More on the powers of acquisition (or lack thereof) of a fetus. What is the timing of a person trying to bequeath property to a fetus, when that person than dies? And most importantly, what changes once the baby is born and is only one day old? Also, given the conclusion that a fetus cannot inherit, the Gemara's focus shifts to the nature of the dispute and the hierarchy of the sages responding (including pinning authority to age-order, at least briefly).

When a man commits to giving an unborn child a set amount of money - regardless of the gender of the child, which apparently makes a difference in terms of the amount given - what is the halakhah? If a girl is supposed to get double the amount than the son, is she more valued than he would be? But the Gemara indicates that one who fathers only daughters is not in God's good graces. At the end of the day, providing for one's daughters in inheritance is upheld before one provides for one's sons. Also, one who is transferring ownership to a fetus is not successful in the transfer. Even though one can acquire goods on behalf of someone else, when one is not a fetus. Plus, a discussion of how various opinions line up with each other or don't - in this case, specifically probing that of Rabbi Meir.

A new chapter! Chapter 9 -- with a mishnah from the previous daf (as the beginning of the chapter) and a second mishnah on this daf as well. Firstly, the case of a man who dies and leaves both sons and daughters -- depending on the size of the estate, either the sons or the daughters take priority in terms of getting that inheritance. [Who's Who: Admon]. Secondly, the case of a man dies and leaves behind sons and daughters and a "tumtum." The value of the estate matters in this case too, but the Gemara addresses this case to determine the halakhic nature of a tumtum -- and whether a tumtum inherits, with or without separate stipulation of gifts. Plus, an investigation into how many genders there are (a very "modern" take that is built into the halakhic system).

A new mishnah (from the bottom of 138): A father who gives his land to his son, while retaining the rights to the produce for himself, until after his own death. Plus, once the produce is detached from the ground, it is the father's, while I still attached, it's "part of the land," and owned by the son who owns the land. Note that funds that are held for minors cannot be used to provide for the adults, and vice versa. The same applies for adult and minor daughters, with one key caveat that is a difference between the sons and daughters in this capacity. Also, the case of a woman who borrows money, uses it, and gets married -- what accrues to her? And what rights might the husband have? Is the husband like a buyer or like an heir?

More on deathbed requests, as presented in a series of beraitot. How much attention must be given to the wording of such requests? What happens when debt factors in to those gifts from the deathbed? Also, when one on his deathbed claims someone owes him money -- the statement alone is not proof of the debt.

If one person gives another person an etrog, and that the recipient should pass it along to another person after his own death, then there's a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as to the degree of ownership by that first recipient. He has to pass it on, so he can't use it in all ways, like an outright owner. Can he sell it, for example? Also, a story about a woman who owned a date palm that was planted in the property of Rav Bibi bar Abaye - and he was regularly upset when she came to harvest the fruit. The Gemara works to figure out what was really upsetting him.

A new mishnah! On how a healthy person can transfer property to others -- to go into effect after that person's death: the phrasing of "from now until after death." But what happens to that property during the lifetime? Neither father nor son can sell those properties during the father's lifetime. And if the son did sell, the buyer does not have the right until father's death. But does the father need to say, " from now" to begin with? The Gemara suggests that the date alone should be enough. Also, the case of all of the above, but where the son dies in his father's lifetime -- what happens if the son has sold the property before he died? Does the sale take effect (say, after the father's death? Or not at all? It's a dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

When a man is dying, they ask him in a roundabout way whether his wife will be subject to yibum. When he says she could marry a kohen gadol means she doesn't have any need for yibum. But what about when a man comes to divorce his wife, he is considered reliable with regard to his wife's status - sometimes! Sometimes, he is explicitly "not believed" with regard to his wife's status. Which leads to a serious discussion about protecting the women, and also held in a respectful manner that allowed for different opinions. Also, if a will is written on one's deathbed and not yet given to anyone, and then the person dies -- that will is not considered valid. Likewise, a deed of transfer that is to be written on one's deathbed is not valid, because that kind of contract is only effective if the original owner is still alive.

A practical example, of one who found his children to be lacking and gave all of his property to Yonatan ben Uziel instead of to his official heirs. The sage gave a portion of that gift back to the children, which opened a tussle with Shammai, over the standing of the benefactor's wishes. Also, the 80 students of Hillel the Elder, and their greatness, including the least of them being R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, and how accomplished and steadfast he was in learning Torah. Also, a new mishnah! When man who specifies his heirs, he's largely believed - and then his wife would be proven exempt from yibum. Which is more of a "yibum" issue than an "inheritance" issue, but it applies to both.

More on Rabbi Yehudah ben Berkoka's position, with the property being established as an inheritance vs. as a gift. But what is the real difference? Why would it be preferable to inherit, as compared to receive a gift? For starters, the heirs need to support the widow of the benefactor, which is not the case for the recipients of gifts. Also, a new mishnah! What happens when a person really does give his property away and his rightful heirs get nothing? The majority view frowns upon such a decision, though it would take effect. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explains that there are circumstances, say, with an heir who is not behaving well, where circumventing the inheritance laws would be considered the right move. The Gemara provides a story that illustrates what the rabbis of the majority view think of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's caveat.