Bava Batra 152a (קנב.) — the Talmud in English

It was stated: With regard to a gift of a shekhiv mera in which kinyan is written -

In the preceding sugya it was explained that a gift of all of a shekhiv mera’s property

does not require a kinyan. The amoraim disagreed as to how to interpret his intention if, nevertheless, he was not satisfied with a verbal declaration alone but added a kinyan, whether in a document or a kinyan without a document:

In the school of Rav,

the students of Rav’s beit-midrash,

in the name of Rav, said: He has mounted it upon two courses of acquisition!

His intention was to give the gift two effective powers, as will be explained below.

And Shmuel said: I do not know what to decide concerning it.

I am uncertain whether his intention was to transfer ownership through a verbal declaration or through a kinyan.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

In the school of Rav, in the name of Rav, they said: He has mounted it upon two courses of acquisition.

His intention was to give his gift two effective powers: on the one hand,

it is like the gift of a healthy person,

possessing the force of a gift made by a healthy person, as will be explained,

and it is like the gift of a shekhiv mera,

also possessing the force of a gift made by a shekhiv mera -

It is like the gift of a healthy person -

so that if he recovered, he cannot retract.

Although in every gift of a shekhiv mera he can retract, here he wishes the kinyan to take effect during his lifetime, and therefore he cannot retract.

It is like the gift of a shekhiv mera -

it possesses the force of a gift of a shekhiv mera,

so that if he said, “His loan belongs to so-and-so,” the loan belongs to so-and-so.

He can transfer to another person ownership of a loan receivable, even though through an ordinary kinyan it is impossible to transfer a debt to another person [ as was explained above, 148a].

And Shmuel said: I do not know what to decide concerning it.

For the donor’s intention is unclear:

perhaps he completed the transfer of ownership only through the document,

perhaps the donor wants the kinyan to take effect only after his death, through the acquisition effected by the document or through any other kinyan,

and a document cannot take effect after death.

That is, ordinary methods of acquisition cannot take effect after death, since at that point the donor’s power over the gift expires. Only with regard to a gift of a shekhiv mera was a special enactment made allowing him to transfer ownership after death. Therefore, Shmuel holds that the recipient does not acquire the gift at all, since perhaps the donor intended to transfer ownership through an acquisition applicable to a healthy person, after death.

And they raise a contradiction between Rav and Rav, and between Shmuel and Shmuel.

The Gemara asks: Rav and Shmuel contradict their own statements.

For Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Know that Rabbi Elazar sent to the Diaspora in the name of our teacher,

who is Rav:

A shekhiv mera who said, “Write and give one hundred dinars to so-and-so,” and died—one may neither write nor give it, lest he completed the transfer of ownership only through the document, and a document cannot take effect after death.

It is evident that Rav holds that when there is a kinyan, his intention is for it to take effect after death. Yet in our case Rav holds that his intention is for it to be like the gift of a healthy person with regard to retraction.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One writes and gives it.

For his intention is to strengthen the recipient’s rights, whereas above he said that it is ineffective, lest he intended to transfer ownership after death.

The contradiction between Rav and Rav is difficult; the contradiction between Shmuel and Shmuel is difficult.

The Gemara answers:

The contradiction between Rav and Rav is not difficult.

Here, where they acquired it from him,

our case concerns a situation in which they performed a kinyan during his lifetime, and therefore his intention was certainly to reinforce the gift.

Here,

that other case concerns a situation

where they did not acquire it from him,

but he merely said, “Write and give it”; therefore, it is possible that his intention was for the kinyan to take effect only after death.

The contradiction between Shmuel and Shmuel is not difficult: It is speaking of one who enhances his rights.

When Shmuel said that one writes and gives it, he was speaking of a case in which the donor writes wording that enhances his rights and adds to the gift of a shekhiv mera. In truth, he intends to transfer ownership in accordance with the enactment of the Sages, through a verbal declaration; he adds a kinyan only to demonstrate that he is giving wholeheartedly.

The Gemara continues to challenge Shmuel:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak sat behind Rava, and Rava sat before Rav Naḥman,

Rava sat before Rav Naḥman,

he asked him,

and said to him:

Is it possible that

that is,

Shmuel said, “Perhaps he completed the transfer of ownership only through the document, and a document cannot take effect after death”?