Today's Daf Yomi
May 11, 2017 | ט״ו באייר תשע״ז
Bava Batra 110
Various lessons are derived from the Levi that Micha hired to work for him. Also it is explained that he repented in the time of King David, based on a verse from Chronicles. From where do we derive that a daughter only inherits in a case where there are no sons. Four different possibilities are brought and discussed.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
אלא אי אבוה דאמיה מיוסף אמה דאמיה מיתרו אי אבוה דאמיה מיתרו אמה דאמיה מיוסף דיקא נמי דכתיב מבנות פוטיאל תרתי שמע מינה
Rather, this is how the matter should be resolved: If his mother’s father came from the family of Joseph, his mother’s mother came from the family of Yitro, and if his mother’s father came from the family of Yitro, his mother’s mother came from the family of Joseph, so while his mother was descended from Joseph on one side and from Yitro on the other, Pinehas was a more distant relative to Yitro than Jonathan was. Based on this conclusion, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took one of the daughters of Putiel” (Exodus 6:25). Conclude from the wording of the verse that Pinehas was descended from two men who were referred to as Puti: Yitro and Joseph.
אמר רבא הנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה שנאמר ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון ממשמע שנאמר בת עמינדב איני יודע שאחות נחשון היא מה תלמוד לומר אחות נחשון מכאן שהנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה תנא רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם
Rava says: One who marries a woman needs to first examine her brothers so that he will know in advance what character his children will have, as it is stated: “And Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon” (Exodus 6:23). By inference from that which is stated: “The daughter of Amminadav,” do I not know that she is the sister of Nahshon, as Nahshon was the son of Amminadav? What is the meaning when the verse states: “The sister of Nahshon”? From here one learns that one who marries a woman needs to examine her brothers. The reason is as the Sages taught: Most sons resemble the mother’s brothers.
ויסורו שמה ויאמר מי הביאך הלם ומה אתה עושה בזה ומה לך פה אמרו לו לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה אל תקרב הלם לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה מה זה בידך לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה ואתה פה עמד עמדי תעשה כומר לעבודה זרה
In connection with the Gemara’s mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah’s house, the verse states: “And they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?” (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “Do not draw close to here [halom]” (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “What [ma] is that in your hand” (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “But as for you, stand here [po] with me” (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?
אמר להן כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא לעולם ישכיר אדם עצמו לעבודה זרה ואל יצטרך לבריות
Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.
והוא סבר לעבודה זרה ממש ולא היא אלא עבודה זרה עבודה שזרה לו כדאמר ליה רב לרב כהנא נטוש נבילתא בשוקא ושקול אגרא ולא תימא גברא רבא אנא וזילא בי מילתא
The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.
כיון שראה דוד שממון חביב עליו ביותר מינהו על האוצרות שנאמר ושבאל בן גרשם בן מנשה נגיד על האצרות וכי שבואל שמו והלא יהונתן שמו אמר רבי יוחנן ששב לאל בכל לבו:
The Gemara continues its discussion of that episode. Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: “And Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries” (I Chronicles 26:24). The Gemara asks: And was his name really Shebuel; but wasn’t his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God [shav la’el ] with all his heart.
והבנים את האב: מנלן דכתיב איש כי ימות וגו׳ טעמא דאין לו בן הא יש לו בן בן קודם אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אימא אי איכא בן לירות בן איכא בת תירות בת איכא בן ובת לא האי לירות ולא האי לירות
§ The mishna teaches in the list of those who inherit from and bequeath to each other: Sons with regard to their father. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha that sons inherit the entire estate and daughters do not receive a share along with them? As it is written: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The reason the inheritance would be passed to a daughter is that he has no son, but if he has a son, the son takes precedence. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say the following: If there is only a son, let the son inherit the father’s estate; if there is only a daughter, let the daughter inherit the father’s estate; and if there is both a son and a daughter, neither this one should inherit nor that one should inherit.
ואלא
Abaye asked Rav Pappa: And rather,
מאן כו׳ לירות אטו בר קשא דמתא לירות הכי קא אמינא איכא בן ובת לא האי לירות כוליה ולא האי לירות כוליה אלא כי הדדי לירתו
who then should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what I meant to say: If there is a son and a daughter, this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.
אמר ליה אביי ואצטריך קרא לאשמועינן היכא דלית ליה אלא חד ברא לירתינהו לכולהו נכסי ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דבת נמי בת ירושה היא ההוא מוכל בת ירשת נחלה נפקא
Abaye said to him: But is the verse necessary in order to teach us that when he has only one child, that child should inherit all of his property? If you say that the right of the son and daughter to the inheritance is equal, then the verse: “If a man dies, and has no son” (Numbers 27:8), which teaches that when there is no son his daughter inherits, is superfluous. Rav Pappa responded: And perhaps this verse teaches us this: That a daughter is also subject to receiving inheritance. The Gemara replies: No, the verse does not need to teach us this, since that halakha is derived from the verse: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance” (Numbers 36:8), which clearly states that a daughter is subject to receiving inheritance.
רב אחא בר יעקב אמר מהכא למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן טעמא דאין לו בן הא יש לו בן בן קודם
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The halakha that a son inherits his father’s estate and precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father’s inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: “Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?” (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi Aḥa ben Ya’akov infers: The reason they requested the inheritance is that, as they said: He has no son. One can infer: But if he has a son, the son takes precedence and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance.
ודלמא בנות צלפחד הוא דקאמרן הכי ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this, i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the halakha based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was initiated that a daughter’s right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially, i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8).
רבינא אמר מהכא הקרב אליו הקרוב קרוב קודם
Ravina said: The source for the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is from here: “Who is next to him [hakkarov elav]” (Numbers 27:11), 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 daughter.
ומאי קורבה דבן מבת שבן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה יעדה בת לאו בת יעדה היא שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא גופה הוא דהא קיימא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא
The Gemara asks: And what demonstrates the closeness of a son more than that of a daughter? That a son stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself and with regard to an ancestral field. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid proof, as designation cannot demonstrate that a son is a closer relative; a daughter is not subject to designation, because she obviously cannot marry the Hebrew maidservant. With regard to an ancestral field as well, the tanna establishes his ruling that a son is a closer relative than others from this same refutation: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? And this applies also where there is no daughter. Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially.
ואי בעית אימא מהכא והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם אחריכם בניכם ולא בנותיכם אלא מעתה למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם הכי נמי בניכם ולא בנותיכם
And if you wish, say instead that the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah addressing the inheritance of slaves, which states: “And you may make them an inheritance for your sons [livneikhem] after you” (Leviticus 25:46). One can infer: “Your sons,” but not your daughters. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons [beneikhem]” (Deuteronomy 11:21), should one infer that this too means: “Your sons,” but not your daughters? Is it not obvious that daughters are also worthy of receiving the blessing of longevity?
ברכה שאני:
The Gemara answers: A blessing is different. In a verse that speaks of blessings, the term beneikhem should be understood in its broader sense, as “your children.” In a verse that speaks of a halakha, it is to be understood in the narrower sense of “your sons.”
והאחין מן האב נוחלין ומנחילין וכו׳: מנלן אמר רבה אתיא אחוה אחוה מבני יעקב מה להלן מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם
§ The mishna teaches: And paternal brothers inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. From where do we derive this halakha? Rabba said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the word: Brothers, stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: Brothers, found in the verses concerning Jacob’s sons. When Jacob’s sons speak to Joseph, they state: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10). Just as there, in the verse concerning Jacob’s sons, the word brothers is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, so too here, where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers.
ולמה לי ממשפחתו וירש אתה כתיב משפחת אב קרויה משפחה משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה
The Gemara asks: But why do I need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob’s sons? It is written in the passage concerning inheritance: “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). When the term “family” is used in the Bible, one’s father’s family is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family, so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.
אין הכי נמי וכי איתמר דרבה לענין יבום איתמר:
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the halakha of inheritance, and when Rabba’s explanation was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage, teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.
והאיש את אמו וכו׳: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן
§ The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his mother inherits from her relatives but does not bequeath to her. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught:
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 110
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
אלא אי אבוה דאמיה מיוסף אמה דאמיה מיתרו אי אבוה דאמיה מיתרו אמה דאמיה מיוסף דיקא נמי דכתיב מבנות פוטיאל תרתי שמע מינה
Rather, this is how the matter should be resolved: If his mother’s father came from the family of Joseph, his mother’s mother came from the family of Yitro, and if his mother’s father came from the family of Yitro, his mother’s mother came from the family of Joseph, so while his mother was descended from Joseph on one side and from Yitro on the other, Pinehas was a more distant relative to Yitro than Jonathan was. Based on this conclusion, the language of the verse is also precise, as it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took one of the daughters of Putiel” (Exodus 6:25). Conclude from the wording of the verse that Pinehas was descended from two men who were referred to as Puti: Yitro and Joseph.
אמר רבא הנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה שנאמר ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון ממשמע שנאמר בת עמינדב איני יודע שאחות נחשון היא מה תלמוד לומר אחות נחשון מכאן שהנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה תנא רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם
Rava says: One who marries a woman needs to first examine her brothers so that he will know in advance what character his children will have, as it is stated: “And Aaron took Elisheva, the daughter of Amminadav, the sister of Nahshon” (Exodus 6:23). By inference from that which is stated: “The daughter of Amminadav,” do I not know that she is the sister of Nahshon, as Nahshon was the son of Amminadav? What is the meaning when the verse states: “The sister of Nahshon”? From here one learns that one who marries a woman needs to examine her brothers. The reason is as the Sages taught: Most sons resemble the mother’s brothers.
ויסורו שמה ויאמר מי הביאך הלם ומה אתה עושה בזה ומה לך פה אמרו לו לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה אל תקרב הלם לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה מה זה בידך לאו ממשה קא אתית דכתיב ביה ואתה פה עמד עמדי תעשה כומר לעבודה זרה
In connection with the Gemara’s mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode. Describing when the men from the tribe of Dan passed through Micah’s house, the verse states: “And they turned aside there and said to him: Who brought you here [halom], and what [ma] are you doing in this place, and what do you have here [po]?” (Judges 18:3). The Sages interpret their multiple questions. They said to him: Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “Do not draw close to here [halom]” (Exodus 3:5)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “What [ma] is that in your hand” (Exodus 4:2)? Do you not come from Moses, about whom it is written: “But as for you, stand here [po] with me” (Deuteronomy 5:27)? Shall you, a descendant of our teacher Moses, become a priest for idol worship?
אמר להן כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא לעולם ישכיר אדם עצמו לעבודה זרה ואל יצטרך לבריות
Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.
והוא סבר לעבודה זרה ממש ולא היא אלא עבודה זרה עבודה שזרה לו כדאמר ליה רב לרב כהנא נטוש נבילתא בשוקא ושקול אגרא ולא תימא גברא רבא אנא וזילא בי מילתא
The Gemara comments: And he, Jonathan, thought that this referred to actual idol worship, but that is not so, that was not the intent of the tradition. Rather, here the term idol worship, literally: Strange service, is referring to service, i.e., labor, that is strange, i.e., unsuitable, for him. In other words, one should be willing to perform labor that is difficult and humiliating in his eyes rather than become a recipient of charity. As Rav said to Rav Kahana, his student: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a great man and this matter is beneath me.
כיון שראה דוד שממון חביב עליו ביותר מינהו על האוצרות שנאמר ושבאל בן גרשם בן מנשה נגיד על האצרות וכי שבואל שמו והלא יהונתן שמו אמר רבי יוחנן ששב לאל בכל לבו:
The Gemara continues its discussion of that episode. Later, when King David saw that money was excessively precious to Jonathan, he appointed him as director of the treasuries of the Temple, as it is stated: “And Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler over the treasuries” (I Chronicles 26:24). The Gemara asks: And was his name really Shebuel; but wasn’t his name Jonathan? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is called Shebuel in order to allude to the fact that he repented and returned to God [shav la’el ] with all his heart.
והבנים את האב: מנלן דכתיב איש כי ימות וגו׳ טעמא דאין לו בן הא יש לו בן בן קודם אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אימא אי איכא בן לירות בן איכא בת תירות בת איכא בן ובת לא האי לירות ולא האי לירות
§ The mishna teaches in the list of those who inherit from and bequeath to each other: Sons with regard to their father. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha that sons inherit the entire estate and daughters do not receive a share along with them? As it is written: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The reason the inheritance would be passed to a daughter is that he has no son, but if he has a son, the son takes precedence. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say the following: If there is only a son, let the son inherit the father’s estate; if there is only a daughter, let the daughter inherit the father’s estate; and if there is both a son and a daughter, neither this one should inherit nor that one should inherit.
ואלא
Abaye asked Rav Pappa: And rather,
מאן כו׳ לירות אטו בר קשא דמתא לירות הכי קא אמינא איכא בן ובת לא האי לירות כוליה ולא האי לירות כוליה אלא כי הדדי לירתו
who then should inherit? Is that to say that the ruler of the city should inherit? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what I meant to say: If there is a son and a daughter, this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.
אמר ליה אביי ואצטריך קרא לאשמועינן היכא דלית ליה אלא חד ברא לירתינהו לכולהו נכסי ודלמא הא קא משמע לן דבת נמי בת ירושה היא ההוא מוכל בת ירשת נחלה נפקא
Abaye said to him: But is the verse necessary in order to teach us that when he has only one child, that child should inherit all of his property? If you say that the right of the son and daughter to the inheritance is equal, then the verse: “If a man dies, and has no son” (Numbers 27:8), which teaches that when there is no son his daughter inherits, is superfluous. Rav Pappa responded: And perhaps this verse teaches us this: That a daughter is also subject to receiving inheritance. The Gemara replies: No, the verse does not need to teach us this, since that halakha is derived from the verse: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance” (Numbers 36:8), which clearly states that a daughter is subject to receiving inheritance.
רב אחא בר יעקב אמר מהכא למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן טעמא דאין לו בן הא יש לו בן בן קודם
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The halakha that a son inherits his father’s estate and precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah where the daughters of Zelophehad request their father’s inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. They said to Moses: “Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has no son?” (Numbers 27:4). Rabbi Aḥa ben Ya’akov infers: The reason they requested the inheritance is that, as they said: He has no son. One can infer: But if he has a son, the son takes precedence and the daughters would not have requested an inheritance.
ודלמא בנות צלפחד הוא דקאמרן הכי ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it was the daughters of Zelophehad who said this, i.e., that they were entitled to an inheritance only because their father had no son. They thought that this was the halakha based on the custom at that time, but after God spoke to Moses, the Torah was given and a halakha was initiated that a daughter’s right to inherit is equal to that of the son. The Gemara accepts this difficulty and states: Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially, i.e., as Abaya derived from the verse of: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8).
רבינא אמר מהכא הקרב אליו הקרוב קרוב קודם
Ravina said: The source for the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is from here: “Who is next to him [hakkarov elav]” (Numbers 27:11), 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 daughter.
ומאי קורבה דבן מבת שבן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה יעדה בת לאו בת יעדה היא שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא גופה הוא דהא קיימא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא
The Gemara asks: And what demonstrates the closeness of a son more than that of a daughter? That a son stands in place of his father to designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself and with regard to an ancestral field. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid proof, as designation cannot demonstrate that a son is a closer relative; a daughter is not subject to designation, because she obviously cannot marry the Hebrew maidservant. With regard to an ancestral field as well, the tanna establishes his ruling that a son is a closer relative than others from this same refutation: Is there levirate marriage except in a case where there is no son? And this applies also where there is no daughter. Rather, it is clear that the source for this halakha is as we answered initially.
ואי בעית אימא מהכא והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם אחריכם בניכם ולא בנותיכם אלא מעתה למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם הכי נמי בניכם ולא בנותיכם
And if you wish, say instead that the halakha that a son precedes a daughter is derived from here, in the passage in the Torah addressing the inheritance of slaves, which states: “And you may make them an inheritance for your sons [livneikhem] after you” (Leviticus 25:46). One can infer: “Your sons,” but not your daughters. The Gemara asks: If that is so, then when the verse states: “That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons [beneikhem]” (Deuteronomy 11:21), should one infer that this too means: “Your sons,” but not your daughters? Is it not obvious that daughters are also worthy of receiving the blessing of longevity?
ברכה שאני:
The Gemara answers: A blessing is different. In a verse that speaks of blessings, the term beneikhem should be understood in its broader sense, as “your children.” In a verse that speaks of a halakha, it is to be understood in the narrower sense of “your sons.”
והאחין מן האב נוחלין ומנחילין וכו׳: מנלן אמר רבה אתיא אחוה אחוה מבני יעקב מה להלן מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם
§ The mishna teaches: And paternal brothers inherit from one another and bequeath to each other. From where do we derive this halakha? Rabba said: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the word: Brothers, stated with regard to inheritance, and the word: Brothers, found in the verses concerning Jacob’s sons. When Jacob’s sons speak to Joseph, they state: “We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 42:13), and in the passage discussing inheritance the verse states: “And if he has no brothers, then you shall give his inheritance to his father’s brothers” (Numbers 27:10). Just as there, in the verse concerning Jacob’s sons, the word brothers is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers, as the twelve of them shared only the same father, so too here, where this term is used with regard to inheritance, the verse is referring to paternal brothers and not maternal brothers.
ולמה לי ממשפחתו וירש אתה כתיב משפחת אב קרויה משפחה משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה
The Gemara asks: But why do I need this proof from the verse concerning Jacob’s sons? It is written in the passage concerning inheritance: “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). When the term “family” is used in the Bible, one’s father’s family is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family, so that in all matters of inheritance, it is the patrilineal relatives who are taken into account.
אין הכי נמי וכי איתמר דרבה לענין יבום איתמר:
The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that the verbal analogy is not needed to teach the halakha of inheritance, and when Rabba’s explanation was stated, it was stated with regard to the matter of levirate marriage, teaching that levirate marriage is performed only by a paternal brother but not by a maternal brother.
והאיש את אמו וכו׳: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן
§ The mishna teaches: And a man with regard to his mother inherits from her relatives but does not bequeath to her. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught:
