Bava Batra 149a — the Talmud in English

It was asked of them:

The members of the academy were uncertain!

“May he benefit from them”—what is [the law]?

Is this an expression of a gift,

for he is saying that all of them are a gift,

that he should benefit from the property since it will belong to him—that is to say, that he transfers it to him?

Or perhaps

or let us say,

“let him derive no benefit from them whatsoever,” he is saying.

That he should benefit from them partially, but he does not wish them to be actually his, and therefore it is not a gift.

And in the same course of uncertainty concerning the expressions below,

“May he look at them”—what is [the law]?

Does he wish to transfer them to him completely, with the intention that he look at them as his own property ממש, or only that he be able to look at them and no more?

And likewise,

“May he stand in them”—what is [the law]?

Does he stand in them as in his own property, or does he merely have permission to use them, without transferring them to him?

“May he lean upon them”—what is [the law]?

Does he rely upon them completely since they are actually his property, or is it merely use?

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

teyku.

It was asked of them:

The members of the academy were uncertain:

“If he sold all his property, what is [the law]?”

The entire enactment that a shakhiv mera can transfer by declaration applies only when he gives a gift; but if he sold for money, he certainly requires an act of acquisition, since this does not resemble inheritance, and the defining character of a gift of a shakhiv mera is like inheritance.

And the uncertainty of the Gemara is this: since he sold all his property, it is certainly his intention that, if he does not die, he will be able to retract the sale; and even though he did not state this explicitly, this is a clear umdana demukhah. Or perhaps there is no clear presumption that this was his intention.

The Gemara resolves it:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: If he recovered, he cannot retract.

For he cannot cancel the sale.

And at times,

at other times he said otherwise,

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: If he recovered, he can retract.

The Gemara explains:

And they do not disagree,

there is no disagreement between the statements.

This one is where the coins are still present,

where the money remains before us, so certainly his intention is that, if he recovers from his illness, he will retract the sale and return the money.

This one is where he paid them for his debt,

where he paid his debt with the money, so certainly this was a complete sale, and he cannot retract.

It was asked of them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

A shakhiv mera who acknowledged

that his property belonged to so-and-so,

what is [the law]?

What is his intention? Is there here an admission by a litigant that the property belongs to that so-and-so, and does he acquire the property through this admission? Or is his intention not to make his sons liable to take an oath, so that they should not rejoice over the inheritance that is about to fall to their portion? And therefore he says that the property is not his but belongs to others?

And the Gemara brings a proof:

Come and hear, for in the case of Isur the proselyte,

a man named Isur, who was a proselyte,

he had twelve thousand zuz,

he had a deposit of twelve thousand zuz

with Rava,

with Rava, and Isur had no heirs.

Rav Mari,

was

his son,

the son of Isur, but he was not his heir, since

his conception was not in sanctity,

for his Jewish mother [who was the daughter of Shmuel and had been taken captive by gentiles] conceived from Isur at a time when Isur was still a gentile,

but his birth was in sanctity,

when he was born, his mother had already converted.

And he was in Rav’s academy,

and Rav Mari was then in the beit-midrash.

And Isur, who was a shakhiv mera, now wished to transfer the deposit to his son Rav Mari [but he was not his heir, since he is not considered related through him, as the Gemara will explain immediately].

And, in contrast, Rava wished that the deposit should remain with him. For if Isur would not succeed in transferring the deposit to Rav Mari, then after his death Rava would acquire it as ownerless property, as with all the property of a convert, which is ownerless.

Rava said,

Rava reasoned in the beit-midrash and said:

“By what means can Rav Mari acquire these coins?”

By what means can Rav Mari now acquire the deposit? And he specified all the possibilities and rejected them.

If by inheritance,

if by inheritance, when Isur dies, then Rav Mari

is not fit for inheritance,

since his conception was not in sanctity, when Isur his father was a gentile, he is not considered his father at all with regard to inheritance. For even though an ordinary convert inherits his gentile father [by Torah law or by rabbinic enactment], nevertheless, this one, who is a completely Jewish Israelite since his mother is Jewish, is not considered related to his gentile father at all, and therefore does not inherit him even by rabbinic enactment.

If by gift,

if Isur transfers the money to his son as a gift of a shakhiv mera, which is effective through speech, even through this he cannot transfer it, because

the Sages made the gift of a shakhiv mera like inheritance.

The Sages gave this acquisition the status of inheritance, since the gift takes effect after death. Therefore, only

wherever there is [the possibility of] inheritance,

wherever there is a possibility of inheritance,

there is [the possibility of] a gift,

then the inheritor can transfer to the recipient of the gift through a gift of a shakhiv mera. But

wherever there is no [possibility of] inheritance,

whoever cannot bequeath,

there is no [possibility of] a gift,

he cannot transfer through a gift of a shakhiv mera. And Isur could not bequeath to Rav Mari, since he had no sons [and Rav Mari was not considered his son], and therefore he also could not transfer it to him through a gift of a shakhiv mera.

If by pulling,

if Isur wishes to transfer to his son through the acquisition of pulling, this too is impossible, since

they are not with him,

the money is not in his possession, and therefore he cannot pull it.

If by barter,

if he gives his son acquisition through barter, this too is impossible, because

currency cannot be acquired through barter.

And here the deposit that was with Rava consisted of money, and an acquisition through barter is not effective for acquiring coins.

If through land,

if he acquires land for his son, and through the land he grants him the deposit by means of an acquisition through land, then

he has no land.

Isur has no land that he can transfer.

If by the presence of all three,

if he transfers to his son through an acquisition in the presence of all three, namely, in the presence of the giver, the recipient, and the depositary, here I, Rava, am the depositary, and if so,

“If Isur sends for me, I will not go!”

If Isur calls me to come to him, I will not go to him, and there is no presence of all three.

Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, challenged him,

he questioned Rava:

“Why?”

Why will you acquire the money? Is there not still a possibility for Isur to transfer the money to Rav Mari:

“Let Isur acknowledge,

let him acknowledge before witnesses,

that these coins belong to Rav Mari!”

that the money belongs to Rav Mari,

“and let him acquire them through odaita,

and let Rav Mari acquire the deposit through an acquisition of odaita”?!

Meanwhile,

in the meantime, while they were discussing this in the beit-midrash, word went out from the beit-midrash concerning the possibility of an admission, and they came and taught Isur how to act,

an odaita emerged from Isur’s house,

an admission emerged, that Isur had acknowledged and thereby transferred the money to his son Rav Mari through an acquisition of odaita.

Rava became angry,

Rava was angry at the members of the beit-midrash who had spread the information, and said:

“Are you teaching people arguments!”

You taught people outside the beit-midrash what they could do and claim, and thus Isur also knew to perform this acquisition,

and

it turned out that

“they cause me loss,”

they caused me loss. And from here the uncertainty is resolved: every shakhiv mera who acknowledges indeed intends to transfer, and his intention is not merely to avoid making his sons liable to take an oath.