Bava Batra 109a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

The reason is that there is this refutation: ["

Is levirate marriage found anywhere except where there is no son?"]

Had it not been so, I would have said that the brother is preferable,

and it is difficult: why did we need this refutation?

Let it follow ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

that here there are two [

the son is preferable to the brother in two cases: designation and ancestral field]

whereas here there is one [

the brother is preferable to him only with regard to levirate marriage]?

And the Gemara answers:

As for the ancestral field itself,

we did not know that the son stands in his father's place except

for this reason: the tanna holds: Is levirate marriage found anywhere except where there is no son? Where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage.

That is to say, in the Torah it was not stated explicitly that the son stands in his father's place except with regard to designation. And had it not been for the refutation, “Is levirate marriage found anywhere except where there is no son?”, the son would have been like the brother: the son is related to his father with regard to designation, and the brother with regard to levirate marriage.

And only after we refuted, “There is no levirate marriage except where there is no son,” can it be learned that the son stands in his father's place with regard to the ancestral field, the Hebrew slave, and inheritance.

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Say: “His kin”—this is the father; this teaches that the father [

the deceased's father]

precedes the daughter. One might think that he precedes the son; the verse states, “the nearest”—the nearer, the nearer comes first.

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

And the Gemara answers:

Since with regard to levirate marriage, son and daughter are equivalent,

and both establish a name for their father equally,

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

And both precede the deceased's father.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Say: “His kin”—this is the father; this teaches that the father precedes the father's brothers. One might think that he precedes the brothers; the verse states, “the nearest”—the nearer, the nearer comes first.

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

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

And the Gemara answers:

The father's brothers do not require a verse.

And certainly the father himself precedes them.

Since

from whose power do the father's brothers come [

by whose power do they come to inherit their brother's son]

? From the power of the father

—and would it enter your mind to say that even if

the father is standing [

the deceased's father is alive]

the father's brothers inherit?!

And therefore we expound “his kin” to make the father precede the deceased's brothers.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But the verses are not written in this way, for it is written, “And if his father has no brothers,

then you shall give his inheritance to his kin

,” and so on,

that is, the father's brothers precede “his kin”?

And the Gemara answers: Certainly,

the verses are written not in their order.

And the proof is that it placed the father's brothers before the father, even though the father precedes his brothers who come by his power, as above.

And inevitably, Scripture was not exact about their order, because it relied on the exposition, “the nearest, the nearer comes first.” And you yourself should arrange them according to their closeness. That is: son, daughter, the deceased's father, the deceased's brothers, the father's brothers.

Thus far, one approach to the exposition of the law of the father's inheritance.

And this tanna

cited below

brings it

the law of the father's inheritance

from here:

For it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, expounded this: “When a man dies and has no son,

then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter

,” and so on.

And the Sages expounded: from the fact that Scripture used the expression “and you shall transfer,” rather than “and you shall give,” [it follows] that there is another person fit to inherit after the son, namely the father. But

where

there is

a daughter, you transfer

the

inheritance from

the one fit to inherit, namely,

the father

[unclear: the source text is corrupted] ?.

And

however,

you do not transfer

the

inheritance from the father in the presence of brothers.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

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