Question: What is the source that a daughter exempts from Yibum?

Suggestion: We learn from "u'Ven Ein Lo" - Ayen (investigate) him [to see whether the Mes left seed].

Rejection: We need this to include a Mamzer, like it says in Yevamos (22b)!

Answer: (Indeed, we learn from "u'Ven Ein Lo.") These (to learn about a daughter or Mamzer) are equal, so we learn both of them.

Implied question: In Yevamos (70a), regarding "v'Zera Ein Lo" written about a Bas Kohen who married [and was widowed from] a Yisrael, it connotes that we do not expound two laws from it!

Citation (70a): I would know only that her seed (from him stops her from returning to eat Terumah of her father's house). What is the source for seed of her seed (grandchildren)? It says "v'Zera Ein Lo" - in any case. I would know only that Kosher seed (stops her from returning). What is the source for Pasul seed? It says "v'Zera Ein Lo" - in any case.

The Gemara asks that we already expounded the verse for grandchildren (i.e. we cannot expound two laws from it)!

Answer #1: This is because we include there Pasul seed, i.e. Pasul grandchildren. If it were Pasul children, we already know [that she is disqualified to Terumah] because she had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her;

Therefore, we ask properly. If we need the verse for Kosher grandchildren, how can we then learn also Pasul grandchildren?

Answer #2: We include a daughter that she exempts from Yibum from "Lo Yimcheh", to exclude one whose name is wiped out. We expound like this in Yevamos (24a);

However, a Mamzer needs an inclusion, for through Pasul children, still his name is wiped out.

Question: A Beraisa in Kidushin (17b) says that an Eved Ivri serves the son (after his master dies), but he does not serve the daughter;

What is the reason? Since regarding Yibum a son and daughter are equal, also regarding Eved Ivri [they should be equal], like we say here regarding inheritance!

Suggestion: We learn from "v'Avadcha Shesh Shanim." This connotes [that he serves] you, and not an heir.

Rejection: We should exclude from this only a brother!

Answer (Ri): We expound "v'Avadcha" - for you, and not for anyone other than the son. Also a daughter is like considered someone else regarding a son, similar to inheritance, in which a son comes before a daughter.

Support: We say like this in Erchin (25b) regarding a Sedei Achuzah, that a daughter cannot establish a Sedei Achuzah of her father (if he was Makdish it and she redeems it, it is given to Kohanim in Yovel);

This is because just like regarding inheritance a daughter is considered like someone else regarding a son, also regarding a Sedei Achuzah she is like someone else.

Explanation (Rivam): This is because it did not write "u'Nesatem" regarding a daughter, like it wrote regarding all [other heirs]. "Ha'avartem" connotes an expression of transfer. She transfers inheritance from a place proper to inherit according to letter of the law, to a place that is not proper;

Now the Gemara discusses who is close, that it would have been proper to put him before the daughter. We establish this to discuss the father, since the Mes came from his body and no one is more proper to inherit him;

It would be logical to establish him [to be the heir], even if he was not written explicitly, only [inferred] through the brothers of the father (they inherit only due to him). Automatically, v'Ha'avartem applies to him, to expound and fix a place for him [in the order of inheritance].

Implied question: Had it not written "v'Ha'avartem", I would not even say that the father is closer than the brother, for [the father] is not in place of his son for anything!

Answer: However, now that it wrote "v'Ha'avartem" regarding a daughter, this implies that we transfer inheritance from a place that would have been proper, we establish it to discuss the father.

Explanation: Since it says v'Ha'avartem only once, we should do only one transfer, and not two. From here and onwards, the closest relative has precedence;

Now that it wrote v'Ha'avartem, this connotes that it was proper to put the father before the daughter. All the more so it is proper to put [the father] before the brother, for the daughter is closer than the brother, for she came from the Mes' body. Also, there is no Yibum when there is a daughter.

Therefore, we transfer inheritance from the father only when there is a daughter, since transfer is written regarding the daughter, and not regarding brothers.

Explanation: Now it connotes to you that v'Ha'avartem comes to fix a place for the father. I will expound it so that he will come even before the daughter!

Implied question: We could have said that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance from the brothers, and you do not transfer inheritance from the brothers when there is a father, and say that the brother comes before the father!

Answer: The Gemara asks according to how the Beraisa connotes, that the father is more important than all of them.

Explanation #1: You cannot expound that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance from the brothers, for this is not transfer, for the daughter is closer than the brother, for she came from the Mes' body, and regarding Yibum [she is closer], so it should not have written v'Ha'avartem;

Rather, you are forced to expound that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance [from the father...]

Question: Now it connotes that "transfer" does not apply from the brothers to the daughter, for it is obvious that she is closer than the brothers, but from the father to the daughter, it is fine, for transfer applies;

In our entire Sugya, we are unsure whether or not the father is closer than the brother!

Explanation #2 (Rashba): If so (you do not transfer inheritance from the father to the daughter), the Torah should not have said "v'Ha'avartem";

I.e. if it comes to teach only that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance from the brothers, but not from the father, if so it should not have said "v'Ha'avartem", rather, 'u'Nsatem', and we would know that a daughter does not inherit in place of the father;

We would expound from the extra words "u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso l'Vito" that you transfer inheritance only from the brothers when there is a daughter, but not from the father, for we do not need for the law itself, for we learn from "v'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah" that a daughter inherits;

Automatically I would know that she precedes the brother, for she is closer, for she perpetuates the name [of her father], and a brother does not perpetuate the name, rather, he must do Yibum.

Suggestion: Perhaps ["u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso l'Vito"] teaches that a son comes before a daughter.

Rejection: We learn this below from "v'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Vneichem"!

Conclusion: Since it wrote v'Ha'avartem, it comes to teach that when there is a daughter, you transfer inheritance from the father.