Explanation #1 (Rashbam): They preempted and sold before they stood in judgment to collect for the daughters in a case of sparse property.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if the daughters already seized, or Beis Din collected for them, if the brothers sold, it is sold.

Support #1: It connotes like this in Yevamos (67b). There, R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi says in the name of his father that [if a Kohen died, and left children, a pregnant wife and slaves,] "a daughter feeds (permits the slaves to eat Terumah). A son does not feed";

Citation (67b) Question: Surely, a son does not feed them due to the fetus' share. The same should apply when he left a daughter!

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, there is sparse property, and there is a son with the daughter. In either case, [the fetus has no share, so the slaves may eat]:

Citation (cont.): If the fetus is a male, it is no better than the born son (who does not inherit). If it is a female, why is she fed [from the estate]? It is due to an enactment mid'Rabanan. As long as she was not born, Rabanan did not enact for her!

Citation (cont.) Question: How can you establish it to discuss sparse property? Rav Asi said in the name of R. Yochanan that if orphans preempted and sold sparse property...

Culmination of Support #1: What was the question? We should establish the case to be when the daughters already seized, or Beis Din collected for them. Then, the brothers cannot sell! Rather, it connotes that they can always sell.

Rejection: Granted, Beis Din can collect the portion of a born daughter. The portion of the fetus, which we must be concerned lest it is a daughter, they cannot collect it, since she was not born. That portion, the brothers can sell.

Rebuttal: It seems that this is not a proper rejection.

Support #2 - Citation (Kesuvos 103a) Question: Rav Nachman said that if orphans preempted and sold a widow's residence, it has no effect. Why is this unlike Rav Asi's teaching in the name of R. Yochanan that if orphans preempted and sold sparse property, what they sold is sold!

Citation (cont.) Answer: There, [the daughters] had not seized the property in [the father's] lifetime. Here, [the widow] had seized [the residence] in his lifetime.

Inference: Since [the daughters] did not seize in his lifetime, even if they seized after death, it would not help at all. Rather, what [the brothers] sold is sold.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (51a), R. Shimon ben Elazar says that property with Achrayus, we take for sons from sons, and for daughters from daughters... but not for sons from daughters in a case of sparse property!

Answer: Even though we do not take for them, if they sold, it is sold!

Support #3: Now it is fine that in every case it connotes that if sparse property increased, the heirs acquired it, even if [the daughters] already seized or Beis Din collected for them;

If not, it should have still asked about sparse property that increased, and [the daughters] already seized or Beis Din collected for them - what is the law?

Question: Since also in a case of sparse property, what [the brothers] sold is sold, even if [the daughters] already seized, what is the difference between much property and sparse property? Also regarding much property, it seems that [the brothers] may not sell and uproot food!

Answer #1: There is a difference. When there is much property, they may sell for a great need. When there is sparse property, they may not sell at all l'Chatchilah.

Answer #2: In a case of much property and it decreased, the sons are fed with the daughters. In a case of sparse property, [the sons] are not fed at all.

Question: Here we say that whether there was much property and it decreased, or sparse property and it increased, the heirs already acquired;

In Kesuvos (91a), regarding Kesuvas Benin Dichrin (an enactment that sons inherit their mother's dowry), it says that obviously, if there was much property and it decreased the heirs already acquired, i.e. those who inherit the bigger Kesuvah. If there was sparse property and it increased, what is the law?

Note: Here, "much property" means enough for both Kesuvos, and an additional Dinar to which Torah inheritance will apply. If not, there is no enactment. "Bigger Kesuvah" depends on how much each son inherits from his mother's Kesuvah. If Leah's Kesuvah was twice as big as Rachel's, but Leah had four times as many sons, each would get half as much as from her Kesuvah as Rachel's sons get from Rachel's. Then, we say that Rachel has the bigger Kesuvah, and the enactment helps her sons.

Citation (91b) Answer: The sons of Tzirtzur was a case of sparse property and it increased. They came in front of Rav Amram. He told them (the sons from one mother; below, Tosfos will discuss which) to appease them (the sons of the other mother). They came in front of Rav Nachman. He said that just like when there was much property and it decreased, the heirs already acquired, likewise sparse property and it increased, the heirs acquired;

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The heirs acquired, i.e. of the small Kesuvah. Rav Nachman argues with Rav Amram, who said "go appease them", which connotes that the heirs of the small Kesuvah should appease the heirs of the big Kesuvah;

Had he said so to the heirs of the big Kesuvah, "appease" would not be appropriate, for according to letter of the law the heirs of the small Kesuvah inherit absolutely mid'Oraisa!

Answer #1: This is not difficult at all. Here, the sons always have the upper hand, in order that Torah inheritance will be fulfilled.

Answer #2: Here, the orphans' power was never uprooted, like it says "what they sold is sold."

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rav Nachman said [in Kesuvos]... sparse property and it increased, the heirs acquired, i.e. heirs of the big Kesuvah. These receive their mother's Kesuvah, and these receive their mother's Kesuvah, since he did not say "the heirs already acquired." (Rather, only now that it increased, they acquired.)

Question: If so, there we always follow [the initial or current quantity,] whichever will cause the enactment mid'Rabanan of Kesuvas Benin Dichrin to be fulfilled, and here we follow the initial quantity!

Answer: There, Torah inheritance is not uprooted so much, for in any case all inherit, even if they do not receive equally. However, here it is totally uprooted.

Question #1 (Ri): How did [R. Yirmeyah] err to say so? Also a daughter, if she marries, has no [food], like the Mishnah (Kesuvos 52b) teaches "[your daughters from me] will be fed from my property until they marry men"!

Question #2: Also, why did he say that a creditor is lacking collection? Also a daughter is lacking collection!

Question #3: Also if [his daughter] dies she has no rights [to bequeath to her heirs] just like the daughter of his wife [whom he agreed to feed. Why did R. Yirmeyah say that this is a reason why she is unlike Bas Ishto?]

Question #4: If sparse property applies to a widow, what will be the Shi'ur?

Granted, regarding daughters, there is a Shi'ur, according to the opinion that it is until Bagrus. However, Bagrus does not apply to a widow. Until when is it considered sparse property?

Answer: It seems that surely, if there is only a widow and sons, both are equal in the property, and similarly if there is only a widow and daughters;

They enacted [the law of] sparse property only for daughters, who descend from him (the father, whose estate they eat from), and they inherit when there are no sons. [They enacted for a daughter] even though she is lacking collection, and if she marries, she has no [food];

However, a widow and sons, or [a widow] and daughters, Chachamim did not want to enact the law of sparse property regarding a widow, for they did not want to uproot the law of inheritance from the sons [and give] to the widow;

Now, [R. Yirmeyah] asks when there are sons and daughters, and there is already the law of sparse property due to the daughters. Does also the widow diminish?

Comment: And so it is written in Tosfos [Yeshanim]. The widow is fed with the daughters. Or, perhaps since if she marries, she is not fed, also now she does not have. Rather, everything is for the daughters;

If she diminishes, in any case the widow is fed only until the girls mature. (This ends the comment.)

Implied question: Why does it say below that a widow and a daughter, the widow is fed and the daughter begs?

Answer: This is when there are sons with the daughters; there is the law of sparse property for the daughters. However, if there are no sons, the widow does not get any more than the daughter.

Comment: It would seem that if she diminishes, the sons get nothing, since there is not excess over the food of the widow and daughters until Bagrus of the daughters;

However, if she does not diminish, all three are fed. However, Tosfos [Yeshanim] wrote like I wrote above (in the previous comment, that if she does not diminish, she is not fed. This ends this comment.)

Support (Ri): The Yerushalmi connotes like this. It says there that a widow and daughters are equal. A widow and sons are equal. This refers to food. A widow does not override daughters, and daughters do not override a widow;

Sometimes a widow overrides daughters, i.e. through sons. And just like a widow overrides daughters through sons...

Remark: There is room to question the wording of the Yerushalmi. In any case, it connotes that it wants to say so (a widow diminishes only when there are sons and daughters).

Implied question: We say below (141a) that it is a Mitzvah to feed daughters, and all the more so boys, who engage in Torah!

Answer: That is regarding [which is a bigger] Mitzvah. Regarding the law, we should not distinguish based on whether or not they engage in Torah.