Bava Batra 140A

שקלי להו בנות לכולהו?! אלא אמר רבא: מוציאין להן מזונות לבנות עד שיבגרו, והשאר לבנים.

should the daughters take all of the estate, even if it is more than is required for their sustenance? Rather, Rava said: The court appropriates sustenance for the daughters until they reach their majority, and the remainder is given to the sons.

פשיטא ⁠– מרובין ונתמעטו, כבר זכו בהן יורשין. מועטין ונתרבו, מאי? ברשות יורשין קיימי ⁠– הלכך ברשות יורשין שבוח; או דלמא, סלוקי מסלקי יורשין מהכא?

§ The Talmud comments: It is obvious that if the estate was large and became small, the heirs, i.e., the sons, already acquired it when it was large. It remains in their possession, and they must provide for the daughters from it. The Talmud asks: If the estate was small, and was therefore not inherited by the sons, and then it became large, what is the halakha? Does even a small estate remain in the possession of the heirs, while the court reserves it for the daughters’ sustenance, and therefore it appreciated in the possession of the heirs and they receive the appreciation in the estate’s value? Or perhaps the heirs are totally removed from possession of a small estate, and the appreciation in value is to the benefit of the daughters receiving sustenance.

תא שמע, דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן: יתומין שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטין ⁠– מה שמכרו, מכרו.

The Talmud answers: Come and hear a proof, as R' Asi says that R' Yoḥanan says: In the case of orphans who preemptively sold land from a small estate left to them by their father, before the court appropriated it for the daughters’ sustenance, concerning that which they sold, the sale is valid, even though they acted improperly. One can infer from this that a small estate remains in the possession of the heirs even when they are not authorized to derive benefit from it, and therefore the appreciation in its value belongs to them.