Regarding inheritance, the Mishnah presents four categories of people who do or do not inherit each other: 1. 'Nochlin u'Manchilin' (They inherit each other [See Tos. Yom-Tov]) - 2. 'Nochlin ve'Lo Manchlin', (They inherit from them but do not pass on their inheritance to them when they die); 3. 'Manchilin ve'Lo Nochlin' and 'Lo Nochlin, ve'Lo Manchilin'.

The first list incorporates 1. father and son and 2. brothers (See Tos. Yom-Tov). Regarding the latter, the Torah writes in Pinchas "mi'Mishpachto Veyarash osah". We learn from the Pasuk in Bamidbar "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam" - that only the family of a father is considered family, but not ythe family of a mother.

We learn that a father inherits his son from "Veha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito" (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ish ki Yamus u'Vein Ein lo, Veha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Vito") - by Darshening that when only a daughter takes away the inheritance the father, but not brothers (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'ha'Av es ha'Banim' 1 & 2).

And from "Ish ki Yamus u'Vein Ein lo we learn that - if there is a son, he takes precedence.

'ha'Ish es Imo (See Tos. Yom-Tov 1 & 2), ha'Ish es Ishto and B'nei Achyos (the sons of the deceased's sister) fall into the category of - Nochlin ve'Lo Manchilin.

We learn from the fact that "mi'Matos" in the Pasuk "ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah mi'Matos b'nei Yisrael", is written in the plural that - the daughter inherits from 'two tribes' (her father and her mother, should they belong to two different tribes).

And from the same word we learn that a son inherits his mother - in that just as a son takes precedence over a daughter vis-a-vis the inheritance of his father, so too will he take precedence over her with regard to the inheritance of his mother.

The Torah writes "u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'She'eiro". "She'eiro" means - 'his wife'.

We explain the Pasuk to mean that a man inherits his wife - by switching some of the letters to read "u'Nesatem es Nachalas She'eiro lo" (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

And from the continuation of the Pasuk "Veyarash osah", we learn that - although a man inherits his wife, his wife does not inherit him ("Hu Yarash osah" ve'ein Hi Yoreshes 'so').

The Mishnah rules that ...

... 'ha'Ishah es Banehah, ha'Ishah es Ba'alah and Achei ha'Eim' (the brother of the deceased man's mother) - are Manchil but not Nochel (See Tos. Yom-Tov), and that ...

... 'Achim min ha'Eim' (maternal brothers) - are neither Nonchil nor Manchil.

We already cited the source for the fact that a son takes precedence over a daughter - and the sons' offspring take precedence over a daughter, even if the sons are no longer alive.

We learn this from the Pasuk "u'Bein ein lo", which we Darshen - "Ein lo", 'Ayein alav' (examine whether the son did not leave offspring, before giving the inheritance to the daughter).

Besides the father (whom the Tana has not yet mentioned) next in line to inherit is - the deceased's brothers.

Besides a son and his offspring - the daughter's offspring take precedence over a brother, even if the daughter is no longer alive.

Brothers take precedence over a paternal uncle (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - and their offspring take precedence over him even if they are no longer alive.

The Mishnah concludes with two principles; one of them is that 'Whichever relative takes precedence, his offspring take his place if he is no longer alive', the other that - 'the father of the deceased takes precedence over all his offspring' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

In a case where both the ...

... brother and sister of the father are still alive - the brother takes precedence.

... father's brother or sister and his father are still living - the father's brother or sister take precedence.

... father's father's father and his father's brother or sister are still live - then his father's brother or sister take precedence.

The first in line to receive the inheritance in the event that the deceased leaves behind no offspring is - the father of the deceased.

if Reuven dies, leaving behind three children and ...

... the granddaughters of a fourth son who died before he did then - his three children will receive the three portions of his property and the surviving granddaughters, the portion of their deceased father.

... that son's grandsons and granddaughters - then it is the grandsons only who will take their father's portion.

If his father is no longer alive and he leaves behind no offspring, but he has three brothers, and ...

... daughters of a fourth brother who is no longer alive then, like in the previous case - the daughters of the fourth brother will inherit their father's property.

... sons and daughters of a fourth brother who is no longer alive, then like in the previous case, the three brothers are will receive three portions ... and sons of the deceased brother will share their father's portion.

If his brothers are no longer alive, and his closest living relatives are their granddaughters plus his father's brothers - then it is the granddaughters who will inherit.

If there are no other close relatives, then one goes back as far as Adam ha'Rishon (others say as far back as Ya'akov Avinu) and his descendants.

The daughters of Tz'lofchad received - three (unequal) portions in Eretz Yisrael (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The first portion was that of their father Tz'lofchad. Even though he died in the desert, he was entitled to a portion - because this Tana holds that Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who left Egypt ...

... which he learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas "li'Shemos Matos Avosam Yinchalu" (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Their second portion was what Tz'lofchad inherited from his father Cheifer together with his brothers - since he too, was among those who left Egypt.

The third portion comprised - the Cheilek Bechorah that their father inherited from Cheifer (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...

... even though a firstborn does not normally receive the double portion of property which his father did not yet actually own when he died ...

... nevertheless, 'Eretz Yisrael was already considered theirs' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Just as a daughter inherits her father - she also inherits her mother.

The only distinction the Mishnah draws between an inheritance that falls from one's father and one that falls from one's mother is that - whereas the former receives a double portion, the latter does not (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The other distinction that the Tana draws between them is that - whereas daughters are sustained from the property of a deceased father (See Tos. Yom-Tov), they are not sustained from the property of a deceased mother.

The Mishnah rules that if someone declares that after is death, so-and-so his ...

... firstborn son should not inherit a double portion, or that ...

... one of his sons should not inherit a portion together with his other sons - his declaration is null and void ...

... due to the principle that if someone stipulates something that goes against what the Torah says ('Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'), his condition is Bateil (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The Mishnah now discusses a father who distributes his property in his lifetime in a way that does follow the Dinim of inheritance. When the Tana uses the expression 'al Piv', he means that - the father is lying on his death-bed and is distributing his property verbally.

Even though no Kinyan has taken place, his words are binding ...

... based on the principle that 'The words of a Shechiv-M'ra (a person on his death-bed) are valid as if they were documented and handed over'.

In a case where the father gives ...

... one son more that the other and the other son less (See Tos. Yom-Tov) or ...

... the B'chor the same as the others - his gift takes effect ...

... because 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' - does not apply to a gift (that the father gives in his lifetime [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).

Both cases will ...

... not be valid however - if he mentions 'Yerushah' when giving it to them (See Tiferes Yisrael, and it will ...

... nevertheless be valid even if he does - provided he mentions 'Matanah' either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end.

'In the middle' means where he says 'he will inherit it, it will be given to him and he will inherit it'.

If Reuven declares that 'so-and-so should inherit him', when he has a daughter or that his daughter will inherit him when he has a son - his words are not valid.

According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, Reuven's words are valid - if they pertain to someone who is eligible to inherit him ...

... such as - one son among all his sons or one daughter among all his daughters.

He learn this from the Pasuk in Ki seitzei "Vehayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav' - which gives him the authority to pick one of his heirs in favor of the others.

Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah concedes that Reuven's words are not valid if he designates his brother to inherit him when he has a daughter, or his daughter, when he has a son - because when there is a daughter or a son, a brother and a daughter respectively, are not considered heirs.

And from the Pasuk there "Lo Yuchal Levaker ... " he learns that - a father does not have the authority to bequeath the portion of the B'chor to any of his siblings.

The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.

The Tana Kama says that - although a person is entitled to write his property to people other his sons, the Chachamim are displeased with him if he does.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel considers him praiseworthy - in the case of a son who is not behaving the way he should.

The Tana Kama disagrees with him however - due to the possibility that one of his errant son's children will do Teshuvah.

The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

Besides the fact that he will inherit him, the ramifications of the ruling that Reuven is believed to identify Levi as his son are that - he exempts Reuven's wife from Yibum in the event that he dies (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

He is not believed however, if he identifies him as his brother - with regard to receiving an equal portion in his father's property when he dies (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

His testimony is accepted however - in that he is obligated to give him a part of his own portion.

For example - if his father leaves three fields, and he has one brother, Shimon, then they each take one and a half fields, and gives half of his field/s to Levi.

Shimon is not obligated to give him a portion - because he can say to him 'Bring a proof that you are my brother and take'.

In the event that Levi dies, the portion that he received - reverts back to Reuven.

The Mishnah rules that property that Levi subsequently inherits and then dies - is shared by Reuven and Shimon ...

... since the Safek admitted that he was their brother.

A 'Daitiki' is - the last will and testament written by a Shechiv-M'ra ...

... which is the acronym of 'Da T'hei Lemeikam u'Lemeihavi' (This will be established and come to pass).

The Mishnah rules that if somebody dies and they find a Daytiki strapped to his body - it is not valid ...

... because in spite of the fact that it is not feasible for someone else to have placed it there - perhaps the Shechiv-M'ra intended it to take effect after his death. And a Sh'tar after death is not valid (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

The Daytiki under discussion is valid - if he asked somebody to acquire it (on behalf of whoever it is meant for) before he died (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...

... irrespective of whether it an heir who acquires it or someone else (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

According to Rebbi Yehudah, someone who wants to write his property to his sons in his lifetime, to ensure that they inherit it after his death (See Tos. Yom-Tov), must write in the Sh'tar 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah' - implying the Guf (the actual land itself) already from now, but the fruit only after his death.

If he fails to insert 'me'Hayom' - then the gift is invalid (since, as we have already learned, one cannot give a gift after one dies).

Rebbi Yossi considers this unnecessary - because the date on the Sh'tar indicates that the gift began to take effect immediately ('Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach alav').

The Halachah is - like Rebbi Yossi.

The Mishnah rules that if someone writes his property to his son in his lifetime, neither he, nor his son is permitted to sell it without the consent of the other ...

... he - because the actual field is no longer his to sell ...

... his son - because the fruit does not yet belong to him.

Consequently, if ...

... he does sell it - the purchaser may eat the fruit until the father's death.

... his son sells it - the purchaser may not touch the fruit until the father dies.

Whatever the father detaches belongs to whoever he gives it. When he dies, leaving other sons, as well as the son to whom he bequeathed his property, the fruit that is ...

... detached belongs to - all the heirs.

... still attached but ready to be picked belongs to - the son (the recipient of the property (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

If the person to whom the father wrote his property in his lifetime was a stranger - then even in the latter case, the fruit goes to the heirs (and not to the recipient of the gift ...

... because (except where otherwise specified) a person wants to benefit his sons more than he does a stranger (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

The Tana now discusses the Din of someone who dies, leaving behind grown-up sons and Ketanim, who now want to receive 'Parnasah' - clothes) and 'Mezonos' food) from their inherited property.

The needs of the Gedolim and the Ketanim differ vis-a-vis ...

... 'Parnasah' - in that grown-ups spend more on clothes than children.

... 'Mezonos' - in that children spend more on food ...

... because they tend to eat more sporadically and to waste more food than grown-ups.

If the Gedolim want to take Parnasah or the Ketanim, Mezonos from the property before it has been divided among them - the Mishnah forbids them to do so ...

What they must do is - share the property equally, so that each one obtains what he needs out of his own portion.

If the Gedolim's marriage expenses were paid from their father's inheritance, the Ketanim are entitled to claim theirs too. But if their father married off the Gedolim in his lifetime, and the Ketanim claim that their marriage expenses be paid from their father's property before it has been divided - their claim is rejected.

If the deceased father leaves only daughters, Gedolos and Ketanos, the Din regarding ...

... Parnasah and Mezonos and ...

... taking their marriage expenses from the property before it has been divided - is exactly the same as that of sons.

The one distinction with regard to daughters, between where there are also sons and where there are only daughters is that - in the former case, the daughters are sustained from the property as is written in their mother's Kesubah, whereas in the latter case, they divide the property equally and each one is sustained from her own portion, as we explained.