Yevamot

that no provision need be made against the less usual cases.  Or if you prefer I might say that he  is of the opinion that provision in fact must be made against the less usual cases also, [but here] a special arrangement might be made  in accordance with a ruling of R. Nahman in the name of Samuel. For R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: Where orphans  wish to divide the property of their [deceased] father, Beth din appoint a guardian for [every one of] them, and [each guardian] chooses for his ward a suitable portion. As soon, however, as they reach their majority they are entitled to enter a protest.  In his own name, however, R. Nahman stated: Even when they reach majority they are not entitled to protest, for otherwise what validity is there in the authority of a Beth din! Must it be assumed that R. Nahman's ruling is a matter of dispute between Tannaim!  — No; all accept R. Nahman's [arrange. ment],  but the dispute here  centres on the question whether  provision was to be made against the less usual cases. 'R. Ishmael], son of R. Jose, stated in the name of his father: A daughter may bestow the right of eating; a son may not.  Wherein lies the difference [between the son and the daughter]? If a son may not bestow the right of eating on account of the share of the embryo, a daughter also should not be entitled to bestow the right of eating on account of the share of the embryo! — Abaye replied: Here  we are dealing with a small estate  and in a case where there is a son  as well as a daughter, [so that the slaves may eat the terumah] whatever be the assumption [as to the sex of the embryo]. If the embryo is a son then he is not better than the one who is already born.  And if it is a daughter, then why does a daughter eat at all?  Surely by virtue of an ordinance of the Rabbis.  But so long as she has not seen the light  no provision for her has been made by the Rabbis.  If you take it  to refer  to a small estate, [how will you] explain the final clause,  'since it is possible that the embryo might be a male, and daughters, where there is a son, have no share at all'? On the contrary; a small estate belongs to the daughters! — The final clause refers to a large estate. But does a small estate belong to the daughters? Surely, R. Assi stated in the name of R. Johanan: Where male orphans forestalled [the ruling of Beth din] and sold a small estate, their sale is valid!  — But the fact is that by the mention of daughter 'the mother' is to be understood.  If so, this is exactly the same statement as that of R. Jose! — The entire statement was made by R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. MISHNAH. AN EMBRYO,  A LEVIR,  BETROTHAL,  A DEAF-MUTE,  AND A BOY WHO IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD,  DEPRIVE [A WOMAN]  OF THE RIGHT [OF EATING TERUMAH], BUT CANNOT BESTOW THE PRIVILEGE UPON HER,  [EVEN WHEN] IT IS A MATTER OF DOUBT WHETHER THE BOY IS NINE YEARS AND ONE DAY OLD OR NOT,  OR WHETHER HE  HAS PRODUCED TWO HAIRS  OR NOT. IF A HOUSE COLLAPSED UPON A MAN AND UPON HIS BROTHER'S DAUGHTER,  AND IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH OF THEM DIED FIRST, HER RIVAL MUST PERFORM HALIZAH  BUT MAY NOT CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE. GEMARA. AN EMBRYO, for if [its mother] is the daughter of a priest [who was married] to an Israelite [the embryo] deprives her of the privilege,  [for it is written]. As in her youth,  which excludes one who is with child.  And if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest, the embryo does not bestow the privilege  upon her, because the living child does bestow the privileged but not the unborn. A LEVIR, for if [his yebamah] is the daughter of a priest who was married to an Israelite, [the Ievir] deprives her of the privileged [for it is written], And is returned unto her father's house,  which excludes one who is awaiting the decision of the levir;  and if she is the daughter of an Israelite [who was married] to a priest [the levir] does not bestow the privilege upon her, because the All Merciful said, The purchase of his money.  while she is the purchase of his brother. BETROTHAL, for if [the woman] is the daughter of a priest [who was betrothed] to an Israelite, [betrothal] deprives her of the privilege,