But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 8:5) that in a similar case, the court appraises the produce still connected to the ground for the purchaser of the land, who must pay the seller’s heirs for it? Accordingly, the connected produce also belongs to the heirs.

Ulla said that this is not difficult; here, in the mishna, the halakha is stated with regard to his son, who receives the connected produce after the father’s death. There, in the baraita, the halakha is stated with regard to another person who purchased the land from the son. Since a person’s disposition is favorable toward his son, the father certainly intended to bequeath the connected produce to his son together with the property itself. When the son sold it to another person, there was no such intention.

MISHNA: If a person died and left adult and minor sons, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained, i.e., they do not receive food, by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each son sees to his needs from his own share.

If the adults married, the minors marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever their father gave the adults in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to receive more than their share of the inheritance.

Similarly, if the father left adult and minor daughters but no sons, in which case his daughters inherit the estate, the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors, and the minors are not sustained by using funds of the adults. Rather, they receive a share of the inheritance equally, and each daughter sees to her needs from her share.

If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry, as the Gemara will explain. But if the minors say: We are marrying in the same manner that you adults married during our father’s lifetime, the court does not listen to them.

This following halakha is a stringency with regard to daughters’ inheritance vis-à-vis sons’ inheritance: The halakha is that the daughters are sustained by using funds of the sons, as stipulated in their mother’s marriage contract, but they are not sustained by using funds of the other daughters.

GEMARA: Rava says: With regard to this eldest of the brothers who wears garments and covers himself from the common property of the house, what he did is done, and the other brothers cannot subtract from his share of the inheritance as a result.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the adults are not provided for by using funds of the minors? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to an unemployed person [bisherakha], whereas Rava was referring to the brother who handles the finances of the entire family. Therefore it is in the interest of all the brothers for him to wear appropriate attire.

The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to an unemployed person, isn’t it obvious that he may not take from the common inheritance of all the brothers? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that it is preferable for them that he dress appropriately so that he will not be repulsive, thereby dishonoring the family name, the mishna teaches us that he does not have the right to take money for clothing from the common inheritance, and if he does so, the brothers can subtract from his share of the inheritance as a result.

§ The mishna teaches that if the adults married, the minors marry. The Gemara asks: What is it saying? What does this mean?

Rav Yehuda says that this is what it is saying: If the adults married after their father’s death and used the common inheritance to pay for their weddings, the minors that marry after their father’s death may also pay for their weddings from the common inheritance. But if the adults married during their father’s lifetime, and the minors said after their father’s death: We will marry in the same manner that you married, the court does not listen to them. Rather, whatever sum their father gave the adults to pay for their weddings in his lifetime he gave them, and the minors do not have the right to demand that same sum from the inheritance.

§ The mishna teaches that if the father left adult and minor daughters, and the adults married, the minors marry. Avuh bar Geneiva sent a question to Rava: Our teacher, instruct us: If a woman borrowed money and consumed it, and before repaying the debt she arose and married, bringing her property into the marriage, what is the halakha? Is the husband considered a purchaser of her property or is he considered an heir to her property?

The halakhic ramification of this dilemma is as follows: Is he considered a purchaser, and the creditor therefore cannot collect his wife’s premarital debt from him, as one does not collect from the purchasers a loan by oral agreement? Or perhaps he is considered her heir, and one collects from the heirs a loan by oral agreement.

Rava said to him: We learned the answer to this question in the mishna: If the adult daughters married, the minor daughters marry. What, is it not teaching that if the adult daughters married, each one of them transferring money from the common inheritance to her husband to cover the wedding expenses, the minor daughters also marry, paying for the wedding from the money that each elder sister transferred to her husband? Clearly, although the money the elder daughters took from the inheritance for their weddings has the status of a loan by oral agreement, their husbands are liable to return it. This proves that the husbands are considered heirs.

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is teaching that if the adults married and each one transferred money to her husband, the minors also marry, and each one may transfer money from the common inheritance to her husband for the wedding expenses. They cannot collect money from what was already transferred by their sisters to their husbands.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach that if the adults married and transferred money to the husband, the minors marry and collect money from the husband of each elder sister?

The Gemara answers: Even according to this interpretation, there is no proof from the mishna with regard to the case of a loan by oral agreement. Perhaps the provision of wedding expenses for the daughters is different, as it generates publicity. Since it is well known that a specific portion of a person’s estate is liened to the future wedding expenses of his single daughters, it has the status of a loan with a promissory note. Therefore, the younger daughters can collect from the husbands of the elder daughters even if the status of the husbands is that of purchasers.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Is this not identical to the halakha that Ravin sent in his letter from Eretz Yisrael? That halakha states that with regard to one who died and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is sustained from his property. If the daughter then married, the widow is still sustained from his property, although it is now in the possession of the daughter’s husband, as she had inherited the property from her father. With regard to a case where the daughter then died and her husband inherited from her, Rav Yehuda, son of the sister of Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥanina, says: This incident occurred with me, and the Sages said that the late man’s widow is still sustained from his property although it is fully owned by his daughter’s husband.

Rav Pappa explains: Granted, if you say the husband is considered an heir, it is due to that reason that his father-in-law’s widow is sustained from his property; it is still liened to her sustenance. But if you say that a husband is considered a purchaser of his wife’s property, why is his father-in-law’s widow sustained from his property? The purchasers of inherited property are not obligated to sustain the widow.

Abaye said: If Ravin had not sent this letter, would we not have known that the husband has the status of a purchaser? But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Bekhorot 52b): These properties do not return to their original owners in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus 25:13–24): The portion of the firstborn, i.e., it does not return to the common ownership of the brothers to be shared equally like the rest of the inheritance, but rather remains in the possession of the firstborn;