Explanation: The case is, the fathers of their mothers did not have sons, only daughters. If not, the sons would inherit!

Question: Who returned [portions] to [the fathers of their mothers]?

Answer: The case is, the fathers of their mothers had brothers, and sons returned to their fathers and they divided equally.

Observation: You cannot find that they were not 20 years old, like the Rashbam explained, for Korach was swallowed right after the Meraglim, like it says in Seder Olam.

It teaches that after the Meraglim came [back], Korach was swallowed. If it was not right after, what is the Chidush?

Support: Since they said (after Korach was swallowed) "Hen Gavanu Kulanu Avadnu", and the Targum is "some of us were killed by the sword, some of us the land swallowed, and some of us died in a plague", that these three episodes were close together, since they are mentioned together;

"Killed by the sword" is episode of [the Ma'apilim, right after the return of] the Meraglim, like it says "va'Yakum va'Yaksum..."

Question: Why did it need to say "in the merit of the father of their father"? It should say "in the merit of their actual father", i.e. the sons of the Meraglim and the sons of the complainers themselves!

Answer: The Tana comes to teach that even those who did not receive due to themselves, for they were not 20 years old when they entered the land, and also they did not receive in the merit of their actual fathers, e.g. [their fathers] died in the Midbar, and also they did not receive due to Chazarah, for [their fathers] did not have any son who was 20...

Even so, they received in the merit of the father of their father, even though it came to them due to the Meraglim and complainers.

Question: Why doesn't it say that both of these [hold that Eretz Yisrael was given] to those who left Mitzrayim? This is when their actual fathers (of the sons who received portions; "actual" excludes grandfathers or great grandfathers), i.e. sons of the Meraglim and complainers, were 20 when they left Mitzrayim. This is [called] due to themselves, for it did not come to them in the merit of the Meraglim and complainers;

And this [Beraisa] that says in the merit of the grandfathers [of the fathers of those who received portions], is when their fathers were not 20 when they left Mitzrayim!

Observation: Granted, if it would have said that the sons themselves of the Meraglim and complainers came to the land, it would be fine;

We could not say that "both of these [hold that Eretz Yisrael was given] to those who left Mitzrayim, and this [discusses] when they were 20 when they left", for if so, how did they come to the land? Everyone who was 20 [when he left] died in the Midbar!

Answer: Also now that we discuss their grandchildren (of the Meraglim and complainers), we cannot answer so, for it connotes also that those who entered the land received [truly] in their own merits, and not that their fathers inherited and bequeathed to them.

Explanation: You are forced to say that the verse does not discuss tent pegs, rather, division [of land].

Suggestion: Perhaps they had three uncles!

Rejection: Then there would not be any Chidush, for they did not receive the [extra] portion of Bechorah. If so, the verse should have counted only Batei Avos, like Rav Papa asked above "if it counts children, there were more!"

Implied question: The Parshah of inheritance was not said [yet]!

Answer: Moshe knew from the reason below (119b) - if we are like a son, we should inherit. If not, our mother should do Yibum!

Question: Why was he unsure? He should have judged him for choking, for every Stam "Misah" in the Torah is choking!

Answer: From reasoning, it seemed that he should be stoned like one who served idolatry, for everywhere (Chulin 5a) it says that Shabbos is like Avodah Zarah. I.e. one who was Mechalel Shabbos in public is like one who served idolatry.

Observation: We must say that he holds like Rabanan, and unlike R. Yehudah, for R. Yehudah says in Sanhedrin (80b) that [one cannot be executed] unless [when he was warned] they informed him which Misah he will get;

[R. Yehudah] says there that it was a Hora'as Sha'ah. If so, Moshe did not know that he is Chayav Misah!

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): They knew the Parshah of inheritances.

Objection #1: It was not taught yet, like we said above (119a) that Tzlafchad's daughters merited, and it was written through them!

Objection #2: Even if they knew the Parshah of inheritances, that a son and daughter inherit, how did they know that a son is before a daughter? "V'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah" was not said yet;

If so, one could say like Rav Papa asked Abaye above (110b) "when there is a son and daughter, neither should inherit [alone. Rather, they should split the inheritance!]"

Objection #3: If they knew the Parshah of inheritances, why did they need to speak based on Parshas Yibum?

Explanation #2 (Rashba): They knew from "v'Hisnachaltem [Osam] li'Vneichem", and not to your daughters.

Explanation #3: They knew from reasoning, because a daughter diverts inheritance, but a son does not.

Explanation #4: It says "la'Eleh Techalek ha'Aretz", i.e. males.

Question: It says [that they said] "if there were a daughter to a son, we would not speak." Mishmush of inheritance was not taught yet!

Answer: It means "we would not speak", for then they would not have any power to speak (i.e. claim). However, now that there is no daughter to a son, we can prove [that they should receive] from Parshas Yibum.

Explanation (Rashba): He holds like the opinion (Shabbos 96b) that Tzlafchad was the Mekoshesh (the one executed for gathering wood on Shabbos), and the episode of the Mekoshesh was at the beginning of the 40 years in the Midbar, right after the episode of the Meraglim;

It says in the Midrash that he intended l'Shem Shamayim. Yisrael were saying that since it was decreed on them not to enter the land from the episode of the Meraglim, they are no longer obligated in Mitzvos;

He went and desecrated Shabbos, so he would be killed and others would see. [His daughters] did not marry until the end of the 40 years [in the Midbar], like is proven from verses.