Bava Batra 136a — 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, when he said, “Also write it, sign it, and give it to him,”

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

It was stated

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 examined [the matter] and found that his intention was to enhance his power,

they write and give.

In accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said, “Let it be examined.”

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

In accordance with the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Mishna:

A healthy person

who writes his property to his sons,

such as one who wishes to marry a woman, and does not wish for his property to become encumbered for the marriage contract of his new wife, and wishes to write his property to his sons after his death while he eats its produce during his lifetime,

must write: “

Behold, my property is acquired by you

from today and after death,”

and the meaning of this expression is: from today the substance [of the property] is acquired by you, and after death the gift will be completed, and you will also acquire the produce .

But if he wrote to them only, “After death,” it turns out that he transferred nothing to them except after his death, and there is no acquisition after death.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: he does not need

to write “from today.” And the Gemara explains his reason: because the date written in the document proves concerning it that from that day he transferred to them the substance of the land; 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 manner that is effective as stated above,

the father cannot sell

the property in an absolute sale,

because it is written to the son,

and its substance is acquired by him.

And the son cannot sell

the property during the father’s lifetime

because it is in the father’s possession

for its produce until his death.

Therefore, if

the father sold

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

sold

for its produce

until he dies .

And when he dies, they return 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 the father’s lifetime,

the purchaser has nothing in it until the father dies.

And when he dies, the purchaser acquires the property and the produce, like the son.

And the Gemara will explain whether, even in the case where the son dies during the father’s lifetime, the purchaser will acquire the property.

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that if he wrote, “From today and after death,” the son acquired the property after his father’s death with a complete acquisition.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But if he wrote, “From today and after death,” what is it?

That is, 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 death”—it is a bill of divorce and it is not a bill of divorce,

that is, we are uncertain about 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, and require yibbum],

but she does not perform yibbum

[lest she be a divorcee, and not be subject to yibbum]. This is the conclusion of the Mishna.

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

And the Gemara answers:

There

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

we are uncertain whether

when he said, “From today and after death,”

it is a condition, or it is a retraction.

But here

with regard to a gift, since it is possible to divide it into two parts, and to give today the substance of the property and after death its produce, certainly if he wrote to him, “From today and after death,”

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

and

the produce after death.

In the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagree whether it is necessary to write “from today and after death.” According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary. And

Rabbi Yosei says: he does not need [it].

The Gemara explains the reason of Rabbi Yosei on the basis of an incident that occurred:

Rabba bar Avuha fell ill

[he became ill],

they came in 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 the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rav Huna,

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

[he does not know Rabbi Yosei’s reason, so how can he ask about the halakha]?!

He said to him: You ask him whether the halakha is so or not, and I shall tell you the reason

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

He asked him

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

He said to him

Rabba to Rav Naḥman:

“Thus Rav said: the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei” .

After they left

[when they went out from before Rabba],

he said to him

Rav Huna to Rav Naḥman,

“This is Rabbi Yosei’s reason:

he does not need to write “from today,” because

he says: the date of the document proves concerning it.”

That is, the date written in the document proves that the giver’s intention was to give the gift from that time. For if not, 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: Rabbi Yosei says: he does not need [it], because the date of the document proves concerning it.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

in

a gift document in which

an acquisition is written,

[that is, it is written in the document, “And we acquired from so-and-so for so-and-so according to everything that is written and specified above],

what is [the law]?

Does one also need to write “from today” in this document, or perhaps in this document, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, one does not need to write “from today,” and they disagree only concerning a document in which there is no acquisition?

He said to him: In [a document with] an acquisition, he does not need

to write “from today.”

Rav Pappi said: There are acquisitions in which it is necessary

to write “from today,”

and there are acquisitions in which it is not necessary.

If at the beginning of the document they wrote

“He caused an acquisition,”

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

“And we acquired from him

according to everything that is written and specified above

,” it is not necessary

to write “from today,” since he enhanced his power with two acquisitions: that is, he transferred it, and we also acquired it from him; consequently, 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 caused an acquisition,”

it follows that there was one acquisition; that is, through the same acquisition by which we acquired from him, he transferred it to us. Consequently,

it is necessary

to write “from today.”

Rav Ḥanina of Sura challenged this: Is there anything that we do not know, but the scribes know?

That is, the distinction between the expressions—whether to write “he caused an acquisition” first, or “and we acquired” first—is not a publicized 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 here an enhancement of power to transfer [the property] from today.

But in practice,

they asked the scribes of Abaye, and they knew. And [they asked] the scribes of Rava, and they knew.

[They knew the distinction between the expressions.] And since they knew, one must be precise about their wording and determine whether his intention was to transfer [the property] from today or only after death.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether [the document says] “He caused an acquisition, and we acquired from him,” or “We acquired from him, and he caused an acquisition,” it is not necessary

to write “from today.”

And

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

In “the document of remembered statements that was before us”

that is, a document recording statements without an acquisition.

They disagree.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary to write “from today.” And according to Rabbi Meir, it is not necessary.

Rav Kahana said: I stated the teaching before Rav Zevid of Nehardea, and he said to me: You teach it this way,

in the language of a difficulty and a question;

we teach it this way

[I heard this statement in the following manner]:

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: In [a document with] an acquisition, it is not necessary.

And

whether

he wrote

“He caused an acquisition, and we acquired from him,” or “We acquired from him, and he caused an acquisition,” it is not necessary.

And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei

disagree in “the document of remembered 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 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 nothing in it until the father dies.”

It was stated,

the amoraim discussed this matter in the beit-midrash:

[If] the son sold

those same properties that his father gave him after his death,

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

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