Kesubos, Chapter 13, Mishnah 3. In the first mishnah of the chapter we learned that there were two judges in Jerusalem. After the two rulings of Chanan, which we studied in the two previous mishnayos, the mishnah turns to the rulings of Admon: "Admon omer shivah" - Admon stated seven things, and in all of them we find a dispute.
The halachah that Admon disputed:
The first ruling is not from Admon himself, but rather the halachah that precedes his opinion: "Mi shemes vehiniach banim uvanos" - a man who died and left behind sons and daughters. "Bizman shehanechasim merubin" - when the estate contains sufficient assets - "habanim yorshim vehabanos nizonos": the sons inherit the assets, and the daughters are supported and provided for from their hands.
What amount is considered "ample assets"? The Gemara explains that if the estate contains enough money to support both the sons and the daughters together until the daughters become adults - that is, until they reach the age of twelve and a half - the assets are considered ample.
What is the mishnah teaching us?
The Gemara points out that this halachah seems unnecessary: that the sons inherit we already know from the Torah, and that the daughters are supported after their father's death we already learned in the fourth chapter of our tractate, as one of the conditions of the kesubah. Rather, the mishnah comes to teach us how the money is allocated: the assets pass through the sons, and the daughters receive their support from the sons - and we do not set aside two separate funds from the estate, one for the sons and one for the daughters.
When the assets are limited:
The mishnah continues: "Nismaatu hanechasim" - if the estate does not contain enough money to last until the daughters reach the age of twelve and a half - "habanos nizonos vehabanim yechazru al hapesachim": the daughters take precedence and are supported from the estate, while the sons are pushed off after them and will have to go begging from door to door.
Admon's opinion:
Regarding this halachah Admon said: "Bishvil she'ani zachar hifsadti?" - because I am a male, shall I lose out? In his view both sides should be treated equally and the assets divided between them. And Rabban Gamliel said about his words: "Ro'eh ani es divrei Admon" - I accept his opinion, that the sons should not have to suffer, and therefore the division should be made equally.
The Rishonim disagree about how to understand this dispute:
The opinion of Tosafos: Admon and Rabban Gamliel do not disagree in practice at all, but are merely expressing astonishment: how can it be that the sons, whose claim is stronger and who are the heirs ahead of the daughters, should lose out entirely. But as a matter of halachah they do not disagree.
The opinion of other Rishonim: Admon and Rabban Gamliel do disagree in practice, and hold that the assets should be divided equally between the sons and the daughters, as long as the estate is sufficient for that.