Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 22, 2017 | 讻状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 151

Various stories are brought regarding women on their deathbed who gave property to one son and then changed their minds. 聽The rabbis rule debated what the ruling should be – can one change one’s mind or once one gives away all their possessions and subsequently dies, the first statement they made is valid? 聽A case is brought by a woman who keeps getting sick and giving an orchard of hers to a brother each time. 聽One time, he tricked her into doing it in a way that would work – he had her leave over a bit and did a kinyan. 聽However Rav Nachman ruled that since she said she was giving it to him because she thought she would die, once she got better, the kinyan was ineffective. 聽At this point the gemara clarifies the case in the mishna and explains that while there are those who understand the mishna in its simple reading, Rav Nachman and others hold that the mishna was referring only to cases where a kinyan was effected, 聽meaning that if one gave away not all of his possessions聽and then died or got better, if the gift was given without a kinyan, the person would not acquire the possessions. 聽Additionally, if one did do a kinyan and didn’t give away all of one’s possessions but stated that it was because the person thought they were dying, then if they got better, the gift would be returned to him/her. 聽Rav and Shmuel debate the case of one on one’s deathbed who gives away all of one’s possessions and adds a kinyan. 聽Did one intend for a shtar (document) to be given and since they died before it was given, it can no longer be given and the whole thing is invalid – or are we not concerned about that possibility? 聽Their opinions here seem to contradict their opinions elsewhere and then gemara responds that the situations are different in each of the cases and therefore they don’t contradict each other.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讝讛 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

A scribe may write a deed of sale for the seller of property at the seller鈥檚 request, even if the buyer is not with him when he presents his request, as the deed obligates only the seller. In this case, once this one, the buyer, has taken possession of the land, the deed is acquired, wherever it is. And this is as it is stated in the mishna that we learned (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired together with the property that serves as a guarantee by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. One can learn from this that a deed is included in the term: Property that does not serve as a guarantee.

讘讛诪讛 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 讘讛谉 讘讛诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 注讜驻讜转 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜注讜驻讜转

An animal is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 12a): In a case of one who consecrated his property, and on the property there were animals fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, male animals are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and female animals are sold for the purpose of being sacrificed as peace-offerings. Birds are called property, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 12a): In a case of one who consecrated his property, and on the property there were items that were fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, e.g., wines, oils, and birds, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such.

转驻诇讬谉 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻诇讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讚讗住讜专 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讗讜 谞讻住讬 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讝讚讘谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 谞讻住讬 讛讜讗 转讬拽讜

Phylacteries are called property, as we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 23b): With regard to one who consecrates his property, the value of his phylacteries is assessed for him and he redeems them by paying their value to the Temple treasury. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Torah scroll, what is the halakha? Is it considered property or not? Does one say that since it is not sold, as it is prohibited to sell a Torah scroll, it is therefore not considered property? Or perhaps one says that since it may be sold in order to enable one to study Torah or to marry a woman, it is considered property. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

(住讬诪谉 讝讜讟专讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讚注诪专诐 诪转专转讬 讗讞讜讜转讗 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝)

搂 The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the series of incidents stated below: Zutra, the mother, of Amram, from two sisters, Rav Tovi, and Rav Dimi and Rav Yosef.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讗 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讗 讚讘注讬讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗讬谞住讬讘讗 讜讙专砖讛 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗谞住讜讘讬 讜讛讗 讗讬谞住讬讘讗

The mother of Rav Zutra bar Toviyya wrote a deed granting her property to Rav Zutra bar Toviyya, explaining that she was doing so because she wanted to get married to Rav Zevid, and she did not want him to acquire her property. She married Rav Zevid, and he divorced her. She came before Rav Beivai bar Abaye to claim her property from her son. Rav Beivai said: She transferred her property because she wanted to get married, and she married. Since her intentions were fulfilled, even though she subsequently was divorced, the gift is a valid gift.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘专讞转 拽谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谞住讬讘讗 讜讗讬讙专砖讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Beivai: Is it because you come from a line of truncated [mula鈥檈i] people, from the house of the High Priest Eli, whose descendants were condemned to premature death (see I聽Samuel 2:31), that you say truncated [mulyata] and unsound matters? Even according to the one who says that the deed of a woman who shelters her property from her intended husband effects acquisition, and the woman cannot reclaim the property, this matter applies where she did not reveal her intentions in transferring ownership of her property. But here, she revealed her intentions that she transferred the property because she wanted to marry; and she married, but was divorced. Therefore, since she is no longer married, she can reclaim the property.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘爪驻专讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讝诇 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讬

The mother of Rami bar 岣ma wrote a deed in the evening granting her property to Rami bar 岣ma. In the morning of the following day, she wrote a deed granting her property to his brother, Rav Ukva bar 岣ma. Rami bar 岣ma came before Rav Sheshet, who established him as the owner of the property, as the deed transferring the property to him preceded the gift to his brother. Rav Ukva bar 岣ma came before Rav Na岣an, who established him as the owner of the property.

讗转讗 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 诪专 诇专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讚专讗 讘讛 讜讛讗 砖讻讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讞讜讝专 讘诪转谞转讜

Rav Sheshet came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master established Rav Ukva bar 岣ma as the owner of the property? If it is because she retracted her gift, but didn鈥檛 she die? Since the gift of a person on his deathbed is considered valid, Rami bar 岣ma already acquired the property in the evening. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, i.e., if he transferred ownership of all of his property, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专

Rav Sheshet responded: Say that Shmuel said that he can retract his gift if he wants to retain the property for himself, but if he wants to retract his gift in order to give it to another, did he also say that he can do so? Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: Shmuel explicitly said that he can retract his gift both in order to retain the property for himself and to grant it to another.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘 注诪专诐 讞住讬讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 诪诇讜讙讗 讚砖讟专讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛讜讬 诇注诪专诐 讘专讬 讗转讬 讗讞讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬谉 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜

The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle [meloga] of promissory notes. When she was dying, she said: Let these promissory notes be for Amram, my son. His brothers came before Rav Na岣an. They said to Rav Na岣an: But Rav Amram did not pull the bundle of documents, and since an act of acquisition was not performed he did not acquire them. Rav Na岣an said to them: An act of acquisition was not required, because the statement of a person on his deathbed is considered as written and as though the documents were delivered to the recipient.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讘爪驻专讗 诇驻谞讬讗 讗转讗 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讘讻讛 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛砖转讗 讗诪专讬 诪专 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜诪专 诇讗讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讞讜讝专 讘诪转谞转讜

The sister of Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana wrote a deed in the morning granting her property to Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana. In the evening another brother, Rav A岣dvoi bar Rav Mattana, came and cried to her. Rav A岣dvoi said to her: Now people will say that you gave your property to Rav Tovi because this Master, Rav Tovi, is a Torah scholar, and that Master, Rav A岣dvoi, is not a Torah scholar. She wrote a deed granting the property to him. Rav Tovi came before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Tovi: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift, and therefore the property belongs to Rav A岣dvoi.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诇讛 驻讬住拽转讗 讚驻专讚讬住讗 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讛讜转 讞诇砖讗 讛讜讛 诪拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

The sister of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a tract of land in an orchard. Whenever she was sick and thought that she was dying, she would transfer ownership of the orchard to Rav Dimi,

讜讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜转 讛讚专讗 讘讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讞诇砖讗 砖诇讞讛 诇讬讛 转讗 拽谞讬 砖诇讞 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 砖诇讞讛 诇讬讛 转讗 拽谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬转 讗讝诇 砖讬讬专讛 讜拽谞讜 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讚专讗 讘讛

and when she recovered she would retract her gift. On one occasion she was sick. She sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come and acquire my property. He sent a message back to her: I do not want to come. She sent a message to him: Come and acquire my property in any manner that you want. He went and reserved for her part of the orchard, and he acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition. When she recovered she retracted the gift.

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬转讬 讛讗 砖讬讬专讛 讜拽谞讜 诪讬谞讛 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬转 诪讞讬谞讗 诇讱 讘住讬诇讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘注 讚诪讗

She came before Rav Na岣an to reclaim it. Rav Na岣an sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come to court. Rav Dimi did not come. He said: What reason is there for me to come? Didn鈥檛 I reserve part of the property for her, and I acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition? Therefore, the acquisition is complete. Rav Na岣an sent a message to Rav Dimi: If you do not come, I will strike you with a thorn [besileva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 讜讜讬 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛 讛讱 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讜诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讞讜讝专

Inquiring into the matter, Rav Na岣an said to the witnesses: How did the act of transferring the property take place? The witnesses said to Rav Na岣an: This is what she said: Woe, that woman is dying! Rav Na岣an said to them: If so, this is a case of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death. And one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death can retract his gift even if he did not transfer all of his property, as he evidently granted the gift only because he expected to die.

讗讬转诪专 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 砖讗诐 注诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property. The Sages said the following before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, who said it in the name of Rav Na岣an: This type of gift is in some respects like the gift of a healthy person, and in other respects it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, as, if he recovers he cannot retract it, as stated in the mishna. And it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as it does not require an act of acquisition. Rather, it is acquired by means of verbal instruction alone.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转讬转诇讜 讘讜拽讬 住专讬拽讬 讘专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉

Rava said to the Sages: Did I not say to you: Do not hang empty pitchers [bukei] upon Rav Na岣an, i.e., do not attribute incorrect statements to him? This is what Rav Na岣an says: A gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property is like the gift of a healthy person and requires an act of acquisition. If an act of acquisition is not performed, the acquisition of the gift is not effective even if the owner dies.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讜讗讬 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna (146b): If he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands. What, is it not referring even to a case where the gift was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition? No, it is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. Rava asks: If that is so, say the last clause of the mishna: If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand. And if the mishna is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition, why does his gift not stand?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others without reserving anything for himself, even though the gift was acquired from his possession by means of an act of acquisition, if he recovers, he can retract his gift. The reason for this is that it is known that he was issuing directives with regard to his property only due to his expectation of his imminent death.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗诪谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 专讜讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 讞讜诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 转谞转谉 讻讘讬谞转讬 诇讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讜诪转讛 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讛 讛转诐 讘诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and she said: My brooch [keveinati] shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement even though the gift included only a part of her property and an act of acquisition was not performed. Rava replied: That incident is different, as the case there is referring to one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Ravina raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Gittin 13a): In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one should not give it after his death. But if one says: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death. This indicates that a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property does not require an act of acquisition.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讟 诪讛 讙讟 诇讗讜 讘专 拽谞讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

And from where can one learn that the money was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition? This is learned from the fact that this halakha was juxtaposed to the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, indicating that this case is similar to a bill of divorce. Just as a bill of divorce is not subject to the standard halakhot of an act of acquisition, so too, in this case of the gift of one hundred dinars, the mishna is referring to a case where the money was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. Rava replied: There, too, the mishna is referring to one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his imminent death.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讘诪讞诇拽 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讚讛讛讬讗 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讜讬讜讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The gift of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death generally requires an act of acquisition. And when it is taught in these baraitot that an act of acquisition is not required, the baraitot are referring to one who divides all of his property between different recipients, as in that case, the Sages accorded the gift the legal status of a gift of a person on his deathbed.

讜讛诇讻转讗 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property requires an act of acquisition; otherwise it is invalid even though he subsequently died, and the gift is inherited by his heirs instead. The gift of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death does not require an act of acquisition. And this applies only when he subsequently died. If he recovered, he can retract his gift even though it was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 151

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 151

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讝讛 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

A scribe may write a deed of sale for the seller of property at the seller鈥檚 request, even if the buyer is not with him when he presents his request, as the deed obligates only the seller. In this case, once this one, the buyer, has taken possession of the land, the deed is acquired, wherever it is. And this is as it is stated in the mishna that we learned (Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired together with the property that serves as a guarantee by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. One can learn from this that a deed is included in the term: Property that does not serve as a guarantee.

讘讛诪讛 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 讘讛谉 讘讛诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讝讻专讬诐 注讜诇讜转 讜谞拽讘讜转 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 注讜驻讜转 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜注讜驻讜转

An animal is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 12a): In a case of one who consecrated his property, and on the property there were animals fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, male animals are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and female animals are sold for the purpose of being sacrificed as peace-offerings. Birds are called property, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 12a): In a case of one who consecrated his property, and on the property there were items that were fit to be sacrificed upon the altar, e.g., wines, oils, and birds, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such.

转驻诇讬谉 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻诇讬谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 住驻专 转讜专讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讚讗住讜专 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 诇讗讜 谞讻住讬 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讝讚讘谉 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讜诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 谞讻住讬 讛讜讗 转讬拽讜

Phylacteries are called property, as we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 23b): With regard to one who consecrates his property, the value of his phylacteries is assessed for him and he redeems them by paying their value to the Temple treasury. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Torah scroll, what is the halakha? Is it considered property or not? Does one say that since it is not sold, as it is prohibited to sell a Torah scroll, it is therefore not considered property? Or perhaps one says that since it may be sold in order to enable one to study Torah or to marry a woman, it is considered property. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

(住讬诪谉 讝讜讟专讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讚注诪专诐 诪转专转讬 讗讞讜讜转讗 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝)

搂 The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the series of incidents stated below: Zutra, the mother, of Amram, from two sisters, Rav Tovi, and Rav Dimi and Rav Yosef.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讗 讻转讘讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专讘 讝讜讟专讗 讘专 讟讜讘讬讗 讚讘注讬讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗讬谞住讬讘讗 讜讙专砖讛 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗谞住讜讘讬 讜讛讗 讗讬谞住讬讘讗

The mother of Rav Zutra bar Toviyya wrote a deed granting her property to Rav Zutra bar Toviyya, explaining that she was doing so because she wanted to get married to Rav Zevid, and she did not want him to acquire her property. She married Rav Zevid, and he divorced her. She came before Rav Beivai bar Abaye to claim her property from her son. Rav Beivai said: She transferred her property because she wanted to get married, and she married. Since her intentions were fulfilled, even though she subsequently was divorced, the gift is a valid gift.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘专讞转 拽谞讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讙诇讬讗 讚注转讛 讚诪砖讜诐 讗讬谞住讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 讗讬谞住讬讘讗 讜讗讬讙专砖讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Beivai: Is it because you come from a line of truncated [mula鈥檈i] people, from the house of the High Priest Eli, whose descendants were condemned to premature death (see I聽Samuel 2:31), that you say truncated [mulyata] and unsound matters? Even according to the one who says that the deed of a woman who shelters her property from her intended husband effects acquisition, and the woman cannot reclaim the property, this matter applies where she did not reveal her intentions in transferring ownership of her property. But here, she revealed her intentions that she transferred the property because she wanted to marry; and she married, but was divorced. Therefore, since she is no longer married, she can reclaim the property.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘爪驻专讗 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讝诇 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘谞讻住讬

The mother of Rami bar 岣ma wrote a deed in the evening granting her property to Rami bar 岣ma. In the morning of the following day, she wrote a deed granting her property to his brother, Rav Ukva bar 岣ma. Rami bar 岣ma came before Rav Sheshet, who established him as the owner of the property, as the deed transferring the property to him preceded the gift to his brother. Rav Ukva bar 岣ma came before Rav Na岣an, who established him as the owner of the property.

讗转讗 专讘 砖砖转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讜拽诪讬讛 诪专 诇专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讚专讗 讘讛 讜讛讗 砖讻讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讞讜讝专 讘诪转谞转讜

Rav Sheshet came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master established Rav Ukva bar 岣ma as the owner of the property? If it is because she retracted her gift, but didn鈥檛 she die? Since the gift of a person on his deathbed is considered valid, Rami bar 岣ma already acquired the property in the evening. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, i.e., if he transferred ownership of all of his property, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift.

讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇注爪诪讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专

Rav Sheshet responded: Say that Shmuel said that he can retract his gift if he wants to retain the property for himself, but if he wants to retract his gift in order to give it to another, did he also say that he can do so? Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: Shmuel explicitly said that he can retract his gift both in order to retain the property for himself and to grant it to another.

讗讬诪讬讛 讚专讘 注诪专诐 讞住讬讚讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 诪诇讜讙讗 讚砖讟专讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讻讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛讜讬 诇注诪专诐 讘专讬 讗转讬 讗讞讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪砖讱 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬谉 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜

The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle [meloga] of promissory notes. When she was dying, she said: Let these promissory notes be for Amram, my son. His brothers came before Rav Na岣an. They said to Rav Na岣an: But Rav Amram did not pull the bundle of documents, and since an act of acquisition was not performed he did not acquire them. Rav Na岣an said to them: An act of acquisition was not required, because the statement of a person on his deathbed is considered as written and as though the documents were delivered to the recipient.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讛 诇专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讘爪驻专讗 诇驻谞讬讗 讗转讗 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讘讻讛 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛砖转讗 讗诪专讬 诪专 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜诪专 诇讗讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讻转讘转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讞讜讝专 讘诪转谞转讜

The sister of Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana wrote a deed in the morning granting her property to Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana. In the evening another brother, Rav A岣dvoi bar Rav Mattana, came and cried to her. Rav A岣dvoi said to her: Now people will say that you gave your property to Rav Tovi because this Master, Rav Tovi, is a Torah scholar, and that Master, Rav A岣dvoi, is not a Torah scholar. She wrote a deed granting the property to him. Rav Tovi came before Rav Na岣an. Rav Na岣an said to Rav Tovi: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, in any case where he could retract his gift if he were to recover, even if he does not recover, he can retract his gift, and therefore the property belongs to Rav A岣dvoi.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诇讛 驻讬住拽转讗 讚驻专讚讬住讗 讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚讛讜转 讞诇砖讗 讛讜讛 诪拽谞讬讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛

The sister of Rav Dimi bar Yosef had a tract of land in an orchard. Whenever she was sick and thought that she was dying, she would transfer ownership of the orchard to Rav Dimi,

讜讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讜转 讛讚专讗 讘讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讞诇砖讗 砖诇讞讛 诇讬讛 转讗 拽谞讬 砖诇讞 诇讗 讘注讬谞讗 砖诇讞讛 诇讬讛 转讗 拽谞讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬转 讗讝诇 砖讬讬专讛 讜拽谞讜 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讬讬诪讗 讛讚专讗 讘讛

and when she recovered she would retract her gift. On one occasion she was sick. She sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come and acquire my property. He sent a message back to her: I do not want to come. She sent a message to him: Come and acquire my property in any manner that you want. He went and reserved for her part of the orchard, and he acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition. When she recovered she retracted the gift.

讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 转讗 诇讗 讗转讗 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讗讬转讬 讛讗 砖讬讬专讛 讜拽谞讜 诪讬谞讛 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬转 诪讞讬谞讗 诇讱 讘住讬诇讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘注 讚诪讗

She came before Rav Na岣an to reclaim it. Rav Na岣an sent a message to Rav Dimi: Come to court. Rav Dimi did not come. He said: What reason is there for me to come? Didn鈥檛 I reserve part of the property for her, and I acquired the rest of the property from her with an act of acquisition? Therefore, the acquisition is complete. Rav Na岣an sent a message to Rav Dimi: If you do not come, I will strike you with a thorn [besileva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇住讛讚讬 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专讛 讛讻讬 讜讜讬 讚拽讗 诪讬转讛 讛讱 讗讬转转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讛 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讜诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讞讜讝专

Inquiring into the matter, Rav Na岣an said to the witnesses: How did the act of transferring the property take place? The witnesses said to Rav Na岣an: This is what she said: Woe, that woman is dying! Rav Na岣an said to them: If so, this is a case of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death. And one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death can retract his gift even if he did not transfer all of his property, as he evidently granted the gift only because he expected to die.

讗讬转诪专 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 砖讗诐 注诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property. The Sages said the following before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, who said it in the name of Rav Na岣an: This type of gift is in some respects like the gift of a healthy person, and in other respects it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, as, if he recovers he cannot retract it, as stated in the mishna. And it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as it does not require an act of acquisition. Rather, it is acquired by means of verbal instruction alone.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转讬转诇讜 讘讜拽讬 住专讬拽讬 讘专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉

Rava said to the Sages: Did I not say to you: Do not hang empty pitchers [bukei] upon Rav Na岣an, i.e., do not attribute incorrect statements to him? This is what Rav Na岣an says: A gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property is like the gift of a healthy person and requires an act of acquisition. If an act of acquisition is not performed, the acquisition of the gift is not effective even if the owner dies.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讜讗讬 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna (146b): If he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands. What, is it not referring even to a case where the gift was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition? No, it is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. Rava asks: If that is so, say the last clause of the mishna: If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand. And if the mishna is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition, why does his gift not stand?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: This is what Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others without reserving anything for himself, even though the gift was acquired from his possession by means of an act of acquisition, if he recovers, he can retract his gift. The reason for this is that it is known that he was issuing directives with regard to his property only due to his expectation of his imminent death.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诇专讘讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗诪谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 专讜讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 讞讜诇讛 讜讗诪专讛 转谞转谉 讻讘讬谞转讬 诇讘转讬 讜讛讜讗 讘砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诪谞讛 讜诪转讛 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讚讘专讬讛 讛转诐 讘诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and she said: My brooch [keveinati] shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement even though the gift included only a part of her property and an act of acquisition was not performed. Rava replied: That incident is different, as the case there is referring to one who issues directives due to his expectation of his imminent death.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讛讗讜诪专 转谞讜 讙讟 讝讛 诇讗砖转讬 讜砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讝讛 诇注讘讚讬 讜诪转 诇讗 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讬转谞讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Ravina raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Gittin 13a): In the case of one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or: Give this bill of manumission to my slave, and then he dies, one should not give it after his death. But if one says: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and then he died, one does give the recipient the money after his death. This indicates that a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property does not require an act of acquisition.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讟 诪讛 讙讟 诇讗讜 讘专 拽谞讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讘诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛

And from where can one learn that the money was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition? This is learned from the fact that this halakha was juxtaposed to the halakha with regard to a bill of divorce, indicating that this case is similar to a bill of divorce. Just as a bill of divorce is not subject to the standard halakhot of an act of acquisition, so too, in this case of the gift of one hundred dinars, the mishna is referring to a case where the money was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. Rava replied: There, too, the mishna is referring to one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his imminent death.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 讘注诇诪讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛谞讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 讘诪讞诇拽 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讚讛讛讬讗 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讜讬讜讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The gift of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death generally requires an act of acquisition. And when it is taught in these baraitot that an act of acquisition is not required, the baraitot are referring to one who divides all of his property between different recipients, as in that case, the Sages accorded the gift the legal status of a gift of a person on his deathbed.

讜讛诇讻转讗 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讘诪拽爪转 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转 诪爪讜讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讘注讬讗 拽谞讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property requires an act of acquisition; otherwise it is invalid even though he subsequently died, and the gift is inherited by his heirs instead. The gift of one who issues directives with regard to his property due to his expectation of his imminent death does not require an act of acquisition. And this applies only when he subsequently died. If he recovered, he can retract his gift even though it was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition.

Scroll To Top