Bava Batra 138a — the Talmud in English

Here, when he cried out from the outset.

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

Then he did not acquire it against his will, since it is impossible to confer something upon a person against his will, for it is a liability for him. As it is written: “He who hates gifts will live,” and one may not impose a liability upon a person except with his knowledge.

In any event, even though the recipient of the gift did not acquire it, the property does not return to the domain of the giver, for he removed himself from it. Rather, it is ownerless, and whoever comes first and takes possession of it acquires it.

Here, when he remained silent from the outset,

when he received the gift document,

and ultimately cried out.

Then he acquired it, and he cannot rid himself of that property except by rendering it ownerless or giving it as a gift.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He conferred upon him

his property

through another person

in his presence

, and he remained silent

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

and ultimately

when they came to give him the document,

he cried out. 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 beraita: One who writes his property to another, and there are slaves among it, and the latter says, “I do not want them,”

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

If the second master

that is, the recipient of the gift,

was a koen, these slaves eat teruma

like all 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 have already acquired them.

That is, the first person or his heirs. This concludes the beraita.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

why

does the first tanna

hold that he acquired them against his will,

even while standing and crying out?!

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

When he remained silent and ultimately cried out, everyone agrees that he acquires it.

As above.

When do they disagree?

In a case

where he conferred the gift upon him

the gift

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

when they gave him the document,

he cried out.

For the first tanna holds: Since he was silent,

at the outset, when he transferred it to him,

he acquired them. And this fact that he cries out

at the end,

is that he is retracting.

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

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: His end,

when he cries out,

proves concerning his beginning,

that he does not want the property at all.

And this fact that he did not cry out until now is because he reasoned: Since it has not yet reached my hand, what should I cry out?

Why should I cry out as long as the document has not reached my hand? ?.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A dangerously ill person 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 acquire through his speech without an acquisition, for the statements of a dangerously ill person are considered as though written and delivered.

And

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

And

therefore,

if

a debt document was produced against him, the creditor collects

from all of them

in proportion to their 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 comes first in the document acquires.

Since his intention was that if any of his property remained after they gave to the first, the second would acquire it, and so on.

And

therefore,

if

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

enough for his debt

, he collects from the one before him,

and if still

he does not have

enough for his debt,

he collects from the one before the one before him.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

A dangerously ill person who said: “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my firstborn son, as is fitting for him,”

Since he added and said, “as is fitting for him,” he certainly came to enhance his power. Therefore,

he takes them, and

in addition to them

he takes his firstborn share.

And

if he said “

Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my son,

“as part of his firstborn share,” his hand is uppermost: if he wishes, he takes them.

If his firstborn share is less than two hundred zuz.

But if

he wishes, he takes his firstborn share.

For example, when his firstborn share exceeds two hundred zuz. But he does not take both.

And

likewise

a dangerously ill person who said: “Give two hundred zuz to so-and-so, my wife, as is fitting for her,”

Since he repeated his words needlessly, he certainly came to enhance her power. Therefore,

she takes them, and she takes her ketuba.