Whether you favor Trump, Clinton, “insert write-in candidate” or Nefesh b’Nefesh, there is no question that the nomination of a woman for president of a major US political party is a very big deal. When the late Geraldine Ferraro became the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1984, that too broke a glass ceiling, as was electing an African American 8 years ago. I say this apolitically. It’s a great moment for our country, whether one favors Secretary Clinton or not.

I’ve seen social media abuzz with the fact that Israel swore in its first female Prime Minster in 1969, 47 years ago. I like to remind people that before the US suffragettes won the right to vote, Sara Schneirer, a seamstress in Cracow, convinced the Orthodox establishment in Europe (including the Chofetz Chayim and Gerer Rebbe) to provide women with formal education, which was revolutionary at that time. The rabbinic institution of kesubah represented the first attempt at protecting women entering into marriage. Our sages felt so strongly about it, they did not allow a marriage to take place unless those precautions were first adopted, similar to the need to own a homeowners insurance policy prior to buying a house.

In the midst of Parshas Pinchas, we find the inspiring episode of the daughters of Tzlofchad, universally acclaimed as pious, altruistic and traditional. They found themselves in a situation where their father Tzlofchad died without any male heirs. They sought to resolve what would happen to his portion in the Holy Land. Standing in front of the Mishkan, they approached Moshe, Elazar the High Priest, all of the tribal princes and the entire nation (Bamidbar 27:2).  

"למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן, תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי אבינו. ויקרב משה את מפשטן לפני ה'" (במדבר כ"ז:ד-ה)

“Why should the name of our father be taken away from among his family, because he had no sons? Give to us therefore a possession among the brothers of our father. And Moshe brought their cause before the Lord” (Bamidbar 27:4-5).

God then replies to Moshe, affirming the legitimacy and correctness of Tzlofchad’s daughters’ claim, a profoundly powerful validation. That is the ultimate endorsement! These women inherited their father, and committed to marry within the tribe so the tribal land is not transferred to the tribe of the future husband.

The Torah almost implies that this is Moshe’s last item of business prior to dealing with his death. Immediately after the passage regarding the daughters of Tzlofchad, Moshe is told that he will ascend Mt. Avarim to view the Promised Land, the closest he would approach to Canaan. While we still have a few items of business left in Sefer Bamidbar, Devarim represents Moshe’s last 5 weeks and his final speech to the nation.

Turning to God for resolution of a halachic matter, something Moshe does several times in Chumash, reveals Moshe’s tremendous humility. We find Moshe asking Hashem regarding the fate of the gatherer of wood on Shabbos (Bamidbar 15:32-26), whom many identify as Tzlofchad, the fate of the blasphemer (Vayikra 24:10-23) and those who were ritually impure when Pesach arrived, the institution of Pesach Sheni, the second Pesach (Bamidbar 9:1-14).  

The famous episode regarding the ritual purity of an oven (Bava Metzia 59b), challenges Moshe’s appellate process. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurkenus invoked nature to prove his minority position. “If I am correct, let this tree be uprooted”; and it was. “If I am correct, let the waters reverse course.” And they did. “If I am correct, let a heavenly voice declare it.” And it did. The rabbis in the majority rejoined each supernatural proof with the same Biblical quote: “lo bashamayim hee, it is not in heaven (Devarim 30:12). The Almighty gave us the ability and tools to determine law. God’s involvement in determining halachah does not outweigh the majority voice of the rabbis ordained to decide. How does this basic halachic concept sustain the explicit Biblical passages where Moshe asks God to determine law?

The rabbis were right. Rabbi Eliezer, whether correct or not, needed to recognize that majority rules and that his opinion was not to be adopted, despite the impressive support. Studying minority un-adopted opinions qualify as Torah study and our sages included the rejected opinions into the corpus of Oral Law (today written down) for a variety of reasons i.e. knowing absolute parameters, situations of duress or instances beyond one’s control.

We in the United States just witnessed two major political conventions which both featured a serious lack of consensus. When party leaders boycott the event altogether or the ubiquitous dissent and rude interruptions during partisan speeches, one thing is obvious: there is little consensus right now. I respect those who stand by their convictions, and I also admire those who can give a little, convince others to do the same, and find consensus. Like most matters in life, we need to balance the two. We can’t relinquish  our firmest dogmas, but we also must learn to work with others and find middle ground. Those screaming “No more war” during the speech of a decorated war hero who led the battle against America’s violent and dangerous enemies are as practical as those who feel any compromise of doctrine renders someone unfit to lead.

But Moshe was different. His relationship with God, while reverent, was casual. He was not required to hear God’s word in a trance and while asleep. He could walk and talk to the Almighty. In this sense he was absolutely singular from among all the prophets. A Talmudic passage (Temurah 16a) makes this crystal clear. “Three thousand laws were forgotten during the mourning period for Moshe. People asked Yehoshua, his successor, ‘ask?’ He replied, ‘it is not in heaven.’” Moshe was different; the requirement to “ignore” God’s opinion and follow the majority view of the ordained wise people, so to speak, began with the death of Moshe.

Maimonides rules (Laws of the Fundamentals of Torah 9:1) that a prophet has no right to ordain law. A prophet, who comes, performs a miracle and declares a new law, or the abrogation of law, is a false prophet, which is quite a serious offense. This is predicated upon the closing verse of the book of Vayikra (Vayikra 27:34), “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moshe for the people of Israel in Mount Sinai.” After Moshe, God does not play a role in the process of law. This is amazing. Read it again! This was how God wanted it.

At the end of the story of Rabbi Eliezer’s showdown with the rabbis, the Talmud relates that Rav Nassan encountered Eliyahu Hanavi and asked him what God was doing during this debate? The prophet answered, “He smiled and declared, my sons have vanquished Me, my sons have vanquished Me!”

Indeed, the story of the daughters of Tzlofchad serves as a catalyst to teach us about God’s humility and that of His greatest servant, Moshe. Moshe demonstrated humility by asking Hashem to aid him in rendering a verdict. Two of the Biblical cases where we find Moshe asking are potential capital cases. Both defendants may have had justifications or mitigating circumstances. Moshe’s question and God’s affirmation teach us that there is a value in meting out justice in ritual areas. The case of Pesach Sheni and the daughters of Tzlofchad are also classified together. Both cases witness the same language, “nigara,” why should we be less? Let us be complete, despite the circumstances that may limit us in some form or another. Here we see that good intentions are not enough. Law needs to be followed based on logic and argumentation, not emotion. The law has its own precedents for exceptions, but one must be careful for exceptions may also  undermine the law as well.

While these four cases are the exceptions, the rule is that we follow the majority. That too requires great humility. It can be deflating to argue and methodically and logically make your best case ultimately to be outvoted by others who may be inferior in logic, eloquence and erudition.

I heard a pundit recently state that the Founding Fathers would be amazed at last night’s significantly historical moment. I agree. I would hope that they would also be proud at the civil (and sometimes uncivil) debate, the free press, the peaceful dissent, our ability to speak our minds without fear of consequence, and the system of law that these men conceived in the very same city which has revolutionized the world.

Our Torah is a revolutionary text as well. Whether the sense of majority rule, tolerated and welcomed dissent, and the Divine nod to the petition of Tzlofchad’s daughters, we must be proud to be solemn adherents of God’s law.