Explanation (R. Tam): It says 14 because it says in Nidah (31a) that there are three partners in [the formation of] man - Hash-m, his father and mother, and Hash-m gives as many matters (10) as both of them (his father and mother combined).

Question #1: If so, this is not a Kal v'Chomer. According to letter of the law, [the detention for offending Hash-m] should be as much as both of them [together]!

Question #2 (Sifri Tosefta): All the more so, a king and a Kohen, 14!

Explanation: Moshe Rabbeinu was king and Kohen Gadol, for he served the seven days of the Milu'im (inauguration of the Mishkan).

(According to R. Tam, the Kal v'Chomer is based on contributions to a person's formation.) Regarding [an affront to] Moshe Rabbeinu, why does it say 14?

Poor answer: It is difficult to say that "king" refers to Hash-m, and "Kohen" refers to Moshe Rabbeinu.

Explanation #2 (R. Chaim Kohen): The Kal v'Chomer is [that detention] for [offending] the Shechinah] should be a little more than seven days. Once it more than seven, i.e. Hesger (quarantine of a Metzora), we establish it to be two Hesgeros. It connotes like this in Avos [d'R. Nasan 9].

Question: Is it worse than rags above (20a)? We establish it to discuss rags that are scratchy like sackcloth. Even so, the Shi'ur is three by three!

Answer: There, we establish it to be like sackcloth, only regarding that it is not proper for a bloodletter, to clean the blood. Here, it is too hard.

Question (Rashba): Why do we need to hear that a son comes before a daughter in the mother's property from the Hekesh of Matos? We already know this from "v'Yarash Osah"!

It says below that this equates the second inheritance to the first inheritance. Just like in the first inheritance, a son precedes a daughter, also in the second inheritance, a son precedes a daughter;

We learn from this below that sons of a sister precede daughters of a sister to inherit the property of the mother's brother.

Just like the first inheritance, i.e. in the father's property, a son precedes a daughter, also in the second inheritance, e.g. the son of the daughter is before the daughter of the daughter in the property of the mother's father.

Answer #1 (Rashba): A son in the mother's property, also this is the first inheritance that comes due to the mother;

If we did not learn from the Hekesh of Matos that a son precedes a daughter in the mother's property, how would we learn that he precedes in the property of the mother's father, which we know only due to the Hekesh of the first inheritance?

Therefore, here we need to learn first that a son precedes a daughter in the mother's property, which is the first inheritance that comes due to the mother, and then we learn from the Hekesh below, which equates the second inheritance to the first inheritance, both the second inheritance of the father, and the second inheritance of the mother.

Answer #2 (Ri): Even though we learn below that a son precedes a daughter in the mother's property, this is because he comes from the power of his mother's father. We do not learn from it that he is earlier in the mother's own property.

Rebuttal (Rashba): Through the power of his mother's father, he inherits only through Mishmush. [The property] fell to the mother, and he inherits his mother. We may infer that he is earlier in the mother's own property.)

Question: Since we learn from here that from the Hekesh of Matos that a son precedes the daughter in the mother's property, why do we need all these verses not to divert inheritance, which discuss diversion of the son, and the verse "Im Ein Lo Bas"?

It says below 'what is the source for the son of the daughter and the daughter of the daughter? It says "Im Ein Lo" - investigate him';

Inference: It comes to teach that a son inherits his mother [when she is in the grave]!

Partial answer: The verse "v'Im Ein Lo Bas" is greatly needed. [Without it] we would not know that the son of the daughter inherits at all through Mishmush.

And [without it,] what we expounded also from "v'Yarash Osah" to equate the second inheritance to the first, we would establish it only to the daughter of the son, and also "v'Lo Sisov" would be needed for a Lav of diversion of the son, and the second "v'Lo Sisov" would refer to diversion of the husband. (This Dibur connotes onto Amud B.)

And the one who expounds a husband from She'eiro, he would need [the second "v'Lo Sisov"] to teach that [one who transgresses this,] he transgresses two Lavim.

Question (Rashba): Why do we need to teach the Hekesh of Matos, since we learn from "v'Im Ein Lo Bas" and "Lo Sisov" that a son inherits his mother? We should know from a Kal v'Chomer that a son precedes a daughter!

Now, we would not say Dayo, since it uproots the Kal v'Chomer!

Answer #1: This is an argument in Bava Kama (25a). There is an opinion that says Dayo even when it uproots the Kal v'Chomer.

Answer #2: Even according to the opinion that does not say Dayo, we can say that the Torah toiled to write something we could have learned from a Kal v'Chomer.

Assertion: Even if we did not have the verses above ("b'Chol Asher Yimatzei Lo" and "Reishis Ono"), we could not ask that perhaps this is only for a bachelor who married a widow;

Since it says Mishpat ha'Bechorah, this connotes that the law of Bechorah applies only to a man, and the verse above comes for another Drashah.

Explanation: He infers so, since it did not say "v'Yarshah." Since it wrote Osah, this connotes an exclusion, that she does not inherit him.

Also, v'Yarash Osah is totally extra, for we learn both from She'eiro;

Since she inherits him, because she is She'eiro, also he inherits her, due to She'eiro.

Question: Why do we need an exclusion at all? Since the Torah was adamant about diversion of the husband, and not about diversion of the wife, this connotes that she does not inherit him!