A few questions/notes about Pinchas

The Torah, in this previous week's parshah, talks about the laws of inheritance, yet one blatant lacuna is the notion that a father should inherit the son. To the best of my knowledge, the laws of inheritance only appear in one place, and they appear in reference to the daughters of Tzelafchad, who sought from the depths of their heart to gain an inheritance in the Land of Israel despite the absence of a male inheritor. When posing their query to Moshe Rabbeinu, he instructs them to wait, and is instructed by Hashem the correct order of inheritance in the absence of a son. First, were there to not be a son, the daugher inherits, and then, if there is no daughter, the paternal uncle inherits, and then, if there is no paternal uncle, the father's paternal uncle inherits his nephew's assets. Why, if I may ask, does the Torah make no mention of the father of the deceased inheriting his daughter or son's assets? When something is absent from the Torah, the convention/conceptualization is that it is not Torah-ordained, unless it is learned out from one of the methods of exegesis. For example, according to Torah law, a grandmother is not forbidden from sleeping with her grandson, because the Torah doesn't explicitly forbid it; were a grandfather to sleep with his grandaughter, that would bear a higher level of severity, as opposed to the former, which is relegated to a lower level of prohibition - referred to as shni'ot - because it is not explicitly forbidden in a way that is black and white; resultantly, the rabbis, Chazal, forbade it, but it bears nonetheless a lower level of severity. One, for example, does not receive lashes, a Torah-ordained punishment, for violating a rabbinic commandment, which brings me back to my question, "Why doesn't the Torah state that a father inherits his son when circumscribing the laws of inheritance for posterity?"

A second note/insight. I think in light of the constant tension in Christian states between the monarchy and the Church - one of the themes that more than anything dictated the waxing and waning, the systole and diastole of European history - it is important to contextualize how Moshe Rabbeinu gave over the reins to Yehoshua. Firstly, not only did he place one hand on Yehoshua's head, but two (important in its own right), but he also commanded Yehoshua, in the name of God, to present himself before Elazar, the high priest. I think that this act, this indispensable act of the leader averring that his rule is predicated on following the tenets of the priest, is something that we ourselves can learn from. Yiftach, in the book of Judges, refuses to present himself before Pinchas, Elazar's brother, to have his vow annulled by the high priest. Hubris is something very much frowned upon in Judaism, especially when it erodes the chain of command with Hashem at the center. Hashem's presence is found in the Sanhedrin, the high court of Jewish law, and Yiftach choosing his own pride over a humbled self who can admit his mistakes is at the very heart of his error, the very same flaw that led Shaul to lose his kingship, and insist every so tenaciously that he was in the right, and Shmuel in the wrong. 

Like always, I would love your comments/insights - but especially, corrections, which I'm sure there are many.