Question (Rashba): If [Eretz Yisrael] was divided among those who came to the land, why shouldn't Ya'ir have [land] that did not belong to [his father] Seguv?

Question: When we can expound [a verse], we do not establish it to teach extra Lavin!

Suggestion: It means as follows. Even if you establish it for extra Lavin, we can learn that a husband inherits his wife.

Rejection: It does not connote like this below. It says "really, the verse discusses diversion of the son", like we answer! (Tosfos ha'Rosh - since we never find inheritance of one who is not a relative, it would be better to expound for extra Lavim than to teach that a husband inherits.)

Implied question: Also the first verse is not needed, for we already heard from Toras Moshe (the Chumash) diversion of the son!

Answer (Rashba): He is not adamant about this if Yehoshua also teaches diversion of the son, but [Yehoshua] should not teach it twice.

Question (Rashba): Why do we say such a difficult case? Since we wanted say that the verse comes to shows their wealth (but not to teach laws of inheritance), we should have said that Pinchas and Ya'ir inherited from their mother, or from the father of their mother!

Note: The Bach says that the following is a new Dibur.

Assertion (Ri): The text is like Seforim that say "Abaye said to him, if you will say that a husband does not inherit..." The text does not say here "both according to the opinion [that it discusses] diversion of the son, and according to the opinion [that it discusses] diversion of the husband", rather, it says so regarding "granted, if you will say..." of Rav Yemar below.

Explanation: Abaye comes to answer Rav Papa's question "perhaps the verse discusses diversion of the son!" Abaye answers that it means as follows;

Granted, if you will say that a husband inherits, and the verse is adamant about diversion of the husband, this is fine that it connotes that the verse comes to make a solution even for the inheritance of the mother that it not be diverted, since it wrote the inheritance of two Shevatim regarding the Isur of diverting;

Even though the inheritance of the mother was already diverted, still the verse is adamant that it not be diverted more through marriage of the daughter. Regarding diversion of the husband, there is a solution, that we marry her to a man whose father is from her father's Shevet, and his mother is from her mother's Shevet;

Now, [inheritance] is not diverted through the husband more than it was already diverted.

Implied question: When her husband dies and her son inherits him, inheritance of the mother is uprooted from the mother's Shevet to the father's Shevet, for the son, his father and his mother [all] trace their lineage to the Shevet of their fathers;

Or, perhaps her husband will not inherit her at all, for she will be widowed or divorced, and her son will inherit her!

Answer: He is not concerned for this, since it is impossible to make an enactment to fix the matter.

Explanation (cont.): However, if you will say that a husband does not inherit, and the verses discuss diversion of the son, like you asked, even when we marry her to a man whose father is from her father's Shevet, and his mother is from her mother's Shevet, inheritance of the mother is uprooted through the son, like I explained. (It did not help at all that she married a man whose parents are from the same Shevatim as hers!)

Conclusion: Surely it discusses diversion of the husband. Therefore the Tana holds that the verse "v'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah" is written regarding diversion of the husband;

Since inheritance of two Shevatim is written in it, this connotes that we enact also for the mother's inheritance, lest it be diverted more. The Beraisa means as follows;

It says "v'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah." The verse discusses diversion of the husband, that an enactment helps for the inheritance of the mother.

Question: Perhaps the verse discusses diversion of the son. The verse comes to enact only for inheritance of the father!

Answer: It says "Lo Sisov Nachalah." From the extra verses we learn that one discusses diversion of the son, and one discusses diversion of the husband;

If so, the one that writes about inheritance of two Shevatim, which connotes that we need an enactment for inheritance of the mother regarding diversion of the husband, writes that we find an enactment.

Explanation: [Rav Papa asks that] even though the verse writes about inheritance of two Shevatim, the verse is not adamant about inheritance of the mother, for it was already diverted;

Really, it discusses diversion of the son, even though there is no solution for inheritance of the mother.

[Abaye answered that] we do not say "it was already diverted." It is unreasonable to say that the Torah is not adamant about inheritance of the mother, even though it was already diverted;

Since it wrote about inheritance of two Shevatim, this connotes that we make an enactment also for inheritance of the mother.

Explanation: Rav Yemar did not know that Abaye, when he establishes the verse to discuss diversion of the husband, explains the verse that we marry her to a man whose father is from her father's Shevet, and his mother is from her mother's Shevet;

Therefore it was difficult for him, why was Abaye pleased to establish it regarding diversion of the husband, more than diversion of the son? Either way, when she marries into her father's Shevet, the inheritance of her mother is uprooted from her mother's Shevet to her father's Shevet, since we do not say "it was already diverted"!

[Rav Ashi] answers that we marry her [to a man whose father...]

Question #1: The Rashbam's Perush is astounding. This is not the style of the Gemara. Rav Papa asked Abaye about the Beraisa, and Abaye did not answer anything, and [Abaye] makes his query (he was unsure whether or not we say "it was already diverted") in the expression of a difficulty!

Question #2: Abaye concludes that we do not say "it was already diverted";

According to the Rashbam, he should have said "perhaps", for he is unsure! The text in Seforim does not say "perhaps".

Question #3: Also, in all Seforim the text says "Abaye said to him", which connotes that he answers the question that Rav Papa asked.

R. Tam's text: A Beraisa regarding diversion of the husband says "Lo Sisov Nachalah li'Vnei Yisrael mi'Mateh l'Mateh" - this discusses diversion of the husband;

Citation (Beraisa) Question: You say that it is diversion of the husband. Perhaps it is diversion of the son!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It says "Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh l'Mateh Acher." Just like this is diversion of the husband, this is diversion of the husband.

Question #1: According to the Rashbam, it is difficult. Why do we call this diversion of the son, and this diversion of the husband? Both of them discuss both diversion of the son, and diversion of the husband!

Poor answer: Because this Tana began with the verse of diversion of the son, and this Tana began with the verse of diversion of the husband, it says so.

Observation: This is fine according to R. Tam's text. The Beraisa of diversion of the husband establishes both verses to discuss diversion of the husband. The Beraisa of diversion of the son establishes the first verse to discuss diversion of the son.

Question #2: According to the Rashbam, we could have said also that all agree that the first verse discusses diversion of the son. How does it connote [unlike this]?