Bava Batra 225:1

תניא אידך (במדבר לו, ט) ולא תסוב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר בסיבת הבעל הכתוב מדבר

It was taught in another Baraitha: <i>So shall no inheritance remove from tribe to tribe</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹</span> Scripture speaks [here] of a transfer through the husband. Thou sayest [that it speaks] of a transfer through the husband, perhaps [it speaks] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 446, n. 10. ');">²</span> of a transfer through the son? — Since it was said, <i>so shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. ');">³</span> behold, transfer through the son has been spoken of, to what, then, shall one apply, <i>so shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹</span>

אתה אומר בסיבת הבעל או אינו אלא בסיבת הבן כשהוא אומר (במדבר לו, ז) ולא תסוב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה אל מטה הרי הסיבת הבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ולא תסוב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר בסיבת הבעל הכתוב מדבר

[It must be assumed, therefore, that] Scripture speaks [here] of transfer through the husband. Both,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all the world': the Tannaim in the two Baraithoth quoted. ');">⁴</span> at all events, [agree that] in, from one tribe to another tribe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹</span> Scripture speaks of transfer through the husband; how [is this] to be inferred?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic sign seems to have been omitted here from the text, the word Siman, 'sign', only remaining (v. Emden's note a.l.). ');">⁵</span>

דכולי עלמא מיהת ממטה למטה אחר בסיבת הבעל הכתוב מדבר מאי משמע סימן אמר רבה בר רב שילא אמר קרא איש תרוייהו איש כתיב בהו

— Rabbah son of R. Shila said: Scripture states, Ish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] may be rendered 'husband' as well as man'. ');">⁶</span> Is not Ish written in both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7 and 9. ');">⁷</span> — But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac, Scripture states, shall cleave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same expression, 'shall cleave', is used of a husband elsewhere, and shall cleave unto his wife (Gen. II, 24). ');">⁸</span> Is not [the phrase], shall cleave, written in both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 8. ');">⁹</span>

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא ידבקו תרוייהו ידבקו כתיב בהו

But, said Raba; Scripture states. The tribes shall cleave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. [H] (Num. XXXVI. 9), while in v. 7. these words are separated. The members of the tribe are united through their fathers, hence the verse mist be speaking of fathers, i.e., husbands. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Ashi said: Scripture states. from One tribe to another tribe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9. ');">¹¹</span> but a son is not [of] another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, Num. XXXVI, 9, must have reference to the case where the husband is heir. ');">¹²</span> R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan. in the name of R. Jannai, in the name of Rabbi (and some trace it to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and they arrived in it (so far as to quote it) in the name of'. ');">¹³</span>

אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא ידבקו מטות רב אשי אמר אמר קרא ממטה למטה אחר ובן לאו אחר הוא

R. Joshua b. Korha): Whence [is it proved] that a husband does not receive [as heir] the prospective [estate of his wife]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An estate, e.g.. bequeathed by her father whom she predeceased. Had her father died first, she would have inherited from him, and her husband would have inherited from her. ');">¹⁴</span> as [he does] that which was [already] in [her] possession? It is said, And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Chron. II, 22. ');">¹⁵</span> whence could Jair possess [cities] which did not belong to Segub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 463, n. 11. ');">¹⁶</span> But this teaches that Segub took a wife and she died in the lifetime of those whose heiress she would have been;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'those who cause her to inherit'. ');">¹⁷</span>

א"ר אבהו אמר ר' יוחנן אמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי ומטו בה משמיה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה מנין לבעל שאינו נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק שנאמר (דברי הימים א ב, כב) ושגוב הוליד את יאיר ויהי לו עשרים ושלש ערים בארץ הגלעד מנין ליאיר שלא היה לו לשגוב אלא מלמד שנשא שגוב אשה ומתה בחיי מורישיה ומתו מורישיה וירשה יאיר

and when these died, Jair inherited her [estate].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which she would have inherited had she been alive. This proves that prospective estates are not inherited by the husband but by the son. ');">¹⁸</span> Furthermore it is said, And Eleazar the son of Aaron died; and they buried him etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XXIV, 33. ');">¹⁹</span> Whence could Phinehas possess [a hill] which did not belong to Eleazar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 463. n. 11. ');">²⁰</span> But this teaches that Eleazar took a wife, who died in the life-time of those whose heiress she would have been,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3. ');">²¹</span>

ואומר (יהושע כד, לג) ואלעזר בן אהרן מת ויקברו וגו' מנין לפנחס שלא היה לו לאלעזר מלמד שנשא אלעזר אשה ומתה בחיי מורישיה ומתו מורישיה וירשה פנחס

and when these died, Phinehas inherited her [estate].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 4. ');">²²</span> [For] what [purpose is] 'furthermore it is said' [required]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is not the evidence from Segub and fair sufficient? ');">²³</span> — In case it be said that it was Jair who took a wife who died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 112a. ');">²⁴</span> and that he inherited from her, it is, therefore, expressly stated, and Eleazar the son of Aaron died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. XXIV, 33. ');">¹⁹</span>

ומאי ואומר וכי תימא יאיר דהוה נסיב איתתא ומתה וירתה תלמוד לומר ואלעזר בן אהרן מת וכי תימא דנפלה ליה בשדה חרמים אמר קרא בנו נחלה הראויה לו וירשה בנו:

And in case it he said that it may have fallen to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Phinehas. ');">²⁵</span> as a field devoted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 465. n. 4. ');">²⁶</span> Scripture states, his son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 463. n. 11. ');">²⁰</span> [which implies that] the inheritance was due to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Eleazar; his wife had survived the relative from whom the hill was inherited. ');">²⁷</span>

ובני אחות: תנא בני אחות ולא בנות אחות

but his son inherited it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Eleazar's wife pre-deceased the relative to whom the hill belonged. This proves that a prospective estate is not inherited by the husband, but by the son. ');">²⁸</span> AND THE SONS OF A SISTER. A Tanna taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 115a. ');">²⁹</span> The sons of a sister<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inherit from the brother of their mother. ');">³⁰</span> but not the daughters of a sister.