וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד רַב הוּנָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אַף לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד לֹא קָנָה The Gemara proposes another resolution to Rav Naḥman’s objection: But let Rav Huna say to Rav Naḥman that the mishna is referring to one who says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, at which point the child already exists. The Gemara rejects this resolution: Rav Huna does not interpret the mishna in this way, because Rav Huna conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rav Huna says: Even if one says that the transfer of ownership should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it.
דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הַמְזַכֶּה לְעוּבָּר לֹא קָנָה לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד קָנָה וְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר אַף לִכְשֶׁתֵּלֵד לֹא קָנָה וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה קָנָה The Gemara clarifies: As Rav Naḥman says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it. But if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus acquires it. And Rav Huna says: Even if he says that the transfer of ownership of the item should take effect when she gives birth, the fetus does not acquire it, because the fetus did not exist in the world when he transferred ownership. And Rav Sheshet says: In both this case and that case, the fetus acquires the item.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ דְּתַנְיָא גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְכָסָיו וְשָׁמְעוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת חַיָּיבִין לְהַחֲזִיר הֶחְזִירוּ הַכֹּל וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמְעוּ שֶׁמֵּת בְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה אִשְׁתּוֹ הֶחְזִיק בַּשְּׁנִיָּה קָנָה וּבָרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא קָנָה Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say that the fetus acquires the item? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who died, apparently without offspring, and Jews plundered [uvizbezu] his property, assuming that he had no heirs and his property was therefore ownerless, and subsequently they heard that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, they are obligated to return the property. If they returned it all, and then they heard that his son died or that his wife miscarried, if one took possession at the second time, after hearing about the death or the miscarriage, he acquired the property, but if one took possession only at the first time, before it was known there was an heir at all, he did not acquire the property.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוּבָּר לָא קָנֵי לְמָה לְהוּ אַחְזוֹקֵי בַּשְּׁנִיָּה הָא אַחְזִיקוּ לְהוּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא Rav Sheshet explains: And if it enters your mind that a fetus does not acquire property, why do they need to take possession again the second time? Didn’t they already take possession one time? Evidently, the miscarried fetus had acquired ownership in the meantime.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי יְרוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ שָׁאנֵי רָבָא אָמַר שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּרַפּוֹיֵי מְרַפְּיָאן בִּידַיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא Abaye said in reply to Rav Sheshet: Inheritance, which comes into the possession of the heir by itself without a formal act of acquisition, is different. Even if a fetus inherits property, it may not be able to acquire property in any other manner, e.g., receiving a gift. Rava said: It is different there, in the case where they plundered the property of the convert, as the property was initially only loosely held in their hands, as they did not clearly know whether or not the deceased convert had heirs. Therefore, the first time they took possession was not sufficient, and they needed to take possession again in order to acquire the property.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ בּוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְלֹא מֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת The Gemara asks: What is the difference between Abaye’s refutation and Rava’s refutation? The practical difference between them is in a case where they initially heard with regard to the fetus that he had died, and they then took possession of the property. But in reality, he had not died, and then he died. According to Abaye, a fetus inherits property. Therefore, the property was not ownerless, and the plunderers did not acquire it. According to Rava, since the plunderers heard that the fetus had died, they took a firm hold upon the property, and they acquired it the first time.
תָּא שְׁמַע תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד נוֹחֵל וּמַנְחִיל בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד אִין עוּבָּר לָא הָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת נוֹחֵל בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב וְדַוְקָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד אֲבָל עוּבָּר לָא מַאי טַעְמָא The Gemara offers another refutation of the opinion of Rav Sheshet: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nidda 43b–44a): A one-day-old child inherits property and bequeaths property. One can infer that if the child is one day old, yes, he inherits property; but a fetus does not. The Gemara replies: Doesn’t Rav Sheshet say that the mishna teaches a different halakha? The mishna teaches that a one-day-old child inherits his mother’s property the moment he is born, so that he is able to bequeath it, if he then dies, to his heirs who are not the mother’s heirs, e.g., his paternal brothers. This halakha specifically applies from when he is one day old, but a fetus whose mother died does not inherit from her. What is the reason for this?