פירוש על בבא בתרא 9:1

מי שמת. שהנכסים מרובים – in order that the sons will be supported and the daughters until they become adults (i.e., the age of twelve and one-half years – or until they are married, after which the balance of the estate goes to the sons).

Introduction The ninth chapter of Bava Batra continues to deal with the laws of inheritance, the subject discussed in chapter eight. The first mishnah of the chapter deals with the division of the inheritance between sons and daughters.

שהנכסים מועטים – and they don’t have a measure like this.

If a man died and left sons and daughters, and the property was great, the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. But if the property was small the daughters receive maintenance and the sons go begging at people’s doors. Admon says: “The son may say, ‘Must I suffer a loss because I am a male’”. Rabban Gamaliel says: “I approve of Admon’s opinion.” As we have learned in several mishnayoth in the previous chapter, when a man dies and he has sons who survive him, the sons are the sole inheritors of his property. However, the surviving daughters have a right to continue to receive maintenance (food, clothing, shelter and a dowry) from his estate until they reach majority age and are married. Our mishnah teaches that if the property was sufficient for both an inheritance and for the maintenance of the daughters, then the sons inherit and the daughters receive maintenance. If, however, there was not enough property, the daughters maintenance takes precedence over the sons inheritance. In such a case the sons will have to beg at people’s doors. Admon disagrees and says that the son may claim that he should not lose out just because he is male. Rabban Gamaliel agrees with Admon.

בשביל שאני זכר הפסדתי – in astonishment. Burt rather, I will not lose out and all of us will be supported together. But the Halakha is not according to Admon. The put the widow with the daughter when the property is small, like a daughter with the brothers. Just as the daughter is with the brothers, the daughter is supported whereas the sons go begging at the doors. Even the widow is with the daughter. The widow receives support and the daughter goes begging at the doors.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the anonymous opinion hold that the daughters receive support from their dead father’s estate while the sons must beg, at least in a case where there is insufficient funds for all? Why not vice versa?