Bava Batra 141a (קמא.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, according to Abaye,

who holds that a tumtum receives nothing,

what is meant by “is supported like a daughter,”

as the beraita states?

The Gemara answers that, apparently, the difficulty applies even according to Rava:

But according to your reasoning,

according to the reasoning of the one who raises the difficulty, who asks only according to Abaye, there is also a difficulty

according to Rava

from the beginning of the beraita:

what is meant by “inherits like a son”?

After all, when the assets are few, the sons do not inherit at all, since only the daughters receive support.

Rather,

it must necessarily be explained that the phrase

“is fit to inherit”

does not mean that he actually inherits, but that he has the right to inherit if he is the sole heir. At present, however, when he has brothers,

and he has nothing,

he receives nothing. If so,

here too,

the statement of the beraita that a tumtum is supported like a daughter means that he

is fit to be supported

and would have been entitled to receive support, but

he has nothing,

and 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 child.”

The father grants the son one hundred dinars and the daughter two hundred.

Does this imply

that

a daughter is preferable to him over a son!

That is, a person prefers a daughter over a son, and therefore gives the daughter more.

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

that a son is preferable to a daughter, as

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

meaning one who dies and leaves no sons to inherit from him, but only daughters,

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

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

As it is stated:

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

One who has no son transfers the inheritance to his daughter. Since the Torah uses the term “transfer,”

“transfer” can mean nothing other than wrath,

an expression of anger,

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

in the future, there will be a day of anger and fury against 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 property, a son is certainly preferable to a daughter, since the inheritance remains within the same tribe. A daughter, however, transfers the inheritance to another tribe if she marries a man from another tribe.

But

with regard to providing for his children, his daughter is preferable to him.

When a person wishes to give his children a gift so that they will have ample means of support, he prefers to give it to his daughter, since she cannot go about seeking her livelihood.

Shmuel said

to answer the Gemara’s question:

Here we are dealing with a firstborn daughter,

with a case in which his wife gives birth to a firstborn daughter, and there is an advantage to a daughter who is born first,

and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda.

As Rav Ḥisda said: “A daughter born first

to one who has a daughter born first

is a good sign for sons.”

This benefits the sons who will be born afterward. The reason is:

Some say

that

the evil eye does not prevail against them

and does not affect the sons

because of the evil eye.

Since he initially has a daughter, people no longer pay attention to his sons afterward, and the evil eye does not prevail against them. Rav Ḥisda adds:

Rav Ḥisda said: “As for me,

personally,

my daughters are preferable to me over my sons.”

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

And if you wish, say

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

This Mishna is in accordance with

the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara asks:

Which Rabbi Yehuda?

Which statement of Rabbi Yehuda is intended?

If you say

it is

Rabbi Yehuda who expounds “bakol,”

Rabbi Yehuda who expounds the word “bakol.”

As it was taught:

We learned in a beraita concerning the verse

“And the Lord blessed Abraham with bakol,”

to what additional blessing does the Torah refer with the word “bakol”?

Rabbi Meir says: He did not have a daughter.

The blessing consisted in the fact that he did not have a daughter, since he would not have had anyone to marry off; for a woman is under her husband’s authority and would worship idolatry like him .

Rabbi Yehuda says: He had a daughter, and her name was Bakol.

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

This proves that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is an advantage to a daughter, since through her God blessed Abraham. Therefore, our Mishna follows his opinion.

The Gemara asks:

You may infer that you heard from Rabbi Yehuda

that

the Merciful One did not deprive him of a daughter as well,

meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, also gave Abraham a daughter, and if so, she possesses an advantage. But

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

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

Rather, this is the Rabbi Yehuda—

As it was taught: It is a mitzva to support one’s daughters.

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

and by a kal va-chomer, this applies to sons,

that he fulfills a mitzva if he supports them, since

they are occupied with Torah,

as they study Torah. These are the words of Rabbi Meir,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to support the sons, and by a kal va-chomer, the daughters,

for there is a mitzva to support them,

so that they should not be disgraced,

by having to seek their means of support.

It follows from his words that with regard to support, daughters are preferable to sons, and this is the position of our Mishna .

Now that the Mishna has been resolved, the Gemara discusses:

But concerning that which was taught in a beraita: “If she gave birth to a male child

or

a female child, the male takes six dinars,”

of gold, which are one hundred and fifty zuz.

And the female,

if she gives birth to a female child,

takes two dinars

of gold, which are fifty zuz.

In what circumstance?

In what manner is this stated? The beraita has now taught a different case from the Mishna, implying that it is referring to a different circumstance.

Rabbi Ashi said: I stated this explanation

I presented my explanation

before

before

Rabbi Kahana,

that the beraita is dealing

with one who stipulates in a particular order,

who wishes to grant property to his children if twins are born, but insists upon a specific order,

as he says,

that he stipulates as follows:

“A male child first

—if a male child is born first, he will receive

two hundred

zuz.

A female child after him,

if the female child is born after the male child,

nothing;

she will receive nothing.

But

“a female child first

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

one maneh,

one hundred zuz.

A male child after her

—the male child born after her will receive

one maneh,

the same as the female child.”

And we do not know which of them was born first,

and now there is uncertainty as to how much each one will receive.

The beraita states concerning this:

“The male takes one maneh.”

The male receives one maneh

whichever way you look at it,

because in every case he is certainly entitled to one maneh, even according to the possibility that he was born last. But

the other maneh,

the second maneh,

is money of uncertain ownership:

it is uncertain who was born first. If the son was born first, he is entitled to the maneh; and if the daughter was born first, she is entitled to the maneh.

And

therefore

they divide it,

dividing the maneh between them.

It follows that the male receives one hundred and fifty zuz in total, while the female receives only fifty. This is the meaning of the beraita: The male takes six dinars, and the female two dinars.

The Gemara now discusses another ruling in the beraita:

And concerning that which was taught

another ruling in the beraita:

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

This implies that he would have been fit to receive more than one maneh, and the novelty is that he receives only one maneh.

How can you find this?

In what circumstance does this apply?

Ravina said: In the case of one who informs me,

he does not grant the money to the male child or to the female child; rather, he grants it to the person who informs him of their birth.