Bava Batra 141

A mishnah on yesterday’s daf suggested the following hypothetical scenario:

With regard to one who says: “If my wife gives birth to a male, the offspring shall receive a gift of 100 dinars,” — if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives 100 dinars.
 
If he says: “If my wife gives birth to a female, the offspring shall receive a gift of 200 dinars,” — if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives 200 dinars.

An expectant father can commit funds to an offspring who matches his sex preference. Despite the preference many cultures have historically had for sons over daughters, the funds committed suggest this father-to-be hopes for a daughter. Indeed, the Talmud remarks:

Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yohanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass (veha’avartem) to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath (evra)” (Zephaniah 1:15).

The verb veha’avartem, in all its various conjugations, ordinarily means simply to pass an item along, but Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai uses a verse from Zephania to reread the verse from Numbers as implying that God is angered at men who do not father sons. This, in turn, suggests that the rabbis prefer sons over daughters. So the Gemara now explains why the hypothetical man in the mishnah might prefer to have a girl:

With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father’s tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring’s comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son.

Male heirs are preferred for the practical reason that they ensure the father’s name will continue within the tribe. But a daughter, according to this teaching, is more pleasant to provide for. The commentators offer various explanations. Rashbam, for instance, says that a daughter cannot sue her father for maintenance as a son can. The modern commentator Adin Steinsaltz suggests that while daughters are more expensive to maintain (since they require a dowry), this cost is expected and so it is not emotionally burdensome for the father.

The Gemara continues with other reasons a daughter might be preferred:

And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hisda, as Rav Hisda says: “If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father.” Rav Hisda said: “And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.”

Rav Hisda, famously the father of an extraordinary daughter who was married to two famous rabbis and a halakhic expert in her own right, expresses a personal preference for having girls. First, there’s the argument that the birth of a daughter heralds sons and, simultaneously, builds in support for the mother to raise those boys. This would actually mesh with the alternate interpretation of “for the matter of comfort” in that a daughter could take the burden of child care off her parents. 

Rav Hisda also says that a daughter ensures the evil eye does not have dominion over her father — like a good luck charm. According to one commentary, there’s a concern that having a son first could sow tension between him and his siblings; after all, an eldest son gets a double portion of inheritance, potentially inspiring jealousy in younger siblings. Having a daughter as a first child — one who doesn’t get the preference a first-born son would and ensures all future sons inherit equally — avoids this difficulty and averts the evil eye.

As for Rav Hisda’s final comment on preferring his daughters to his sons, commentaries lean into the phrase “as for myself”: Tosafot say that Rav Hisda’s daughters’ husbands were better scholars than his sons, so they provided more honor for his family, while the Maharal says that his daughters in their own right were more pious and learned than his sons.

In ancient rabbinic society, there might have been sound financial motivation for an expectant parent to hope for a son, but there seem to have been many reasons fathers like Rav Hisda hoped for a daughter as well.

Read all of Bava Batra 141 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on November 13, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.