Bava Batra 152b (קנב:) — the Talmud in English

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: If one who is mortally ill wrote all his property to others, even though they acquired it from him,

if

he recovered, he may retract.

Since he gave all his property, this is

clear proof that he gave it only because he expected to die.

But if he did not recover, the recipient acquires it by means of the gift of one who is mortally ill. And we do not say that, since he performed an act of acquisition, perhaps he did not resolve to transfer ownership through that acquisition, and an acquisition cannot take effect after death!?

And he showed him with his hand, and remained silent.

Rav Naḥman gestured to Rava with his hand that he had an answer to his question, but did not explain it.

When he arose,

when Rav Naḥman left,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said,

he asked Rava:

What did he show you!?

To what answer had he gestured with his hand?

He said to him

Rava: He was alluding to the answer of

one who strengthens his legal power,

who wrote in the document wording that strengthens the legal force of the gift.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of “one who strengthens his legal power”?

What wording strengthens the legal force?

Rav Ḥisda said: “And we acquired it from him, in addition to this gift.”

He writes in the document that this acquisition is an addition to the gift; in practice, the primary acquisition is the gift of one who is mortally ill, effected through a statement, while the acquisition serves to reveal that he is giving wholeheartedly. Therefore, there is no deficiency of an acquisition taking effect after death.

And the Gemara says that this is

obvious,

that if one who is mortally ill

wrote this one,

meaning that he transferred ownership to one person through a statement and wrote a document concerning it to clarify and authenticate the gift, but had not yet delivered the document to him, and afterward

wrote this one,

meaning that he also transferred ownership to another and wrote a document for him,

that is what Rav Dimi said when he came,

that this is what Rav Dimi said when he came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia:

A dayyetaqi,

the gift of one who is mortally ill,

nullifies a dayyetaqi,

nullifying the gift of one who is mortally ill that preceded it, and he may retract.

But if he

wrote and transferred it to this one,

meaning that he wrote the document and delivered it to him, and afterward

wrote and transferred it to this one,

concerning this matter they disagree as to whether he may retract:

Rav said: The first one acquires.

And he may not retract.

And Shmuel said: The second one acquires,

and he may retract.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

Rav said that the first one acquires, because it is like the gift of a healthy person,

since delivery of the document itself constitutes the acquisition, and his intention was that the acquisition should take effect immediately; therefore, he cannot nullify the acquisition.

And Shmuel said that the second one acquires, because it is like the gift of one who is mortally ill

and he may retract.

And this does not contradict Shmuel’s ruling that when there is an act of acquisition, perhaps the giver intends that the acquisition take effect only after death, since here there is no complete act of acquisition: he did not write wording indicating a deed of acquisition, but rather a testament of one who is mortally ill, which was written in a document and delivered to the recipient , .

The Gemara asks:

But they already disagreed about this once,

apparently this is the same dispute in which Rav and Shmuel disagreed earlier

concerning a gift of one who is mortally ill in which an act of acquisition is written,

for according to Rav such a gift has the force of the gift of a healthy person, while according to Shmuel it is the gift of one who is mortally ill [and there is no deficiency of an acquisition taking effect after death, as we explained above].

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary.

Both disputes are necessary.

For if it were stated only in this case,

if only the first dispute had been stated, I might have thought that only

in this case Rav says

that the gift has the force of a gift from a healthy person, taking effect during the giver’s lifetime,

because they acquired it from him,

as there was a complete act of acquisition.

But in this case, where they did not acquire it from him,

but in the second dispute, where there was no complete act of acquisition, but only his testament, which he wrote in a document and delivered to the recipient,

say that he agrees with Shmuel,

we might think that he agrees with Shmuel that it is like the gift of one who is mortally ill, from which he may retract. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that here too Rav maintains that it is like the gift of a healthy person.

And if it were stated only in this case,

if only the second dispute had been stated, I might have thought that only

in this case Shmuel says

that he may retract, since there was no complete act of acquisition.

But concerning that case, say that he agrees with Rav,

in the first dispute, where there was an act of acquisition, I might have thought that Shmuel agrees with Rav that it is like the gift of a healthy person. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach that Shmuel maintains that we are concerned that he intends the acquisition to take effect only after death.

In Sura they taught it this way,

this is how they taught in the academy of Sura the dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning one who wrote and transferred the property to this one.

But

in Pumbedita they taught it this way,

in the academy of Pumbedita they taught a different ruling concerning their dispute, without mentioning the dispute above, as follows:

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: They sent word from the academy of Rav

to Shmuel,

the students of Rav sent to Shmuel:

“Let our teacher instruct us: If one who is mortally ill wrote all his property to others and they acquired it from him, what is the ruling?”

May he retract the acquisition? Here they performed an act of acquisition, wrote it in a document, and also delivered the document.

He sent them word: Nothing follows an acquisition.

He answered them that the acquisition cannot be nullified. And even according to Shmuel, who maintains that with the gift of one who is mortally ill accompanied by an acquisition we are concerned that perhaps he intends the acquisition to take effect after death, nevertheless, here, since in addition to the acquisition there were writing and delivery, it is certain that his intention is to give the gift the force of the gift of a healthy person, so that he cannot retract.