אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא גר שמת ובזבזו ישראל נכסיו ושמעו שיש לו בן או שהיתה אשתו מעוברת חייבין להחזיר החזירו הכל ואחר כך שמעו שמת בנו או שהפילה אשתו החזיק בשניה קנה ובראשונה לא קנה
If a proselyte died<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, having left no children, his possessions become public property, and whosoever takes possession of them acquires ownership.
');"><sup>8</sup></span> and Israelites plundered his estate; and [subsequently] they heard that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant. they must return [whatever they have appropriated].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the son or the embryo. as legal heir. acquired the ownership of the estate as soon as the proselyte died.
');"><sup>9</sup></span> [If]. having returned everything they subsequently heard that his son died or that his wife miscarried, he who took possession the second [time]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the death of the son or the miscarriage.
');"><sup>10</sup></span> has acquired ownership;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at that time there were no legal heirs
');"><sup>11</sup></span> but [he who took possession] the first [time] has not acquired ownership. Now, if it could be assumed [that] an embryo does not acquire ownership why should they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where there was no born son, but an embryo.
');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to fetuses. Rebbi Yose said, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. That is the Mishnah, “if somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” as you say here, retroactively ḥalîṣah did not touch her, so retroactively the child is a son and receives the benefit. There, we have stated: “If somebody says, if my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina, if she gave birth to a male, [the male baby] will take a mina. If a female, 200 [drachmae], if she gave birth to a female, that one will take 200.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is only for his son, but not for any other. Rebbi Yasa said, even any other. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, only from a sick person, but not a healthy one; only movables but not real estate. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ If a proselyte died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son overseas or that [his wife] was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took].” What does Rebbi Eleazar do with this? There is a difference because it is his child. The second part [of the Mishnah] disagrees with Samuel in the interpretation of Rebbi Yose: “If they returned everything and then the son died or she had a miscarriage, anybody who takes first after that acquires it.” The first group did not acquire. Even at the beginning they should not have acquired! Did not Rebbi Yose say, even though Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to fetuses, he agrees that most of [the fetus’s] head and body must come out alive. He was not living! Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, because of abandoning. The rabbis of Caesarea, R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Abba bar Natan: Rebbi Natan changed his mind because of that Mishnah: “If a male, a mina, if a female, 200.” Is a female in this situation not like an outsider? Bar Qappara stated: “On transfers benefit to a one day old.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy