Bava Batra

It is written, serah  and it is [also] written, heres!  — R. Eleazar said: At first,  its fruits [were as dry] as a potsherd  and afterwards  its fruits emitted all offensive odour.  Others say: at first  they emitted an offensive odour  and afterwards  [they were as dry] as a potsherd.  'Caleb?  — for it is written. And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses had spoken; and he drove out thence the three sons of Anak.  Was [not] Hebron a city of refuge?  Abaye replied: Its suburbs [were given to Caleb], for it is written, But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for his possession. MISHNAH. BOTH A SON AND A DAUGHTER HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION. EXCEPT THAT A SON [WHEN FIRSTBORN] TAKES A DOUBLE PORTION IN THE ESTATE OF HIS FATHER BUT DOES NOT TAKE IT IN THE ESTATE OF HIS MOTHER. DAUGHTERS MUST BE MAINTAINED OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] FATHER  BUT NOT OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THEIR [DECEASED] MOTHER. GEMARA. What [is meant by] BOTH A SON AND A DAUGHTER HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION? If it is suggested that [the meaning is that] they have equal status in heirship. Surely, [it may be retorted], we have learnt, 'a son takes precedence over a daughter [and] all lineal descendants of a son take precedence over a daughter!  — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is this that was meant: Both a son and a daughter  [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  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'!  Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?  — But, said R. Papa, it is this that was meant: Both a son and a daughter  [are entitled to] take the [prospective] portion of the birthright [of their father]. Surely, we have learnt  this also: 'Since he was a firstborn son [who] takes two shares'!  Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?  — But, said R. Ashi, it is this that was meant: [As regards] both, a son [of the deceased] among [his other] sons and a daughter  among [his other] daughters, if [the deceased] had said, 'he [or she]  shall inherit all my property', his instruction is legally valid.  Whose view is here represented?  [Is it not that] of  R. Johanan b. Beroka? Surely that is [specifically] taught further on:  R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If [a person] said [it]  concerning one who is entitled to be his heir. his instruction is legally valid; [if, however, he said it] concerning one who is not entitled to be his heir, his instruction is not valid!  And if it is suggested [that] it was [desired] to state [the law] anonymously, [to show] agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka,  [surely, it may be pointed out, this is a case of] an anonymous statement followed by  a dispute,  and [wherever] an anonymous statement [is] followed by a dispute the law is not [decided] in accordance with the anonymous statement!  Furthermore, what [is the force of] EXCEPT?  But, said Mar son of R. Ashi, it is this that was meant: Both a son and, [in the absence of a son], a daughter [have] equal [rights of succession] in the estate of a mother and in the estate of a father, except  that a son takes a double portion in the estate of his father  and he does not take a double portion in the estate of his mother. Our Rabbis taught: Giving him  a double portion,  [implies] twice as much as [any] one [of the others receive].  You said 'Twice as much as [any] one [of the others]'; is it not possible  [that our Mishnah] does not [mean this] but 'a double portion in all the estate'?  — But this  may be deduced by logical reasoning: