Commentary for Bava Batra 8:10

יש נוחלין – there are relations that inherit their relatives when they die, and even when they themselves die. They bequeath to them their money.

There are those who inherit and bequeath, there are those who inherit but do not bequeath, there are those who bequeath but do not inherit and there are those who neither bequeath nor inherit.
These inherit and bequeath: a father as to his sons and sons as to their father and brothers from the same father, these inherit and bequeath.
A man as to mother, and a man as to his wife, and the sons of sisters, inherit but do not bequeath.
A woman as to her sons, and a wife as to her husband, and brothers of the mother, bequeath but do not inherit.
And brothers from the same mother [but not father] neither inherit nor bequeath.
The eighth and ninth chapters of Bava Batra deal with the laws of inheritance. It states in Numbers 8-11 (JPS translation): “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.”
The first two mishnayoth of our chapter deal with the order of inheritance, who inherits from whom and who bequeaths property to whom.
This mishnah lists in four categories all those who inherit from others and all those who, when they die, bequeath property to others.
Category one: The relationships listed in this category both inherit and bequeath. When a father dies, his sons inherit and if they should die without offspring, the father inherits from them. If a man dies and he has no children and his father is already dead his brother will inherit. So too if his brother dies in a similar situation , he bequeaths his property to his brother.
Category two: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person inherits but does not bequeath. A man inherits his mother but if he should die first, the mother does not inherit from him. So too, a man inherits his wife but if he should die his property is not bequeathed to her. If a man dies and his sister had children, they may inherit him if he has no closer relative. However, if they die, he does not inherit their property since it will pass to their father’s side and not their mother’s.
Category three: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person bequeaths but does not inherit. A woman bequeaths her property to her sons but she does not inherit from them if they should die first. Likewise, a husband inherits his wife’s property, but he does not bequeath his property to her. Finally, if a man dies and his closest relative is his sister’s children his property is bequeathed to them, but if they should die he cannot inherit from them.
Category four: The relationships listed in this category are ones in which the person neither bequeaths nor inherits. If a man dies and he leaves a brother who shares a mother but not a father he does not bequeath his property to him, nor does he inherit his property should the brother die. The inheritance lines go to each man’s father’s family and not to his relatives on his mother’s side.

האב את הבנים – as it is written (Numbers 27:8): “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter.” In place of a daughter, you transfer the inheritance from the father, but you do not transfer inheritance from the father in place of brothers.

והבנים את האב – as it is written (Numbers 27:8): “If a man dies without leaving a son;” but if he has a son, the son precedes.

והאחין מן האב – as it is written (Numbers 27:10): “in his own clan, and he shall inherit it.” And the family/clan of the father is called a family, as it is written (Numbers 1:2): “by the clans of its ancestral houses.”

והאיש את אמו – as it is written (Numbers 36:8): “ Every daughter among the Israelite tribes who inherits a share [must marry someone from a clan of her father’s tribe, in order that every Israelite may keep his ancestral share],”how a daughter inherits two tribes, but this [is the case] where her father is from one tribe and her mother is from another tribe, "וירשתן"/and she shall inherit them (see Numbers 36:8 and Talmud Bava Batra 111a) – for since it is written (in our verse): "ממטות"/from the tribe, he made an analogy of two verses near each other – the tribe of the mother to the tribe of the father. Just as the tribe of the father, the son precedes the daughter, so too, the tribe of the mother – the son precedes the daughter.

והאיש את אשתו – as it is written (Numbers 27:11): “[If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to] his nearest relative [in his own clan and he shall inherit it].” “the nearest relative” is one’s wife. And we read it this way: “And you shall give the inheritance of his nearest relative to him and deduct or add and we expound, that even she shall inherit him, as the inference teaches us: (Numbers 27: 11): “and he shall inherit it.” He inherits her, but she does not inherit him (see also Talmud Bava Batra 111b).

כל הקודם לנחלה. יוצאי יריכו קודמין – if his descendants are not living, their inheritance returned with the father. How so? Reuven who died. Hanokh, and Palu, Hezron and Carmi [his sons] inherit him and if one of the sons predeceases Reuven, and that son [who died] left a son or a daughter [or a son of a son or a daughter of a son] or the son of daughter or the daughter of a daughter, until one hundred generations, he shall inherit in place of his father of the property of Reuven his father. And he will take like one of the sons of Reuven and if Reuven doesn’t have any sons, but not sons of sons and even the daughters of sons, for then, the daughters of Reuven would inherit Reuven, but not the daughters of daughters, until all the generations. Then Jacob would inherit his son Reuven. But if Jacob is no longer living, then Reuven’s brothers, the sons of his father (i.e., Jacob) would inherit, Shimon, Levi and Judah [Joseph and Benjamin] [etc. and if they no are not living, the sons of Shimon and Levi, etc. would inherit Reuven]. But if they don’t have sons, nor sons of sons (i.e., grandsons), their daughters would inherit. Or the sons of their daughters or the daughters of their daughters. For in every place, the male and his inheritors precede the female. But if the brothers of Reuven died without progeny, or if he hadn’t ever had a brother, his sister Dinah, the daughter of Jacob would inherit him, or her sons or the sons of her sons [or her daughters and the daughters of her daughters] until the end of the world. But if Reuven does not have a sister nor the progeny of a sister, his inheritance would return to the father of his father, which is Isaac. But if Isaac is not alive, the inheritance would return to Esau the son of Isaac who is the brother of the father of Reuven (i.e., Jacob), and if Esau is not [alive], the inheritance of Reuven would return to Eliphaz the son of Esau, or to his sons, or to his grandsons or to his daughters or to his granddaughters to the end of all generations. But if there are no brothers to the father of Reuven (i.e., Jacob) nor to the sons of his sons, the inheritance of Reuven would return to his father’s sister or to her sons or to the children of her sons or to her daughters according to the order that we stated. But if Reuven’s father does not have either brothers nor grandchildren, nor a sister nor the children of his sister the inheritance of Reuven would return to Abraham, his paternal great-grandfather, and similarly forever until the first human being (i.e., Adam).

This is the order of inheritance: “If a man dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8) the son precedes the daughter, and all the son’s offspring precede the daughter.
The daughter precedes the brothers and the daughters’ offspring precede the brothers.’
Brothers precede the father’s brothers and the brothers’ offspring precede the father’s brothers.
This is the general rule: whosoever has precedence in inheritance, his offspring also has precedence.
The father has precedence over all his offspring.
Mishnah two lists the order of the inheritance, whose inheritance takes precedence over others.
This mishnah deals with the order of inheritance as mentioned in the verse, quoted in section one. A son precedes a daughter in inheritance. In addition, if the son had children they inherit even if the son is no longer alive. In other words grandchildren inherit directly from their grandfather if the father is no longer alive. As stated in the general rule in section five, offspring in essence take the place of the supposed inheritor. So too if the daughter has offspring and she is no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the brothers of the deceased. If the brothers of the deceased have offspring and the brothers are no longer alive, they will inherit in place of the deceased man’s father’s brothers.
Finally, the mishnah teaches us one other piece of information that we might have assumed from the Torah but is not explicit. The Torah lists the father’s brothers as being on the line of inheritance but it does not list the father himself. Our mishnah states that if a person dies without children, his or her father becomes the primary inheritor. Likewise, if a grandchild would die with no offspring and the grandchild’s father is also not alive the grandfather would inherit from his granchild.

האב קודם – forever to the brothers of the father and to their children [but the brothers of the father precede the sisters of the father] and the brothers of the father and the sisters of the father precede [the father of the father, and the father of the father precedes the brothers of the father’s father and the sisters of the father precede [the father of the father, and the father of the father precedes the brothers of the father’s father, and the brother’s of the father’s father, and even his sisters precede to the father of his father’s father, and similarly forever.

נטלו שלשה חלקים בנחלה – in the inheritance of the Land of Israel. And this Tanna/teacher [in the Mishnah] holds that the Land [of Israel] was divided to those who left Egypt, as it is written (Numbers 26:55): “[The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot;] and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes” (see Talmud Bava Batra 117a). And Tzelophchad and Hefer, his father, took portions in the Land, for both were among those who left Egypt. But the daughters of Tzelophchad took the portion of their father that would become his property in the Land. And the portion that would become his from the inheritance of Hefer his father. And the portion of his first-born share as he was a first-born and he takes a double portion. But even though they had not yet inherited the land, the first-born does not take a double portion as is appropriate to come after death. The Land of Israel was held in possession.

Introduction In Numbers 27 the story is told of Zelophehad’s daughters. Zelophehad died with no sons and his daughters came to Moses to request that they inherit Zelophehad’s property. Moses brings the request to God who affirms that if there are no sons then the daughters are the next in the line of inheritance. Mishnah three deals with the case of Zelophehad’s daughters.

The daughters of Zelophehad took three portions of the inheritance (of the Land of: The portion of their father who was of them that came out of Egypt; And his portion among his brothers from the property of Hepher (Zelophehad’s; And, in that he ( was the first-born, he took a double portion. This mishnah lists how many portions of land the daughters of Zelophehad received. According to the mishnah the Land of Israel was divided according to the adult males who left Egypt (and not according to those who actually arrived to the Land of Israel). Since Zelophehad and his father, Hepher, both left Egypt, they both would have received a piece of land in Israel. In addition, Zelophehad, being the first born, would have taken a double portion in the inheritance he received from Hepher. These three portions, Zelophehad’s own portion and the two portions he inherited from Hepher, all would have passed down to the daughters of Zelophehad when he died.

Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah connect with the subject of the previous mishnah? In other words why is this mishnah here and not somewhere else in the chapter?

אחד הבן ואחד הבת בנחלה – this is what he said: both the son and the daughter are equivalent in the inheritance of the property of the mother, [just as in the inheritance] of the property of the father. And there is no difference between the inheritance of the property of the mother to the inheritance of the property of the father other than that the first born son takes a double portion in the property of the father but does not take a double portion in the property of the mother.

Introduction Mishnah four deals with the difference between the inheritance of the son and the daughter.

The son and the daughter are alike concerning inheritance, save that the [firstborn] son takes a double portion of the father’s property but he does not take a double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters receive maintenance from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property. This mishnah lists the differences between sons and daughters with regards to inheritance. (Note: daughters only inherit when there are no sons). The first difference is that the eldest son inherits the double portion, whereas the eldest daughter would inherit equally with younger sisters. Furthermore, the son inherits a double portion of his father’s inheritance but not of his mother’s inheritance. The law of the double portion are found in Deuteronomy 21:15. If a man should die and leave sons and daughters, the sons inherit the estate but the minor daughters are maintained, i.e. fed, clothed, housed and in general provided for, by the estate of the deceased father. We will learn this principle in chapter nine. Here the mishnah states that the daughters, when receiving maintenance payments, receive them only from the estate of the father and not from the estate of the mother.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one is actually worded in a somewhat difficult manner. What makes it difficult?

לא אמר כלום – and he is not able to remove hm from the inheritance, other that via that he would give his property to the rest of his sons through a gift.

Introduction Mishnah five deals with a father’s ability to decide which of his inheritors will inherit.

על פיו – because it is a Mitzvah in the consequence of a death and a person on his deathbed, his words are like they were written and transmitted and they don’t require an [act of] acquisition, and because of this it is taught “by his mouth”/על פיו.

Our mishnah deals with a father who does not want to simply let the inheritance fall in its proper order (as learned in the first two mishnayoth of the chapter) but rather wants to divide his property in another fashion.

והשוה להן את הבכור – in the language of a gift.

If a man says, “So and so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion”, or “So and so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers”, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. The Torah demands that the eldest son receive a double portion and each of the other sons divide the money equally. A father’s attempt to lessen the portion of the eldest son or increase the portion of the other sons would be, therefore, a condition that goes against Torah law, and such a condition is invalid.

דבריו קיימין – and we don’t have here [the case] of a person making a condition against what is written in the Torah because it is within the power of an individual to give his money as a gift to whomever he desires.

If a man apportioned his property to his sons by word of mouth, and gave much to one and little to another, or made them equal to the firstborn, his words are valid. But if he had said [that it should be so] “by inheritance”, he has said nothing. If he had written down, whether at the beginning or in the middle or at the end [of his will] that it should be as a gift, his words are valid. However, the fact that a man cannot make a change in the inheritance law does not mean that he cannot apportion his money as a present to his children while he is still alive. As long as the document or his verbal contract states that the money is being passed to his children as a present while he is still alive and not as an inheritance after his death, the transaction is valid. The Torah’s laws govern inheritance, the transfer of money after death and not presents given during life.

ואם אמר משום ירושה – and if he increased [the monies] to one and lessened them to another in the designation of inheritance as he said: “So-and-so my son will a field that is an area requiring a Khor of seed, and so-and-so my son will inherit a field that is in an area requiring a one-half Khor of seed. But regarding his first-born son he said that he would inherit like that of his fellow, he did not say anything, for he made a condition that is against what is written in the Torah.

If a man said, “So and so a man shall inherit from me” and he has a daughter; or “My daughter shall inherit from me”, and he has a son, he has said nothing, for he has made a condition contrary to what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka says: “If he said [that so and so shall inherit from me] of one that was qualified to inherit from him, his words are valid, but if of one that was not qualified to inherit from him his words do not remain valid.” Similar to the law in section one, here too a person attempts to change the laws of inheritance from the Torah, by saying that a stranger will inherit when he has a daughter or that his daughter will inherit when he has a son. Again, we learn that such a stipulation, contrary to the laws of the Torah, is invalid. Rabbi Johanan ben Baroka disagrees. He says that as long as the intended inheritor is a legal inheritor, meaning one of those on the list in mishnah one and two, then a person can bypass the primary inheritor and give to the secondary one. In other words Jacob could state that instead of his sons inheriting his property his daughter Dina could inherit, since she is on the lines of inheritance. He could not however, state that a stranger to the family would inherit in place of his sons.

כתב בין בתחלה וכ' – “You will give such-and-such a field to son-and-so, and he will inherit it.” This is at the beginning. “He will inherit it and you will give it to him.” This is at the at the end. “He will inherit such-and-such a field and you will give it to him and he will inherit it. This is a gift in the middle.

If a man wrote away his property to others and passed over his sons, what he has done is done, but the Sages are not comfortable with it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If has sons did not behave properly, it should be counted to his credit.” Finally, the mishnah states that although a person can give away his property to strangers before he dies, thereby leaving no inheritance for his sons, the Rabbis were not happy with such an action. The laws of inheritance in the Torah are not just guidelines for inheriting should the situation arise, they are the proper way in which property would be transferred from generation to generation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel lastly notes, that if the sons were engaged in improper behavior, it is meritorious for the father to ensure that they receive no inheritance.

אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו – as for example, regarding a son among the sons, or regarding a daughter among the daughters, so-and-so will inherit me, his words are fulfilled, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:16):”When he wills his property to his sons [he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one in disregard of the son of the unloved one who is older].” The Torah gave permission to the father to bequeath to the sons to whomever he desires. And Rabbi Yohanan [Ben Beroka] agrees regarding a brother in place of a daughter, and regarding a daughter in place of a son, he has not said anything for the daughter is not worthy of inheriting in place of a son nor is the brother [worthy of inheriting] in place of a daughter. And similarly, Rabbi Yohanan [ben Beroka] agrees that if he made the first born equivalent to the [other] sons, he has not said anything, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:16): “he may not treat as first-born the son of the loved one.” And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו – The Sages have no pleasure from his actions, and even if his sons did not conduct themselves appropriately. Perhaps, there will arise from them a higher-level seed. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel.

זה בני נאנון – to inherit him and to exempt his wife from levirate marriage.

Introduction Mishnah six deals with a father’s ability to declare that a certain person is either his son or his brother in order that he should be his legal inheritor.

זה אחי אינו נאמן – to cause him to inherit with his brothers, for they do not recognize him.

If a man said, “This is my son”, he is believed. If [he said], “This is my brother”, he is not believed, yet the other may join him in his portion. If he died the property returns to its place. If he inherited property from elsewhere the other’s brothers inherit it together with him. If a man states that a certain person is his son, and therefore should inherit his property along with his other sons, he is believed. Since he could give his property to this person in any case, we allow him to claim that the person is his son so that he may receive a portion of the inheritance. However, he is not to believed to say that a person is his brother and therefore should share in the inheritance from his father. Since, by saying that a person is his brother and deserves part of the inheritance he would be taking away from the shares of the other brothers, he is not believed. Suppose a case in which Reuven and Shimon come to split an inheritance and Shimon claims that Levi is his brother. If they were to split equally, Reuven would receive a third of the inheritance and not the half, which would be his had Shimon been his only brother. Therefore Reuven takes half and Shimon and Levi split the other half. If Levi were to die, the money would revert to Shimon. Since the money was taken out of Shimon’s share in the first place, the money would eventually revert to him and not to Reuven. If Levi were to receive money from somewhere else (i.e. not from his father’s inheritance) and then die, Reuven and Shimon would both inherit. Since Shimon claimed that Levi was his and Reuven’s brother he must share the inheritance from Levi with Reuven.

ונוטל עמו בחלקו – as for example, if they are two brothers, besides the doubt, and they have to divide three fields, This one takes a field and one-half, and that one takes a field and one-half, and the third one testifies on the doubt that he is their brother, he gives him one-half of the field, but the other does not give him anything, or he says to him: “bring proof and then take.”

If a man died and a testament was found bound to his thigh, this counts as nothing. But if [he had delivered it and] through it granted title to another, whether of his heirs or of those who are not his heirs, his words are valid. If a man died and a testament (will) was found on him, the will is invalid. Although we may assume that the man wrote the document we do not know if he intended to give it to the intended person. Since he may have written it and changed his mind, the document is not valid. If, however, he gave the document to someone else before he died the document is valid. Since it was given while the person was alive, it is a proper will and it will be carried out.

מת – [the one about whom there is] doubt.

יחזרו – those properties that his brothers gave him.

למקומן – meaning to say, to whomever had given them to him, but the other brothers do not inherit with him.

נפלו לו – to the one [about whom there is] doubt.

נכסים ממקום אחר – during his lifetime; or he bought property and now is dead.

ירשו אחיו – of the one who testifies that he is their brother.

עמו – for surely he admits to them that he is their brother, but these words [concern] when the rest of the brothers did not deny to state that he definitely is not their brother, but rather claim that they don’t recognize him, but if they deny that he is their brother, they do not inherit him other than the one who testified about him alone.

דיאתיקי – a will of someone on his deathbed. And the language of דיאתיקי is this what shall be established and come to pass.

קשורה לו ביריכו – that is not to say that after it was written and placed there, even so it is worthless, for he did not complete to transfer possession other than with the receipt of a document, but there is no document after death.

צריך שיכתוב מהיום ולאחר מיתה – that implies the body of the land will be acquired by you from today, but you will not eat of the fruits until after death, but if he did not write, “from today,” he did not give him anything for there is no gift after death.

Introduction The first half of mishnah seven deals with laws concerning a father who gives money to his son before his death, thereby circumventing the lines of inheritance as prescribed in the Torah. The second half of the mishnah deals with the division of the inheritance amongst the sons.

אינו צריך – [it is not necessary] to write “from today, for since he wrote in the document: “on such-and-such day of the week, so-and-so told us, “be for me witnesses,” the date [and time] of the document proves that from that day, the gift began. But if he did not say this, the time that is written in the document – for what purposes was it written? And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi.

The first two sections of the mishnah deal with a father who wrote over his property to one of his sons before his death in order to avoid the property falling equally to all of his sons at the time of his death. The intent of the father’s action is for the money ti stay in the possession of the father until he dies but to already partly belong to the son to whom the property was written over. In this way the son does not have to split the property with the other sons.

לאחר מותו – from today and after death.

If a man writes over his property to his son, he must write, “From today and after my death”, according to Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, “He need not do so.” In order to accomplish such an action the father must write in the document that it is valid “from today and after my death”. He writes “from today” so that the property will already be transferred before his death, and thereby not subject to the laws of inheritance which take effect only after death. He writes, “after my death” so that he can continue to use the property until he dies. This is Rabbi Judah’s opinion. According to Rabbi Yose he need not write “from today” in the document. Since the document contains the date on which it was written, it is clear that the transfer occurs before his death, and is not subject to the laws of inheritance.

האב אינו יכול למכור – without the son, for the body [of the estate] was acquired by the son.

If a man writes over his property to his son to be his after his death, the father cannot sell it since it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it since it is in the possession of the father. If his father sold the property, it is sold [only] until he dies; if the son sold the property, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests the crops and gives them to whomever he wishes, and what he has left harvested belongs to [all] his heirs. After the document is written the property is neither fully the son’s nor fully the father’s. Neither can sell the property; if the father were to do the sale is only valid until he dies at which point the property will belong to the son. If the son were to sell the sale is valid only after the father dies. Until then the property is in the father’s possession. The father may continue to harvest the produce from his fields and he may even give it to others as he so desires. If he dies and leaves harvested produce, it is subject to the laws of inheritance and not solely to the son to whom the father wrote his property.

If he left elder sons and younger sons, the elder sons may not take care of themselves [from the estate] at the expense of the younger sons, nor may the younger sons claim maintenance at the cost of the elder sons, rather they all share alike. If the elder sons married [at the expense of the estate] so too the younger sons may marry [at the expense of the estate]. If the younger sons said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given. In this section the father died without writing his property over to one son. In such a case the inheritance is divided equally. The elder sons cannot take care of themselves at the expense of the younger sons. Even though the elder sons need more clothing than the younger sons they may not use more than their share. So too, the younger sons may not claim more food than their share, even though younger children eat and waste more food. With regards to providing a marriage feast for the son and his bride and providing the young couple with a place to live, the younger sons can claim to receive the same amount from the inheritance that the elder sons receive. If, however, the elder sons married while the father was still alive, the younger sons cannot claim that they should receive as much as the elder sons received. Since the elder sons married while the father was alive the money their father gave them for the wedding was a gift and does not impact on the equal division of the inheritance.

מכר האב – [the father sold] in an undefined manner the fruits are sold to the purchaser, until the father dies.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section 2a: Why is produce which is harvested before the father dies subject to the laws of inheritance whereas the rest of the father’s property is transferred to the son to whom the property was written over?

מכר הבן – during the lifetime of the father, [the son sold it], the purchaser does not have the fruits until the father dies.

האב – who wrote that his property is to go to his son from today and after death, may pluck up and feed the fruit to whomever he desires during his lifetime, but what he left that is attached [is deposed] at the time of death. Even though that it stands to be plucked up, they belong to the son who receives the gift. But he who writes that all of his property is to go to someone else, even what he had left attached to the ground at the time of his death, it belongs to the inheritors, for the intention of a person is closer to his son than to anyone else.

מתפרנסין – garments and clothing because the support of the older children is greater than the support of the younger children.

נזונים – food and drink, because the food of the younger children is greater than that of the older children, who eat many times and scatter. Therefore, the younger children prevent the older children from supporting themselves from that which belongs to the estate of the house, and the older children prevent the younger children from being fed, but rather, each one is supported and fed from his portion.

נשאו גדולים – they made all the needs of the wedding from the estate of the house after the death of their father, the younger children will also get married with [the support of] the estate of the house.

ואם אמרו הקטנים – behold, we will get married in the manner that you married during the lifetime of our father, we don’t listen to them, but rather, what their father gave them during his lifetime, he gave [them.

הניח בנות – but not sons.

If he left elder daughters and younger daughters, the elder daughters may not care for themselves at the cost of the younger daughters, nor may the younger daughters claim maintenance at the cost of the elder daughters, rather they all share alike.
If the elder daughters married [and took each her dowry from the common inheritance] so too the younger daughters may marry [and take each a dowry from the common inheritance].
If the younger daughters said, “We will marry in the way you married”, they do not listen to them, for what their father gave them, he has given.
A greater stringency applies to daughters than to sons, since daughters can claim maintenance at the cost of the sons, but they cannot claim maintenance at the cost of the [other daughters].
Mishnah eight deals with the division of the inheritance when daughters inherit.
The first three sections of this mishnah are identical to the last section of yesterday’s mishnah. The only difference is that while the father customarily pays for the wedding of his son, to his daughter he gives a dowry. Therefore in section two and three the daughters are arguing over dowries and not over the costs of the wedding.
Section four: We will learn in the first mishnah of the next chapter that if a father left sons and daughters and he did not have a large enough inheritance for the daughters to be maintained and the sons to inherit, the daughters’ maintenance (food, clothing and shelter) takes precedence over the sons’ inheritance. However, if he left only daughters, the younger daughters cannot claim maintenance at the expense of the elder daughters. In other words, the law with regards to daughters is more strict [vis a vis the other daughters] than the law with regards to sons.

שהבנות נזונות מן הבנים – according to the conditions of the Jewish marriage contract/Ketubah, for the young daughters are not supported [at the expense of] the older daughters, and in a place where there are no sons who inherit, the daughters do not eat according to the conditions of the Ketubah but rather they divide it equally, and each one is supported from her own [portion] (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 6, Mishnah 6 for a comparison).