Pinchas: America

I grew up in the United States of America. I was circumcised as a Jew at 8 days. Is this an identity problem? For all of my life, I have been taught that it is not. 

Today is American Independence Day, the most significant national holiday in America. The holiday celebrates the declaration of independence from England. Thirteen (now, former) colonies of the greatest colonial power in the world declared that they would no longer be subject to the governance of the king and his parliament. This amounted to an act of rebellion. It set up a new economic order in the New World, forcing self reliance for all goods. The celebrated Declaration  contained new principles that justified the  the defection of the colonies; human equality and  government by consent.  These ideas  were latent in ancient literature, especially and  including the Torah (which was familiar to all the signers and  the vast majority of the colonists) and evolved into talking points that justified rebellion. 

The high school  understanding of the break between England and the nascent United States emphasizes the human rights aspect; it implies that the fight for human rights motivated independence and justified the war that followed. Having lived through the evolution of the United States up to the present, I think that economic considerations were foremost. It is, however, very pleasing that human equality and self governance were the rallying cry. 

One of the highlights in parshath Pinchas is the statement of inheritance law that follows the request of the daughters of Zelophehad: that women be granted inheritance rights. Zelophehad  had no sons, but he had five outstanding daughters. These women 

וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֜דְנָה לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְלִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֥י הַנְּשִׂיאִ֖ם וְכׇל־הָעֵדָ֑ה פֶּ֥תַח אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃ 

They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said

Stop! These women (the verb is overtly feminine) stood before this assembly of every source of  male power  and governance. There is an implication of political power coming from various sources.  They did not go to Moses alone, they needed the buy-in of the sacred (Elazar, the High Priest [supreme court?]) and the princes (the Lords or the Senate) and the whole assembly ( the Commons or Congress). The Torah stated this presentation in a way that implies a distribution of power. This principle of distributed power had evolved in England, but the American constitution codified it and took it further.  The constitution allowed for evolution depending upon circumstances. We are watching that now. 

לָ֣מָּה יִגָּרַ֤ע שֵׁם־אָבִ֙ינוּ֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֔וֹ כִּ֛י אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ בֵּ֑ן תְּנָה־לָּ֣נוּ אֲחֻזָּ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֥י אָבִֽינוּ׃ 

Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”

These women made a novel suggestion: Women could inherit land. Women are not specifically mentioned in terms of property law. Actually, up until this point, the laws of inheritance are not defined. 

Moses, and presumably this entire assembly, does not know what to answer. 

וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְ  Moses brought their case before GD

(I love that long, feminizing nun)

Gd answers

כֵּ֗ן בְּנ֣וֹת צְלׇפְחָד֮ דֹּבְרֹת֒ נָתֹ֨ן תִּתֵּ֤ן לָהֶם֙ אֲחֻזַּ֣ת נַחֲלָ֔ה בְּת֖וֹךְ אֲחֵ֣י אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֛ אֶת־נַחֲלַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ן לָהֶֽן׃ 

“The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

In the Declaration of Independence it is written: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

The use of the word "men"  seems to exclude women. In our times, 250 years later, we would insist on a more inclusive noun. We do, however, know that these "men" did not include male (or female) slaves. I take that to mean that slaves (and women) were so far from the "men" referred to in the declaration, that there is no need to mention  beings that certainly have no rights. Slaves (and women) are simply not people. They are outside the scope of the document. 

The story of Zelophehad’s daughters is revolutionary. I could easily believe that it formed one of the foundations for women's suffrage in the US and elsewhere. The most significant part is that women are noticed. And Gd asserts that the women are correct. 

The United States was formed as  a rebellion of the (relatively) disinherited subsequent sons after the first born inherited the land. This practice, Primogeniture,  was  repealed during the revolution. Nobility was abolished. America was the land of opportunity Anyone could rise, regardless of birth status... unless you were  Black, Italian, a woman, etc. America was a place where prejudices were nurtured at home. The public requirements for equality were, nevertheless, a leap forward.  For a long time, the principle of equal opportunity was a serious consideration. Currently, it is undergoing a challenging redefinition. 

When I was a child, I watched  Howdy Doody,  a television show that taught young children how to be American. The villain of the show was the mayor of Doodyville, the opponent of fun: Phineas T Bluster. This was the first Pinchas character I met (Phineas is the English translation of Pinchas). What is the relationship between this Phineas and the Pinchas of our parsha? 

Phineas Bluster is portrayed as a conservative character.  His dress is 19th century.  He is resistant to change. While the other characters want to improve the town, Phineas wants things to stay the way they are. Pinchas seems to have the same values, but for Pinchas, the change, promiscuity with the Midianites and Moabites is portrayed as destructive to the nation; in Howdy Doody (America) change is improvement. 

Phineas Bluster has always been the mayor. We do not know how Phineas rose to his status, but presumably he inherited wealth and position -  since his own schemes always fail. His aristocracy is part of his villainy. Pinchas was an outcast, the son of a Midianite who was not anointed a priest. By his action, he is granted status....and legacy. Pinchas lives the American dream. 

The selection of Joshua as the next leader of the people is an abandonment of nepotism. Caleb, already singled out as a loyal scout who encouraged proceeding into the Promised Land when the others (except, eventually, Joshua) bemoaned the apparent impossibility, was (according to the Midrash) married to Miriam, Moshe’s sister.  He was from the overwhelmingly largest tribe. Joshua was chosen. Joshua was not a member of the family  and he was from the tribe of Ephraim. His choice was more inclusive, more diverse. 

As a Jew, I want to preserve my heritage and pass it along. As an American ( as I understood it until recently) I want to respect and  benefit all people - like emigrating to this country benefited my parents and then me. Those values do not seem to conflict, and perhaps they need not. 

Then there are the details.