Bava Batra

and betrothal. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SAID, 'X  SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A DAUGHTER, [OR] IF HE SAID, 'MY DAUGHTER SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A SON, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE DISREGARDED,  FOR HE MADE A STIPULATION AGAINST A [LAW] WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT]  CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID; [IF], HOWEVER, [HE SAID IT] CONCERNING ONE WHO IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT VALID. GEMARA. The reason [why the testator's instructions are invalid, is,] because [he appointed, as has been said], another [legal heir] where there was a daughter, or a daughter where there was a son,  [had he appointed,] however, a son among the [other] sons or a daughter among the [other] daughters, his instructions would, [accordingly], have been valid; tell [me, then, what you understand by] the latter clause [which reads], R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT] CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE VALID, surely this [represents] the same [view as that of] the first Tanna!  And if it be suggested [that] R. Johanan b. Beroka maintains [that] even another [legal heir may be appointed] where there is a daughter, and [that] a daughter [may be appointed as heir] where there is a son;  [it may be retorted], surely, it has been taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said, 'There was no dispute between father and the Sages concerning [the law] that one's instructions are invalid  when another [legal heir was appointed] where there was a daughter, or [where] a daughter [was appointed heir] where there was a son; their dispute related only  [to the case of an appointment as sole heir] of a son among the [other] sons or [of] a daughter among the [other] daughters, [in] which [case] father said, [the one appointed] inherits, and the Sages say [that] he does no inherit'!  — If you wish, it may be replied: Since he  said that they  did not dispute, it may be inferred that the first Tanna  is of the opinion that they did dispute.  [And] if you prefer,  it may be replied that all [the Mishnah]  represents  [the views of] R. Johanan b. Beroka, only some [words are] missing [from the text] which should read as follows:  IF A PERSON SAID, 'X SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A DAUGHTER, [OR IF HE SAID], 'MY DAUGHTER SHALL BE MY HEIR', WHERE THERE IS A SON, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO BE DISREGARDED, but [in the case of the appointment as heir of] a daughter among the [other] daughters or [of] a son among the [other] sons, if [the father] said, [that one of them]  should inherit all his estate, his instruction is legally valid, for R. Johanan said: IF [A PERSON] SAID [IT]  CONCERNING ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE HIS [IMMEDIATE] HEIR, HIS INSTRUCTIONS ARE LEGALLY VALID. R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka. And so said Raba: The halachah is in agreement with [the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka. Raba said: What is the reason [for the opinion] of R. Johanan b. Beroka? — Scripture said: Then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit  [from which it is to be inferred that] the Torah gave authority to a father to cause anyone  whom he desires to inherit [his estate]. Abaye said to him: This [law,  surely, could be] deduced from, He may not make [the son of the beloved] the firstborn!  — That [text] is required for [the purpose of another inference], as it was taught: Abba Hanan said in the name of R. Eliezer: