Bava Batra 153a (קנג.) — the Talmud in English

They inferred from this:

Rav’s students inferred

that this applies only to another person,

meaning that he cannot retract and transfer the gift to another person.

But for himself, no.

If he recovered from his illness, he can retract, since the entire acquisition was made on account of his impending death.

Rav Ḥisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Khuferi, he explained it.

Rav Huna explained Shmuel’s response: He cannot retract

whether for himself or for others.

In summary: Shmuel stated four laws concerning a gift of a shakhiv mera:

a. A gift of a shakhiv mera accompanied by a formal act of acquisition: the recipient does not acquire it.

b. If he wrote a power-of-attorney clause, the recipient acquires it. But if he recovers, he can retract.

c. If he wrote the document and transferred the gift to the first recipient, he can retract and give it to another.

d. If he wrote the document, transferred the gift, and performed a formal act of acquisition, the first recipient acquires it, and he cannot retract.

There was a certain case in which a formal act of acquisition had been performed with him.

A shakhiv mera who had written a document and transferred a gift to his fellow, and a formal act of acquisition had also been performed with him. Now he wished to retract.

He came before Rav Huna. He said

to him,

“What can I do for you,

what can I do on your behalf,

since you did not effect the acquisition in the manner in which people effect acquisitions?”

You did not effect the acquisition in a gift of a shakhiv mera in the customary manner, in which case you would have been able to retract. Rather, you gave it in a form different from a gift of a shakhiv mera, since here there was writing, transfer, and also a formal act of acquisition.

There was a certain gift,

a gift of a shakhiv mera,

in which it was written: “During life and in death.”

Rav and Shmuel disagreed about how to interpret his intention:

Rav said: It is like a gift of a shakhiv mera.

And if he recovers, he can retract. Since he emphasized “and in death,” his intention was that the recipient acquire it only after his death.

And Shmuel said: It is like a gift given by a healthy person,

and if he recovers, he cannot retract. Since he emphasized “during life,” his intention was to say that the gift should take effect during his lifetime, like a gift given by a healthy person.

The Gemara explains their dispute, despite the fact that both life and death were written in the deed of gift.

Rav said: It is like a gift of a shakhiv mera,

because

since “in death” was written in it, he is saying that it will take effect after death.

His intention was that the gift take effect after his death.

And the fact that “during life” was written

and that “during life” was also written,

is merely a sign that he will live,

meaning that it is merely a sign that he hopes to survive this illness and live.

And Shmuel said: It is like a gift given by a healthy person.

Because

since “during life” was written in it,

his intention was:

“During his lifetime,”

so that the recipient would acquire it already during his lifetime.

And the fact that he wrote “and in death,”

and that he also mentioned his death,

is like one who says: “From now and forever.”

His intention was that the gift should begin during his lifetime and remain in effect forever, including after his death.

The Sages of Nehardea said: And the halakha is

in accordance with Rav.

It has the status of a gift of a shakhiv mera, and he can retract.

Rava said:

Rava added and said:

And if “during his lifetime” was written

and “in death,”

the recipient acquires it.

And he cannot retract, since it has the status of a gift given by a healthy person, which takes effect during his lifetime.

The Gemara assumed that there is no difference between “during his lifetime” and “during life.”

Therefore,

Ameimar said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rava!

Since we ruled in accordance with Rav, that it has the status of a gift of a shakhiv mera.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: It is obvious!

It is obvious that the halakha is not in accordance with Rava,

as the Sages of Nehardea said that the halakha is in accordance with Rav!?

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that we would say that when he wrote

“during his lifetime,” Rav concedes

that the recipient acquires it during his lifetime, as a gift given by a healthy person, because here his intention is that the acquisition begin during his lifetime and continue forever after his death, and this is not similar to “during life and in death,” which is a gift of a shakhiv mera.

He teaches us

Ameimar: There is no difference between the expressions; according to Rav, it is always a gift of a shakhiv mera, and this is the halakha.

There was an incident involving

a certain

shakhiv mera

who came before Rav Naḥman in Nehardea,

and it was written in his deed: “During life and in death.”

He sent him before Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, to Tamei.

Rav Naḥman sent him to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who was not in Nehardea but in Tamei.

He said,

Rav Naḥman explained why he did not answer him but instead sent him to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who was outside Nehardea, in Tamei:

“Here, it is the place of Shmuel,

here in Nehardea, this is Shmuel’s place, and if so,

how can we act in accordance with Rav!?”

It is improper to rule in accordance with Rav in this place.

There was a certain woman who came before Rava,

and it was written in her deed: “During his lifetime and in death,” and she wished to retract.

Rava dealt with her in accordance with his own teaching.

Rava ruled for her in accordance with his position, that this was a gift given by a healthy person and it was impossible to retract.

She kept troubling him,

as she troubled him because he had not issued the true ruling in her case.

Rava said to

Rava

Rav Pappa, son of Rav Ḥanan, his scribe,

who was his scribe:

“Go,

go and

write for her

that she is in the right and can retract,

and write in it

and add:

‘He may hire workers against them or deceive them.’”

This was a sign that everyone would know that the deed was not valid, but was written only to put her off.

She realized what was happening.

She said,

cursing him:

“May his ship sink,”

and she added:

“Are you trying to deceive me?”

And in order to nullify her curse,

they placed one of Rava’s garments in water,

so that they could say that the curse had been fulfilled by this.

And even so,

nevertheless,

he was not saved from drowning,

he was not saved from drowning.

Mishna:

With regard to a gift in which it was not written that the giver was a shakhiv mera,

the wording of a gift of a shakhiv mera was not written in it, and neither was the wording of a gift given by a healthy person.

He

the giver

says: “I was a shakhiv mera”

at the time of the gift, and therefore I can retract the gift,

while they

the recipients of the gift

say: “You were healthy,”

and you cannot retract.

He must

the giver

bring proof that he was a shakhiv mera,

and as long as he does not bring proof, the property is presumed to be in the possession of the recipient,

these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

They disagree with him and maintain:

“The burden of proof rests upon the claimant,”

and since the giver is the one in possession, he can retract as long as there is no proof that he was healthy at that time.

Introduction:

There are two types of presumptions. a. A presumption based on the initial state, which we learn from a house afflicted with tzara’at: If the kohen sees that there is an affliction of the size required to render the house impure, he can render it impure even though he renders the house impure only after the person who removes the afflicted stones has exited the house. He need not be concerned that perhaps the affliction diminished after he exited the house. From here there is proof that we establish the affliction according to its initial presumption, and we judge that the state of affairs did not change from what it had been previously, but remained as it was at the outset.

b. A presumption based on the present state: If there is uncertainty whether he was a shakhiv mera or healthy at the time the deed was written, and now he is healthy, we presume that the present state also applied retroactively, and that he had been healthy the entire time.

Gemara:

There was a certain gift,

a deed of a gift of a shakhiv mera,

in which it was written

that it said:

“When he was ill and lying in his bed.”

He gave the gift when he was ill and lying in bed,

but it did not say

and they did not add the wording customarily written in a deed of a shakhiv mera:

“And from the illness,

from the illness,

I will depart to my eternal home,”

I will die and depart to my eternal home.

This was the wording they would always write, so that it would be known that he had not recovered from his illness before his death. Now we are uncertain whether he had recovered from his illness beforehand, and only afterward became ill again and died.