:^[12]

^{במדבר לו:ה} וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי יְ־הוָה לֵאמֹר כֵּן מַטֵּה בְנֵי יוֹסֵף דֹּבְרִים.

^{Num 36:5} So Moses, at YHWH’s bidding, instructed the Israelites, saying: “The tribe of the sons of Joseph speak right.”

The repetition highlights the connection between the two episodes, giving credence to the modification of the law granting inheritance rights to daughters and proclaiming that tribal interests trump familial concerns.^[13] Yet since the words are repeated by Moses, and not articulated by YHWH Himself, this phrase loses the divine praise of the sisters’ speech, implied earlier, and shrinks to mean only that the Josephites’ argument itself is right.

This new ruling means that the women may own their dead father’s land only if they remained unmarried, or if they marry men of their own tribe (which the daughters of Zelophehad eventually do; 36:10–12).

^{במדבר לו:ו} זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הוָה לִבְנוֹת צְלָפְחָד לֵאמֹר לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים אַךְ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים.

^{Num 36:6} This is what YHWH has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: They may marry anyone they wish, provided they marry into a clan of their father’s tribe.

Moreover, as with the earlier law that added daughters to the list of a man’s potential heirs, this restriction will apply to any Israelite daughter who inherits land (vv. 8–9).

Significantly, both in the biblical tale itself and in the various midrashic commentaries, Zelophehad’s daughters are commended and rewarded in several ways for their bold initiative and convincing argument, even though their initial success in obtaining an amendment of the law of inheritance ends up being only partial, since it is eventually modified.

Postscript

Five Sisters and the Law of Entail in Pride and Prejudice

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813), an early nineteenth-century classic that has enjoyed renewed public interest through several movies and TV productions, reverberates with echoes of the biblical tale of Zelophehad’s daughters. The five Bennet girls belong to the British landed gentry, and they are cut off from their father’s estate by the British law of entailment, which bequeathed a man’s estate to his nearest male relative. The sisters’ predicament may thus be read as a modern analogy to the Numbers episode.

The link between the five ancient daughters and the fictional sisters is worth noting as another example of how a biblical tale is embedded in a modern work.^[14] Jane Austen’s upbringing as the daughter of an English clergyman makes it likely that she would have been acquainted with this biblical episode, and that she chose not three or four daughters, but rather five, to parallel the biblical tale.

The Bennet girls’ lives are clouded by the knowledge that they would face destitution should their father die before they are married, because they stand to lose their home and the income that their father’s estate generates. Though the novel as a whole may be read as an implicit condemnation of the law of entail, the sisters themselves never openly question the absurdity of it; rather, they appear to accept the inevitability of the transfer of their father’s estate to a distant relative, and they even try to reconcile their mother to it:

Jane and Elizabeth attempted to explain to her the nature of an entail. They had often attempted it before, but it was a subject on which Mrs. Bennet was beyond the reach of reason, and she continued to rail bitterly against the cruelty of settling an estate away from a family of five daughters, in favour of a man whom nobody cared anything about.^[15]

Austen gives ample evidence of the harmful psychological effects that the law of entail had on the young women and their mother, breeding in them insecurity and a lack of self-esteem that leads to self-debasement and hysterical conduct, especially in their quest to acquire financial security through marriage. The partial solution suggested in Numbers, an endogamous marriage that would keep the father’s estate in the women’s ownership and the tribal domain intact, is repeated comically in Austen’s novel, when the heir to Mr. Bennet’s estate, the vain and foolish Mr. Collins, visits the Bennets with the intention of proposing marriage to one of the daughters, deeming it a charitable gesture on his part.

But even if one of the girls had married this relative, the property would have been transferred to him, not to his wife, the daughter of the landowner, and she would face the same hardship if her husband died and left her without a male child. Thus, the ancient biblical sisters, who perhaps would be expected to be more docile and accepting of an unjust patriarchal law than their nineteenth-century counterparts, actually turn out to be more enterprising and daring in voicing their challenge to the law of inheritance and attempting to correct a legal wrong and position women as the legitimate heirs of the patriarch’s legacy.