אמר אביי ירושה הבאה מאיליה שאני רבא אמר שאני התם דרפוי מרפיאן בידייהו מעיקרא
because at first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was known whether there were any legal heirs.
');"><sup>18</sup></span> they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who seized the estate.
');"><sup>19</sup></span> were really uncertain of the legality of their acquisition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was really loose in their hands at first'. While seizing the property, they were well aware that they might loose it at any moment should a legal heir appear. Hence, ownership cannot be acquired unless possession was taken after it had been ascertained that there were no legal heirs.
');"><sup>20</sup></span> What [practical difference is there] between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either case, whether the reason is that given by Abaye or that of Raba, the first acquisition is invalid.
');"><sup>21</sup></span> There is [a difference] between them [in the case] where a report was brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they heard'.
');"><sup>22</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