According to the plain meaning of the text, the laws of inheritance discussed in parashat Pinhas would appear to apply to the transfer of the land apportioned to the tribes in the previous chapter:

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Among these shall the land be apportioned as shares, according to the listed names: with larger groups increase the share, with smaller groups reduce the share. Each is to be assigned its share according to its enrollment. The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes. Each portion shall be assigned by lot, whether for larger or smaller groups. (Numbers 26:52-56)

Jewish law understood the law governing the inheritance of tribal land as a positive commandment applying to all forms of property. This approach would appear to be grounded in a theological view that Sefer Ha-Hinukh explains as follows:

One of the fundamentals of the mitzvah is that a person know and perceive that the world is in the hands of a Lord who watches over all his creatures, and by His desire and good will each person in the world achieves that portion of property that he obtains in His world.

As opposed to that approach, which sees a person’s property as a Divine gift, and which demands a just division of wealth, modern legal systems tend to view private possessions as the subject of a fundamental right to property. According to this view of property, modern law recognizes a right to testamentary freedom under which a person is at liberty to dispose of his estate as he sees fit. Under such an approach a testator can do as he wishes, disinheriting a spouse, preferring one child to another, or bequeathing the entire estate to stray dogs.

1. Why does halakha seek to extend the inheritance laws applying to tribal land to all forms of personal wealth? Is there a moral principle underlying this approach?

2. Which approach do you think is preferable in terms of educational and social values, allowing a testator to dispose of his property as he wishes, or obligating the testator to bequeath his property to his children and family?

3. What is more important: granting a person testamentary freedom of choice, or protecting a person’s natural heirs? Is there any moral dimension to our conduct if we do not have free choice? Does the enforcement of moral standards deprive our conduct of its moral value?