Bava Batra 109a (קט.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

The reason is that there is this refutation, ["

Is there yibbum except where there is no son?"]

but if not for this, I would have said that a brother is preferable,

and this is difficult: Why did we need this refutation,

let it be derived

since here there are two [the son is preferable to the brother in two cases: designation and ancestral field]

a son is superior to a brother in two cases: designation and an ancestral field,

whereas here there is one [the brother is preferable to him only with regard to yibbum]?

the brother is superior to him only with regard to levirate marriage?

The Gemara answers: With regard to

the ancestral field itself,

we would not have known that the son takes his father’s place except

for this reason, which is established for the tanna: Is there yibbum except where there is no son? If there is a son, there is no yibbum.

That is, the Torah does not explicitly state that the son takes his father’s place except with regard to designation. And without the refutation, “Is there yibbum except where there is no son?”, the son would be like the brother: The son is close to his father with regard to designation, while the brother is so with regard to yibbum.

Only after we refuted this by saying, “There is no yibbum except where there is no son,” can we derive that the son takes his father’s place with regard to an ancestral field, a Hebrew slave, and inheritance.

The Gemara returns to discuss the words of the aforementioned tanna: “His relative” refers to the father; this teaches that the father precedes the brothers.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Say instead: “His relative” refers to the father; this teaches that the father

the deceased’s father

precedes the daughter. Might he also precede the son? The verse states: “The close one”—the closer one precedes.

And from where do we know that the daughter precedes the deceased’s father with regard to inheritance?

The Gemara answers:

Since with regard to yibbum, a son and a daughter are equivalent,

and both perpetuate their father’s name equally,

with regard to inheritance as well, a son and a daughter are equivalent.

And both precede the deceased’s father.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Say instead: “His relative” refers to the father; this teaches that the father precedes the father’s brothers. Might he also precede the brothers? The verse states: “The close one”—the closer one precedes.

Accordingly, the order of inheritance would be: son, daughter, brother, father, and the father’s brothers.

And from where do we know that the father precedes the deceased’s brothers?

The Gemara answers:

The father’s brothers do not require a verse.

Certainly, the father himself precedes them.

Since

the father’s brothers—by whose power do they come

[by whose power do they come to inherit their nephew’s estate]

? By the power of their father

! Can it enter your mind to say that even if

the father is standing

[the deceased’s father is alive]

the father’s brothers inherit?!

Therefore, we expound “his relative” as teaching that the father precedes the deceased’s brothers.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the verses are not written in that order, as it is written: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to

you shall give his inheritance to his relative

and so forth,”

meaning that the father’s brothers precede the “relative”?

The Gemara answers: Certainly,

the verses are written out of order.

The proof is that it places the father’s brothers before the father, even though the father precedes his brothers, who derive their inheritance through him, as stated above.

It necessarily follows that the verse was not precise about their order, because it relied on the exposition, “The closer one precedes.” You must therefore arrange them according to their degree of closeness: the son, the daughter, the deceased’s father, the deceased’s brothers, and the father’s brothers.

This concludes one approach to expounding the law of the father’s inheritance.

But this tanna

cited below

derives

the law of the father’s inheritance

from here:

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, expounded this: “When a man dies and has no son,

you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter

and so forth.”

And the Sages expounded from the fact that the verse uses the expression “you shall transfer,” rather than “you shall give,” that there is another person who is fit to inherit after the son, namely the father. However,

where

there is

a daughter, you transfer

the

inheritance from

the person fit to inherit, namely,

the father

to his [unclear: the source text is corrupted]?.

But

nevertheless,

you do not transfer

the

inheritance from the father where there are brothers.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Say instead: Where there is a daughter, you transfer the inheritance from the brothers,