Ramban discusses the daughters of Tzelophchad as exceptionally righteous and notes the Torah’s care for the continuity of names and inheritances in Israel. His comments are useful for connecting their request to the parashah’s larger concern with covenantal permanence.
וְהוּא לֹא הָיָה לְפִי שֶׁבָּאוּ לוֹמַר "בְּחֶטְאוֹ מֵת", נִזְקְקוּ לוֹמַר לֹא בְּחֵטְא מִתְאוֹנְנִים וְלֹא בַּעֲדַת קֹרַח שֶׁהִצּוּ עַל הַקב״ה הָיָה, אֶלָּא בְּחֶטְאוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלֹא הֶחֱטִיא אֲחֵרִים עִמּוֹ, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ״י (רש״י על במדבר כ״ז:ג׳). וְלֹא פֵּרֵשׁ לָמָּה הָיוּ בָּאוֹת לוֹמַר "בְּחֶטְאוֹ מֵת", אֶלָּא שֶׁתֹּאמַרְנָה ״אָבִינוּ מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ״ כִּי כֵן הָרָאוּי לְהֵאָמֵר. אֲבָל עַל דַּעַת רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (ב״ב קי״ח) הֻצְרְכוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בַּעֲדַת קֹרַח, לְפִי שֶׁעֲדַת קֹרַח לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם חֵלֶק בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן לַמִּתְלוֹנְנִים שֶׁבַּעֲדַת קֹרַח, כִּי נִשְׁמַע זֶה בָּעָם מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה. וְכָךְ פֵּרֵשׁ ר״א וְאָמַר: חָשְׁבוּ הַבָּנוֹת כִּי לֹא יִירְשׁוּ הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל ה'. וְדַעְתִּי בְּדֶרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט שֶׁאָמְרוּ כָּכָה בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁחָשְׁבוּ שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ הָיָה שׂוֹנֵא עֲדַת קֹרַח יוֹתֵר מִכָּל הַחוֹטְאִים שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁהֵם הָיוּ הַקָּמִים כְּנֶגְדּוֹ וְהַכּוֹפְרִים בְּכָל מַעֲשָׂיו, וְחָשְׁבוּ אוּלַי בְּשִׂנְאָתוֹ אוֹתָם יֹאמַר: ״אַל יְהִי לוֹ מוֹשֵׁךְ חָסֶד וְאַל יְהִי חוֹנֵן לִיתוֹמָיו, יִזָּכֵר עֲוֹן אֲבוֹתָם אֶל ה'״ (תהלים קט י״ב, י״ד). עַל כֵּן הוֹדִיעוּהוּ כִּי לֹא הָיָה מֵהֶם. וְרָמְזוּ עוֹד שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּמֵתֵי הַמַּגֵּפוֹת אֲבָל בַּמִּדְבָּר מֵת עַל מִטָּתוֹ. וְטַעַם כִּי בְחֶטְאוֹ מֵת - אָמְרוּ מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר בַּעֲוֹנוֹ שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה לִיכָּנֵס בָּאָרֶץ, אוֹ כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַלֵּוִי הַמְשׁוֹרֵר ז״ל שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא דָּבֵק עִם ״וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ״, כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם, בַּעֲוֹנוֹת אֵרַע כָּךְ וְכָךְ: וְטַעַם וְהָיְתָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט – שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה לְדוֹרוֹת, לֹא בְּנַחֲלַת הָאָרֶץ עַתָּה בִּלְבָד:
[OUR FATHER DIED IN THE WILDERNESS], AND HE [Zelophehad] WAS NOT [AMONG THE COMPANY OF THEM THAT GATHERED THEMSELVES TOGETHER AGAINST THE ETERNAL IN THE COMPANY OF KORACH]. “Since they came to say, but he died in his own sin, they had to say [that he did] not [die because of participating] in the sin of those who murmured, nor [because he was] amongst the company of Korach who incited [the people] against the Holy One, blessed be He; but [he died] in his own sin, and did not cause others to sin with him.” This is Rashi’s language. But he did not explain why they [the daughters of Zelophehad] came to say that he died in his own sin, when they should [only] have said: ‘Our father died in the wilderness, and he had no sons!’ For that was the fitting thing to say [since the cause of his death was not relevant, and it is not right for children to stress their father’s sin]! But in the opinion of our Rabbis they had to say that he was not among the company of Korach, because the company of Korach did not receive a portion in the Land, and likewise the murmurers in the company of Korach, [and the daughters of Zelophehad knew this] because it had become known amongst the people from the court of Moses. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it in a similar manner, saying that the daughters thought that those who had gathered together against the Eternal would not inherit in the Land. In my opinion, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, they spoke in this way because they thought that Moses our teacher hated the company of Korach more than all other sinners who died in the desert, because they had rebelled against him and had denied [the Divine approval of] all his deeds; therefore they thought that perhaps because he hated them [the company of Korach] he would say: Let there be none to extend kindness unto him; neither let there be any to be gracious unto his fatherless children. Therefore they informed him that he [their father] was not one of them, and they furthermore hinted that he was not amongst those who died in one of the plagues [which came as a punishment for the sin of the people], but that he died [a natural death] in the wilderness in his bed. And the meaning of [the expression] but he died in his own sin is that they said that he had died in the wilderness in his sin, because he was not worthy to enter the Land [and this in itself is considered the punishment for a sin]. Or it may be as the poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi, of blessed memory, explained, that it is connected [in meaning] with [the phrase following it]: and he had no sons, as people say nowadays: “Such-and-such an event happened because of [certain] sins.” AND IT SHALL BE UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL A STATUTE OF JUDGMENT. The meaning thereof is that this judgment should be for all [future] generations, and not only for now when they inherited the Land [hence the expression “a statute, i.e., a permanent one, for all the children of Israel in all future generations”].