Special Inheritance Laws, 1-11
27:1 Then the daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh of the families of Manasseh, the son of Joseph came forward. Now these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 27:2 And they stood before Moses and Eleazar the priest and the leaders of the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of meeting and said, 27:3 “Our father died in the wilderness, although he was not part of the company of those that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but he died for his own sin, and he had no sons. 27:4 Why should the name of our father be lost from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among the relatives of our father.”
This episode is discussed at some length by Christopher Hays in his quest to show how the God of the Old Testament frequently changes his mind.
It is of interest that the five daughters are all named:
‘When you think of all the significant women in the Bible who are not given names (the wise woman of Abel-Beth-Maacah in 2 Sam 20, the prophetess of Isa 8:3, the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, or the woman at Bethany who anointed Jesus “for burial” in Mark 14:3–9) and/or are identified only in terms of male characters (like Jephthah’s daughter in Judg 11), that’s something. Naming is a powerful thing in the Old Testament; it carries the senses of reputation and ownership, and Hebrew names carry messages. The names of Zelophehad’s daughters suggest vigor and joy: Milcah, “Queen”; Mahlah, “Dancer”; Hoglah, “Partridge”; Tirzah, “She is pleasant.” It’s worth saying their names, and the Bible does so repeatedly (they are given again in Num 36:11 and Josh 17:3).’
(Christopher Hays, The Widening of God’s Mercy)
Hays also notes that they ‘came forward’. They act in a very assertive and public way. There was problem a conserable amount of tension in the air. Hays quotes Katherine Sakenfeld:
‘[O]ne may imagine the responses of the onlookers (shock, amazement, incredulity) and play with the adjectives they may have whispered to one another concerning these women—foolhardy, daring, assertive (aggressive), uppity. . . . Did someone perhaps whisper more softly “justified,” even before Moses’ response? The text is equally silent concerning the women’s own feelings as they came to stand before Moses. Were they frightened or self-confident, clear or tentative about their decision to speak?’
27:5 So Moses brought their case before the LORD. 27:6 The LORD said to Moses: 27:7 “The daughters of Zelophehad have a valid claim. You must indeed give them possession of an inheritance among their father’s relatives, and you must transfer the inheritance of their father to them. 27:8 And you must tell the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and has no son, then you must transfer his inheritance to his daughter; 27:9 and if he has no daughter, then you are to give his inheritance to his brothers; 27:10 and if he has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his father’s brothers; 27:11 and if his father has no brothers, then you are to give his inheritance to his relative nearest to him from his family, and he will possess it. This will be for the Israelites a legal requirement, as the LORD commanded Moses.’ ”
Hays (op. cit.) concludes from this that:
‘God can handle being challenged. Both of these stories reflect that challenging God and tradition can be one of the most profound forms of piety. A God who cannot be challenged is too small to be the God described in the Bible.’
But for Hays the emancipation is incomplete:
‘There is a tension in the story between the daughters’ own interests and the reasons that they get what they want. This is often the case in legal proceedings, but some readers have argued that this story is not really liberating. They point out that the women make their case in terms of their father’s name. They point out that it is decided not because of any sense of justice for women, but because of the overriding concern for preserving each tribe’s land. (The extended law that is given in Num 27:9–11 shows that those concerns are important.) Although the protagonists are women, some readers object that the underlying interests are all about men and their land. These are not the arguments of conservatives, but of progressives for whom the Bible is not progressive enough.’
According to Josh 17:4, the five women come before Eleazor and Joshua, in order to make good this assurance with reference to the parcelling out of the land. Hays complains that:
‘Eleazar and Joshua raise no more objection than Moses did, but apparently the women did have to insist again. They had to remind the male leadership of God’s promise.’
I find this to be an unnecessary gripe.
Hays refers to this as a case of Moses ‘rethinking the laws’. But, as Martin Davie remarks, it is, rather, a case of Moses bringing the matter before God for his ruling, for there was no law covering the issue.