Our father died in the wilderness: Some languages have several verbs for “dying.” Here died implies a death from natural causes. For the Hebrew word rendered wilderness (midbar), see 1.1.

He was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah: The daughters assume that the conspirators against the LORD in the Korah rebellion (chapter 16) deserved to be punished not only by death but by denial of inheritance to their descendants as well. This is why they make the point that their father was not among those rebels (so Ibn Ezra, cited by Alter), implying that his descendants should be able to inherit. They are anxious to show that their father was in no way implicated in that rebellion. The Hebrew noun for company (ʿedah both times) and the verb for gathered … together (yaad) come from the same root, so there is a play on words here, as in 14.35 and 16.11. A model for this sentence that keeps the wordplay and expresses the wicked behavior of Korah’s followers is “He was not among the band [or, assembly] of those who banded [or, assembled] together against the LORD.” Rendering ʿedah as “community” (see 1.2) would be too positive here.

But died for his own sin is literally “but in his own sin he died.” The Hebrew construction here puts emphasis on for his own sin. Zelophehad did not die for a sin committed jointly with others, especially not the sin of Korah and his followers. A possible model for this clause is “but it was [only] for his own sin that he died.” What his own sin was is not made clear. Alter suggests that it refers to the rebellion of all the adults of the old generation after the spies had returned from the land of Canaan (14.1-38). However, the main point the daughters are making is that their father did not take part in the sin of Korah’s rebellion, and therefore his clan should have an inheritance too.

And he had no sons: The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and does not introduce a result here. There is no suggestion that Zelophehad had no sons because he had committed a sin. Such a suggestion should be avoided in translation. Good News Bible achieves this by rendering this clause as “without leaving any sons” and moving it close to the beginning of the verse. In some languages this will be a helpful model. New Living Translation, Bible en français courant, and Herziene Statenvertaling avoid a logical connection by saying “But he had no sons.”

Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .