Relative Clauses with Possessors "the man who has ___"

The structure that I wanted to express: 

Incorrect!!!

"the man who has a son"

"the man who has a daughter"

"a boy who has clothes" 

The mistake I made: 

הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ־לוֹ בֵּן

What I should have done: 

Not include יֵשׁ, but say rather: 

הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ בֵּן

הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ בַּת

יֶלֶד אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ בְּגָדִים

The evidence: 

Examples with similar syntax do not have יֵשׁ:

Lev. 11:23a וְכָל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם 

"But all winged insects that have four legs..."

Deut 4:7a מִי־גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו

"who is a great nation that has a god near to it...?"

Deut 4:8a וּמִי גּוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים צַדִּיקִם

"and who is a great nation that has righteous statues and rules...?"

When talking about diseases/blemishes, the bet preposition is used:

Lev. 21:21b כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מוּם

"Every man who has a blemish..."

The three examples of אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ־ל in the text did not have the same syntactic structure.

Gen 39:5 וְעַל֙ כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־לֹ֔ו

Gen 39:8 וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יֶשׁ־לֹ֖ו

These two both express the phrase "all that he had," in which it is the object that is relativized, not the subject. Compare relativized subject "the man who has a son" with relativized object "the son that he has." These two examples from Gen. 39 seem to be a rare variation of the much more common phrase כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ "all that he had."

Ecc 4:9 אֲשֶׁ֧ר יֵשׁ־לָהֶ֛ם שָׂכָ֥ר טֹ֖וב בַּעֲמָלָֽם׃

This is אֲשֶׁר meaning 'because' and is translated in ESV as "because they have a good reward for their toil" so it is not in fact a relative clause.

Note that negative relative clauses "that doesn't have..." do have אֲשֶׁר אֵין־ל (see 2 Chron. 18:16, Lev. 25:31, Num. 19:15)

Searches used to find examples: אשׁר ישׁ, who has, who have, that has, that have