To reconcile the Beraisa that we learned earlier 've'ha'Banim Natlu bi'Zechus Avi Avihem ... ', with the Beraisa which says 'bi'Zechus Atzman', we establish the former according to those who say 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim Nischalkah', whilst the latter holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah'.

Alternatively both Beraisos hold 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah' ...

... and the reason that the Ba'ei ha'Aretz did not receive a portion on their own merit was because they had not yet reached the age of twenty.

According to this Tana, the Ba'ei ha'Aretz currently under discussion are the grandchildren of the Mislonenim, who inherited from their great-grandfathers.

They could not have inherited from ...

... their fathers who died in the Desert and who did (therefore) enter Eretz Yisrael, nor did they leave Egypt.

... their grandfathers because they were the Mislon'nim whose portions were given to Yehoshua and Kaleiv.

Even though this Tana holds 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz Nischalkah', their great grandfathers nevertheless received a portion in Eretz Yisrael because the statement being the discussed is the concluding words of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds both 'le'Yotz'ei Mitzrayim ... ' and 'le'Ba'ei ha'Aretz ... '.

is it possible to establish this Beraisa even according to Rebbi Yonasan if we will explain that they inherited from their great-grandfathers by way of Chazarah, via brothers of the Mislon'nim, who had been under twenty at the time of the decree of the Meraglim, but who were well over twenty when they entered Eretz Yisrael, and who therefore received a portion. Those portions now went back by way of Chazarah to their parents who left Egypt when they were twenty, and from whom all their descendants who entered Eretz Yisrael (even those who were under twenty) inherited.

We established that the daughters of Tz'lofchad inherited their father's Chelek Bechorah in the property of his father. We already cited Rabah's answer to the Kashya ('Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi'), that since neither Cheifer nor Tz'lofchad had yet received their portion in Eretz Yisrael, it ought to have been considered Ra'uy, and a Bechor does not inherit a double portion in Ra'uy. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel initially answers it by establishing it by Metaltelin (such as tent-pegs, which everybody in the desert possessed), and which therefore had a status of Muchzak).

This does not mean that the entire Beraisa is talking about the inheritance of Metaltelin only the Chelek Bechorah.

We query this however, from Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa regarding the ten Batei Avos of Menasheh (that we discussed earlier) including the Chelek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in his father Cheifer's property, which is referring (not to Metaltelin, but) to Eretz Yisrael.

The Pasuk refers to portions of land of the ten Batei Avos as "Chevlei Menasheh" because they used to measure portions of land by means of a rope, which trsanslates as 'Chevel'.

Even though Eretz Yisrael was indeed Muchzekes from the time they left Egypt (as Rabah explains) Moshe only discovered that after Hash-m resolved Moshe's She'eilah. Initially, Moshe himself was uncertain whether the daughters of Tz'lofchad were entitled to the Chelek Bechorah of Tz'lofchad in Cheifer's property or not (as we shall see shortly).

This is based on a Beraisa of Rebbi Chidka, who quotes Rebbi Shimon ha'Shikmoni a Talmid of Rebbi Akiva.

As we just explained, the Tana interprets Moshe's doubt concerning the Bnos Tz'lofchad's Chelek ha'Bechorah. As far as their right to their father's Chelek Pashut was concerned Moshe knew full-well that they were entitled to receive it.

Even though the Dinim of inheritance were not yet recorded, Moshe would have known them from Marah, in Parshas Beshalach, where they were taught the Dinei Mamonos (as the Torah writes there "Sham Sam Lo Chok u'Mishpat ... ").

Rebbi Shimon ha'Shikmoni says that both Parshas Nachalos and Parshas Mekoshesh ought to have been taught by Moshe straight, like he did the major part of the Torah ...

... and that the former only came about through the Bnos Tz'lofchad, because they merited that it should be said in their name.

... and that the latter only came about through the Mekoshesh Eitzim (Tz'lofchad), because he deserved the disgrace of having it said in his name.

Moshe knew that a Mechalel-Shabbos earns the death-sentence, and what he asked Hash-m was which of the four deaths he should receive, Sekilah (the strictest) or strangulation (the most lenient).

We can learn from these statements that nothing that belongs in the Torah is omitted (that it does not require an incident for something to be inserted), seeing as the Gemara takes for granted that these Dinim would have been taught even if no incident had occurred to warrant their insertion.

We might otherwise have thought that are many Mitzvos which the Torah has omitted, since no incident occurred that called for their being inserted.

Moshe doubted whether we learn from the Pasuk in Va'eira "ve'Nasati Lachem Morashah, Ani Hash-m" teaches us that 'Eretz Yisrael Muchzekes Hi' or not. Perhaps "Morashah", which implies something that one bequeaths without actually inheriting oneself, is written to hint that the generation that left Egypt would not inherit Eretz Yisrael (see also Agados Maharsha).

On the other hand, we know that it might also be synonymous with 'Yerushah' because we have a precedent for it in a Pasuk in Yeshayah "le'Morash Kipod", and because there are many such words with the same format 'Mo'ed, 'Mofeis', 'Motzei' ... (which like Morashah) are formed from the Hif'il verb).

And we learn that it ...

... is indeed from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Ha'avarta es Nachalas Avihen Lahen", 'Zu Chelek Bechorah' (as we learned on the previous Daf).

... in any event, implies "Morashah", 've'Lo Yerushah' (that they would bequeath, without factually inheriting) because, when "ve'Ha'avarta ... " was said, the previous generation had in fact, all died out, indicating retroactively, that that is what "Morashah" must have meant.

According to the other meaning of the word, we make a similar D'rashah from the Pasuk in the Shirah "Tevi'emo ve'Sita'emo be'Har Nachalascha" where (from the fact that the Torah does not write "Tevi'einu ve'Sita'einu") we translate as "bring them and plant them" (to preclude the generation that was actually singing the Shirah, who were destined not to enter Eretz Yisrael, even though they had not yet sinned).

What appears strange with the Pasuk (in connection with the Bnos Tz'lofchad) "va'Ta'amodnah Lifnei Moshe, ve'Lifnei Elazar ha'Kohen ve'Lifnei ha'Nesi'im ve'Chol ha'Eidah" is that, assuming they asked Moshe first, and he did not know, it would have been inappropriate to then ask Elazar, the Princes or the congregation (because if Moshe did not know something, from where would they have known it?)

Rebbi Yoshiyah answers 'Sareis ha'Mikra ve'Darsheihu', by which he means that we must invert the Pasuk and explain that they asked Moshe, after having asked Elazar, the Princes and the congregation (whom they actually asked first).

The Pasuk prefers to invert the order in order not to mention Elazar, the Princes and the congregation before Moshe.

According to Aba Chanan in the name of Rebbi Eliezer they entered the Beis-Hamedrash, and asked all the Talmidei-Chachamim who were sitting there simultaneously.

The basis of their Machlokes is whether it is Kavod ha'Rav to give deference ('Cholkin Kavod ... ') to a Talmid (Elazar, the Princes ... ) in the presence of the Rav (Moshe [Aba Shaul]) or not (Rebbi Yoshiyah).

We rule 'Cholkin' when the Rebbe himself gives Kavod to the Talmid, and 'Ein Cholkin' when he doesn't.

The Tana'im argue in a case when the Rebbe gives Kavod to the Talmid, because that is what Moshe and all Yisrael used to do (See Ritva). Effectively then, we are ruling like Aba Shaul.

The Beraisa concludes that the daughters of Tz'lofchad were Chochmaniyos, Darshaniyos and Tzidkaniyos. We learn 'Chochmaniyos' from the fact that they spoke up at the right moment meaning that they asked about Nachalos when Moshe taught the Dinim of Yibum. If a woman is considered like a son, to exempt his mother from Yibum, they asked, then why should she not also inherit her father (like a son).

They were Darshaniyos, because they said that, had Tz'lofchad had a son, they would have remained silent. When Rebbi Yirmiyah learned the Beraisa which states 'daughter' (instead of 'son') he reacted by erasing it from the Beraisa.

Abaye explained the Beraisa as it stands to mean not 'Bas', but 'Bas ha'Ben'. They even knew that a daughter does not inherit if the daughter of a son (her brother) is alive.

They knew this from the Parshah of Nachalos (which, as we explained earlier. had already been taught at Marah). Their She'eilah concerned the Chelek Bechorah, as we explained above, and not the Chelek Pashut. (In that case however, it is unclear what they proved from the Parshah of Yibum see also Tosfos DH 'Ilu').

We know that the daughters of Tz'lofchad were Tzidkaniyos because, not only did they marry into their own tribe (so as not to move the Yerushah from their tribe, but they also waited a long time before marrying the right partners (their own cousins), in keeping with Hash-m's advice (as we shall see later).

Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa comments on this that in their quest to find the right partner, not one of them married before she turned forty.

According to Rav Chisda, a woman who marries before the age of twenty, can have children until she turns sixty. He also says that a woman who marries ...

... after she is twenty can have children until she is forty.

... from the age of forty will not have children (though it is feasible that nowadays, the nature of women has changed).

In spite of Rav Chisda, the Bnos Tz'lofchad had children because they relied on their righteousness, trusting that Hash-m would perform a miracle, and bless them with children, like He performed a miracle with Yocheved, as we shall now see.