Bava Batra 129b — the Talmud in English

And if he said, “If they die ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

others shall inherit in their place,”

he revealed in his mind that he prefers greater restriction, so that something of the property would remain for the inheritance of others. Therefore,

whether he said, “Give

a shekel”

, or whether he said, “Do not give

more than a shekel”

, they are given no more than a shekel.

Thus far the beraita.

And

from here Rav Sheshet proved:

here, when he

said the language of a gift concerning his sons, and the language of inheritance concerning others,

it is considered like two fields and like two people, and

nevertheless

it teaches that he acquires.

And this accords with the words of Rav Sheshet.

And we reject this:

he raises the objection against himself, and he resolves it himself;

the beraita is speaking

of one fit to inherit. And

it is

the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

For if he said concerning one who is fit to inherit from him, his words stand, as follows (130a).

Rav Ashi said, ta shma:

one who says,

“My property is yours, and after you so-and-so shall inherit, and after you so-and-so shall inherit.” The first died—the second acquired it. The second died—the third acquired it. And if the second died during the lifetime of the first, the property shall return to the heirs of the first.

And here, is it not considered like two fields and like two people, and it teaches that he acquired it?

And if you would say that here too it is speaking of one fit to inherit, and it is the view of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

if so,

why, when

the second dies, does the third acquire it?

This is what Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, sent: according to the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

who says,

“My property is yours, and after you it shall belong to so-and-so,” and the first is fit to inherit from him, the second has nothing in place of the first, for this is not the language of a gift but the language of inheritance, and inheritance has no interruption ?

Rather, certainly the beraita is speaking even of one who is not fit to inherit from him, and nevertheless, if he said the language of a gift concerning one, and the language of inheritance concerning another, his words stand?

A tiyu vta against all of them,

the amoraim who said above that if he said the language of a gift concerning one and the language of inheritance concerning another, it is ineffective.

A tiyu vta.

And we inquire into it:

Shall we also say that it is a refutation of Rish

Lakish,

who said that the language of a gift concerning this one is ineffective against the language of inheritance that he said concerning the other?

Can you understand it so [

and is it possible to say this] ?!

But Rava said: the halakha is like Rish Lakish in these three matters,

and this halakha is one of them ?

It is not difficult; here [

the beraita is speaking] when he said it

within the time required for speech,

and therefore the language of the gift that he said concerning one saved the language of inheritance that he said concerning the other.

But

here [

Rish Lakish] is speaking

after the time required for speech.

And therefore, if he said the language of a gift concerning one and the language of inheritance concerning another, it is ineffective.

And the halakha is: everything said within the time required for speech is considered as speech ,

except for idolatry ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and betrothal .