Bava Batra 149a (קמט.) — the Talmud in English

The members of the academy raised a question:

the members of the academy were uncertain

what is the halakha if he says: “May he benefit from them”?

Is this an expression of a gift,

meaning that he is saying that all of it should be a gift,

so that he may benefit from the property because it will become his, meaning that he transfers it to him?

Or perhaps

or should we say,

he is saying: “Let him derive some benefit from them.”

He may benefit from them to a limited extent, but he does not intend that they actually become his; therefore, it is not a gift.

And the same uncertainty applies to the following expressions:

“May he see them”; what is the halakha?

Does he intend to transfer them to him completely, intending that he see them as his own property in every respect, or merely that he be able to see them and no more?

And likewise,

“May he stand on them”; what is the halakha?

Does he stand on them as on his own property, or does he merely have permission to use them, without their being transferred to him?

“May he lean on them”; what is the halakha?

Does he lean on them completely because they are actually his property, or is this merely use?

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

teyku.

The members of the academy raised a question

the members of the academy were uncertain:

What is the halakha if he sold all his property?

The entire enactment that a shakhiv mera can transfer property through speech applies only when he gives it as a gift. But if he sold it for money, he certainly requires an act of acquisition, since this does not resemble an inheritance, and the defining nature of a gift of a shakhiv mera is that it is like an inheritance.

The uncertainty of the Gemara is this: Since he sold all his property, is it certainly his intention that, if he does not die, he will be able to revoke the sale, even though he did not explicitly state this, as this is an obvious presumption? Or is there no clear presumption that this was his intention?

The Gemara resolves the question:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If he recovered, he cannot retract.

He cannot revoke the sale.

And at times,

at other times he said otherwise:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If he recovered, he can retract.

The Gemara explains:

And they do not disagree.

There is no disagreement between the two statements.

This statement, that the coins are still extant,

applies when the money remains before us; he certainly intended that if he recovered from his illness, he would retract the sale and return the money.

That statement, that he paid them toward his debt,

applies when he used the money to pay his debt; this was certainly a complete sale, and he cannot retract.

The members of the academy raised a question,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

A shakhiv mera who acknowledged

that his property belongs to a certain person,

what is the halakha?

What is his intention? Is this an admission by a litigant that the property belongs to that person, so that he acquires the property through this admission? Or is his intention not to make his sons feel secure, so that they will not rejoice over the inheritance that is about to fall to their share? Therefore, he says that the property is not his but belongs to others?

The Gemara brings a proof:

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

a man named Isur, who was a convert,

had twelve thousand dinars,

he had a deposit of twelve thousand dinars

in the possession of Rava,

in Rava’s keeping, and Isur had no heirs.

Rav Mari,

was

his son,

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

his conception was not in sanctity,

as his Jewish mother [who was the daughter of Shmuel and had been taken captive by gentiles] conceived him by Isur while Isur was still a gentile,

but his birth was in sanctity,

as by the time he was born, his mother had already converted.

And he was in the presence of Rav,

and Rav Mari was then in the beit-midrash.

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

By contrast, Rava wanted the deposit to remain with him. For if Isur would not succeed in transferring the deposit to Rav Mari, then after Isur’s death Rava would acquire it as ownerless property, like all the property of a convert who dies without heirs, which is ownerless].

Rava said,

Rava reasoned in the beit-midrash and said:

How can Rav Mari acquire these coins?

By what means can Rav Mari now acquire the deposit? He listed all the possibilities and rejected them.

If through inheritance,

if it would be as an inheritance, when Isur dies, then Rav Mari

is not fit to inherit,

since his conception was not in sanctity, as Isur, his father, was a gentile at the time; he is therefore not considered his son at all with regard to inheritance. For although an ordinary convert inherits his gentile father [by Torah law or by rabbinic law], nevertheless, this person, who is a full-fledged Jew because his mother is Jewish, is not genealogically related to his gentile father at all, and therefore does not inherit him even by rabbinic law.

If through a gift,

if Isur would transfer the money to his son as a gift of a shakhiv mera, which is effective through speech, even this is impossible, because

the Sages endowed a gift of a shakhiv mera with the status of an inheritance.

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

where there is the possibility of inheritance,

where inheritance is possible,

there is the possibility of a gift,

and the deceased can transfer property to the recipient through a gift of a shakhiv mera. But

where there is no possibility of inheritance,

where one cannot bequeath property,

there is no possibility of a gift,

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

If through pulling,

if Isur wanted to transfer the property to his son through the acquisition of pulling, this too would be impossible, since

they are not in his possession,

the money is not located with him, and therefore he cannot pull it.

If through barter,

if he would have his son acquire it through an acquisition of barter, this too is impossible, because

currency cannot be acquired through barter.

The deposit held by Rava consisted of money, and an acquisition of barter is not effective for acquiring coins.

If through land,

if he would transfer land to his son and, by means of the land, transfer the deposit to him through an acquisition incidental to land, then

he has no land.

Isur had no land that he could transfer .

If through a transaction in the presence of all three parties,

if he would transfer it to his son through a transaction in the presence of all three parties—the giver, the recipient, and the depositary—then in this case I, Rava, am the depositary, and therefore,

if he sends for me, I will not go!

If Isur summons me to come to him, I will not go to him, and therefore there will be no transaction in the presence of all three parties.

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

before witnesses

that these coins belong to Rav Mari!

That the money belongs to Rav Mari,

and let him transfer them through odaita,

so that Rav Mari will acquire the deposit through an acquisition of odaita?!

Meanwhile,

in the meantime, while they were discussing this in the beit-midrash, word spread from the beit-midrash about the possibility of an admission, and people came and taught Isur how to proceed,

an odaita emerged from the house of Isur,

a declaration of admission was issued, in which Isur acknowledged the matter and thereby transferred the money to his son Rav Mari through an acquisition of odaita.

Rava became angry,

Rava was upset with the students of the beit-midrash who had spread the report, and said:

You are teaching people arguments!

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

and

it follows that

you are causing me a loss;

they caused me to lose the money. And from here the uncertainty is resolved: Whenever a shakhiv mera makes an admission, he indeed intends to transfer the property, and his intention is not merely to prevent his sons from feeling secure.