May 31, 2007
Breadcrumb: Do you promise?
In Num. 32, the tribes of Gad and Reuben approach Moses and ask whether they can inherit the lands east of the Jordan river, instead of crossing it with the rest of the Israelites. Moses fumes at them, accusing them of being as bad as the scouts in Num. 13-14, who put the Israelites off the idea of even entering Canaan. No, the tribe leaders, say. We will go with you into battle, but we will leave our women, children, and cattle in fortified cities west of the Jordan. Moses eventually agrees to this arrangement, but only after the tribes promise... three times.
May 30, 2007
Numbers 31-32: What did I do to you?
Today's reading is Numbers 31-32 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers the war against the Midianites; the division of the spoils from that war; and the agreement made between Moses and the tribes of Reuben and Gad to inhabit the trans-Jordan lands.
At first glance, Num. 31 looks like just another chapter from the long chronicle of the Israelite wars of conquest. The Israelites go in, kill the Midianites, and divide up their spoils. An open-and-shut case, to the casual reader. However, once we begin looking at the details of this war, we realize that none of it makes sense. From the reason for the war to the division of the spoils, the reader seems to be tossed into a world twists that make absolutely no sense.
Let us begin with the war's targets, the Midianites. If we turn back a few chapters, to Num. 25, we will recall two incidents. The first, in Num. 25:1-5, recounts how the Moabite women seduced the sons of Israel and led them to idol-worship. The second, Num. 25:6-15, describes how Zimri (a Simeonite prince) and Cozbi (the daughter of a Midianite prince) walked in front of the tabernacle and will killed by Phineas, son of the high priest. Just so we are absolutely clear, there is no mention of the Midianite women other than Cozbi. It was the Moabites, not the Midianites, who were involved in fornication and idol-worship. Though we may want to assume the Midianites were also involved in these activities -- indeed, it is the only way Num. 31 makes any sense -- the text does not tell us this. Nonetheless, God tells Israel to go to war against the Midianites.
Before leaving the Midianites, my thoughtful readers might remember another episode, this one from Exodus. In Ex. 2, Moses flees the wrath of Pharaoh after he slew an Egyptian taskmaster. Where did he flee? Midian. Not only that, but he married a Midianite woman, and had a Midianite priest, Jethro, as a father-in-law. (Ex. 3:1) Not only that, but Jethro was the one who set up the Israelite system of judges so that Moses would not need to bear the burden of judging all the Isrealites' law cases. (Ex. 18) We would think that because of this, Moses would have a soft spot in his heart for the Midianites. But, as the text makes clear, this is not so.
Moses picks out 12,000 fighting men, 1,000 from each tribe, to wage war. Along with them, he sends Phineas, son of Eleazar the high priest. The text has already established in Num. 25 that Phineas is a fighting man, as well as a priest. Moses sent him, along with the "holy instruments and trumpets" to ensure the Israelites' victory. (Num. 31:3-6)
The Israelite warriors are, to say the least, brutal. They kill all the men of Midian and their five kings. They capture their women and children. They claim all their goods as spoils of war. They burn their cities and castles. In short, they do a fine job of ensuring the Midianites will never be a problem again. (Num. 31:7-12)
The text notes that they also kill Balaam, son of Beor. (Num. 31:8) The last time we encountered Balaam, son of Beor, was in Num. 22-24. For those who don't remember, here is a brief recap of that story: Balak, king of Midian (who is not, we should note, listed among the five kings of Midian in Num. 31) had seen the incoming Israelite army and asked Balaam to curse them. Though Balaam at first refused to come, since God had blessed the Israelites, he eventually was persuaded and even encountered an angel along the way to visit Balak. Though Balak repeatedly asked Balaam to curse the Israelites, Balaam blessed them a half-dozen times and foretold the destruction of Midian and the other non-Israelite nations in the region. Balaam was absolutely loyal to God. And yet, in Num. 31:8, the text points out specifically that he was killed in the war.
So, the Israelite soldiers, weary from a long day of slaughter and arson, return to the camp. There, they meet Moses. We might expect that Moses would be pleased that the soldiers were so thorough, but in fact, he is angry. He is not angry because the soldiers were so brutal, which we might expect, but because they were not brutal enough! Moses commands the soldiers to kill all the male children and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgins, he explains graciously, "keep alive for yourselves." (Num. 31:13-18)
Now surely after doing God's work, at Moses' command, killing not only the Midianite men but the women and male children as well, the Israelite soldiers would be welcomed back into the camp with open arms. But this is, again, not the case. Moses instructs them that they must stay outside the camp for seven days to purify themselves and their belongings. The old rules about being around dead bodies (Num. 19) still need to be obeyed, even by decorated soldiers. (Num. 31:19-24)
Finally, the moment every soldier has been waiting for, the division of the spoils. Moses commands that the spoils (675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 virgin girls) be divided in two halves, the first going to the soldiers and the other going to the rest of the congregation. This, I'm certainly, would seem very fair to the warriors, who after all did all the fighting, though less fair to the other 600,000 Israelites, who didn't. Furthermore, the tithes for these two groups are different. The soldiers need only give one out of every five hundred heads as a tithe; the congregation must give one out of every fifty. (Num. 31:25-47)
While this is just another way of honouring the soldiers, we note one interesting fact from this division: the priests receive about 350 virgin Moabite girls, the soldiers about 16,000 (that's more than one per soldier, remember), and the congregation in general another 16,000 (about one for every 35 men). (Num. 31: 35; 31:40; 31:47) Recall that the entire reason the Israelites were fighting the Midianites in the first place was because their women had seduced the Israelite men into adultery and idol-worship. Why, we must ask ourselves, are the Israelites allowing themselves to fall into the same trap? Just because the virgins didn't seduce the Israelite men until now doesn't mean they won't do so in the future.
Though I'm certain it made sense to the Israelites at the time, the passage of millennia seems to have confused issues so that all we can do is scratch our heads and ask, "huh?"
Today's passage covers the war against the Midianites; the division of the spoils from that war; and the agreement made between Moses and the tribes of Reuben and Gad to inhabit the trans-Jordan lands.
At first glance, Num. 31 looks like just another chapter from the long chronicle of the Israelite wars of conquest. The Israelites go in, kill the Midianites, and divide up their spoils. An open-and-shut case, to the casual reader. However, once we begin looking at the details of this war, we realize that none of it makes sense. From the reason for the war to the division of the spoils, the reader seems to be tossed into a world twists that make absolutely no sense.
Let us begin with the war's targets, the Midianites. If we turn back a few chapters, to Num. 25, we will recall two incidents. The first, in Num. 25:1-5, recounts how the Moabite women seduced the sons of Israel and led them to idol-worship. The second, Num. 25:6-15, describes how Zimri (a Simeonite prince) and Cozbi (the daughter of a Midianite prince) walked in front of the tabernacle and will killed by Phineas, son of the high priest. Just so we are absolutely clear, there is no mention of the Midianite women other than Cozbi. It was the Moabites, not the Midianites, who were involved in fornication and idol-worship. Though we may want to assume the Midianites were also involved in these activities -- indeed, it is the only way Num. 31 makes any sense -- the text does not tell us this. Nonetheless, God tells Israel to go to war against the Midianites.
Before leaving the Midianites, my thoughtful readers might remember another episode, this one from Exodus. In Ex. 2, Moses flees the wrath of Pharaoh after he slew an Egyptian taskmaster. Where did he flee? Midian. Not only that, but he married a Midianite woman, and had a Midianite priest, Jethro, as a father-in-law. (Ex. 3:1) Not only that, but Jethro was the one who set up the Israelite system of judges so that Moses would not need to bear the burden of judging all the Isrealites' law cases. (Ex. 18) We would think that because of this, Moses would have a soft spot in his heart for the Midianites. But, as the text makes clear, this is not so.
Moses picks out 12,000 fighting men, 1,000 from each tribe, to wage war. Along with them, he sends Phineas, son of Eleazar the high priest. The text has already established in Num. 25 that Phineas is a fighting man, as well as a priest. Moses sent him, along with the "holy instruments and trumpets" to ensure the Israelites' victory. (Num. 31:3-6)
The Israelite warriors are, to say the least, brutal. They kill all the men of Midian and their five kings. They capture their women and children. They claim all their goods as spoils of war. They burn their cities and castles. In short, they do a fine job of ensuring the Midianites will never be a problem again. (Num. 31:7-12)
The text notes that they also kill Balaam, son of Beor. (Num. 31:8) The last time we encountered Balaam, son of Beor, was in Num. 22-24. For those who don't remember, here is a brief recap of that story: Balak, king of Midian (who is not, we should note, listed among the five kings of Midian in Num. 31) had seen the incoming Israelite army and asked Balaam to curse them. Though Balaam at first refused to come, since God had blessed the Israelites, he eventually was persuaded and even encountered an angel along the way to visit Balak. Though Balak repeatedly asked Balaam to curse the Israelites, Balaam blessed them a half-dozen times and foretold the destruction of Midian and the other non-Israelite nations in the region. Balaam was absolutely loyal to God. And yet, in Num. 31:8, the text points out specifically that he was killed in the war.
So, the Israelite soldiers, weary from a long day of slaughter and arson, return to the camp. There, they meet Moses. We might expect that Moses would be pleased that the soldiers were so thorough, but in fact, he is angry. He is not angry because the soldiers were so brutal, which we might expect, but because they were not brutal enough! Moses commands the soldiers to kill all the male children and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgins, he explains graciously, "keep alive for yourselves." (Num. 31:13-18)
Now surely after doing God's work, at Moses' command, killing not only the Midianite men but the women and male children as well, the Israelite soldiers would be welcomed back into the camp with open arms. But this is, again, not the case. Moses instructs them that they must stay outside the camp for seven days to purify themselves and their belongings. The old rules about being around dead bodies (Num. 19) still need to be obeyed, even by decorated soldiers. (Num. 31:19-24)
Finally, the moment every soldier has been waiting for, the division of the spoils. Moses commands that the spoils (675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 virgin girls) be divided in two halves, the first going to the soldiers and the other going to the rest of the congregation. This, I'm certainly, would seem very fair to the warriors, who after all did all the fighting, though less fair to the other 600,000 Israelites, who didn't. Furthermore, the tithes for these two groups are different. The soldiers need only give one out of every five hundred heads as a tithe; the congregation must give one out of every fifty. (Num. 31:25-47)
While this is just another way of honouring the soldiers, we note one interesting fact from this division: the priests receive about 350 virgin Moabite girls, the soldiers about 16,000 (that's more than one per soldier, remember), and the congregation in general another 16,000 (about one for every 35 men). (Num. 31: 35; 31:40; 31:47) Recall that the entire reason the Israelites were fighting the Midianites in the first place was because their women had seduced the Israelite men into adultery and idol-worship. Why, we must ask ourselves, are the Israelites allowing themselves to fall into the same trap? Just because the virgins didn't seduce the Israelite men until now doesn't mean they won't do so in the future.
Though I'm certain it made sense to the Israelites at the time, the passage of millennia seems to have confused issues so that all we can do is scratch our heads and ask, "huh?"
May 29, 2007
Breadcrumb: On the first day of Sukkot, my congregation gave to me
Num. 29:12-38 lists the offerings that must be given every day during the Feast of Tabernacles (known today as Sukkot). On the first day, the offering is 13 bullocks, 2 rams, 14 lambs, quite a bit of wine, and flour mixed with oil. Also, there was a sacrifice of a kid goat as a sin offering, and the daily offerings I mentioned yesterday. Every subsequent day, with the exception of the 8th (last) day, the offering remains the same except that the number of bullocks decreases by one (to 7 bullocks on the 7th day). It's like a backwards Christmas carol.
May 28, 2007
Breadcrumb: Today's breakfast is...
Num. 28:1-8 describes the offers that must be sacrificed at the tabernacle every single day: two yearling lambs (one in the morning, one in the evening), each with 1/4 hin of wine (about 1L) and 1/10 ephah of flour (about 2 L) mixed with 1/4 hin of oil (about 1 L). In other words, breakfast for the priests was lamb, bread, and wine, and so was dinner. Of course, the Israelites brought a fair amount of other sacrifices, but the priests were guaranteed at least this much. It might not be our ideal breakfast, but it's certainly better than cold pizza and beer.
May 27, 2007
Numbers 28-30: I spoke too soon
Numbers 28-30: I spoke too soon
Today's reading is Numbers 28-30 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers the offerings that must be made daily, weekly, monthly, and on holidays; and the circumstances under which vows are binding.
In the last essay, I spoke about the moderately progressive stance the Bible took in relation to women's rights. Specifically, I talked about how the book of Numbers allowed daughters to inherit property so long as their father died without sons. I mentioned that for an ancient, patriarchal culture, this was in fact a significant amount of power for a woman to wield.
Unfortunately, I must now retract some of my praise.
Num. 30 speaks about vows and the conditions under which they are binding. For men, the situation is simple: all vows are binding, period. (Num. 30:2) You would think that this situation would be true of women as well, but you would be mistaken. Num. 30:3-5 speaks about a unmarried woman living in her father's house. In this case, if her father forbids (NIV) or disallows (KJV) her vow, then the vow is voided. There is a parallel situation for married women: if her husband disallows her vow, it is considered void. (Num. 30:6-8) To clarify, a husband may void absolutely any vow or oath his wife makes. (Num. 30:13) Only widows and divorcees can unconditionally offer vows, just as men can. (Num. 30:9)
Admittedly, there is one small redeeming feature in this situation: a father's or husband's silence is treated as tacit approval. (Num. 30:4; 30:7; 30:11) That is, if a father hears the vow and doesn't immediately reject it, it is binding. Also, if a father or husband waits several days before voiding his daughter's or wife's vows, the vow is still considered binding. (Num. 30:14-15)
In the last essay, I considered the Israelite stance on female inheritance to be progressive. This attitude towards female vows is not regressive, merely a reflection of the ancient Mediterranean's attitudes towards women. The Israelites are, in short, products of their times. In most ancient, medieval, and even some modern cultures, women were considered the property of their fathers (if they are not married) or husbands (if they are). The man of the household, the pater familias in Roman terms, had complete control over the members of his family and the household slaves. Women often had, at least in theory, no say in who they married, where they lived, or their husband's public affairs.
In this context, it should come as no surprise that women were not allowed to have the final say over which of their vows were binding. If a father realized that his daughter's vow ran counter to his own idea of what was best for his family, he could countermand her. It was assumed that the man of the house was more engaged in public affairs than his daughter or spouse, and thus he better understood what was good for her. In modern legal terms, we might call this a fiduciary relationship, where the one person is assumed to look out for the best interest of his charge.
The concept of female inheritance, discussed in the last essay, actually disrupts the natural cycle of events, when we consider women in this light. If the public domain belongs to men, and men are assumed to know what is best for their family, then women should not be allowed to own their own property. Who is looking out for her wellbeing? Who can help her if she makes the wrong decision? If a woman owns property, no matter how much she wants to protect her father's name and inheritance, she is suddenly thrust into a sphere, the public sphere, that she supposedly does not understand.
Only widows and divorcees can make unconditionally binding vows. They are not under the household of any man, and thus have no one to contradict them. However, we must look at the situations of these women. Though a woman could be widowed at any time of her life, it is probably safe to assume that most widows were older women. Especially after the Israelites were done fighting their wars of conquest, most men would die, at least theoretically, as the result of illness or old age. Thus, a widow would herself be an older woman of experience, one who had watched her husband conduct business dealings and, again theoretically, better understood how they worked.
The case is similar with divorcees. Though the text has not yet discussed the conditions under which a woman could gain a divorce from her husband, it was more common than under Christian law, but still moderately rare. In Judaism, a woman is allowed to ask for a divorce at any time, but it is the man who grants it. He can divorce his wife for any reason or no reason at all. However, there are times when a woman can gain a divorce against the will of her husband, such as when the husband has been neglectful or adulterous. Furthermore, a man who divorces his wife must, under most circumstances, give her money or property. Thus a divorcee, like a widow, owns property and has had some encounters with the public realm.
When all is said and done, however, where do we stand on this issue? Do we applaud the Bible for its progressive stance towards female inheritance, or do we shun it for its contemporary attitude towards female oaths? In the twenty-first century western world, women's oaths are considered just as binding as men's, and it seems unnatural or unfair to us for the situation to be otherwise. But this has only been the case in very recent years, no more than a century. For most of history, women have been firmly under the rule of their pater familias, and the Bible merely reflects this fact. While we cannot praise its attitude, neither can we condemn it. It was, in this case, simply a reflection of the times.
Today's reading is Numbers 28-30 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers the offerings that must be made daily, weekly, monthly, and on holidays; and the circumstances under which vows are binding.
In the last essay, I spoke about the moderately progressive stance the Bible took in relation to women's rights. Specifically, I talked about how the book of Numbers allowed daughters to inherit property so long as their father died without sons. I mentioned that for an ancient, patriarchal culture, this was in fact a significant amount of power for a woman to wield.
Unfortunately, I must now retract some of my praise.
Num. 30 speaks about vows and the conditions under which they are binding. For men, the situation is simple: all vows are binding, period. (Num. 30:2) You would think that this situation would be true of women as well, but you would be mistaken. Num. 30:3-5 speaks about a unmarried woman living in her father's house. In this case, if her father forbids (NIV) or disallows (KJV) her vow, then the vow is voided. There is a parallel situation for married women: if her husband disallows her vow, it is considered void. (Num. 30:6-8) To clarify, a husband may void absolutely any vow or oath his wife makes. (Num. 30:13) Only widows and divorcees can unconditionally offer vows, just as men can. (Num. 30:9)
Admittedly, there is one small redeeming feature in this situation: a father's or husband's silence is treated as tacit approval. (Num. 30:4; 30:7; 30:11) That is, if a father hears the vow and doesn't immediately reject it, it is binding. Also, if a father or husband waits several days before voiding his daughter's or wife's vows, the vow is still considered binding. (Num. 30:14-15)
In the last essay, I considered the Israelite stance on female inheritance to be progressive. This attitude towards female vows is not regressive, merely a reflection of the ancient Mediterranean's attitudes towards women. The Israelites are, in short, products of their times. In most ancient, medieval, and even some modern cultures, women were considered the property of their fathers (if they are not married) or husbands (if they are). The man of the household, the pater familias in Roman terms, had complete control over the members of his family and the household slaves. Women often had, at least in theory, no say in who they married, where they lived, or their husband's public affairs.
In this context, it should come as no surprise that women were not allowed to have the final say over which of their vows were binding. If a father realized that his daughter's vow ran counter to his own idea of what was best for his family, he could countermand her. It was assumed that the man of the house was more engaged in public affairs than his daughter or spouse, and thus he better understood what was good for her. In modern legal terms, we might call this a fiduciary relationship, where the one person is assumed to look out for the best interest of his charge.
The concept of female inheritance, discussed in the last essay, actually disrupts the natural cycle of events, when we consider women in this light. If the public domain belongs to men, and men are assumed to know what is best for their family, then women should not be allowed to own their own property. Who is looking out for her wellbeing? Who can help her if she makes the wrong decision? If a woman owns property, no matter how much she wants to protect her father's name and inheritance, she is suddenly thrust into a sphere, the public sphere, that she supposedly does not understand.
Only widows and divorcees can make unconditionally binding vows. They are not under the household of any man, and thus have no one to contradict them. However, we must look at the situations of these women. Though a woman could be widowed at any time of her life, it is probably safe to assume that most widows were older women. Especially after the Israelites were done fighting their wars of conquest, most men would die, at least theoretically, as the result of illness or old age. Thus, a widow would herself be an older woman of experience, one who had watched her husband conduct business dealings and, again theoretically, better understood how they worked.
The case is similar with divorcees. Though the text has not yet discussed the conditions under which a woman could gain a divorce from her husband, it was more common than under Christian law, but still moderately rare. In Judaism, a woman is allowed to ask for a divorce at any time, but it is the man who grants it. He can divorce his wife for any reason or no reason at all. However, there are times when a woman can gain a divorce against the will of her husband, such as when the husband has been neglectful or adulterous. Furthermore, a man who divorces his wife must, under most circumstances, give her money or property. Thus a divorcee, like a widow, owns property and has had some encounters with the public realm.
When all is said and done, however, where do we stand on this issue? Do we applaud the Bible for its progressive stance towards female inheritance, or do we shun it for its contemporary attitude towards female oaths? In the twenty-first century western world, women's oaths are considered just as binding as men's, and it seems unnatural or unfair to us for the situation to be otherwise. But this has only been the case in very recent years, no more than a century. For most of history, women have been firmly under the rule of their pater familias, and the Bible merely reflects this fact. While we cannot praise its attitude, neither can we condemn it. It was, in this case, simply a reflection of the times.
May 26, 2007
Breadcrumb: Church and State
In Num. 27:16-23, Moses appoints Joshua as his successor. However, Joshua does not receive all of Moses' power. Instead, the command of the Israelite nation will be shared between Joshua and Eleazar, the high priest. Joshua must consult with Eleazar, who in turn will ask God to make decisions for the people. This is one of the first instances in the Bible where we have the beginnings of a separation between church and state, supreme religious power and supreme secular power. While Joshua must still consult with Eleazar and make his decisions in tandem with the priest, there will no longer be another Moses, who wielded both religious and secular power.
May 25, 2007
Breadcrumb: A few reminders
The census in Num. 26 is generally what we would expect: long lists of tribes, lineages, and head counts. However, there are a few references to earlier episodes in the text, just so that people might orient themselves. For example, Num. 26:9 refers to Dathan and Abiram, who were swallowed in an earthquake in Num. 16. Num. 26:19 refers to Er and Onan, Judah's sons who died in Canaan. This sordid incident, involving incest and deceit, took place in Gen. 38. Think of this as a Cole's Notes version of the earlier parts of the Pentateuch, reminding the Israelites of their history while presenting the dry numbers.
May 24, 2007
Numbers 26-27: To my daughters, I leave...
Today's reading is Numbers 26-27 (read it in the KJV or NIV)
Today's passage covers the second census of the Israelite tribes; the case of Zelophehad's daughters' inheritance; and Joshua's selection as Moses' successor.
Since our ancestors' ancestors developed the concept of private property, one question has been raised on repeated occasions: "who gets my stuff when I die?" In most patriarchal cultures, including ancient Judaism and medieval Christianity, the answer is traditionally, "my sons."
There are two major variants of patriarchal property inheritance. First is primogeniture, by which the eldest son inherits everything and the younger sons are left to fend for themselves. The other variant is partible inheritance, by which all sons inherit part of the father's wealth, theoretically in equal shares. Though it has not been stated explicitly in the text thus far, it seems that the ancient Israelites favoured partible inheritance, with each son gaining a portion of his father's wealth upon his death.
This system works fine most of the time. The main upset, for obvious reasons, is when a man dies without sons.
This is precisely the situation in Num. 26-27. In Num. 26:33, part of the census data, we learn that Zelophehad, a man of the tribe of Manasseh, died with five daughters but no sons. Num. 27:1-11 picks up the story. Zeolphehad's daughters -- Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah -- ask Eleazar the high priest for the right to inherit their father's property, since he had no sons. They make it clear that Zelophehad died in the wilderness, was not associated with the traitor Korah (see Num. 16), and had no sons. They ask Eleazar, "Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father." (Num. 27:4)
Moses brings the case before God, who sides with Zelophehad's daughters. He tells Moses that the daughters shall inherit their father's property instead of his other relatives. (Num. 27:5-7)
God then proceeds to list the chain of inheritance if there are no sons, for the Israelites to use as general guidelines. If a man dies without sons, his property shall pass to his daughters. If he has no daughters, it will pass to his brothers. If he has no brothers, it passes to his father's brothers (ie: his uncles). If his father has no brothers, it passes to his nearest kinsman. (Num. 27:8-11)
We are left with a situation where, if women don't have equal rights, they at least have some rights. According to Biblical law, they are allowed to inherit and own property if they have no brothers when their father dies. Though this may seem like a small concession to today's feminist-conscious society, it was in fact a major accomplishment for ancient women. In many ancient and medieval cultures, women could not inherit from their fathers. The only woman who might own property was a widow, who occasionally inherited her husband's wealth. In many cultures, even if a father died with daughters and no sons, his property would pass to his brothers, kinsmen, or even the state.
One reason for this lack of female inheritance was that women were considered the property, or at least the wards, of the men in their lives. Young, unmarried women were under the protection of their fathers. Married women were under their husbands. At no point in a woman's life, with the possible exception of widowhood, was she considered a person in her own right, able to make her own decisions and manage her own affairs. It is telling that even until the early 20th century, women were not allowed to vote in most western, "developed" countries. It was assumed that whoever their husband voted for, they also supported.
Looking at the historical context, we can begin to understand why women were considered nearly non-entities (or at least, non-public entities). Power and wealth were firmly in the hands of men. Family lineage passed from father to son. If women were allowed to share power and inherit, there would suddenly be many disputes. What if a woman wanted her children to carry her family's name, and not her husband's? What if she tried to overpower her husband? What if she withheld her own wealth from her husbands, leaving her rich and him poor? These were all valid concerns in a society where the public domain was the almost-exclusive domain of men.
Things are obviously different in today's society. Most people in the first world would be appalled to see sexist favouritism in terms of inheritance and power. We expect our women to inherit as much as their brothers (barring family disputes having nothing to do with gender). Women can vote, hold public office, and manage their own money. Many women today maintain their maiden name instead of adopting their husband's, and many children have hyphenated last names, carrying both their mother's and father's family names. Most of my readers will agree, I hope, that these are positive changes, showing a trend towards gender equality.
But, before we become too smug, we must remember that these changes are incredibly recent, taking place in the life spans of many people still alive today. My grandparents can remember when women did not have the right to vote. My parents might remember when a woman was not allowed to own a credit card. Many countries, including the U.S., have still never had a female head of state.
The trend has begun, and accelerated, towards gender equality. And its roots might lie as far back as Num. 27.
Today's passage covers the second census of the Israelite tribes; the case of Zelophehad's daughters' inheritance; and Joshua's selection as Moses' successor.
Since our ancestors' ancestors developed the concept of private property, one question has been raised on repeated occasions: "who gets my stuff when I die?" In most patriarchal cultures, including ancient Judaism and medieval Christianity, the answer is traditionally, "my sons."
There are two major variants of patriarchal property inheritance. First is primogeniture, by which the eldest son inherits everything and the younger sons are left to fend for themselves. The other variant is partible inheritance, by which all sons inherit part of the father's wealth, theoretically in equal shares. Though it has not been stated explicitly in the text thus far, it seems that the ancient Israelites favoured partible inheritance, with each son gaining a portion of his father's wealth upon his death.
This system works fine most of the time. The main upset, for obvious reasons, is when a man dies without sons.
This is precisely the situation in Num. 26-27. In Num. 26:33, part of the census data, we learn that Zelophehad, a man of the tribe of Manasseh, died with five daughters but no sons. Num. 27:1-11 picks up the story. Zeolphehad's daughters -- Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah -- ask Eleazar the high priest for the right to inherit their father's property, since he had no sons. They make it clear that Zelophehad died in the wilderness, was not associated with the traitor Korah (see Num. 16), and had no sons. They ask Eleazar, "Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father." (Num. 27:4)
Moses brings the case before God, who sides with Zelophehad's daughters. He tells Moses that the daughters shall inherit their father's property instead of his other relatives. (Num. 27:5-7)
God then proceeds to list the chain of inheritance if there are no sons, for the Israelites to use as general guidelines. If a man dies without sons, his property shall pass to his daughters. If he has no daughters, it will pass to his brothers. If he has no brothers, it passes to his father's brothers (ie: his uncles). If his father has no brothers, it passes to his nearest kinsman. (Num. 27:8-11)
We are left with a situation where, if women don't have equal rights, they at least have some rights. According to Biblical law, they are allowed to inherit and own property if they have no brothers when their father dies. Though this may seem like a small concession to today's feminist-conscious society, it was in fact a major accomplishment for ancient women. In many ancient and medieval cultures, women could not inherit from their fathers. The only woman who might own property was a widow, who occasionally inherited her husband's wealth. In many cultures, even if a father died with daughters and no sons, his property would pass to his brothers, kinsmen, or even the state.
One reason for this lack of female inheritance was that women were considered the property, or at least the wards, of the men in their lives. Young, unmarried women were under the protection of their fathers. Married women were under their husbands. At no point in a woman's life, with the possible exception of widowhood, was she considered a person in her own right, able to make her own decisions and manage her own affairs. It is telling that even until the early 20th century, women were not allowed to vote in most western, "developed" countries. It was assumed that whoever their husband voted for, they also supported.
Looking at the historical context, we can begin to understand why women were considered nearly non-entities (or at least, non-public entities). Power and wealth were firmly in the hands of men. Family lineage passed from father to son. If women were allowed to share power and inherit, there would suddenly be many disputes. What if a woman wanted her children to carry her family's name, and not her husband's? What if she tried to overpower her husband? What if she withheld her own wealth from her husbands, leaving her rich and him poor? These were all valid concerns in a society where the public domain was the almost-exclusive domain of men.
Things are obviously different in today's society. Most people in the first world would be appalled to see sexist favouritism in terms of inheritance and power. We expect our women to inherit as much as their brothers (barring family disputes having nothing to do with gender). Women can vote, hold public office, and manage their own money. Many women today maintain their maiden name instead of adopting their husband's, and many children have hyphenated last names, carrying both their mother's and father's family names. Most of my readers will agree, I hope, that these are positive changes, showing a trend towards gender equality.
But, before we become too smug, we must remember that these changes are incredibly recent, taking place in the life spans of many people still alive today. My grandparents can remember when women did not have the right to vote. My parents might remember when a woman was not allowed to own a credit card. Many countries, including the U.S., have still never had a female head of state.
The trend has begun, and accelerated, towards gender equality. And its roots might lie as far back as Num. 27.
May 23, 2007
Breadcrumb: Warrior-priests
In Num. 25:6-18, an Israelite man brings his belle, a Midianite woman, near the tabernacle. Phineas, son of Eleazar (the new high priest and son of Aaron), promptly grabs a javelin and runs them both through. Though this might seem a little brutal on the part of a priest, it did stop a plague that God had sent, which had already killed 24,000 people, and it prevented God from killing the entire congregation... again. Remember that Israelite priests were supposed to perform animal sacrifices on a near-daily basis, so the murder of two heretics would likely have not been too far a stretch for Phineas. He is, after all, merely enacting God's justice.
May 22, 2007
Breadcrumb: Bring me their heads!
After all of Balaam's praise of the Israelites, it seems some of them can't live up to their reputation. In Num. 25:1-5, we learn that Israelites had been seduced by Moabite women and, through them, Moabite gods, particularly Baal of Peor. They offered sacrifices and prayers to these gods. God, the Israelite God, was understandably annoyed. God commands Moses to have the leaders ("heads" in the text) of this Baal movement killed and exposed in broad daylight. Moses dutifully informs the judges to carry out justice, which they do, and God is appeased. However, we can't help but note that the Israelites seem to be particularly fickle where their faith is concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)