“And if it will be the Jubilee, etc.” The Rabbis of blessed memory explained (Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 9:1) that if here means “even,” and the meaning is that even if the Jubilee comes, nonetheless this field will not be released in the Jubilee. It is difficult to interpret if as meaning “even though,” and even if you were to say that it does mean that, it is still difficult [to understand]: From where would we derive that the Jubilee would be a remedy for this field [being transferred to another tribe]? If so, what was the initial assumption [of the verse], and what is it coming to teach us? Furthermore, one must be precise about the verses that state, And their inheritance will be diminished from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe to which they will belong, and from the lot of our inheritance it will be diminished. Why do I need the word diminished twice? And why is it first called the inheritance of our fathers and afterward called our inheritance? And afterward, it returns and says, And if it will be the Jubilee, etc., and from the inheritance of his tribe it will be diminished. Surely this change means something. Additionally, it is difficult [to understand] why would their inheritance be [considered] diminished; does it not say To the numerous you shall increase and to the few you shall decrease (Numbers 33:54)?

And what is close to me to say is that they were concerned about two things. The first is that if the lot was drawn with Divine inspiration that this territory would be for a certain tribe, it is fitting that the name of the deceased, who is the head of the tribe, should be called upon his inheritance, for here the dead inherit the living. Therefore, it is appropriate that the name of the deceased should not be cut off from his inheritance, and regarding this concern they said, and it will diminish from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers. The second concern is because of suspicion that people might say they sold their inheritance, for future generations will say: “What business does another tribe have with the fields of this tribe?” For not everyone is familiar with the laws of Zelophehad’s daughters. Furthermore, perhaps the women will die and their husbands will inherit them, and people will say that they surely sold their fields due to financial hardship, and they will be considered sinners, as our Sages expounded in the portion of Behar from the juxtaposition of passages: his field, his sins have caused these things (Kiddushin 20a). And regarding this concern they said, and from the lot of our inheritance it will diminish — not an actual diminishment, but because of the suspicion.

Specifically, before the jubilee year, there is room for these two concerns, but if the jubilee will come, then there is no place for the second concern. For they will not say that their fields were sold, because if the field had been sold, it would return in the jubilee. And since this field does not return in the jubilee, everyone will know that this is not a sold field, but rather that the daughters diverted this inheritance to another tribe, and one concern is eliminated. Nevertheless, the second concern still stands in its place — that it will be diminished from the inheritance of our fathers’ tribe, meaning that the name of the deceased will not be called upon his inheritance. And in this way, the word if here is like every other “if” in the Torah.