The Tana Kama in the Beraisa extrapolates from the word "mi'Matos" (in the Pasuk in Mas'ei "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos Bnei Yisrael") that - a daughter inherits from two tribes which means that, assuming her father is from one tribe, and her mother, from another, she inherits them both.

The Isur of 'Hasavah' (moving the inheritance from one tribe to another) does not apply here - because it was confined to the generation that entered Eretz Yisrael, which affected no-one other than the daughters of Tz'lofchad, as we will see later]).

The Tana learns that a son ...

... inherits his mother - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a father, whom the son inherits even though the daughter (his sister) does not; certainly, there where a daughter does inherit, he will inherit, too.

... takes precedence over a daughter in his mother's inheritance from the same source, because just as he takes precedence by the father's inheritance, so too, will he take precedence by the mother's.

We need a Pasuk to teach us that a son inherits his mother, because we would otherwise have thought that - it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' (a Torah decree) for a son to inherit his father, and a daughter, her mother, exclusively.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi quoting Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav, disagree with the Tana Kama. They rule that when it comes to a mother's property, a son and a daughter are equal.

They do not extend the 'Kal va'Chomer' from the property of a father to this point too - because of the principle 'Dayo', which teaches us that since we learn a son inheriting his mother from a daughter, he can only be like her, but not better than her.

We learn the principle of 'Dayo' from the episode in Beha'alosha, concerning the Tzara'as of Miriam, who was sent out of the camp for seven days - based on a 'Kal va'Chomer' from her father, before whom she would have been in disgrace for seven days (had she angered him).

We think that she ought to have been sent out of the camp for fourteen days because, if before a father (who only implants five of the basic physical features that form a person) one would be in disgrace for seven days, then surely before Hash-m, who implants into a person ten spiritual features, one ought to be in disgrace for fourteen days.

'Dayo' therefore teaches us that - since the source of the 'Kal va'Chomer' is her father, Miriam could only be sent out of the camp for seven days, like the source, and not more.

When Rav Nitai wanted to rule like Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav - Shmuel declared 'Efes Zecharyah' (meaning that the Halachah is not like him).

When ...

... Rebbi Tivla attempted to do likewise, quoting Rav Chin'na bar Shalmaya Amar Rav Nachman ordered him to retract, or he would place him in Cherem (despite of Rav Chin'na bar Shalmaya).

... Rav Huna bar Chiya too, tried to rule like Rebbi Zecharya, quoting Rav Huna Amar Rav (see Rabeinu Gershom) Rav Nachman told him that - he would ask Rav Huna whether he had really said that.

This caused Rav Huna bar Chiya embarrassment - because he had not really heard it from him (and quoted him only in order to lend weight to his ruling [Rabeinu Gershom], which is permitted).

Rav Nachman's final word on the subject was that - if Rav had no longer been alive, Rav Huna bar Chiya would have stood up to him and would not have relented.

Rav Nachman was so sure of himself - because Rav and Shmuel had both ruled against Rebbi Zecharyah ha'Katzav.

Rebbi Yanai was leaning on the shoulders of Rebbi Simlai - his Shamash, because he was already old and frail.

When the latter spied Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah coming towards them, he commented that - an important man wearing an important-looking cloak was approaching them.

When, after feeling Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's cloak, Rebbi Yanai commented 'Dein Shi'ureih ke'Sak', he meant that - it was made of a coarse (inferior) fabric whose Shi'ur Tum'ah is four Tefachim (like sack-cloth, and not three finger-breadths, like a cloth garment [see also Mitzpeh Eisan]).

After Rebbi Yanai had taught Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's that a son precedes a daughter in his mother's property from "Matos" (like the Tana Kama), the latter asked him - whether a B'chor also receives a double portion of his mother's inheritance (like he does of his father's).

Rebbi Yanai reacted to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's question - by instructing Rebbi Simlai to lead him away (because he was asking questions which had obvious answers).

Abaye initially learns from the word "Lo" (in the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "be'Chol asher Yimatzei Lo") that a B'chor does not receive a double portion in his mother's property ("Lo" 've'Lo Lah').

we try to refute the proof from here for Rebbi Yanai - by confining thye Pasuk to a case where a Bachur married an Almanah who already had children from a previous marriage (in which case their first baby is indeed his B'chor and not hers); but that, if it would be her B'chor, perhaps he would inherit her too.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak subsequently learns from the same Pasuk "Ki hu Reishis Ono" - implying "Ono" ve'Lo Onah', which teaches us that the B'chor will not inherit his mother, even if she was a Besulah and he is therefore her first-born too.

We object to this D'rashah however, on the grounds that we need "Reishis Ono" to exclude 'ha'Ba achar Nefalim' which means that - a Nefel (who is considered a firstborn with regard to Pidyon ha'Ben [since he is a "Peter Rechem"]) is not considered a firstborn as regards the Dinim of Yerushah ...

... since "Reishis Ono" implies that the father is concerned about his survival.

We now try to learn both current D'rashos from "Reishis Ono" because, to teach us the latter D'rashah alone, it would have sufficed to write "Ki hu Reishis On", leaving us free to Darshen "Ono" implies "Ono" 've'Lo Onah'.

We object to this D'rashah however, by suggesting that the extra Pasuk comes to preclude the B'chor of an Almon and a Besulah, who is only his mother's firstborn, but not his father's; Whereas the B'chor of a Bachur who marries a Besulah will perhaps receive a double portion in his mother's inheritance.

Rava finally learns from the word "Lo" (in the Pasuk there "Lo Mishpat ha'Bechorah") that a B'chor only inherits a double portion of his father's property, but not of his mother's (see Tosfos DH 'Lo').

The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with the Din of Yerushah) "She'eiro" that - a man inherits his wife ("She'eiro" 'Zu Ishto').

We know that this applies even to where they have a son - because in any event, a husband, who is not a blood-relative, is less of a relation than any regular heir. Consequently, once the Torah gives him the status of an heir, it obviously places him first in line.

The Lashon "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero ha'Karov eilav" implies that it is the woman who inherits her husband. The Tana knows that she does not - from the Pasuk "ve'Yarash osah", implying that it is he who inherits her, but not vice-versa.

Had the Torah wanted to teach us that a husband and wife inherit each other, it would have written "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero ... ve'Yarash" (omitting the word "osah").

The problem with the current D'rashah is - how we can simply ignore what the Torah specifically writes ("u"Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero", implying that a woman inherits her husband)?

Abaye therefore amends the Pasuk to read "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Hakarov eilav li'She'ero ve'Yarash osah", to which Rava objects on the grounds that - one cannot just take words and mix them at will (like Abaye has done with "She'ero" and "ha'Karov eilav").

Based on the principle 'Gor'in u'Mosifin ve'Dorshin' - Rava amends the Pasuk "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'ero" to read "u'Nesatem es Nachalas She'ero Lo (having joined the 'Vav' from the end of "Nachalaso" and the 'Lamed' from the beginning of "li'She'ero", to form the word "Lo").

This differs from Abaye's change of order to which Rava himself objected inasmuch as - he is not really changing the letters, but explaining the Pasuk like that (See Rashbam).

The current source for a man inheriting his wife is the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa. Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with Rebbi Akiva - inasmuch as - he does not Darshen 'Gor'in, Mosifin ve'Dorshin'.

Rebbi Yishmael interprets the Pasuk in Masei "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos B'nei Yisrael, le'Echad mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah Tih'yeh le'Ishah" in connection with Hasavas ha'Ba'al - a woman who has no brothers, and who therefore transfers the Yerushah from her father's tribe to that of her husband, assuming that first her father and then she, dies, and her husband inherits her.

After citing two more Pesukim, which will be discussed shortly, the Beraisa quotes the Pasuk in Yehoshua "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Meis va'Yikberu oso be'Giv'as Pinchas B'no". The Tana ascribes the fact that ...

... Pinchas owned property that he had not inherited from his father to his having inherited them from his wife when she died.

... a similar Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim, which relates how Ya'ir, ('son' of Menasheh,) owned twenty-three cities in the land of Gil'ad that he had not inherited from his father, S'guv - to his having inherited them from his wife when she died.