Why does the Torah need to add "ve'el B'nei Yisrael Tedaber Leimor"?
Sifri: To teach us that the Parshah of Nachalos applies (not just to that generation, but) to all generations. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 13;
What are the implications of the phrase "u'Bein Ein lo"?
Bava Basra, 110a: It implies that, where there a son, the son inherits. 1
As the B'nos Yz'lofchad predicted. See Torah Temimah, note 15, as to why the Torah does write specifically 'Ish ki Yamus ... u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'Beno'.
What are the implications of ?Ish ki Yamus u?Vein Ein lo, u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'Beno'?
Rashi (In Kesuvos, 52b: It implies that, if he had had a son, the son would take precedence over the daughter. 1
And this extends to all heirs ? such as a grandson taking precedence over a granddaughter. See Torah Temimah in Paaasuk 10, citing Bava Basra, 113b and note 28.
Why does the Torah not present Yerushas ha'Ben directly - 'Ish ki Yamus ... u'Nesatem es Nachalaso li'Beno'?
Torah Temimah: Because it is natural that a son inherits his father, as Chazal said 'B'ra Kar'a de'Avuhah' - 'A son is the leg (the extention) of his father', and is therefore self-understood. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: See answer #1, and because we already know it from from the distribution of Eretz Yisrael - where the Ba'ei ha'Aretz inherited from the Yotz'ei Egypt, and from numerous Pesukim which indicate it. 2
See Torah Temimah, note 15.
Oznayim la'Torah: See for example, Lech l'cha Bereishis, 15:4, Vayeira, Bereishis, 21:10 and B'har Vayikra, 25:46.
Why does the Torah write "u'Bein Ein lo", and not 've'Ein lo Ben'?
Bava Basra, 115a: To teach us that if the deceased had a son who died and left a son, a daughter or son?s daughter, that grandchild inherits in place of his - or her father. 1
See Torah Temimah, citing Bava Basra, 115a ? which actually learns it from ?Ein lo?, ?Ayin alav?(examine whether he has any grandchildren) - and note 16.
How do we know not to extrapolate (as the Chachmei ha'Umos do) from "u'Bein Ein lo" that if there is a son, then he and the daughter share equally?
Yerushalmi Bava Basra, 8:1: Because then we would have to extrapolate from "ve'Im Ein lo Bas" that, if there is a daughter, then she and the son share equally. 1
Which would make no sense, because that would mean that a son and a daughter are equal, in which case the Torah should have presented them together in one Pasuk.
What are the implications of the phrase "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito"?
Rashi: Refer to 27:7:3:2.
Bava Basra, 109a: It It is only when there is a daughter that one moves the inheritance away from the father, but if there are only brothers, the father takes precedence. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 19. See also Oznayim la'Torah on Pasuk 9, who, citing the Malbim, draws a distinction between the Lashon Ha'avarah mentioned in connection with the daughters (the B'nos Tz'lofchad) inheriting - in Pasuk 7 - and here, in connection with moving the inheritance from the uncles to the daughter.
What is the order of precedences regarding Nachalos?
Bava Basra, 115a: a. a son and then all his offspring; b. a daughter and all her offspring; c. a father ? who precedes all his offspring; d. a brother and all his offspring; e. a paternal uncle and all his offspring.
