Another Beraisa states that the division of Eretz Yisrael in time to come will differ basically from the original division inasmuch as it will be divided into thirteen portions (instead of twelve).

Initially, we interpret the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef' to mean that - those who received superior-quality land had to compensate those who received land of inferior quality.

According to Rebbi Yehudah five Se'ah in Galil were equal to one Se'ah in Yehudah.

We know that the land was divided by lots from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ach be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz". The Tana learns from the Pasuk there "al-Pi ha'Goral Techalek Nachalaso" that - it also had to be divided by means of the Urim ve'Tumim (see Rashash).

When the land was divided - Elazar the Kohen Gadol wore the Urim ve'Tumin.

Yehoshua and the whole of Yisrael stood before Elazar as the lots were drawn from two boxes, twelve 'pieces of paper' each with the name of one tribe (including Efrayim and Menasheh but excluding Levi) on the one, the twelve portions of land on the other.

Elazar would first consult the Urim ve'Tumim, before announcing which tribe was about to be drawn from one box and which portion of land from the other ('Zevulun will now be drawn and the border of Acco with it'), then the appointee mixed the lots, first in the one box, from which he drew a 'piece of paper' with 'Zevulun' (or 'Naftali') written on it, then in the other, from which he drew 'T'chum Acco' (or 'T'chum inusar').

Besides the distinction mentioned earlier, this Beraisa describes how - whereas in the distribution of Yehoshua, one person received cornfields, and another, orchards, in the distribution in the time of Mashi'ach, everyone will receive part of his portion in the mountains, part in the lowlands and part in the valley (incorporating all the different kinds of land).

The above dual system of distribution achieved - the people's confidence in the lots, inasmuch as it was clearly Divinely-inspired.

They could not use one box, with each lot containing both the name of the tribe and the section of land which that tribe was destined to receive - because then the division of land would not have been effected by lots, as the Torah requires, but by the word of Elazar.

The Sugya mention Zevulun and Naftali and not Reuven and Shimon (or Yehudah and Yisachar) - to teach us that the portions were not distributed in any particular order, but randomly.

The Tana describes yet a third distinction between the two distributions (besides the question of which tribes participated, which will be discussed shortly). He learns the words" Ne'um Hash-m" (in the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eileh Machlekosam Ne'um Hash-m") that - in the days of Mashi'ach, the land will be distributed by Hash-m Himself.

We also resolve our original She'eilah (whether Eretz Yisrael was distributed 'li'Shevatim' or 'le'Karfaf de'Gavri') from this lengthy Beraisa - from the Lashon 'li'Sheneim-Asar Shevatim', implying twelve equal portions.

The Tana earlier mentioned thirteen portions into which the land will be apportioned in the time Mashi'ach. It would not be correct to say that the thirteenth portion will go to Levi (even though they will receive a portion) - because against that, Efrayim and Menasheh will only receive one portion jointly, as we explained).

The thirteenth portion - will be given to the Nasi (King Mashi'ach).

Initially, we derive this from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Oved me'Ir Ya'avduhu mi'Kol Shivtei Yisrael". Rav Papa asked Abaye how we know that this Pasuk is referring to living him a portion of land, and not to the obligation to serve him like Talmidim serve a Rav? to which he replied - with another Pasuk there "va'ha'Nosar le'Nasi ... ", which is clearly referring to a portion of land.

We refute our initial interoperation of the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef' (that whoever received superior-quality land would compensate those who received land of inferior quality) on the grounds that - only a fool would willingly forego good-quality land for money.

What the Tana therefore means is that - those who received portions closer to Yerushalayim had to compensate those who lived further away from it.

Besides being further away from Yerushalayim, the second disadvantage in living further northwards - was the fact that it was closer to foreign countries, which means more money spent on defense.

Rebbi Yehudah's earlier statement that one Se'ah in Yehudah was equivalent to five Se'ah in Galil, might have been based on the distance from Yerushalayim (to explain the Tana Kama of his Beraisa). He might also have meant that - whereas the tribes who lived closer to Yerushalayim had to compensate those who lived further monetarily, (like the Tana Kama) it was a also a fact that those who lived in Galil received five times as much land as those who lived in Yehudah (due to the inferior-quality land [see Rashi Parshas Sh'lach l'cha 13:22). Note also, that if that was so, then the twelve equal strips of land were equal in value, but not in size.

The Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - the distance was not compensated by money, but the further they lived from Yerushalayim, the more land they received.

The Tana'im learn this compensation - from the Pasuk in Pinchas "bein Rav li'Me'at".

The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the word "Ach" (in the Pasuk "Ach be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz") that - Yehoshua and Kalev were precluded from inheriting by means of lots.

This cannot be coming to preclude Yehoshua and Kalev from taking a portion altogether - because if they received the portion of others (the Meraglim ... ), then why should they not receive their own?

The Pasuk is therefore coming to teach us that - Yehoshua and Kalev received their portions without lots.

Yehoshua, at his own request received Timnas Serach in Har Efrayim.

In Seifer Yehoshua, Yehoshua's inheritance is called ''Timnas Serach'', whereas in Seifer Shoftim, it is referred to as 'Timnas Cheres''. When ...

... in the first Lashon, Rebbi Elazar explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah ke'Cheres, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah Masrichin' he means that - initially, the fruits there were dry, but after Yehoshua inherited it, they became so juicy, that if one kept them too long, they went bad due to the large amount of juice.

... in the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah Masrichin, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah ke'Cheres', he means that - initially, the fruits there used to quickly go bad from the juice, but, once Yehoshua inherited it, they would last for long periods of time (despite their juiciness) as if they were dry.

They gave to Kalev - the area he went to Daven at, Chevron.

To reconcile this with the fact that Chevron was an Ir Miklat, Abaye explains that - they gave Kalev the villages and the suburbs of Chevron, but not the town itself(which went to the Tribe of Levi.

We Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Mishpat ha'B'chorah" that - a B'chor does not inherit a double portion of his mother's property.

If a father dies leaving Nechasim Me'utin (a small inheritance) - it is a T'nai Kesubah that the daughters are fed from the property, and the sons, if necessary, must go begging.

In the equivalent case, but where it is their mother whom they are inheriting - the sons will inherit as usual ...

... because daughters are not sustained from their mother's property).

Thw Mishnah begins with the words 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas be'Nachalah'. This cannot mean that ...

... a daughter inherits together with her brother - because we have already learned that a son always takes precedence over a daughter.

... a daughter who inherits, receives even Ra'uy just like her brother, like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak will suggest - because we have already learned that (with regard to the B'nos Tzelofchad inheriting their father's inheritance in Cheifer's portion, even though his father died after him).

We reject the Kashya 've'Od, Mai Ela' (after making the first of the two previous points [with reference to the continuation of the Mishnah 'Ela she'ha'Ben Notel Pi Shenayim be'Nechsei ha'Av ve'Lo be'Nechsei ha'Eim']) - because 've'Od' always follows a weak Kashya, implying that the second Kashya is better than the original one (whereas here, the original Kashya is a strong one [which is not the case with all the subsequent cases, where we are only asking that we know it already]).

After making the second of the two above points, we add 've'Od, Mai Ela' - insinuating that the Tana is adding a second statement about Yerushas ha'Ben, when in fact, this is the first statement in this regard. Note that this Kashya applies equally to Rav Papa and Rav Ashi (whose answers we will deal with shortly, and) neither of whom attempts to answer it.

We are happy to make the second of the two points based on the Mishnah in connection with the B'nos Tz'lofchad. We could also have proved our point from the Mishnah that we learned earlier 've'Chol Yotz'ei Yereicho shel Ben Kodmin le'Bas', which effectively means that - a man's grandson or grand-daughter inherits Ra'uy (what his son did not yet possess from his property).

And we reject Rav Papa's suggestion 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas Notlin Chelek bi'Vechorah' - because this too, we already know from the Mishnah 've'she'Hayah B'chor Notel Sh'nei Chalakim'.

Neither can the Tana be teaching us that just as a father may bequeath all his property to one of his sons, so too, may he bequeath it to one of his daughters (should he have no sons), as Rav Ashi suggests, because this is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who says in a Mishnah later in the Perek that - if a father declares one of his potential heirs (but not anybody else) to be his sole heir, his declaration is valid.

The Tana would be most unlikely to be presenting a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - since we rule 'Stam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes, Ein Halachah ki'Stam', so what would be the point in doing so?

Mar bar Rav Ashi finally establishes our Mishnah to mean that - a son and a daughter alike, inherit their mother's property just like their father's, only the son, even if he is a B'chor, will not inherit double in his mother's property, thereby answering the second Kashya ('ve'Od, Mai Ela') as well.

The Torah draws no distinction between a son and a daughter, regarding the regular inheritance of their father or mother, as we just learned in our Mishnah. What we do however, learn from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "ve'Yaldu lo Banim" is that - the Din of a B'chor inheriting a double portion of his father's property pertains specifically to a son, and not to a daughter.