Siman 247

One who sent vessels from afar to his home and said through the messenger or wrote, "Let these be given to my sons," and he had sons and daughters, they are given to all of them, for in human speech daughters are also included in "sons," as this is the language of "building" (binyan), for the offspring of a person is his building. Onkelos also translated "and he begot sons and daughters" as "sons and daughters" (binin u-venan), and also in the Holy Tongue, in their plural form, they are the language of building, except that in the singular the nun is missing to distinguish between male and female. And even though a dying man who said "my property is for my sons," the daughters are not included, as will be explained, that is because since he is making a will of inheritance, his intention is presumably only for the sons according to the law of the Torah that a daughter does not inherit where there is a son. But a healthy person who sends gifts to his home presumably intended them for everyone. Therefore, items that are fit only for males, such as books and weapons, the sons shall take; and those fit for females, such as dyed silk garments and gold jewelry, the daughters shall take. Regarding those fit for both males and females, the Tur wrote in the name of the Ramah that they should be given to both of them, and the Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter of Zekhiya that they should be given to the sons alone. The reason is that, nevertheless, the term "sons" applies more to the males, and the fact that daughters are included is only effective for things fit only for the daughters [Kesef Mishneh]. If he said "to the members of my household," even the Rambam admits that it applies to both [Mishneh LaMelekh], and the Tur is dealing with such a case and does not disagree with the Rambam [ibid.], and so it is implied from the wording of the Tur that they do not disagree; see there. Furthermore, it appears to me that certainly when there is enough for both, they give to both, and the Rambam is dealing with a case where there is not enough for everyone. That which is fit only for females belongs to the daughters even when they are married and their needs are not upon him; nevertheless, he sent to them. If the sons are also married, some say it is more logical that he sent to his daughters-in-law, for the mind is closer to his son than to his daughter [Sma]. If his daughters are unmarried, even if the sons are married, everything belongs to the daughters since it is upon him to marry them off [ibid.]. If she is a widow or a divorcee who returned to her father's house, there is room for doubt, and it appears that the daughter and his daughter-in-law divide equally, and it requires further study.

One who sends vessels to his house without specification, and did not explain for whom—those suitable for the sons and daughters, they shall divide; those suitable only for the daughters, the daughters take; and those suitable only for the sons, the sons take. And if they are all married, his daughters-in-law shall take, for a person's mind is closer to the son more so. But when the daughters are unmarried, they take and not the daughters-in-law. And when the sons are not married, the daughters shall take even when they are married. And it appears to me that the sons and daughters who are not supported at his table do not take at all when he did not explain explicitly. And so too, if he has only sons, even though he has daughters of his sons, only the sons take everything. And so too, if he has only daughters, even if he has sons of his daughters, the daughters take everything, for in the place of his own offspring, his grandchildren do not take in an unspecified case unless he explained [and this is the intention of the Shulchan Aruch in what he wrote "and if he has no daughters etc." for if not so, what is he coming to teach us]. And there is one who says that when he said "to my sons," his daughters-in-law never have anything in the place of his daughters, even when they are married [Bach]. And also in one who sent to his house without specification, there are those who say that these words apply when he does not have a wife, but if he has a wife and sent to his house without specification, certainly things suitable for women, he sent to her, even if he has unmarried daughters; but when he explained "to my sons," his wife has nothing in this [ibid.].

But in the matter of inheritance, such as a shekhiv mera who said, "My property shall be for my sons," and he had sons and daughters, everything goes to the sons. Not only that, but even if he has only one son and daughters, and he said "to my sons" in the plural, nevertheless the daughters receive nothing. And we find in the verse, "And the sons of Dan, Hushim," for as much as we are able to establish the language according to the law of the Torah, we establish it. However, grandsons are not like sons even when they are fit to inherit because their father died, and the one son takes everything, for in the language of people, grandsons are not included in "sons," as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 217, that one who vows to derive no benefit from "sons" is permitted to benefit from grandsons, and in vows we follow the language of people. And certainly a son's daughter is not included, even though they are fit to inherit by law. And it is obvious that a daughter's sons are not included. And if he has only daughters and grandsons, some say that the grandsons take everything, since they are fit to inherit, because the term "sons" is balanced between grandsons and daughters, and we establish it according to the law of the Torah. And it appears to me that if he has only daughters and granddaughters from a son, even though the granddaughters are fit to inherit, nevertheless the daughters also take, for since the term "sons" is perforce not literal, certainly according to the language of people the daughters are not inferior to the granddaughters, and perhaps they are superior to them. And if he has only granddaughters from a son and grandsons from a daughter, they also divide it. And if he said, "to my sons and to my daughters," regarding that which pertains to all of them, such as money and land, they divide it; and regarding vessels and jewelry, that which is fit for sons goes to the sons and that which is fit for daughters goes to the daughters, as with a healthy person. However, perforce some portion must reach each one [Taz]. And there was a case of one who commanded that all he has should be for his son, only that he should give a certain sum to each of his daughters, and he had one daughter who died in his lifetime and left a son, and they ruled that he has nothing, for he said "to them" and not to their heirs. Furthermore, his son's son is not included in "his son" as has been written, and certainly his daughter's son is not included in "daughters." However, when the daughter died after his death, her son or daughter merited her portion [ibid.]. And a shekhiv mera who said, "My property is for my offspring" or "for my orphans," everyone is included. And so the Rosh ruled regarding one who divided his property due to death and wrote, "And the remainder shall be divided between my two sisters and the orphans of my sister," and there were among the orphans of his sister males and females, adults and minors, that all of them are included, even married females, for there is no distinction in the term "orphans."

One who says, "My property is for so-and-so and for my children," they divide the property, and so-and-so takes half and the children take half. If he said, "To so-and-so and so-and-so and to the children of so-and-so," the children of so-and-so take half and the two [named individuals] take half. This is so even if those specified individually are many and those included as a group are few, such that each of the individuals receives less than each of those in the group—for example, if he said, "My property is for so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, and for the children of Reuven," and Reuven has only two children. The law is the same in other matters, such as if he said, "Lend to so-and-so and to the children of so-and-so," and similarly regarding any condition. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that therefore, a man and a woman who stipulated between themselves that if one of them dies, they shall return the property to their relatives—his relatives take half and her relatives take half. Thus far his words. And all those disqualified from testimony due to kinship are called relatives, and there is no distinction between a closer relative and one who is not as close, such as between his brother and his brother's son and the like. Also, there is no distinction between males and females. Nevertheless, I wonder about this law, for certainly in such a condition the intention is that they should not inherit from one another, but rather that the property should return to the relatives; that is, when he dies, his property should return to his relatives, and when she dies, her property should return to her relatives. What logic is there that her relatives should take when he dies, or his relatives when she dies? The source of the law is from the Hagahot Maimoni, chapter 11 of Zechiyah, and there it is regarding a different matter: a man and his wife who stipulated between themselves to give such-and-so to their relatives, and one died, that the second cannot change it because it is a vow, and his relatives have merited half and her relatives half. Thus far his words. Behold, they vowed to their relatives for tzedakah every year, and he ruled that even if one of them dies, one must always conduct oneself so. In this, it is certainly so. But regarding a condition concerning inheritance, certainly each one bequeaths to his own relatives. Perhaps it should be said that they stipulated between themselves that "if they die," etc., meaning when both of them die, and in that case it is certainly so. It requires further study.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who had sons from one wife and married another wife, and stipulated with his first sons that his sons from the second shall take a portion in the inheritance like them [meaning, that they shall divide the assets with the sons he will have from her, even if they are more or fewer than them], and he had only daughters from the second, a daughter has nothing in the presence of the sons. Thus far his words. For his intention was only for sons; and even if his intention was also for daughters, it is of no effect, for regarding a daughter among sons, the language of inheritance is not effective even when she is in the world, and all the more so when she is not in the world [so it is in the Mordechai at the beginning of the ninth chapter of Bava Batra; and see Sma, subsection 4, and it requires further study]. And one who commanded to give his daughter such and such money for her marriage, they give it to her immediately if she is an adult and of sound mind, and they do not wait until the time of her marriage. And similarly, one who says, "Give a maneh to so-and-so for sustenance," they do not give it to him little by little, but rather they give him the maneh all at once [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba], and so too anything similar to this.