1The Gemara answers: Actually, the verse is counting fathers’ houses. And by also counting the inheritance of Zelophehad’s daughters, the verse teaches us this: That the daughters of Zelophehad took the portion of the firstborn due their father. Evidently, Eretz Yisrael is considered already in possession of one who was entitled to his portion of the land, even before the land was assigned. Although a firstborn son does not take a double portion of the property due to his deceased father as he does the property his father possessed, it is considered that Hepher possessed the portion that would eventually be assigned to him, and that Zelophehad was entitled to a double portion.
2§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita . The Master says: And the sons of the spies and of the protesters took portions of the land in the merit of their paternal grandfathers and in the merit of their maternal grandfathers if those grandfathers were among those who left Egypt. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita ( Tosefta 7:10): The sons of the spies and of the protesters took portions in their own merit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This baraita , which states they took portions in the merit of their grandfathers, is written in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt; and that baraita , which states that they took portions in their own merit, is written in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael.
3The Gemara suggests another answer. And if you wish, say instead: This baraita and that baraita are written in accordance with the opinion that asserts that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, and it is not difficult: This baraita is discussing one who was twenty years old when the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, and therefore he took a portion in his own merit, and that baraita is discussing one who was not twenty years old.
4§ The mishna teaches: And Zelophehad took an additional portion that he received from Hepher, because he was a firstborn, and a firstborn takes two portions of inheritance from his father. The Gemara asks: But why was he entitled to the double portion of the firstborn? His portion of land is property merely due to Hepher, as Hepher never actually possessed the land, and the halakha is that a firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to the deceased as he does of property the deceased possessed. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This clause of the mishna is stated with regard to tent pegs and other assorted movable property that Hepher possessed.
5Rabba raises an objection from a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda says: The daughters of Zelophehad took four parts, as it is stated: “And ten parts fell to Manasseh” (Joshua 17:5). Clearly, this is referring to portions of land, and not simply movable property. Rather, Rabba says: Eretz Yisrael is considered already in possession of one who was entitled to his portion of inheritance land, even before the land was assigned.
6The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita . Rabbi Ḥideka said: Shimon HaShikmoni was my colleague among the students of Rabbi Akiva, and so would Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni say: Even before turning to God for guidance, Moses our teacher knew that the daughters of Zelophehad were inheritors and that they were entitled to their father’s portion, as well as his share in Hepher’s portion. But he did not know if they were entitled to take a portion of the firstborn of Hepher’s portion or not.
7Rabbi Ḥideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And the Torah portion concerning the laws of inheritances was fit to have been written through God initiating a commandment to Moses, without mentioning Zelophehad’s daughters. But by demonstrating their desire for land in Eretz Yisrael the daughters of Zelophehad merited that the portion was written through a response to them.
8Rabbi Ḥideka continues citing Rabbi Shimon HaShikmoni: And Moses our teacher similarly knew that the wood gatherer, who gathered wood on Shabbat (see Numbers 15:32–36), was to be punished by death, as it is stated: “Every one that profanes it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14), but he did not know by which death penalty the wood gatherer must die. And the Torah portion concerning the punishment of the wood gatherer was fit to have been written through God initiating a commandment to Moses, to teach which form of court-imposed capital punishment is administered to one who violates Shabbat. But the wood gatherer was found guilty, and the portion was written through the incident involving him. This is to teach you