Admon and Raban Gamliel agree in the end that it's iniquitous, that sons lose out for no reason besides their gender. How is it not glaring, in the beginning, that daughters ought not lose out for that reason? I understand the verse so indicates, but is it not the case that Echad Sevara v'Echad Kra?
H David Levine, Roanoke, VA USA
The Gemara (140b) suggests two possible reasons why men and not women might feel slighted if they did not get the Nechasim Mu'atim of their parents: (1) Men study Torah which curtails their ability to work and earn income; (2) Since men get exclusive inheritance when there is a lot of property, why should they lose out if there is less property?
Thus, this is not "for no reason besides their gender," and there is no reason to assume that daughters are losing out, since they can enjoy their father's estate as long as they are single and are taken care of by their husband and his family after their marriage. The fact that they do not automatically get inheritance is derived from other places but does not mean their father cannot give them of his own accord (Halachically, this must take effect just before his death).
Yoel Domb