Polish translation here.
Thoughts on Parashat Matot-Masei 5785
One of the core principles of rabbinic understanding of the Torah is that no paragraph, no verse, no word and even no letter is redundant — it’s there for a purpose and it always means something. AND when the Torah repeats, it really demands our attention because it’s rare. In Parashat Matot-Masei, we revisit the story of the daughters of Zelophhad—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah. Their plea is discussed in our last week parasha—Pinchas—when they approached Moshe to request their father’s inheritance. Now, here they are again.
Why repeat the story?
Back in parashat Pinchas, their request is granted. God says yes! And makes a new precedent: if a man dies without sons his inheritance goes to his daughters. It’s a big moment—five women stand up, make a case, and God agrees with them. It’s often interpreted as a (proto-)feminist win—but as is often the case with the Torah—it’s more nuanced.
This ruling left one major issue: what happens if these daughters marry outside their tribe? Would their inherited land then go into their husbands tribe? This week’s parasha clarifies that legal ruling and more interestingly shows us a bigger picture.
The heads of the tribe of Manasseh raise this concern. If these women marry outside the tribe, the land given to Manasseh shrinks:
“The family heads in the clan of the descendants of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, one of the Josephite clans, came forward and appealed to Moses and the chieftains, family heads of the Israelites. They said, ‘יהוה commanded my lord to assign the land to the Israelites as shares by lot, and my lord was further commanded by יהוה to assign the share of our kinsman Zelophehad to his daughters. Now, if they become the wives of 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 become [wives]; thus our allotted portion will be diminished.’ … So Moses, at יהוה’s bidding, instructed the Israelites, saying: ‘The plea of the Josephite tribe is just.’” (Numbers 36:1–3,5)
Moshe sees this and rules that daughters who inherit must marry within their tribe. That way, the land stays put.
This decision is often seen through one or two (or more) lenses. One is about women’s rights. The second focuses on tribal land rights: preserving the integrity of land distribution, making each tribe maintain its God-given portion. The other lens—one I find especially compelling—rests on a single phrase used earlier: achei avihem, “their father’s kinsmen.” What exactly does that mean?
The word kinsmen can be interpreted broadly. It could refer narrowly to a tribal group—or it might hint at something deeper. Maybe it’s not just about land. Maybe the Torah is pushing us to notice how kinship, responsibility, and even power work in a group. If I was going to get super forward – maybe even look at how all this shifts the questions – what happens when women are brought into the equation. It opens up the possibility long before the society is even ready. The Torah sees the big picture before we do.
This story is not just about daughters getting land. It’s about daughters becoming eligible. Becoming part of the system that determines how the people of Israel structure themselves. So in that way it is a win for equal rights. But that language is so limited. The Torah is so much bigger.
Yes, daughters get inheritance rights—but only under certain conditions. It’s a step forward, yes, but a cautious one. One that always balances individual rights with communal responsibilities.
Jewish law is often a careful dance between individual rights and communal needs. Here we see that balance in action. The Torah makes space for women to inherit, but only in a way that preserves the larger structure—tribal boundaries, ancestral identity, the national promise of the land.
So no, this isn’t a full-on declaration of gender equality—it is a movement in that direction but that’s not what this was. Unfortunately, it’s often (mis)interpreted this way. But it’s so much more interesting and codifying and solid. The Torah doesn’t overturn the system, but it adapts. It makes room. It evolves. More important than gender equality is something almost gender neutral – regardless of gender the land stays distributed among the tribes – it’s about being a Jew. And that fits into a much bigger picture. The point isn’t really about the daughters themselves—it’s that they raised a question that brought attention to something the Torah already cares deeply about: protecting the land of each tribe. Every tribe was given a specific portion of Israel, and that structure wasn’t just practical—it was spiritual. It’s what kept people connected to their history, to their families, and to each other.
The laws around inheritance, including this one, are part of a consistent system—like the Jubilee year, which returned land to its original owners every 49 years. The goal isn’t individual ownership; the goal is national connection. The Torah creates laws to keep that system intact—so that no family, no gender, no tribe, no part of Am Yisrael becomes permanently disconnected.
This moment isn’t about giving more rights to women—it’s about reinforcing the value of every Jew, women and men, having a stake in the land and in the nation. That’s what made their claim valid. Not because they were bold or brave—though they were—but because their request aligned with the Torah’s vision for a connected, whole people.
That’s the real story here. The Torah responds to individual voices—but only when those voices strengthen the community. It protects freedom—but only when that freedom reinforces responsibility. That’s what holds us together. That’s what keeps Am Yisrael one.
Shabbat shalom
Rabbi Mirski
Leave a Reply