We refute the suggestion that "She'ero" comes to give the deceased's father precedence ...

... over his daughter (but not over his son from "ha'Karov") because, seeing that a daughter is equivalent to a son regarding absolving her mother from Yibum, she is also equivalent to him regarding Yerushah.

... over his father's brother because it is obvious that a father takes precedence over his own brother, who, in any event, only inherits his nephew through him.

If not for the proof that a daughter is on the same level as a son - we would have placed her after both her father and brother.

We finally learn from "She'ero" that a father takes precedence over a brother ...

... in despite of the three advantages that the latter has over the former, as we discussed earlier in the Sugya.

According to our current explanation, the Pesukim are written in the wrong order - because "She'ero" (denoting a father), is written only after a father's brother, even though the latter is derived from the former.

We are able to Darshen the Pesukim in the wrong order due to the D'rashah "ha'Karov" 'Karov Kodem', which instructs us to place the heirs in the correct order, in spite of their having been written in the wrong one.

The Torah nevertheless needs to list all the heirs (and does not rely on the Pasuk "ha'Karov" which indicates the correct order of the majority of them) - because we learn various side D'rashos from the Torah's choice of words (as we will see later in the Sugya).

In the Pasuk "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito", Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, interprets the word "ve'Ha'avartem" to imply that - we take the inheritance away from the deceased's father, who ought to inherit when there is no son, and give precedence to his daughter ...

... to preclude the deceased's brothers, who do not take precedence over their father. In any event, he now learns from here (rather than from "She'ero") that a father inherits.

We refute the suggestion that a daughter takes precedence over the deceased's brothers but not over his father - since the Torah would not then have needed to insert the word "ve'Ha'avartem", since it explicitly writes "ve'Im Ein lo Bas, u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Echav".

Based on the fact that, according to this Tana, "She'ero" does not refer to the deceased's father, the order of inheritance differ from that of the previous Tana - in that according to him, the Pesukim are written in the right order (sons, daughters, father, brothers and father's brothers), as opposed to the previous Tana, as we explained earlier.

Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi learns from "She'ero" that - a husband inherits his wife.

The basic translation of "She'ero", according to him is 'flesh'.

The previous Tana, on the other hand, explains "ve'Ha'avartem" like Rebbi, who learns from the fact that by all other relatives, the Torah writes "u'Nesatem", and by Bas, "ve'Ha'avartem" that - a man's daughter (in the event that she inherits him) moves his inheritance away from his tribe to another tribe, via either her husband or her son, should either of these later inherit her.

According to the previous Tana, we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "She'er Avicha hi" that - "She'er" in the Parshah of Yerushah too, refers to the deceased's father.

In view of the Pasuk "Ki She'er Imcha hi", Rava learns from ...

... the word mi'Mishpachto (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "mi'mi'Mishpachto, ve'Yarash osah") that - it cannot refer to the deceased's mother, because of ...

... the Pasuk in Mishpatim "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam" which teaches us the principle 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mashpachah, ve'Lo Mishpachas Eim'.

We query this last D'rashah from the Pasuk, which writes (in connection with Pesel Michah (the image of Micha) "Vayehi Na'ar ... mi'Mishpachas Yehudah, ve'Hu Levi" which we initially interpret to mean that - his father was from Yehudah, and his mother from Levi.

The problem with that is that - it implies that 'Mishpachas Eim Keruyah Mishpachah', which clashes with Rava's previous statement.

Rava bar Rav Chanan therefore resolves the problem by explaining "ve'Hu Levi" to mean (not that he descended from the tribe of Levi, but) that - his name was Levi.

Despite the fact that he was not even a Levi maternally, his 'employer' boasted that Hash-m had kindly provided him with a Levi as a Kohen - because his name alone was a sure sign that Hash-m was with him.

The Sugya concludes however that he was a hundred per cent Levi, and that his real name was - Yonasan ben Gershom ben Menasheh.

The 'Nun' in Menasheh is 'hanging' because it is only there as a hint, as we will now see), since his grandfather's real name was Moshe (Rabeinu).

And the reason that the Navi writes ...

... "ben Menasheh" is because he behaved like King Menasheh, who (in Seifer Melachim) was guilty of spreading idolatry more than any other king.

... "mi'Mishpachas Yehudah" is - because King Menasheh came from the tribe of Yehudah.

Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the previous two statements that - one may attribute the evil deeds of someone who is not so well-known to those of someone who is already infamous.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns it from the Pasuk (in connection with Adoniyah, son of David) "ve'Gam Hu Tov To'ar Me'od, ve'Oso Yaldah achar Avshalom" - which is clearly coming to compare Adoniyah to his infamous half-brother Avshalom, the ultimate rebel (who gave Adoniyahu his cue to rebel against his own father King David).

This Pasuk would otherwise appear strange, since Adoniyah's mother was Chagis, whereas the mother of Avshalom was Ma'achah.

Moshe's marriage to the daughter of Yisro, who all his life, had been an idolater (in spite of the fact that he became a Ba'al-Teshuvah) - resulted in Moshe's grandson Yonasan becoming an idolater.

Rebbi Elazar points at the contrast between Yonasan ben Gershom and Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon ha'Kohen - inasmuch as Aharon, who married the daughter of the Tzadik Aminadav (Nachshon's father), had a grandson called Pinchas, thereby stressing the importance of marrying into a good family.

We query this however, from the Pasuk "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Lakach lo mi'Benos Putiel lo le'Ishah" which we initially interpret to mean - from the daughters of Yisro, who fattened calves for idolatry ('*she'Pitem Agalim* la'Avodah-Zarah').

We attempt to resolve this by interpreting "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean - 'from the daughters of Yosef' who struggled with his Yeitzer-ha'Ra (she'Pitpet be'Yitzro), and not 'from the daughters of Yisro ... ').

We conclude however, that Pinchas descended from Yisro too by citing the tradition that the tribes accused Pinchas of being the son of this 'ben Puti', whose maternal grandfather fattened calves for idolatry.

We finally interpret "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean that in fact, he descended from both Yosef and Yisro, because one of his mother's parents was a descendant of one, and the other, of the other (though we do not know which is which.

This vindicates Rebbi Elazar's statement about choosing the family into which one marries - inasmuch as Pinchas was further removed from Yisro than Yonasan was (perhaps the third of fourth generation) from Yisro (see also Agados Maharsha).

Elazar's wife could not have actually been the daughter of Yisro - because then how could he have also descended from the tribe of Yosef.

We prove this interpretation of "mi'Benos Putiel" from the actual words themselves, either from the extra 'Yud' in Putiel (which comes to add something), or - from the word "mi'Benos" (in the plural), implying duality, the daughter of 'Pitput' (Yosef) and the daughter of 'Pitum' (Yisro).