To R. Haninan b. Gamaliel the words “in the land of Canaan” are necessary to teach that if the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Menashe don’t cross over they will still have possession in the land of Canaan. This is essentialy what R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said in the mishnah.
R. Meir responds that we would not have thought that for the words “among you” imply anywhere you live. This leaves the words “in the land of Canaan” extraneous and therefore available for a midrash.
R. Hanina b. Gamaliel uses a parable to explain his reasoning. Sometimes the extra stipulation is necessary to let the person know what happens if he does not fulfill the conditions.
The Talmud critiques the comparison. In the mishnah, the doubling is necessary to teach that if they don’t fulfill the condition, they will not receive any inheritance, neither in Canaan or in Gilad. Here, in the parable, the doubling is effective only in respect of the rest of the estate. He would have received that portion of the field in any case, whether he fulfilled the condition or not. This implies that without the doubling the tribes would have inherited in the Gilad even without the double formulation.
The Talmud resolves that the mishnah and baraita are two stages of the dialogue. In the mishnah R. Hanina b. Gamaliel holds that if the double formulation was not used, the two and ½ tribes would not have received any inheritance, even in the land of Gilad. But after the response of R. Meir, R. Hanina b. Gamaliel admits that without the double formulation they would have received a portion in Gilad. The double formulation comes to teach that if they don’t fulfill the condition, they would have received a portion in Gilad, as in the parable.
The discussion of R. Meir’s requirement for a double stipulation continues.
God when speaking to Cain uses a double formulation. This accords well with R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel would say that without the double formulation we might have thought that if Cain does not act well he would be neither rewarded nor punished. The double formulation teaches us that if he sins, he will be punished (sin crouches at the door, always reminds me of my dog wanting to go for a walk).
When Abraham instructs his servant to bring a wife for his son, he uses a double formulation: “Thus shall you be freed from my adjuration: if, when you come to my kindred, they refuse you—only then shall you be freed from my adjuration.” This makes sense for R. Meir, but again, why, according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel is a double formulation needed?
The answer is that if Abraham had only instructed the servant to take a wife for his son (v. 38) we might have thought that if she was willing to go but her family did not want to send her, he should bring her against her family’s will. Hence, Abraham had to stress that she was not to come against her family’s will.
Genesis 24:8 emphasizes that Rebekah must also be willing to come back to Canaan, not just her family.
The Talmud continues to seek verses that seem to use a double formulation.
This is similar to the interpretation of the verses from Genesis about Cain. The double formulation is necessary to teach that if the Israelites do not follow God’s laws, they will be punished.
The same structure as above.
The verse I have translated “you shall eat the sword” is clearly meant to teach that “you shall be devoured by the sword” and that is how most translators render it. But literally translated it could be read as if you will eat the sword? What!!! Rava explains that the sword here is harsh food. Coarse bread, coarse salt and onions. We should note that this is not far off from what most people probably ate most of the time. One would hope for soft bread, but people ate a lot of bread back then.