מַאן כּוּ׳ לֵירוֹת אַטּוּ בַּר קַשָּׁא דְּמָתָא לֵירוֹת הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא אִיכָּא בֵּן וּבַת לָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ וְלָא הַאי לֵירוֹת כּוּלֵּיהּ אֶלָּא כִּי הֲדָדֵי לֵירְתוּ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וְאִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הֵיכָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֶלָּא חַד בְּרָא לֵירְתִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי וְדִלְמָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּבַת נָמֵי בַּת יְרוּשָּׁה הִיא הָהוּא מִוְּכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה נָפְקָא 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.
רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר מֵהָכָא לָמָּה יִגָּרַע שֵׁם אָבִינוּ מִתּוֹךְ מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ כִּי אֵין לוֹ בֵּן טַעְמָא דְּאֵין לוֹ בֵּן הָא יֵשׁ לוֹ בֵּן בֵּן קוֹדֵם 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.
וְדִלְמָא בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד הוּא דְּקָאָמְרָן הָכִי נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא 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).
רָבִינָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא הַקָּרֹב אֵלָיו הַקָּרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם 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.
וּמַאי קוּרְבֵהּ דְּבֵן מִבַּת שֶׁבֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִדָה וְלִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יְעִדָה בַּת לָאו בַּת יְעִדָה הִיא שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה נָמֵי מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא גּוּפַהּ הוּא דְּהָא קַיְימָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא 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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם הָכִי נָמֵי בְּנֵיכֶם וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם 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?
בְּרָכָה שָׁאנֵי: 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.”
וְהָאַחִין מִן הָאָב נוֹחֲלִין וּמַנְחִילִין וְכוּ׳ מְנָלַן אָמַר רַבָּה אַתְיָא אַחְוָה אַחְוָה מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב מַה לְהַלָּן מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם אַף כָּאן מִן הָאָב וְלֹא מִן הָאֵם § 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.
וּלְמָה לִי מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְיָרַשׁ אֹתָהּ כְּתִיב מִשְׁפַּחַת אָב קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה מִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה מִשְׁפָּחָה 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.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי וְכִי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַבָּה לְעִנְיַן יִבּוּם אִיתְּמַר: 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.
וְהָאִישׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ וְכוּ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן § 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: