And from where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Yair married a woman who inherited her father’s land, and she died and he inherited from her so that he had his own land. This also indicates that a husband inherits from his wife.

The Gemara proceeds to explain this baraita. What is the meaning of: And it states? Why is it necessary to provide additional proofs beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains: The first verse seems to prove the halakha that a husband inherits from his wife. And if you would say that the verse that rules that a woman who inherited land from her father cannot marry a man from another tribe is not concerned that he will inherit from her, but rather the verse is concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son who will inherit from his mother, as he belongs to his father’s tribe, but a husband does not inherit from his wife; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: “So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe” (Numbers 36:7). This teaches that a transfer of land could occur by means of the husband inheriting from her.

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe will violate for that act a prohibition, namely: “So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer,” and a positive mitzva, namely: “Shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father”; therefore, come and hear another verse that is seemingly superfluous: “So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe” (Numbers 36:9), which teaches that a transfer can occur by means of the husband inheriting from his wife.

And if you would say that this verse is also concerned with the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son, and that the seemingly superfluous verse is stated for another purpose, i.e., in order to establish that a woman who inherited land from her father and marries a man from another tribe violates for that act two prohibitions and a positive mitzva; therefore, come and hear another proof that a husband inherits from his wife, from the verse: “And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died” (Joshua 24:33).

And if you would say that Pinehas did not inherit this land from his wife, but from his mother, as it was Elazar, his father, who married a woman who inherited land, and she subsequently died, and her son Pinehas inherited from her so that this verse proves the inheritance of a son and not that of a husband; therefore, come and hear a proof from the verse: “And Seguv begot Yair” (I Chronicles 2:22).

And if you would say: That is the case there as well, that it was Yair who inherited it from his deceased mother, if so, why do I need two verses to teach the same halakha? This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the baraita.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where do you know that this is how the verse should be understood? Perhaps I could actually say to you: A husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son, as we explained, teaching that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva. And with regard to Yair, one could say that he purchased it from a third party and did not inherit it. And with regard to Pinehas as well, one could say that he purchased it from a third party.

Abaye said to him: You cannot say that Pinehas purchased the land where he buried his father, as if so, the field would return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus, chapter 25), and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his.

Rav Pappa asked further: Rather, say that in his capacity as a priest he came into possession of this land as a dedicated field. Pinehas, as a priest, may have owned the land by that means. Therefore, one can still say that a husband does not inherit from his wife, and the verses are concerned about a transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another by means of the son.

Abaye said: Even if you say that her son and not her husband inherits from her, ultimately the inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of the mother and is moved to the tribe of the father, and the prohibition against her marrying a man from another tribe is not effective in achieving its goal. The verse speaks of a woman who inherited the land from her mother who is of a different tribe from her father (see 111a). Even if she marries a man from her own tribe, the inheritance will be transferred from her mother’s tribe to that of her, the woman’s, husband, as even if the woman’s son inherits, he is of his father’s tribe.

Rav Pappa rejects this: And from where do you raise your challenge? But perhaps it is different there, as the inheritance had already been transferred by the mother of the woman when she married the father, so that the Torah is no longer concerned with the continued transfer. When the parents of this now-deceased woman married, the land that her mother would eventually inherit was already thought of as being transferred away from the ownership of her mother’s tribe. Therefore, the fact that even if this woman’s son inherits from her, the fact that the land will permanently belong to a member of her husband’s tribe is of no concern. Abaye said to him: We do not say, i.e., employ, the logic of: As it had already been transferred, since as long as this woman owned it, it still belonged to a person of the first tribe.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Even according to Abaye, who holds the verses teach that the husband inherits, there is still a difficulty. Granted, if you say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, this is how it can be understood that the verse is established as referring to both scenarios: The verse can be understood either with regard to a transfer by means of the son or with regard to a transfer by means of the husband. In both of these scenarios, the daughter’s marriage to a man from her father’s tribe is effective in ensuring that land she will inherit will not leave the tribe, because if she inherited it from her father it remains within the same tribe, and if she inherited it from her mother it had already been transferred when her mother married her father.

But if you say that we do not say the logic of: As it has already been transferred, then even when she gets married to one of the family of the tribe of her father, what of it? But an inheritance is uprooted from the tribe of her mother, who had inherited land from her, the mother’s, father, to the tribe of her father, as her husband is from her father’s tribe.

Rav Ashi said to him: There is a way that the transfer to another tribe can be avoided: Where we marry her to a man whose father is from her father’s tribe and his mother is from her mother’s tribe, the transfer is avoided as the land retains the exact status as it had when it was in the woman’s possession.