Bava Batra 220:1

מאן כו' לירות אטו בר קשא דמתא לירות הכי קא אמינא איכא בן ובת לא האי לירות כוליה ולא האי לירות כוליה אלא כי הדדי לירתו

who then should he the heir? Should the town collector<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'the elder of the town', 'town governor'. ');">¹</span> he the heir! — It is this that I suggest: [If] there be a son and a daughter. neither the one nor the other should inherit all [the estate], but both together should inherit [it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both taking equal shares. ');">²</span>

א"ל אביי ואצטריך קרא לאשמועינן היכא דלית ליה אלא חד ברא לירתינהו לכולהו נכסי ודלמא הא קמ"ל דבת נמי בת ירושה היא ההוא (במדבר לו, ח) מוכל בת יורשת נחלה נפקא

Abaye said to him: Is, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a daughter, according to your opinion, is entitled to the same rights of inheritance as a son. ');">³</span> a Scriptural verse required to tell us that where there is a one and only son he inherits all the property?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Scriptural text, then, which reads, If… (he) have no son, then shall ye cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter, which is obvious (v. previous note), should have read, instead, If a man die and have no issue then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren etc. (v. Num. XXVII, 8-9) The rest of the text, then shall ye cause … have no daughter (ibid), would thus become superfluous. ');">⁴</span>

רב אחא בר יעקב אמר מהכא (במדבר כז, ד) למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן טעמא דאין לו בן הא יש לו בן בן קודם

— Is it not possible, however, that [Scripture] meant to teach this: That a daughter also has a right of inheritance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without specific mention, the daughter might have been excluded from the term 'issue' which would have been taken to apply to males only, for, without such specific mention, the entire context dealing with the laws of inheritance (Num. XXVII, 8-11) would have been speaking of males only. Hence it was necessary to mention 'daughter' in vv. 8-9. Once however a daughter's right to succession is established, there is need of evidence to prove that a son call claim precedence over her. ');">⁵</span> — This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a daughter may be heir. ');">⁶</span>

ודלמא בנות צלפחד הוא דקאמרן הכי ניתנה תורה ונתחדשה הלכה אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

is deduced from, And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXVI, 8. ');">⁷</span> R. Aha b. Jacob said: [The law of a son's precedence over a daughter may he inferred] from here: Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he had no son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXVII, 4. ');">⁸</span>

רבינא אמר מהכא (במדבר כז, יא) הקרוב אליו הקרוב קרוב קודם

The reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the request on the part of Zelophehad's daughters for a share in the land. ');">⁹</span> then, is because he had no son, but had he had a son, the son would have taken precedence. But it is not possible that the daughters of Zelophehad [only] said so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Believing that to be the law. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומאי קורבה דבן מבת שבן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה יעדה בת לאו בת יעדה היא שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא גופה הוא דהא קיימא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא

[and that] when the Torah was given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laws of inheritance were given subsequent to the representations of Zelophehad's daughters. V. Num. XXVII, 5-7ff. ');">¹¹</span> the law received a new interpretation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Giving sons and daughters equal rights of inheritance. ');">¹²</span>

ואי בעית אימא מהכא (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם בניכם ולא בנותיכם אלא מעתה (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם ה"נ בניכם ולא בנותיכם

— But the best [proof]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a son takes precedence. ');">¹³</span> is that given at first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 110a. 'It is written, if a man die etc.' ');">¹⁴</span>

ברכה שאני:

Rabina said: [The law of a son's precedence may he inferred] from here: That is next to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 11. ');">¹⁵</span> i.e., he who is nearest in relationship takes precedence. And [in] what [respect is] the relationship of a son [nearer] than [that of] a daughter? [Is it] in that he is [entitled] to take his father's place in designating [the Hebrew handmaid of his father to be his wife]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 449. n. 12. ');">¹⁶</span>

והאחין מן האב נוחלין ומנחילין וכו': מנלן אמר רבה אתיא אחוה אחוה מבני יעקב מה להלן מן האב ולא מן האם אף כאן מן האב ולא מן האם

and [in the redeeming] of a field of [his father's] possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. loc. cit. n. 13. ');">¹⁷</span> [Surely, as regards] designation, a daughter is not one to designate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the law could not possibly have been applied to her. ');">¹⁸</span>

ולמה לי (במדבר כז, יא) ממשפחתו וירש אותה כתיב משפחת אב קרויה משפחה משפחת אם אינה קרויה משפחה

[and as regards] the redemption of a 'field of possession', [a daughter] also [may he entitled to the same privilege as a son, by logical deduction] from the selfsame objection, from which the Tanna had deduced [the law that a son is entitled to this privilege]: 'Is there any levirate marriage except where there is no son?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An argument that can likewise be applied in regard to a daughter. viz., 'Is there any levirate marriage except where there is no daughter?' In what respect, then, does a son stand nearer than a daughter in relationship to the father? ');">¹⁹</span> — But the best proof is that given at first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3. ');">²⁰</span>

אין הכי נמי וכי איתמר דרבה לענין יבום איתמר:

If you like, I can say, [the law of the son's precedence] may be inferred from here: <i>And ye may make them an inheritance for your sons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] is rendered here 'sons', though it may also bear the meaning of 'children'. ');">²¹</span></i> after you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 46. ');">²²</span>

והאיש את אמו וכו': מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן

meaning, your sons but not your daughters. But in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from now'. ');">²³</span> does, <i>That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XI. 21. Cf. n. 10 supra. ');">²⁴</span> also mean 'your sons' and not 'your daughters'? — It is different [in the case of] a blessing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A blessing would include both sexes, though elsewhere the term sons applies to males only. ');">²⁵</span> AND BROTHERS FROM THE [SAME] FATHER INHERIT [FROM]. AND TRANSMIT etc. Whence is this derived? — Rabbah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yeb. 17b, 22a. ');">²⁶</span> It may be deduced [from a comparison of this] 'brotherhood'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'brethren', used in Num. XXVII. 9. ');">²⁷</span> with the 'brotherhood' of the sons of Jacob;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thy servants are twelve brethren (Gen. XLII, 13). ');">²⁸</span> as there [the brotherhood was derived] from the father and not from the mother, so here [the brotherhood spoken of is that] from the father and not from the mother. What need is there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the laws of inheritance. ');">²⁹</span> [for this inference]? Surely it is written, Of his family. and he shall possess it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 11. ');">³⁰</span> [and it has been deduced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 109b ');">³¹</span> that] the family of the father is regarded [as the] family [but] the family of the mother is not regarded [as the] family! — This is so indeed, but the statement of Rabbah was made with reference to [the law of] levirate marriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where also the expression, 'brethren', is used: If brethren dwell together etc. (Deut. XXV, 5f). Only brothers of the same father are, accordingly, subject to the levirate law. ');">³²</span> A MAN [INHERITS FROM] HIS MOTHER etc. Whence are these laws<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'words'; the laws that a son is heir to his mother as he is to his father, and, moreover, that he takes precedence over a daughter in such an inheritance. The laws in Num. XXVII, 8-9. do not deal with an inheritance from a mother. ');">³³</span> derived? — For our Rabbis taught: