Bava Batra 129a — the Talmud in English

If [it is] not to exclude from the words of

Rava,

who said above, “even with the first,”

then he does not dispute the words of Rav Abba, but only

adds to them .

.

If [it is] [to exclude] Mar bar Rav Ashi,

who deemed even a father’s father fit, we said above,

the halakha is not like Mar bar Rav Ashi.

If [it is] to exclude Shmuel, Rav Sheshet, and Rav Pappa,

concerning one who saw testimony and then became blind,

they were refuted

above.

Rather, [it is] to exclude Rabbi Yohanan

who ruled above like the Rabbis, that a father is not trusted to say about his son, “He is a firstborn,” against a presumption.

And [it is to exclude] the objection of Mar bar Rav Ashi.

For he objected above concerning the obligation of an oath for one who admits part [of a claim].

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who divides his property according to his word, increasing

for one and decreasing for another,

and leaving the firstborn equal to them, his words stand. And if he said [that he gives] because of inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote, whether at the beginning, whether in the middle, or whether at the end, because of a gift, his words stand.”

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a gift at the beginning? What are the circumstances of [a gift] in the middle? What are the circumstances of [a gift] at the end?

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan [said]:

If he wrote,

“A certain field shall be given to so-and-so, and he shall inherit it,” this is a gift at the beginning.

“He shall inherit it, and it shall be given to him,” this is a gift at the end.

“He shall inherit it, and it shall be given to him, and he shall inherit it,” this is a gift in the middle .

.

And this is specifically with one person and one field, but with one person and two fields,

such as when he said, “A certain field shall be given to Reuven, and he shall inherit another field,” or

with one field and two people,

such as, “Half of a certain field shall be given to Reuven, and Shimon shall inherit its other half,”

[it does] not [work].

That is, the fact that he said an expression of gift does not save the field that he gave with an expression of inheritance. He acquires only what he gave as a gift .

Rabbi Elazar says: Even [with] one person and two fields,

or

one field and two people,

he acquires. Since he mentioned an expression of gift, certainly his intention was to give to both in the same manner.

But with two fields and two people,

such as, “This field shall be given to Reuven, and Shimon shall inherit another field,”

[it does] not [work].

Since the bodies and the fields are separate from one another, the gift that he gave to one does not help to save the inheritance that he gave to the other.

When Ravin came, he said:

One who says to his sons,

“A certain field shall be given to so-and-so, and so-and-so shall inherit a certain field,”

that is, two fields and two people,

Rabbi Yohanan says: He acquires. Rabbi Elazar says: He does not acquire.

Abaye said to Ravin: You have made one [matter] easier for us, and you have raised one objection for us.

One of your statements is convenient for us, and the other is difficult, as follows:

Granted, Rabbi Elazar does not contradict Rabbi Elazar: Here [it is] with one person and two fields; there [it is] with two people and two fields .

But Rabbi Yohanan contradicts Rabbi Yohanan, for above Rabbi Yohanan said that with one person and two fields he does not acquire, whereas here he said, “He acquires.”

And the Gemara answers:

They are [different] amoraim, and [their statements are] according to Rabbi Yohanan.

That is, the amoraim disagreed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan.

And Reish Lakish said:

With two fields and two people

he does not acquire, until he says

inheritance at the beginning and inheritance at the end, with a gift in the middle, such as,

“So-and-so and so-and-so shall inherit this field and that field, which I gave them as a gift, and they shall inherit them.”

And in this case, we learn the expression of gift from the expression of inheritance. And just as the expression of inheritance was said concerning both of them, so too the expression of gift in the middle was said concerning both of them.

And this matter depends

on the dispute

of the amoraim brought below:

Rav Hamnuna said: They taught [this] only with one person and one field, but with one person and two fields, [or] one field and two people, [it does] not [work].

And Rav Nahman said: Even with one person and two fields, [or] one field and two people; but with two fields and two people, [it does] not [work].

And Rav Sheshet said: Even with two fields and two people.

It follows: Rav Hamnuna [agrees] with Rav Dimi, Rav Nahman [agrees] with Rabbi Elazar, and Rav Sheshet [agrees] with Ravin in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say it

what is the source for my statement?

For it was taught in a beraita:

A dangerously ill person who gives instructions concerning his property, or one who is going overseas,

says, “Give a shekel

a shekel is two dinars, that is, half a sela

to my children

on Shabbat

every week

,” and they are fit to be given a sela,

that is, their sustenance amounts to a sela,

one gives them a sela.

Since the father intended only to say that they should not give them excessively.

And if he said, “Give them no more than a shekel,” one gives them only a shekel.