Midrash for Numbers 27:8

(Fol. 115) R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "He who leaves no son to succeed him, the Holy One, praised be He! is filled with anger at him, for it is written here (Num. 27, 8) Then shall ye cause his inheritance to pass (Haabartem), and it is written there (Zeph. 1, 15) That day is a day of wrath (Ebrah)." (Ps. 55, 20) Those who leave no changes fear no God. R, Jochanan and R. Joshua b. Levi differ. According to one a son is meant, and according to the other a disciple. We can infer that R. Jochanan is the one who holds that it refers to a disciple; for R. Jochanan said: "This is the bone of my tenth son [whom I have buried]." The inference is sustained. Now, if R. Jochanan refers to a disciple then R. Joshua b. Levi refers to a son, if so, why do we find that R. Joshua b. Levi did not go to a funeral unless the deceased was childless, because it is written (Jer. 22, 10) Weep sorely for him that goeth away, which R. Juda in the name of Rab interpreted to refer to one who passeth away without a son! It must be concluded that R. Joshua b. Levi was the one who said it refers to a disciple. Now since R. Joshua b. Levi is the one who holds it refers to a disciple, we must say that R. Jochanan is the one who holds it refers to a son. If so, then it means that R. Jochanan contradicts himself, [for above it was inferred that he held it referred to a disciple]. This is not difficult to explain, for one he said in his own name, and the other in the name of his teacher.

(Fol. 141) Shall we assume that a daughter is better for him than a son (as the Mishnah says, "If a male one hundred, and a daughter two hundred)?" Has not R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "The Holy One, praised be He! is full of wrath against the one who leaves no son to succeed him, for it is written (Num. 27, 8) And if a man die and leave no son, then shall you cause his inheritance to pass (v'ha'vartem) unto his daughter. And the word 'avarah has the meaning of evrah (meaning wrath), as is written (Zeph. 1, 15) That day is a day of wrath (evrah)?" Concerning inheritance, a male is better for him [as he bears his name]; but as to comfort for the house, a daughter is better for him. Samuel explained: "The Mishnah treats of a woman who is pregnant with her first child." And it is in accordance with R. Chisda, who said elsewhere: "If the first child is a female, it is a good sign for future children." According to some, because she will educate the sons; and according to others, that she should not he afflicted by a covetous eye. Said R. Chisda: "As for me, I always give preference to females over males." And if you wish, it may be said that our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Juda, for we are taught in a Baraitha: It is a meritorious act for one to support his daughters, and so much the more his sons who occupy themselves with the Torah. So is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Juda, however, says: "It is a meritorious act to support the sons, and so much the more to support the daughters, because of their humiliation [if they should have to beg]."

(Exodus 13:12) "Veha'avarta every firstling": "ha'avarata" is "setting apart," as in (Numbers 278) "veha'avartem his inheritance for his daughter." Shimon b. Azzai says: What is the intent of "Veha'avarta"? From (Leviticus 27:32) "Whatever (beast) passes ('ya'avor') under the staff" (for tithing), I would think that an orphan, too, (is tithed). And this would follow, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not fit for the altar, enters the shed for tithing, then an orphan, which is fit for the altar, how much more so! __ (No,) this is refuted by (the instance of) a purchased animal, which, although it is fit for the altar, does not enter the shed for tithing. __ No, this may be true of a purchased animal, which was not born in his domain, wherefore it does not enter the shed for tithing, as opposed to an orphan, which was born in his domain, wherefore it should enter the shed for tithing. I have not succeeded (in deriving the halachah) by logic alone. (I must, therefore, derive it thus:) It is written here (Exodus) "Veha'avarta," and there (Leviticus) "ya'avor." Just as here, sanctity attaches to it only in the lifetime of its mother, so, there. In that case, why not say: Just as here, (in the instance of the firstling, only) males (are indicated), there, too, (only) males (should be tithed)? It is, therefore, written (Leviticus, Ibid.) "Whatever passes under the staff" — either males or females.