Bava Batra 152b — the Talmud in English

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A shakhiv mera who wrote all his property to others, even though they acquired it from him,

if

he recovered, he retracts.

Since he gave all his property, it is therefore known that he gave only on account of death.

It is known that he gave only on account of death.

But if he did not recover, the recipient acquired it by means of the gift of a shakhiv mera, and we do not say: Since he performed an act of acquisition, perhaps he did not complete the transfer through the act of acquisition, and there is no acquisition after death!?

And he indicated it to him with his hand, and he was silent.

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

When he arose,

when Rav Naḥman left,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said,

he asked Rava:

What did he indicate to you!?

To which answer did he hint with his hand?

He said to him

Rava: He hinted at the answer of

when he enhances his power,

that he wrote in the document wording that enhances the power.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of “when he enhances his power”?

What is the wording that enhances the power?

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

He writes in the document that this acquisition is an addition to the gift, and in fact the primary acquisition is the gift of a shakhiv mera through speech, while the acquisition comes to reveal his intent that he gives wholeheartedly; therefore, there is no deficiency of an acquisition after death.

And the Gemara says that this is

obvious,

that if a shakhiv mera

wrote to this one,

who transferred it to one person through speech, and wrote a document concerning it to clarify and confirm the gift, but had not yet delivered the document to him, and afterward

wrote to this one,

he also transferred it to another and wrote to him in a document,

this is what Rav Dimi said when he came,

this is what Rav Dimi said when he came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia:

A diyatikhi,

a gift of a shakhiv mera,

invalidates a diyatikhi,

it invalidates the gift of a shakhiv mera that preceded it, and he may retract.

But if he

wrote and transferred it to this one,

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

wrote and transferred it to this one,

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

Rav said: The first acquired.

And he may not retract.

And Shmuel said: The second acquired,

and he may retract.

And the Gemara explains their dispute:

Rav said: The first acquired; it is like a gift of a healthy person,

because the delivery of the document itself is the acquisition, and his intent was that the acquisition should take effect immediately, and he may not annul the acquisition.

And Shmuel said: The second acquired; it is like a gift of a shakhiv mera

that he may retract.

And there is no contradiction from here to Shmuel’s ruling that if there is an acquisition, perhaps he wants it to be acquired after death, since here there is no complete acquisition: He did not write wording of an acquisition document, but rather a command of a shakhiv mera, 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 a shakhiv mera in which an acquisition is written,

for according to Rav, such a gift has the power of a gift of a healthy person, while according to Shmuel it is a gift of a shakhiv mera [and there is no deficiency of an acquisition after death, as we explained above].

And the Gemara answers:

It is necessary.

Both disputes are necessary.

For if it were stated in this one,

if only the first dispute had been stated, I would have thought to say that only

in this one Rav said

that it has the power of a healthy person, so that it takes effect during life,

because they acquired it from him,

for there was a complete acquisition.

But in this one, since they did not acquire it from him,

but in the second dispute, where there was no complete acquisition, but only his command, which he wrote in a document and delivered to him,

say that he agrees with Shmuel,

we would think that he agrees with Shmuel that this is like a gift of a shakhiv mera, from which he may retract. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that here too Rav holds that it is like a gift of a healthy person.

And if it were stated in this one,

if only the second dispute had been stated, I would have thought to say that only

in this one Shmuel said

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

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

in the first dispute, where there was an acquisition, I would have thought that Shmuel agrees with Rav, for it is like a gift of a healthy person; therefore,

it is necessary.

It is necessary to teach that Shmuel holds that we are concerned that he wants to transfer it after death.

In Sura they taught it thus,

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

But

in Pumbedita they taught it thus,

in the academy of Pumbedita they taught a different law concerning their dispute, and the dispute above was not mentioned; and they taught as follows:

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

: “Let our master teach us: A shakhiv mera who wrote all his property to others and they acquired it from him, what is the law?”

The students of Rav sent to Shmuel:

“Let our master teach us: A shakhiv mera who wrote all his property to others and they acquired it from him, what is the law?”

Is it possible to retract from the acquisition? Here they performed an acquisition, also wrote it in a document, and also delivered the document!?

He sent to them: There is nothing after an acquisition.

He answered them that it is impossible to annul the acquisition. And even according to Shmuel, who holds that concerning a gift of a shakhiv mera with an acquisition we are concerned that perhaps he wants to transfer it through an acquisition after death, nevertheless, here, since in addition to the acquisition there were writing and delivery, his intent is certainly to give the gift the status of a gift of a healthy person, from which he cannot retract.