Parashat Pinchas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BSD Parashat Pinchas Distributive Justice in the Settlement of the Land -Rabbi Dr. Yehuda Altshuler- Parashat Pinchas deals mostly with the preparations made in anticipation of the People’s entry into the Land of Israel, and in particular with the allocation of property in the Land. The period in which the People entered and conquered the Land is historically unique in that it is one of the only times, if not the only time, that an entire nation entered a country at one time and was faced with the need to distribute all of that country’s land among the nation’s various tribes and families. The generation that experienced the entry into the Land must have felt intense excitement when discussing the allocation of property in the Land of Israel, as it had waited 40 years for this time to come; a time and experieice that the previous generation did not merit as a result of it having sinned by heeding the counsel of the spies. At the same time, in this parasha the Torah provides us with a window into the methodology used for allocating the different areas of the Land among the tribes of Israel and the value system, various considerations and calculations taken into account when making such allocations. Several of the ethical considerations that may be gleaned from the text are rooted in a number of fascinating contradictions arising from a series of sequential verses: “You shall apportion the Land among these as an inheritance, in accordance with the number of names. To the large [tribe] you shall give a larger inheritance and to a smaller tribe you shall give a smaller inheritance, each person shall be given an inheritance according to his number. Only through lot shall the Land be apportioned; they shall inherit it according to the names of their fathers’ tribes. The inheritance shall be apportioned between the numerous and the few, according to lot.” We note two primary contradictions. The first is related to the target audience of the territorial distribution. “You shall apportion the Land among these as an inheritance.” The words “among these” refer to the census that had just recently been performed in order to take account of the families that were to cross over into the Land of Israel. On the other hand, the Torah states that the allocation of land was to be according “to the names of their fathers’ tribes.” The second contradiction relates to the method of allocation, which on one hand was to be performed based on a quantitative scale: “To the large [tribe] you shall give a larger inheritance and to a smaller tribe you shall give a smaller inheritance, each person shall be given an inheritance according to his number,” while at the same time the Torah states that the allocation was to be performed as follows: “Only through lot shall the Land be apportioned.” The sages of the Talmud recognized these contradictions and suggested a number of solutions. However, we will focus on the opinion voiced by Rabbi Yoshiya in Tractate Bava Batra 117A. With respect to the first contradiction, Rabbi Yoshiya suggests a fundamental point: “This [manner of] inheritance is different from all [other modes of] inheritance in the world; for, in [the case of] all [other] successions in the world, the living are heirs to the dead but, in this case, the dead were heirs רח' המלך ג'ורג' 84 ת.ד. 29 ירושלים King George St. P.O.B 92 Jerusalem 91000 20999 48 טל: 99-2999842029 פקס: Tel: 972-2-6202459/6202460 Fax:972-2-6202792 99–2999029 e-mail: [email protected] to the living.” In order to understand this statement, we must examine the underlying significance of the allocation of the Land. Before the exodus from Egypt, Hashem spoke the four expressions of redemption to Moshe: vehotzeiti (I will take you out), vehitzalti (I will save you), vega’alti (I will redeem you) and velakachti (I will take you). Hashem added a fifth expression: veheiveiti (I will bring you). The purpose of the exodus from Egypt was not only the redemption of slaves from their bondage, and not only the creation of a God- worshipping nation from those slaves. The essence of the exodus from Egypt was the inheritance of the Land and the realization of the Covenant Between the Parts between Hashem and Avraham: “I will bring you to the Land, concerning which I raised My hand to give to Avraham, to Yitzchak and to Ya’acov, and I will give it to you as a heritage; I am Hashem.” However, when the children of Israel sinned after the spies returned from their expedition to Canaan by refusing to enter the Land of Israel, thus in effect negating the purpose of the exodus from Egypt, they were condemned to die in the desert while their children received the right to enter the Land in their stead. This change was extremely significant in regard to the original intent behind the exodus from Egypt, but what was done was done. The following 40 years of wandering the desert saw the death of the entire generation that had exited Egypt and the advance of a new generation, the children of the first. However, when the children approached their entry into the Land, they were in effect realizing the historical purpose of their parents and standing in their very shoes, so to speak. For this reason, the Torah states that the division of the Land had to be done in such a way that the allocation was reflective of the two generations and not just the one that actually entered the Land: “Rabbi said: I will give you an example to which this thing may be compared. To two brothers, priests, who were in one town, one had one son and the other had two sons, and these went to the threshing-floor. He who has one son receives one portion, and the one who has two sons receives two portions. They [then] return [with the three portions] to their father and re-divide [the total] in equal shares.” This method of allocation creates something of a distorted result, as in actuality both sons receive equal shares despite the fact that their families are of different size. However, this method is a necessary product of the desire to “include” the generation that exited Egypt in the in the division of the Land together with the generation that actually entered the Land. One may possibly justify the lack of equality in the allocation of the Land by stating that regardless, even if the generation that entered the Land had distributed the territory amongst itself in a completely equitable fashion, a problem would have arisen one generation hence in that one territory would have been divided within one family amongst a certain number of children, while the territory belonging to a second family would have been divided amongst a different number of children, so that even if the starting point for the distribution of the territory had been equal, the inequality would have arisen later on. Agricultural land is a good example of just such an issue. Lands belonging to agricultural settlements were initially divided equally among all the founding settlers. When the plots were passed on to the next generation, some of them were divided into such small portions that they lost all economic viability. This resulted in the need to select an “inheriting child,” one who would take the plot and continue working it in the name of the family. רח' המלך ג'ורג' 84 ת.ד. 29 ירושלים King George St. P.O.B 92 Jerusalem 91000 20999 48 טל: 99-2999842029 פקס: Tel: 972-2-6202459/6202460 Fax:972-2-6202792 99–2999029 e-mail: [email protected] The second contradiction concerning the method of territorial distribution also stems from the desire to divide the Land equally between the tribes, as all of the tribes have a right to the Land by virtue of the promise their forefathers received from Hashem, thus giving each of them rights equal to each other. However, despite this desire and the ideal of equal allocation to all, one cannot ignore certain practical considerations, such as the quantitative differences between the tribes that must be reflected in the size of the territory allocated to each tribe, the economic-qualitative variance between land on the periphery versus land in the center of the country, and high-quality agricultural land versus desert or rocky hillside, and different needs that result from vocational variances, so that the tribe of Zebulun, which dealt in trade, would value a territory in close proximity to the coast and primary trade routes much more than fertile agricultural fields in the valley and the tribes of Reuben and Gad would value grazing land much more than their agricultural equivalent. The opposite would of course be true for the tribes that specialized in agricultural produce. The solution that was ultimately put to use was in essence an amalgamation of the recognition of the various needs of each tribe and a providential lottery that demonstrated the fact that the territorial allocation was not just a random distribution of property, but a division of the Land of Israel, the land of our forefathers. The Talmud describes the lottery in the following picturesque manner: “R. Judah said: A se’ah in Judaea is worth five se’ah in Galilee. And it was only divided by lot, for it is said “Only through lot shall the Land be apportioned.” And it was only divided by [the direction] of] the Urim and Tumim.