Bava Batra 141a — the Talmud in English

But according to Abaye,

who holds that a tumtum receives nothing,

what is the meaning of “is supported like a daughter,”

which the beraita stated!?

And the Gemara answers that, apparently, it is difficult even according to Rava:

And according to your reasoning,

according to the reasoning of the questioner, who asks only according to Abaye, behold, it is also difficult

according to Rava

from the beginning of the beraita:

what is the meaning of “inherits like a son”?

For in the case of few assets, the sons do not inherit at all, since only the daughters receive sustenance.

Rather,

it is necessarily necessary to explain

“is fit to inherit,”

not that he actually inherits, but that he has an inheritance-right in a case where he is the sole heir; but now, when he has brothers,

and he has nothing,

he receives nothing. If so,

so too here,

the words of the beraita that a tumtum is supported like a daughter mean that he

is fit to be supported;

he would be fit to receive sustenance, but

and he has nothing,

he will not receive it, since his brothers inherit all the assets.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who says: If my wife gives birth to a male.”

For the father assigns one hundred dinars to the son and two hundred to the daughter.

This is to say,

does this mean

that a daughter is preferable to him over a son!

For a person prefers a daughter over a son, and therefore gives more to the daughter.

But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai

that a son is preferable to a daughter, for

anyone who does not leave a son to inherit from him,

one who dies and does not leave sons to inherit from him, but only daughters,

the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with indignation against him.

It is a sign that the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with him, and therefore did not grant him male sons.

As it is stated:

“And you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.”

One who has no son transfers the inheritance to his daughter, and from the fact that the Torah uses the expression “transfer,”

and “transfer” means nothing other than indignation,

an expression of anger,

as it is stated: “The day of indignation is that day,”

in the future, there will be a day of anger and wrath upon those who transgress the will of the Holy One, blessed be He. If so, it is proven that a son is preferable to a daughter.

The Gemara answers: With regard to

inheritance, a son is preferable to him;

when a person needs to bequeath, certainly a son is preferable to a daughter, since the inheritance remains in the same tribe. But a daughter transfers the inheritance to another tribe, if she marries the son of another tribe.

But

with regard to provision, his daughter is preferable to him.

When a person wishes to give a gift to his children so that they will have sustenance abundantly, he prefers to give to his daughter, since she cannot go about seeking sustenance.

Shmuel said

to answer the question of the Gemara:

Here, we are dealing with a firstborn,

with one whose wife gives birth to the first daughter, and there is an advantage to the daughter born first,

and in accordance with Rav Hisda.

For Rav Hisda said: A daughter first,

one to whom a daughter was born first, this is

a favorable sign for sons.

This is beneficial for sons who will be born afterward. And the reason for this is:

Some say:

there are those who say,

that it does not have power over them,

that it will not have power over the sons,

the evil eye,

the evil eye, because since he initially has a daughter, people no longer pay attention afterward to his sons, and they do not make the evil eye prevail over them. And Rav Hisda adds further—

Rav Hisda said: And as for me,

for me,

my daughters are preferable to me over my sons.

My daughters are preferable to me over my sons, since Rav Hisda was not privileged to have his sons live.

And if you wish, say:

another answer for why in the Mishna a daughter is preferable to a son:

Whose opinion is this?

The Mishna is according to the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara asks:

Which Rabbi Yehuda?

To which Rabbi Yehuda do they refer?

If you say

that it is

Rabbi Yehuda of “in all,”

Rabbi Yehuda who expounds the word “in all.”

For it was taught:

we learned in a beraita concerning the verse

“And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything,”

to what multiplication of blessing does the Torah refer with the word “everything”?

Rabbi Meir says: That he did not have a daughter.

The blessing was that he did not have a daughter, since he would have had no one to marry her off to, for a woman is under the authority of her husband, and she would have worshipped idolatry like him .

Rabbi Yehuda says: That he had a daughter, and “Everything” was her name.

The blessing was that Abraham also had a daughter, whom they called Everything.

And it is proven that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is an advantage to a daughter, for through her the Lord blessed Abraham. And therefore our Mishna holds accordingly.

The Gemara asks:

You may infer that you heard from Rabbi Yehuda

indeed, it is proven from Rabbi Yehuda that

the Merciful One did not deprive him even of a daughter,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Abraham even a daughter, and if so, she has an advantage. But

that she is preferable to a son—did you hear that from him!?

It is not proven from his words that she is preferable to a son. And if so, this does not resolve the Mishna, which states that a daughter is preferable to a son.

Rather, this is Rabbi Yehuda—

For it was taught: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the daughters.

The father is not obligated to provide sustenance for his daughters, but he fulfills a mitzva by doing so,

and it is a kal va-chomer for sons,

that he fulfills a mitzva if he provides sustenance for them, since

they are occupied with Torah,

they study Torah,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the sons, and it is a kal va-chomer for the daughters

that there is a mitzva to provide sustenance for them,

so that they should not be disgraced,

so that they should not be humiliated by requesting sustenance.

And it is proven from his words that with regard to sustenance, daughters are preferable to sons, and this is what our Mishna holds .

And now, after the Mishna has been resolved, the Gemara discusses:

But regarding that which was taught: If she gave birth to a male

or

a female, the male takes six dinars

of gold, which are one hundred and fifty zuz.

And the female,

if she gives birth to a female,

takes two dinars

of gold, which are fifty zuz.

In what case?

In what manner is this stated here, since now the beraita taught differently from the Mishna, implying that it is speaking of a different manner?

Rabbi Ashi said: I stated the matter,

I stated my answer

before

before

Rabbi Kahana,

that the beraita is speaking

of one who stipulates in a particular order,

who wishes to assign property to his children if twins are born, but is particular about a certain order,

saying

that he makes the following stipulation:

a male first,

if a male is born first, he will receive

two hundred

zuz.

A female after him,

if the female is born after the male,

and nothing,

she will receive nothing.

But

a female first,

if my wife gives birth to a female first, she will receive

one hundred

zuz.

A male after her,

the male who is born after her will receive

one hundred

like the female.

And we do not know which of them emerged first,

and now we do not know who was born first, and there is uncertainty how much each one will receive.

And concerning each one the beraita says:

The male takes one hundred.

The male receives one hundred

in any event,

because in every case one hundred certainly belongs to him, even according to the possibility that he was born last. But

the other one hundred,

the second one hundred,

is money placed in doubt:

who was born first; if the son was born first, the one hundred belongs to him, and if the daughter was born first, the one hundred belongs to her,

and

therefore

they divide,

they divide the one hundred between them.

It follows that the male receives one hundred and fifty altogether, and the female receives only fifty. And this is the meaning of the beraita: the male takes six dinars, and the female two dinars.

And now the Gemara discusses another law in the beraita:

But regarding that which was taught

another law in the beraita,

“If she gave birth to a male and a female, he has only one hundred.”

This implies that he ought to have taken more than one hundred, and the novelty is that he receives only one hundred,

how can you find this?

In what manner is this speaking?

Ravina said: In the case of one who is informed,

he does not assign property to the male or to the female, but assigns it to the person who informs him of their birth.