(Mishnah): If a man died and left sons and daughters, if there is a large estate, the sons inherit and the daughters are fed;

If there is a small estate, the daughters are fed and the sons can beg for their food.

Admon: Why should I lose just because I am a male?!

Rabban Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Gemara): The Mishnah taught that (if there is a small estate), the daughters are fed and the sons can beg for their food.

R. Yirmiyah citing Rav: As long as there is enough food for all of the children for 12 months.

Shmuel: These are the words of Rabban Gamliel, son of Rebbi; but the Chachamim say - until they grow up or marry.

This contains both a leniency and a stringency as sometimes they are older and close to becoming adult and sometimes they are still very young.

Question (to R. Chiyah bar Vava): How did you hear from R. Yochanan (the definition of 'a large estate')?

Answer (R. Chiyah bar Vava): I did not hear it from him. I only heard the question that Nasan bar Hoshiyah asked R. Yochanan - if a person died and left sons and daughters with enough food to sustain them for 12 months, and the estate dwindled ...

R. Yochanan: Since they began with permission, they may continue.

Dispute (R. Chaninah and R. Mana): If the estate increased - one opinion said - as long as in the end, there was enough to sustain them for 12 months.

The other one said - even if at the beginning there was not enough both for these and these for 12 months and the estate increased until there was enough for this.

Proof (R. Ami): Our colleagues in Bavel learned from the following law - When the estate was small, if the orphans sold that which is theirs, the sale is valid; and certainly if the estate increased, they can divide it, meaning that they give the daughters enough to sustain them until they will grow up or marry, and the rest they can keep.

Question: If the estate was enough to sustain the sons and daughters for 12 months, but there was also the widow to sustain, and as a result, there is not enough for everyone, could the sons tell the daughters - we will give you enough to sustain yourselves for 12 months (and that which is left after we sustain the widow will go to us - even though it is less than 12 months of food)...?

Answer (Rav Avdumi): Learn from here (that they cannot do this) - If the orphans said - "we will (slightly) increase the value of the estate to give it the law of a large estate'' - we do not listen to them; here also we do not listen to them.

Question (Rav Chisda): If there was enough both for 12 months and there was a widow to sustain; can the sons tell the daughters that they will give them enough for 12 months and the sons will sustain the widow?

Answer: We learned elsewhere - only if there is enough for both for 12 months aside from the widow's kesuvah, sustaining her, giving dowries to the daughters, money to pay off a loan with a document and the widow's burial fees.

The widow and daughters are the same (that they are both sustained); a widow and the sons are also the same in their rights to take from the estate to be sustained. The widow cannot push away the claim of the daughters nor vice-versa.

Sometimes the widow can push away the daughters if the sons are pressuring her.

Question: If she can push away the daughters, why can she not push away the sons by herself in order to receive her kesuvah money?

Answer: She cannot push away the sons because if she does and she claims her kesuvah money, she will lose her right to be sustained.

As we find in the case of R. Shuvsi's widow who was wasting too much of the estate on her food. The sons came to R. Elazar and he told them, "What can I do for you? Can't you think of a way to prevent her from taking so much for her food?

After they left, they asked R. Elazar's sofer, "What should we do about the kesuvah?'' (They were concerned that she would not want to accept her kesuvah money.)

R. Elazar's sofer: Appear as if you are about to sell off all of your father's properties and she will (be concerned that she will not receive her kesuvah and she will) come and claim it, thereby losing her right to be sustained.

After a while, the widow came to complain and R. Elazar said to her, "I swear that I did not suggest this to them, but what can I do if an improper person gave them this advice.''

Rav Chananel citing R. Zeira citing Abba bar Yirmiyah: (Commenting on our Mishnah above) Chanan said two laws (as related in the last perek of Maseches Kesuvos) and the Halachah follows him. Admon said seven laws (also there) and the Halachah follows him.

R. Ba bar Zavda citing R. Yitzchak ben Chakula: (Disagreeing) Anywhere that a Mishnah says, "Rabban Gamliel said - I agree with Admon'', the Halacha follows Admon (otherwise it does not).

Shmuel: A person can acquire on behalf of a foetus (as long as the child continue to live when he is born).

R. Elazar: A person cannot acquire on behalf of a foetus.

Question: There is a Beraisa that disproves R. Elazar - If a convert died (without heirs) and Jews acquired his (ownerless) property, if it is discovered that he has a son or that his widow is pregnant, everyone is required to return the property.

Continuation of question: If they returned them and then his son died or his widow miscarried, the most recent one to possess it can keep it (as after the child or foetus died, the property again becomes ownerless since there are no heirs), but it is not returned to the one who originally acquired it. According to Shmuel, the foetus could only acquire when it was actually born so in this case, it never acquired it and it should be returned to the first person who acquired the convert's property. But here we see that the most recent one gets it instead, which means that the foetus must have acquired it in the womb?

Answer: Even though the original one should acquire it because the foetus did not survive, when he heard that the convert's widow was pregnant, he gave up hope of acquiring the property, thereby cancelling his acquisition. We can therefore even fit the Beraisa into Shmuel, as in that case he would agree.

One could say that even the one who most recently acquired it after the foetus died should not acquire it as when he took it, he did not know that the widow had miscarried or the convert had a son, so his act of taking possession was doubtful.