Bava Batra 135b — the Talmud in English

Abaye said,

There is no proof from here, d

Rather, I can say to you

the one who claims money from his fellow on the basis of a certain claim, while the other claims uncertainty,

is liable.

Like Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda mentioned above.

But here it is different, for it is like a maneh in your possession.

That is, since the brother is claiming on behalf of his brother , we say to him: “You are not a litigant of ours.” And because of this, he is not trusted to extract money from them .

We learned in the Mishna: “One who says, ‘This is my brother,’ is not trusted, and he takes a share with him in his portion;

if he dies, the property returns to its place,

if property falls to him from another place, his brothers inherit it with him.”

The Gemara is uncertain what is considered property that fell to the brother from another place.

Rava raised a question: What is the status of appreciation by which property appreciated on its own?

Is its law like appreciation that comes from another place, or not?

The Gemara explains the sides of the uncertainty:

With regard to appreciation that reaches the shoulders [

that is, he gave the doubtful brother empty land, and he labored over it and improved it, and it is now full of produce],

you need not raise the question for yourself, for it is like property that fell to him from another place.

And they all divide that appreciation equally.

When you must raise the question for yourself is with regard to appreciation that does not reach the shoulders, such as

when he gave him

a palm tree, and it grew large [

it thickened on its own], or

land, and the river raised silt onto it [

the river rose over its banks and fertilized the land without the owners’ labor],

what

is the law? Do the brothers divide that appreciation, or perhaps that appreciation returns to the first brother to whom it was given ?

And we conclude with

teiku.

Mishna:

One who transfers property to his fellow after his death does not acquire it, since there is no acquisition after death.

Nevertheless, the Sages instituted that in the case of a shakhiv mera who distributes his property before his death, his words stand, so that his mind not become disturbed.

Therefore,

if one dies, and a diyyetiki is found [

a will] that he did not manage to state before his death, but rather wrote it on a document, and even if it was

tied to his thigh,

so that we have no doubt that he wrote it,

it is nothing.

Since he does not have the power to transfer property after his death. And only concerning a shakhiv mera did the Sages institute as mentioned above.

But if

he transferred it

the shakhiv mera

to another,

that is, it was written in it: “The property written in this document I transfer to you through your receiving the document from me,”

whether

he transferred it to one

of the heirs, or whether they are not of the heirs, his words stand.

Since the words of a shakhiv mera are considered as written and delivered.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the words of the Mishna:

The Sages taught: What is a diyyetiki?

That is, what is the will of a shakhiv mera that is collected after death, even if he did not transfer it to him from today?

Everything in which it is written

“This shall be to stand and to be

after my death”.

And what is a gift

that acquires from today and after his death?

Everything in which it is written, “From today and after death.”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Rather,

that is, it is implied from your words that only if he wrote to him

“from today and after death” is it a gift,

but if he wrote to him

“from now,” is it not a gift?

Abaye said: This is what he is saying: What is the gift of a healthy person that is like the gift of a shakhiv mera, which is acquired only after death? Everything in which it is written, “From today and after death” .

Rabba bar Rav Huna was sitting in the veranda of the house of the master, and was sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A shakhiv mera

who said, “Write and give a maneh to so-and-so,” and died before they managed to write according to his words ,

they do not write and give, lest he did not resolve

in his mind

to transfer it to him except through a document, and there is no document after death .

Rabbi Eleazar said to them

his students

, “Be careful with it.” [

That is, take care to act accordingly, for this is the halakha.

Rav Shizbi said:

This was not the incident; rather, this statement

was said by Rabbi Eleazar, and Rabbi Yohanan said to them

his students,

“Be careful with it.”

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Rav Shizbi’s version is more reasonable.

Since

if you say, it is well that Rabbi Eleazar said it,

it is understood why

Rabbi Yohanan needed to testify concerning it [

to testify concerning the words of]

Rabbi Eleazar.

Since Rabbi Elazar was his student, he needed to say that the halakha follows his words.

But if you say that Rabbi Yohanan said it,

and is it the case that

Rabbi Eleazar needed to testify concerning Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher?!

And further, come and hear

another proof in accordance with Rav Shizbi’s words:

that Rabbi Eleazar said it, for Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Know that Rabbi Eleazar sent to the Diaspora in the name of our master, [

in the name of Rav]:

A shakhiv mera who said, “Write and give a maneh to so-and-so,” and died, they do not

write and give, lest he did not resolve to transfer it to him except through a document, and there is no document after death.

This is explicit in accordance with Rav Shizbi: Rabbi Elazar said this statement, and Rabbi Yohanan testified that the halakha follows his words.

And

Rabbi Yohanan explains the halakha:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Not in every case do they not write after death; rather,

it must be examined.

The Gemara explains:

What does “it must be examined” mean?

When Rav Dimi came, he said

two laws, the second of which explains Rabbi Yohanan’s words .

The first:

A diyyetiki cancels a diyyetiki.

That is, a shakhiv mera who wrote his property to one person and then went back and wrote it to another—the second acquired it, and not the first.

Since a shakhiv mera can retract from his gift until his death. But if he wrote it as a gift of a healthy person, he cannot retract from it and give it to another.

And the second law is:

A shakhiv mera who said, “Write and give a maneh to so-and-so,” and died—we see: if he was strengthening his power,

that is, if it appears that his intention was to write a document only in order to strengthen the recipient’s power, and he did not intend to delay the gift until the writing of the document (and below it will be explained how his intention is recognized),

they write

even after death.

And if not, they do not write.

Perhaps he intended to transfer it to him only after death, and there is no document after death.

And this is the meaning of Rabbi Yohanan, who said, “It must be examined.”

Rabbi Abba bar Memel objected:

We learned in a beraita:

A healthy person who said, “Write and give a maneh to so-and-so,” and died—they do not write and give.

It is implied:

But in the case of a shakhiv mera, they write and give?

He raises the objection against it, and he resolves it: When he was strengthening his power.

As stated above.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of strengthening his power?