The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef sat before Rav Hamnuna in the study hall, and Rav Hamnuna sat and said the following halakha: Just as sons inherit only from land, so too, daughters are sustained only from land. When Rav Hamnuna taught this halakha, everyone clamored [avash] against him, i.e., all his listeners whispered their surprise to one another: Is it only one who leaves behind land whose sons inherit from him, whereas in the case of one who does not leave land, his sons do not inherit from him? Rav Hamnuna’s statement indicates that sons inherit only land and nothing else.

Rav Yosef said to Rav Hamnuna: Perhaps the Master was speaking of the marriage document ensuring the inheritance rights of a woman’s male children, i.e., her sons’ right to inherit the sum stipulated in her marriage contract in addition to their share of the father’s estate alongside any other brothers. Rav Hamnuna said to him: The Master, who is a great man, knows what I said, i.e., that was indeed my intention, while the others failed to understand me properly.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef said: Rav would sustain orphan girls with wheat according to the aliyya if their fathers did not leave land for them. A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Was this sustenance that Rav provided in the form of livelihood, i.e., a dowry so that they could marry, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It means: In keeping with the status [illuyya] of the father, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel said: With regard to the daughters’ livelihood, i.e., their dowry, the court assesses the amount they receive from their father’s estate after his death in accordance with the temperament and social and financial status of the father.

Or perhaps it was actual sustenance, i.e., provisions so that they would have food, and what is the meaning of the term aliyya? It indicates that this halakha is one of the good statements said in the upper chamber [aliyya], as Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said: When the Sages sat in the upper chamber to rule on certain halakhot, which they could not do in the study hall at that time due to persecution by gentiles, they instituted that daughters should be sustained from movable property in addition to land.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: In the possession of Rabbi Banai, the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, there was movable property belonging to orphans, deposited with him by their father. The orphan daughters came before Shmuel, who said to Rabbi Banai: Go and sustain the daughters from the property.

What, is it not correct to say that this means he should provide them with sustenance, and this would indicate that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, that the Sages instituted an ordinance in the upper chamber that daughters are entitled to their sustenance even from movable property? The Gemara refutes this claim: No, there it is stated in reference to their livelihood, and Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: With regard to livelihood, i.e., the dowry granted to daughters from their father’s estate, the court assesses the amount they receive in accordance with the status of the father.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident of this kind that came before the court in Neharde’a, and the judges of Neharde’a ruled that the daughters must be supported from the movable property that their father had left. Likewise, a case occurred in Pumbedita, and Rav Ḥana bar Bizna collected the sum from movable property. Rav Naḥman said to the judges: Go reverse your decisions, and if not, I will collect your houses [appadnaikhu] from you in order to compensate those you ruled against.

The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi thought to issue a ruling requiring a man’s heirs to sustain his daughters from the man’s movable property. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to them: This is a matter about which Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish did not take action, i.e., they did not issue a ruling to this effect; will you take action in this regard? If those great Sages were not sure enough of the halakha to issue a practical ruling, how can you do so?

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Elazar thought to issue a ruling requiring a man’s heirs to sustain his daughters from his movable property. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said before him: My teacher, I know about you that you are not acting according to the letter of the law, but rather out of pity for these daughters, who have no other source of support. However, you should still not do this, lest the students observe and mistakenly establish the halakha accordingly for future generations.

A certain person came before Rav Yosef to inquire about this matter. Rav Yosef said to the sons of the deceased man: Give the daughter her sustenance from the dates that are laid out to dry on the mats [budya]. These fruits are certainly movable property. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If it was a creditor who came to collect a debt, would the Master give him the right to collect it in this manner? Even a creditor, who may collect his claim by repossessing property that the debtor has sold, cannot take movable property from the possession of orphans. A daughter, who cannot collect her sustenance from property that her father sold, should certainly not have the right to collect her sustenance from movable property that belongs to the male orphans.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I did not mean actual dates lying on mats; rather, I spoke of ripe dates ready for plucking, which are fit for mats. Since they are still attached to the ground, they are not considered movable property.