Bava Batra 108
כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא חַיָּה קוֹפֶצֶת. וְלַעֲבֵיד חָרִיץ – וְלָא לַעֲבֵיד בֶּן חָרִיץ! אַיְּידֵי דְּרָוַוח, קָיְימָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ וְקָפְצָה. וְלַעֲבֵיד בֶּן חָרִיץ – וְלָא לַעֲבֵיד חָרִיץ! אַיְּידֵי דְּקַטִּין, קָיְימָא אַשִּׂפְתֵּיהּ וְקָפְצָה. וְכַמָּה בֵּין חָרִיץ לְבֶן חָרִיץ? טֶפַח.
so that an animal will not jump over the fence, enter the field, and cause damage. The Gemara asks: Let him make only a larger ditch and not make a smaller ditch. The Gemara replies: Since the ditch is wide, the animal can stand inside it and jump from there over the fence. The Gemara asks: If so, then let him make only a smaller ditch and not make a larger ditch? Since the ditch is small, the animal stands on its edge and jumps over the fence. The baraita explains the matter further: And how much space is there between the larger ditch and the smaller ditch? One handbreadth.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ בֵּית כּוֹר
יֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין, וְיֵשׁ נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין; מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין; לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין.
MISHNA: There are family members who both inherit from and bequeath to each other upon their respective deaths; and there are those who inherit from certain relatives but do not bequeath to them; and there are those who bequeath to certain relatives but do not inherit from them; and there are those who, despite being relatives, do not inherit from nor bequeath to one another.
וְאֵלּוּ נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין: הָאָב אֶת הַבָּנִים, וְהַבָּנִים אֶת הָאָב, וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאָב – נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין. הָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ, וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבְנֵי אֲחָיוֹת – נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין. הָאִשָּׁה אֶת בָּנֶיהָ, וְהָאִשָּׁה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ, וַאֲחֵי הָאֵם – מַנְחִילִין וְלֹא נוֹחֲלִין. וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאֵם – לֹא נוֹחֲלִין וְלֹא מַנְחִילִין.
The mishna lists those referred to above. And these both inherit and bequeath: A father with regard to his sons, and sons with regard to their father, and paternal brothers; all inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. A man with regard to his mother, and a man with regard to his wife, and sons of sisters, i.e., nephews born to the sisters of the deceased, all inherit from their respective relatives but do not bequeath to them. A woman with regard to her sons, and a woman with regard to her husband, and maternal uncles, all bequeath to their respective relatives but do not inherit from them. And maternal brothers, despite being blood relatives, do not inherit from each other nor do they bequeath to one another, as they are not considered relatives for the purpose of inheritance.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא דְּקָתָנֵי ״הָאָב אֶת הַבָּנִים״ בְּרֵישָׁא? לִיתְנֵי ״הַבָּנִים אֶת הָאָב״ בְּרֵישָׁא – חֲדָא, דְּאַתְחוֹלֵי בְּפוּרְעֲנוּתָא לָא מַתְחֲלִינַן;
GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying the order of the list in the mishna. What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that the mishna teaches: A father with regard to his sons, as the first example? Let it teach: Sons with regard to their father, as the first example. The Gemara explains why this would be preferable: One reason is that we do not want to begin with a calamity, as the death of a son during his father’s lifetime is a calamity; therefore, it would have been appropriate to begin with the example of sons inheriting from their father.
וְעוֹד, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ״ –
And furthermore, the verse first states that a son inherits from his father, as it is written in the portion concerning inheritance: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8).
וְתַנָּא, אַיְּידֵי דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ!
The Gemara answers: And as for the tanna of the mishna who listed the father inheriting first, since the halakha that a father inherits from his son is learned through a derivation and is not explicitly mentioned in the verse, this halakha is dear to him; therefore, he listed it first.
וּמַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֶם לָאַחִין. יָכוֹל יְהֵא קוֹדֶם לַבֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם.
And what is the derivation? As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “And if his father has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it” (Numbers 27:11): “His kinsman”; this is referring to the father, and the Torah teaches that the father precedes the brothers of the deceased in inheriting from him. One might have thought that the father of the deceased should precede the son of the deceased in inheriting from him; the verse therefore states: “Next [hakkarov] to him,” teaching that the closer [karov] one is to the deceased, the earlier one is in the order of inheritance, and a son of the deceased is considered to be a closer relative to the deceased than the father of the deceased.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן, וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַבֵּן – שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִדָה וְלִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include the son as the closer relative than the father and to exclude the brother? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, which a brother cannot do. And similarly, he stands in place of his father with regard to an ancestral field. If a son redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself redeemed it and the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. By contrast, if the brother of the one who consecrated it redeems the field, it does not return to the family (see Leviticus 27:16–21).
אַדְּרַבָּה! מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִבּוּם! כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם – אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן, הָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּן – אֵין יִבּוּם.
The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother as the closer relative, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage, and a son does not. The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim, as is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? In a case where there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son stands in place of the deceased before a brother even with regard to levirate marriage.
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא הַאי פִּירְכָא, הָא לָאו הָכִי – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אָח עֲדִיף? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ
The Gemara comments: The reason that a son is considered to be a closer relative than a brother is specifically due to this refutation, that where there is a son there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that without this refutation I would say that a brother is superior to a son in terms of how close a relative he is. The Gemara therefore asks: Why not derive that a son is closer to the deceased than a brother
