(a)Question (Rava): If a healthy person transferred inheritance, does R. Yochanan ben Berokah say that it takes effect?

1.Perhaps his law applies only to a Shechiv Mera, for he can bequeath, but a healthy person cannot;

2.Or, perhaps his law even applies to a healthy person.

(b)Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): We learn from the following episode.

1.Noson ha'Bavli (to Rebbi): You taught a Stam Mishnah according to R. Yochanan ben Berokah!

i.(Mishnah): If a husband did not write Kesuvas Benin Dichrin (a stipulation in the Kesuvah, i.e. 'sons you will have from me will inherit your Kesuvah, above their share with their brothers (from my other wives))', he must give to them in any case, because it is an enactment of Beis Din.

2.Rebbi: The Mishnah (does not say inherit, rather it) says it will be given to them, it is even like Chachamim.

3.Rebbi later retracted: I did not answer him properly! The Halachah is, sons cannot collect Kesuvas Benin Dichrin from property that the father sold;

i.If it were a gift, it would be collected. We are forced to say that it is considered an inheritance.

4.Conclusion: Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is based on R. Yochanan ben Berokah's law that a father can stipulate how much each son will inherit, and it applies in all cases, even when the father is healthy!


(a)Question (Rav Papa): (Why did Rebbi later admit that the Mishnah is like R. Yochanan ben Berokah?)

1.Whether the text is 'inherit' or 'will be given', a person cannot transfer ownership of something that is not yet in the world!

i.Even R. Meir, who says that one can transfer ownership of something not yet in the world, requires that the recipient is already here, but one cannot transfer ownership to something that is not yet in the world!

ii.You must say that enactments of Beis Din are different (Chachamim are empowered to transfer ownership as they wish) - also regarding inheritance, enactments of Beis Din are different! (Ra'avad - for the same reason, we have no proof that a healthy person can transfer inheritance; Rashbam - Rav Papa does not dispute this point.)

(b)Answer (Abaye): The word 'inherit' in the Mishnah teaches like R. Yochanan ben Berokah, that inheritance can be transferred.

(c)Retraction (Abaye): What I said is wrong!

1.(Mishnah): If a man did not write in the Kesuvah 'daughters you will have from me will dwell (after my death) in my house and be fed from my property until they get married', the daughters are entitled in any case, because it is an enactment of Beis Din. ('They will be fed' denotes a gift. This enactment was right after the enactment of Kesuvas Benin Dichrin);

2.Even Chachamim agree that if two gifts are given together, one in an expression of inheritance and the other in an expression of a gift (like these two enactments), that both take effect.


(d)Question (Rav Nechumi): What is the source that one Beis Din made both these enactments?

(e)Answer (Abaye - Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Azaryah): The sons inherit and the daughters are fed. Just like the sons inherit only after the father dies, the daughters are fed only after the father dies.

1.It is reasonable to learn from one enactment to another only if one Beis Din made both enactments!

(f)Rejection: Perhaps a different Beis Din made the second enactment, and they were careful to enact like the first Beis Din, lest the enactments contradict each other!


(a)(Rav Yehudah): If a man wrote a document giving all his property to his wife, (surely he did not deprive his sons from inheriting. He merely wants to ensure that his sons honor her, i.e.) he merely made her an overseer.

(b)Obviously, if wrote a document giving all his property to his oldest son, he only made him an overseer (because he wants to ensure that the brothers honor him, like the Torah commands).

(c)Question: If he wrote all his property to a younger son, what is the law?

(d)Answer (Rav Chanilai bar Idi): Even if he wrote to an infant in a crib, the father is concerned for the son's honor. The son is only an overseer.

(e)The following are obvious: if he wrote all his property to a son, he only made him an overseer (like above);

1.If he wrote all his property to a stranger, it is a gift (he is not concerned that the sons honor a stranger),

2.If he wrote to his Arusah (he was Mekadesh her, but did not do Nisu'in) or ex-wife, it is a gift (he is not concerned that the sons honor her).

(f)Questions: If he wrote to a daughter and he has sons, what is the law? (We know that a man is concerned for his daughter's honor (that she not have to beg for food). Is he concerned that his sons honor her?)

1.If he wrote to his wife and his only heirs were his brothers, what is the law? (Is he concerned that they honor his wife, even though they are not commanded?)

2.If he wrote to his wife, and all his sons were from other wives, what is the law? (One is commanded to honor his father's wife, but not as much as he must honor his mother.)

(g)Answer #1 (Ravina): The only case (when he writes to a woman) in which the gift stands is regarding his Arusah or ex-wife.

(h)Answer #2 (Rav Avira): In all cases she acquires, except for his wife in two cases: when his heirs were his brothers (R. Gershom's text - when her sons inherit him), and when he left sons (even) from other wives.