No changes without God's command here. In the first case, Moses goes to God and God responds Numbers 27:5-11 (end of verse 11 "like God commanded Moses"). Likewise in the second case- Numbers 36:6 "This is what God commanded". The Jews in the desert could have Moses consult God to rectify a perceived injustice. Afterwards, the law is fixed (Deutoronomy 13:1). The prophets recognized this when cautioning the Jews to abide by the "Torah of Moses". There was no longer authority for the law to be changed.
I don't think so.
There are two previous similar stories.
In the pesach sheni story in Num 9, people come to Moses with a particular problem with the law (Num 9:6-7), and the text explictly tells us that Moses consulted God and that God responded. (Num. 9:8-9).
Likewise, in the first Daughters of Z story in Num 27, the D of Z come to Moses with a particular problem with the law (Num 27:1-4), and the text explicitly states that that Moses consulted God and God responded. (Num 27:5-6.).
But here, the men from Manasseh consult Moses in Num 38:1-4. There is no account of Moses consulting God as he did in the two stories. Instead, the next sentence simply says "And Moses commanded the children of Israel on (or about) the word of God." (Num 36:5.) And then, as you note, Moses states "This is the word (or thing) that the Lord has commanded regarding Zelophehad's daughters." (Num 36:5.)
The problem is that here, unlike the other stories, the Torah never tells us that Moses consulted God or that God responded.
One way of interpreting the text is to assume that this happened but the Torah omitted it. But that would be strange give the other two stories.
I think a better way is that Moses did not consult God. He was at the end of his life, and in fact this is the final act he takes in the Torah as the leader of the Children of Israel, apart from his speech(es) in Deuteronomy. He knew that God had permitted changes in the law twice before that were reasonable and where justice demanded it, and so he took this principal as established by God and acted upon it himself.
So when Moses said "This is the "This is the word (or thing) that the Lord has commanded" he did not literally mean that God spoke those exact words. He meant that God had established a principal and Moses was applying it. Thus, the application of a divine principal is just as much as "word or thing" of God as an explicit command.
Bruce,
The Torah uses the same phrase at Numbers 30:2 concerning vows (Moses says "this is the matter that the Lord commanded") and concludes the section at 30:17 saying "these are the laws that the Lord commanded Moses between a man and wife and father and daughter.." There is no principal to be applied here; this is a straight command of God told to us throught the voice of Moses.
I think the above makes clear as stating that when Moses says "this is the matter that God commanded", the command still comes directly from God, and the Torah doesn't bother to spell out the details of God's communication to Moses. Note Chapter 32 where Moses binds the Tribes of Reuben and Gad into agreement without the command of God; any note that God commanded the agreement is conspiciously absent. Not so when it comes to Mitzvot.
Given that the announcement Moses death was already given in Numbers 27:12, it is no surprise that the Mitzvot from that point on (aside from Numbers 28-29, which is a follow up of Exodus 29:38-41) are basically dictated through Moses wihout a detailed account of his conversation with God. Spelling out in further detail God's commands to Moses would detract from the tone of finality in Numbers 27:8 that the Torah is trying to convey. In fact when God is quoted again in the command to fight Midian(Numbers 30:2), the commandment states again that Moses' death would happen afterwards; failing to do so would undermine the tone of finality in the announcment of Moses' death.
See the next post.
Read Eliezer Berkovitz's brilliant book, "Not in Heaven." He gives numerous examples of Chazal explicitlly changing Torah laws when they counters more important ethical priniples, such as respect for persons and the idea that halacha should lead to pleasantness and peace.
Basically, he argues that we have become karites to the oral Torah and
"straightjacketed" by halachot that were never meant to be formalized
in the first place. It is a wonderful book that gives a little bit of
hope...
Jay I don't wish to go off topic but you have mentioned something worth discussing further. Which is how the religion of the torah and the religion of the Talmud are arguably two distinct religions. Whatever traditionally did not suit the rabbinical authorities was circumvented using clever semantical arguments. An approach which is still practised today.
I think the following post sums up the relationship between Chazal and Torah quite well:
http://onionsoupmix.livejournal....com/
127942.html
There is a much better example of halacha changing and being argued, with regard to Moshe and Aarron fighting over a particular sacrifice (can't remember which one, but I remember the shul rabbbi giving it as an example of the beginnings of the Oral law)
Commenting by HaloScan
