Commentary for Bava Batra 244:7

ועוד מאי אלא

[are equally entitled to] take [their shares] in a prospective [estate of the deceased] as in that which is in [his] possession [at the time of his death]. Surely, we have learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 116b. ');">¹⁸</span> this also; 'The daughters of Zelophehad took three shares in the inheritance [of Canaan]: The share of their father who was of those who came out of Egypt, and his share among his brothers in the possessions of Hepher'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Hepher was not in possession of his share in the land at the time of his death and yet it was given to his son, Zelophehad, and through him to his daughters, it is obvious that both sons and daughters are entitled as much to the prospective property of their parents as to that which is already in their possession. Why, then, was it necessary to repeat this law in our Mishnah? ');">¹⁹</span> Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the antithesis? The first part of the Mishnah speaks of the equality of a son and a daughter, and the second part speaks of the difference (not between a son and a daughter but) between the the estates of a mother and a father! ');">²⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 244:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.