1)

(a)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that "She'ero" comes to give the deceased's father precedence ...

1. ... over his daughter (but not over his son from "ha'Karov")?

2. ... over his father's brother?

(b)If not for the proof that a daughter is on the same level as a son, where would we have placed her on the list of precedents?

(c)So what do we finally learn from "She'ero"?

(d)Why would we have thought otherwise?

1)

(a)We refute the suggestion that "She'ero" comes to give the deceased's father precedence ...

1. ... over his daughter (but not over his son from "ha'Karov") because seeing that a daughter is equivalent to a son regarding absolving her mother from Yibum, she is also equivalent to a son regarding Yerushah.

2. ... over his father's brother because it is obvious that a father takes precedence over his own brother, who, to begin with, only inherits his nephew through him.

(b)If not for the proof that a daughter is on the same level as a son, we would have placed her after both her father and brother.

(c)We finally learn from "She'ero" that a father takes precedence over a brother ...

(d)... in despite of the three advantages that the latter has over the former, as we discussed earlier in the Sugya.

2)

(a)According to our current explanation, the Pesukim are written in the wrong order. How is that?

(b)On what authority are we able to Darshen the Pesukim in the wrong order?

(c)In that case, why does the Torah need to list all the heirs? Why can it not rely on the Pasuk "ha'Karov" which indicates the correct order of the majority of them?

2)

(a)According to our current explanation, the Pesukim are written in the wrong order because "She'ero" (denoting a father), is written only after a father's brother, even though the latter is derived from the former.

(b)We are able to Darshen the Pesukim in the wrong order due to the Derashah "ha'Karov" 'Karov Kodem', which instructs us to place the heirs in the correct order, in spite of their having been written in the wrong one.

(c)The Torah nevertheless needs to list all the heirs (and does not rely on the Pasuk "ha'Karov" which indicates the correct order of the majority of them) because we learn various side D'rashos from the Torah's choice of words (as we shall see later in the Sugya).

3)

(a)In the Pasuk "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito", how does Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi in a Beraisa, interpret the implication of the word "ve'Ha'avartem"?

(b)What does it come to preclude? What does he now learn from here (rather than from "She'ero"?

(c)On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that a daughter takes precedence over the deceased's brothers but over his father?

(d)Based on the fact that, according to this Tana, "She'ero" does not refer to the deceased's father, how does the order of inheritance differ from that of the previous Tana?

3)

(a)In the Pasuk "ve'Ha'avartem es Nachalaso le'Bito", Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi in a Beraisa, interprets the word "ve'Ha'avartem" to imply that we take the inheritance away from the deceased's father, who ought to inherit when there is no son, and give precedence to his daughter ...

(b)... to preclude the deceased's brothers, who do not take precedence over their father. In any event, he now learns from here (rather than from "She'ero") that a father inherits.

(c)We refute the suggestion that a daughter takes precedence over the deceased's brothers but over his father since the Torah would not then need to insert the word "ve'Ha'avartem", since it explicitly writes "ve'Im Ein lo Bas, u'Nesatem es Nachalaso le'Achiv".

(d)Based on the fact that, according to this Tana, "She'ero" does not refer to the deceased's father, his overview of the order of heirs differs radically with that of the previous Tana in that according to him, the Pesukim are written in the right order (sons, daughters, father, brothers and father's brothers), as opposed to the previous Tana, as we explained earlier.

109b----------------------------------------109b

4)

(a)What does Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi learn from "She'ero"?

(b)What is the basic translation of "She'ero", according to him?

(c)The first Tana, on the other hand, explains "ve'Ha'avartem" like Rebbi. What does Rebbi learn from the fact that by all other relatives, the Torah writes "u'Nesatem", and by Bas, "ve'Ha'avartem"?

4)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi learns from "She'ero" that a husband inherits his wife.

(b)The basic translation of "She'ero", according to him is 'flesh'.

(c)The first Tana, on the other hand, explains "ve'Ha'avartem" like Rebbi, who learns from the fact that by all other relatives, the Torah writes "u'Nesatem", and by Bas, "ve'Ha'avartem" that a man's daughter (in the event that she inherits him) moves his inheritance from his tribe to another tribe, via either her husband or her son, should either of these later inherit her.

5)

(a)According to the first Tana, what do we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "She'er Avicha Hi"?

(b)And in view of the Pasuk there "Ki She'er Imcha Hi", what does Rava learn from...

1. ... the word mi'Mishpachto (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "mi'mi'Mishpachto, ve'Yarash Osah")?

2. ... the Pasuk in Bamidbar "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam"?

5)

(a)According to the first Tana, we learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "She'er Avicha Hi" that "She'er" in the Parshah of Yerushah too, refers to the deceased's father.

(b)In view of the Pasuk "Ki She'er Imcha Hi", Rava learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... the word mi'Mishpachto (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "mi'mi'Mishpachto, ve'Yarash Osah") that it cannot refer to the deceased's mother, because of ...

2. ... the Pasuk "le'Mishpechosam le'Veis Avosam" which teaches us the principle 'Mishpachas Av Keruyah Mashpachah (but not Mishpachas Eim)'.

6)

(a)We query this last Derashah from the Pasuk in Seifer Shoftim, which writes (in connection with Pesel [the image of] Michah) "Vayehi Na'ar ... mi'Mishpachas Yehudah, ve'Hu Levi". How do we initially attempt to resolve the discrepancy between "Beis-Lechem Yehudah and "ve'Hu Levi"?

(b)What is the problem with that?

(c)How does Rava bar Rav Chanan therefore explain "ve'Hu Levi", thereby resolving the problem?

(d)If he was not even a Levi maternally, how will we explain the boast of his 'employer', who proudly exclaimed that Hash-m had done him a good turn by providing him with a Levi as a Kohen?

6)

(a)We query this last Derashah from the Pasuk, which writes (in connection with Pesel [the image of] Michah) "Vayehi Na'ar ... mi'Mishpachas Yehudah, ve'Hu Levi" which we initially interpret to mean that his father was from Yehudah, and his mother from Levi.

(b)The problem with that is that it implies that 'Mishpachas Eim Keruyah Mishpachah', which clashes with Rava's previous statement.

(c)Rava bar Rav Chanan resolves the problem by explaining "ve'Hu Levi" to mean (not that he descended from the tribe of Levi, but) that his name was Levi.

(d)Despite the fact that he was not even a Levi maternally, his 'employer' boasted that Hash-m had done him a good turn by providing him with a Levi as a Kohen because his name alone was a sure sign that Hash-m was on his side.

7)

(a)The Sugya concludes that he was a hundred per cent Levi. What was the man's real name?

(b)Why is the 'Nun' in Menasheh 'hanging'?

(c)Then why does the Navi write ...

1. ... "ben Menasheh"?

2. ... "mi'Mishpachas Yehudah"?

7)

(a)The Sugya concludes however that he was a hundred per cent Levi. His real name was Yonasan ben Gershom ben Menasheh.

(b)The 'Nun' in Menasheh is 'hanging' because it is only there as a hint, as we shall now see), since his grandfather's real name was Moshe (Rabeinu).

(c)An the reason that the Navi writes ...

1. ... "ben Menasheh" is because he behaved like King Menasheh, who (later in history) would be guilty of spreading idolatry more than any other king.

2. ... "mi'Mishpachas Yehudah" is because King Menasheh came from the tribe of Yehudah.

8)

(a)What principle does Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learn from the previous two statements?

(b)How Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learn it from the Pasuk in Melachim (with regard to Adoniyah, son of David) "ve'Gam Hu Tov To'ar Me'od, ve'Oso Yaldah Achar Avshalom"?

(c)What is otherwise strange about this Pasuk?

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns from the previous two statements that one 'hangs' the evil deeds of someone who is not so well-known on those of someone who is already infamous.

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina learns it from the Pasuk (with regard to Adoniyah, son of David) "ve'Gam Hu Tov To'ar Me'od, ve'Oso Yaldah Achar Avshalom" which is clearly coming to compare Adoniyah to his infamous half-brother Avshalom, the ultimate rebel (who gave Adoniyahu his cue to rebel against his own father King David).

(c)This Pasuk would otherwise appear strange, since Adoniyah's mother was Chagis, whereas the mother of Avshalom's was Ma'achah.

9)

(a)What did Moshe's marriage have to do with Yonasan becoming an idolater?

(b)What does Rebbi Elazar say about the contrast between Yonasan ben Gershom and Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon ha'Kohen?

(c)We query this however, from the Pasuk "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Lakach lo mi'Benos Putiel lo le'Ishah". How do we initially interpret "mi'Benos Puti'el"? How does this clash with what Rebbi Elazar just said?

(d)How do we attempt to resolve this? To whom else might "mi'Benos Putiel" refer?

(e)We conclude however, that Pinchas descended from Yisro too. What did the tribes say about Pinchas that proves this to have been the case?

9)

(a)Moshe's marriage to the daughter of Yisro, who all his life, had been an idolater (in spite of the fact that he became a Ba'al-Teshuvah) resulted in Moshe's grandson Yonasan becoming an idolater.

(b)See, in contrast, how Aharon, who married the daughter of the Tzadik Aminadav (Nachshon's father), had a grandson called Pinchas, which prompted Rebbi Elazar to stress the importance of marrying into a good family.

(c)We query this however, from the Pasuk "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Lakach lo mi'Benos Putiel lo le'Ishah" which we initially interpret to mean from the daughters of Yisro, who fattened calves for idolatry ('*she'Pitem Agalim* la'Avodah-Zarah').

(d)We attempt to resolve this by interpreting "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean 'mi'Benos Yosef (she'Pitpet be'Yitzro [who struggled with his Yeitzer-ha'Ra], and not "mi'Benos Yisro ... ').

(e)We conclude however, that Pinchas descended from Yisro too by citing the tradition that the tribes accused Pinchas of being the son of this 'ben Puti', whose maternal grandfather fattened calves for idolatry.

10)

(a)So how do we finally explain "mi'Benos Putiel"? From whom did Pinchas descend on his mother's side?

(b)How does this vindicate Rebbi Elazar's statement about choosing the family into which one marries?

(c)How do we know that the wife of Elazar was not actually the daughter of Yisro?

(d)How do we prove this interpretation of "mi'Benos Putiel" from the actual words themselves?

10)

(a)We finally explain "mi'Benos Putiel" to mean that in fact, he descended from both Yosef and Yisro, because one of mother's parents was a descendant of one, and the other, of the other (though we do not know which is which [see previous statement]).

(b)This vindicates Rebbi Elazar's statement about choosing the family into which one marries inasmuch as Pinchas was further removed than Yonasan was (perhaps the third of fourth generation) from Yisro (see also Agados Maharsha).

(c)Elazar's wife could not have actually been the daughter of Yisro because then how would the connection with the tribe of Yosef have fitted in.

(d)We prove this interpretation of "mi'Benos Putiel" from the actual words themselves either from the extra 'Yud' in Putiel (which comes to add something), or from the word "mi'Benos", which implies duality, the daughter of 'Pitput' (Yosef) and the daughter of 'Pitum' (Yisro).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF