Bava Batra 136a (קלו.) — the Talmud in English

As Rav Ḥisda said

below, in the chapter “One Who Bequeaths”: If he wrote in the document

“And we acquired from him, in addition to this gift,” .

Here too, where he said: “Also write, sign, and give it to him,”

it follows that his intention was to enhance his power through the document, and not to effect the transfer through a document after death.

It was stated

that this statement was said in the beit midrash:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel

said:

The halakha

is that if a shekhiv mera says, “Write and give one hundred dinars to so-and-so,” and they investigate and determine that his intention was to enhance his power,

they write and give.

This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: “Let it be investigated.”

And Rava likewise said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is that they write and give.

This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Mishna:

A healthy person

who writes his property to his sons,

for example, one who wishes to marry and does not want his property to become liened for the marriage contract of his new wife, and wishes to write his property to his sons after his death while he eats the produce of the property during his lifetime,

must write

“Behold, my property is acquired by you

from today and after my death,”

whose meaning is: From today, you acquire the substance of the property, and after my death the gift will be completed, and you will also acquire the produce.

But if he wrote them only “after my death,” it follows that he transferred nothing to them until after his death, and there is no acquisition after death.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: He need not

write “from today.” The Gemara explains his reasoning: The date written in the document demonstrates that from that day he transferred the substance of the land to them; for if not, why did he write the date in the document?!

Therefore,

one who writes his property to his son after his death,

in the effective manner described above,

the father cannot sell

the property in an absolute sale,

because it is written over to the son,

and its substance is acquired by him.

And the son cannot sell

the property during his father’s lifetime

because it is in the father’s possession

with regard to its produce until his death.

Therefore, if

the father sold

the property during his lifetime without specifying his intention, the property is

sold

with regard to its produce

until he dies.

When he dies, it returns to the son or to his heirs, since the substance of the property is already acquired by the son from now.

And if

the son sold

the property during his father’s lifetime,

the purchaser has no rights to it until the father dies.

When he dies, the purchaser acquires the property and its produce, just as the son would have.

The Gemara will explain whether, even if the son dies during his father’s lifetime, the purchaser acquires the property.:

Gemara:

The Mishna indicates that if he wrote “from today and after my death,” the son acquired the property after his father’s death through a complete acquisition.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And if he wrote “from today and after my death,” what of it?

That is to say, why is it a complete gift?

But we learned

in tractate Gittin: One who writes to his wife, “Behold, this is your bill of divorce

from today and after my death”—it is a bill of divorce, but it is not a bill of divorce,

that is, we are uncertain what his intention was with that bill of divorce: Did he intend to say, “From now it shall be a bill of divorce if I die,” in which case the bill of divorce takes effect?

Or perhaps he retracted, and his intention was to divorce her after his death. In that case the bill of divorce is void, for “there is no bill of divorce after death.”

And

therefore,

if he died,

because of the uncertainty,

she performs ḥalitza

[lest she be a widow whose husband died childless, in which case she requires yibbum],

but she does not undergo yibbum

[lest she be divorced, in which case she does not require yibbum]. This concludes the Mishna.

If so, it is difficult: Why, in our Mishna, when he wrote “from today and after my death,” is it a complete gift, and why did we not suspect that he retracted and intended to transfer the gift to him only after death, when there is no acquisition after death?

The Gemara answers:

There,

with regard to a bill of divorce, which cannot be divided into two parts, so that one part takes effect today and one part after death, therefore

we are uncertain whether

when he said “from today and after my death,”

it is a condition or it is a retraction.

But here,

with regard to a gift, since it can be divided into two parts, giving the substance of the property today and its produce after death, certainly, if he wrote to him “from today and after my death,”

this is what he is saying to him: You acquire the substance from today,

and

the produce after death.

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree as to whether one must write “from today and after my death.” According to Rabbi Yehuda, one must. And

Rabbi Yosei says: He need not.

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning on the basis of an incident that occurred:

Rabba bar Avuha fell ill

[he became ill],

and came to him

[they came to visit him]:

Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman.

Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: Ask him

[ask Rabba bar Avuha] whether

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, or whether the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna,

“I do not know Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning; should I ask him about the halakha?”

?!

He said to him: You ask him whether the halakha is so or not, and I will tell you his reasoning

[you will ask Rabba what the halakha is, and I will explain the reasoning to you].

He asked him

[Rav Naḥman asked Rabba in accordance with whose opinion the halakha is].

He said to him,

Rabba said to Rav Naḥman:

“This is what Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.”

After they left

[when they left Rabba],

he said to him,

Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman,

“This is Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning:

he need not write “from today,” because

he says: The date of the document demonstrates its meaning.”

That is, the date written in the document demonstrates that the donor’s intention was to give the gift from that time. For if this were not so, and his intention was to give it after death, why did he write a date in the document?

And likewise it is

taught

in a beraita

as well: Rabbi Yosei says: He need not, because the date of the document demonstrates its meaning.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

According to Rabbi Yehuda,

in

a deed of gift in which

an acquisition

[that is, the document states: “And we acquired from so-and-so for so-and-so, in accordance with everything written and specified above”]

is written, what is the halakha?

Does one also need to write “from today” in this document, or perhaps in this document even according to Rabbi Yehuda one need not write “from today,” and they disagree only with regard to a document that does not contain an acquisition?

He said to him: In a document containing an acquisition, he need not

write “from today.”

Rav Pappi said: There are acquisition documents in which one must

write “from today,”

and there are acquisition documents in which one need not.

If at the beginning of the document they wrote

“He acquired,”

that is, “Be witnesses for me and acquire from me,” and at the end of the document they wrote

“And we acquired from him

in accordance with everything written and specified above,”

he need not

write “from today,” since he enhanced his power through two acquisitions: He transferred it, and we also acquired it from him. Thus, the second acquisition comes to enhance his power, so that he will acquire it from today.

But if at the beginning of the document they wrote

“We acquired from him,” and

at its end

“He acquired,”

it indicates a single acquisition; that is, the acquisition through which we acquired from him is the acquisition through which he transferred it to us. Therefore,

one must

write “from today.”

Rav Ḥanina of Sura raised an objection to this: Is there anything that we do not know but the scribes know?

That is, the distinction between the formulations—whether to write “he acquired” first or “and we acquired” first—is not a well-known matter, and it is not reasonable to say that the scribe who writes the document is precise about this. If so, one cannot derive from this an enhancement of power to effect the acquisition from today.

But in practice,

we asked the scribes of Abaye, and they knew; and the scribes of Rava, and they knew.

[They knew the distinction between the formulations.] Since they knew, one should be precise about their wording and determine whether his intention was to effect the acquisition from today or only after death.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether “he acquired and we acquired from him,” or “we acquired from him and he acquired,” he need not

write “from today.”

And

if you say: If so, in what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree in our Mishna?

They disagree with regard to “a record of statements that was before us,”

that is, a document recording a declaration without an acquisition.

They disagree.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, one must write “from today,” while according to Rabbi Yosei, one need not.

Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha before Rav Zevid of Nehardea, and he said to me: You teach it like this,

in the language of a difficulty and an inquiry;

we teach it like this

[I heard this statement in the following manner]:

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: In a document containing an acquisition, he need not.

And

whether

he wrote

“he acquired and we acquired from him,” or “we acquired from him and he acquired,” he need not.

And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei

disagree with regard to “a record of statements that was before us,”

as stated above.

We learned in the Mishna: “

One who writes his property to his son after his death

the father cannot sell it because it is written over to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is in the father’s possession. If the father sold it, it is sold until he dies. If the son sold it, the purchaser has no rights to it until the father dies.”

It was stated,

the amoraim discussed this matter in the beit midrash:

If the son sold

the same property that his father gave him after his death,

during the father’s lifetime, and the son died during the father’s lifetime,

does the purchaser acquire the property after the father’s death?