Numbers 26:33

Summary

The verse states that Zelophehad, son of Hepher, had no sons but only daughters, and it lists their five names: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. The sentence functions as a genealogical note explaining the absence of male heirs in this branch of the Manassite line.

Key words

• lo' ("not", H3808) — negation placed before the verb, directly negating the existence of sons for Zelophehad.
• haYu ("they belonged/were", H1961) — qal perfect of the verb "to be", third person plural, establishing a completed state (he did not have sons) rather than an ongoing action.
• ki 'im ("except/but rather", H3588B + H0518B) — a compound conditional-restrictive particle combination functioning as "but only," sharpening the contrast between "no sons" and "only daughters."
• benot ("daughters of", H1323G construct) — feminine plural construct form, linking directly to Tzelafechad, marking possession ("the daughters of Zelophehad").
• shem ("name of", H8034 construct) — masculine singular construct, introducing the list of names that follows, grammatically singular even though it introduces multiple names.

What the text says

The Hebrew sentence opens with u-Tzelafechad ben-Chefer ("and Zelophehad son of Hepher"), a construct chain identifying the subject through patronymic lineage before any verb appears. The main clause lo'-hayu lo banim ("sons were not to him") uses the existential construction with lo ("to him") plus hayu ("they were") — a standard Hebrew way of expressing possession or lack thereof, literally "there were not to him sons." This is followed by the restrictive phrase ki 'im-banot ("except daughters" or "but only daughters"), which does not simply negate but redirects the statement toward what did exist.

The second half of the verse repeats the construct pattern with shem benot Tzelafechad ("the name of the daughters of Zelophehad"), using a singular shem ("name") to introduce a list of five distinct feminine proper names joined by the conjunction ve- ("and"): Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. The construct chain here mirrors the opening genealogical formula, reinforcing the parallel between father (Zelophehad son of Hepher) and daughters (daughters of Zelophehad), both introduced through construct relationships rather than independent clauses.

Differences between versions

The Vulgate and Hebrew agree closely in content, rendering the negation and the list of names in parallel structure ("qui filios non habebat, sed tantum filias"). The LXX text supplied here, however, corresponds to different Hebrew material entirely — it discusses Manasse, Machir, and Galaad (Gilead) rather than Zelophehad's daughters, indicating that the LXX passage provided does not align with this Hebrew verse in content.