Bava Batra 137a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

It is a tannaitic dispute.

That is to say, the tannaim also disputed this matter.

As it was taught:

In a beraita: One who says,

“My properties are given to you, and after you, to so-and-so,” and the first descended

to the properties,

and sold

them,

and consumed

[that is, squandered the money],

the second brings out

the land

from the hands of the purchasers. The words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second has only what the first left over.

And superficially, they disputed whether the acquisition of the fruits that the first has is considered like acquisition of the body, or perhaps it is not considered like acquisition of the body .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But we raise a contradiction:

For we learned the opposite: One who says,

“My properties are given to you, and after you, to so-and-so,” the first descends, sells, and consumes. The words of Rabbi.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The first has only the consumption of fruits.

It is difficult

from

the

words of

Rabbi

in the first beraita,

to

the words of

Rabbi

in the second beraita;

, and

the words of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, to

the words of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

And the Gemara answers:

The contradiction between Rabbi and Rabbi is not difficult: This one is regarding the body, and that one is regarding the fruits.

That is to say, the first beraita is dealing with a case where he sold the body of the properties, and in this Rabbi held that he cannot sell, because “the acquisition of the fruits is not considered like acquisition of the body,” and therefore the second brings it out from the hands of the purchasers.

Whereas the second beraita is dealing with a case where he sold the fruits, and in such a case even Rabbi concedes that his sale is valid .

And likewise,

the contradiction between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not difficult: This one is initially, and that one after the fact.

That is to say, the explanation of the second beraita is as follows:

Behold, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even though he can sell the body, nevertheless initially he should not sell, in order to fulfill the words of the giver, who desires to give it to the second after him.

Therefore, the second beraita is dealing with a case where he sold without specification, and did not explain; and in such a case, according to Rabbi, he sold only the fruits, for he cannot sell the body, whereas he can sell the fruits even initially.

Whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, when he sold without specification, he sold the body, and therefore Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that he should not sell initially.

But the first beraita speaks of the case after the fact, when he sold the body, and in this case, according to Rabbi, his sale is void. Whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, his sale is valid.

Abaye said: Who is a cunning wicked person

[that is to say, who is a wicked person whose words are fulfilled]?

It is one who gives advice

to the first recipient of the gift

to sell the properties,

and thereby cause a loss to the second who comes after him,

in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

, that if he gave them

the first

as a gift of a person dangerously ill ,

he accomplished nothing.

And the second inherits it despite his gift.

What is the reason?

Abaye said:

Since

a gift of a person dangerously ill does not acquire

anything

except after death, and

at that time

“after you” has already preceded it .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did Abaye say this?

But it was stated,

a statement was said in his name:

When does a gift of a person dangerously ill acquire? Abaye said: With the completion of death. And Rava said: After the completion of death.

Yet here he held that a gift of a person dangerously ill acquires only after death?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye retracted that statement.

[Rava retracted that statement and held that it acquires only after death.]

And the Gemara raises an objection:

From where is it established that he retracted that statement? Perhaps he retracted this statement,

and held that a gift of a person dangerously ill acquires with the completion of death?

And the Gemara answers:

It should not enter your mind

[do not entertain the possibility of saying so],

for

this

we learned:

One who says to his wife,

“This is your bill of divorce if I die,”

or

“This is your bill of divorce

if I die

from this illness,”

or

“This is your bill of divorce after death,” he accomplished nothing.

Since he completed the divorce only after death, and there is no bill of divorce after death .

And it is proven that when he gave a bill of divorce and made the effectiveness of the bill of divorce dependent upon his death, the bill of divorce takes effect only after death, and not at the time of death.

And likewise, when he gives a gift of a person dangerously ill, it takes effect only after death, and not at the time of death.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if there were among them

among those properties that he gave him

slaves, and he brought them out

the first recipient

to freedom.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is this obvious?

What is different about bringing the slaves out to freedom from selling them to another?

And the Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind that he said to him

the giver to the first,

, “We did not give you [the property] in order to commit a transgression,”

that is to say, I did not give you my properties so that you would commit Torah prohibitions with them. For one who emancipates his slave transgresses a positive prohibition, as it is written, “You shall work them forever.”

It teaches us

that even so, his sale is a valid sale.

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if he made them burial shrouds for the dead.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is this obvious?

And the Gemara answers:

It might have entered your mind

that the giver would say to the first recipient,

“To make them objects forbidden for benefit

[for burial shrouds of the dead are forbidden for benefit]

we did not give them to you.”

Since a person desires that people benefit from his property and that it not go to waste.

It teaches us

that he may even make them burial shrouds.

Rav Nahman bar Rav Hisda expounded:

One who says:

“This etrog is given to you as a gift, and after you, to so-and-so,” the first took it and fulfilled the mitzva with it; we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

According to Rabbi, he did not fulfill the mitzva with it, since it is not acquired by him with acquisition of the body. And concerning the four species it is written, “And you shall take for yourselves,” from your own, and this etrog is not his. And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he fulfilled the mitzva with it, for it is acquired by him completely. And it is considered “for yourselves” .

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he has fulfilled the mitzva with it, since it is entirely his property, and it is considered “for yourselves.”

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak challenged him: Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disputed there only because one Master holds, “The acquisition of the fruits is considered like acquisition of the body,” and one Master holds, “The acquisition of the fruits is not considered like acquisition of the body”; but here,