OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses how it was possible that Pinchas owned a field in Eretz Yisrael which did not belong to Elazar, his father, as the verse says, "Elazar, the son of Aharon, died, and they buried him in the hill of Pinchas, his son, which was given to him on Mount Efrayim" (Yehoshua 24:33). The Gemara answers that Pinchas had a field from the "Sedeh Charamim." What kind of field is this?

(a) The RASHBAM (DH mi'Sedeh Charamim) says that this type of field is what the verse refers to when it says, "Any Cherem in Yisrael is for you (the Kohanim)" (Bamidbar 18:14). If a person consecrates his field as "Cherem," it goes to the Kohanim.

(b) Alternatively, the Rashbam explains that the Gemara refers to one who consecrated his Sedeh Achuzah (the ancestral field he inherited in Eretz Yisrael) to Hekdesh. This type of field is left for the owner to redeem. If the owner does not redeem it by the time the Yovel year arrives, the field is given over to the Kohanim. This field is also called "Cherem," as the verse refers to it as "Cherem": "And when the field goes out in the Yovel year it will be holy to Hash-m, like a consecrated field (ki'Sedeh ha'Cherem)" (Vayikra 27:21).

The RAMBAN writes that the first explanation of the Rashbam is correct, while the second explanation is implausible. The Seder Olam states that Elazar died before the first Yovel was proclaimed in Eretz Yisrael. The only possible Sedeh ha'Cherem which Pinchas could have acquired in which to bury Elazar at that time was a field which was declared to be sanctified as Cherem by its owner. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses a situation in which the transfer of inheritance potentially contradicts the Torah's rule that property of one Shevet should not be transferred (through inheritance) to another Shevet. Abaye asks a question which the Gemara attempts to answer. The Rishonim have two divergent versions of the Gemara's discussion.

(a) The RASHBAM (DH Hachi Garsinan) quotes the text of RABEINU GERSHOM. According to his text, Abaye asks a question which is not directly related to the previous discussion of the Gemara. Abaye asks that when the verse states, "And every daughter who inherits her father's estate from the tribes (mi'Matos) of Bnei Yisrael, shall get married to a member of the tribe of her father" (Bamidbar 36:8), the word "mi'Matos" ("from the tribes") indicates that the girl is inheriting from two tribes, from the tribe of her father and from the tribe of her mother. If this is so, Abaye asks, how will it help to require the girl to marry only a man from the Shevet of her father? She still will pass the inheritance of her mother to a Shevet other than her mother's Shevet. Accordingly, why does the Torah mention the word "mi'Matos" when it says that the inheritance shall not be passed to another Shevet? It should say simply "mi'Mateh" -- "from the tribe," referring only to the inheritance she receives from her father. Rav Papa answers that the inheritance she receives from her mother is not really considered the property of the Shevet of her mother, since the daughter inherits her mother only through her father, as the Gemara earlier teaches that one cannot receive inheritance through the family of the mother ("Mishpachas Em Einah Keruyah Mishpachah"). The final answer to Abaye's question is that the Torah is advising such a woman to marry a man whose father is from the Shevet of her father and whose mother is from the Shevet of her mother.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Eima) quotes the RI who has an entirely different text and understanding of Abaye's question. Abaye is questioning Rav Papa's statement that the Torah was not concerned that a woman would inherit her father's property and then her husband (from a different Shevet than her father) would inherit it from her. Rav Papa suggests that according to Torah law, a husband does not inherit his wife. What, then, is the Torah concerned about when it warns the daughters of Tzelofchad to only marry within their Shevet? The answer is that the Torah is concerned about the son of this woman, who inherits his mother's property. Abaye asks, how can the Torah let this woman, who inherits from both her father and her mother (as explained above in the Rashbam), marry into the Shevet of her father? The inheritance she receives from the Shevet of her mother will now go to her son who is from a different Shevet!

Abaye therefore concludes that if the Torah maintains that a husband inherits his wife, and it is concerned only about a husband who inherits the property of his wife from another Shevet, it makes sense that the Torah resolves this concern by requiring that she marry a man from her own Shevet. However, according to Rav Papa, the Torah is concerned about the son receiving inheritance from another Shevet. If this is the Torah's concern, then the Torah's advice that a woman marry a husband from the same Shevet as her father seems irrelevant. It must be that a husband does inherit his wife according to the Torah!

Rav Papa answers that once the daughter inherits her mother, the inheritance is deemed to have passed already from the mother's Shevet to the father's Shevet. (Y. MONTROSE)