Bava Batra 119a (קיט.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

Actually, it is counting the ancestral households, and

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

this teaches us that the daughters of

Zelophehad received the firstborn’s share.

Even though their father had not actually inherited his share, and ostensibly it was ra’ui—property that was expected to come into his possession—and a firstborn does not receive a double portion of ra’ui, nevertheless, Eretz Yisrael is considered muchzak—property already in the father’s possession—from the Exodus from Egypt, even before they inherited it, and a firstborn receives a double portion of it.

It is evident, then, that Eretz Yisrael is considered property already in one’s possession.

This matter will be explained shortly in the Gemara.

The Master said:

We learned in the beraita above (117b),

“And the sons [של המרגלים]of the spies,

of the spies

received their shares by virtue of their father’s father and by virtue of their mother’s father”.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita that the sons of the spies received a share in the Land

by virtue of themselves?

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult; this

where we say “by virtue of their fathers,”

is in accordance with the one who says: “The Land was divided among those who left Egypt

”, and

and

this

where we say “by virtue of themselves,”

is in accordance with the one who says: “The Land was divided among those who entered the Land

”.

And if you wish, say:

both statements are in accordance with the one who says,

“The Land was divided among those who entered the Land

”,

and it is not difficult: this

case is one in which he was twenty years old when he entered the Land, and in that case he receives his share by virtue of himself.

This

case is one in which he was not twenty years old when he entered

the Land, and in this case he receives his share by virtue of his paternal grandfather.

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

“and a firstborn received two portions”:

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why?

But

it is ra’ui,

since Hepher had not yet inherited his share in Eretz Yisrael,

and a firstborn does not receive a double portion of ra’ui as he does of property already in the father’s possession!

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

Indeed, they did not receive a double portion of Hepher’s inheritance, but only

the tent pegs. [כלומר, במטלטלי חפר שהיו בשעת מותו במדבר]That is, Hepher’s movable property that was in the wilderness at the time of his death.

That is, Hepher’s movable property that was with him when he died in the wilderness.

Rabba raises an objection: “Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad received four portions, as it is stated

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

which indicates that they received Zelophehad’s firstborn’s share in Hepher’s inheritance in Eretz Yisrael?

Rather, Rabba said: Eretz Yisrael is considered property already in one’s possession

by those who left Egypt, as it is written: “And I shall give it to you as an inheritance”; that is, I gave it to you as an inheritance.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Meytivi: Rabbi Ḥidka said: “Shimon HaShikmoni was one of my colleagues among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and this is what Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni used to say: Moses our teacher knew that the daughters of Zelophehad were heirs [שהרי דינים נצטוו במרה, ומעשה בנות צלפחד היה בסוף הארבעים שנה. ועוד, אפשר ללמוד דין זה מפרשת יבמין כדלקמן, דאמרינן "כי ישבו אחים יחדיו, ומת אחד מהם ובן אין לו", ודרשינן "עיין עליו", ואם יש לו בת אין אשתו מתיבמת, ומשם למדו בנות צלפחד לקמן, "אם כבן אנו, נירש, ואם לאו, תתיבם אימנו"]since the laws were commanded at Marah, whereas the episode of the daughters of Zelophehad occurred at the end of the forty years. Moreover, this law can be derived from the passage concerning levirate marriage, as will be stated below. We say: “When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and has no son,” and we expound it: “Examine him”—if he has a daughter, his wife does not enter into levirate marriage. From there the daughters of Zelophehad later learned to say: “If we are like a son, let us inherit; and if not, let our mother enter into levirate marriage.”

Rashbam.

but he did not know whether they received a firstborn’s 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 newly revealed in the Torah,

for

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

but the daughters of Zelophehad merited that it be written through them.

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

(Exodus 31),

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

and

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

for

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