Observation: In some places he explains first the last matter mentioned, and in some places [he explains first] the first matter mentioned. In Nedarim (2b) it explains this.

Question: Ha'Av Es ha'Banim is the same as ha'Banim Es ha'Av! (Why did the Mishnah need to teach both?) If the father inherits his son, [by definition] his son bequeaths to him! And if [the father] bequeaths to his son, his son inherits him!

Answer (Ri): The extra clause enables us to infer "sons", but not daughters.

Question: Why do we need to infer this? It is explicitly taught below (in the Mishnah 115a, that daughters do not inherit when there are sons)!

Answer: Even so, the Tana taught it here in passing [through inference], and taught it also below to list the order of inheritance.

Support: The Gemara says "what is the source for ha'Banim Es ha'Av"? It says "u'Ven Ein Lo." This implies that if he has a son, the son precedes the daughter;

Inference: [This clause of] the Mishnah is needed to put the son before the daughter;

However, from the Reisha, which taught ha'Av Es ha'Banim, we cannot infer so, that the father bequeaths to sons, but not daughters, for it is not extra.

Question: It taught "sons of sisters", and the Gemara infers "but not daughters of sisters", even though this is not extra, and due to this [R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon] needed to say "I do not know who taught this Mishnah (I cannot explain it)"!

He should say that "sons" is not precise, and the same applies to daughters, and the Mishnah is like R. Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav (who says that daughters inherit the mother together with sons)!

Implied question: (How can he say so?) A Beraisa in the Gemara teaches "sons of sisters, but not daughters of sisters"!

Answer: He can say that the Beraisa argues with our Mishnah, and he knows who taught [our Mishnah, i.e. R. Zecharyah]!

Answer #1 (Ri): He knows that the Beraisa was taught regarding the Mishnah. Therefore, he infers from it.

Answer #2 (Ri): Since Banim Es ha'Av is extra to infer sons, but not daughters, we should say that every "Banim" in our Mishnah is precise, and not daughters, to [teach that sons] come first.

Question (Ri): Why doesn't it teach "brothers of the father inherit and bequeath"? Also these are written in the Parshah!

Answer (Ri): It is because brothers of the father, and all paternal kinship, we learn from "ha'Av Es ha'Banim veha'Banim Es ha'Av, and paternal brothers." Since it is known that sons are first, and after sons is the father, and after the father are brothers, we learn brothers of the father from this general rule through Mishmush (inheritance after death);

If the father's father were alive, he would inherit. Now that he is not alive, he inherits in the grave to bequeath to his son, who is the Mes' uncle.

We learn Mishmush from what is taught below in the Mishnah, sons of the sister. She bequeaths in the grave her brother's property to her son.

Question: If so, also paternal brothers should not be taught, for we learn this from "ha'Av Es ha'Banim" through Mishmush of inheritance. The father inherits his son to bequeath to his other living sons, who are the Mes' brothers!

Answer: Since it needs to teach that maternal brothers do not inherit or bequeath [to each other], it mentions [paternal brothers] Agav (along with them).

Implied question: Why did it need to teach [maternal brothers]? It taught that a woman does not inherit her son!

Answer: One might have thought that granted, he does not inherit his maternal brother due to his mother, but one might have thought that he inherits due to "u'Nesatem Es Nachalaso l'Echav" - we do not distinguish whether they are paternal or maternal brothers.

Question: In any case, it was not needed to teach [maternal brothers], for we learn from the Reisha, which teaches specifically paternal brothers, and not maternal brothers!

Answer: It needed to teach them. One might have thought that it taught paternal brothers for a bigger Chidush. Even though they are not so Vadai, like maternal brothers (they inherit).

Question: If so, it should teach also brothers of the father, Agav brothers of the mother, which the Seifa teaches!

Answer #1: Had it taught brothers of the father, then there would be no need to teach brothers of the mother, for we learn this from brothers of the father!

Answer #2: It is not appropriate to teach Agav brothers of the mother, since that itself is not needed, like we derive in the Gemara, for it is the same as sons of the sister. (Since sons of the sister inherit but do not bequeath, automatically brothers of the mother bequeath but do not inherit.)

Explanation #1 (Rivam): One might have thought that the father has precedence over the son, but not over the brother, like we conclude afterwards, that just the contrary, I should include the brother, for he stands in place of his brother for Yibum!

Suggestion: Perhaps he asks now that the father should have precedence [over the brother, and] even over the son!

Rejection: It is obvious to this Tana that we put him before only one of them, either the brother or the son, but not to both of them;

Source: Had the Torah not written She'ero, we would not have given [the father] precedence even to one of them, for a father does not stand in place of his son for anything;

Therefore, now that it says She'ero, it suffices to put [the father] before one of them. Regarding this [the Tana] deliberates which is closer, a brother or son, and we put the father before the more distant of them.

Rejection: This is wrong. Since there is reason to put [the father] before only one of them, why do we need the Drashah "ha'Karov Elav", to teach that the closest relative has precedence?

From reasoning, I know to put [the father] before the brother, more than before the son, like we conclude, that Yibum applies only when there is no son!

Explanation #2: Now we suggest that [the father] should be even before the son. Since it says She'ero to give to him precedence, we should give him precedence to everyone in the Parshah;

It says "ha'Karov Elav", to teach that the closest relative has precedence.

[We ask] why do you establish "ha'Karov" to discuss the son, and She'ero gives [the father] precedence to the brother? I could say oppositely!

Question: If so, a son, daughter and brother will never inherit if the father precedes the son, for the father [of the Mes] inherits him in the grave (i.e. if the father already died);

If the father of the Mes comes before the son, daughter and brother, after him the Mes' father's father comes first, for inheritance progresses and goes until Reuven (ben Yakov Avinu), like we derive below (115b)!

Answer #1: We can establish the verse that a son, daughter and brother inherit to discuss the son of a convert, or [establish it to discuss] the grandson of a convert, in order to fulfill that the brothers of his father inherit him.

Answer #2: When there is a son, daughter or brother, we do not say that inheritance progresses and goes, since below (109b) we expound from a verse that only a daughter transfers inheritance from Shevet to Shevet, since her son or husband inherits her;

If so [inheritance always progresses and goes back to successive fathers], all inheritances transfer from Shevet to Shevet, since inheritance progresses and goes until Yakov Avinu, and he bequeaths to all of Yisrael, since fathers come before the son, daughter and brother! The Rashba gave this answer.

Question: Why did the Torah need to write the father's brothers? We should know this from "Ein Lo" - Ayen (investigate) him. We expound from this below (115a) that inheritance progresses and goes!

Answer (Rivam): It wrote it to teach that the verses are written out of order;

Had it not written the brothers of the father, one might have thought that the verses are written in order, and the Mes' brothers come before the father;

However, now that it wrote the brothers of the father, you are forced to say that She'eiro was written only to put [the father] before brothers. There is no need to teach that he is before the brothers of the father, like we say below (since they inherit only due to him, they cannot precede him)!

Question #1 (Ri): This is fine for the opinion that the verses are written out of order. However, according to the opinion that the verses are written in order, why did the Torah write the brothers of the father?

Question #2 (Rashba): Even according to the opinion that they are written out of order, it did not need to write the brothers of the father, for you are forced to say that She'eiro was written only to put the father before the brother. If not, why did the Torah write it?

Suggestion: It teaches that when there is no son or daughter, [the father] inherits.

Rejection: This is obvious! Who else would inherit him - should the mayor inherit him?!, like we say below (110b).

Suggestion: Had it not written the brothers of the father, one might have thought that we need She'eiro to teach that brothers come before the father;

Had it not written She'eiro, one might have thought that the father comes before the brothers!

Rejection #1: If we would say from reasoning that the father comes before the brothers, the Torah should not write the father, and not brothers of the father!

Rejection #2: In the entire Sugya, we struggle to find a verse from which we learn that the father comes before the brothers, for from reasoning, we should say that the brothers come first!

Answer (Ri): From "Ein Lo" we would not learn that inheritance progresses and goes above (to previous generations), only below, e.g. the son of the son, the daughter of the son, and the son of the daughter of the son.

Implied question: Below, it says about this that inheritance progresses and goes until Reuven. This is above!

Answer: [There] it relies on this verse of brothers of the father.

Question: Why did the Torah write brothers? Since inheritance progresses and goes until Reuven, the father inherits in the grave to bequeath to his remaining sons!

Answer: Had it not written brothers, one might have thought that the father comes before the daughter, for we should put the father before one of the [relatives] written.

Observation: We could have mentioned also for Eved Ivri (if the master died, he works for the son).

Suggestion: A son is no better than a brother regarding Yibum. Rather, they are equal regarding Yibum.

Rejection: If so, also a son is better than a brother [only] because he is in place of his father for Yi'ud and Sedei Achuzah;

You are forced to say that below, regarding a daughter, you cannot explain so, for we say that since regarding Yibum [a son and daughter] are the same, also regarding inheritance they should be the same.

Explanation: A daughter should be better than a brother, that a father will come before a brother, but not before a daughter. If a daughter is not better regarding Yibum, why is she better for inheritance?

Explanation: Rather, surely due to this reason, that Yibum applies only when there is no [son or] daughter, she is better than a brother, for she establishes a name [for the Mes], and a brother does not, rather, he must do Yibum.