Bava Batra 147b — the Talmud in English

for the prayer of the High Priest,

so that he would know what to pray for on Yom Kippur.

And Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman,

he disagrees with Rabbi Zeira above, and holds:

the gift of a person dangerously ill

that he can transfer through speech is only

of rabbinic status alone,

it is only an enactment of the Sages,

lest his mind become disturbed

because of the distress that he cannot transfer [property] to whomever he wishes; therefore, the Sages enacted that he could transfer it easily, without an act of acquisition.

The Gemara asks:

And did Rav Naḥman say this,

that he acquires only by rabbinic law!?

But Rav Naḥman said: Even though Samuel said,

although Samuel holds that

one who sells a promissory note to another and then forgives it—the debt is forgiven.

The seller can forgive his debt to the debtor even after he has sold the debt to another,

and even an heir can forgive it,

even one who inherited a debt from his father can forgive it to the debtor, and through this cause the purchaser to lose [the debt]. But

Samuel admits that if he gave it,

if he transferred the debt

as the gift of a person dangerously ill, he cannot forgive it,

since the debt is no longer in his possession, so that he should have the right to forgive it.

It works well if you say

that we hold that the gift of a person dangerously ill is

from the Torah; for that reason he cannot forgive it,

since if the sale is from the Torah, it follows that this is a complete sale, and therefore the seller has withdrawn from the debt and cannot forgive it.

Rather, if you say that it is rabbinic,

but if we hold like Rav Naḥman that this is only rabbinic,

why can he not forgive it?

After all, even if the Sages enacted that it is possible to sell a debt through the enactment concerning the words of a person dangerously ill, this is not a complete sale, since a debt is something without substance, and therefore from the Torah it is impossible to sell it. If so, even after the Sages enacted that it is possible to sell the debt, the debtor’s obligation remained to the creditor [the seller], and not to the purchaser; therefore, it should be that the creditor can forgive it even after he sold the debt.

The Gemara answers:

It is not of Torah status, but they made it like a matter of Torah status.

The words of a person dangerously ill that effect acquisitions are indeed only rabbinic, but the Sages gave them the force of an acquisition from the Torah; therefore, the seller cannot forgive it.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

Although a person dangerously ill can transfer [property] through speech, there are things that are not acquired through his speech. Therefore,

if a person dangerously ill said, “So-and-so shall reside in this house,”

meaning that he transfers to him only the right of residence and not the body of the house, or said,

“So-and-so shall eat the fruits of this palm tree,”

meaning that he transfers to him only the fruits of the palm tree and not the palm tree itself,

he has said nothing.

And the reason for the matter is that it is impossible to transfer a right of residence, since there is no substance in it and an acquisition cannot take hold of it; and concerning the fruits of a palm tree, this is something that has not yet come into the world, which, according to the Sages, cannot be transferred.

Until he says, “Give this house to so-and-so, and let him reside in it,”

for then he transfers to him the right in the house itself, or

“Give this palm tree to so-and-so, and let him eat its fruits,”

meaning that he transfers the palm tree to him for its fruits, in which case he acquires it.

And the Gemara discusses:

Is it to say

that from here one should say

that Rav Naḥman holds

that from Rav Naḥman’s words we learn that only

a matter that exists with a healthy person

something that a healthy person can transfer,

exists with a person dangerously ill,

the Sages enacted that a person dangerously ill can transfer through speech.

But a matter

that does not exist with a healthy person,

that a healthy person cannot transfer, such as something that has not yet come into the world,

does not exist with a person dangerously ill.

A person dangerously ill likewise cannot transfer it. And the explanation is that the Sages merely added another method of transferring, but a matter that is not fit for acquisition they did not include in their enactment.

The Gemara asks about this principle: