Bava Batra 108b — the Talmud in English

And further, as it is written

in the section of inheritance,

“When a man dies and has no son,”

so the son’s inheritance is mentioned first.

And why did the tanna change and write the father’s inheritance first?

The Gemara answers:

The tanna

of the Mishna,

since

[because]

the law of the father’s inheritance of his son comes to him

the law of the father’s inheritance of his son

from an exposition,

and he labored over it,

it is dear to him.

And therefore he wrote it at the beginning of the Mishna.

And what is the exposition?

For it was taught in a beraita,

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

his relative

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

And we expound: “His relative,”

this is the father.

It teaches that the father precedes

in inheritance

the brothers.

And according to this, the order of inheritances is: son, daughter, father, brother.

Could it be that

the father

precedes

in inheritance even

the son ,

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

The verse states, “the closest,”

and we expound:

The close, close

[the one closer to the deceased]

precedes

in inheritance.

And the son is closer to the deceased than the father, since he stands in place of his father concerning designation and an ancestral field, as will be explained later.

And what have you seen to include the son,

and to place him before the father,

and to exclude the brother,

to say that the father precedes him?

I include the son, since he stands in place of his father

for designation,

for example, if the father acquired a Hebrew maidservant, he may designate her for his son whenever he wishes, with 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 matter of

an ancestral field.

The son can redeem the field like his father.

But the brother is considered as another regarding this matter.

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 the son’s inheritance]

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 where there is no son? Here, where there is a son, there is no yibbum.

That is, also with regard to yibbum, the son is superior to the brother, since he exempts his mother from yibbum.