July 24th, 2000

Gentlemen,

	The Parshat HaShavuah of Pinchas was forwarded to me by my
daughter-in-law, who follows your publication religiously.  The reason she
sent it to me is because I have written a book, “The Daughters
Victorious,” which deals with the Bnot Zelophchad.  The book is due out
before the end of the year. 

	The comments that I will be making may be published or --- if that
is all you do with them --- they may be shown to the author of the sermon. 

	The author’s conclusions that the Daughters of Zelophchad were not
feminists, may be justified if he views feminism as it is reflected by the
strident behavior of the Women's Liberation Movement or some of the more
rabid “Talit-wearers” among the Orthodox women.  The author, however,
seems to be dealing with the correct definition of feminism, when he
speaks about non-discrimination against women.  Feminism, as the
definition is commonly understood, means the effort or success of people
in combating the inequality of women in society.  Given this definition,
not only were the Daughters of Zelophchad practicing feminism, but also
the Torah itself and the Rabbis of the Talmud were doing the very same
thing. 

	It is wrong to suggest that the Daughters of Zelophchad were not
feminists because they didn’t advocate total equality for women, i.e. that
women should inherit an equal share of property even in families where
there are sons.  One may be the supporter of the poor without necessarily
advocating that the poor become the absolute equals of the rich. 
Likewise, a feminist does not by any means have to advocate absolute
equality of women in society in order to remain a feminist. 

	In my forthcoming book, I provide several theories as to why the
Daughters of Zelophchad did not campaign for total equality.  It has to be
remembered that the daughters did not necessarily expect Divine
intervention in their case.  They were preparing to appear before a human
court.  They may have very well felt that total equality was too radical a
goal, and would not be approved by a human court at that time.  They also
may have felt that if men and women entering marriages both held property
in different locations, there may be some stress in families on the
question of where the family should live and which property should be
sold. 

	The author of the sermon contends that the Daughters of Zelophchad
were not feminists because they were primarily motivated by desire to
perpetuate their father's name, rather than by the need for equality for
themselves.  It apparently does not matter to him that in the verse in the
Torah they actually ask for the land quite emphatically.  What is more
important is that it makes no difference what the motivation of a feminist
is.  Even if a woman contributes to the cause for money, for publicity, or
for fun, she is a feminist in fact.  There is no reason to feel that a
woman has to be a feminist “"lishma."” The author himself states that the
method of perpetuating a name is through the acquisition of property. 
Since the daughters had to change the law in order to acquire the property
that would lead to the preservation of a name, they ipso facto had to
advocate a feminist cause.  I cannot fathom any reason why the author felt
that because they were motivated by an additional cause they forfeited
their stated desire to inherit property. 

	With regard to the author's statement, “"What sort of feminist
would say about their father, that because of his sins he had no sons, but
only daughters?"”-  that remark is unfortunate.  Not only would feminists
not make such statements, but all other rational human beings would avoid
them as well.  While Rav Yehuda HaLevi may have said that there was a
linkage between the sin and the lack of sons, I am certain that he did not
mean this in a causal sense.  There were many Rabbis in the Talmud who
felt that it was improper to learn from “semichoot,” (proximity of two
verses in the Torah).  Where it is accepted, it is only by Rabbis of the
Talmud, and only where they have a logical or traditional basis for doing
so.  This type of semichoot by Yehuda HaLevi is not binding.  Furthermore,
it is completely contrary to the view of the Rabbis of the Talmud. 

	According to the Talmud, in Tractate Baba Bathra, the youngest of
the Daughters of Zelophchad was at least 40 years of age at the time of
the hearing before the High Court.  This means that they were all born or
conceived in the Land of Egypt.  This further means that any sin that
could have caused the lack of sons had to have been performed in the Land
of Egypt.  We have no record of any such sin.  On the contrary, Chazal
always regard Zelophchad as a Tzaddik.  All Talmudic opinions agree that
Zelaphchad’s sin --- whatever it was --- took place in the desert, within
the first two years after the Exodus.  To argue that Zelophchad was guilty
of some unspecified sin that deprived him of sons is a hard to accept. 

	I would conclude, therefore, that the Daughters of Zelophchad
advanced the cause of women, and may properly be designated as feminists. 
In view of the fact that orthodoxy is today under heavy attack for
discrimination against women, it makes little sense to deprive us of the
image of several magnificent women who made monumental achievements in
this area. 

Sincerely,

Rabbi Shlomo Wexler

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:24:02 EDT
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject: Re: Feminism in Pinchas 

In a message dated 7/25/00 5:01:54 AM Central Daylight Time, 
(Rabbi Wexler) writes:

<< .  There is no reason to feel that a
 woman has to be a feminist €œ"lishma >>

Says who? A person can do a mitzva shelo lishma , but tzorchei tzibbur
require lishma. See R. Herschel Schachter in B'ikvei Hatzon ( Chapter
5 - essay of the same name) who quotes many Poskim , Acharonim and Rishonim,
to this effect. 
                            Zeliglaw@aol.com
                            Steven Brizel