Bava Batra 153
סְבוּר מִינֵּיהּ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְאַחֵר, אֲבָל לְעַצְמוֹ – לֹא; אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוּנָא מִכּוּפְרִי, פָּירְשַׁהּ: בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ בֵּין לַאֲחֵרִים.
Rav’s disciples understood from this that this statement applies only when the person on his deathbed wishes to retract his gift and transfer it to another. But if he recovers and wishes to retract the gift and retain it for himself, Shmuel’s statement does not apply. Rav Ḥisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Kufrei, he explained that Shmuel’s statement applies both to retaining the property for himself and to transferring it to others.
הָהוּא דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אָמַר: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַקְנֵית כִּדְמַקְנוּ אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to another, and it was acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition. He subsequently recovered and wanted to retract the gift, and he came before Rav Huna. Rav Huna said to him: What can I do for you? You cannot retract the gift, as you did not transfer the gift in the manner that people on their deathbed transfer ownership of gifts, and you enhanced the legal power of the recipient by performing an act of acquisition.
הָהִיא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כָּתוּב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים וּבַמָּוֶת״ – רַב אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא.
§ The Gemara relates: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift is given both in life and in death. In such a case, Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, and if he recovers he can retract it. And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and he cannot retract it.
רַב אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּמָּוֶת״, אַחַר מִיתָה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ; וְהַאי דִּכְתִיב ״בַּחַיִּים״ – סִימָן בְּעָלְמָא, דְּחָיֵי.
The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in death. This means that the giver is saying to him that the gift should take effect after his death, and that which is written in the deed, that the gift is given in life, is merely an auspicious omen, expressing hope that the giver will live.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא – מִדִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״בַּחַיִּים״, מֵחַיִּים קָאָמַר; וְהַאי דִּכְתַב ״וּבַמָּוֶת״ – כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם״. אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב.
And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in life. This means that the giver is saying that the gift takes effect during his life, i.e., immediately. And that which he wrote, that the gift is given in death, is like one who says: From now and for evermore, i.e., that the gift is not retractable. The Sages of Neharde’a say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְאִי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״מֵחַיִּים״ – קְנָה.
Rava said: And if it was written in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death, the recipient acquires the gift and it cannot be retracted, as this term indicates that the gift takes effect while the giver still lives.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״מֵחַיִּים״ – מוֹדֵי רַב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Ameimar said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Isn’t that obvious, as the Sages of Neharde’a say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav? Ameimar replied: Lest you say that with regard to the term: During life, Rav concedes that the giver intends for the gift to take effect immediately, Ameimar teaches us that since the giver also mentioned death, he intended the gift as the gift of a person on his deathbed and he can retract it.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לִנְהַרְדְּעָא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לְשׁוּם טַמְיָא, אָמַר: הָכָא אַתְרָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל – הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב!
The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who wrote in the deed that the gift is given in life and in death. When he recovered he wanted to retract the gift. He came before Rav Naḥman in Neharde’a. Rav Naḥman sent him to appear before Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba in Shum Tamya. Rav Naḥman said in explanation of his actions: Here, Neharde’a, is the place of Shmuel. Consequently, Shmuel’s rulings should be followed, and therefore how can we act in accordance with the opinion of Rav?
הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, עֲבַד לַהּ רָבָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. הֲוָה קָא טָרְדָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who wrote in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death. She came before Rava. Rava acted with regard to her case in accordance with his halakhic ruling, and he ruled that she cannot retract the gift. She did not accept the ruling, and she constantly troubled him, saying that he had not judged her case properly.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָן – סָפְרֵיהּ: זִיל כְּתוֹב לַהּ, וּכְתוֹב בָּהּ: ״שׂוֹכֵר עֲלֵיהֶן אוֹ מַטְעָן״. אָמְרָה: לִיטְבַּע אַרְבֵּיהּ! אַטְעוֹיֵי קָא מַטְעֵית לִי! אַמְשִׁינְהוּ לְמָנֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּמַיָּא, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא אִיפְּרַק מִטִּיבְעָא.
Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.
מַתְנִי׳ לֹא כָּתַב בָּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע, הוּא אוֹמֵר ״שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָיִיתִי״, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים ״בָּרִיא הָיִיתָ״ – צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁשְּׁכִיב מְרַע הָיָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
MISHNA: If one did not write in the deed that he was on his deathbed, and he then recovered and wished to retract the gift, and he says: I was on my deathbed, and since I recovered, I can retract the gift, but the recipients say: You were healthy, and the gift cannot be retracted, the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed in order to retract the gift. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.
גְּמָ׳ הָהוּא מַתַּנְתָּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״; וְלָא כְּתַב בָּהּ: ״וּמִגּוֹ מַרְעֵיהּ אִיפְּטַר לְבֵית עוֹלָמֵיהּ״.
GEMARA: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift was bestowed when the giver was sick and lying in his bed, but the continuation of the standard formula: And from his sickness he departed to his eternal home, was not written in it. The giver’s heirs claimed that although he was ill when he wrote the deed, he later recovered, and his gift is not valid.
אֲמַר רַבָּה: הֲרֵי מֵת, וַהֲרֵי קִבְרוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה סְפִינָה – שֶׁרוּבָּן לֵאָבֵד, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חוּמְרֵי חַיִּים וְחוּמְרֵי מֵתִים; חוֹלִין – שֶׁרוֹב חוֹלִין לְחַיִּים, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabba said: He is dead, and his grave proves that he died. It may therefore be assumed that he did not recover from his sickness, and his gift remains valid. Abaye said to him: And now, if in the case of a ship that sank, where the fate of most of the passengers of sunken ships is to perish, the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead are applied to them due to the uncertainty as to whether they are alive or dead, in the case of sick people, where the fate of most sick people is to return to life, all the more so is it not clear that one should assume that he recovered from the illness and his gift is invalid?
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּרַבָּה – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן. דְּתַנְיָא: מִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד מִי? הוּא מוֹצִיא מִידֵיהֶן בְּלֹא רְאָיָה, וְהֵן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ אֶלָּא בִּרְאָיָה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rabba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where one who gave his property to others claims that since he was on his deathbed at the time he can retract the gifts, and the recipients claim that he was healthy and cannot retract it, who removes the property from whose possession? The giver can remove it from the recipients’ possession without proof, as the property was previously established to be in his possession, but the recipients can remove it from the giver’s possession only with proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אִם בָּרִיא הוּא – עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהָיָה שְׁכִיב מְרַע. אִם שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא – עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁבָּרִיא הָיָה.
Rabbi Natan says: The presumption is that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. Therefore, if he is currently healthy, the obligation is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed when he gave his property to others. If he is currently on his deathbed, the obligation is upon the recipients to bring proof that he was healthy then.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וּלְטוּמְאָה – כַּמַּחְלוֹקֶת. דִּתְנַן: בִּקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת, וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה.
Rabbi Elazar says: And with regard to a case of uncertain ritual impurity, the halakha depends on the same dispute. This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:7): The halakha is that a case where it is uncertain if something or someone became impure in the public domain, the item or person is deemed pure. With regard to an expanse of fields, in the summer, when many people pass through the fields, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, but it is considered the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, and if one is uncertain as to whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed pure.
בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.
In the rainy season, when not many people pass through the fields, an expanse of fields is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Therefore, if one is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed impure. If one does not know whether the day he entered the expanse of fields was considered part of the summer or the rainy season, and he is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, Rabbi Ya’akov maintains that he retains the status of purity that he held before entering the fields. According to Rabbi Natan, it is presumed that he entered the fields during the same season in which he came to ask whether he was rendered impure.
אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, אֲבָל עָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָאן וּלְכָאן.
Rava disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and says: They taught the ruling of the mishna only with regard to a case where the rainy season has not yet passed over the fields after the possibility arose that the fields contained impurity. But if the rainy season has already passed over the fields, it is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Even though the one who passed through the fields came to ask about his status in the summer, when the fields should be considered the public domain, he is nevertheless deemed impure even according to Rabbi Natan, and there is no parallel dispute with regard to uncertain ritual impurity.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה וְכוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.
