Bava Batra 282:1

דתניא המבשרני במה נפטר רחמה של אשתי אם זכר יטול מנה ילדה זכר נוטל מנה אם נקבה מנה ילדה נקבה נוטל מנה ילדה זכר ונקבה אין לו אלא מנה

as it was taught: '[If a person said]: "He who will bring me tidings whereby the womb of my wife was opened, shall receive, if the child be a male, a <i>maneh</i>", [then] if she gave birth to a male he receives a <i>maneh</i>. [If. however.] he said: "[He will receive] a <i>maneh</i> if [he brings 'me tidings that she gave birth to] a female", [then] if she gave birth to a female, he receives a <i>maneh</i>, [and if] she gave birth to a male and a female, he only receives a <i>maneh</i>'. But surely'. he did not speak of a 'male and a female'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He only spoke of the birth of a male or a female; why then should he give the maneh when twins were born? ');">¹</span> — [This refers to the case] where he also said, 'He shall also receive a <i>maneh</i> if [he brings tidings that] a male and a female [were born]'. What. then. [did he mean] to exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the maneh was promised to the reporter in the case of the birth of a male. a female or twins. i.e.. apparently in all possible cases. what need was there for the father to specify them, at all? It would have been sufficient for him, to say. that he would pay the maneh to him who would report'whereby the womb of my wife was opened'. Since the three apparently possible cases were specified the intention must have been to exclude' some other possible case. ');">²</span>

והא זכר ונקבה לא אמר דאמר נמי אם זכר ונקבה נמי יטול מנה אלא למעוטי מאי למעוטי נפל

To exclude a miscarriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By specifying male, female and twins, he implied that the maneh would be paid only when he received a report of a living child. ');">³</span> [Once] a certain [man] said to his wife: 'My estate shall be his with whom you are pregnant — R. Huna said, 'This is [a case of] making an assignment to an embryo through the agency of a third party, and whenever such an assignment is made, [the embryo does] not acquire possession.

ההוא דאמר לה לדביתהו נכסי להאי דמעברת אמר רב הונא הוי מזכה לעובר והמזכה לעובר לא קנה

R. Nahman raised an objection against R. Huna's ruling: IF A MAN SAID: SHOULD MY WIFE BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE SHALL RECEIVE A <i>MANEH</i>, [AND HIS WIFE] DID BEAR A MALE CHILD, HE RECEIVES A <i>MANEH</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that though the assignment was made while the child was still in embryo. possession is acquired by him. ');">⁴</span> — He replied to him: [As to] our Mishnah. I do not know' who is its author.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who taught it.' I.e., its authorship is obscure and consequently unreliable. ');">⁵</span>

איתיביה רב נחמן לרב הונא האומר אם ילדה אשתי זכר יטול מנה ילדה זכר נוטל מנה אמר ליה משנתינו איני יודע מי שנאה

But should he not have replied to him [that] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">⁶</span> [represents the view' of] R. Meir who stated [that] a man may convey possession of a thing that has not [yet] come into the world!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, did he say that he did not know who the author of our Mishnah was? ');">⁷</span>

ולימא ליה רבי מאיר היא דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

— [It is possible to] say that R. Meir holds this view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that you heard.' ');">⁸</span> [only when possession is conveyed] to that which is [already'] in the world;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though the object is not, the recipient is in existence. ');">⁹</span>

אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר לדבר שישנו בעולם לדבר שאינו בעולם מי שמעת ליה

[but] has he been heard [to hold the same view when possession is conveyed] to that which is not [yet] in the world!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The embryo, therefore, could not acquire possession even according to R. Meir. Hence, the authorship of our Mishnah remains unknown ');">¹⁰</span> But let him reply to him that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">¹¹</span>

ולימא ליה רבי יוסי היא דאמר עובר קני דתנן עובר פוסל ואינו מאכיל דברי רבי יוסי

[represents the view of] R. Jose who said [that] an embryo acquires [possession]! For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 67a. ');">¹²</span> 'An embryo disqualifies [his deceased father's slaves from eating the heave.offering[13 but does not confer the right of eating it [on his mother];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she is the daughter of an Israelite. Only a son that was born confers this right upon his mother: but not an embryo ');">¹⁴</span>

שאני ירושה הבאה מאיליה

these are the words of R. Jose'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it clearly follows that the embryo is regarded as the owner of the slaves, which proves that according to R. Jose an embryo does acquire possession; why. then, could not our Mishnah be attributed to R. Jose's authorship? ');">¹⁵</span> — An inheritance which came to one under the ordinary laws of succession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of itself'. ');">¹⁶</span>

ולימא ליה רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא דאמר לא שנא ירושה ולא שנא מתנה דתנן רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אם אמר על מי שראוי ליורשו דבריו קיימין

is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a gift.Consequently. while R. Jose may hold the view that an embryo acquires the ownership of an inheritance, it does not follow that be would grant the embryo the right of acquiring possession of a gift, which forms the subject of our Mishnah ');">¹⁷</span> But let him reply to him [that] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">¹⁸</span>

אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה לדבר שישנו בעולם לדבר שאינו בעולם מי אמר

[represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka who said, that there was no difference between an inheritance and a gift! For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 130a. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Johanan b. Beroka said: If [a person] said [it]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a certain individual shall inherit all his estate. ');">²⁰</span>

ולימא ליה רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה היא וסבר לה כרבי יוסי מי יימר דסבר לה

concerning one who is entitled to be his heir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably even an embryo. ');">²¹</span> his instruction is legally valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that, according to R. Johanan b. Beroka, an embryo acquires possession even of that to which he would not have been entitled under the ordinary laws of succession. ');">²²</span>

ולימא ליה במבשרני אי הכי דקתני סיפא ואם אין שם יורש אלא הוא יורש הכל אי במבשרני יורש מאי עבידתיה

— [It is possible to] say that R. Johanan b. Beroka has been heard [to hold the view only where possession is given] to that which is [already] in the world;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one of the sons already born. ');">²³</span> [but] did he say [that the same law applies also] to that which is not in the world!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., an embryo. Hence the authorship of our Mishnah remains unknown. ');">²⁴</span>

ולימא ליה בשילדה אי הכי דקתני סיפא ואם אמר כל מה שתלד אשתי יטול הרי זה יטול כל שתלד כל שילדה מיבעי ליה

And let him reply to him [that] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span> [represents the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka and [that] he holds the [same] opinion as R. Jose!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra; that an embryo may acquire possession. ');">²⁶</span> Who can say that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan b. Beroka. ');">²⁷</span> holds such an opinion!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of R. Jose. ');">²⁸</span> Let him, then, reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where [the money was offered by a husband] 'to him who would bring me tidings'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e. that the sum of money spoken if in our Mishnah was not assigned to an embryo but promised by a husband to anyone who would report to him, on the confinement of his wife as to the sex of child (cf. supra). The question of an embryo's right of acquisition would consequently be outside the scope of our Mishnah: and R. Huna would accordingly be able to maintain, against R. Nahman's assumption, that an embryo does not acquire possession. ');">²⁹</span> — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That our Mishnah deals with a promise to a stranger, and not with an assignment to an heir. ');">³⁰</span> [explain] the last clause wherein it is stated, AND IF THERE IS NO [OTHER] HEIR BUT THIS ONE, HE INHERITS ALL [THE ESTATE]. If [the Mishnah speaks] of a reporter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who will report to me'. ');">³¹</span> what has he to do with heirship!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'an heir, what is his work'. A reporter on the birth of one's child could not possibly he described as heir ');">³²</span> Then let him reply to him [that our Mishnah speaks of the case] where she has [already] given birth [to the child]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time the father had assigned to him the sum of money. An embryo, however, as R. Huna stated, would not acquire possession. ');">³³</span> — If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Mishnah speaks of a child already born. ');">³⁴</span> the last clause is wherein it is stated. IF [HOWEVER] HE SAID: whatever MY WIFE SHALL BEAR, SHALL RECEIVE [A CERTAIN PORTION]. HE RECEIVES [IT] [instead of]. WHATEVER SHE SHALL BEAR, should have [read]. 'whatever she has born'!