Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk "Vayikach Aharon es Elisheva bas Aminadav *Achos Nachshon* Lo le'Ishah" - that before marrying a woman, one should examine her brothers (otherwisem why does the Torah need to inform us that the daughter of Aminadav's brother was Nachshon).

(b) The Beraisa 'adds' - that most children turn out similar to the brothers of their mother.

(a) The Pasuk (in connection with the contingent from the tribe of Dan's questioning of Yonasan ben Gershom) "va'Yasuru Sham va'Yomru Lo 'Mi Hevi'acha ad *Halom*, u'Mah Atah Oseh *ba'Zeh* 'u'Mah Lecha *Poh*' " - clearly expressess their surprise at seeing a grandson of Moshe Rabeinu in such a dubious occupation, so they asked him these three questions all of which hint at Moshe, about whom it is written "Al Tikrav Halom" (in connection with 'the Burning Bush'); "Mah Zeh be'Yadecha" (both in Sh'mos), and "ve'Atah Poh Amod Imadi" (in Va'eschanan, in connection with Matan Torah).

(b) In reply, Yonasan cited his grandfather, from whom he had learned that it is preferable to hire oneself out to do Avodah-Zarah than to have to come on to people.

(c) Moshe Rabeinu was really referring (not to Avofah-Zarah, which the Torah forbids, but) - a type of work with which one was unaquainted.

(d) Rav told Rav Kahana that - in order to earn a Parnasah, he should be prepared even to strip carcasses in the street (in full view of the public), and not claim that, because he was a man of high esteem, it was below his dignity.

(a) When David ha'Melech saw how attached Yonasan was to money (apparenty, he could find work, but not enough to satisfy his greedy mind) - he placed him in charge of the royal treasury and paid him a good wage.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk which refers to him as 'Shevu'el' - that this caused him to do Teshuvah with a full heart ('she'Shav la'Keil be'Chol Levavo').

(c) We account for the Pasuk in Shoftim which relates that Yonasan and his descendants served as Kohanim to the contingent from Dan unti the exile of the land - by recalling that, when Shlomoh came to the throne, he made new appointments, canceling those that his father David had made (placing Yonasan in the same predicament as he had been previously).

(d) What Yonasan had done to deserve to live so long was - (like his ancestor Avraham Avinu many years earlier) to try and dissuade people from sacrificing to idols, since they cannot eat or drink anyway, nor is it able to do good or bad.

(a) Yonasan once told who asked him what he should then do - to bring him a cake of flour and ten eggs, and he would appease the idol.

(b) When the man left - he ate them himself.

(c) And when a client once countered by asking him why he worked as a priest if he not believe in what he was doing, he replied - that he did it for Parnasah.

5)

(a) We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Pasuk "Ish Ki Yamus u'Vein Ein Lo" - that a son takes preference over a daughter.

(b) Abaye's problem with Rav Papa's Kashya that perhaps the Torah is teaching us that there where there is a son and a daughter, neither will inherit is - in that case, who *will*, the mayor?!

(c) What Rav Papa really meant to ask was - that where there is a son and a daughter, maybe neither will inherit his father on his own, because both will inherit it.

(a) Initially, Abaye retorted that we don't need a Pasuk to teach us that a son alone or a daughter alone inherits. We try to answer this Kashya by establishing the Chidush as being - that a daughter inherits in the first place.

(b) When Rav Papa then asks 've'Dilma Ha Kamashla-Lan de'Bas Nami bas Yerushah Hi', he cannot mean to ask that, if not for "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito", we might have thought that even though a daughter inherits together with her brother, she will not however, inherit on her own - since Abaye just rejected this theory, and it is not conventional practice to reinstate a rejected theory without proof of its veracity.

(c) What he therefore means to ask is - that maybe a daughter does not inherit at all, as will be explained shortly.

(d) So we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Masei "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah" - that a daughter does inherit.
2. ... "u'Vein Ein Lo" - that a son takes precedence over a daughter.

(a) If the Pasuk was not coming to teach us that a daughter inherits in the first place, the Torah should have written (in place of "ve'Ish Ki Yamus u'Vein Ein Lo") - "Ish Ki Yamus ve'Zera Ein Lo".

(b) If not for the Pasuk, we would have thought that she does not inherit - either because we see from the sequence of the Pesukim that it is only men (a brother, a father and an uncle) who inherit, or for the same reason as a mother doesn't (because the Torah writes "mi'Mishpachto", as we explained earlier).

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the daughters of Tz'lafchad) "Lamah Yigara Shem Avinu ... Ki Ein Lo Ben" - that a son takes precedence over a daughter.

(d) We reject Rav Acha's proof from there however, on the grounds that - this Pasuk is merely submitting the daughters of Tz'lafchad's theory. Should we find proof to the contrary in the Pesukim in Pinchas (if not for the Pasuk "u'Vein Ein Lo") we will have to admit that they were wrong.

(a) Ravina attempts to learn that a son takes precedence over a daughter from "ha'Karov Eilav" - because he believes that a son is proven to be a closer relative than a daughter when it comes to Yi'ud and Sadeh Achuzah (which we explained earlier in the Sugya), neither of which apply to a daughter.

(b) We reject his proof from ...

1. ... Yi'ud - however, on the grounds that the reason that it does not apply to a daugter is (not because a daughter is a lesser relative than a son, but) - because it is physically inapplicable.
2. ... Sadeh Achuzah - on the grounds that the reason that a son takes the place of his father in this regard is only because of the argument that he absolves his mother from Yibum (whereas a brother does not). By the same token, a daughter absolves her mother from Yibum too (as we learned earlier), in which case, she too, ought to take her father's place as regards Sadeh Achuzah.

(c) Nevertheless, we conclude that a daughter does not take her father's place with regard to Sadeh Achuzah - because by Yerushah, we learn from "u'Vein Ein Lo" that a son takes precedence over a daughter. Consequently, she is considered 'Acher' vis-a-vis her brother (who remains the only one to take his father's place, and prevent the field from going to the Kohanim in the Yovel).

(a) As a further source that a son takes precedence over a daughter, we cite the Pasuk in Behar "Vehisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem Achareichem" - from which we Darshen "li'Veneichem", 've'Lo li'Venoseichem" ...

(b) ... otherwise the Torah should have written - "le'Zar'achem Achareichem".

(c) We ask that, by the same token, women ought to be Patur from Mezuzah, from the Pasuk in Eikev "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Yemei Veneichem", since there too, the Torah ought otherwise to have written "Zar'achem" instead of "Veneichem". Yet there we do not Darshen, 'Beneichem ve'Lo Benoseichem' - because based on the fact that it would not be logical to preclude women from the Torah's B'rachah, we prefer to incorporate women in ''Beneichem".

(a) We cannot apply Rabah's 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Achvah" "Achvah" from the B'nei Ya'akov (from the Pasuk in Miketz "Sh'neim-Asar Avadecha *Achim* Anachnu") with regard to Yerushah ("u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'*Achiv*"), to teach us that maternal brothers do not inherit from each other - because we have already precluded maternal relatives from inheriting, from "mi'Mishpachto" (as we learned learned)

(b) Consequently, we apply it to Yibum ("Ki Yeshvu *Achim* Yachdav"), to teach us that Yibum applies to paternal brothers only.