Bava Batra 151a (קנא.) — the Talmud in English

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

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

since this person took possession of the land,

when the buyer performed an act of ḥazaka acquisition on the land,

the deed is acquired

the proof that the seller wrote,

wherever it may be,

wherever it is located.

And this

the halakha that the buyer acquires the deed of proof through his taking possession of the land,

is

the halakha

that we learned

in the Mishna:

Property that is not subject to guarantee,

movable property [including deeds of proof]

is acquired along with [

by means of]

property that is subject to guarantee [

land], through the act of acquisition that he performs with regard to the land,

with money, with a deed, or through possession.

And it is evident 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: If one consecrates his property

for the Temple maintenance,

and among it were animals fit for the altar,

to be brought as offerings, then the animals that are

males

shall be

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

The males are sold to one who needs to bring a burnt offering, and the females are sold to one who needs to bring a peace offering, and the proceeds are used for the Temple maintenance.

And it is evident 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: If one consecrates his property, and among it were items fit for the altar—wine, oil, and birds,

their status is as above: the proceeds are used for the Temple maintenance.

And it is evident 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: If one consecrates his property, they assess the value of his phylacteries.

When one consecrates his property, the phylacteries are included in the consecration; and if he wants the phylacteries for himself, he may redeem them with money.

And it is evident that phylacteries are included among property.

They raised a dilemma,

they were uncertain in the beit-midrash:

A Torah scroll—what is the halakha?

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

The sides of the dilemma are:

Since it cannot be sold,

it is not an object that may be sold,

as it is prohibited to sell it, it is not “property”;

it is not included among his property.

Or perhaps,

or should we say,

since it may be sold,

as it is permitted to sell it in order

to study Torah or to marry, it is property.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

The Gemara now returns to the law of a mavrekhat—a woman who transfers her property in order to conceal it from her prospective husband—which was brought above. [

Mnemonic

for several statements concerning a mavrekhat that the Gemara cites:

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

The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tovia wrote her property over to Rav Zutra bar Tovia,

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

she wanted to marry Rav Zevid,

as she wished to marry Rav Zevid but wanted to conceal her property from him.

She married him, and he divorced her.

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

She came before Rav Bibi bar Abaye,

asking him to instruct her son to return her property to her.

He said: It was because of the marriage, and she did marry him.

He ruled that the transfer had been made because she wanted to marry, and since 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 Mulya

the name of a place,

you say “Mulya” statements,

your words have no substance, because

even according to the one who says that a mavrekhat acquires,

the Sages who disagree and maintain that a woman who transfers part of her property cannot retract it and the transfer is fully effective,

this applies only where she did not reveal her intention,

that is, only when her explicit intention was not evident. But

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

Here she made clear that she transferred it only in order to conceal it from her husband,

and she did marry him, and he divorced her.

And once she was divorced, she could annul the transfer.

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

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

Rami bar Ḥama’s mother transferred her property in the evening to her son, Rami bar Ḥama,

as a gift of a dangerously ill person.

But

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

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

After her death,

Rami bar Ḥama came before Rav Sheshet,

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

He established him as possessing the property,

he placed him in possession of the property.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama went before Rav Naḥman,

Rav Ukva went before Rav Naḥman,

he established him as possessing 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 Ḥama as possessing it!?

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

If it is because the gift can be retracted,

if it is because Rav Ukva was the second recipient, indicating that his mother retracted her first transfer to me, she could not retract it,

but she died,

as she died. The entire rule that one may retract a gift of a dangerously ill person consisting of all of one’s property applies only when the ill person recovers from the illness. But here, since she died, she could not retract the gift of a dangerously ill person and give it to someone else.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said:

So said Shmuel: Anyone who, were he to recover, could retract it, may retract his gift!

Anyone who can retract it upon recovering from his illness can retract it even before dying and give it to someone else.

Rav Sheshet asked him:

Perhaps Shmuel said

that specifically

for himself. Who says that he may give it to someone else!?

It is possible that he may retract it only in order to take the property back for himself, since he gave it only on that understanding. But in order to retract the gift from its recipient merely to give the property to another person, perhaps he may not do so!?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

Shmuel said explicitly: Whether for himself or for someone else.

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 them belong to Amram, my son!

She said that she was giving the deeds to her son, and this is effective through a statement alone, in accordance with 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 pull them!

Rav Amram had not performed an act of acquisition through meshikha. Although there is an enactment concerning the words of a dangerously ill person, they thought that deeds were different, since a healthy person requires a significant act of acquisition—both writing and transfer—and therefore the Sages did not enact that the words of a dangerously ill person would be effective with regard to 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 the acquisition of a deed requires writing and delivery; therefore, Amram acquired the deeds.

The sister of Rav Tovi bar Mattana,

Rav Tovi’s sister,

wrote her property over to Rav Tovi bar Mattana, in the morning.

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

In the evening, Rav Aḥadboi bar Rav Mattana came,

in the evening, her brother came before his sister,

wept before her, and said to her,

he wept before her and said:

Now they will say: The Master is a Torah scholar,

now that my brother Rav Tovi will receive the property, they will say that you gave it specifically to him because he alone is a Torah scholar,

whereas the Master,

I, Rav Aḥadboi,

am not a Torah scholar!

She wrote it over to him,

she retracted the first gift and gave the property to him.

Rav Tovi

came

before Rav Naḥman.

He said to him: So said Shmuel: Anyone who, were he to recover, could retract it, may retract his gift.

And therefore she could retract it, and your brother was the one who acquired the property.

The sister of Rav Yosef,

Rav Yosef’s sister

had a piece of an orchard,

had a parcel of land.

Whenever she was ill,

whenever she became ill,

she would transfer it to him.

She would transfer it to him.