Midrash su Giosuè 24:33

"A husband inherits from his wife." From where do we learn this? Learn it from “And he shall inherit it,” (Numbers 27:11) with the word “it” written in the feminine “otah,” which can also be translated as: Her. This teaches that a husband inherits from his wife; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Yishmael says: This derivation is not necessary, as the verse states, “And Elazar, the son of Aharon, died [and they buried him in the Hill of Pinehas his son, which was given him in Mount Ephraim]” (Joshua 24:33). And from where did Pinehas have land that his father, Elazar, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Pinehas married a woman [who possesed land, perhaps from her own father], and she died and he inherited from her [so Pinehas had his own land]. And a [similar] verse says: “And Seguv begot Yair, who had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead” (I Chronicles 2:22). And from where did Yair have land that his father, Seguv, did not have? Rather, this teaches that Yair married a woman, and she died and he inherited from her. Why "And a verse says"? And if you would say it was Elazar, his father, who married a woman who died, and her son Pinehas inherited from her - 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? Rav Pappa said to Abaye: I could actually say to you: A husband does not inherit [from his wife], and the verses are concerned about the son, as we explained. And Yair? He purchased it [from a third party, with no inheritance]. And Pinehas? He purchased it from a third party. 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, and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his. Rather, say that [in his capacity as a priest] Pinehas came into possession of this land as a dedicated field.

(Bamidbar 27:8) "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying": This tells us only of the immediate situation (i.e., that of Tzelafchad's daughters). Whence do we derive (the same for) future generations? From "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: A man, if he die, and he have no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter." Rebbi says: In all instances (of inheritance) the term "giving" is used, but in this instance "passing" is the term employed. For only a daughter can "pass" an inheritance (from one tribe to another), her son and her husband inheriting her (i.e., what she has inherited from her father, who may be of a different tribe.) Whence is it derived that the father (of the deceased) precedes his brothers (i.e., the brothers of the deceased) in the inheritance? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It is written "then you shall pass over his inheritance to his daughter." Because of a daughter you pass over an inheritance from the father, and not because of the brothers. And whence is it derived that a father inherits (his son)? It follows, a fortiori, viz.: If the father's brothers who come (to inherit) only by power of the father, inherit him, then the father (himself), whose brothers come (to inherit) only by his power, how much more so should he inherit (his son)? And whence is it derived that the son's daughter stands in place of the son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If the daughters of Tzelafchad, who inherited only for a particular time (i.e., an exception was made in their case, for the land was apportioned only to those who had left Egypt and had died), how much more so (is this to obtain) for the succeeding generations! Whence is it derived that females stand in the place of males (in all the "inheritances" of the Torah)? It follows (inductively), viz.: Since sons inherit and the brothers of the (deceased) father inherit, then just as with sons, females are equated with males, so, with all inheritors, females are equated with males. And just as with sons, males take precedence to females, so, with all inheritors, males take precedence to females. And just as with redeemers (of land) sons are equated with their fathers, (viz. Vayikra 25:49), so, with all inheritors, sons are equated with their fathers. And whence is it derived that a daughter inherits (her mother's possessions)? It is written (Bamidbar 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc." This tells me only of a daughter. Whence do I derive (the same for) a son? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a daughter, whose power (of inheritance) is attenuated where there is a son, inherits (her mother), how much more so, a son! And whence is it derived that a man inherits his wife? From (Ibid. 27:11) "… and he shall inherit (lit.,) her." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: This (derivation) is not needed. For it is already written (Ibid. 36:8) "And every daughter who receives an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, etc.", and (Ibid. 7) "And an inheritance of the children of Israel shall not go around from tribe to tribe," and (Joshua 24:33) "And Elazar the son of Aaron died, and they buried him on the hill of Pinchas, his son … in the mountain of Ephraim." Now whence did Pinchas have (land) in the mountain of Ephraim? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Ephraim, who died and whom he inherited. Similarly, (I Chronicles 2:22) "And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad." Now whence did Yair have (land) in the land of Gilad? It must be that he married a woman from the children of Menasheh, who died and whom he inherited.