Bava Batra 141: Fetuses Cannot Inherit; First Born Girls, Boys, Tumtumim, Inheritance and Gifts

When our last Mishna speaks about a wife giving birth, the rabbis assume that fathers prefer to have sons because daughters cost more to sustain.  Rabbi Yochanan taught that G-d hates a man who dies without a son who will be his heir.   As well, the inheritance is kept within one tribe.  Men are thought to give larger gifts to daughters because it is is said to be abnormal for daughters to beg for food.  We are offered a window into the valuing of girls and boys.

The Gemara discusses a man who has his first child.  Is he happier to have a boy or a girl?  Rav Chisda claims that a daughter would be a good sign.  He says that he prefers daughters.  Daughters will raise future children, after all.  Further, the is no akin ha'ra, evil eye when the first child is a girl - a boy would receive a double portion, which provokes the evil eye.

The rabbis move on to measure the benefits and disadvantages of having girls and boys.  How do we know that fathers want to spend more money on daughters?  In fact, Rav Yehuda teaches that G-d gave everything to Avraham - wouldn't this prove that having a son is preferable to having a daughter?  And Rabbi Meir says that if it is a mitzvah to feed daughters, isn't even more of a mitzvah to feed sons?  This is countered by Rabbi Yehudah, who says that it is a mitzvah to feed sons, and all the more so daughters.  This would be to save their reputation, however, rather than to demonstrate true care of one's daughters.**

A baraita is said to explain that if the woman gives birth to a boy and a girl, the boy receives 150 zuz and the girl receives 50 zuz.  The rabbis walk through the reasoning for this division given that we learned earlier that the boy and girl would receive 100 zuz each.  Ravina suggests that the father might have agreed to pay the first person who informed him about the birth of his children - more specifically who was born first.  A nafel, a stillborn baby, is never good news, people will not be rewarded for sharing that information.

We are told about a man who tells his pregnant wife that his property belongs to the child she is carrying.  Rav Huna suggests that a kinyan, agreement of acquisition, on behalf of a fetus is invalid.  We are not to transfer ownership of something that is not yet in the world.  But a promise about the future holdings of a child born in the future might be valid - for example, a promise to give a son 100 zuz upon his birth.  The rabbis argue about which rabbis would agree or disagree with the transfer of property when it involves a fetus.

Rabbi Yossi states that a fetus disqualifies slaves from partaking of teruma (these slaves would have been inherited from a kohen father).  The mother is not permitted to eat Truma either.  Until the fetus has been born, it is not considered to be a kohen.  So how could a fetus be directed to own or inherit anything before its birth?  The rabbis teach that inheritance is different from kinyan because inheritance is automatic.  

The rabbis move on to a discussion about gifts and inheritance with regard to a fetus.  Should a fetus be permitted to receive a gift?  or inheritance?  or neither?  It is understood that someone who is not in the world should not inherit.  The rabbis are clear that a fetus is not understood to be a person in the world until it has been born.  But because the fetus will eventually be the child who will inherit or receive a gift, and because men are permitted to choose to give gifts to anyone, there is some degree of conflict.  Plus, if the child is a tumtum, and it is the only child, then it will inherit everything regardless of whether or not it is given a gift before birth.  

Our last thought is about the specificity of words used: when she will give birth the baby will receive... might indicate a loophole.  Rav Huna notes that the baby will not acquire even in this case.  


**It is important to note that even when the rabbis speak about the valuing of girls, they do this in comparison with the obvious preference for boys.  One example is that of the celebration of a girl as one's first child because this wards off the evil eye.  The evil eye follows good fortune - and having a boy as a first child is understood by all to be good news.