Bava Batra 149b (קמט:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: If a shekhiv mera who wrote all his property over to others

retained any land,

then even if he recovered from his illness,

his gift remains valid,

and he cannot retract the gift.

And the Gemara discusses this:

And how much is “any amount”?

What is the measure of “any amount,” such that if he retained it for himself, he can no longer retract his gift even if he recovers?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

If he retained

land sufficient for his livelihood,

so that he could support himself from the produce that grows on the land.

And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said:

If he retained

movable property sufficient for his livelihood.

Even if he retained movable property from whose profits he could support himself, this constitutes a retention, and he cannot retract the gift.

Rabbi Zeira said: How precise are the statements of the elders;

how exact are the words of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, and likewise those of Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said!

For

as for land, what is the reason

that the Mishna states that if he retained land for himself, he cannot retract the gift?

If he recovers,

if he recovers from his illness,

he relies on it;

he will support himself from the land. This demonstrates that he is considering the possibility that he will remain alive, and therefore he is concerned about his livelihood. It follows that he gave the gift irrevocably, even if he recovers.

If so,

with regard to movable property as well,

even if he retained movable property,

if he recovers, he relies on it.

If he recovers, he relies on the movable property to support himself from it. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that although the Mishna specified the retention of land, the same law applies to movable property.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to this,

challenging the words of Rabbi Zeira:

And what precision is there!?

Why did you say that the statements of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba and of Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said are precise and well-founded?!

But

the one who says,

Rav Yirmeya bar Adda, who says that even if he retained

movable property

sufficient for his livelihood, this constitutes a retention, will find his opinion difficult: After all,

we learned, “land”;

the tanna in the Mishna stated specifically that it must be land.

And likewise,

, the one who says,

Rav Yehuda who said that Rav said [and likewise Rav Yirmeya bar Adda], who said that he must retain

enough for his livelihood,

will find his opinion difficult: After all, the retention of

“any amount” is what we learned

in the Mishna. This implies that if he retains merely any amount, that is sufficient to prevent him from retracting the gift; it is not necessary for him to retain enough for his livelihood.

Abaye said to him,

to Rav Yosef:

And whenever the Mishna teaches “land,” does it mean land specifically!?

Does every place in which the Mishna states “land” mean specifically land and not movable property?!

But we learned:

For we learned in a Mishna [below, 150a]:

One who writes

in a document

all his property to his slave,

the Canaanite slave,

the slave becomes a free man.

He intended thereby also to emancipate him and make him a free man, since the slave is included among his property. But if he

retained any land,

if he gave him all his property except for one piece of land,

the slave does not become a free man,

because he did not intend to emancipate him, since slaves are equated with land, and perhaps by retaining the land he intended to retain this slave for himself. Consequently, the slave does not acquire the other property through this document either, because anything a slave acquires belongs to his master.

Rabbi Shimon says,

disagreeing, and says:

He is always a free man;

even if he retained any amount of land, the slave becomes free,

unless he says

something whose meaning is that he is retaining the slave for himself, such as when he says:

“All my property is given to so-and-so, my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it,”

and he did not specify which part of his property he was retaining for himself. Therefore, we assume that since he mentioned an unspecified retention, he certainly intended the slave; he did not state this explicitly, but rather expressed it in a respectful manner toward the slave.