(52) GOD spoke to Moses, saying, (53) “Among these shall the land be apportioned as shares, according to the listed names: (54) with larger groups increase the share, with smaller groups reduce the share. Each is to be assigned its share according to its enrollment. (55) The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes. (56) Each portion shall be assigned by lot, whether for larger or smaller groups.”

(5) Moses brought their case before GOD. (6) And GOD said to Moses, (7) “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

§ The Sages taught: The daughters of Zelophehad are wise, they are interpreters of verses, and they are righteous.The Gemara proves these assertions. That they are wise can be seen from the fact that they spoke in accordance with the moment, i.e., they presented their case at an auspicious time. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Tradition teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and interpreting in the Torah portion about men whose married brothers had died childless, as it is stated: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies, and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad to one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall come to her, and take her for him as a wife” (Deuteronomy 25:5). The daughters of Zelophehad said to Moses: If we are each considered like a son, give us each an inheritance like a son; and if not, our mother should enter into levirate marriage. Immediately upon hearing their claim, the verse records: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord” (Numbers 27:5). That they are interpreters of verses can be seen from the fact that they were saying: If our father had had a son, we would not have spoken; but because he had no son, we are filling the role of the heir. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They would say, if he had had a daughter, we would not have spoken? Rabbi Yirmeya said: Delete from the baraitahere the word: Daughter. As they were themselves daughters, this cannot have been their claim. Abaye said that the baraita need not be emended, and should be understood as follows: Even if there was a daughter of a son of Zelophehad, we would not have spoken, for she would have been the heir. That they are righteous can be seen from the fact that they did not rush to marry, but rather waited to marry those fit for them. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Even the youngest to be married among them was not married at less than forty years of age. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: If a woman marries when she is less than twenty years old, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of sixty; if she marries when she is twenty years old or older, she is able to give birth until she reaches the age of forty; if she marries when she is forty years old or older, she is no longer able to give birth at all. If so, how could Zelophehad’s daughters have waited until the age of forty to marry? Rather, since they are righteous women, a miracle was performed for them, like the one done for Jochebed. As it is written: “And a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1).

(1) The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. (2) They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, (3) “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, that banded together against GOD, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. (4) Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (5) Moses brought their case before GOD. (6) And GOD said to Moses, (7) “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

(1) למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף OF THE FAMILIES OF MANASSEH THE SON OF JOSEPH — Why is this stated? Has it not already been said בן מנשה, and consequently we know that they belonged to the family of Manasseh the son of Joseph?! But it is to suggest the following idea to you: Just as Joseph held the Promised Land dear, as it is said, (Genesis 50:25) “And ye shall bring my bones up (to Palestine) from hence”, so, too, his daughters held the Land dear, as it is said, (v. 4) “Give us an inheritance”; and further to teach you that they were righteous all of them (everyone here mentioned in the pedigree), for in every case where a person’s doings and his ancestors’ doings are nowhere plainly described and Scripture somewhere enters into the details of the pedigree in respect to one of them, tracing his genealogy back to someone worthy of praise, it is evident that the person in question is himself a righteous man and a son of a righteous father. But if it gives his genealogy in connection with something deserving of reprobation, — as, for example, (2 Kings 25:25) “Ishmael the son of Nethanian the son of Elishama came … and smote Gedaliah”, then it is quite certain that all who are mentioned in connection with him were wicked people (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:1).

(1) The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle, (2) the Gadites and the Reubenites came to Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the chieftains of the community, and said, (3) “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon— (4) the land that GOD has conquered for the community of Israel—is cattle country, and your servants have cattle. (5) It would be a favor to us,” they continued, “if this land were given to your servants as a holding; do not move us across the Jordan.”(6) Moses replied to the Gadites and the Reubenites, “Are your brothers to go to war while you stay here? (7) Why will you turn the minds of the Israelites from crossing into the land that GOD has given them? (8) That is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to survey the land. (9) After going up to the wadi Eshcol and surveying the land, they turned the minds of the Israelites from invading the land that GOD had given them. (10) Thereupon GOD was incensed and swore, (11) ‘None of those involved from twenty years up who came out of Egypt shall see the land that I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for they did not remain loyal to Me— (12) none except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they remained loyal to GOD.’ (13) Incensed at Israel, GOD made them wander in the wilderness for forty years, until the whole generation that had provoked GOD’s displeasure was gone. (14) And now you, a breed of sinful men, have replaced your fathers, to add still further to GOD’s wrath against Israel. (15) If you turn away from [God], who then abandons them once more in the wilderness, you will bring calamity upon all this people.” (16) Then they stepped up to him and said, “We will build here sheepfolds for our flocks and towns for our dependents. (17) And we will hasten as shock-troops in the van of the Israelites until we have established them in their home, while our dependents stay in the fortified towns because of the inhabitants of the land. (18) We will not return to our homes until the other Israelites are in possession of their portion. (19) But we will not have a share with them in the territory beyond the Jordan, for we have received our share on the east side of the Jordan.”(20) Moses said to them, “If you do this, if at the instance of GOD you go to battle as shock-troops, (21) and at the instance of GOD every shock-fighter among you crosses the Jordan, until [God] has directly dispossessed the enemies, (22) and the land has been subdued at the instance of GOD, and then you return—you shall be clear before GOD and before Israel; and this land shall be your holding under GOD. (23) But if you do not do so, you will have sinned against GOD; and know that your sin will overtake you. (24) Build towns for your children and sheepfolds for your flocks, but do what you have promised.” (25) The Gadites and the Reubenites answered Moses, “Your servants will do as my lord commands. (26) Our children, our wives, our flocks, and all our other livestock will stay behind in the towns of Gilead; (27) while your servants, all those recruited for war, cross over at the instance of GOD, to engage in battle—as my lord orders.” (28) Then Moses gave instructions concerning them to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the family heads of the Israelite tribes. (29) Moses said to them, “If every shock-fighter among the Gadites and the Reubenites crosses the Jordan with you to do battle at the instance of GOD, and the land is subdued before you, you shall give them the land of Gilead as a holding. (30) But if they do not cross over with you as shock-troops, they shall receive holdings among you in the land of Canaan.” (31) The Gadites and the Reubenites said in reply, “Whatever GOD has spoken concerning your servants, that we will do. (32) We ourselves will cross over as shock-troops, at the instance of GOD, into the land of Canaan; and we shall keep our hereditary holding across the Jordan.” (33) So Moses assigned to them—to the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph—the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of King Og of Bashan, the land with its various cities and the territories of their surrounding towns.(34) The Gadites rebuilt Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, (35) Atroth-shophan, Jazer, Jogbehah, (36) Beth-nimrah, and Beth-haran as fortified towns or as enclosures for flocks. (37) The Reubenites rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, (38) Nebo, Baal-meon—some names being changed—and Sibmah; they gave [their own] names to towns that they rebuilt. (39) The descendants of Machir son of Manasseh went to Gilead and captured it, dispossessing the Amorites who were there; (40) so Moses gave Gilead to Machir son of Manasseh, and he settled there. (41) Jair son of Manasseh went and captured their villages, which he renamed Havvoth-jair. (42) And Nobah went and captured Kenath and its dependencies, renaming it Nobah after himself.

(1) The family heads in the clan of the descendants of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, one of the Josephite clans, came forward and appealed to Moses and the chieftains, family heads of the Israelites. (2) They said, “GOD commanded my lord to assign the land to the Israelites as shares by lot, and my lord was further commanded by GOD to assign the share of our kinsman Zelophehad to his daughters. (3) Now, if they become the wives of persons from another Israelite tribe, their share will be cut off from our ancestral portion and be added to the portion of the tribe into which they marry; thus our allotted portion will be diminished. (4) And even when the Israelites observe the jubilee, their share will be added to that of the tribe into which they marry, and their share will be cut off from the ancestral portion of our tribe.” (5) So Moses, at GOD’s bidding, instructed the Israelites, saying: “The plea of the Josephite tribe is just. (6) This is what GOD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad: They may become the wives of anyone they wish, provided they marry into a clan of their father’s tribe. (7) No inheritance of the Israelites may pass over from one tribe to another, but the Israelite [heirs]—each of them—must remain bound to the ancestral portion of their tribe. (8) Every daughter among the Israelite tribes who inherits a share must become the wife of someone from a clan of her father’s tribe, in order that every Israelite [heir] may keep an ancestral share. (9) Thus no inheritance shall pass over from one tribe to another, but the Israelite tribes shall remain bound each to its portion.” (10) The daughters of Zelophehad did as GOD had commanded Moses: (11) Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, Zelophehad’s daughters, became the wives of their uncles’ sons, (12) marrying into clans of descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph; and so their share remained in the tribe of their father’s clan. (13) These are the commandments and regulations that GOD enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the steppes of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho.

(1) And this is the portion that fell by lot to the tribe of Manasseh—for he was Joseph’s first-born. Since Machir, the first-born of Manasseh and the father of Gilead, was a valiant warrior, Gilead and Bashan were assigned to him. (2) And now assignments were made to the remaining Manassites, by their clans: the descendants of Abiezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher, and Shemida. Those were the male descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, by their clans. (3) Now Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh had no sons, but only daughters. The names of his daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. (4) They appeared before the priest Eleazar, Joshua son of Nun, and the chieftains, saying: “GOD commanded Moses to grant us a portion among our male kinsmen.” So, in accordance with GOD’s instructions, they were granted a portion among their father’s kinsmen. (5) Ten districts fell to Manasseh, apart from the lands of Gilead and Bashan, which are across the Jordan. (6) Manasseh’s daughters inherited a portion in these together with his sons, while the land of Gilead was assigned to the rest of Manasseh’s descendants. (7) The boundary of Manasseh ran from Asher to Michmethath, which lies near Shechem. The boundary continued to the right, toward the inhabitants of En-tappuah.—

מחלה נעה וגו׳ MAHLAH, NOAH, etc. — But further on (Numbers 36:11) states, “And Mahlah, Tirzah were” (changing the position of the names within the verse): this is to tell you that they all were of equal worth one with another, and on this account it is that it changed their order (i.e. the order of their names) (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:2).

לפני משה ולפני אלעזר [AND THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES AND BEFORE ELEAZAR [THE PRIEST] — The fact that they approached Eleazar the Priest and not Aaron tells us that they stood before them (i.e., that this incident occurred) only (not earlier than) in the fortieth year after the Exodus indeed after Aaron’s death (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3).

לפני משה [THEY STOOD] BEFORE MOSES, and afterwards לפני אלעזר, BEFORE ELEAZAR?! But is it possible if Moses did not know what reply to give them that Eleazar should know it? Rather, invert the words of the text and so expound it (before Eleazar and before Moses). This is the view of R. Josiah; but Abba Chanan said in the name of R. Eleazar that this inversion is unnecessary: they were sitting in the House of Study and they (the daughters of Zelophehad) stood before all of those who were present (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3; Bava Batra 119b and Rashi on Numbers 9:6).

והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state בחטתו מת, that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who murmured, nor had he been in the congregation of Korah who incited the people against the Holy One, blessed be He (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3, Bava Batra 118b), but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — As regards what this sin was, R. Akiba said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); R. Simeon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).

AND HE WAS NOT AMONG THE COMPANY. The daughters thought that the children of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord would not inherit.

BUT HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN. Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi the Spaniard says but he died in his own sin is to be understood as connected to and he had no sons. It is as we say today, such and such occurred to so and so because of his sins. This interpretation is not far off.

[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. “Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured, nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him.” This is Rashi’s language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: ‘Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!’ For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father’s sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal would not inherit in the Land.
In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory, explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: “Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins.”

והוא לא היה, he was not a member of the rebellious people who had made common cause with Korach. Those people had been banished by Moses, i.e. disinherited by him, deprived not only of potential property but even of all their actual belongings, as we have been told in Numbers 16,26. The words כל הרכוש in verse 32 of that chapter make clear that they had forfeited all claims to anything.

כי בחטאו מת, he died on account his personal sin, something that did not involve the claims of his heirs to his estate. [The daughters by saying this did not mean to malign their father; rather they meant to say that their father had completely atoned for his sin by his premature judicial execution. Gottlieb]

למה יגרע שם אבינו WHY SHOULD THE NAME OF OUR FATHER BE DONE AWAY — We stand in the place of male children, and if you say that females are not regarded as issue in respect to inheritance, then our mother should marry her deceased husband’s brother (cf. Deuteronomy 25:5, 6) (Bava Batra 119b).

BECAUSE HE HAD NO SON. Ki en lo ben is to be rendered, because he had no son.

כן בנות צלפחד דברת THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK RIGHT — Understand the word כן as the Targum does: יאות rightly, properly. God said: Exactly so is this chapter written before me on High (The Law has long since been fixed) (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1). This tells us that their eye saw what Moses’ eye did not see. (They had a finer perception of what was just in the law of inheritance than Moses had.) (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 8).

כן בנות צלפחד דברת — “They have made a fair claim”. Happy is the person with whose words the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:1).

והעברת — This is an expression (also) denoting “wrath” and it is used here instead of a form of נתן found throughout the chapter to suggest that God’s wrath is directed against one who leaves no son to be his heir (Bava Batra 116a). Another explanation is that the form of העבר “causing to pass” is exceptionally used in the case of a daughter being her father’s heiress because a daughter as heiress ordinarily causes the inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe, since her son and her husband are her heirs (Sifrei Bamidbar 134:2; Bava Batra 147a), for it must be born in mind that the command (Numbers 36:7), “The inheritance shall not move from tribe to tribe” was laid only upon that generation (Bava Batra 120a). And so, for the same reason, we have this verb used in (v. 8): “Then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter”, for you see that in all of them (the other cases mentioned here) it says, ונתתם, “and ye shall give” (vv. 9, 10, 11), but in the case of a daughter it says, והעברתם, “and ye shall cause it to pass”.

AND IF HE HAVE NO DAUGHTER, THEN YE SHALL GIVE HIS INHERITANCE UNTO HIS BRETHREN. Our Rabbis have received a tradition that a father inherits his son if he [the son] dies without any children, but Scripture, however, did not mention this. The reason [for this omission] is that in the laws of inheritance [the rule is]: “Whoever can bequeath an inheritance to his relations can inherit [from them],” since their relationship is mutual. Now since Scripture stated that a son inherits his father, [it is self-understood that] the father also inherits his son [if the son died without direct descendants, but left, for example, brothers]. And furthermore, the [primary law of] inheritance is [that it follows the direct] line of [descent of] successors [of the progenitor] according to his [direct] descendants, and does not go by means of a side-succession [such as to a brother; hence the father gets it back from his son]. If so [the meaning of the verse] then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren is the inheritance which the father inherits in the grave [in a direct line back from his son]; and from him [the father, who is already dead], it comes [again in a direct line] to the brothers [who survive the deceased son]. But [although according to the tradition of our Rabbis, a father inherits his son who dies without any children, even if the son has surviving brothers], Scripture yet did not want to say: “And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto ‘his [surviving] father,’” [but instead states that you shall give his inheritance ‘to his brothers’] since the Torah speaks “in a way of blessing” [and therefore mentions only the children or brothers who inherit], for it does not [want to speak about] those who are “cut off” [i.e., a case where the dead man is “cut off” in his youth, during the lifetime of his father]. And perhaps [the reason why Scripture does not mention it explicitly is] because it did not happen to any of those who entered the Land, that a father [outlived and] inherited his son, but the sons always had direct descendants to inherit them; for it is about them [those who entered the Land] that Scripture speaks.

“Joseph is a fruitful tree, a fruitful tree alongside a spring; branches run over the wall” (Genesis 49:22).
“Joseph is a fruitful [porat] tree ” – a son who broke faith [shehefer] with his brothers; a son whose brothers broke faith with him; a son who defied [shehefer] his master’s wife; a son whose master’s wife turned against [shehefera] him.
Rabbi Avin said: The son who achieved greatness through cows [parot]. Joseph is the son who achieved greatness through produce [perot]. “Joseph is a fruitful tree” – Joseph achieved greatness. Regarding them all it is written: “The maidservants approached…” (Genesis 33:6) – this is what he said to him: I must repay you for that eye.
“Branches [banot] run [tzaada] over the wall…” – you find that when Joseph emerged to rule over Egypt, the daughters [banot] of kings would peer through the slits and would cast upon him bracelets, pendants, nose rings, and rings so he would lift his eyes and look at them. Nevertheless, he did not look at them. The Holy One blessed be He said: You did not lift your eyes and look at them; as you live, you will cause your daughters to have a foothold [tze’ida] in the Torah. What is a foothold? A Torah portion.

(Bamidbar 27:1) "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad": When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was to be apportioned to the tribes and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel, saying: Not as the mercies of flesh and blood are the mercies of the L-rd. The mercies of flesh and blood are greater for males than for females. Not so the mercies of He who spoke and brought the world into being. His mercies are for males and females (equally). His mercies are for all! As it is written (Psalms 145:9) "The L-rd is good to all, and His mercies are upon all of His creations." "the son of Chefer, the son of Gilad, the son of Machir, the son of Menashe": Scripture apprises us that just as Tzelofchad was a first-born, so, were all of the others first-born, and to apprise us that they (the daughters) were worthy daughters of a worthy man. For all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for praise are righteous ones the seed of righteous ones; and all whose deeds and the deeds of whose fathers are veiled and who Scripture traces (to their forbears) for denigration are evildoers the seed of evildoers. R. Nathan says: It is written above (26:65) "For the L-rd had said of them: They will surely die in the desert. And there was left not a man of them, etc.", followed by "And there drew near the daughters of Tzelofchad, etc." What is the connection? Scripture comes to teach us that the strength of the women in that generation was greater than that of the men, the men saying (Bamidbar 14:4) "Let us make a leader and return to Egypt, and the women saying (Ibid. 27:4) "Give us a holding, etc."

§ The Gemara returns to discuss Zelophehad’s daughters: Later on, the verse lists them according to their age, stating: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married” (Numbers 36:11), and here the verse lists them in a different order, according to their wisdom: “And these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah” (Numbers 27:1). This supports the ruling of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In the context of sitting in judgment or learning Torah, follow the participants’ wisdom in determining the seating, so that the wisest is granted the highest honor, and in the context of reclining for a meal, follow the participants’ age. Rav Ashi says: And this is so only when one is outstanding in wisdom, then wisdom trumps age; and this is so only when one of the participants is outstanding in age, i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.

(Bamidbar 27:2) "And they stood before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": Scripture hereby apprises us that they stood there only (after) the fortieth year (of the exodus) after Aaron had died, viz. (Ibid. 33:38) "And Aaron the Cohein went up to Hor Hahar by the 'mouth' of the L-rd, and he died there in the fortieth year, etc." "before Moses and before Elazar the Cohein": If Moses did not know (how to answer them), could Elazar know? Invert the verse (i.e., first Elazar, then Moses,) and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: They were (all) in the house of study and they came and stood before (all of) them. R. Akiva says: It is written here (27:3) "desert," and elsewhere (Ibid. 15:32) (in respect to a man gathering wood on the Sabbath) "desert." Just as the man here is Tzelofchad, so, the man there. "And he was not in the midst of the congregation": the cavilers (viz. Shemot 16:2). "who gathered against the L-rd": the congregation of the spies. "(nor in) the congregation of Korach." "but he died in his own sin": without inciting others (to sin) with him. "and he left no sons": for if he had a son, we would make no claim.

(Fol. 96b) Our Rabbis taught: "The wood-gatherer was Zelaphehad, and so it is said (Num. 15, 32.) And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath, and it is further said (Ib. 27, 3.) Our father died in the wilderness. [We deduce this from the similar word Midbar (wilderness) which is found in both places.] Just as further [Our father died in the wilderness (Bamidbar) ] refers to Zelaphehad, so the wood-gatherer [who died in consequence thereof] was also Zelaphehad." This is what R. Akiba said. R. Juda b. Bethyra then said to him: "Akiba! Whether your opinion be true or false, you will have to account for it [at the time of Divine Judgment]; for if your words are true, you disclosed the name of a man whom the Torah shielded; and if your opinion is not correct you have slandered an upright person." (Fol. 97a.) Behold! R. Akiba inferred it by the rule of analogy. Such an analogy was not received by tradition [to R. Juda b. Bethyra]. A similar case occured in the following incident: It is said (Ib. 12, 9.) And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them and He went away. "We learn from this," said R. Akiba, "that Aaron also became leprous." R. Juda b. Bethyra then said to him: "Akiba! Whether your opinion be true or false, you will have to account for it at the time of Divine Judgment. For if your words be true you disclosed the name of a man whom the Torah desired to shield; and if your words are false, then you have slandered an upright man." But it is written And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them [including Aaron]. This means that Aaron was merely rebuked. We are taught that Aaron also became leprous, for it is written (Ib. ib. 10) And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and beheld she was leprous. It is explained that this implies that Aaron cleansed himself of his leprosy."

The Gemara quotes a related baraita. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse quotes the daughters of Zelophehad: “Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the assembly of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the assembly of Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons” (Numbers 27:3), and the daughters of Zelophehad therefore claim they are entitled to his portion. “Our father died in the wilderness,” this is referring to Zelophehad. “And he was not among the assembly,” this is referring to the assembly of spies. “That gathered themselves together against the Lord,” these are the protesters. “In the assembly of Korah,” this is in accordance with its straightforward meaning. It is clear from this verse that those in these categories were not entitled to a portion in Eretz Yisrael.

On the topic of the wood gatherer, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught in a baraita: The wood gatherer mentioned in the Torah was Zelophehad, and it says: “And the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man gathering wood on the day of Shabbat” (Numbers 15:32), and below, in the appeal of the daughters of Zelophehad, it is stated: “Our father died in the desert and he was not among the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but he died in his own sin, and he had no sons” (Numbers 27:3). Just as below the man in the desert is Zelophehad, so too, here, in the case of the wood gatherer, the unnamed man in the desert is Zelophehad; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

The Gemara asks: However, didn’t Rabbi Akiva derive this by means of a verbal analogy? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira did not learn a verbal analogy. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira had no tradition of this verbal analogy from his teachers, and therefore he disagreed with Rabbi Akiva’s conclusion. The Gemara asks: However, according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where was Zelophehad’s liability derived? Why was he executed? The Gemara answers: Zelophehad was among those who “presumed to ascend to the top of the mountain” (Numbers 14:44) in the wake of the sin of the spies.

HALAKHAH: “Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage. Immediately, “ he brought their suit before the Eternal.” The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “ Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,” give them real estate, give them movables, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.

(Numb. 27:5:) “Moses brought their cause [before the Lord].” Some say that [God] made this become too hard for Moses, as there are righteous people that become [overly] proud in matters of a commandment, and [so] the Holy One, blessed be He, weakens their ability. You find that David said (in Ps. 119:54), “Your statutes were songs for me,” [meaning] they are light and customary for me like songs. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, your end will be to err about something that [even] the schoolchildren know about.” At the time that he brought up the ark, he erred and put in on a cart, as stated (in II Sam. 6:3),” They loaded the ark of God onto a new cart.” [So God] suspended the ark in the air and the oxen became dislodged from under it. [Then] Uzzah approached to support it, but (according to II Sam. 6:7,) “God struck him down on the spot,” as an error in study is considered as wanton. Immediately (in II Sam. 6:8), “David was distressed because the Lord had inflicted a breach upon Uzzah.” [So] the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Did you not say, ‘Your statutes were songs for me?’ Did you not learn (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the Kohathites he did not give; since theirs was the service of the [most] sacred objects, their porterage was by shoulder?’” [So David] began to ponder and say (in I Chron. 15:13), “The Lord our God burst out against us, for we did not seek Him like the law.” And so too, [this happened] with Moses. Because he said (in Deut. 1:17), “But the case which is too hard for you, you shall bring unto me and I will hear it,” the Holy One, blessed be He, weakened his ability. The matter is comparable to a moneychanger who said to his student, “If coins come to you to be exchanged, exchange them, but if pearls should come to you, bring them to me.” [When] a ring of baubles came to him, [the student] brought it to [this] teacher. [But] then the teacher went and showed it to another [money changer]. So too here. Moses said (in Deut. 1:17), “The case which is too hard for you, you shall bring unto me and I will hear it.” [But] when the daughters of Zelophehad came to him, [God] made it too hard for him. (Numb. 27:5-7) “Moses brought their cause before the Lord. [And the Lord said…,] ‘The daughters of Zelophehad speak correctly,’” such is the law. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Did you not say (ibid.), ‘The case which is too hard for you, you shall bring unto me?’ In the case of the judgment which you do not know, see [that even] the women know it.”

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.