Bava Batra 119a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves:

Actually, it is the paternal houses that it counts, and

nevertheless it also teaches us the portion of the daughters of Zelophehad, and

this teaches us that the daughters

of Zelophehad took the firstborn’s portion.

Even though their father did not actually inherit his portion, and ostensibly this is property that was destined to come into his possession, and a firstborn does not take a double portion of property that was destined to come into his possession, nevertheless, the Land of Israel is considered property already in their possession from the Exodus from Egypt, even before they inherited it, and a firstborn takes a double portion in it.

It follows: The Land of Israel is property already in their possession.

And below, shortly, this matter will be explained in the Gemara.

The Master said:

We learned in the beraita above (117b

“And the sons

of the spies

took by virtue of the merit of their father’s father and by virtue of the merit of their mother’s father” .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita that the sons of the spies took a portion in the Land

by virtue of themselves?

And the Gemara resolves:

It is not difficult; this

where we say “by virtue of their father”

is according to the one who says, ‘For those who left Egypt

the Land was divided,”

and

this

where we say “by virtue of themselves”

is according to the one who says, ‘For those who entered the Land

the Land was divided.’

And if you wish, say: Both this and that

are according to the one who says,

“For those who entered the Land

the Land was divided,”

, and it is not difficult: This is when he was twenty years old

when he entered the Land, and then he takes by virtue of himself.

This is when he was not twenty years old when he entered

the Land,

and in this case he takes by virtue of his father’s father .

We learned in the Mishna: The daughters of Zelophehad took their father’s firstborn portion,

“and that a firstborn takes two portions”:

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why?

But it is

property destined to come into his possession,

for Hepher had not yet inherited his portion in the Land of Israel,

and a firstborn does not take from property destined to come into his possession as he does from property already in his possession!

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel:

Indeed, they did not take a double portion in Hepher’s inheritance, but only

in tent pegs.

[That is, in Hepher’s movable property that was present at the time of his death in the wilderness.]

Rabba raised an objection: “Rabbi Judah says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four portions, as it is stated

(Joshua 17): ‘And the portions of Manasseh fell ten,’”

and it is explained that they took Zelophehad’s firstborn portion in Hepher’s inheritance in the Land of Israel?

Rather, Rabba said: The Land of Israel is property already in their possession

for those who left Egypt. For it is written: “And I shall give it to you as an inheritance,” meaning: I gave it to you as an inheritance .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

It was objected: Rabbi Hidka said: Shimon the Shekmonite was a colleague of mine among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and this is what Rabbi Shimon the Shekmonite used to say: Moses our teacher knew that the daughters of Zelophehad were heirs ,

Rashbam.

but he did not know whether they took a firstborn portion or not,

And

do not say: Had the daughters of Zelophehad not come before Moses, the passage concerning their inheritance would not have been renewed in the Torah,

for

the passage concerning inheritances was fit to be written through Moses,

but the daughters of Zelophehad merited it, and it was written through them.

And Moses our teacher knew that the wood-gatherer was liable to death, as it is stated:

(Exodus 31)

“Those who profane it shall surely be put to death,” but he did not know by which death he would die ,

and

do not say: Had the wood-gatherer not come before Moses, the passage concerning the liability to death of one who profanes Shabbat would not have been renewed in the Torah,

for

the passage concerning the wood-gatherer was fit to be written through Moses, but the wood-gatherer became liable, and it was written through him.