If I have total power and 
then decide to share it with 
nine others, I now have only 
one-10th of the power I had 
before. If I have a certain 
measure of influence and 
then share it with nine oth-
ers, I do not have less. I have 
more. Instead of one person 
radiating this influence, there 
are now 10. Power works by 
division, influence by multi-
plication.
Moses occupied two roles. 
He was the functional equiv-
alent of a king. He made the 
key decisions relating to the 
people: how they should be 
organized, the route they 
were to take on their journey, 
when and with whom they 
should engage in war. But he 
was also the greatest of the 
prophets. He spoke the word 
of God.
A king had power. He 
ruled. He made military, 
economic and political deci-
sions. Those who disobeyed 
him faced the possible pen-
alty of death. A prophet had 
no power whatsoever. He 
commanded no battalions. 
He had no way of enforcing 
his views. But he had massive 
influence. Today, we barely 
remember the names of most 
of Israel’s and Judah’s kings. 
But the words of the proph-
ets continue to inspire by the 
sheer force of their vision 
and ideals. As Kierkegaard 
once said: “When a king 
dies, his power ends; when 
a prophet dies, his influence 
begins.”
Moses was to confer both 
roles on Joshua as his succes-
sor. “Lay your hand on him” 
means give him your role as 
a prophet, the intermediary 
through whom God’s word 
is conveyed to the people. 
To this day we use the same 
word, semicha (laying on 
of hands), to describe the 
process whereby a rabbi 
ordains his disciples. “Give 

him some of your authority 
[me-hodecha]” refers to the 
second role. It means, invest 
him with the power you hold 
as a king.
We now understand the 
Midrash. Influence is like 
lighting one candle with 
another. Sharing your influ-
ence with someone else does 
not mean you have less; you 
have more. When we use 
the flame of a candle to light 
another candle, the first is 
not diminished. There is 
now, simply, more light.
Transferring power, 
though, is like emptying one 
vessel into another. The more 
power you give away, the 
less you have. Moses’ power 
ended with his death. His 
influence, though, remains to 
this day.
Judaism has an ambivalent 
attitude toward power. It 
is necessary. Without it, in 
the words of Rabbi Hanina, 
deputy High Priest, “people 
would eat one another alive” 
(Avot 3:2). But Judaism long 
ago recognized that (to quote 
Lord Acton), power tends to 
corrupt and absolute power 
corrupts absolutely. Influence 
— the relation of prophet to 
people, teacher to disciple 
— is altogether different. It 
is a non- 
zero-sum game. Through 
it, both teacher and disciple 
grow. Both are enhanced.
Moses gave Joshua his 
power and his influence. 
The first was essential to the 
political and military tasks 
ahead. But it was the second 
that made Joshua one of the 
great figures of our tradition. 
Influence is simply more 
enduring than power. 

The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan 

Sacks served as the chief rabbi of 

the United Hebrew Congregations of 

the Commonwealth, 1991-2013. His 

teachings have been made avail-

able to all at rabbisacks.org. This 

essay was written in 2009.

JULY 21 • 2022 | 39

I

n this week’s Torah portion, 
our ancestors are preparing to 
enter the Land of Israel. Once 
again, God commands Moses to 
take a census, but what teaches 
us most is what occurs immedi-
ately afterward.
The Promised Land will 
be divided as an inheritance 
according to the names 
the census lists. But 
there is a problem. 
Five women step for-
ward and, in making a 
request, demonstrate 
the utmost courage. 
Most of us know them 
as the daughters of 
Zelophehad, and their 
impact changes our 
tradition from that 
moment on. 
These five go to Moses 
and ask a question that 
affects their lives. What 
about inheritance if a man 
had no sons, only daughters? 
Wouldn’t it make sense, rather 
than leave their father’s name 
out, to give these women a share 
of the possessions?
Unsure of how to respond, 
Moses goes directly to God. 
Remember, he had just com-
pleted a census where only the 
men were counted. Now, these 
women bring up a challenge. 
Amazingly, God says that these 
women speak the truth. Then, 
God proceeds to change the law 
declaring, “If a man dies and 
has no son, his inheritance shall 
pass directly to his daughter.”
Step back a moment in the 
story here; a couple of phe-
nomenal things occur leading 
up to the celebrated ruling. We 
see Halachah going through a 
revision right before our eyes. 

The census establishes the law, 
but someone’s just and moral 
question motivates a new under-
standing. Just like that, God 
changes Divine legislation due to 
the validity, the justice in a con-
trary view. 
Rashi looks at this change 
and provides some wonder-
ful insight. He taught, in 
referring to the daughters 
and this perspective, that 
“their eyes saw what the 
eyes of Moses did not.” 
It is not that Moses was 
unable to see the validity 
in the daughters’ claim. 
Rather, he just was not 
thinking as they were. 
Great leaders and the great 
thinkers ideally have the 
ability to think from other 
perspectives, to not only 
demonstrate empathy and 
compassion, but to help 
with that perspective in mind. 
So, too, is the case in our own 
lives. We would like to think 
that we grasp so much, that 
we can solve so many different 
challenges; but often, a differ-
ent perspective can add light 
and understanding. Maybe this 
Torah portion is reminding us 
not to discount any opinion, any 
perspective.
If Moses could do this, imag-
ine how much we can do with 
our minds open. I cannot tell 
you how many times my chil-
dren have helped me under-
stand this world. Thank God 
for the blessing we have to be 
able to learn from others every 
single day. 

Rabbi Moskowitz is a rabbi at Temple 

Shir Shalom. This article originally 

appeared in the JN on July 21, 2005.

A New Perspective 
 
Adds a New Light

TORAH PORTION

Rabbi 
Michael 
Moskowitz

Parshat 

Pinchas: 

Numbers 

25;10-30:1; 

I Kings 

18:46-19:21.

