- מועטין ונתרבו מאי
The Gemara says: פשיטא מרובין ונתמעטו – it is obvious that if there were initially many assets and they became inadequate (because food increased in price, or the assets lost value), כבר זכו בהן יורשין – the heirs already acquired their share in [the estate], and the daughters cannot collect support from it. The Gemara asks, מועטין ונתרבו מאי – if there were initially inadequate assets and they increased in value, what is the halachah? Do we say ברשות יורשין קיימי – [the assets] stand in the possession of the heirs (i.e., sons) until the daughters actually collect their support, הלכך ברשות יורשין שבוח – therefore, they improved in value in the heirs’ possession, and the daughters cannot collect from the additional value, או דלמא סלוקי מסלקי יורשין מהכא – or perhaps the heirs are removed from [the properties earmarked for the daughters’ support], and do not own the increased value? This is resolved from Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling: יתומין שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטין – orphans who acted first and sold property where there were inadequate assets, the sale is valid. This proves that property earmarked for the daughters’ support remains in the sons’ possession.
- אלמנתו מהו שתמעט בנכסים, etc.
Rebbe Yirmiyah asked Rebbe Abahu: אלמנתו מהו שתמעט בנכסים – Does his widow reduce the property’s value? Meaning, is his widow’s right to support subtracted from the property’s value in determining whether there are נכסים מרובין? Or do we say כיון דאילו מנסבא לית לה – since if she would marry, she has no more claim to support, it is not calculated into the estate’s value, since it is not fixed. The Gemara continues, if we assume her claim is not subtracted, בת אשתו מהו שתמעט בנכסים – does his wife’s daughter reduce the property’s value, since she receives support even if she marries? [This refers to a commitment to support his wife’s daughter from a previous marriage for a number of years.] Or, since if the daughter would die, her right to support would end (even for her heirs), it is not subtracted from the estate? Finally, the Gemara asks that if this claim is not subtracted, would a בעל חוב’s claim be subtracted? Do we say his claim exists even if he dies (and his heirs would collect it), or do we say כיון דמחסרי גוביינא – since it lacks collection, it is not subtracted? These questions are not resolved.
- A טומטום can be pushed away by sons from their rights, and by daughters from their rights
The next Mishnah states: הניח בנים ובנות וטומטום – if [one] left behind sons, daughters, and a tumtum (whose gender cannot be determined), then if there are נכסים מרובין, הזכרים דוחין אותו אצל נקבות – the males push him away to the females (i.e., they prevent him from inheriting beyond the daughters’ support, claiming he may be a female, and only entitled to support). If there are נכסים מועטין, where the daughters are supported and the sons do not inherit, הנקבות דוחות אותו אצל זכרים – the females can push him away to the males, claiming he may be a male. The Gemara asks, when the first case says the sons push him “towards the females,” does this mean he collects support like a female (the lesser claim)? But סיפא of the Mishnah teaches that if one promises a monetary gift for his future son or daughter, then if the child is a טומטום, he receives nothing, proving that a טומטום is a בריה – distinct creature, neither male nor female!? Abaye explains: דוחין אותו ואין לו – they push him away and he does not have anything, even like a female. Rava says he does receive like a female, and the סיפא is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who rules a טומטום is a בריה.