Bava Batra 151a — the Talmud in English

They write a deed for the seller, even though the buyer is not with him.

For the witnesses can write a deed for the seller without the buyer’s presence, since there is no concern here,

since this one has taken possession of the land,

when the buyer performed an act of acquisition through possession of the land,

the deed is acquired

the proof that the seller wrote,

wherever it may be,

wherever it is found.

And this,

the halakha that the buyer acquires the deed of proof along with the buyer’s taking possession of the land,

is

the halakha

that we learned

in the Mishna:

Movable property,

movable items [including deeds of proof],

are acquired together with

[along with]

land

[lands], through the act of acquisition that he performs with the land,

with money, with a deed, and through possession.

And it is proven from here that even a deed is included among property.

Is an animal called property?

An animal is included in the expression “property,” as we learned in the Mishna,

as we learned: One who consecrates his property

for the repair of the Temple,

and there were among them animals fit for the altar,

to be an offering—those animals that are

males

shall be

burnt-offerings. And females shall be sold for the needs of peace-offerings.

The males shall be sold to one who needs to bring a burnt-offering, and the females shall be sold to one who needs to bring a peace-offering, and the money shall be for the repair of the Temple.

And it is proven that animals are included among property.

Are birds called property?

Birds are included in the expression “property,” as we learned in the Mishna,

as we learned: One who consecrates his property, and there were among them things fit for the altar—wines, oils, and birds,

their law is as above, that the money is given for the repair of the Temple.

And it is proven that birds are included among property.

Are phylacteries called property?

Phylacteries are included in the expression “property,” as we learned in the Mishna,

as we learned: One who consecrates his property, they appraise phylacteries for him.

One who consecrates his property—the phylacteries are included in the consecration, and if he wants the phylacteries for himself, he can redeem them with money.

And it is proven that phylacteries are included among property.

They raised a dilemma,

they were uncertain in the beit-midrash:

A Torah scroll—what is [the law]?

Is a Torah scroll included in the expression “my property”?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

since it is not sold,

it is not an item that is sold,

for it is forbidden to sell it, it is not “property,”

it is not included in his property.

Or perhaps,

or should it be said,

since it is sold,

since it is permitted to sell it in order

to study Torah and to marry a woman, it is property.

And we conclude:

teyku.

And the Gemara now returns to the law of the mavrakhat woman that was brought above. [

Mnemonic

for several statements concerning the mavrakhat woman, which the Gemara brings:

Zutra, the mother of Amram, from two sisters, Rav Tovi, Rav Dimi, and Rav Yosef]

The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvia wrote her property to Rav Zutra bar Tuvia,

she transferred her property to Rav Zutra, her son, since

she wanted to marry Rav Zevid,

for she wanted to marry Rav Zevid, but she wanted to conceal her property from him.

She married, and he divorced her.

She married Rav Zevid, and he divorced her, and now she wanted to receive her property back from her son.

She came before Rav Bibi bar Abaye,

she came before him to ask him to instruct her son to return her property to her.

He said: It was because of marriage, and she has married.

He ruled that the transfer was made because she wanted to marry, and once she married, the transfer had taken effect, and she could not retract it.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: Because you come from Mulai

a place,

you say “Mulaita” words,

there is no substance to your words, because

even according to the one who says that the mavrakhat woman acquires,

the Sages who disagree and hold that a woman who transfers part of her property cannot retract, and it is a complete transfer,

this applies where she did not reveal her intention,

this is only if there was no explicit revelation of intent. But

here, she revealed her intention that it was because of marriage.

Here she revealed her intention that she was selling to him only in order to conceal it from her husband,

and she married, and he divorced her.

And once she was divorced, she can cancel the sale.

And the Gemara returns to explain the laws of a gift of a dangerously ill person.

The mother of Rami bar Hama, in the evening, wrote her property to Rami bar Hama,

the mother of Rami bar Hama transferred her property in the evening to her son, Rami bar Hama,

as a gift of a dangerously ill person.

But

in the morning, she wrote it to Rav Ukva bar Hama.

On the following morning, she transferred the property to her son, Rav Ukva, Rami bar Hama’s brother.

After her death,

Rami bar Hama came before Rav Sheshet,

so that he would rule that the gift belonged to him.

He established him in possession of the property,

he placed him in possession of the property.

Rav Ukva bar Hama went before Rav Naḥman,

Rav Ukva went before Rav Naḥman,

he established him in possession of the property

and placed him in possession of the property.

Rav Sheshet came before Rav Naḥman and said to him,

and asked him:

Why did the Master establish Rav Ukva bar Hama in possession!?

Why did you place Rav Ukva in possession of the property?

If it is because she retracted,

if it is because Rav Ukva was second, and it turns out that my mother retracted her first transfer to me, she cannot retract,

but she died,

for she died. And the entire law that it is possible to retract a gift of a dangerously ill person in its entirety applies only when the ill person recovered from his illness. But here, since she died, it was impossible for her to retract the gift of a dangerously ill person and give it to another.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Thus said Shmuel: Anyone who, if he recovered, could retract, can retract his gift!

Anyone who can retract when he recovers from his illness can also retract before he dies and give it to another.

Rav Sheshet asked him:

Perhaps Shmuel said,

perhaps Shmuel said specifically

for himself. For another, who said [this]!?

It may be that he can retract only in order to return and take the property for himself, since he gave it only with this intention. But to retract the gift from the recipient only in order to give the property to another person—perhaps he cannot!?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Shmuel said explicitly: whether for himself or for another.

The mother of Rav Amram the pious had a bundle of deeds,

Rav Amram’s mother had a bundle of deeds.

When she was dying

before her death,

she said: Let it be for Amram, my son!

She said that she was giving the deeds to her son, and this is effective through speech alone, according to the law of a gift of a dangerously ill person. After her death,

his brothers came

Rav Amram’s brothers came

before Rav Naḥman,

and

said to him: But he did not draw it!

After all, there was no act of acquisition through drawing by Rav Amram. And although there is an enactment concerning the words of a dangerously ill person, they held that the law is different with deeds, since a healthy person requires a major act of acquisition, both writing and delivery, and therefore they did not enact that the words of a dangerously ill person would be effective with them.

He said to them,

Rav Naḥman replied to them:

The words of a dangerously ill person are considered as though written and delivered!

The enactment concerning the words of a dangerously ill person is effective even where a deed requires writing and delivery, and therefore Amram acquired the deeds.

The sister of Rav Tuvia bar Matana,

Rav Tuvia’s sister,

wrote her property to Rav Tuvia bar Matana, in the morning.

She transferred her property to her brother, Rav Tuvia, in the morning.

Toward evening, Rav Aḥadvoi bar Rav Matana came,

in the evening her brother came before his sister,

he wept before her and said to her,

he wept before her and said:

Now they will say, “The Master is a Torah scholar,”

now, when my brother Rav Tuvia receives the property, they will say that you gave it specifically to him because only he is a Torah scholar,

while the Master,

I, Rav Aḥadvoi,

am not a Torah scholar!

She wrote it to him,

she retracted the first gift and gave it to him.

He came

Rav Tuvia

before Rav Naḥman.

He said to him: Thus said Shmuel: Anyone who, if he recovered, could retract, can retract his gift.

And therefore she can retract, and your brother is the one who acquired the property.

Rav Yosef’s sister,

Rav Yosef’s sister

had a section of an orchard,

there was a piece [a parcel] of land.

Whenever she was ill,

every time she became ill,

she would transfer it to him.

She would transfer it to him.