Bava Batra

who then should he the heir? Should the town collector  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].  Abaye said to him: Is, then,  a Scriptural verse required to tell us that where there is a one and only son he inherits all the property?  — Is it not possible, however, that [Scripture] meant to teach this: That a daughter also has a right of inheritance?  — This  is deduced from, And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance.  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?  The reason,  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,  [and that] when the Torah was given  the law received a new interpretation?  — But the best [proof]  is that given at first. Rabina said: [The law of a son's precedence may he inferred] from here: That is next to him,  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]  and [in the redeeming] of a field of [his father's] possession?  [Surely, as regards] designation, a daughter is not one to designate;  [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?'  — But the best proof is that given at first. If you like, I can say, [the law of the son's precedence] may be inferred from here: And ye may make them an inheritance for your sons  after you,  meaning, your sons but not your daughters. But in that case  does, That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your sons,  also mean 'your sons' and not 'your daughters'? — It is different [in the case of] a blessing. AND BROTHERS FROM THE [SAME] FATHER INHERIT [FROM]. AND TRANSMIT etc. Whence is this derived? — Rabbah said:  It may be deduced [from a comparison of this] 'brotherhood'  with the 'brotherhood' of the sons of Jacob;  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  [for this inference]? Surely it is written, Of his family. and he shall possess it,  [and it has been deduced  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. A MAN [INHERITS FROM] HIS MOTHER etc. Whence are these laws  derived? — For our Rabbis taught: