Bava Batra 129b (קכט:) — the Talmud in English

“But if he said: ‘If they die”

others shall inherit in their place,’

he revealed that he preferred greater restriction, so that some 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 give them only a shekel.

This concludes the beraita.

And

from here Rav Sheshet proved:

here, where he

used the language of a gift with regard to his sons, and the language of inheritance with regard to others,

it is comparable to two fields and two people, and

nevertheless

it teaches that the recipient acquires.

And this accords with the statement of Rav Sheshet.

And we reject this:

He himself raised the objection, and he himself resolved it;

the beraita is speaking

of one who is fit to inherit from him. And it is

according to

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

For if he says this with regard to one who is fit to inherit from him, his words take effect, as will be explained below (130a).

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear:

One who says:

“This property is given to you, and after you so-and-so shall inherit it, and after you so-and-so shall inherit it.” If the first dies, the second acquires it. If the second dies, the third acquires it. But if the second dies during the lifetime of the first, the property returns to the heirs of the first.

But here, too, it is comparable to two fields and two people, and it teaches that the second acquires it?

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

if so,

why, if

the second dies, does the third acquire it?

This is what Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avya, sent: According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

who says:

“This property is given to you, and after you it shall belong to so-and-so,” and the first is fit to inherit from him, the second has no claim in place of the first, for this is not the language of a gift but the language of inheritance, and inheritance cannot be interrupted ?

Rather, it must certainly be that the beraita is speaking even of one who is not fit to inherit from him, and nevertheless, if he uses the language of a gift with regard to one person and the language of inheritance with regard to another, his words take effect?

A refutation of all

the amoraim mentioned above who said that if he uses the language of a gift with regard to one person and the language of inheritance with regard to another, it is ineffective.

A refutation.

And we inquire about this:

Shall we also say that this constitutes a refutation of Rish

Lakish,

who says that the language of a gift with regard to one person is ineffective against the language of inheritance that he used with regard to another?

And can one really say so [

could one possibly say so ] ?!

But Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rish Lakish in these three matters,

and this halakha is one of them ?

This is not difficult; here [

the beraita is speaking ] when he said it

within tokh kedei dibbur,

and therefore the language of the gift that he used with regard to one person prevailed over the language of inheritance that he used with regard to the other.

But

here [

Rish Lakish ] is speaking

after tokh kedei dibbur.

Therefore, if he uses the language of a gift with regard to one person and the language of inheritance with regard to another, it is ineffective.

And the halakha is: In every case, tokh kedei dibbur is considered like speech itself ,

except for idolatry

and betrothal .