Bava Batra 108b (קח:) — the Talmud in English

And furthermore, as it is written

in the passage concerning inheritance:

“If a man dies and has no son,”

which indicates that the inheritance by the son is mentioned first.

Why, then, did the tanna write the inheritance of the father first?

The Gemara answers:

The tanna

of the Mishna,

since

[that is, because]

the law of the father inheriting his son came to him

through a derivation

from a homiletic interpretation,

and he labored over it ,

it was dear to him.

Therefore, he wrote it at the beginning of the Mishna.

And what is the derivation?

As it is taught in a beraita,

it is stated in the passage concerning inheritance: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to

his relative

who is nearest to him from his family, and he shall inherit it.”

And we expound: “His relative”—

this is the father .

This teaches that the father takes precedence

in inheritance

over the brothers .

Accordingly, the order of inheritances is: son, daughter, father, brother.

One might have thought that

the father

takes precedence

in inheritance even

over a son ,

and that we should arrange the inheritances as follows: father, son, daughter, brother .

The verse states: “the nearest,”

and we expound:

the nearest of all [

that is, the one closer to the deceased]

takes precedence

in inheritance .

The son is closer to the deceased than the father, since he takes his father’s place with regard to designation and an ancestral field, as will be explained later.

And what have you seen to include the son,

and give him precedence over the father,

and exclude the brother,

to say that the father takes precedence over him?

I include the son, since he takes his father’s place

with regard to designation,

for example, if the father purchased a Hebrew maidservant, he may designate her for his son whenever he wishes, using the money of her purchase, and he does not need additional betrothal for the purpose of marrying her. As it is written: “And if he designates her for his son”

. But his brother cannot designate her; and if he wishes to marry her, he must give her additional betrothal.

And

likewise

with regard to

the

ancestral field ,

the son can redeem the field as his father could.

But the brother is considered like another relative in this regard.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

On the contrary, I would include the brother

we should have given precedence to the brother’s inheritance over that of the son

since he takes the place of his brother for yibbum,

whereas the son cannot perform yibbum with his father’s wife?

And the Gemara answers:

Is there yibbum at all except when there is no son? When there is a son, there is no yibbum.

That is, even with regard to yibbum, the son is preferable to the brother, for he exempts his mother from yibbum.