1) STIPULATING AGAINST THE REGULAR (Yerushalmi Halachah 5 Daf 23b)

משנה האומר איש פלוני יירשני במקום שיש בת בתי תירשני במקום שיש בן לא אמר כלום שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה

(a) (Mishnah): If a person said, "Ploni (who is unrelated) will inherit me" and he has a daughter; or he said, "my daughter will inherit me" and he has a son, it does not take effect, as he stipulated against the Torah.

רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין ועל מי שאין ראוי לו ליורשו אין דבריו קיימין

(b) R. Yochanan ben Beroka: If he said it about someone who could inherit him, his words take effect; about someone who could not inherit him, his words do not take effect.

גמרא אמר ר' יוחנן לא א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה אלא על בן בין הבנים ועל בת בין הבנות בת בין האחין אח בין הבנות לא

(c) (Gemara): R. Yochanan ben Beroka was only referring to a son amongst sons or a daughter amongst daughters; but not a daughter amongst sons or a son amongst daughters.

אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כר' יוחנן בן ברוקה.

(d) R. Yochanan: The Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Beroka.

רבי שאל לר' נתן בר בא אמר אכן שאילה מאי טעמא דר' יוחנן בן ברוקה.

(e) Question (Rebbi to R. Nasan bar Ba): What is the reasoning of R. Yochanan ben Beroka?

(רבי זעירא)[רבי בא בר חייא] אמר הכן שאלה מה ראו לומר הלכה כר' יוחנן בן ברוקה.

(f) R. Ba bar Chiya: Rebbi actually asked him - why does the Halachah follow R. Yochanan ben Beroka?

א"ל ואת לא שניתה לנו כן אינון ירתון.

1. R. Nasan bar Ba responded: (From your question it seems that you do not agree with R. Yochanan ben Beroka) but surely you agree with him as you taught in a Mishnah in Kesuvos - "Sons that will be born from our marriage will inherit the money of your Kesubah beyond their shares with their (other) brothers etc." (The Mishnah teaches that even if this text was not written in her Kesubah, her sons (from a previous marriage) still inherit more than the sons of the current marriage, even though according to the Torah, all sons should inherit equally. This follows R. Yochanan ben Beroka, who said that he may stipulate when it is a son among others sons.)

כיני מתנית' אינון יטלון.

2. Rebbi replied: The correct text of the Mishnah should be, "...will take (as a gift) the money" (rather than 'will inherit the money').

אמר (לו)[רבי לא] ואפילו כמאן דאמר ירתון כח ב"ד מיופה

(g) R. Ila: Even according to the original text there is no proof - since Beis Din made the stipulation and there is a principle that whatever Beis Din declare ownerless becomes ownerless, the stipulation is valid.

כמה דתימר תמן אין אדם מזכה בלשון מתנה והכא מזכה ודכוותה אין אדם מזכה בלשון ירושה והכא מזכה

1. This must be the case, as even according to the corrected text of "will take", how could the Kesubah give over property to sons who are not even born yet? Rather, although a person cannot give over something as a gift (to someone is not yet in the world), here he can because of the special authority of Beis Din; so too for an inheritance, even though a person usually cannot bequeath specifically to one son amongst the others, but when done using the authority of Beis Din, it is a valid stipulation.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF