and one who inherits the property of his wife after her death, i.e., the property is not returned to her family. Evidently, the husband does not have the status of a purchaser, as a purchaser must return the property to its original owner in the Jubilee Year.

Rava said to him: And now that Ravin sent the letter, do we in fact know that the husband has the status of an heir? Doesn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say: In Usha they instituted an ordinance that in the case of a woman who sold her usufruct property, i.e., property that she alone owns and her husband benefits only from the profits, in her husband’s lifetime and then died, the husband repossesses it from the purchasers? Apparently the husband’s status is that of a purchaser, as a purchaser can appropriate his purchase from a later purchaser, whereas an heir does not inherit property that the person sold before he died.

Rather, Rav Ashi says that the Sages equated the husband with an heir, and the Sages equated him with a purchaser. And they deemed him as whichever is better for him, based on the circumstances of the case. With regard to the Jubilee Year, the Sages equated him with an heir, due to his potential loss were he to be equated with a purchaser, as he would be obligated to return the property to his wife’s heirs. With regard to the case of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, where the wife sold the property, the Sages equated him with a purchaser, due to his potential loss were he to be equated with an heir. With regard to Ravin’s halakha, concerning the sustenance of the husband’s father-in-law’s widow, due to the potential loss of the widow, the Sages equated him with an heir.

The Gemara asks: But with regard to the case of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, there is a loss to the purchasers, from whom the husband appropriates the property, and nevertheless, the Sages equated him with a purchaser.

The Gemara answers: There, the purchasers caused their own loss. Since they knew that there is a husband, they should not have purchased property from a wife living under the authority of her husband, removing it from the husband and his heirs.

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And how large must the estate be in order for the sons to inherit it? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these, the sons, and those, the daughters, for twelve months. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this ruling before Shmuel, he said: That is the statement of Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. But the Rabbis say: The estate must be large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these and those until the time that the daughters reach their majority, at age twelve and six months, as indicated in the marriage contract.

This was also stated by other amora’im: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say it was Rabba bar bar Ḥana who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any estate that is large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these and those until the time that the daughters reach their majority is a large estate; less than that, this is a small estate.

The Gemara asks: And if there is not enough to provide for these and those until the daughters reach their majority,