## Bava Batra Daf 108b

###### Bava Batra 108b:1
[Bava Batra 108b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:1)

וְעוֹד, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ כִּי יָמוּת וּבֵן אֵין לוֹ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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).


###### Bava Batra 108b:2
[Bava Batra 108b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:2)

וְתַנָּא, אַיְּידֵי דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרָשָׁא – חֲבִיבָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 108b:3
[Bava Batra 108b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:3)

וּמַאי דְּרָשָׁא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״שְׁאֵרוֹ״ – זֶה הָאָב; מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָאָב קוֹדֶם לָאַחִין. יָכוֹל יְהֵא קוֹדֶם לַבֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּרוֹב״ – קָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 108b:4
[Bava Batra 108b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:4)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן, וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַבֵּן – שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִדָה וְלִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Bava Batra 108b:5
[Bava Batra 108b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:5)

אַדְּרַבָּה! מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח, שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִבּוּם! כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם – אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן, הָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּן – אֵין יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 108b:6
[Bava Batra 108b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/108b:6)

טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא הַאי פִּירְכָא, הָא לָאו הָכִי – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אָח עֲדִיף? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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