Bava Batra 149b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: if a dangerously ill person wrote all his property to others, if

he retained any land,

then even if he recovered from his illness,

his gift stands,

and he cannot retract the gift.

And the Gemara discusses:

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 recovered?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav,

he retained

land sufficient for his livelihood,

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

And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said,

he retained

movable property sufficient for his livelihood.

For even if he retained movable property from whose profit he could support himself, it is a retention, and he cannot retract the gift.

Rabbi Zeira said: How precise are the teachings of the elders,

how precise are the words of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, and likewise the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav!

For

land—what is the reason,

what is the reason that the Mishna said that if he retained land for himself, he cannot retract the gift?

For if he stands,

if he recovers from his illness,

he relies upon it

he will support himself from the land; and this shows that he is considering the possibility that he will remain alive, and therefore he is concerned for his livelihood. Thus, he gave the gift absolutely, even if he recovers.

If so,

movable property as well,

even if he retained movable property,

if he stands, he relies upon it.

If he recovers, he relies upon it, that he will be able to support himself from it. Therefore, it stands to reason that although the Mishna stated the retention of land, the same law applies to movable property.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to it,

Rav Yosef questioned the words of Rabbi Zeira:

And what precision is there!?

Why did you say that the words of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba and the words of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav are precise and exact!?

But

the one who says,

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

movable property

sufficient for his livelihood, it is a retention, will have difficulty according to his words. For

we learned land,

the tanna in the Mishna said specifically land.

And likewise,

, the one who says,

Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav [and likewise Rav Yirmeya bar Abba], who said that he must retain

sufficient for his livelihood,

will have difficulty according to his words. For

we learned “any amount”

in the Mishna, implying that if he retains only any amount, that is sufficient to nullify the possibility of retracting the gift, and there is no need for a retention sufficient for his livelihood.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

And wherever it teaches “land,” is it specifically land!?

Is it so that in every place where the Mishna says “land,” the intention is 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,

he goes out free.

He intended also to free him through that deed of gift and to make him free, 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,

he does not go out free,

because he did not intend to free him, since slaves were equated with land; and perhaps, by retaining the land, he intended to retain this slave for himself. And consequently, the slave did not acquire even the property through this document, because everything that a slave acquires belongs to his master.

Rabbi Shimon says

he disagrees and says:

He is always free,

even if he retained any amount of land, the slave goes out to freedom,

until he says

wording 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,”

but he did not finish specifying which part of his property he was retaining for himself. Therefore, we assume that since he stated an unspecified retention, his intention was certainly the slave; but he did not say this explicitly, rather, in a manner of honor toward the slave.