Midrash sa Mga Bilang 27:3: Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition) & Sifrei Bamidbar

The shares of the spies, Joshua and Caleb inherited. Whence is this deduced? Ula faid: "The passage says (Num. 14, 38) But Joshua, the son of Nun and Caleb, … remained alive. What is meant by remained alive? Shall we take it literally? For this there is another passage (Ib. 26, 65) Save Caleb and Joshua. We must then conclude that the first-cited verse means that they lived with their shares." The murmurers and the congregation of Korah had no share in the land of Israel. Have we not been taught in a Baraitha that the shares of the spies, the murmurers, and the congregation of Korah, Joshua and Caleb inherited? This presents no difficulty. The Tanna of our Baraitha compares the murmerers to the spies, while the other master does not, as we are taught in the following Baraitha (Ib. 27, 3) Our father died in the wilderness, refers to Z'laphchad, but he was not of the company, refers to the spies; of those who gathered themselves, refers to the murmurers; in the company of Korah, literally. Hence one compares the murmurers to the spies and one does not. R. Papa raised the following objection to the above: According to him who compared the murmurers to the spies, then Joshua and Caleb must have taken nearly all Palestine? [for the majority were murmurers]. Whereupon Abaye answered, "They refers to the murmurers of the company of Korah."

(Fol. 96b) Our Rabbis taught: "The wood-gatherer was Zelaphehad, and so it is said (Num. 15, 32.) And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath, and it is further said (Ib. 27, 3.) Our father died in the wilderness. [We deduce this from the similar word Midbar (wilderness) which is found in both places.] Just as further [Our father died in the wilderness (Bamidbar) ] refers to Zelaphehad, so the wood-gatherer [who died in consequence thereof] was also Zelaphehad." This is what R. Akiba said. R. Juda b. Bethyra then said to him: "Akiba! Whether your opinion be true or false, you will have to account for it [at the time of Divine Judgment]; for if your words are true, you disclosed the name of a man whom the Torah shielded; and if your opinion is not correct you have slandered an upright person." (Fol. 97a.) Behold! R. Akiba inferred it by the rule of analogy. Such an analogy was not received by tradition [to R. Juda b. Bethyra]. A similar case occured in the following incident: It is said (Ib. 12, 9.) And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them and He went away. "We learn from this," said R. Akiba, "that Aaron also became leprous." R. Juda b. Bethyra then said to him: "Akiba! Whether your opinion be true or false, you will have to account for it at the time of Divine Judgment. For if your words be true you disclosed the name of a man whom the Torah desired to shield; and if your words are false, then you have slandered an upright man." But it is written And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them [including Aaron]. This means that Aaron was merely rebuked. We are taught that Aaron also became leprous, for it is written (Ib. ib. 10) And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and beheld she was leprous. It is explained that this implies that Aaron cleansed himself of his leprosy."

(Bamidbar 15:32) "And the children of Israel were in the desert, etc.": Scripture here speaks in disparagement of Israel, that they had observed only the first Shabbath, when they desecrated the second. "and they found a man mekoshesh wood on the Sabbath day." (mekoshesh" =) pulling (wood) up from the ground. You say that, but perhaps (the reference is to) a man himself, whose name was "Mekoshesh," (who was carrying wood). It is, therefore, written (in negation of this assumption, Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near, those who found him mekoshesh wood." How, then, must I understand (Ibid. 32) "mekoshesh wood"? As pulling up wood from the ground. And who was that man? Tzelafchad. It is written here (32) "desert," and elsewhere (27:23) ("Our father died in the) desert." Just as there, Tzelafchad; here, too, Tzelafchad. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said to him: In either case, you are destined to give an accounting if it is as you say — He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him, and you bring it to light! And you are libeling that tzaddik! But who was it? It was one of "the bold ones," viz. (Ibid. 14:44) "And they made bold to go up to the top of the mountain." (Ibid. 15:32) "And they found a man pulling up wood.": We are hereby apprised that Moses appointed watchers (to this end), and they found him pulling up wood. (Ibid. 33) "And they brought him near — those who found him pulling up wood.": Why is this mentioned again? Is not already written "And they found a man, etc."? We are hereby taught that they warned him (after finding him) and he continued doing so. R. Yitzchak says: This (repetition) is not necessary (to teach that prior warning is a prerequisite for the administration of the death penalty), viz.: If idolatry, the gravest (of all transgressions) is not liable (to the death penalty) without prior warning, how much more so does this hold for all the mitzvoth of the Torah. What is the intent, then, of "those who found him"? We are hereby apprised that they forewarned him, specifying the forbidden labor — whence it is derived that in the instance of all the proto-labors (avoth melachoth) in the Torah, there must be forewarning, specifying the forbidden labor. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) ("And they brought him near to Moses and to Aaron and to the entire congregation": If Moses did not know, would Aaron know? — Reverse the verse (i.e., "they brought him near to Aaron [who did not know] and to Moses," and expound it. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Channan says in the name of R. Elazar: They (Moses and Aaron) were sitting in the house of study, and they came and stood before them.