אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי מַאי נִיזּוֹן כְּבַת וּלְטַעְמָיךְ לְרָבָא מַאי יוֹרֵשׁ כְּבֵן אֶלָּא רָאוּי לִירַשׁ וְאֵין לוֹ הָכָא נָמֵי רָאוּי לִזּוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ: But according to the opinion of Abaye, what does it mean that the tumtum is sustained as a daughter, since Abaye maintains that the tumtum does not have the rights of a daughter? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, even according to Rava, what does it mean that a tumtum inherits as a son, since Rava concedes that the tumtum and sons do not actually inherit anything? Rather, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to inherit but he does not actually inherit. Here too, with regard to sustenance, according to Abaye, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to be sustained, but he is not actually sustained.
הָאוֹמֵר אִם יָלְדָה אִשְׁתִּי זָכָר וְכוּ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּבַת עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ מִבֵּן וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ בֵּן לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מָלֵא עָלָיו עֶבְרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהַעֲבַרְתֶּם אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ לְבִתּוֹ וְאֵין הַעֲבָרָה אֶלָּא עֶבְרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יוֹם עֶבְרָה הַיּוֹם הַהוּא § The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha’avartem] to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term ha’avara means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath [evra]” (Zephaniah 1:15).
לְעִנְיַן יְרוּשָּׁה בֵּן עֲדִיף לֵיהּ לְעִנְיַן הַרְווֹחָה בִּתּוֹ עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ The Gemara resolves the contradiction: With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father’s tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring’s comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son, as a son is more capable of coping for himself and the daughter needs more support.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הָכָא בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן וְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בַּת תְּחִלָּה סִימָן יָפֶה לְבָנִים אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי דִּמְרַבְּיָא לְאַחֶהָא וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי דְּלָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא בִּישָׁא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וּלְדִידִי בְּנָתָן עֲדִיפָן לִי מִבְּנֵי And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father. Rav Ḥisda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say: In accordance with whose statement is this mishna in which preference is given to the daughter? It is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
הֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִילֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּבַכֹּל דְּתַנְיָא וַה׳ בֵּרַךְ אֶת אַבְרָהָם בַּכֹּל רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ בַּת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בַּת וּבַכֹּל שְׁמָהּ אֵימוֹר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַתָּא נָמֵי לָא חַסְּרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְאַבְרָהָם דַּעֲדִיפָא מִבֵּן מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ The Gemara asks: Which statement of Rabbi Yehuda is this referring to? If we say it is referring to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the term “with everything [bakkol],” that is difficult. The Gemara cites Rabbi Yehuda’s statement. As it is taught in a baraita: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]” (Genesis 24:1). Rabbi Meir says: The blessing was that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The blessing was that he had a daughter, and her name was Bakkol. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda understands the birth of a daughter to be a blessing. The Gemara explains the difficulty: Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda explain that the blessing was that the Merciful One did not even deprive Abraham of a daughter, in addition to his sons. Did you hear him say that a daughter is preferable to a son?
אֶלָּא הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּתַנְיָא מִצְוָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַבָּנִים דְּעָסְקִי בַּתּוֹרָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנִים וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לִבָּנוֹת דְּלָא לִיתַּזְלָן The Gemara proposes another of Rabbi Yehuda’s statements: Rather, it is referring to this other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: One is not halakhically obligated to provide sustenance for his children beyond the age of six. Nevertheless, it is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the daughters. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for sons, who are engaged in the study of the Torah; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is a mitzva to provide sustenance for the sons. And one can infer a fortiori that it is certainly a mitzva to provide for daughters, so that they not be disgraced by having to beg for their livelihood. This indicates that with regard to providing sustenance for one’s children, Rabbi Yehuda gives preference to the daughters.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה הַזָּכָר נוֹטֵל שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִין וְהַנְּקֵבָה נוֹטֶלֶת שְׁנֵי דִּינָרִין בְּמַאי § The mishna discusses a case where one stipulated that if his wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, and if she gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars. The mishna states that if she gave birth to both a male and a female, the male receives one hundred dinars and the female receives two hundred. The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:4): If she gave birth to a male and a female, the male receives six dinars of gold, which are equivalent to one hundred fifty dinars of silver, and the female receives two dinars of gold, equivalent to fifty dinars of silver, with what situation is this baraita dealing?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא בִּמְסָרֵס דְּאָמַר זָכָר תְּחִלָּה מָאתַיִם נְקֵבָה אַחֲרָיו וְלָא כְּלוּם נְקֵבָה תְּחִלָּה מָנֶה זָכָר אַחֲרֶיהָ מָנֶה וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה וְלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ נְפַק בְּרֵישָׁא זָכָר שָׁקֵיל מָנֶה מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ אִידַּךְ מָנֶה הָוֵה מָמוֹן הַמּוּטָּל בְּסָפֵק וְחוֹלְקִין Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha before Rav Kahana, and he explained it as teaching about one who inverted the stipulations of his gift. The baraita is referring to one who said: If a male is born first he will receive two hundred dinars, and if a female is born after him she will receive nothing. And if a female is born first she will receive one hundred dinars, and if a male is born after her he will receive one hundred dinars. And the mother gave birth to a male and a female, but we do not know which of them emerged from the womb first. In this case, the male takes one hundred dinars, as whichever way you look at it, this sum is due to him. The other one hundred dinars are property of uncertain ownership and are divided equally between the male and female.
וְהָא דְּתַנְיָא יָלְדָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אָמַר רָבִינָא בִּמְבַשְּׂרֵנִי The Gemara asks: And with regard to that which is taught in another baraita: If she gave birth to a male and a female, he receives only one hundred dinars, how can you find these circumstances? Ravina said: This is referring to one who said: I shall give a certain sum to whoever informs me.