Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
Numbers 27:8-11
A General Case Is Then Made Of What Is To Happen When A Man Dies Having No Son (Numbers 27:8 a).
This solution would settle the concerns of many still living fathers who only had daughters. Some who had as yet no male heir would undoubtedly have been concerned about what would happen to their name, and what would happen to their families, if they were slain in the forthcoming warfare before having a male heir. (Compare how a newly married man was excluded from warfare for one year to give him time to breed an heir- Deuteronomy 24:5. It was put in terms of ‘cheering his wife' but nothing would cheer her more than that). Now they could rest at peace. Their close family would still receive their portion posthumously after their death.
“ And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, “If a man die, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter, and if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers.'
The point being established was twofold. Firstly that the family of every ‘head of family' of the new generation would receive a portion in the land whatever happened to him, and whether he died or not, or whether he had a male heir or not. It was a guarantee that as long as he had children his name would thus be preserved and his family's welfare ensured. If he had a daughter, she would receive his portion. And if he had no daughter his own brothers would receive it, with of course the responsibility to remember his name and look after his widow.
‘And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father's brothers.'
And if he had no brothers then the land would pass to his uncles who would bear the same responsibility.
‘And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it.'
And if he also had no uncles, his nearest male relative would inherit it, and would possess it. So would the inheritance remain in the family who would have a responsibility for the remembering of his name. At least in theory, no man of the new generation would ever die forgotten (unlike the old who died in the wilderness).
‘And it shall be to the children of Israel a statute and ordinance, as Yahweh commanded Moses.'
And this was so important that it was to be a statute and ordinance in Israel, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.
Note on Inheritance Laws.
We have in this passage an insight into the inheritance laws of those days. Land was to pass to the male heirs, with the firstborn receiving double because of his heavier responsibilities as head of the family (Deuteronomy 21:15). This did not necessarily mean that the land was divided. It would often be wiser to keep the land as one and work it together. But each would have his name attached to part of the land. The women would be given their dowry when they married, something of value, in the case of the better off a dowry of gold and jewels and gorgeous clothing, and in the case of rulers even of cities. But then they would come under the auspices of their new family. Meanwhile the males would have provided for their dowries and would continue to provide for the old families. We can see why these young women were concerned. If they did not receive their father's portion they would be thrown on charity for their provision. But it was also true that if their father's name had no land attached to it, it would soon be forgotten. Land was closely connected with family. That was why in the year of Yubile all land would revert to the original family which had owned it (Leviticus 25:13). That was one reason why names and lands were closely linked together.
End of note.