and betrothal, as if a man betroths a woman and retracts the betrothal within the time required for speaking, his retraction is not effective.

MISHNA: In a case of one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah concerning the order of inheritance. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands, but if it was about one for whom it was not fit to inherit from him, his statement does not stand.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna that the reason the first tanna rules that his bequeathal is invalid is that he bequeathed his estate to another in a case where he had a daughter, or to his daughter where he had a son, but if he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, his statement stands. The Gemara questions this inference: Say the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that if he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands. This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What information does this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka add? With regard to what case do they disagree?

The Gemara continues: And if you would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka is saying that one’s statement stands even in a case where he bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, as although he bequeathed it to one who is not currently his heir, the beneficiary would be fit to inherit from him if the current heirs die, and this would be contrary to the opinion of the first tanna, this is difficult. And isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:18) that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: My father and the Rabbis did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son; in a case such as this, my father concedes that he has said nothing.

Rabbi Yishmael continues: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where he bequeathed his entire estate to one son among his other sons, or to one daughter among his other daughters, as my father says that the son or daughter inherits the entire estate, and the Rabbis say that he does not inherit it.

The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that from the fact that Rabbi Yishmael is saying that they did not disagree about a case where one bequeathed his estate to another where he had a daughter or to a daughter where he had a son, by inference, the first tanna of that baraita, to whom he was responding, holds that they did disagree in this case.

And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and the mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who says: So-and-so will inherit from me, in a case where there is a daughter, or: My daughter will inherit from me, in a case where there is a son, he has said nothing, but if he bequeathed his property to one son among his other sons, or one daughter among his other daughters, then if he said that the son or daughter will inherit all his property, his statement stands, as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: If he said this about one fit to inherit him, that he should inherit all of his property, his statement stands.

§ As for the halakhic ruling, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. And Rava says as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.

Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka? The verse states: ''Then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit'' (Deuteronomy 21:16), which is interpreted to mean that the Torah gave the father permission to bequeath his estate to whomever he wishes among his sons.

Abaye said to him: Isn’t this halakha derived from the continuation of the verse: ''He may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn''? From the prohibition against depriving the firstborn of his double portion it can be inferred that one can change the apportionment of the inheritance of his other sons.

The Gemara answers: That clause in the verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: