Rebbi Yochanan queried Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon (who holds that a woman inherits her son) from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'ha'Ishah es B'nah ... Manchilin ve'Lo Nochlin'. He did not ask from the Reisha 'ha'Ish es Imo ... Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin' - because the Seifa states explicitly that a woman does not inherit (whereas the Reisha only implies it).

Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon replied that - he did not really know who the author of our Mishnah is (meaning that he anyway had a problem with it (as we shall now see).

We suggest that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav - who does not Darshen 'Matos', as we learned earlier (and that will explain why a mother does not inherit her daughter).

We reject this suggestion however, on the basis of the Beraisa, which comments on 'Bnei Achos' in our Mishnah 'Bnei Achos, ve'Lo Bnos Achos' - which Rav Sheishes explained earlier to mean that B'nei Achos take precedence over B'nos Achos, clashing with Rebbi Zecharyah (who maintains that a son and daughter share their mother's property equally.

Our Mishnah seems to contradict itself, since - at one and the same time, it Darshens "Matos" with regard to the Din of precedence) but not with regard to a woman inheriting her son.

We resolve this problem by establishing that in fact - the Tana does Darshen "Matos". Nevertheless, a woman does not inherit her son, because the Torah writes "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah", from which we extrapolate "Yoreshes", 've'Einah Moreshes'.

We extrapolate that from this Pasuk because the Pasuk continues "Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos", from which we Darshen 'Yoreshes Sh'tei Matos [her father and her mother]) ve'Einah Moreshes Sh'tei Matos".

Rabeinu Chananel learns the previous Halachah from the extra 'Mem' in "mi'Matos" which he explains to mean that - it is only one of the two Matos that a woman is Yoresh but not Morish (i.e. her mother).

The Pasuk refers to the father and mother of a daughter. The equivalent Din with regard to the father and mother of a son will be - exactly the same (based on a S'vara).

It is clear that if Ya'akov dies, leaving a son Reuven and a daughter Dinah, that Reuven inherits his father's property. In a case where Reuven and his son Chanoch died before Ya'akov, leaving only Dinah and Serach, Chanoch's daughter, alive after Ya'akov's death, our Mishnah rules that - Serach will inherit Ya'akov's property (in place of Reuven).

This Halachah (is not confined to the offspring of a son; it) - extends to the offspring of any heir (e.g. a brother) who will take precedence over the next of kin.

A man's daughter takes precedence over his brothers or his father. If a man dies, leaving only a brother, a father and his daughter's granddaughter the order of precedence is 1. his daughter's granddaughter; 2. his father; 3. his brother.

A son's daughter's son or daughter takes precedence over a daughter ...

... because all the offspring of the next of kin take precedence over the successive heir.

We learn that a son's offspring take precedence over the next of kin from "u'Vein Ein lo" - which we Darshen (due to the extra 'Yud') to mean 'Ayein alav' (examine whether the deceased son left no offspring before giving his father's property to his daughter.

We have a precedent for 'Ein' without a 'Yud' in Parshas Balak, where the Torah writes "Me'ein Bil'om" (without a 'Yud').

And we know that the same applies to the offspring of the deceased's daughter, who will inherit before his brother - because there too, the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein lo Bas", with a 'Yud'.

When the Tana says that a father precedes all his offspring, he means that - he takes precedence over his other children (and their children) to inherit the property of his deceased son.

This will not apply - to his offspring which are also offspring of the deceased.

There where the deceased leaves behind no descendants, says the Beraisa, then 'Ayein Alav' goes upwards to his direct ancestors (or their offspring), going back as far as Reuven (or Shimon ... ) ben Ya'akov. The deceased's ...

... grandfather takes precedence over his father's brother.

... father's brother takes precedence over his great-grandfather.

... father's sister takes precedence over his great-grandfather.

The Tana stop short of Ya'akov - because, as Abaye explains, we have a tradition that no tribe will ever become extinct, in which case, no Yerushah will ever go back as far as Ya'akov.

Rav Huna Amar Rav states that if a Dayan rules that the daughter of the deceased inherits together with his son's daughter - we ignore his ruling (irrespective of his stature).

The Beraisa cites the source of this fallacy as being the Tzedokim, the Talmidim of Tzadok and Baytus, who rejected the oral Torah - based on the teaching of their Rebbe, Antignos Ish Socho, who taught (in the first Perek of Pirkei Avos) that one should not learn Torah in order to receive reward, which they understood to mean that one must serve Hash-m without receiving reward. In that case, they argued, there is no truth in Torah.

A certain Tzedoki elder learn the above (fallacial) Din from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - inasmuch as if the daughter of the deceased's son, who comes on the strength of the son, inherits, then how much more so, his own daughter, who comes on the strength of the deceased himself.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai cited him two Pesukim in Vayishlach. From the fact that one Pasuk refers to Tziv'on and Anah as sons of Se'ir ha'Chori (See also Tosfos, DH 'Melamed'), whilst the other lists Anah (together with Ayah) as a son of Tziv'on - he extrapolated that Tziv'on must have had relations with his own mother (Tziv'on's wife), who subsequently gave birth to Anah who inherited the land of Se'ir, his grandfather, and his mother).

He referred to the Tzedokim as - fools.

Rabah (or Rava) and some say Rav Papa, Darshened from the Pasuk "Hu Anah asher Matza es ha'Yeimim ba'Midbar" that there was only one Anah and not two (one, a son of Se'ir ha'Chori, the other, the son of Tziv'on).

This is something that even Shavur Malka (the King of Persia) did not Darshen. Assuming that the author of the statement was ...

... Rabah (or Rava), Shavur Malka referred to - Shmuel.

... Rav Papa, Shavur Malka referred to - Rabah or Rava ...

... to whom they referred to by this name - because they were kings in Halachah (Shmuel when he argues with Rav in money-matters, Rabah with Rav Yosef and Rava with Abaye).

Raban Yochanan ben Zakai proved from here the principle 'Bnei Banim harei Hein ke'Banim' - since Anah is listed together with Tziv'on and Ayah, who were heirs of Se'ir ha'Chori).

Nevertheless, we know that Tziv'on had relations with his mother (that the Pasuk does not only write "Eileh B'nei Tziv'on ... " to teach us the principle of 'B'nei Banim Harei Hein ke'Banim" - because then, why did it mention only him together with Anah d not Ayah, who were both sons of Se'ir ha'Chori?

This disproves the Tzedokim inasmuch as - if a son (or a daughter) of a son is considered a child (because he stands in place of his father), then a daughter should not inherit where a son's daughter is available.

The Tzedoki elder queried Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai's 'Pircha' on his 'Kal va'Chomer' on the grounds that - he too, admitted that a daughter does not inherit when there is the son of a son (and he only argued in the case of a daughter against a son's daughter).

Rabban Yochanan it seems, had been loathe to reveal to him his true reasoning - because one is not permitted to reveal the Torah's reasons to the Tzedokim.

He finally refuted the 'Kal va'Chomer - due to the fact that a son's daughter inherits even when there are sons, whereas a daughter does not.

In Parshas Masei, the Torah specifically records that ...

... the daughters of Tz'lofchad inherited their father's portion in his father Cheifer's property, in spite of his brothers (as we shall see later).

... and that they only inherited him because he had no sons.

When Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai said 'she'Lo T'hei Torah Sheleimah she'Lanu ke'Sichah Beteilah she'Lachem", he meant that - their baseless 'Kal va'Chomers' could not stand up to our 'Pirchos' (which are Torah).

The significance of the fact that this episode took place on the twenty-fourth of Teives is that - this is one of the Yamim-Tovim listed in Megilas Ta'anis.

The justification of this Yom-Tov was the fact - that they defeated the Tzedokim, who were a powerful force in Yisrael, and even succeeded in getting them to admit that they were wrong.