Are the daughters sustained by movable property as well? TB Ketubot 51

According to Jewish law one may only have a lien against land but not against movable property. We learned from the Mishna on daf TB 49a that when the father dies, his sons inherit and his daughters are sustained from the estate. “This exposition was expounded by Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya before the Sages in the vineyard of Yavne: Since the Sages instituted that after the father’s death, the sons inherit the sum of money specified in their mother’s marriage contract, and the daughters are sustained from their father’s estate….” (Sefaria.org translation) The daughters’ sustenance is considered a lien. Starting on yesterday’s daf and continuing on today’s daf TB Ketubot 51, the amoraim and tannaim, in reverse chronological order, argue whether the daughters may also be sustained from movable property.

Here are some amoraim discussing whether the daughter may be sustained with movable property as well. “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?” (daf Ketubot 50b, Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yehuda  HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon ben Lazar, two tannaim, are having the same disagreement “The Sages taught: With regard to both property that has a guarantee, i.e., real estate, and property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court removes them from the orphan heirs for the sustenance of the wife and for the daughters. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to property that has a guarantee, the court removes it from the possession of the sons, who are the heirs, for the sake of the sustenance of the daughters.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara concludes this sugiya by stating that the halakha is accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. “The Gemara comments: Even though we maintain in general that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, and therefore the halakha should follow his ruling rather than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, here the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. As Rava said: The halakha is that a woman can collect her claim from land but not from movable property, whether for the marriage contract, for sustenance, or for her livelihood.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If you think that the matter is closed and halakha never changes, here’s the rest of the story. The Tosefot ד"ה מִמְּקַרְקְעֵי וְלָא מִמְּטַלְטְלִי concludes by saying that now daughters are sustained by movable property as well thanks to a takana of the Geonim! I think that’s progress.