Bava Batra 153a — the Talmud in English

They reasoned from it,

the students of Rav reasoned

these words apply to another,

who cannot return and transfer it to another.

But to himself, no.

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

Rav Hisda said to them: When Rav Huna came from Kafrei, he explained it.

Rav Huna explained Shmuel’s answer: that he cannot retract

whether for himself or for others.

In summary: Shmuel stated four laws concerning the gift of a dangerously ill person:

a. A gift of a dangerously ill person with an act of acquisition—he does not acquire it.

b. If he wrote an empowering clause, the recipient acquires it. But if he recovered, he can retract.

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

d. If he wrote, transferred it, and effected an acquisition, the first recipient acquired it, and he cannot retract.

That one from whom he had effected an acquisition.

A dangerously ill person who wrote and transferred [property] to his fellow, and they also effected an acquisition from him. And now he wished to retract.

He came before Rav Huna. He said

to him, Rav Huna:

What can I do for you,

what can I do on your behalf,

for you did not effect an acquisition as people effect acquisitions.

You did not effect the acquisition through a gift of a dangerously ill person in the manner in which people customarily effect acquisitions, in which case you would have been able to retract. But you gave it in a manner different from a gift of a dangerously ill person, since there was here writing, transfer, and also an act of acquisition.

That gift,

a gift of a dangerously ill person,

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

Rav and Shmuel disagreed about how to interpret his intention—

Rav said: It is like a gift of a dangerously ill person.

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

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

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

And the Gemara explains their disagreement, even though both life and death were written in the deed of gift.

Rav said: It is like a gift of a dangerously ill person,

because

since “in death” was written in it, he is telling him [that it takes effect] after death.

His intention is that it take effect after death.

And this that “in life” was written

and this that “in life” was also written,

is merely a sign that he lives,

his intention is merely as a sign that he hopes to be saved from this illness of his and live.

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

Because

since “in life” was written in it,

his intention is:

he is saying [that it takes effect] during his lifetime,

that the recipient should acquire it already during his lifetime.

And this that he wrote “and in death,”

and this that he also mentioned his death,

is like one who says: From now and forever.

His intention is that the gift should begin during his lifetime and remain forever, also after his death.

The scholars of Nehardea said: And the halakha—

is in accordance with Rav.

That it is like a gift of a dangerously ill person, and he can retract.

Rava said,

Rava added and said:

And if “during life

and in death” was written in it,

he acquires it.

And he cannot retract, since it is like a gift of a healthy person, which he transferred during his lifetime.

And the Gemara assumed that there is no difference between “during life” and “in life.”

And therefore

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

Since we ruled in accordance with Rav, that it is like a gift of a dangerously ill person.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: It is obvious!

For it is obvious that the halakha is not in accordance with Rava,

for the scholars of Nehardea said that the halakha is in accordance with Rav!?

The Gemara answers:

It might be said

that we would say that when he wrote

“during life,” Rav concedes

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

It teaches us

Ameimar that there is no difference between the expressions, and according to Rav it is always a gift of a dangerously ill person, and so is the halakha.

There was an incident involving

a certain

dangerously ill person

who came before Rav Naḥman in Nehardea,

and “in life and in death” was written in his deed.

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

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

He said,

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

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 not proper in this place to rule in accordance with Rav.

There was an incident involving a certain woman who came before Rava,

and “during life and in death” was written in her deed, and she wished to retract.

Rava acted for her according to his teaching

Rava ruled for her according to his position, that this is a gift of a healthy person and it is impossible to retract.

She was troubling him,

she troubled him because he had not issued a true ruling for her.

He said to him,

Rava

said to Rav Pappa, son of Rav Hanan, his scribe,

who was his scribe:

Go,

go and

write for her

that the law is with her, that she can retract,

and write in it

and add,

“He hires against them or deceives them.”

For this was a sign that everyone would know that the deed was not valid, but was only intended to put her off.

And she sensed the matter.

She said,

she cursed him:

“May his ship sink,”

may his ship sink, and she added and said:

“Do you think to deceive me?”

And in order to nullify her curse,

they immersed Rava’s garment in water,

they put his garment in water, so that the curse would be fulfilled through this.

And even so,

nevertheless,

he was not saved from drowning,

he was not saved from drowning.

Mishna:

A gift in which it was not written that [the giver] was a dangerously ill person,

they did not write in it the language of a gift of a dangerously ill person, and likewise they did not write the language of a gift of a healthy person.

He

the giver

says: “I was a dangerously ill person”

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

and they,

the recipients of the gift,

say: “You were healthy,”

and you cannot retract.

He must

the giver

bring proof that he was a dangerously ill person,

and as long as he does not bring proof, the property is presumed to belong to the recipient,

[these are] the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say,

they disagree with him and hold:

The one who seeks to take property from his fellow bears the burden of proof,

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. An initial-state presumption, which we learn from the house afflicted with a lesion: if the priest sees that there is a lesion of the size that is required to render the house impure, he can render it impure even though he renders the house impure only after the one who rakes [the coals] has exited the house; he need not be concerned that perhaps the lesion became smaller after he exited the house. From here there is proof that we establish the lesion according to an initial-state presumption, and we judge that reality did not change from what it had been previously; rather, it remained as it was at the beginning.

b. A present-state presumption: if there is uncertainty whether he was a dangerously ill person or healthy at the time of the writing of the deed, and now he is healthy, we presume that today’s state also existed retroactively, and that all along he was healthy.

Gemara:

That gift,

a deed of a gift of a dangerously ill person,

in which it was written,

that it was written in it:

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

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

but it did not write in it

and they did not add to write the standard wording in a deed of a dangerously ill person,

“And from the illness,

from within the illness,

I will depart to my eternal home,”

he will depart to his eternal home.

And this was always their customary wording, so that they would know that he had not recovered from his illness before he died. And now we are uncertain whether he had recovered from his illness beforehand, and only afterward became ill and died.