Answer (Rashba): The Reisha and Seifa discuss when those who left Mitzrayim died without children, and did not enter the land, for surely all who were 20 when they left Mitzrayim died in the Midbar;

The Reisha discusses when the 10 who left with him died, and five were born in the Midbar. The Seifa discusses when the five who left with him died, and 10 were born in the Midbar. Now, the Seifa is like the Reisha.

Support: This explains why it says that they left with him. What difference does it make that the father left? Rather, it is because he needs to say that those died, and others were born in the Midbar.

Question (Rivam, against the Rashbam): "La'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso" properly connotes to one who is now great, give much!

Implied suggestion: It already says "la'Eleh Techalek ha'Aretz" [which connotes that one who is now great, gets much. If so, la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso must teach about one who was great when he left Mitzrayim]!

Rejection: If so, if one was great when he left Mitzrayim, we know this from "li'Shmos Matos Avosam"! (Therefore, we should explain la'Rav Tarbeh Nachalaso simply, that one who is now great, gets much.)

Alternative text (Rivam): The text says "this is why it says Bein Rav l'Me'at", like is written in Seforim.

Explanation: Granted, according to the opinion [that it was divided to] those who left Mitzrayim, if there were two brothers who left Mitzrayim, and they had 10 sons who entered the land, and two brothers have only two sons who entered the land, even though the 10 were great, they received [in all] only like the two sons who are small. This is "Bein Rav l'Me'at."

Implied question: Below (122a), we expound from this verse that the land was divided to the Shevatim (each Shevet gets according to the outcome of the lottery, whether the Shevet is big or small. Why do we ask what we learn from it?)

Answer: Now [the Makshan] did not think of that Drashah.

Support: He asks below according to the opinion "those who entered the land", why did Bnei Yosef complain? If the land was divided to the Shevatim, they properly complained according to all opinions!

Conclusion: Rather, surely [the Makshan] did not think of that Drashah, and the Drashah of money is according to the conclusion.

Inference: The entire Sugya connotes that according to the opinion [that Eretz Yisrael was given] to those who entered, [Tzlafchad's daughters] did not receive anything due to Tzlafchad himself, only due to Chefer, their grandfather.

Question #1: If so, why does it say "he was not in ha'Edah ha'No'adim [Al Hash-m]"? What difference does it make that he was not with them? Even if he was, they would receive through Chazarah (their grandfather inherited portions of the land, and bequeathed it to them)!

We said above (117b) that the children of the Meraglim and complainers inherit in the merit of their paternal and maternal grandfathers!

Suggestion: This is relevant to the portion of Bechorah.

Rejection: Just like they receive the Pashut portion, even though it comes to them due to their father's power, they receive also the portion of Bechorah!

Question #2 (Rashba): According to the opinion [that it was given to] those who entered the land, why does it say above (117b) that Yehoshua and Kalev received the portions of the Meraglim?

There was no portion at all for all those who did not enter the land!

Suggestion: Yehoshua and Kalev received what came to [the Meraglim] through Chazarah, from their children who entered the land.

Rejection: This is wrong. We say below (119a) that their children who were 20 year old received in their own merit!

Answer (Rashbam): According to the opinion [that it was given] to those who entered the land, Yehoshua and Kalev did not receive anything from the Meraglim's portion. That opinion explains "Chayu Min ha'Anashim" literally. They simply lived [unlike the other Meraglim].

Question (Rivam): Even according to the opinion that they had one uncle, also this we learn from "Achuzas Nachalah" according to Rabanan, who do not expound "Nason Titen";

And according to R. Eliezer, who expounds "Nason Titen", we do not need "Achuzas Nachalah", even according to the opinion that there were two uncles!

Source: According to the opinion "to those who entered the land", he holds that there were two uncles, and he does not expound "Nason Titen Nachalah" for their father's portion, for he holds that Tzlafchad had no portion [since he did not enter the land];

He should expound from it one brother, and the other from "Nason Titen", like R. Eliezer ben Yakov expounds!