תניא אידך ולא תסב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר בסיבת הבעל הכתוב מדבר

It is taught in another baraita:“ So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe” (Numbers 36:9); the verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Torah prohibits the woman from marrying a man from a different tribe since her husband will inherit from her, thereby transferring her inheritance away from its original tribe.

אתה אומר בסיבת הבעל או אינו אלא בסיבת הבן כשהוא אומר ולא תסב נחלה לבני ישראל ממטה אל מטה הרי הסיבת הבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ולא תסב נחלה ממטה למטה אחר בסיבת הבעל הכתוב מדבר

Do you say that this is with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband, or is it only with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son? When it says: “ So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel transfer from tribe to tribe” (Numbers 36:7), the verse is speaking with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the son. How do I realize the meaning of the verse:“ So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe” (Numbers 36:9)? That verse speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

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

The Gemara comments: In any event, according to everyone, i. e., according to both baraitot, the phrase in the verse“ from one tribe to another tribe” speaks of the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband. The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? The Gemara supplies a mnemonic. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said that the latter part of the verse states:“ So shall no inheritance transfer from one tribe to another tribe; for the tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave each one [ish] to its own inheritance, ” alluding to the transfer by means of the husband, as the word“ ish” means husband, in the context of: “ Elimelech the husband [ish] of Naomi” (Ruth 1:3). The Gemara asks: But the word“ ish” is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

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

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said a different explanation. The verse states: “ Shall cleave, ” and this term alludes to marriage, as in the context of: “ And he shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the term“ shall cleave” is written in both of the verses. Therefore, both verses should be interpreted with regard to the transfer of the inheritance by means of the husband.

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

Rather, Rava said a different explanation: The verse states: “ The tribes of the children of Israel shall cleave, ” and tribes cleave to one another through marriage. Rav Ashi said another explanation: The verse states: “ From one tribe to another tribe, ” and a son is not considered“ another, ” as he is an extension of his mother.

אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי ומטו בה משמיה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה מנין לבעל שאינו נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק שנאמר ושגוב הוליד את יאיר ויהי לו עשרים ושלוש ערים בארץ הגלעד מנין ליאיר שלא היה לו לשגוב אלא מלמד שנשא שגוב אשה ומתה בחיי מורישיה ומתו מורישיה וירשה יאיר

§ Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says, and some determined it was in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: From where is it derived that a husband who inherits from his wife does not take in inheritance the property due to the deceased as he does the property she possessed? Instead of the husband inheriting the property that was due to her, that property is inherited by her other relatives, such as her son, or other relatives of her father. As it is stated: “ And Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty three cities in the land of Gilead” (I Chronicles 2: 22). The Gemara asks: From where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Seguv married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Yair, her son, not Seguv, her husband, inherited these inheritances from her.

ואומר ואלעזר בן אהרן מת ויקברו וגו׳ מנין לפנחס שלא היה לו לאלעזר מלמד שנשא אלעזר אשה ומתה בחיי מורישיה ומתו מורישיה וירשה פנחס

And it is stated: “ And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son” (Joshua 24:33). From where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Elazar married a woman and she died in the lifetime of her potential legators, and her legators then died, and Pinehas her son, not Elazar her husband, inherited the property from her.

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 what is the meaning of: And it is stated? Why is it necessary to provide an additional proof beyond the first verse? The Gemara explains. And if you would say: In the verse concerning Seguv and Yair, it is Yair, not Seguv, who married a woman and she died and he inherited from her, and he did not inherit from his mother, the verse states: “ And Elazar, the son of Aaron, died; and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son” (Joshua 24:33), teaching that Pinehas inherited the land of those from whom his mother inherited, and Elazar did not. And if you would say that this land came into the possession of Pinehas as a dedicated field, as he was a priest, and he did not inherit it from his mother, the verse states: “ His son, ” indicating that it was an inheritance that was fitting for him, i. e., Elazar, had his wife not predeceased her legators, and his son inherited it.

ובני אחות תנא בני אחות ולא בנות אחות

§ The mishna teaches: And sons of sisters, i. e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, inherit from their maternal uncles but do not bequeath to them. It is taught in a baraita:

This halakha applies to sons of sisters but not to daughters of sisters.