Today's Daf Yomi
June 7, 2017 | ืืดื ืืกืืื ืชืฉืขืดื
-
This monthโs learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ
Bava Batra 136
What wording must be used to designate one’sย property to others in his lifetime when he is healthy? ย What is the status of the property in the interim? Can the son or father sell their rights to their share? ย If the son sells his rights and he predeceases the father, does the buyer acquire the property upon the death of the father or does it revert to the father’s heirs?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
ืืืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืกืืฃ ืขื ืืชื ืชื ืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืจ ืืฃ ืืชืืื ืืืชืืื ืืืื ืืื
It is as Rav แธคisda says that if it is written in the will: And we acquired it from him through an act of acquisition in addition to this gift, this formulation does not cancel the willโs power to take effect after the personโs death, as the intention of referring to it as a gift is merely to enhance the legal power of the recipient by confirming the transfer through an act of acquisition. Here too, in a case where he says: Write and sign a document as well, and give it to him, it is apparent that his request is to enhance the legal power of the recipient by writing a document in addition to transferring the gift itself.
ืืืชืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืื ืืชื ืื ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืื ืืชื ืื
It was stated that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case. And Rava says similarly that Rav Naแธฅman says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืชืื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื
MISHNA: A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies.
ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืคื ื ืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืคื ื ืฉืื ืืจืฉืืช ืืื
If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce.
ืืืจ ืืื ืืืืจืื ืขื ืฉืืืืช ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืืงื ืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืืืช ืืื
If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his fatherโs lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies.
ืืืณ ืืื ืืชื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืื ืชื ื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืื ืืืื ื ืื ืืื ืืช ืืืืฆืช ืืื ืืชืืืืืช
GEMARA: And if he wrote: I give the property from today and after my death, what of it? Didnโt we learn in a mishna (Gittin 72a): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, it is a bill of divorce but not a complete bill of divorce, and therefore if he dies without children his wife performs the ritual through which a woman is freed of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza], as perhaps the bill of divorce is invalid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing แธฅalitza. But she does not enter into levirate marriage, as perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is forbidden for a divorcรฉe to marry her former husbandโs brother.
ืืชื ืืกืคืงื ืื ืื ืชื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืื ืืืคื ืงื ื ืืืืื ืคืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืชื
The Gemara answers: There, we are uncertain if the expression: And after my death, is meant as a condition, i.e., if I die you will be divorced retroactively from today, or if it is a retraction of the statement: From today, meaning that the divorce would take effect only after his death, which would render it invalid. But here, in the case of a deed of gift, there is no contradiction in the statement, as this is what the father is presumably saying to him: Acquire the property itself today, and the produce after my death.
ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืจืื ืืจ ืืืื ืืืฉ ืขื ืืืืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืจ ืืื ืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืืขื ื ืืืื ืืืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืช ืืขื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืืขืืื ืื ื ืืืื ื ืื
ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh was sick, and Rav Huna and Rav Naแธฅman entered to visit him. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: Ask him whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei or the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Huna: I do not know Rabbi Yoseiโs reasoning; can I ask him about the halakha? Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: You ask him if the halakha is in accordance with his opinion or not, and I will tell you his reasoning afterward.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืชืจ ืื ืคืงื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืื ื ืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฉื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืชื ืื ื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืื ื ืฉื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื
Rav Naแธฅman asked Rabba bar Avuh. Rabba bar Avuh said to him that this is what Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. After they left, Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman that this is Rabbi Yoseiโs reasoning: He says that writing: From today and after my death, is unnecessary because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect. The Gemara adds: That is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death, because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ื ืฆืจืื
ยง Rava asked Rav Naแธฅman: In a case where the father performed an act of transfer, transferring his property to his son after his death, what is the halakha? Is it still necessary to write: From today and after my death? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: In a case where he performed an act of transfer, he need not write: From today and after my death.
ืจื ืคืคื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงื ืืชื ืืฆืจืื ืืืืื ืืงื ืืชื ืืื ืฆืจืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืฆืจืื
Rav Pappi said: There is a case of transfer where he needs to write: From today and after my death, and there is a case of transfer where he does not need to do so. If it is written in the deed that he transferred it to him and we, the witnesses, acquired it from him, he does not need to write: From today and after my death. But if the statement is written in the opposite order: We acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he still needs to write: From today and after my death.
ืืชืงืืฃ ืื ืจื ืื ืื ื ืืกืืจื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืขืื ื ืืกืคืจื ืืืขื ืฉืืืื ืื ืืกืคืจื ืืืืื ืืืืขื ืืืกืคืจื ืืจืื ืืืืขื
Rav แธคanina of Sura objects to this distinction: Is there anything that we, the Sages, do not know, and the scribes know? The distinction between the two opposite orderings of the above statement was unknown to the Sages. The Gemara relates that the Sages asked Abayeโs scribes and they knew the distinction, and they asked Ravaโs scribes and they also knew the distinction.
ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ืืืืฉืข ืืืจ ืืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืืืืืืจื ืคืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืคื ื ืคืืืื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether it is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he need not write: From today and after my death, as the act of transfer is mentioned in any event. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in the mishna disagree whether the phrase: From today and after my death, is necessary only with regard to a case where the deed merely states: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence, without any mention of an act of transfer.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืืจืืชื ืืฉืืขืชื ืงืืื ืืจื ืืืื ืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืจ ืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืชื ืืชื ืื ืื ื ืืื ืืชื ืื ื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืืืืืจื ืคืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืคื ื ืคืืืื
Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha in the presence of Rav Zevid of Nehardeโa, and he said to me: You teach it like this, i.e., as a question and answer followed by a dispute; we teach it like this, i.e., as a single, unbroken statement: Rava says that Rav Naแธฅman says that in a case where transfer is mentioned in the deed, the owner need not write: From today and after my death. This is the halakha whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether the wording is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him; he need not write: From today and after my death. They disagree only with regard to a case where the wording is: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence.
ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืืชืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื
ยง The mishna teaches that if one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, neither he nor the son can sell the property. It was stated that in a case where the son sold the property during the fatherโs lifetime, and then the son died during the fatherโs lifetime, after which the father died as well,
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ืงื ื ืืืงื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืงื ื ืืืงื
Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser did not acquire the property, and Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property.
ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืื ืงื ื ืืืงื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the purchaser did not acquire the property because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Even though the property itself did not belong to the father, it is as though the father owned the property, because all of the produce belonged to him in practice. Therefore, the sonโs sale can take effect only after the fatherโs death. If the son dies first, since he never attained ownership, his sale can never come to fruition.
ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืงื ื ืืืงื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property, because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Therefore, the fatherโs rights do not prevent the son, who owns the property itself, from selling it, and eventually the purchaser receives full rights to it.
ืืื ืืืคืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืชืืจ ืืืืืจ ืฉืืื ืืคืืจืืช ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืจื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืงืืจื
The Gemara asks: But didnโt they already engage in a dispute concerning this issue one time? As it was stated: With regard to one who sells his field for just its produce, meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser brings first fruits from this field to the Temple and recites the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: โThe land that You, Lord, have given meโ (Deuteronomy 26:10). And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits, but he does not recite the verses, since it is not his field.
ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืจื ืงืกืืจ ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืงืืจื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says he brings the first fruits and recites the verses because he maintains that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. And Reish Lakish says that he brings the first fruits and does not recite the verses because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Why was it necessary for them to engage in a dispute concerning this issue twice?
ืืืจ ืื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืืขืืื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the dispute to be stated also in the context of one who sells his fatherโs property and then dies. This is because Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could have said to you that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, because it might enter your mind to say that with regard to a father and son, the father presumably waived his rights in the property itself. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan teaches us that even in this case, the fatherโs ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself.
ืืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืื ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืืขืืื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืื ื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉืื ืืคืืื ืืืงืื ืืจืื ื ืคืฉืื ืขืืืคื ืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could have said that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, as one who sells the produce of his field retains full ownership of the land itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, as it might enter your mind to say that in any sale concerning oneself, even vis-ร -vis his son, one grants preference to himself. Accordingly, if one grants the property itself to his son, reserving the rights to the produce for himself, he retains the rights to the property itself as well. Reish Lakish teaches us that he does not retain the rights to the property.
ืืืชืืืื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ื ืืกื ืื ืืืืจืื ืืืจืฉ ืคืืื ื ืืืืจืื ืืืจืฉ ืคืืื ื ืืช ืจืืฉืื ืงื ื ืฉื ื ืืช ืฉื ื ืงื ื ืฉืืืฉื
Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita (Tosefta 8:4): If one states: My property will go to you after my death for your use during your lifetime, and after you die, so-and-so will inherit the property, and after the one who inherits after you dies, so-and-so will inherit the property, in this case, when the first recipient dies, the second acquires it, and when the second dies, the third acquires it.
ืืช ืฉื ื ืืืื ืจืืฉืื ืืืืจื ื ืืกืื ืืืืจืฉื ืจืืฉืื
If the second dies during the lifetime of the first, the property returns after his death to the heirs of the first, and does not go to the third designated recipient, as his right was to inherit it from the second, who never received it.
ืืื ืืืชื ืืืืจืฉื ื ืืชื ืืืืขื ืืื
And if it is so that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself, the baraita should have stated that the property returns to the heirs of the giver, as the first and second recipients received only the right to use the property and enjoy its profits during their lifetimes, after which it was designated to be transferred to others. Therefore, in a case where the transfer does not apply, the property should return to the possession of the one who owns the property itself, namely the giver and his heirs.
ืืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืชืจืืื ืจื ืืืฉืขืื ืืืื ืืืจืื ืฉืื ื ืืื ืจืื ืจืื ืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืงืืื ืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืฉืื ื
Reish Lakish said to him: Rav Hoshaya already interpreted in Babylonia that a case of after you, i.e., where the owner said to the recipient: After you die so-and-so will inherit the property, is different, as the giver intended to grant full ownership of the property to the first recipient as well, including both the rights to the produce and the property itself. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also raised this contradiction before Rav, and Rav said in response: After you, is different.
ืืืชื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืจืฉื ื ืืชื
The Gemara asks: But isnโt it taught in another baraita that if the second designated recipient dies before the first, after the death of the first the property returns to the heirs of the giver?
-
This monthโs learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bava Batra 136
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ืืืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืกืืฃ ืขื ืืชื ืชื ืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืจ ืืฃ ืืชืืื ืืืชืืื ืืืื ืืื
It is as Rav แธคisda says that if it is written in the will: And we acquired it from him through an act of acquisition in addition to this gift, this formulation does not cancel the willโs power to take effect after the personโs death, as the intention of referring to it as a gift is merely to enhance the legal power of the recipient by confirming the transfer through an act of acquisition. Here too, in a case where he says: Write and sign a document as well, and give it to him, it is apparent that his request is to enhance the legal power of the recipient by writing a document in addition to transferring the gift itself.
ืืืชืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืื ืืชื ืื ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืืชืืื ืื ืืชื ืื
It was stated that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case. And Rava says similarly that Rav Naแธฅman says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืชืื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื
MISHNA: A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies.
ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืคื ื ืฉืื ืืชืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืคื ื ืฉืื ืืจืฉืืช ืืื
If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce.
ืืืจ ืืื ืืืืจืื ืขื ืฉืืืืช ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืืงื ืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืืืช ืืื
If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his fatherโs lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies.
ืืืณ ืืื ืืชื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืื ืืื ืื ืชื ื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชื ืื ืืืื ื ืื ืืื ืืช ืืืืฆืช ืืื ืืชืืืืืช
GEMARA: And if he wrote: I give the property from today and after my death, what of it? Didnโt we learn in a mishna (Gittin 72a): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, it is a bill of divorce but not a complete bill of divorce, and therefore if he dies without children his wife performs the ritual through which a woman is freed of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza], as perhaps the bill of divorce is invalid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing แธฅalitza. But she does not enter into levirate marriage, as perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is forbidden for a divorcรฉe to marry her former husbandโs brother.
ืืชื ืืกืคืงื ืื ืื ืชื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืื ืืืคื ืงื ื ืืืืื ืคืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืชื
The Gemara answers: There, we are uncertain if the expression: And after my death, is meant as a condition, i.e., if I die you will be divorced retroactively from today, or if it is a retraction of the statement: From today, meaning that the divorce would take effect only after his death, which would render it invalid. But here, in the case of a deed of gift, there is no contradiction in the statement, as this is what the father is presumably saying to him: Acquire the property itself today, and the produce after my death.
ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืจืื ืืจ ืืืื ืืืฉ ืขื ืืืืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืจ ืืื ืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืืขื ื ืืืื ืืืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืช ืืขื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืืขืืื ืื ื ืืืื ื ืื
ยง The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh was sick, and Rav Huna and Rav Naแธฅman entered to visit him. Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: Ask him whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei or the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Huna: I do not know Rabbi Yoseiโs reasoning; can I ask him about the halakha? Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman: You ask him if the halakha is in accordance with his opinion or not, and I will tell you his reasoning afterward.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืชืจ ืื ืคืงื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืื ื ืืขืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฉื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื ืชื ืื ื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืคื ื ืฉืืื ื ืฉื ืฉืืจ ืืืืื ืขืืื
Rav Naแธฅman asked Rabba bar Avuh. Rabba bar Avuh said to him that this is what Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. After they left, Rav Huna said to Rav Naแธฅman that this is Rabbi Yoseiโs reasoning: He says that writing: From today and after my death, is unnecessary because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect. The Gemara adds: That is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death, because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect.
ืืขื ืืื ืื ืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ื ืฆืจืื
ยง Rava asked Rav Naแธฅman: In a case where the father performed an act of transfer, transferring his property to his son after his death, what is the halakha? Is it still necessary to write: From today and after my death? Rav Naแธฅman said to him: In a case where he performed an act of transfer, he need not write: From today and after my death.
ืจื ืคืคื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงื ืืชื ืืฆืจืื ืืืืื ืืงื ืืชื ืืื ืฆืจืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืฆืจืื
Rav Pappi said: There is a case of transfer where he needs to write: From today and after my death, and there is a case of transfer where he does not need to do so. If it is written in the deed that he transferred it to him and we, the witnesses, acquired it from him, he does not need to write: From today and after my death. But if the statement is written in the opposite order: We acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he still needs to write: From today and after my death.
ืืชืงืืฃ ืื ืจื ืื ืื ื ืืกืืจื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืขืื ื ืืกืคืจื ืืืขื ืฉืืืื ืื ืืกืคืจื ืืืืื ืืืืขื ืืืกืคืจื ืืจืื ืืืืขื
Rav แธคanina of Sura objects to this distinction: Is there anything that we, the Sages, do not know, and the scribes know? The distinction between the two opposite orderings of the above statement was unknown to the Sages. The Gemara relates that the Sages asked Abayeโs scribes and they knew the distinction, and they asked Ravaโs scribes and they also knew the distinction.
ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ืืืืฉืข ืืืจ ืืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืืืืืืจื ืคืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืคื ื ืคืืืื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether it is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he need not write: From today and after my death, as the act of transfer is mentioned in any event. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in the mishna disagree whether the phrase: From today and after my death, is necessary only with regard to a case where the deed merely states: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence, without any mention of an act of transfer.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืืจืืชื ืืฉืืขืชื ืงืืื ืืจื ืืืื ืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืจ ืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืชื ืืชื ืื ืื ื ืืื ืืชื ืื ื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจ ืจื ื ืืื ืืืงื ืื ืืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืงื ืืื ืืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ืงื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืืืงื ืืื ืื ืฆืจืื ืืืืืจื ืคืชืืื ืืืื ืืื ืคื ื ืคืืืื
Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha in the presence of Rav Zevid of Nehardeโa, and he said to me: You teach it like this, i.e., as a question and answer followed by a dispute; we teach it like this, i.e., as a single, unbroken statement: Rava says that Rav Naแธฅman says that in a case where transfer is mentioned in the deed, the owner need not write: From today and after my death. This is the halakha whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether the wording is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him; he need not write: From today and after my death. They disagree only with regard to a case where the wording is: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence.
ืืืืชื ื ืืกืื ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืชื ืืืชืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื
ยง The mishna teaches that if one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, neither he nor the son can sell the property. It was stated that in a case where the son sold the property during the fatherโs lifetime, and then the son died during the fatherโs lifetime, after which the father died as well,
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ืงื ื ืืืงื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืงื ื ืืืงื
Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser did not acquire the property, and Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property.
ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืื ืงื ื ืืืงื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the purchaser did not acquire the property because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Even though the property itself did not belong to the father, it is as though the father owned the property, because all of the produce belonged to him in practice. Therefore, the sonโs sale can take effect only after the fatherโs death. If the son dies first, since he never attained ownership, his sale can never come to fruition.
ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืงื ื ืืืงื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired the property, because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself. Therefore, the fatherโs rights do not prevent the son, who owns the property itself, from selling it, and eventually the purchaser receives full rights to it.
ืืื ืืืคืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืชืืจ ืืืืืจ ืฉืืื ืืคืืจืืช ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืจื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืงืืจื
The Gemara asks: But didnโt they already engage in a dispute concerning this issue one time? As it was stated: With regard to one who sells his field for just its produce, meaning that he retains ownership over the field itself and he sells the rights to all of its produce to someone else, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser brings first fruits from this field to the Temple and recites the verses in the Torah associated with the bringing of the first fruits, in which he thanks God for: โThe land that You, Lord, have given meโ (Deuteronomy 26:10). And Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits, but he does not recite the verses, since it is not his field.
ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืจื ืงืกืืจ ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืงืืจื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื
The Gemara explains the reason behind the dispute: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says he brings the first fruits and recites the verses because he maintains that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Even though the field itself does not belong to him, it is as if he acquired the field because all of the produce belongs to him in practice. And Reish Lakish says that he brings the first fruits and does not recite the verses because he holds that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself. Why was it necessary for them to engage in a dispute concerning this issue twice?
ืืืจ ืื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืืขืืื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the dispute to be stated also in the context of one who sells his fatherโs property and then dies. This is because Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could have said to you that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, because it might enter your mind to say that with regard to a father and son, the father presumably waived his rights in the property itself. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan teaches us that even in this case, the fatherโs ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is considered to be like the ownership of the item itself.
ืืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืื ืืงืืฉ ืืืจ ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืืขืืื ืงื ืื ืคืืจืืช ืืื ืืงื ืื ืืืืฃ ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืื ื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืฉืื ืืคืืื ืืืงืื ืืจืื ื ืคืฉืื ืขืืืคื ืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish could have said that although in general ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is not considered to be like the ownership of the item itself, as one who sells the produce of his field retains full ownership of the land itself, here it was necessary to emphasize this principle, as it might enter your mind to say that in any sale concerning oneself, even vis-ร -vis his son, one grants preference to himself. Accordingly, if one grants the property itself to his son, reserving the rights to the produce for himself, he retains the rights to the property itself as well. Reish Lakish teaches us that he does not retain the rights to the property.
ืืืชืืืื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืจืืฉ ืืงืืฉ ื ืืกื ืื ืืืืจืื ืืืจืฉ ืคืืื ื ืืืืจืื ืืืจืฉ ืคืืื ื ืืช ืจืืฉืื ืงื ื ืฉื ื ืืช ืฉื ื ืงื ื ืฉืืืฉื
Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita (Tosefta 8:4): If one states: My property will go to you after my death for your use during your lifetime, and after you die, so-and-so will inherit the property, and after the one who inherits after you dies, so-and-so will inherit the property, in this case, when the first recipient dies, the second acquires it, and when the second dies, the third acquires it.
ืืช ืฉื ื ืืืื ืจืืฉืื ืืืืจื ื ืืกืื ืืืืจืฉื ืจืืฉืื
If the second dies during the lifetime of the first, the property returns after his death to the heirs of the first, and does not go to the third designated recipient, as his right was to inherit it from the second, who never received it.
ืืื ืืืชื ืืืืจืฉื ื ืืชื ืืืืขื ืืื
And if it is so that ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself, the baraita should have stated that the property returns to the heirs of the giver, as the first and second recipients received only the right to use the property and enjoy its profits during their lifetimes, after which it was designated to be transferred to others. Therefore, in a case where the transfer does not apply, the property should return to the possession of the one who owns the property itself, namely the giver and his heirs.
ืืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืชืจืืื ืจื ืืืฉืขืื ืืืื ืืืจืื ืฉืื ื ืืื ืจืื ืจืื ืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืงืืื ืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืฉืื ื
Reish Lakish said to him: Rav Hoshaya already interpreted in Babylonia that a case of after you, i.e., where the owner said to the recipient: After you die so-and-so will inherit the property, is different, as the giver intended to grant full ownership of the property to the first recipient as well, including both the rights to the produce and the property itself. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also raised this contradiction before Rav, and Rav said in response: After you, is different.
ืืืชื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืจืฉื ื ืืชื
The Gemara asks: But isnโt it taught in another baraita that if the second designated recipient dies before the first, after the death of the first the property returns to the heirs of the giver?