Bava Batra 138a (קלח.) — the Talmud in English

Here, it is when he protested from the outset.

As soon as he handed him the document, he began to protest.

In that case, he did not acquire it against his will, since one cannot confer something upon a person against his will, as it is a liability for him. For it is written: “He who hates gifts will live,” and one may not create a liability for a person without his consent.

Nevertheless, even though the recipient did not acquire the gift, the property does not return to the donor’s possession, since he had removed himself from it. Rather, it is ownerless, and whoever comes first and takes possession of it acquires it.

Here, it is when he was silent from the outset,

at the time he received the document of the gift,

and ultimately protested.

In that case, he acquired it, and he cannot free himself from that property except by declaring it ownerless or by giving it as a gift.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He conferred the property upon him

his property

through another person

in his presence,

, and he was silent

when they gave the document to the other person on his behalf,

and ultimately

when they came to give him the document,

he protested. We have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis,

whether he acquired it or not.

As it was taught in a baraita: One who writes his property to another, and there were slaves among it, and the latter said, “I do not want them,”

because I do not wish to bear the expenses of maintaining them.

If the second master

that is, the recipient of the gift

was a priest, they may eat teruma

like any property acquired with his money. That is, he acquired them against his will, and they are considered his property.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once the latter said, “I do not want them,” the heirs had already acquired them.

That is, the first party or his heirs. This concludes the baraita.

And we raised a difficulty: And

why

does the first tanna

hold that he acquired them against his will,

even if he is standing and protesting?!

Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan: When he protests from the outset, everyone agrees that he does not acquire it.

When he was silent and ultimately protested, everyone agrees that he acquires it.

As stated above.

They disagree

in a case

where he conferred it upon him

the gift

through another person, and he was silent, and ultimately,

when they gave him the document,

he protested.

The first tanna holds: Since he was silent,

at the outset, when he transferred it to him,

he acquired them. And this protest of his

at the end

is merely a retraction.

He wishes to retract his consent. But since he had already acquired the property, he cannot retract without an act of acquisition.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: His ending,

in which he protested,

proves his beginning,

that he does not want the property at all.

And the reason he did not protest until now is that he thought: Since it has not reached my possession, why should I protest?

[Why should I protest as long as the document has not reached my possession?] ?.

The Sages taught:

in a baraita:

A shekhiv mera who said, “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, three hundred to so-and-so, and four hundred to so-and-so ”,

and in a case where he did not leave additional property for himself, the recipients acquired through his statement, without an act of acquisition, since the words of a shekhiv mera are considered as though written and delivered.

And

we do not say that whoever is first in the document acquires it .

And

therefore,

if

a debt document was presented against him, the creditor collects

from all of them

in proportion to their respective shares.

For example, if he came to collect nine dinars, he collects two dinars from the two hundred, three dinars from the three hundred, and four dinars from the four hundred.

But if he said, “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, and after him to so-and-so, and after him to so-and-so,” we say that whoever is first in the document acquires it.

Since his intention is that if property remains after they give it to the first recipient, the second recipient will acquire it, and so on.

And

therefore,

if

a debt document was presented against him, the creditor collects from the last recipient. If he does not have

enough to pay the debt,

he collects from the one before him;

and if he still

does not have

enough to pay the debt,

he collects from the one before the one before him.

The Sages taught

in a baraita:

A shekhiv mera who said, “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my firstborn son, as is fitting for him,”

Since he added the words “as is fitting for him,” he certainly intended to enhance his rights. Therefore,

he takes them, and

in addition to them

he takes his firstborn portion.

And

if he said, “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my son,

from his firstborn portion,” he has the upper hand; if he wishes, he takes them.

That is, if his firstborn portion is less than two hundred zuz.

But if

he wishes,

he takes his firstborn portion.

For example, when his firstborn portion is greater than two hundred zuz. And he does not take both.

And

likewise,

a shekhiv mera who said, “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my wife, as is fitting for her,”

Since he repeated his words unnecessarily, he certainly intended to enhance her rights. Therefore,

she takes them, and she takes her ketuba.