Bava Batra 283:1

ולימא ליה דאמר לכשתלד רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר רב הונא אף לכשתלד לא קנה

But let him reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where he said, 'After she will have born [the child'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that a born child, not an embryo, would acquire possession. Hence, no objection could be raised from our Mishnah against R. Huna's statement. ');">¹</span> — R. Huna follows his own view. For R. Huna said: [A child] does not acquire ownership<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a sum of money that his father had assigned to him before his birth, while still an embryo. ');">²</span> even [where the father had said].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the child shall acquire possession. ');">³</span> 'after she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mother. ');">⁴</span> will have born [him]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child to whom the assignment was made. ');">⁵</span>

דאמר רב נחמן המזכה לעובר לא קנה לכשתלד קנה ורב הונא אמר אף לכשתלד לא קנה ורב ששת אמר אחד זה ואחד זה קנה

'For. [it was stated.] R. Nahman said: If a person conveys possession. through the agency of a third party. to an embryo.[the latter] does not acquire ownership. [If however, he said].]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the child shall acquire possession. ');">³</span> 'After she will have born'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The child to whom the assignment was made. ');">⁵</span> [the child] does acquire ownership. But R. Huna said: Even [where he said]. 'After she will have born'. [the child] does not acquire ownership. R. Shesheth however said: Whether he used the one, or the other expression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whether this or this'. ');">⁶</span> [the child] acquires ownership. Said R. Sheshet: Whence do I derive this? — From the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for it was taught'. ');">⁷</span>

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. ');">⁸</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. ');">⁹</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. ');">¹⁰</span> has acquired ownership;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since at that time there were no legal heirs ');">¹¹</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. ');">¹²</span>

ואי סלקא דעתך עובר לא קני למה להו אחזוקי בשניה הא אחזיקו להו חדא זימנא

need to take possession a second time? They have, surely. already taken possession once!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The existence of the embryo if it could not acquire possession, should not have made any difference to their right of ownership. Consequently it follows, as R. Shesheth had stated, that an embryo does acquire possession. ');">¹³</span> Abaye [however] said: An inheritance which comes [to one] under the ordinary laws of succession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of itself'. ');">¹⁴</span> is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though an embryo may acquire ownership of an estate which is due to him as the legal heir, it does not follow that it can also acquire the ownership of a gift or any other assignment. ');">¹⁵</span> Raba said: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' n the case of the estate of a proselyte. ');">¹⁶</span> it is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From other cases of acquisition. ');">¹⁷</span>

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. ');">¹⁸</span> they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who seized the estate. ');">¹⁹</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. ');">²⁰</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. ');">²¹</span> There is [a difference] between them [in the case] where a report was brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they heard'. ');">²²</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו ששמעו בו שמת ולא מת ואחר כך מת

that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The legal heir. ');">²³</span> died, while [in fact] he was not dead. and after that he died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such a case, the plunderers, since they thought that the heir was dead, have from the very beginning taken definite and certain possession of the estate which, according to Raba, would consequently become their legal property. even if they did not take possession of it a second time. According to Abaye. however. their first acquisition is of no avail since the embryo was at that time the legal owner of the estate. ');">²⁴</span> Come and hear: 'A babe [who is] one day old inherits and transmits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nid. 44a. 'Ar. 7a. ');">²⁵</span> [From this it follows that only] one [who is] one day old [may inherit]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'yes'. ');">²⁶</span> but not an embryo!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had an embryo been able to inherit, there would be no need to specify the limitation,'one day old'. Now, if an embryo cannot acquire possession of a legal inheritance how much less could it acquire possession of a gift! How, then, could R. Shesheth maintain that an embryo can acquire possession of a gift? ');">²⁷</span>

תא שמע תינוק בן יום אחד נוחל ומנחיל בן יום אחד אין עובר לא הא אמר רב ששת נוחל בנכסי האם להנחיל לאחין מן האב ודוקא בן יום אחד אבל עובר לא מאי טעמא

— Surely R. Shesheth had explained<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v.. Nid. loc. cit. ');">²⁸</span> [this as meaning]: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An infant who Is one day old. ');">²⁹</span> inherits the estate of his mother to transmit [it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he dies. ');">³⁰</span> to his paternal brothers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Born from the same father and not the same mother. ');">³¹</span> hence, only [then when he is] one day old but not [when] an embryo.What is the reason?