Joseph’s descendants said to him: We are of the descendants of Joseph, upon whom the evil eye had no dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22), and Rabbi Abbahu states a homiletic interpretation: Do not read it as “alei ayin,” rather read it as olei ayin, above the eye, i.e., he transcended the influence of the evil eye. Joseph’s descendants were saying that they also do not need to be wary.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said that a proof for the notion that the evil eye holds no sway over Joseph and his descendants, is from here, Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh: “The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named in them, and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude [veyidgu] in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Veyidgu is related etymologically to the word for fish [dag]. Just as with regard to the fish in the sea, water covers them and the evil eye has no dominion over them, so too, the seed of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them.

§ The Gemara analyzes the next section of the baraita, which states: With regard to the twelve spies sent to survey Eretz Yisrael prior to the Jewish people’s entry into the land, Joshua and Caleb took all of the spies’ portions of the land. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Ulla said: It is as the verse states: “But Joshua, son of Nun, and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, lived of those men that went to spy out the land” (Numbers 14:38). What does the term “lived” mean? If we say that it means literally that they lived, but there is another verse that states: “And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb, son of Jephunneh, and Joshua, son of Nun” (Numbers 26:65), so why would the Torah state it twice? Rather, what does the term “lived” mean? That Joshua and Caleb lived in the other spies’ portion of the land.

The baraita teaches that the protesters and the assembly of Korah did not possess a portion of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: With regard to the spies, the protesters, and the assembly of Korah, Joshua and Caleb took their portions of the land? Apparently, the protesters and the assembly of Korah were assigned portions in Eretz Yisrael, which were then given to Joshua and Caleb. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: One Sage, the tanna of the baraita quoted earlier, juxtaposes the protesters to the spies, teaching that just as the spies were assigned a portion of Eretz Yisrael, so were the protesters. And one Sage, the tanna of the baraita quoted here, does not juxtapose the protesters to the spies. Although the spies were assigned a portion, the protesters were not.

The Gemara quotes a related baraita. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse quotes the daughters of Zelophehad: “Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not among the assembly of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the assembly of Korah, but he died in his own sin; and he had no sons” (Numbers 27:3), and the daughters of Zelophehad therefore claim they are entitled to his portion. “Our father died in the wilderness,” this is referring to Zelophehad. “And he was not among the assembly,” this is referring to the assembly of spies. “That gathered themselves together against the Lord,” these are the protesters. “In the assembly of Korah,” this is in accordance with its straightforward meaning. It is clear from this verse that those in these categories were not entitled to a portion in Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara concludes: One Sage juxtaposes the protesters to the spies, so that Joshua and Caleb inherited the portions of both; and one Sage does not juxtapose the protesters to the spies.

The Gemara presents Rav Pappa’s fourth question. And Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And according to the one who juxtaposes the protesters to the spies, is it reasonable that Joshua and Caleb contested the spies and inherited all of Eretz Yisrael? Many of the Jewish people protested in the wilderness at one point or another, and it cannot be that Joshua and Caleb received all of their portions by virtue of not participating in the sin of the spies. Abaye said to him: We are referring to the protesters who were among the assembly of Korah. This term is not referring to all those who protested, but rather to the 250 individuals who protested along with Korah, and it is their portions of land that Joshua and Caleb received.

The Gemara returns to the baraita and presents the fifth question. And Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Granted, according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, this is as it is written with regard to the inheritance of the tribe of Manasseh: “And ten parts fell to Manasseh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan; because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons” (Joshua 17:5–6). Six were the portions of the six fathers’ houses of Manasseh listed in a previous verse (Joshua 17:2), and four parts of the daughters of Zelophehad; that is ten parts.

But according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, there were eight parts, as follows: Six were the portions of the six fathers’ houses, and two of theirs, which they received from the estate of their grandfather Hepher, of whom Zelophehad was the firstborn; that is eight. Zelophehad himself, by contrast, was not entitled to a portion, as he did not enter Eretz Yisrael.

The Gemara objects: And according to your reasoning, but even according to the one who says that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, there are only nine parts, as the mishna (116b) states that Zelophehad’s daughters took three parts. Rather, what have you to say? How can the mishna be reconciled with the verse? One must say that according to the opinion that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt, they had one unmentioned paternal uncle who died without children, and Zelophehad’s estate received a share of his portion. So too, according to the opinion that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, it could be said that they had two unmentioned paternal uncles, so that they received two additional portions of land.

The fact that they received a portion from an uncle may be derived from a verse. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “You shall give [naton titten] them a possession of an inheritance” (Numbers 27:7). This is referring to the inheritance of their father. The verse continues: “Among their father’s brothers”; this is referring to the inheritance of their father’s father. The verse continues: “And you shall pass the inheritance of their father to them”; this is referring to the portion of the firstborn to which Zelophehad was entitled.

The baraita continues. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: They also took a portion of their father’s brother, as it is stated: “You shall give [naton titten].” The double expression indicates that they received an additional portion. The Gemara notes: And according to the one who says that they had two paternal uncles, that additional portion is derived from the phrase: “You shall give them a possession of an inheritance,” which would be superfluous were it not to indicate an additional portion.

The Gemara presents the sixth question. And Rav Pappa said to Abaye: In the verse quoted above, what portions is it counting? If the verse is counting children, i.e., the portions of those who inherited from their antecedents, as with the daughters of Zelophehad, there were many such portions, and the verse did not enumerate all portions inherited by all members of the tribe. And if the verse is counting fathers’ houses, there are only six, as Hepher is included among the six enumerated in Joshua 17:2. Why, then, does the verse count the portions of the daughters of Zelophehad separately?