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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 23, 2017 | 讻状讟 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 152

Rav and Shmuel debate a number of topics relating to gifts given on one’s deathbed. 聽If one gives a gift with a kinyan聽chalipin (symbolic) – are we concerned that he added the kinyan in order to override the laws of one on one’s deathbed and only wanted it to be effective with a shtar (document) or do we assume it was done just to strengthen the gift? 聽If one gave to one person and “zika聽lo” (various different interpretations what that is) and then gave to another and “zika lo,” does the first one acquire it or the second? 聽If one says I am giving this to you “in my life and in my death,” what is meant by that statement? 聽The mishna聽and the following gemara discuss cases where it is unclear whether the gift was given on one’s deathbed or when one was healthy or the gift was given on one’s deathbed and later the person died but it is unclear if they died from the illness at the time or they got better (in which case the gift should be cancelled) and then subsequently died?


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

讗讬转诪专 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 拽谞讬谉 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗转专讬 专讬讻砖讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讚讜谉 讘讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗转专讬 专讬讻砖讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 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 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讛诇讜讗转讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛诇讜讗转讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讚讜谉 讘讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 讬讚注讬 砖砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉

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.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇

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.

讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜

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鈥檚 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 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

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and Rava asked Rav Na岣an: 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鈥檛 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?

讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛诪讬转讛 讜讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讗砖转讬拽

The reason for Shmuel鈥檚 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 Na岣an indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.

讻讬 拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讜讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜

When Rav Na岣an arose from his place, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 诪转谞转讗 讚讗

The Gemara asks: What is considered an act of acquisition that enhances the legal power of the recipient? Rav 岣sda 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻转讘 诇讝讛 讜讻转讘 诇讝讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪讘讟诇转 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 讻转讘 讜讝讬讻讛 诇讝讛 讻转讘 讜讝讬讻讛 诇讝讛 专讘 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖谞讬 拽谞讛

搂 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鈥檌m 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.

专讘 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖谞讬 拽谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

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.

讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讞专 拽谞讬谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

  • 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 Shlemah 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 152

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 152

讗讬转诪专 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 拽谞讬谉 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗转专讬 专讬讻砖讬 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讚讜谉 讘讛

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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.

讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗转专讬 专讬讻砖讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 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 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讛诇讜讗转讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛诇讜讗转讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讗讚讜谉 讘讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讛讜讜 讬讚注讬 砖砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讙讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉

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.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇

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.

讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讘诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜

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鈥檚 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诪讗 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讛拽谞讜转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谉 砖讟专 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 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

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and Rava asked Rav Na岣an: 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鈥檛 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?

讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞诪转 讛诪讬转讛 讜讗讞讜讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讗砖转讬拽

The reason for Shmuel鈥檚 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 Na岣an indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.

讻讬 拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讗讞讜讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜

When Rav Na岣an arose from his place, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 诪讬驻讛 讗转 讻讞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜拽谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 诪转谞转讗 讚讗

The Gemara asks: What is considered an act of acquisition that enhances the legal power of the recipient? Rav 岣sda 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻转讘 诇讝讛 讜讻转讘 诇讝讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪讘讟诇转 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 讻转讘 讜讝讬讻讛 诇讝讛 讻转讘 讜讝讬讻讛 诇讝讛 专讘 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖谞讬 拽谞讛

搂 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鈥檌m 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.

专讘 讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 拽谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 砖谞讬 拽谞讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

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.

讜讛讗 讗驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 拽谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讘住讜专讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 专讘 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讗讞专 拽谞讬谉 讻诇讜诐

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.

Scroll To Top