Bava Batra 152
אִיתְּמַר: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן – בֵּי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַתְּרֵי רִיכְשֵׁי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי אֵדוּן בַּהּ.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed. In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav: The person on his deathbed caused the recipient to mount two steeds, i.e., he strengthened the validity of his gift in two different ways. And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift, as it may not be a valid gift.
בֵּי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי: אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַתְּרֵי רִיכְשֵׁי – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע; הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא – שֶׁאִם עָמַד אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – שֶׁאִם אָמַר הַלְוָאָתוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי, הַלְוָאָתוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי.
The Gemara explains: In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav that he caused him to mount two steeds. On the one hand, it is like the gift of a healthy person, but on the other hand, 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 the gift, because an act of acquisition was performed. It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as, if he said that the loan owed to him should be given to so-and-so, the loan owed to him is acquired by so-and-so, whereas a healthy person cannot transfer his right to collect a debt except in the presence of all three parties.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי אֵדוּן בַּהּ – שֶׁמָּא לֹא גָּמַר לְהַקְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֵין שְׁטָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift. Perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that he resolved to transfer it to him only with a deed. The gift of a person on his deathbed takes effect only after he dies, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner.
וּרְמִי דְּרַב אַדְּרַב, וְדִשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל – דִּשְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: הֱווֹ יָדְעִי שֶׁשָּׁלַח רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לַגּוֹלָה מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ, שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ וּתְנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין; שֶׁמָּא לֹא גָּמַר לְהַקְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֵין שְׁטָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, הִלְכְתָא: כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין.
The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav and another statement of Rav, and between this statement of Shmuel and another statement of Shmuel. This is as Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent a ruling to the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, in the name of our teacher, Rav: With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: Write a deed and give with it one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he died before the deed was written, it is not written and given to that person. The reason for this is that perhaps he resolved to transfer the gift to him only with the deed, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that the deed is written and given to the recipient.
קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב, קַשְׁיָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל!
The Gemara concludes: The first statement of Rav is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Rav, and the first statement of Shmuel is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Shmuel.
דְּרַב אַדְּרַב לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ, הָא דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ. דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַדִּשְׁמוּאֵל לָא קַשְׁיָא – בִּמְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ.
The Gemara replies: The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rav and the other statement of Rav is not difficult. This statement, that the gift is valid, is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from the person on his deathbed by means of an act of acquisition. That other statement is referring to a case where the gift was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition, but only by verbal instruction, and therefore the deed is not written after his death. The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Shmuel and the other statement of Shmuel is not difficult, as Shmuel’s statement that the deed is written after his death is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by providing him with a deed, and he was not making the gift contingent upon the delivery of a deed.
יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְיָתֵיב רָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן קָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ – מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁמָּא לֹא גָּמַר לְהַקְנוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֵין שְׁטָר לְאַחַר מִיתָה? וְהָא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ – עָמַד, חוֹזֵר;
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and Rava asked Rav Naḥman: Did Shmuel actually say that perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that the person on his deathbed resolved to transfer ownership of the gift only with the deed, and therefore the gift is invalid, as a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, even though they performed an act of acquisition, if he recovers he can retract his gift?
בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה קִנְיָן אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת הַמִּיתָה. וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתִּיק.
The reason for Shmuel’s ruling is that it is known that an act of acquisition was performed only due to his expectation of imminent death. This ruling indicates that if the giver does not recover, the recipient acquires the gift, and the performance of an act of acquisition does not indicate that the giver intended to transfer the property only after his death. Rav Naḥman indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.
כִּי קָם, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַאי אַחְוִי לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ.
When Rav Naḥman arose from his place, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What did he indicate to you with that gesture? Rava said to him: He indicated that the statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by requiring an act of acquisition to be performed in addition to bestowing the gift.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ מוֹסִיף עַל מַתַּנְתָּא דָּא״.
The Gemara asks: What is considered an act of acquisition that enhances the legal power of the recipient? Rav Ḥisda said: An act of acquisition is clearly intended only to reinforce the legal power of the recipient when, for example, the following phrase is written in the deed: And we, the witnesses, acquired it from him by means of an act of acquisition in addition to this gift. This indicates that the act of acquisition was not performed in order to effect the actual acquisition.
פְּשִׁיטָא – כָּתַב לָזֶה וְכָתַב לָזֶה, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: דְּיָיתֵיקֵי מְבַטֶּלֶת דְּיָיתֵיקֵי. כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה, כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה – רַב אָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֵׁנִי קָנָה.
§ It is obvious that if a person on his deathbed wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to this individual, and he then wrote a deed granting the same property to that individual, i.e., a second recipient, this is the case discussed by Rav Dimi. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: A later will [dayetikei] nullifies an earlier will. The amora’im disagree with regard to a case where one wrote a deed of transfer and also conferred possession of the property on this individual, and then he wrote a deed of transfer and conferred possession of the same property on that second individual. Rav says: The first recipient acquires the gift, and Shmuel says: The second recipient acquires the gift.
רַב אָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֵׁנִי קָנָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע.
The Gemara explains: Rav says that the first recipient acquires the gift. Since an additional act of conferring possession of the property was performed, the gift is considered like the gift of a healthy person, which cannot be retracted. Shmuel says that the second recipient acquires the gift because it is considered like the gift of a person on his deathbed, which can be retracted.
וְהָא אִפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא – בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav and Shmuel already disagree about this matter once? With regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed, Rav maintained that the gift cannot be retracted, whereas Shmuel maintained that the acquisition was not effective. Why is it necessary to record another disagreement with regard to the same principle?
צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ; אֲבָל בְּהָא, דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב; צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara replies: It is necessary to cite both cases. This is because if it were stated only with regard to that case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that only in that case Rav says that the gift cannot be retracted, because an act of acquisition was performed. But in this case, where an act of acquisition was not performed, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel. And if it was stated only with regard to this case, where he conferred possession of the property on the recipient through a deed alone, one might say that only in this case Shmuel says that he can retract the gift. But in the other case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he cannot retract it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite both cases.
בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי; בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: אֵין אַחַר קִנְיָן כְּלוּם.
In Sura they taught the statements of Rav and Shmuel that way, as stated above. In Pumbedita they taught their statements like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: After the death of Rav, the following question was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting all of his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in reply: After an act of acquisition is performed, nothing can effect a retraction of the gift.
