הגמרא המבוארת- בבא בתרא דף קנט(עם ביאור שטיינזלץ).

Several fundamental issues were discussed in this chapter. With regard to the division of the estate of the deceased between the sons and the daughters, the Gemara says that when the estate is large, the sons inherit it, and they are required to provide the daughters with sustenance out of their inheritance. If the estate is insufficiently large to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters' claim takes precedence over the sons' claim, since their right to sustenance is based on the stipulations of the marriage contract. The daughters are therefore provided with sustenance from the estate, while the sons are required to provide for themselves. A tumtum, whose sexual organs are indeterminate, is unable to prove his claim either to the rights of a son or to the rights of a daughter. The tumtum is therefore excluded from receiving the inheritance of the sons in the case of a large estate and the sustenance of the daughters in the case of a small estate. The tumtum is still a child of the deceased and inherits from the father if there is no other child. The Gemara examined the related issue of the legal status of a fetus. It concluded that a fetus is not considered a legal person and cannot acquire property. There is one exception to this principle: One can transfer ownership of his property to his own unborn child. When some of the heirs are adults and others are minors, the income from and expenditures spent due to the inheritance are divided equally between the heirs until the property is divided. This also applies to profits or losses incurred by one of the brothers due to the honor of the family and social obligations such as the gifts of groomsmen. The adult sons may declare at the outset that they intend to engage in business, enhancing the property for themselves. Furthermore, if the property was enhanced due to the efforts or expenditure of the adult sons, in any event the enhancement belongs entirely to the adult sons. The same applies with regard to a wife who inherited her husband's property. The Sages instituted that a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property by verbal instruction, without performing a formal act of acquisition. This was instituted due to the concern that the sick person's condition might be exacerbated by the anxiety and anguish caused by his inability to ensure the implementation of his will. The Gemara's conclusion is that the gift of a person on his deathbed bestowed by verbal instruction is valid whether it was bestowed on a weekday or on Shabbat. With regard to several matters the gifts of a person on his deathbed have the legal status of inheritance, e.g., the transfer of ownership is effected only when the giver dies. The Sages distinguish between several forms of gifts of a person on his deathbed. If a person on his deathbed transfers the ownership of all his property, his gift has the legal status of a gift of a person on his deathbed, and if he recovers he can retract the gift. Furthermore, during his illness he can retract the gift or transfer it to another, and the last instruction that he issues takes effect. If a person on his deathbed transfers the ownership of only some of his property, reserving part of his property for himself, his gift does not have the status of the gift of a person on his deathbed, and he cannot retract the gift even if he recovers. If the person on his deathbed clearly indicates that he is bestowing the gift due to his expectation of imminent death, his gift has the status of the gift of a person on his deathbed, even if he transfers ownership of only some of his property. The chapter concluded with several discussions pertaining to the division of inheritance in cases where two relatives died under circumstances that rendered it impossible to ascertain which of them died first. If a son and his father died under such circumstances, the father's heirs inherit the property, even if the son owed money to creditors. If the heirs of the two relatives are not the same individuals, e.g., in the case of a mother and son who died, the property is inherited by the heirs whose status is certain. If a husband and wife died under such circumstances, the sum of the marriage contract is inherited by the husband's heirs, the usufruct property is inherited by the wife's heirs, and the guaranteed property is divided between them.