Bava Batra 156b — the Talmud in English

The Sages said to him:

the Sages said to Rabbi Eliezer: There is proof for the enactment concerning one dangerously ill, that he acquires by speech alone, from

the incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel

this was their father's name,

who was ill, and said: Give

the

necklace

a piece of jewelry worn around the neck

to my daughter, and its

its value

was twelve maneh. And she died, and the Sages upheld her words,

the Sages upheld the gift even though it was only through words. And it is demonstrated that there is an enactment for a dangerously ill person who is inclined to die, that he can transfer his property through speech alone, without the need for a kinyan.

He said to them

Rabbi Eliezer replied to the Sages:

the sons of Rokhel—

may their mother bury them!

The sons of Rokhel were wicked, and the Sages wished to penalize them; therefore they said that the gift their mother gave her daughter should take effect through speech alone. But concerning an ordinary dangerously ill person, certainly there is no such enactment,

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer said to the Sages

proof for his position that one dangerously ill must perform a kinyan, and speech is not effective:

an incident involving a man from Maronia

he was called so after his place

who was in Jerusalem,

and he was dangerously ill,

and he had many movable objects, and he asked to give them as a gift. They said to him: There is no remedy for them,

it is impossible to transfer the movable objects to another person as a gift,

until he acquires them together with land,

through a kinyan agav, whereby he acquires land for him and, together with this, the movable objects.

He went and acquired a rocky plot,

rocky land unsuitable for sowing and therefore inexpensive,

near Jerusalem. And he said:

Its northern part is for so-and-so,

he transferred the northern side of the rocky plot to so-and-so

and together with it,

together with the land

one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And its southern part is for so-and-so,

and likewise he transferred the southern part of the land to another person

and together with it

together with the land

one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And the Sages upheld his words.

It is demonstrated from here that even one dangerously ill requires a kinyan.

The Sages said to him

the Sages said: Is it that

there is proof from there!?

But that

man from Maronia was healthy,

and therefore he required a kinyan.

We learned in the Mishna:

He said to them: The sons of Rokhel—may their mother bury them:

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

why

did he curse them,

he cursed the sons of Rokhel?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They were maintainers of thorns in a vineyard,

they left thorns in a vineyard, even though this is animal fodder, and transgressed “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds”; one transgresses this even if he did not actually sow them, but merely maintained them as diverse kinds in the vineyard and did not uproot them.

And Rabbi Eliezer follows his own reasoning,

for he holds that even thorns are considered diverse kinds.

For we learned

we learned in a Mishna in tractate Kilayim [5:8]:

One who maintains thorns in a vineyard—

Rabbi Elazar says: It has become consecrated.

The vineyard is forbidden on account of diverse kinds.

And the Sages say: It has not become consecrated except for something of the sort that people maintain,

the prohibition of diverse kinds applies to something that people ordinarily use and maintain in the vineyard, but thorns have no use, and therefore one does not maintain them but uproots them from the vineyard.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted

one who maintains in a vineyard

saffron—it is suitable,

since saffron is fit for eating, therefore it renders the vineyard forbidden if it grows in it.

But thorns—for what are they suitable!?

Thorns are not fit for anything, so why should they render the vineyard forbidden?

Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer—

for in Arabia they maintain thorns in the fields for their camels.

In Arabia they use thorns as food for camels, and therefore this has importance for rendering [a vineyard] forbidden on account of diverse kinds.

Rabbi Levi said: One acquires through a kinyan from one dangerously ill even on Shabbat.

It is permitted to acquire from him through an act of kinyan, and not only through speech. And it is not necessary [to state this] when he gives all his property, in which case the kinyan has no force, since there is no need for it, because he acquires through mere speech; nevertheless, they permitted performing a kinyan. Rather, even in the case of a partial gift, where he acquires only through a kinyan, nevertheless the Sages permitted it,

and not to be concerned for the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the fact that they required a kinyan was not because of the position of Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees with the enactment concerning one dangerously ill, that he acquires through speech,

but lest his mind become unsettled

if he cannot transfer through a kinyan, since he thinks that without an act of kinyan the gift has no force. Therefore they permitted a kinyan even on Shabbat.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed concerning the enactment regarding one dangerously ill. And this Mishna comes to explain the words of the Sages: when a kinyan is not required.

Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat his words stand.

The entire enactment concerning one dangerously ill, that he acquires even through speech, without a kinyan, applied only to Shabbat,

because he cannot write,

therefore they enacted that he can acquire through utterance.

But not on a weekday,

rather, an act of kinyan is required.

Rabbi Yehoshua says,

he disagrees and holds: If

on Shabbat they said

that he can acquire through utterance,

all the more so on a weekday,

since on a weekday he can transfer through a kinyan, and therefore, “Anything fit for mixing, the mixing does not invalidate it,” and on a weekday he is fit for a kinyan.

Similarly,

we find a similar disagreement between these tannaim:

one may acquire for a minor,

it is possible to transfer something to a minor through another person, by virtue of the principle that one may acquire for a person in his absence,

but one may not acquire for an adult.

For another adult, another person cannot acquire on his behalf, since he can acquire for himself. But for a minor, they enacted acquisition for him, since he cannot acquire for himself,

the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

If

for a minor they said,

they enacted acquisition for him, even though he cannot acquire for himself,

all the more so for an adult,

certainly they enacted it for an adult. And this is analogous to the preceding disagreement.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

The Mishna—whose [opinion] is it!?—

It is Rabbi Yehuda’s.

The explanation of the words of the Sages as brought in the Mishna is the position of Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Meir says

a different formulation of the disagreement between the tannaim:

Rabbi Eliezer says: On a weekday his words stand,

on a weekday there is the enactment that he can transfer through utterance

because he can write,

and they enacted that utterance is like writing. But

not on Shabbat,

for then they did not enact acquisition through utterance.