When Rav Papa also asked Abaye on what grounds, according to Rebbi Yonasan ...

... the B'nos Tz'lofchad complained (seeing as Tz'lofchad was not destined to receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael anyway [so even if he had had a son, he would not have received anything is his stead]) he replied that - their complaint concerned their rights in (their grandfather) Cheifer's property, after Chazarah.

... the B'nei Yosef complained, seeing as they received a portion according to their numbers, just like all the other tribes he replied that - they complained about the Yesomim under twenty who entered Eretz Yisrael, who had no relatives over twenty who left Egypt, from whom they might inherit through Chazarah (See Rashash and Rabeinu Gershom).

Abaye could also have justifiably answered the Kashya - by explaining that each tribe received an equal portion, as we shall see later.

According to Rebbi Yonasan, the B'nos Tz'lofchad received - the three portions that we enumerated earlier, but not that of Tz'lofchad.

Abaye extrapolated from the fact that the Torah only presents the complaints of the daughters of Tz'lofchad and the B'nei Yosef - that nobody else had cause to complain.

There is no problem with this, inasmuch as, according to those who hold 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah', anybody under twenty who left Egypt, would have not received a portion when they entered the land - because, even if there were, they had relatives who were over twenty when they left Egypt, who died in the desert, and from whom they inherited.

We refute Abaye's proof however, on the grounds that - the Torah only records those complainants who gained something, but not those who complained in vain, which there may well have been.

We know that the complaints of the B'nei Yosef got them nowhere - because Yehoshua could not possibly have given them any land other than their own. So what could they possibly have gained that they did not already have?

And the Navi only records their complaints - to teach us Yehoshua's reply, from which we learn the importance of avoiding Ayin ha'Ra, as we shall now see.

Yehoshua advised the B'nei Yosef (not to capture land that they did not yet own, but) - to go and clear some of the forest-land in their own portion of land and to live there, away from eyes of people (to avoid the ravages of Ayin ha'Ra).

The B'nei Yosef's responded to Yehoshua's advice by reminding him that the B'nei Yosef (of which he himself was a member) were not subject to Ayin ha'Ra.

Rebbi Avahu 'amends' the Pasuk in Vayechi to read (not "ben Poras Yosef, ben Poras Alei Ayin", but) ... - "ben Poras Olei Ayin", meaning that they are elevated over the evil eye, which can therefore do them no harm.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns the same D'rashah from the Pasuk (in the same Parshah [in the B'rachah that Ya'akov gave to the B'nei Yosef]) "ve'Yidgu la'Rov be'Kerev ha'Aretz", ' meaning that the B'nei Yosef will increase like fish, which are not subject to the Ayin ha'Ra (because they are covered by water).

Ula learns from the Pasuk in Sh'lach-l'cha "vi'Yehoshua bin Nun ve'Kalev ben Yefuneh Chayu min ha'Anashim ha'Heim" that - Yehoshua and Kalev inherited the portions of the other ten spies.

The Pasuk cannot simply be coming to teach us that the ten Meraglim died, but they lived - because for that we have a Pasuk in Pinchas "And not one of them survived except for Kalev ... ".

The problem with the Beraisa that we quoted earlier 'Mislonenim (whom we initially assume to mean the grumblers in Parshas Beha'aloscha) va'Adas Korach Lo Hayah lahem Chelek ba'Aretz' is that - another Beraisa teaches us that Yehoshua and Kalev received their respective portions as well.

The source of the Machlokes Tana'im is based on a Pasuk "Avinu Meis ba'Midbar ... ". When the daughters of Tz'lofchad continued "ve'Hu Lo Hayah ...

... be'Soch ha'Eidah" they had in mind - the Adas Meraglim.

... ha'No'adim al Hash-m" they had in mind - the Mislonenim.

They also mentioned - the congregation of Korach.

The basis of the Machlokes Tana'im now is - whether to learn that Yehoshua and Kalev received the portions of the congregation of Korach and the Mislonenim from the Adas Meraglim with a Hekesh, or not.

Rav Papa asked Abaye whether, according to the Tana who does compare the Mislonenim, as well as the congregation of Korach, to the Adas Meraglim, this means that Yehoshua and Kalev inherited the whole (such a large chunk) of Eretz Yisrael. To which he replied that - 'Mislon'nim' in this case refers (not to the thousands of grumblers in Parshas Beha'aloscha, as we thought until now, but) to the two hundred and fifty men from Reuven, who joined Korach, and that they did indeed inherit.

The Pasuk in Yehoshua lists - ten Batei Avos (clans) for the tribe of Menasheh.

Assuming that this comprises the six main Batei Avos and the four portions of the B'nos Tz'lofchad, Rav Papa asks that according to Rebbi Yonasan (who holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah') - the Tana should only have listed eight (since, as we learned earlier, in his opinion, Tz'lofchad did not receive a portion for them to inherit [See Tosfos DH 'u'le'Ma'an').

Abaye retorted that, in that case, even according to Rebi Yashiyh, seeing as the B'nos Tz'lofchad inherited only three portions, the Pasuk should have then listed nine Batei Avos. We are therefore forced to say that ...

... according to Rebbi Yashiyah, Tz'lofchad had a brother who died as well (as we explained earlier).

... (in answer to Rav Papa's Kashya), according to Rebbi Yonasan too, he had two brothers who died.

Abaye supports his answer with a Beraisa, which Darshening the Pasuk in Pinchas, interprets "Nason Titen lahem" with reference to the Chelek Pashut of their father's inheritance. In the same light, according to the Tana ...

... "be'Soch Achei Avihen" refers to Tz'lofchad's Chelek Pashut (ordinary portion) in the inheritance of their grandfather Cheifer, and ...

... "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen lahen" refers to Tz'lofchad's Cheilek Bechorah.

Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov Darshens from ...

... the double expression "Nason Titen lahem ... " that - they also inherited the property of one of their uncles.

... " ... Achuzas Nachalah" (according to Rebbi Yonasan) that - they inherited the property of a second uncle as well.

Although the Tana Kama agrees with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (that the B'nos Tz'lofchad received at least one portion from an uncle), he declines to learn it from the same source as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - because he holds 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon Bnei Adam'.

Rav Papa asked Abaye - whether the Pasuk which lists the ten portions of the tribe of Menasheh is referring to the 'Tefalim' (the children) or the Batei Avos.

The problem was that - if it is concerned with the Tefalim, why did it list only the children of Tz'lofchad (and none of the other children of the Batei Avos), whereas if is listing Batei Avos (which numbered six), why did it see fit to add the names of Tz'lofchad's daughters at all?

Abaye answered that the Torah is listing the Batei Avos ...

... and it only adds the five daughters of Tz'lofchad to inform us that they received their father's Chelek Bechorah as well as his Chelek Pashut ...

... to teach us that - Eretz Yisrael belonged to Yisrael already from the time they left Egypt (and was not considered Ra'uy, in which case they would not have inherited it, [as we explained earlier]).