Question: Even without this answer, a son is in place of his father for two laws, and a brother is in place of his brother for only one law!

Answer: Also for Sedei Achuzah, the Torah said only that the closest relative stands in place to redeem it. It did not specify who is closest;

If a brother would be considered closer regarding Yibum, we would have one source to say that a brother is closer, and one source (Yi'ud) to say that the son is closer.

However, since we say that even regarding Yibum, a son is closer, he is closer also for Sedei Achuzah.

Suggestion #1: We should rather expound "She'ero" to teach that Reuven's father takes precedence over Reuven's daughter;

One might have thought that the father comes even before the son. "Ha'Karov" teaches that the closest relative inherits.

Rejection: Since a son and daughter are equivalent regarding Yibum, also regarding inheritance (they both precede the father).

Suggestion #2: We should rather expound "She'ero" to teach that the father takes precedence over the father's brothers;

One might have thought that the father comes even before the brother. "Ha'Karov" teaches that the closest relative inherits.

Rejection: We know that the father comes before the uncles without a verse. Uncles only inherit because they are relatives of the father!

Objection: The Beraisa learns unlike the verse!

"V'Im Ein Lo Achim (you will give the inheritance to She'ero.)" (The Beraisa learns that She'ero (the father) comes before the deceased's brothers!)

Answer: The verses are written out of order. (They discuss uncles before the father, even though surely the father has precedence, like we said. Rather, the closest relative always comes first.)

Answer #2 (to Question 3:b 108b) - Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi): (We learn that a father inherits from) "if a man will die without a son (v'Ha'avartem Es Nachalaso l'Vito)" - we transfer inheritance from the father to a daughter, but not from the father to a brother.

Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that we transfer inheritance from Reuven's brothers to his daughter, but not from Reuven's father to Reuven's daughter?

Rejection: If so, the Torah should not have said "v'Ha'avartem". (Rashbam, according to Bach - in the suggestion, v'Ha'avartem was not the source that we do not transfer from the father to the daughter, therefore it should have said 'u'Nsatem', like the other verses.

Question: (The Tana of the previous Beraisa (108b) learns inheritance of the father from "She'ero.") R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi learns from "v'Ha'avartem." What does he learn from "She'ero"?

Answer (Beraisa): "She'ero" refers to his wife. It teaches that a man inherits his wife.

Question: What does the previous Tana learn from "v'Ha'avartem"?

Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): Regarding all other inheritances it says "u'Nsatem". Regarding a daughter, it says "v'Ha'avartem", because only a daughter is Ma'avir (transfers) inheritance from one tribe to another.

A woman (usually) is inherited by her husband or son. If her husband is from a different tribe, the inheritance passes to his tribe.

Question: How does R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi know that "She'ero" means 'his wife'?

Answer: It says "(your father's wife) She'er Avicha Hi".

Suggestion: Perhaps it means 'his mother' - "She'er Imecha Hi"!

Rejection (Rava): "Mi'Mishpachto v'Yarash Osah" - the father's family is called family, but the mother's family is not.

We learn from "l'Mishpechosam l'Veis Avosam."

Question: Also the mother's family is called family! It says "there was a youth mi'Beis Lechem Yehudah mi'Mishpachas Yehudah v'Hu Levi".

Question: How can he be a Levi, and from the family of Yehudah?

Answer: We must say that his father was a Levi, and his mother was from Yehudah, and it says "mi'Mishpachas Yehudah"!

Answer #1 (Rabah bar Rav Chanan): No. His name was Levi. He was not a Levi; he was from Yehudah.

Question: If so, why did Michah say "Hayah Li ha'Levi l'Chohen"?

Answer: He was happy that he found a man whose name was Levi.

Question: His name was not Levi. It was Yonason - "vi'Yhonason ben Gershom ben Menasheh..."

Counter-question: The Torah says explicitly that Gershom's father was not Menasheh, it was Moshe!

Answer: You must say that since Yonason acted like Menasheh (ben Chizkiyah, who served idolatry), the verse ascribes him to Menasheh.

Answer #2: Really, he was a Levi. He is ascribed to Yehudah because he acted like Menasheh, who came from Yehudah.

(R. Yochanan): This shows that we ascribe a corruption to another corruption.

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): We learn this principle from "...v'Oso (Adoniyahu) Yoldah Acharei Avshalom".

Question: Adoniyahu's mother was Chagis, and Avshalom's mother was Ma'achah!

Answer: Since Adoniyahu acted like Avshalom (tried to make himself king), he is ascribed to (the same mother as) Avshalom.

(R. Elazar): One should marry into a family of good lineage. Moshe married Yisro's daughter, and Yonason descended from him. Aharon married Aminadov's daughter, and Pinchas descended from him.

Question: Also Pinchas descends from Yisro - "Elazar... mi'Benos Puti'el Lo l'Ishah"!

Suggestion: Puti'el is Yisro. He is called Puti'el, for he fattened (Pitem) calves for idolatry.

Answer #1: No, Puti'el is Yosef, who fought (Pitpet) against his inclination.

Objection: The tribes scorned Pinchas '...this son of Puti, the son of he who fattened calves for idolatry...'!