Previous daf

1)

(a) When our Mishnah writes 'Yesh Nochlin u'Manchilin', it means - that the two inherit each other.

(b) Nevertheless, the Tana does not simply say 'Yesh Nochlin Zeh es Zeh' - in order to balance with the Seifa 'Yesh Nochlon ve'Lo Manchilin'.

(c) What the following pairs have in common ...

1. ... a father and sons, and paternal brothers is - that they both belong to the category of 'Nochlin u'Manchilin'.
2. ... a man and his mother, a man and his wife and a man and his maternal aunt is - that they all belong to the category of 'Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin'.
3. ... a mother and her sons, a woman and her husband, a woman and her sister's son is - that they all belong to the category of Manchilin ve'Lo Nochlin.

(d) What is strange about the Tana's insertion of the second and third groups is - that the Tana inserts the third goup at all, since it is self-understood from the second (a Kashya that will be dealt with in the Sugya).

(a) The group that is neither Nochel or Manchil - consists solely of maternal brothers.

(b) We just learned that a man inherits his mother's sister - provided she is her mother's paternal sister.

(c) According to the text that reads 'B'nei Achos' (instead of 'B'nei Achyos'), the Tana is referring to - a man's paternal sister's sons.

(a) The principle that governs the distinction that cuts through the Mishnah between paternal relations and maternal ones is - the principle 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mishpachah (ve'Ein Mishpachas Eim Keruyah Mishpachah').

(b) A father will only inherit his son - if his son has no children.

4)

(a) We ask why the Tana first lists 'ha'Av es ha'Banim' and then 'ha'Banim es ha'Av'. Besides the opening Pasuk in Pinchas "Ish ki Yamus u'Vein Ein Lo" (which gives precedence to the son inheriting his father), the logic that prompts us to ask this Kashya is - that it is unconventional to open the proceedings with punishment (i.e. that a son died in his father's lifetime [and without children]).

(b) The Tana nevertheless does so - because he gives precedence to whatever is learned from a D'rashah (i.e. from Torah she'be'al Peh) over than what is written directly in the written Torah. This answer will become clear immediately).

(a) The Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "She'er Avicha Hu" teach us that "She'ero" in the Pasuk in Pinchas "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'eiro ha'Karov Eilav" - refers to the deceased's father.

(b) This teaches us that in the order of precedence in the realm of Yerushah - a father takes precedence over a brother.

(c) And we know that the father does not also take precedence over his (the deceaseds) son - because the Torah writes there "ha'Karov" 'Karov Kodem' (and a son is closer than a father, as we shall see shortly).

(a) We include a son but exclude a brother from the above two D'rashos, and not vice-versa - because the Torah give precedence to a son over a brother with regard to - Yi'ud and Sadeh Achuzah.

(b) In this context, the ramifications of ...

1. ... "le'Ya'adah" are - that someone who buys an Amah Ivriyah has the option of using the money of the sale for Yi'ud (the Kidushun of an Amah Ivriyah), either to himself or to his son, but not to anybody else (even his brother).
2. ... "le'Sadeh Achuzah" are - that if the treasurer of Hekdesh sells the field that Reuven declared Hekdesh to a third party (even to Shimon, Reuven's brother), when the Yovel arrives, it goes to the Kohanim, but not if Reuven himself or his son redeems it.

(c) We reject the counter argument that a brother makes Yibum and not a son - on the grounds that if the deceased left a son, then, to begin with, his mother would be exempt from Yibum (switching the precedence from the deceased's brother to his son).

(d) We need to give this answer, because the suggestion that a son has precedence in two areas (Yi'ud and Sadeh Achuzah) whereas a brother has precedence in only one (Yibum), does not hold water - because in Maseches Erchin, we only learn this with regard to Sadeh Achuzah by using the same argument 'K'lum Yesh Yibum Ela be'Makom she'Yesh Ben?' (in which case, were it not for that argument, it would be one against one [Yibum against Yi'ud]).

(a) We need to prove the fact that a son takes prcedence over a brother, despite the order of the Psukim, which place a son first - because, as we shall soon see, we re-learn the Pasuk "ha'Karov", to teach us that we follow the priority of the relationship, and not the order of the Pesukim.

(b) We do not query the D'rashah "ha'Karov" to suggest that perhaps a father is a closer relative than a son - because there is no area where a father takes precedence over a son (rendering such a suggestion meaningless).