Bava Batra 129a (קכט.) — the Talmud in English

Is it not to exclude the opinion of

Rava

, [as he said above, “even with the first”]:

then he does not disagree with Rav Abba’s statement; he merely

adds to it

.

If it is referring to Mar bar Rav Ashi, [who deemed testimony valid even in the case of a father’s father]:

as we said above,

the halakha is not in accordance with Mar bar Rav Ashi.

If it is referring to Shmuel, Rav Sheshet, and Rav Pappa, [with regard to one who witnessed testimony and subsequently became blind],

then

they were refuted

above.

Rather, it is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who ruled above in accordance with the Rabbis, that a father is not deemed credible to say of his son, “He is a firstborn,” contrary to the presumption.

And it is to exclude the challenge of Mar bar Rav Ashi,

who raised a difficulty above with regard to the obligation to take an oath when admitting part of a claim.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If one distributes his property verbally, granting more

to one and less to another,

and leaves the firstborn an equal share with the others, his words stand. But if he said that he was doing so by way of inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote, whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, that he was giving it as a gift, his words stand.”

The Gemara explains:

What is considered a gift stated at the beginning, what is considered one stated in the middle, and what is considered one stated at the end?

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan

ruled: If he wrote,

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

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

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

.

And this applies specifically when there is one person and one field; but when there is one person and two fields,

as in the case where he said, “Let a certain field be given to Reuven, and let him inherit another field,” or

one field and two people,

as in the case where he said, “Let half of a certain field be given to Reuven, and Shimon shall inherit its other half,”

no.

That is, the language of gift that he used does not rescue the field that he assigned using the language of inheritance. He acquires only what he assigned as a gift.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even when there is one person and two fields,

or

one field and two people,

he acquires it. Since he mentioned the language of gift, he certainly intended to give it to both of them in the same manner.

But when there are two fields and two people,

as in the case where he said, “Let this field be given to Reuven, and Shimon shall inherit another field,”

no.

Since the persons and the fields are distinct from one another, the gift he gave to one does not serve to rescue the inheritance he gave to the other.

When Ravin came, he said:

If one says to his sons,

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

that is, two fields and two people,

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He acquires it. Rabbi Elazar says: He does not acquire it.

Abaye said to Ravin: You have relieved us of one difficulty, but you have raised another difficulty for us. [

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

Granted, the contradiction between Rabbi Elazar’s statement and Rabbi Elazar’s statement is not difficult: here it is referring to one person and two fields, while there it is referring to two people and two fields .

But the contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is difficult: above, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that in the case of one person and two fields he does not acquire it, whereas here he said, “He acquires it.”

The Gemara answers:

They are amoraim, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

That is, the amoraim disagree concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.

And Reish Lakish said:

In the case of two fields and two people,

he does not acquire it unless he says

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

“So-and-so and so-and-so shall inherit such-and-such fields, which I have given them as a gift, and they shall inherit them.”

In this case, the language of gift is learned from the language of inheritance. Just as the language of inheritance was stated with regard to both of them, so too the language of gift in the middle was stated with regard to both of them.

This issue depends on

the dispute

between the amoraim cited below:

Rav Hamnuna said: They taught this only with regard to one person and one field; but with regard to one person and two fields, or one field and two people, no.

And Rav Naḥman said: Even with regard to one person and two fields, or one field and two people; but with regard to two fields and two people, no.

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

It follows that Rav Hamnuna agrees with Rav Dimi, Rav Naḥman agrees with Rabbi Elazar, and Rav Sheshet agrees with Ravin, who said this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this

[what is the source for my statement]?

As it is taught in a beraita:

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

says: “Give a shekel

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

to my children

each Shabbat

[each week],

and they are fit to be given a sela,”

meaning that their sustenance costs a sela,

he gives them a sela.

Since the father intended only to say that they should not be given more than necessary.

But if he said, “Give them no more than a shekel,” they are given no more than a shekel.