Bava Batra

Whence could Jair possess [cities] which did not belong to Segub?  [But] this  teaches that Jair took a wife who died, and he was her heir. [For] what [purpose is] 'furthermore it is said' [required]?  — In case it be said  that Scripture is only concerned for a transfer [through] the son,  but that a husband was not heir [to his wife]. proof was brought from,  So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove front tribe to tribe.  And in case it be said,  its  purpose is [to teach that] one would transgress thereby [both] a negative  and a positive  [precept],  proof was brought from,  So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe.  And in case it is said  that the purpose of this is [to teach that] one would transgress two negative [precepts] and [one] positive, proof was brought from,  And Eleazar the son of Aaron died etc.  And in case it be said  that it was Eleazar who took a wife who died, and [that it was] Phinehas [who] was her heir,  proof was brought from,  and Segub begat fair etc.  And in case it be said,  'There, also, the same thing may have happened'  [it may be replied]: If so, why two Scriptural verses?  R. Papa said to Abaye: Wherefrom?  Is it not indeed possible to maintain [that] a husband is not heir [to his wife]? As to the Scriptural verses, these may speak of a transfer through the son, as interpreted [above]; and that Jair may have bought [the cities]; and Phinehas, [also], may have bought [the hill]?  — He replied unto him: It cannot be said that Phinehas had bought [the land], for, if so, it would follow that the field must return in the jubilee year,  and the righteous man  would thus be buried in a grave which was not his own.  — But say that it may have fallen to him as a field devoted?  — Abaye replied: After all,  the inheritance  would be removed  from the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father!  But how!  Is it not possible that that case  is different  because [the estate] had already been transferred?  — He said to him: [The argument]. 'because it had already been transferred' is rather weak. R. Yemar said to R. Ashi: If [the argument], 'because it had already been transferred' is to be used,  one can very well understand the verse  [as having reference] either to transfer through the son or to transfer through the husband;  if, however, it is said that [the argument] 'because it had already been transferred', is not to he used, [of] what benefit is [it] when she is married to a man of the family of her father's tribe? Surely the inheritance is removed from the tribe of her mother to that of her father! — She may he given in marriage to a person whose father is of the tribe of her father, and his mother of the tribe of her mother.