Bava Batra

as it was taught: '[If a person said]: "He who will bring me tidings whereby the womb of my wife was opened, shall receive, if the child be a male, a maneh", [then] if she gave birth to a male he receives a maneh. [If. however.] he said: "[He will receive] a maneh if [he brings 'me tidings that she gave birth to] a female", [then] if she gave birth to a female, he receives a maneh, [and if] she gave birth to a male and a female, he only receives a maneh'. But surely'. he did not speak of a 'male and a female'!  — [This refers to the case] where he also said, 'He shall also receive a maneh if [he brings tidings that] a male and a female [were born]'. What. then. [did he mean] to exclude?  To exclude a miscarriage. [Once] a certain [man] said to his wife: 'My estate shall be his with whom you are pregnant — R. Huna said, 'This is [a case of] making an assignment to an embryo through the agency of a third party, and whenever such an assignment is made, [the embryo does] not acquire possession. R. Nahman raised an objection against R. Huna's ruling: IF A MAN SAID: SHOULD MY WIFE BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE SHALL RECEIVE A MANEH, [AND HIS WIFE] DID BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE RECEIVES A MANEH!  — He replied to him: [As to] our Mishnah. I do not know' who is its author.  But should he not have replied to him [that] it  [represents the view' of] R. Meir who stated [that] a man may convey possession of a thing that has not [yet] come into the world!  — [It is possible to] say that R. Meir holds this view  [only when possession is conveyed] to that which is [already'] in the world;  [but] has he been heard [to hold the same view when possession is conveyed] to that which is not [yet] in the world! But let him reply to him that it  [represents the view of] R. Jose who said [that] an embryo acquires [possession]! For we learnt:  'An embryo disqualifies [his deceased father's slaves from eating the heave.offering[13 but does not confer the right of eating it [on his mother];  these are the words of R. Jose'?  — An inheritance which came to one under the ordinary laws of succession,  is different. But let him reply to him [that] it  [represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka who said, that there was no difference between an inheritance and a gift! For we learnt:  R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If [a person] said [it]  concerning one who is entitled to be his heir,  his instruction is legally valid  — [It is possible to] say that R. Johanan b. Beroka has been heard [to hold the view only where possession is given] to that which is [already] in the world;  [but] did he say [that the same law applies also] to that which is not in the world! And let him reply to him [that] it  [represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka and [that] he holds the [same] opinion as R. Jose!  Who can say that he  holds such an opinion! Let him, then, reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where [the money was offered by a husband] 'to him who would bring me tidings'!  — If so,  [explain] the last clause wherein it is stated, AND IF THERE IS NO [OTHER] HEIR BUT THIS ONE, HE INHERITS ALL [THE ESTATE]. If [the Mishnah speaks] of a reporter  what has he to do with heirship! Then let him reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where she has [already] given birth [to the child]!  — If so,  the last clause is wherein it is stated. IF [HOWEVER] HE SAID: whatever MY WIFE SHALL BEAR, SHALL RECEIVE [A CERTAIN PORTION]. HE RECEIVES [IT] [instead of]. WHATEVER SHE SHALL BEAR, should have [read]. 'whatever she has born'!