Rava learns from the words "Achos Nachshon" (in the Pasuk in Va'eira "Vayikach Aharon es Elisheva bas Aminadav Achos Nachshon Lo le'Ishah") that before marrying a woman, one should examine her brothers.

The Beraisa comments on this - that most children turn out to be like the brothers of their mother.

The Pasuk in "va'Yasuru Sham va'Yomru lo 'Mi Hevi'acha ad Halom, 'u'Mah atah Oseh ba'Zeh*' 'u'Mah l'cha Poh' is speaking - about Yonasan ben Gershom ben Mosheh ...

... an idolatrous priest who worked for Michah.

The contingent from the tribe of Dan was surprised, when they heard his voice and realized that - a grandson of Mosheh Rabeinu should hold such a post.

They therefore asked him these three questions, incorporating the three words "Halom", "ba'Zeh" and "Poh", all of which hint at Moshe, about whom it is written "Al Tikrav Halom" (in connection with 'the Burning Bush'); "Mah Zeh be'Yadecha" (both in Sh'mos), and "ve'Atah Poh Amod Imadi" (in Va'eschanan, in connection with Matan Torah).

In reply, Yonasan cited his grandfather, from whom he had learned that - it is preferable to hire oneself out to do Avodah-Zarah for one's livelihood than to rely on Tzedakah.

Moshe Rabeinu was really referring (not to Avodah-Zarah, which the Torah forbids, but) - to a work to which one is not accustomed (work with which one is not familiar) or which is demeaning.

In keeping with this explanation, Rav told Rav Kahana that - in order to earn a Parnasah, he should be prepared even to strip carcasses in the street (in full view of the public), and not claim that, because he is a man of high standing, it is below his dignity.

When David ha'Melech saw how attached Yonasan was to money (apparently, he could find work, but not enough to satisfy his greedy mind) - he placed him in charge of the royal treasury and paid him a good wage.

Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk which refers to Yonasan as 'Shevu'el' that - this caused him to do Teshuvah with a full heart ('she'Shav la'Keil be'Chol Levavo' [the acronym of Shevu'el]).

We account for the Pasuk in Shoftim, which relates that Yonasan and his descendants served as Kohanim to the contingent from Dan until the exile of the land by explaining that - when Shlomoh came to the throne, he made new appointments, canceling those that his father David had made (which left Yonasan in the same predicament as he had been previously; so he returned to his previous job).

What Yonasan had done to deserve to live so long was (like his ancestor Avraham Avinu many years earlier) - to try and dissuade people from sacrificing to idols, since neither were they able to eat or drink anyway, nor did they have the ability to do either good or bad.

When a client once asked Yonasan what he should then do, the latter advised him - to bring him a cake of flour and ten eggs, and he would appease the idol.

When the man left - he ate them himself.

And when a client once countered by asking him why he worked as a priest if he not believe in what he was doing, he replied that - he did it for Parnasah.

We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with the Din of Yerushah) "Ish ki Yamus u'Vein Ein lo ... " that - a son takes preference over a daughter.

Abaye's problem with Rav Papa's Kashya that perhaps the Torah is teaching us that there where there is a son and a daughter, neither will inherit is - in that case, who will inherit, the mayor?!

What Rav Papa really meant to ask was that - where there is a son and a daughter, maybe neither will inherit their father individually, only both together.

Initially, Abaye retorted that we don't need a Pasuk to teach us that a son alone or a daughter alone inherits. We try to answer - by establishing the Chidush as being that a daughter is also considered an heir.

When Rav Papa then asked 've'Dilma ha ka'Mashma-lan, de'Bas Nami bas Yerushah hi", he cannot mean to ask that, if not for "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito", we might have thought that even though a daughter inherits together with her brother, she will not however, inherit on her own - since Abaye just rejected this theory, and it is not conventional practice to reinstate a rejected theory without proof of its veracity.

What he therefore meant to ask was that - maybe a daughter does not inherit at all, as will be explained shortly.

And he learns from the Pasuk ...

... in Masei "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah" that - a daughter does inherit.

... "u'Vein Ein lo" that - a son takes precedence over a daughter.

If the Pasuk is not coming to teach us that a daughter inherits in the first place, the Torah should have written (in place of "ve'Ish ki Yamus u'Vein Ein lo") - "Ish ki Yamus ve'Zera Ein lo".

If not for this Pasuk, we would have thought that she does not inherit either - because we see from the sequence of the Pesukim that it is only men (a brother, a father and an uncle) who inherit, or for the same reason as a mother doesn't (because the Torah writes "mi'Mishpachto", as we explained earlier).

Rav Acha bar Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with the daughters of Tzelofchad) "Lamah Yigara Shem Avinu ... ki Ein lo Ben" that - a son takes precedence over a daughter.

We reject Rav Acha's proof from there however, on the grounds that - this Pasuk is merely submitting the daughters of Tz'lofchad's theory. Should we find proof to the contrary in the Pesukim in Pinchas. Consequently, if not for the Pasuk "u'Vein Ein lo", we would have to admit that they were wrong.

Ravina tries to learn that a son takes precedence over a daughter from "ha'Karov Eilav", because he believes that a son is proven to be a closer relative than a daughter - when it comes to Yi'ud and Sadeh Achuzah (which we explained earlier in the Sugya), neither of which apply to a daughter.

We reject his proof from ...

... Yi'ud however, on the grounds that the reason that it does not apply to a daughter is (not because a daughter is a lesser relative than a son, but) - because it is physically inapplicable.

... Sadeh Achuzah on the grounds that - the reason that a son takes the place of his father in this regard is only because of the argument that he absolves his mother from Yibum (whereas a brother does not). By the same token, seeing as a daughter absolves her mother from Yibum too (as we learned earlier), she ought then to take her father's place as regards Sadeh Achuzah, too.

Nevertheless, we conclude that a daughter does not take her father's place with regard to Sadeh Achuzah - because by Yerushah, we learn from "u'Vein Ein lo" that a son takes precedence over a daughter. Consequently, she is considered 'Acher' vis-a-vis her brother (who remains the only one to take his father's place, and prevent the field from going to the Kohanim in the Yovel).

As a further source that a son takes precedence over a daughter, we cite the Pasuk in B'har (in connection with Avadim Cana'anim) "Vehisnachaltem osam li'Veneichem Achareichem" from which we Darshen - "li'Veneichem", 've'Lo li'Venoseichem" ...

... otherwise the Torah should have written "le'Zar'achem Achareichem".

We ask that, by the same token, women ought to be Patur from Mezuzah, from the Pasuk in Eikev "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Yemei Veneichem", since there too, the Torah ought otherwise to have written "Zar'achem" instead of "Veneichem". Yet there we do not Darshen, 'Beneichem ve'Lo Benoseichem' - because it would illogical to preclude women from the Torah's B'rachah (that Mezuzah brings in its wake).

We cannot apply Rabah's Gezeirah-Shavah "Achvah" "Achvah" from the B'nei Ya'akov (from the Pasuk in Miketz "Sh'neim-Asar Avadecha Achim Anachnu") with regard to Yerushah ("u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'*Achiv*"), to teach us that maternal brothers do not inherit from each other - because we have already precluded maternal relatives from inheriting, from "mi'Mishpachto" (as we learned earlier)

Consequently, we apply it to Yibum ("Ki Yeshvu Achim Yachdav"), to teach us that Yibum is confined to paternal brothers.