Women changed the Law

[Num. 26:33] And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah are mentioned four times each. These five young ladies came before Moses to plead, not for themselves, but for the name of their father, Zelophehad. The L-rd approved of these daughters, as well as their cause, and He shows us His pleasure by rehearsing their names. The girls showed:
1. A strong faith in the power and promise of G-d and they petition for their share of the inheritance.
2. Their example should quicken us with all possible diligence to make sure our title to the heavenly inheritance, in the disposal of which, by the covenant of grace, no difference is made between male and female (Gal. 3:28).
3. A true respect and honour for their father, whose name was dear and precious to them now that he was gone.
4. They thus secured the law with respect to the inheritance of daughters, and with it a significant elevation of woman in her social dignity; although it did not amount to equality with man.
Their common an confident appearance before Moses, before the high-priest, the elders and the whole congregation, was itself an act of true moral elevation, that must have had a lasting effect, and therefore they well deserved to have their names rescued from forgetfulness, by a double record here and in chapter 36:10. Is it any wonder such bold, tactful, and intelligent heiresses all managed to find husbands close to home now that they own land?
Num. 27. 1-11 Daughters of Zelophehad ask for an inheritance.
They were a member of the tribe of Manasseh who had five daughters but no sons, Zelophehad died during the stay in the wilderness. His daughters persuaded Moses to change the old rules whereby daughters were denied the father’s property when he died without sons.
Joseph was an ancestor of Zelophehad, in Gen. 49:22 talks of the branches run over the walls. This prophecy: the wall refers to the Jordan River, which to Moses was like a wall that prevented him from entering the land. The branches running over the wall are the five daughters, who, with G-d’s blessing, received portions on both of its sides.
In cases where there were no male heirs, only daughters, the family line risked loss of that property when the daughter, herself, married. Scripture, here, recounts the story of five sisters who challenge the status quo. A bottle, which, in the words of the Sages was “not waged in the name of Heaven.” The challenge here posed by these five women is not only tolerated, but is ultimately praised by G-d Himself.
Prior to their mention here in connection with a legal matter, nothing at all is recorded in the text regarding the deeds or the merit of these five women.
They were righteous and wise women. Who freely chose to abstain from men until they could find a husband worthy of them?
By the door of the tabernacle - nigh unto which it seems was the place where Moses and the chief rulers assembled for the administration of public affairs, which also was very convenient, because they had frequent occasion of recourse to G-d for his direction. bringing their case before the chiefs of ten, they went to the chiefs of fifty, seeing that the chiefs of ten had shown them honor. Going to chiefs of hundreds, by the chiefs of thousands, and by the princes. They all answered them in the same strain, for they were unwilling to begin considering it before their superior. Ending up going to Moses who took their case before the L-rd. 26:53 Moses had been speaking to the Israelites on the subject of inheritances, and it was at this moment that the women aired their grievance. They did not merely launch a resentful gripe. They spoke cleverly, that their logic stumped Moses. The five sisters based their argument on the law of Levi rite marriage wherein a widowed woman with no sons is permitted to legally marry her brother-in-law whose duty it is then to raise children in the name of the deceased father. The daughters of Zelophehad point out that their mother, a widow, should therefore be obligated to marry her dead husband’s brother, but, in this case, she did not comply. Because, according to the same law, a child of either sex annuls the injunction. In effect, the women were saying: You say that daughters cannot be heirs, but here is a circumstance wherein girls are, indeed, looked upon as heirs!
The women, in defense of their objection, go on to remind Moses that their father had not been involved with the faction that rose up against him, but rather that he had “died in his own sin.” Why should our father’s name be lost?
In that generation, the women built up the fences, which the men broke down. Refusing to go along with the actions of the men, when it went against G-d. The text speaks of the men, not of the women, for the men had revealed their unwillingness to enter the Promised Land, were as the women, drew near to ask for an inheritance.
If it be not preserved by an inheritance given to us in his name and for his sake. Hence some gather, that the first son of each of these heiresses was called by their fathers name, by virtue of that law, (Deut. 25:6), whereby the brothers first son was to bear the name of his elder brother, whose widow he married. - Those young women perceived that the males only in families had been registered in the census. Because there were none in their household, their family was omitted. So they made known their grievance to Moses, and the authorities conjoined with him in administering justice. The case was important; and as the peculiarity of daughters being the sole members of a family would be no infrequent or uncommon occurrence, the law of inheritance, under divine authority, was extended not only to meet all similar cases, but other cases also--such as when there were no children left by the proprietor, and no brothers to succeed him. A distribution of the Promised Land was about to be made; and it is interesting to know the legal provision made in these comparatively rare cases for preserving a patrimony from being alienated to another.
[8] And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.
This has to do with the laws of inheritance and the implication is that the son had the first claim to his father’s possession and if he had no son the order of inheritance was passed on the next in line. The sons of the deceased equally divide his possessions; except for the first-born, who receives a double portion. Daughters can inherit their father’s possessions only when there are no surviving children, then the male grandchildren from a son precede their sisters.