Bava Batra 150b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects:

He said to him: We teach [the Mishna] because it is not a complete severance document.

We explain the Mishna differently: in truth, slaves are like land. But here, the deficiency is because a slave needs to be freed with a document such that he will not remain bound to his master, so that the severance will be complete. And since in this document it is written that the movable property remains the master's, it turns out that the master's right is written in the document, and this is not a complete severance document.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

There are

five

givers of a gift concerning whom a certain halakha was stated, and it applies only

until they write all their property.

For there is a difference whether they give all the property or only part of it.

And these are they: a person dangerously ill, his slave, his wife, and his sons,

and

a woman who conceals her property.

And the Gemara explains the cases:

The first,

a person dangerously ill

For we learned: A person dangerously ill who wrote all his property to others, and retained

for himself

any amount of land,

even if in the end he recovered from his illness,

his gift stands

and he cannot retract. But if he

did not retain any amount of land,

and in the end recovered from his illness,

his gift does not stand,

for there is an assessment from the fact that he gave all his property that he gives only on the assumption that he will die.

The second case,

his slave

For we learned: One who writes all his property to his slave—the slave goes free. But if he retained any amount of land, the slave does not go free,

as was explained above, because there is a deficiency in the severance.

The third case,

his wife

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who writes all his property to his wife,

one who transferred all his property to his wife,

has made her only an administrator,

he did not intend to remove his property from his sons, who inherit him; rather, he wished to honor her, so that she would be administrator over the property. And this is specifically when he gives her all the property. But if he transfers part of it to her, this is a complete acquisition.

The fourth case,

his sons

For we learned: One who writes all his property to his sons, and writes any amount of land to his wife, she loses her ketuba.

By agreeing to accept land, she waived her right to collect the ketuba from his property. But if he did not give his sons everything, but retained land for himself, then since she relies on the land that remained with him in order to collect her ketuba, it is likewise that she relies on all the lands, and she does not waive the lien that she has in them for collecting the ketuba.

The fifth case,

a woman who conceals her property

For the Master said: A woman who conceals her property—

must write all her property.

A widowed woman who wishes to marry, and has property, and does not wish to bring her property to her husband, but rather wishes to conceal her property from her husband so that he will have no rights in it, may transfer it before her marriage to another person; and if she is widowed or divorced, the recipient will be obligated to return the property to her. When do these words apply? When she transferred all her property to him, for then it is self-evident that the entire transfer was only in order to conceal the property from her husband. But if she transferred only part of the property, the recipient acquired it completely, and does not return it to her later.

These are the five cases in which there is a difference between transferring part of the property and transferring all of it.

And Rava adds in the name of Rav Naḥman, and says:

And in all of them,

in all the cases that we learned above,

movable property is considered retention.

Even if one leaves movable property, this is considered a partial gift,

apart from the ketuba,

apart from the fourth case,

for concerning land the Rabbis enacted,

the Rabbis enacted that a woman collects the ketuba from land, but

concerning movable property, the Rabbis did not enact.

It is impossible to collect a ketuba from movable property. Therefore, even if her husband retained movable property, she does not waive the lien of her ketuba upon the lands.

But

Amemar said,

he adds that there is a case in which even by retention of movable property she waives [her lien upon] the lands:

movable property that is written in the ketuba,

if he designated movable property for her and wrote this in the ketuba,

and

also

they are present as they are,

they are before us, then the Rabbis enacted that she can collect from them as from land; therefore it is considered retention.

And the Gemara continues to explain what is included in people's expressions.

One who transferred his property to another and used the expression "my property"—what did he intend to transfer to him?

He said, "My property to so-and-so,"

one who said to so-and-so that he was transferring his property to him—

A slave is called "my property."

A slave is included in the expression "my property," as we learned in the Mishna,

for we learned: One who writes all his property to his slave—the slave goes free.

And it is proved that the slave is included in the transfer of all his property.

Land is called "my property."

His lands, too, are included in the expression "my property," as we learned in the Mishna,

for we learned: Property that has security,

on which people rely, since it is land,

is acquired with money, with a document, and with possession.

These are the modes of acquisition specific to land. And it is proved that the Mishna uses the expression "property" for land.

A garment is called "my property."

Garments are included in the expression "my property," as we learned in the Mishna, for we learned:

And that which does not have security

property

is acquired only by pulling.

And this is a continuation of property that is land, and the expression "property" refers here as well, as though it were written: "And property that does not have security."

And it is proved that movable property is included in the expression "my property."

Coins are called "my property."

Silver coins are included in the expression "my property,"

for we learned: And

property

that does not have security,

that is, movable property,

is acquired together with

through association with

property that has security,

which is land. If he transfers the land to him

with money, with a document, and with possession,

he acquires, through association with the land, the movable property as well.

Like this,

as we found,

for Rav Pappa had twelve thousand zuz

that were deposited, twelve thousand zuz,

in Bei Kuzai,

the name of a place. And he wished for a messenger to bring him the money from the depositary, and therefore he needed to transfer to him the money of the deposit, so that they would agree to give him the money.

He transferred them to him

he transferred the deposit

to Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa,

who was the messenger,

through association with the entrance-space of his house,

through association with the land of the entrance to his house.

When he came,

when he returned,

he went out before him as far as Tavakh.

Rav Pappa went out to meet him as far as a place called Tavakh.

And it is proved that in the language of the Mishna, concerning acquisition through association, which says "property that does not have security," money too is included.

A document is called "my property."

Documents, too, are included in the expression "my property," as we found,

for Rabba bar Yitzḥak said: There are two documents,

there are two types of law concerning documents:

The first: one who

said

to witnesses,

"Acquire this field for so-and-so, and write the document for him,"

that is, perform an act of acquisition of the field for him, and sign a document of proof of the acquisition, so that he will have in his possession a document of proof that the field is his.

If it happened that the witnesses had already acquired the field for him, but had not yet written the document,

he retracts

the giver of the field

with regard to the document, but he does not retract with regard to the field.

He cannot retract from the gift itself, but he can only prevent the writing of the document, because the document may be written only with the consent of the one who assumes the obligation, and as long as it has not been written, the giver can retract his consent to the writing of the document. But from the acquisition of the field by his fellow he cannot retract, since the acquisition has already been performed.

And the second: if he said, "Acquire the field for him"

on the condition that you write the document for him,

by this he made the acquisition dependent upon the writing of the document, and therefore

he retracts both with regard to the document,

from his desire to write a document,

and with regard to the field,

he can retract even from the transfer of the field, since it is dependent upon the writing of the document.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rav Huna: There are three documents: two are—

these that we stated,

the two stated above,

the other

the additional document is

if the seller preceded and wrote the document,

he prepared a bill of sale so that it would be ready in his possession when he wished to sell his field,

as that which we learned: