(1) The daughters of Tzelophechad, of Manassite family—son of Chepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Machlah, Noa, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirtzah. (2) They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, (3) “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korach’s faction, which banded together against the Eternal, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. (4) Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!”
...ודעתי בדרך הפשט שאמרו ככה בעבור שחשבו שמשה רבינו היה שונא עדת קרח יותר מכל החוטאים שמתו במדבר שהם היו הקמים כנגדו והכופרים בכל מעשיו וחשבו אולי בשנאתו אותם יאמר אל יהי לו מושך חסד ואל יהי חונן ליתומיו יזכר עון אבותם אל ה' (תהלים קט יב יד) על כן הודיעוהו כי לא היה מהם ורמזו עוד שאינו במתי המגפות אבל במדבר מת על מטתו וטעם כי בחטאו מת אמרו מת במדבר בעונו שלא זכה ליכנס בארץ ...
...In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]...
והוא לא היה וגו׳ AND HE WAS NOT [… IN THE CONGREGATION OF KORAH] — Because they intended to state that HE DIED IN HIS OWN SIN they felt compelled to say he had taken no part in the sin of those who complained, nor had he been in the congregation of Korach who incited the people against the Holy Blessed One, but he had died through his own sin only, and had not made others to sin with him (Sifrei Bamidbar 133:3). — Rabbi Akiva said that he was the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32); Rabbi Shimon said that he was one of those who presumed to disobey God’s command (Numbers 14:44) (Shabbat 96b).
(32) Once, when the Israelites were in the wilderness, they came upon a man gathering wood on the sabbath day. (33) Those who found him as he was gathering wood brought him before Moses, Aaron, and the whole community. (34) He was placed in custody, for it had not been specified what should be done to him. (35) Then the Eternal said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death: the whole community shall pelt him with stones outside the camp.” (36) So the whole community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death—as the Eternal had commanded Moses.
Yet defiantly they marched toward the crest of the hill country, though neither the Eternal's Ark of the Covenant nor Moses stirred from the camp.
The Sages taught: The wood gatherer was Tzelophehad, and it says: “And the children of Israel were in the desert and they found a man gathering wood on the day of Shabbat” (Numbers 15:32), and below it is stated: “Our father died in the desert...” (Numbers 27:3). Just as below Tzelophechad, so too, here Zelophehad; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future! If the truth is in accordance with your statement the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it! And if not you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.
However, didn’t Rabbi Akiva derive this by means of a verbal analogy? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira did not learn a verbal analogy. However, according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where was Tzelophechad's liability derived? He was among those who “presumed".
אפילו קטנה שבהן לא נשאת פחות מארבעים שנה. נראה לרשב"א דסבר לה כמ"ד (שבת דף צו:) צלפחד היינו מקושש ומעשה המקושש היה בתחלת ארבעים מיד אחר מעשה מרגלים דאמר במדרש דלשם שמים נתכוין שהיו אומרים ישראל כיון שנגזר עליהן שלא ליכנס לארץ ממעשה מרגלים שוב אין מחויבין במצות עמד וחילל שבת כדי שיהרג ויראו אחרים ולא נשאו עד סוף ארבעים שנה כדמוכחי קראי:
...Tzelophechad was the gatherer, and the account happened at the beginning of the forty years, immediately after the incident of the spies. As it says in the Midrash his intent was for the sake of heaven, as the Jewish people were saying that since it was decreed on us not to enter the land after the incident with the spies, we're not obligated in the commandments any more. He went and violated Shabbat in order to be killed so others would see and not bear guilt until the end of the forty years, as scripture proves.
PARASHAT PINCHAS The Daughters of Tzelofchad By Rabbanit Sharon Rimon
Indeed, the word "ba-midbar" is rather unusual. The Torah generally makes specific note of the place where an event occurs. Here, in these two instances (Tzelofchad and the gatherer), the location is altogether unspecified: "in the wilderness." Therefore, the time when the event happened is also unclear (since we do not know where they are in their forty-year wilderness wanderings). Thus, both in the story of the gatherer and in the argument on behalf of Tzelofchad, the Torah is telling us about a person who dies in the wilderness, following a sin, in an unspecified place and at an unspecified time. In both cases, the Torah notes (quite uncharacteristically) that the event takes place "in the wilderness."
There are further points of similarity between the two stories, which might testify to a connection between them:
a. Both cases are brought for a legal ruling, not only before Moshe, but before the Kohen and the entire congregation.
b. In both instances the court does not know how to rule.
c. Both narratives feature a paragraph break in the middle, followed by God's verdict.
d. The daughters of Tzelofchad question, "Why should our father's name be lessened?", while in the story of the gatherer, the man's "name" is truly lessened – there is no indication as to his identity!
Hence it turns out that Rabbi Akiva's conclusion is not altogether baseless. The Torah tells us that Tzelofchad died in the wilderness as a result of a sin, and Rabbi Akiva feels that if the Torah notes that Tzelofchad sinned, apparently we are meant to know which sin is being referred to. In the story of the gatherer, there is some similarity to the story of Tzelofchad, and therefore Rabbi Akiva asserts that the two stories are connected: Tzelofchad is the gatherer.