And neither does a woman take these portions, i.e., any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property for payment of her marriage contract upon her divorce or her husband’s death; nor do the daughters take this share of the property for their sustenance, to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. Nor does a man whose married brother died childless [yavam] receive these portions, even though he acquires his brother’s portion of their shared father’s inheritance after performing levirate marriage with his brother’s wife. The mishna summarizes: And all of them do not take a portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of the owner, nor do they take a portion in property due the deceased, as they do in property in his possession.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the firstborn son does not receive a double portion when inheriting the property of his mother. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “The law of primogeniture is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17); this is understood to mean that there is a law of primogeniture for a man, i.e., a duty to bequeath a double portion to his firstborn son, and there is no law of primogeniture for a woman.

The mishna teaches further: And neither does he take twice the portion in any enhancement of the value of the property after the death of his father. The Gemara explains that this is because it is written: “A double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), and this enhancement was not in his father’s possession at the time of his death. The mishna also teaches: Nor does he take twice the portion in property due the father, as he does in the property in possession of the father. The Gemara explains that this too is because it is written: “Of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), and property due the father is not in his possession.

§ The mishna teaches: And neither does a woman take any enhancement of the value of the property or the property due the husband, from her husband’s property for payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Shmuel say a creditor collects the value of the enhancement of the field of a borrower after the latter’s death? Since a wife’s marriage contract is like a promissory note, she is considered a creditor. Rabbi Abba says: The Sages taught here one of the leniencies for the husband that apply to a marriage contract: That a woman does not collect the value of the enhancement despite the fact that she is a creditor.

The mishna teaches: Nor do the daughters take this share of the property for their sustenance, to which they are entitled from their late father’s possessions. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that a stipulation in the marriage contract, such as that the daughters are entitled to sustenance from the father’s property after his death, is comparable to the marriage contract itself, and therefore they cannot claim that which cannot be claimed from a marriage contract, i.e., an enhancement to the father’s property.

The mishna teaches: Nor does the yavam receive these portions. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers that the Merciful One calls the yavam a firstborn, in the verse: “And it shall be, the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 25:6). Abaye says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an enhancement by which the property was enhanced between the death of the brother and the levirate marriage. But concerning the enhancement that occurs between the levirate marriage and the distribution of the inheritance, he does take it. What is the reason? The Merciful One states: “Shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead” (Deuteronomy 25:6), and by that stage he has succeeded him, and the enhancement occurred at that stage.

Rava says: Even with regard to the enhancement that occurs between the levirate marriage and the distribution of the inheritance, the yavam does not take it. What is the reason? He is compared to a firstborn: Just as a firstborn does not have any special right to the inheritance before its distribution, so too, a yavam does not have any right to the inheritance before its distribution.

The mishna teaches: And all of them do not take a portion in any enhancement.