Bava Batra 151b — the Talmud in English

And when she recovered,

when she recovered from her illness,

she would retract it,

she would retract it, according to the law of the gift of a dangerously ill person of all his property, for if he recovered, he retracts.

Once, you became ill,

once, when she became ill,

she sent to him: Come, acquire!

she sent to Rav Yosef that he should come and acquire.

He sent back: I do not want to!

He replied that he did not want to come, since she had always retracted.

She sent to him: Come and acquire in whatever manner you wish!

Come and acquire in whatever manner you wish.

He went, she retained a portion, and they acquired from her.

He retained for his sister a portion of the property and performed an act of acquisition, so that it would be a gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property,

for when she recovered,

for she was alive, and even if she recovered, she would not retract.

She retracted,

when she recovered from her illness, she again retracted.

She came before Rav Naḥman,

she came before Rav Naḥman in order to annul the gift.

He sent to him: Come!

He sent to Rav Dimi that he should come.

He did not come.

He did not come.

He said: What need have I to come!? She retained a portion, and they acquired from her!

Rav Dimi said: I have no reason to come and litigate, since this was a gift of part of the property, and she cannot retract.

He sent to him

Rav Naḥman:

If you do not come,

if you do not come,

I will strike you with a thorn that does not draw blood,

I will strike you with a painful thorn that does not draw blood! The reference is to excommunication.

Rav Dimi bar Yosef came for judgment before Rav Naḥman.

He said to the witnesses,

Rav Naḥman asked the witnesses:

What was the incident?

How did the act of giving take place?

They said to him: She said as follows!

The witnesses said that she said so:

Woe, this woman is dying!

Woe is me, for I am going to die, and I will not see my brother!

He said to them

Rav Naḥman:

If so, she was

that woman

“one who gives instructions because of impending death,”

since she said that she was giving because of impending death.

And

one who is

“one who gives instructions because of impending death” retracts

even in a gift of part of the property.

And now the Gemara explains the law of a gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property.

It was stated: A gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property,

what law does it have?

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and it requires an act of acquisition.

Once,

the Sages stated before Rava, in the name of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, who said in the name of Rav Naḥman

something different from what Rava had said in his name:

It is like the gift of a healthy person, and it is like the gift of a dangerously ill person.

This gift has both the laws of the gift of a healthy person and the laws of the gift of a dangerously ill person.

And the Gemara explains:

It is like the gift of a healthy person, for if he recovered, he does not retract.

Since he gave only part, his intention is that the gift should take effect during his lifetime, like the gift of a healthy person.

And it is like the gift of a dangerously ill person, for it does not require an act of acquisition.

An act of acquisition is not needed for it, since he is dangerously ill; therefore the Sages instituted that he acquires without an act of acquisition.

Rava said to them

to those Sages:

Did I not say to you,

did I not say to you,

Do not hang empty words upon Rav Naḥman!

Do not attribute words of nonsense to Rav Naḥman! Rather,

this is what Rav Naḥman said: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and it requires an act of acquisition.

It has the law of a completely valid gift of a healthy person, and an act of acquisition is required. The Sages instituted that he can retract only in a gift of all the property, from which it is evident that he is giving because of impending death.

And the Gemara attempts to reject Rav Naḥman’s statement that a gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property requires an act of acquisition.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from what we learned in the Mishna:

If he retained any amount of land, his gift is valid,

and he cannot retract when he recovers from his illness.

And Rava infers: Is it not that he did not acquire from him,

that it is referring to a case without an act of acquisition, even though this is a gift of part of the property!?

Rav Naḥman rejects this:

No. It is that they acquired from him.

The Mishna is speaking of a case with an act of acquisition.

But Rava asked:

If so,

if so,

say the latter clause,

the latter clause will be difficult:

If he did not retain any amount of land, his gift is not valid,

and if he recovered, he can retract.

And if they acquired from him, why is his gift not valid!?

If the Mishna is speaking of a case with an act of acquisition, then even when he gives everything he should not be able to retract, for since he performed an act of acquisition, this is considered like the gift of a healthy person.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

This is what Samuel said: A dangerously ill person who wrote all his property to others, even though they acquired from him,

if

he recovered, he retracts,

like the gift of a dangerously ill person. And the reason is:

It is known that he gave instructions only because of impending death.

We have clear evidence that he gave only on the understanding that he would die; therefore, if he recovered, he retracts, despite the fact that there was an act of acquisition.

Rav Mesharsheya raised an objection to Rava: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was ill, and said, “Let my ‘kavinta’ be given

[a piece of jewelry]

to my daughter, and it was

valued at

twelve maneh, and she died, and the Sages upheld her words

after her death. It follows that they upheld her words and not her act of acquisition, and it is proven that even in a partial gift an act of acquisition is not required.

The Gemara rejects this:

There, it was a gift made because of impending death.

There she emphasized that she was giving because she was going to die, and therefore an act of acquisition was not required. Since this too is included in the institution that the words of a dangerously ill person are like written and delivered documents.

Ravina raised an objection to Rava

from what we learned:

One who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, and this deed of emancipation to my slave,

one who appointed agents to divorce his wife or emancipate his slave,

they may not give them after his death,

they may not give the bill of divorce or the deed of emancipation after his death, because there is no divorce after death. Since after his death she is no longer his wife and the slave is no longer his slave. But if he said:

Give a maneh to so-and-so, and he died, they give it after his death.

And evidently this is without an act of acquisition, as the Gemara explains:

And from where is it established that they did not acquire from him?

From where do we know that there was no act of acquisition?

It is analogous to a bill of divorce,

it is similar to a bill of divorce,

just as a bill of divorce is not subject to acquisition,

just as it is impossible to divorce a woman by transferring ownership of the bill of divorce to her through an act of acquisition; rather, the bill of divorce must be given into the woman’s hand, and only in this manner is she divorced.

So too this one: they did not acquire from him.

So too, regarding the giving of the gift, it is speaking of a case in which there was no act of acquisition.

And it is proven from here that a gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property does not require an act of acquisition.

The Gemara rejects this:

There too, it was a gift made because of impending death.

And therefore even in a partial gift an act of acquisition is not required, since it is evident that he is giving because of impending death.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said,

he disagrees with the explanations stated above, and holds:

A gift made because of impending death in general requires an act of acquisition,

since this was a partial gift, they did not institute that he can transfer ownership through a statement alone.

And when these beraitot were taught,

all the beraitot from which we proved that an act of acquisition is not required are speaking

of one who distributes all his property.

For although he gave so-and-so only a maneh, this was only a portion of all the property that he was distributing and not retaining for himself,

that one

they made into a gift of a dangerously ill person!

In this manner, the Sages gave it the law of a gift of a dangerously ill person, since in the end he is distributing all his property.

And the halakha is,

but as for the halakha, we do not rule in accordance with him; rather:

A gift of a dangerously ill person of part of the property requires an act of acquisition,

and even though he died,

and did not retract.

But if

he gives instructions because of impending death, an act of acquisition is not required,

even though he gave only part of his property,

and that is only if he dies.

But if

he recovered, he retracts!

If he recovered from his illness, he retracts,

and even though they acquired from him,

despite the fact that there was also an act of acquisition, he can retract, since there is an assessment that he gave only on the condition that he would die.