rebbi

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

“A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”? Rebbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases and did not find them, so he formulated the rule twofold.

Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.” Then why does the verse say: “To those”? Only because of women and because of children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed.” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh”.

Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.” Then why does the verse say: “To those”? Only because of women and because of children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed.” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh”.

Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.” Then why does the verse say: “To those”? Only because of women and because of children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed.” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh”.

Rebbi Joshiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.” Then why does the verse say: “To those”? Only because of women and because of children. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed.” Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead from the living. It was stated: Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.” That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh”.

Rebbi explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half.

Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah explained it by a parable; to what can this be compared? To two brothers, Cohanim and co-owners who stood by a threshing floor; one had nine sons and the other had one. They took (the area of) ten qab. They returned it to their father and split. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your forefathers’ land, etc.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance. Rebbi Hoshaia said, anywhere one mentions מוֹרָשָה it means weariness. They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance (מוֹרָשָׁה) of the congregation of Jacob”? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. He who studies forgets everything.

Rebbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your forefathers’ land, etc.” If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance. Rebbi Hoshaia said, anywhere one mentions מוֹרָשָה it means weariness. They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance (מוֹרָשָׁה) of the congregation of Jacob”? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. He who studies forgets everything.

HALAKHAH: “Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance,” etc. It is written: “Of anything which will be found with him,” etc. How could he inherit the expectancy like existing property? How? If his father died during his father’s father’s lifetime, he takes a double portion of his father’s estate but not a double portion of his grandfather’s estate. But if his father was a firstborn, just as he takes from his father’s estate so he takes from his grandfather’s estate. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Abba [Cohen] bar Delaiah: It was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a double portion just as it was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a single portion. Since for a single portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s single portion so for a double portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s double portion.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’ ” etc. Rebbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rebbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.” Rebbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. Except that he is able designating it as a gift.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

Samuel asked Rav Huna: if one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that one brings two white horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; it turns out that he caught nothing.

MISHNAH: One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me while he has a daughter, or, my daughter shall inherit from me while he has a son, did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqah said, if he said that about anybody who can be his heir, his words stand; about anybody who cannot be his heir, his words do not stand.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

HALAKHAH: “One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi asked Rebbi Nathan; bar Abba said, so was the question: What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, so was the question: What did they see to say that practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? So is the Mishnah: “they shall take.” [Rebbi] La said, even following him who said “inherit”, is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift; here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance; here he may do it.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

“And he shall inherit from her.” I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of the Sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his preliminarily wedded wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the preliminarily wedded one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit the expectancy like existing property? Rebbi Yose said, so did Rebbi teach: The husband does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take the expectancy like that which is at hand.

Rebbi Isaac said: About those who write, if she should die without children, all that was hers shall revert to her father. This is a stipulation about money; the stipulation is valid.

HALAKHAH: “If one writes his properties over to others,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, about one who writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, the verse says: “their sins were on their bones.” As the following: A person deposited his properties with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and told him, if my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. His sons came and took half. Later they came to appeal against him. He told them, your father said only: If my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. Now you are badly educated, return to me what I gave to you.

HALAKHAH: “If one writes his properties over to others,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, about one who writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, the verse says: “their sins were on their bones.” As the following: A person deposited his properties with Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and told him, if my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. His sons came and took half. Later they came to appeal against him. He told them, your father said only: If my sons will be useful give them half and keep half. Now you are badly educated, return to me what I gave to you.

HALAKHAH: “He who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed. If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is to be believed. Rebbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves.

“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a Cohen, and [the estate] contained slaves, even if [the Cohen] said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat heave. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them’, the heirs acquired them.” Rebbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. How do we hold? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat heave. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me’, the heirs acquired them.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.

MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”

“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”

“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.