Parasha Pinchas, Ownership comes with Expectations: Numbers 25:10-30:1, Haftarah, 1 Kings 18:46-19:21

This week Israel is about to enter Canaan after their 40-year wilderness journey, camped just east of the Jordan river.  The parasha, called Pinchas, not only includes the story of Pinchas, the grandson of Aaron who would become the Kohen Gadol, but also another census regarding those who will enter Canaan as opposed to those who left Mt Sinai and claims of land ownership for each tribe, plus a final reminder of the Holiday calendar. In its essence the words of Pinchas, like the entire Torah, plays on the theme of community.

Therefore, as I was reading this parasha, in particular about the pre-distribution of the community land, I was reminded of a Tom Cruise movie called Far and Away. Here, Jospeh (Tom Cruise) comes to America from Ireland to one day own land in this new country, a dream he almost saw fulfilled at the very end of the movie.  In the very last scene, on horseback Joseph outpaces everybody and seeks to plant his claim flag in a particular piece of land, but a fight breaks out with Chase - who wants the same parcel of land - when Joseph’s horse falls on him and Joseph is sadly crushed. However, before Joseph dies in Shannon’s arms (his love), together hand in hand they drive the stake into the ground and claim their prize land together.

Joseph’s greatest desire was fulfilled, to own his own piece of land.  There was another family who wanted their dream to be fulfilled by inheriting their father’s land, those being the daughters of Zelophehad, simply because they believed that their very inheritance was given by the Divine hand of the God of their ancestors (Numbers 27:1ff).  According to the custom of their day only sons inherited from their father, so they brought their claim before Moses that for both sons and/or daughters an inheritance is an inheritance, something that our tradition recognized came from women of intelligence (Sifrei B’Midbar 113:4). In the end Moses is moved by the ways of God and relinquishes to the daughters of Zelophehad the land of their birthright, a Midrash teaching that if they are good enough to enter the land (that Moses was not going to) then they are good enough to inherent land as faithful members of Israel (Midrash Tanchuma, Behar 1:1).

Yet, to understand the motivation of the daughters of Zelophehad, there needs be a better comprehension of the nature of inheritance. Going back a few verses it says, “The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes. Each portion shall be assigned by lot, whether for larger or smaller groups” (Numbers 26:55-56).  The Talmud teaches that normal inheritances are when the dead leave something to the living, although in this case it’s the living who leave something for the dead (Bava Batra 117a).  The Gamora explains what that means.  For the living to leave something to the dead suggests that the inheritance for the inheritor is for the sake of the to those who went before – who are now dead - as opposed for the sole benefit of the one who received it - or the ones who are living (Bava Batra 117b).  But the Talmud asks was this division of land simply a by-chance lottery dictated by the wisdom of Israel’s leaders or was it in partnership with the design of God?

This was the case with the story of the spies when Joesph and Caleb embraced the land making the lottery “according to explicit designation by the Lord” (Bava Batra 122a, also see 118b about the spies).  This Jewish understanding is embraced by Rashi who further supports the view that the land observed by the spies was not just an inheritance from Israel’s ancestors alone but by the hand of Divine providence (Rashi on Numbers 26:55), with the Sfrono teaching that the distribution of the land based on the size of each tribe was “by the mouth of God” (Sfrono, also on Numbers 26:55), thus however you choose to understand that there is Divine providence involved.  But what of the Priests and the Levites?  In Numbers 26:62 it says of them that they “were not part of the regular counting of the Israelites, since no share (of the land) was assigned to them among the Israelites,” they totaled some 23,000. We recall that their inheritance was the Mishkan, taking ownership over the spiritual and ethical matters related to the community, not to mention the maintaining and transport of the Mishkan and its related materials and items. Yet again turning to Rashi he teaches that “to everyone shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of them,” or what was their community deed and destiny. 
 
In closing, ownership is not just about a physical piece of land or property, but for Torah, where we place our claim flag like Joseph in Far and Away, is about an ideal or concept, a conviction or deep-seated value that is much more than what we see with our eyes but how we relate to the world in which we live.  We have been nurtured in a society that stands upon the model of consumerism, what is best for me, but that is not the model of Torah.  The Torah's model is one that says what is best for us is what is required of me (think Cain and Able) just as the us has a responsibility to the me.  Therefore, just as the inheritance of the land suggests that the inheritance for the inheritors is for the sake of those who went before them as opposed for the sole benefit of those who received it, what we inherit is in honor of what and whom went before us with an eye on tomorrow, thus the expectation of ownership.   

This is the lesson between Korach and Pinchas.  Pinchas took ownership of Israel’s covenant with God whereas Korach wanted what was best for him.  For the Torah ownership is a privilege that includes an obligation to better the whole and not a right that is self-serving; ownership of community (whatever your community may be) is the same, not always easy to do, but what Torah asks us to strive toward.

Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Adam