Explanation #1: Sometimes [Amora'im] were not expert about verses. (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak did not know that both verses say "Yidbeku", and Rabah bar Rav Shilo did not know that both verses say "Ish".)

Support: We find in Bava Kama (55a) "why was "good" said in the second [version of the 10] Utterances [but not in the first? R. Chiya bar Aba] replied "before you ask me... I am not sure whether or not 'good' was said! Go to [ask] R. Tanchum..."

Note: Perhaps he was unsure whether or not the version in Parshas va'Eschanan corresponds to what was written on the second tablets. See Insights to the Daf.)

Question: However, here it is astounding. Since he asked that both verses say "Ish", this implies that he knew the verses. He should not have answered that it says "Yidbeku", since both verses say also "Yidbeku"!

Explanation #2: The Rashbam explained well, that also the first (Rabah bar Rav Shilo) knew that both verses say "Ish". He comes to answer the question "how [do the verses] connote so?", that both properly connote that they discuss diversion of the husband, since it says in them "Ish";

However, the Tana establishes "Ish" in the first verse for a different Drashah.

The one (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) who said 'the verse says "Yidbeku"' holds that "Ish" does not connote at all [diversion of the husband more than of the son], for he expounds from Yidbeku. He expounds Yidbeku in the first verse for a different Drashah.

Explanation #1 (Ri): Korchah is R. Akiva. He was bald, like it says in Bechoros (58a). Ben Azai said "all Chachamei Yisrael seem to me like a garlic peel (they are much smaller than me), except for this Kare'ach (R. Akiva)";

[R. Akiva] had a son named Yehoshua, like we say in Shevuos (6a) "R. Yehoshua the son of R. Akiva said to R. Akiva..."

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): Granted, Ben Azai said so (he called R. Akiva "Kare'ach") in a jesting way, but Heaven forbid that he would make a [nick]name for him based on his baldness, which is derogatory, like "Ale Kare'ach"!

Rebuttal #2: Also, in Shabbos (152a), a [Tzeduki] eunuch said [to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah] "how far is it from here to Korchina?" He said this to insult him, for he was Kare'ach (bald).

Rebuttal #3: We say in Megilah (28a) that Rebbi asked R. Yehoshua ben Karchah in what merit he lived so long... and requested a Brachah from him. R. Yehoshua blessed "you should live to half my years';

If Karchah is R. Akiva [this is difficult, for R. Akiva] did not marry Kalba Sabu'a's daughter until he accepted to learn, and then he was already 40, like a Beraisa says "40 years he engaged in business, 40 years he learned, and 40 years he taught, and all his years were 120;

Note: Tosfos did not explain his source that R. Akiva went to learn immediately after marrying. Shabbos 127b discusses one who worked for three years, and returned to his wife and children. The She'altos (Shmos 40) explains that this was R. Akiva!

Even if his son R. Yehoshua was born immediately after he married, still, he was only 80 when Rebbi was born, for it says in Kidushin (72b) that Rebbi was born before R. Akiva died;

R. Yehoshua was not less than 140 years old when he blessed Rebbi, for he would not bless him to live less than 70 years. Rebbi was [at least] 60 years old. What kind of Brachah is this, to live only another 10 years?

Also, presumably, [R. Yehoshua] was not born until R. Akiva returned from learning in his Rebbi's house after 24 years. If so, when R. Yehoshua was 140 years old, Rebbi was already 84 years old, more than half [R. Yehoshua's] years!

Rebuttal #3: Also, R. Nisim Gaon explained in a hidden scroll that he found in Bereishis Rabah that "except for this Kare'ach" is R. Eliezer ben Azaryah,

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Korchah is a name, like Korach.

Question: A son inherits what is Ra'uy [destined to come to] his mother's property, and a husband does not inherit [Ra'uy]. What is the source that a husband inherits before the son?

Answer: Since a husband does not inherit due to kinship, rather, due to She'erus, that [he and his wife] are considered like one body, if so, just like he has precedence over other relatives, he has precedence over the son, for what is the difference between [the son] and [other relatives]?

Implied question: We need [v'Yarash Osah], like it says above (111b, to teach that a man inherits his wife, but not vice-versa. It is not extra for a Hekesh!)

Answer: Here we expound only from the [prefix] Vov, like the Rashbam explained. (The Vov teaches that we learn the latter Parshah from the former.)

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): The first [inheritance] is a son and daughter, for this inheritance is written first.

Just like in that [inheritance], a son precedes a daughter, also in the second, brothers precede sisters to inherit the brother's property.

Rebuttal (Ri): The Gemara connotes unlike this. If so, we cannot learn from the second inheritance that sons of sisters come before daughters of sisters!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The second inheritance is the son of the son and the daughter of the son, the son of the daughter and the daughter of the daughter. The Hekesh applies to all these that are written in the verse. We expound these below (115a) from "Ein Lo" - investigate him.

Question: The Rashbam explained that sisters of the father come before sons of brothers of the father. Amidst his sharpness, he did not investigate this;

A Mishnah there teaches that whoever has precedence for inheritance, his descendants have precedence [over others].

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): [It is judgment] regarding this, that we need three to divide inheritance, just like judgment.

Question #1: If so, why does it bring Rav Yehudah? Rav Yehudah does not discuss division. Rather, he discusses a matter to which absolute judgment applies.

Question #2: He should have said "do you say division of inheritance? No, the law of inheritance."

Explanation #2 (Ri): The entire Parshah is considered to be judgment, regarding that Bal Korcho (against the will) of the sons, those standing there at the time of the command become judges, and they make a judgment;

This one cannot say "I do not want to be judged in front of you, rather, in front of the Great Beis Din, or the esteemed Beis Din in my city." Rather, Bal Korcho he accepts them for judges.

We do not discuss Matanas Shechiv Mera, for only mid'Rabanan his words are considered as if they were written and handed over;

Rather, we discuss when he gave an absolute gift, when he was healthy, from now if he will die.

Implied question: If so, why is it called inheritance?

Answer: It is like inheritance, for [we know that] he acquires only after death.

According to R. Yochanan ben Brokah, it is fine even without a Kinyan, for he said in our Mishnah (below, 130a) "if he said about one who is proper to inherit him, his words are fulfilled", i.e. mid'Oraisa.

Question: It says in Sanhedrin (94b) that R. Meir equates [financial] quarrels to Nega'im. Just like Tzara'as (Kohanim inspect only during the day), also quarrels are during the day;

Citation (94b): What does he learn from "b'Yom Hanchilu Es Banav"? He needs it to teach like Rabah bar Chanina taught [that we judge inheritance during the day].

Summation of question: If we discuss something to which absolute judgment applies, we learn from the Hekesh of quarrels to Nega'im! Why do we need ba'Yom Hanchilu?

Answer #1: According to the Rashbam, this is fine. We need it for a regular division. I would not require during the day, just like dividing a regular partnership.

Answer #2 (Ri): Also according to my Perush, it is needed. One might have thought that since it is unlike other judgments, which are Bal Korcho, one might have thought that we judge even at night.