This is a difficult Halachic question about which a lot can be written, bs'd.

To start off with, I will cite quickly a source that suggests that one could argue that the mother would inherit in our scenario.

This is from Tosfos above 114b DH Af, on the last line of the page, where he cites Rabeinu Tam and RI that a Giores inherits her son, because otherwise the possessions of her son would become Hefker, since anyone could take them.

There seems to be a source from Tosfos that there are cases when the mother can inherit the son if there is no-one else This seems quite similar to our scenario.

Tosfos is cited by Pischei Teshuva, on the page of the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 104:14. It appears that the Halacha follows Tosfos.

These are the words of Rabeinu Yerucham:-

1) There is a very important statement in one of the Rishonim; Rabeinu Yerucham. This is in "Netiv 25"

of Sefer Meisharim, near the beginning of Netiv 25. He writes:-

ðåçìéï åìà îðçéìéï äáï àú äàí. "Nochlin veLo Manchilin HaBen Es HaEim". "An example of one who inherits but does not bequeath is the son towards his mother" [this is a paraphrase of the Mishnah 108a äàéù àú àîå "HaIsh Es Imo"; "a man inherits his mother but does not bequeath to her"]. So far there is nothing new here but then Rabeinu Yerucham writes:-

åëì æä áæîï ùéù ÷øåáéí îï äàá àáì àéï ìå ÷øåáéí îï äàá ìôòîéí úéøù àåúå àîå áú"øà åáø"ùáí "VeKol Zeh BiZman She-Yesh Krovim Min HaAv Aval Ein Lo Krovim Min HaAv Lifeamim Tirash Oso Imo Basra Rashbam"; "All this applies only if there are relatives from the side of the father but if there are no relatives from the side of the father sometimes his mother will inerit him Basra and in Rashbam".

The words "if there are no relatives from the side of the father sometimes his mother will inherit him" seems to answer our question. [however I do not know why Rabeinu Yerucham writes that this only applies "sometimes"]

2) I want to try and suggest that we can understand Rabeinu Yerucham better with the help of the Talmud Yerushalmi, very near the end of Maseches Shvi'is, which states:-

îé ùîú ñåó îùôçúå åàéï ìå éåøù àìà àîå ìà éçæéø åàí äçæéø øåç çëîéí ðåçä ðåçä äéîðå "Mi She-Meis Sof Mishpachto veEin Lo Yoresh Ella Imo Lo Yachzir veIm Hichzir veIm Hichzir Ruach Chachomim Noch HeiMenu".

The literal translation is "If the last of a person's family died and he possesses no heirs other than his mother, a debtor [of the son] is not obliged to return the debt to the mother, but if he does return to the mother, the spirit of the Sages is happy with what he did".

Pnei Moshe explains that the last of the father's family has died so the son has no heirs apart from his mother; who does not inherit her son. The debtor of the son is not obliged to return the loan to the mother but it is praiseworthy if he does.

I found in the Perush "Emunas Yosef" on the above Yerushalmi (this is near bottom of page 174b of his edition of the Yerushalmi) that he explains that the reason that the mother does not inherit her son is because there are other relatives from the side of the father who take precedence to her. With a Ger it is possible that none of the family remains so the mother becomes in the place of other relatives.

We see from Emunas Yosef that it is only when there are relatives on the side of the father that the mother does not inherit. This seems to agree with Rabeinu Yerucham. However this matter still requires a lot of thought.

Dovid Bloom

Hear are more sources that the family of the mother is considered the son's family if there is no family of the father:-

1) Rashbam 108a on the Mishnah DH HaIsh Nocheil writes that the son does not bequeath to his mother because the close relatives of the father inherit the son. Dvar Yaakov writes that it seems from Rashbam that because there are relatives on the father's side, the family of the mother does not inherit him. This implies that in a scenario where there is no family of the father, the family of the mother do receive. A Talmid Chacham pointed out to me that the crucial word in Rashbam is ùäøé; because. Rashbam is telling us that the reason the mother does not inherit is "because" the father's relatives inherit. This implies that if there are no relatives on the father's side the mother does inherit. We can explain the next words in Rashbam; "the family of the mother is not called family"; to mean that when the family of the father exists, the mother's family is not called family, but if there is no father's family then we can describe the mother's family as family.

2) Dvar Yaakov also cites Rashi Yevamos 54b DH Mah LeHalan. The discussion in the Gemara there concerns the Mitzvah in the Torah (Vayikra 25:48-49) that if someone is sold as a slave to s Ger Toshav, one should redeem him. Rashi writes that this Mitzvah is more incumbent on the relatives from the father's side than those from the mother's side. Rashash writes that it appears from Rashi that if there are no relatives on the side of the father, then there is a Mitzvah incumbent on the relatives from the mother's side more than on the general public. Even though there is a Mitzvah on every Jew to redeem him, the mother's relatives nevertheless have more of a Mitzvah. Rashash writes that he does not know where Rashi got this from.

Dovid Bloom

The opinion of Rav Elchanan Wasserman zt'l hy'd:-

The above opinion is also stated by Rav Elchanan, in Kovetz Ha'aros on Yevamos 20:3, where he cites Gemara Bechoros 47a that if the father is a goy and the mother is a daughter of a Levi, the child is a Levi. Rav Elchanan asks on this Halacha from our Sugya, where we learn that the family of the mother is not considered as family?!

He answers that it is only when the family of the father exists, that we say that the mother's family is not family since the father's family overrides it, but if there is no family on the father's side we do follow the mother.

Meromei Sadeh, Terumas HaDeshen, Rema and R. Akiva Eiger in the name of Zakan Aharon :-

1) Before I conclude this topic, bs'd, I want to mention Meromei Sadeh Bava Basra 114b DH Sham Af (by the Netziv of Volozhin) who also cites Rashi Yevamos 54b that we saw above, who implies that if there are no relatives available on the side of the father, the relatives on the side of the mother have a Mitzvah to redeem (Geulah) a member of the family who was sold as a slave. Meromei Sadeh adds that the same thing will apply to inheriting; Yerushah; since Geulah and Yerushah depend on each other, as one sees from the verse in Bamidbar 5:8 "And if the man has no redeemer". The Hebrew word is "Goel" but it means "if the man has no heir". Meromei Sadeh writes that because redemption and inheritance are connected together, it follows that since Rashi Yevamos 54b writes that if there is no family on the father's side, the family on the mother's side have a Mitzvah to redeem the slave who is a close relation, it also follows that if there is no family on the father's side to inherit the deceased, the family on the mother's side will inherit him.

2) As we now close this issue, I must come clean and admit that I have rather stressed the opinions that there are scenarios where the mother does sometimes inherit her son. These are genuine opinions but there also many opinions who seem to hold that the side of the mother never receives. Possibly the leading opinion on this side is Terumas HaDeshen #352, cited by Rema on Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 276:4, who writes that even a "Shtuki" [see Mishnah Kidushin 69a that a Shtuki is someone who knows who his mother is, but does not know who his father is] who has no heirs on his father's side, is not inherited by his mother's side, but rather his properties are Hefker.

However, Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in the margin of Shulchan Aruch there, cites Teshuvas Zakan Aharon #190 (this was written by a leading Rabbi in Turkey in the first half of the 16th century). He cites Rabeinu Yerucham that we saw above, and the conclusion of Zakan Aharon is that if there are no heirs from the side of the father, the heirs from the side of the mother take precedence to Hefker.

Dovid Bloom