Reuven divided his property among his wife and sons, but there was one date tree he did not command about.

(Ravina): She can collect (the rest of her Kesuvah) only from the date tree.

Objection (Rav Yemar): If she cannot collect from what the sons received (because she forfeited her lien), then also she cannot collect from the date tree (she also accepted that the sons will inherit it)!

Rather, just like she did not forfeit her lien from the date tree, she did not forfeit her lien from what the sons received!

(Rav Huna): If a Shechiv Mera wrote all his property to Ploni:

If Ploni could inherit him, he receives it for an inheritance;

If Ploni could not inherit him, he receives it for a gift.

Rav Nachman: Why do you say this in your own name, as if all agree to it?!

Your teaching is like R. Yochanan ben Berokah. You should say 'the Halachah follows R. Yochanan ben Berokah'!

Suggestion: Perhaps you discuss when Reuven was a Shechiv Mera, and they asked him 'who should receive your property - Ploni?', and he answered 'who else?'

In this case, you said that if Ploni could inherit him, he receives it for an inheritance, and if not, he receives it for a gift.

Rav Huna: Yes, I discuss that case.

Question: What difference does it make if he receives it like an inheritance or a gift?

Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If it is like an inheritance, his widow is fed from the property. If it is like a gift, she is not.

Objection (Rava): If it is like an inheritance, Ploni acquires mid'Oraisa, and Reuven's widow is fed from the property. If it is like a gift, Ploni acquires through the Rabbinical enactment of a gift of a Shechiv Mera, and all the more so the widow is fed!

Answer #2 (Rava): It makes a difference in Rav Acha's case.

(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya): According to R. Yochanan ben Berokah, if David said 'my property is to you (Shimon), and after you to Ploni', if Shimon could inherit David, Ploni does not get anything. 'To you' does not connote a gift, rather, an inheritance, and one cannot stipulate after inheritance.

Question (Rava): He did stipulate after inheritance!

Answer (Rav Nachman): He thought that one can stipulate after inheritance. The Torah says that he cannot.

A case occurred in which Reuven said 'my property is to you (Levi), and after you to Ploni', and Levi was fitting to inherit Reuven. Levi died, and Ploni came to claim the property.

(Rav Ilish): Ploni gets it (Rashbam; R. Gershom - he divides it with Levi's heirs).

Rejection (Rava): No, this is like Rav Acha's case. One cannot stipulate after inheritance.

Rav Ilish was embarrassed. Rava consoled him. "B'Itah Achishenah" (Hash-m saves Tzadikim in due time, i.e. before you gave a mistaken ruling).

(Mishnah): If Reuven wrote all his property to others, and did not leave any for his sons, it takes effect, but Chachamim are displeased with him.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if his sons were acting improperly, Reuven is praised for this.

(Gemara) Question: Do Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel?

Answer #1 (Beraisa): Yosef ben Yo'ezer had a son who was acting improperly. Yosef had a Keli full of coins; he made it Hekdesh. His son married the daughter of the man who made crowns for Yanai ha'Melech. He bought a fish for her (after she gave birth) and found a pearl inside.

His wife: Do not take it to the king, for he will appraise it cheaply. Rather, take it to the Gizbarim (overseers) of Hekdesh;

Do not appraise it yourself, for what one says to (give or sell to) Hekdesh is a Kinyan. Rather, let them appraise it.

They appraised it for 13 Kelim of coins, and told him that Hekdesh has only seven.

The son: Give to me the seven. The other six is my gift to Hekdesh.

Version #1: They wrote down 'Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought one Keli of coins to Hekdesh, and his son gave six.

Version #2: They wrote down 'Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought one Keli of coins to Hekdesh, and his son took seven from Hekdesh.' (end of Version #2)

Culmination of answer: Since they wrote (according to Version #1) that his son also gave to Hekdesh, this shows that they were (also) pleased with Yosef, i.e. Chachamim agree with R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rejection: According to Version #2, since they wrote that his son took from Hekdesh, this shows that they were (also) displeased with Yosef, i.e. Chachamim argue with R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Conclusion: The two versions contradict one another. We cannot settle our question from here.

Answer #2: Shmuel told Rav Yehudah 'do not be party to a father who transfers inheritance, even from a bad son to a good son, and all the more so from a good son to a bad son! (We must say that Chachamim argue, and Shmuel holds that the Halachah follows Chachamim.)

(Beraisa): A case occurred in which Reuven's sons were acting improperly. He wrote his property to Yonason ben Uzi'el (a Talmid of Hillel);

Yonason ben Uzi'el sold a third of it, made a third Hekdesh, and returned a third to Reuven's sons.

Shamai thought that the return of the property was invalid, because Reuven was adamant that his sons not get it.

Yonason: You have no more ability to undo this than the sale and Hekdesh. If you cannot undo them, the return also stands.

Shamai: You refuted me.