וְאֶלְעָזָ֥ר בֶּֽן־אַהֲרֹ֖ן מֵ֑ת וַיִּקְבְּר֣וּ אֹת֗וֹ בְּגִבְעַת֙ פִּֽינְחָ֣ס בְּנ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר נִתַּן־ל֖וֹ בְּהַ֥ר אֶפְרָֽיִם׃
At si Eleazar na anak ni Aaron ay namatay, at inilibing nila siya sa burol ni Finees na kanyang anak, na ibinigay kay Finees sa kabundukan ng Efraim.
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra
“A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”30Neither rule has a direct scriptural root. The inheritance of a man from his mother was earlier derived from a biblical expression (Note 20). The inheritance of a man from his wife is not implied by this. In the Babli 111b and Sifry Num. 134 the husband’s inheritance is inferred from Jos. 24:33; one explains that the “property of Phineas in the Mountains of Ephraim” must have come to him as inheritance from his wife since as a priest he would have been barred from receiving property outside of Levitic cities.? Rebbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases31The word פנסטא in L’s text defies explanation. E’s reading פנטסה is read by S. Lieberman as πάντοσε “in all ways, in any way”. The Mishnah often is formulated with redundancies, if the enumeration of all cases helps memorization.
In the Yerushalmi, the husband’s right to his deceased wife’s estate possibly remains a matter of common law [Halakhah 6, followed by Maimonides (Neḥalot 1:8, Iššut 12:3); rejected in the Babli as minority opinion (Ketubot 83b)]. Cf. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel-Aviv and New York 1980, p. 391 ff. and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.
In the Yerushalmi, the husband’s right to his deceased wife’s estate possibly remains a matter of common law [Halakhah 6, followed by Maimonides (Neḥalot 1:8, Iššut 12:3); rejected in the Babli as minority opinion (Ketubot 83b)]. Cf. M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine, Tel-Aviv and New York 1980, p. 391 ff. and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra
132This paragraph is R. Ismael’s argument to show that the husband’s inheriting his deceased wife’s properties, if not explicit in the Torah, at least was established practice already in the time of Joshua (Sifry Num. 134.) A different explanation of the verses quoted here is given in the Babli, 113a.“Segub fathered Jair,1331Chr. 2:22. The verse states that Jair, a Calebite, had 23 villages in the land of Gilead (Manasseh).” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.134In v. 21 it is reported that Jair’s grandfather Hezron married a Gileadite wife. If the property came through her, the verse should have attributed ownership to her son Segub, rather than her grandson Jair.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.135Jos. 24:33, “they buried him on his son Phineas’s hill which had been given to him on the Mountain of Ephraim.”” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had.136As Rashi ad. loc. intimates, one cannot say that the tribe of Ephraim gave Phineas property among themselves since the Torah explicitly excluded priests from receiving any land outside the Levitic cities (Deut. 18:1). Therefore, ownership of property outside such cities must be by inheritance from a non-priestly wife. The tribal affiliation of Eleazar’s father-in-law Puṭiel (Ex. 6:25) is not known.”