אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא אִילּוּ הָדַר קָנֵי מִי לָא שָׁקְלָא וְכֵיוָן דְּאִילּוּ הָדַר קָנֵי שָׁקְלָא הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי שָׁקְלָא Rav Kahana said to him: If the husband had then acquired other property, would she not have taken it as payment of her marriage contract? And since if he would have then acquired other property she would have taken it as payment of her marriage contract, now she also takes the deceased daughter’s share as payment of her marriage contract.
הַהוּא דְּפַלְגִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ לְאִתְּתֵיהּ וְלִבְנֵיהּ שַׁיַּיר חַד דִּיקְלָא סְבַר רָבִינָא לְמֵימַר לֵית לַהּ אֶלָּא חַד דִּיקְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרָבִינָא אִי לֵית לַהּ חַד דִּיקְלָא נָמֵי לֵית לַהּ אֶלָּא מִיגּוֹ דְּנָחֲתָא לְדִיקְלָא נָחֲתָא נָמֵי לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי There was a certain person who divided his property between his wife and his son, leaving out a single palm tree. Ravina thought to say that the wife has only the single palm tree as future payment of her marriage contract, which was presumably left out of the distribution for this reason. Rav Yeimar said to Ravina: If she does not have the right to collect payment of her marriage contract from all of his property, as she presumably waived that right when he gave her the gift of some of his property, she does not have the right to collect it from the single palm tree either and it belongs to the heirs. Rav Yeimar presents a different ruling: Rather, since the halakha is that she does descend to collect the palm tree, she therefore descends to collect all of the property as well, i.e., she receives payment of her marriage contract from all the property.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר רוֹאִין אִם רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה וְאִם לָאו נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה § Rav Huna says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to another, the court investigates the legal status of the recipient: If he is fit to inherit from him, e.g., if he is one of his sons, he takes the property as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן גַּנָּבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אֵימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה דְּהָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָיךְ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הוּא דְּאָזְלָא Rav Naḥman said to him: Why should you steal this halakha and not attribute it to its source? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as your halakhic statement follows the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that a person can bequeath his property to any of his heirs.
דִּלְמָא כִּי הָא קָאָמְרַתְּ דְּהָהוּא דַּהֲוָה קָא שָׁכֵיב וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ נִכְסֵיהּ לְמַאן דִּלְמָא לִפְלָנְיָא וַאֲמַר לְהוּ אֶלָּא לְמַאן וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ אִם רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם יְרוּשָּׁה וְאִם לָאו נוֹטְלָן מִשּׁוּם מַתָּנָה אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא Perhaps this is what you meant to say: There was a certain childless person who was dying, and those around him said to him: To whom should his, i.e., your, property be given? Perhaps it should be given to so-and-so? And he said to them: Rather, to whom if not him? And you, Rav Huna, meant to say to us: If that person is fit to inherit from him, he takes it as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift. Rav Huna said to him: Yes, that is what I was saying.
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא סָבַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לְמֵימַר אִם רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶית מִנְּכָסָיו וְאִם לָאו אֵין אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶית מִנְּכָסָיו The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is there a difference whether he receives it as an inheritance or as a gift? Rav Adda bar Ahava, who was in the presence of Rava, thought that it would be correct to say: If he is fit to inherit from him, the giver’s widow is sustained from his property, as she has the right to be sustained from the inheritance; and if not, and the property was given as a gift, his widow is not sustained from his property.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִיגְרָע גָּרְעָא הַשְׁתָּא בִּירוּשָׁה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אָמְרַתְּ אַלְמְנָתוֹ נִזּוֹנֶית מִנְּכָסָיו בְּמַתָּנָה דְּרַבָּנַן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן Rava said to him: Can the widow’s right be diminished by the gift? Now that you say with regard to inheritance, which is granted by Torah law, that his widow is sustained from his property, with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, which is effective without any formal act of acquisition by rabbinic law, all the more so is it not clear that the widow has sustenance rights?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא כְּדִשְׁלַח רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב עַוְיָא לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה נְכָסַי לְךָ וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי אִם הָיָה רִאשׁוֹן רָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ אֵין לַשֵּׁנִי בִּמְקוֹם רִאשׁוֹן כְּלוּם שֶׁאֵין לְשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן יְרוּשָּׁה וִירוּשָּׁה אֵין לָהּ הֶפְסֵק Rather, Rava said that the difference whether it is inheritance or a gift is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Aḥa bar Rav Avya sent: According to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, in the case of one who said: My property is given to you, and after you to so-and-so, and the first recipient was fit to inherit from him, the second gets nothing in place of the first, i.e., he does not receive the property after the first one dies, as this formulation employed by the owner was not one of a gift. Rather, it was a formulation of inheritance, and inheritance has no end, i.e., it cannot be stopped. Therefore, since the first recipient acquired it as an inheritance, his heirs inherit it from him, and it cannot be taken by the second.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן וְהָא אַפְסְקַהּ הוּא סָבַר יֵשׁ לָהּ הֶפְסֵק וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר אֵין לָהּ הֶפְסֵק Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But he ended it. The one who bequeathed it to him ended his inheritance in advance by stating that after the first dies, the property will be given to the second. The Gemara answers: He thought that inheritance has an end; but the Merciful One states that it has no end.