Why do I need this extra phrase? Conclude from it that it comes to teach the requirement of a compound condition.

And Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: If the Merciful One had not written: “In the land of Canaan,” I would say that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30) is referring to the land of Gilead, i.e., this land must be shared with the other tribes. But they would not inherit in the land of Canaan at all. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir respond to this claim? He maintains that the expression: “Among you,” means anywhere that you have taken possession, including the land of Canaan. Therefore, the subsequent phrase “the land of Canaan” is superfluous and serves to teach that the condition must be doubled.

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said: Hear a parable: To what is this matter, i.e., the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben, comparable? It is comparable to a person who was dividing up his property among his sons, and said: My son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall give two hundred dinars and inherit such and such a field, and if he does not give the money he will inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers.

What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation of the condition causes him to inherit in this manner. It was therefore necessary for the father to state both sides and explain what will happen if the third brother fails to give the money. Had the father not repeated the condition, upon failing to give the two hundred dinars the son would not have received any portion of the property.

The Gemara asks: But the parable is not similar to the mishna, as there the mishna teaches: It might have been thought it meant that if they do not fulfill the condition they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, and certainly not in the land of Gilead. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is also effective for them to inherit the land of Gilead with the other tribes. Otherwise, the children of Gad and Reuben would not receive any part of the Gilead either.

And yet here the baraita teaches: What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation causes him. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is effective for the rest of the property, whereas he would have received that portion of the field linked to the condition in any case. According to this reasoning, the children of Gad and Reuben would have been granted a portion in the land of Gilead even without the double formulation.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, referring to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel’s ruling in the mishna, was stated before Rabbi Meir said to him that the verse could simply have stated: “They shall receive a possession among you.” At that stage, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel maintained that if the two tribes did not fulfill the condition they would not inherit even in the land of Gilead, as indicated by his use of the term: Even, in the mishna.

Whereas that case, referring to the parable in the baraita, was taught after Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel that when the phrase: “They shall receive a possession,” appears by itself it is referring to the land of Canaan. As stated previously, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel responded by explaining that had the verse not stated: “In the land of Canaan,” one would have said that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30), is referring to the land of Gilead, and they would not inherit in the land of Canaan. In other words, even without the compound condition they would have received a portion in Gilead, which is similar to the parable.

§ The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who requires a compound condition, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to God’s rebuke of Cain: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both sides of this stipulation to be specified? The Gemara answers: Were it not for the double formulation it might enter your mind to say that the verse means: If you do well shall you not receive a reward? And if you do not do well you will receive neither reward nor punishment. The double formulation of the verse teaches us that if Cain fails to do well he will be actively punished.

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Abraham’s instruction to Eliezer to bring a wife for Isaac: “Then you shall be clear from my oath…if they will not give her to you” (Genesis 24:41). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this addition? The positive formulation of the oath already indicates the negative.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: “And take a wife for my son” (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her family’s wishes.

The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: “If the woman is not willing to follow you” (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

The Gemara asks a related question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you walk in My statutes” (Leviticus 26:3), you will receive blessings; conversely: “And if you shall reject My statutes” (Leviticus 26:15), you will receive curses. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both of these clauses? The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If you follow My statutes you will receive a blessing, whereas if you reject My statutes you will receive neither a blessing nor a curse. The verse therefore teaches us that the rejection of God’s statutes warrants a curse.

The Gemara again inquires: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you are willing and obedient you shall eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19), whereas: “But if you refuse and rebel you shall be devoured by the sword” (Isaiah 1:20). But according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the double formulation? The Gemara answers in a similar fashion: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: “If you are willing” you will receive good, i.e., reward, “but if you refuse” you will receive neither good nor bad. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, and one who rebels will receive punishment.

In connection with the verse from Isaiah, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: