Bava Metzia 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

This –

as we say in the beraita, “He may not return it” –

concerns

a

healthy person’s gift.

But this –

our Mishna, which implies that if he said, “Give it,” they give it –

concerns

a

gift of a shekhiv mera.

The Gemara explains the reason: with a gift of a shekhiv mera, when he says, “Give it,” there is no concern at all; whereas with a healthy person’s gift there is a concern, and therefore he may not return it:

The Mishna, which teaches [

implying ]

that if he said: “

Give it,”

they give it,

concerns

a

gift

of a shekhiv mera, who can revoke it, [

he can retract his gift, as this is the law with regard to every gift of a shekhiv mera, that he can retract it ], and therefore they return it—when he says, “Give it”—because

we say [

that we say ]:

What concern is there? Perhaps he originally wrote it for this person, then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and afterward wrote it for someone else and gave it to him; but now he is retracting from that second person to whom he gave it,

however

he is now retracting from that one

second

to whom he gave it

and wants to give it to the first, and therefore he says, “Give it to the first”— [

For what is there to be concerned about? Perhaps he wrote his field to the person named in the found document but did not give it to him, so the gift did not take effect; afterward he wrote that same field to someone else and gave him the document he had written for him. And perhaps now—when he says, “Give it to this first person”—he is retracting his gift to the second person and is saying that it should be given to this person, so that he, rather than the second person, will acquire it ]—

there is no concern here at all, for whichever way you look at it:

If he gave it to the second person as a healthy person’s gift,

the second person

has no

second-person

loss

from returning the document to the first,

since

it is the case

that when two

documents emerge before the court—the

later

one

is the one who acquires it, for the giver has retracted from the earlier one

the giver

earlier—

and

if he likewise gave it to the second person as a gift of a shekhiv mera,

the second person’s

loss is

not involved, for the same reason:

the later one acquires it, since he has retracted from the earlier one. [

Thus there is no concern at all if we return the document to the first person when he says, “Give it.” This is the case of our Mishna!

If he gave the field to the second person as a healthy person’s gift, he will suffer no loss when we return the document of the shekhiv mera’s gift to the first person. For when both documents come before the court—the one that we are now giving to the first person and the one that was given to the second—the court will award it to the second person, since the court will say: The giver retracted from his first gift, and he is entitled to retract from it, since it was a gift of a shekhiv mera. Consequently, they will award it to the second person, as is indeed the law, and the second person will not lose through our returning the document to the first. The same law and reason apply if he gave it to the second person as a gift of a shekhiv mera: the second person will not lose when we return the document to the first, for when both documents come before the court, the court will award it to the second person, since the court will say: He retracted from the gift of a shekhiv mera that he gave to the first ]

therefore it turns out that there is no concern here at all if we return the document to the first person when he says, “Give it”—and this is the case of our Mishna!

When the beraita teaches: “

Even though both of them admit, he may not return it either to this one or to that one,”

it concerns

a document of a

healthy person

that was found,

as

a healthy person

cannot revoke it [

the giver cannot retract from a gift that he gave ], and therefore they do not return the document to the first person, because

we say:

Perhaps he wrote

the field’s owner wrote his field

for this one

the one to whom we are returning it

originally, but

ultimately

reconsidered

the writer

and did not give it to him

the first person the document,

and afterward wrote it

for the field

for someone else and gave it to him,

but

now he is retracting from that

second person

to whom he gave it, and he thinks:

the writer of the documents says: “I

cannot retract by retracting,

and therefore

I will say to them

to the court:

I gave it to this one,

the first person,

and let them return

the court

to him

the first person the

document, so that

the first person

will produce this document and, as its date is earlier, he will acquire it,

rather than the second person, when both of them come before the court with their documents—

Rather, we say—

we, the court—

to this one,

the writer of the document: “

Perhaps you wrote it, but did not give it to him, and you gave it to someone else, and now you are retracting!

Rather:

if

indeed

you did not give it to someone else and you want to give it to this one, write him another document now

dated now,

and give it to him, for if

you are lying and

you gave it to someone else, there is no loss

to that second person to whom you gave it,

as he acquired it first!” [

Perhaps this was what happened: The writer wrote this found document in order to give it to the person named in it, but then reconsidered and did not give him the document, and he did not acquire the field. Instead, the field’s owner wrote another document for someone else and gave him that document, so the second person is the true owner of the field ]; rather—this is why he now admits that he gave it to the first person—because now he is retracting from what he gave to the second person, and he says to himself: “I cannot retract from what I gave to the second person, so I will lie in court and say: I gave the document to the first person. Through this, the first person will acquire the field, because when both of them present healthy persons’ documents in court, the court will award it to the first person, since a healthy person cannot retract from his gift”

And therefore we say to the writer of the document: “Perhaps you indeed wrote it for the first person but did not give it to him, whereas you wrote afterward for another person and gave it to him, and now you want to retract from the second person. Therefore we will not return the document to the first person. But if we suspect that you are making an unfounded claim, and you indeed did not give it to the second person and it is proper that the first person acquire it, go and write him a second document now. In this way we are certain that no one will lose, because if you truly gave it to the second person, then when the two of them produce the documents in their possession, the second person will acquire it, since his document is dated earlier than the document now written in the first person’s name”; and this is the beraita!

Rav Zevid challenges

the resolution of Rabbi Abba bar Memel:

But in both cases it teaches that they are wills [

in both the Mishna and the beraita, we taught “wills” ], implying: a gift of a shekhiv mera!?

Rather, Rav Zevid said

to resolve the contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita:

Both this and that—

the Mishna and the beraita—

concern

a gift of a

shekhiv mera, and there is no difficulty:

This—

our Mishna—

concerns him, that is, when the writer of the document himself says that it should be given, meaning: he is still alive, and any documents later than this one, if there were such documents, belong to the shekhiv mera himself; and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

And that—

the beraita—

concerns his son, when the son of the shekhiv mera, who has meanwhile died, is the one who admits. That is, the shekhiv mera died in the interim, and any documents later than this one, if there were such documents, may have belonged to the son, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

The Mishna—we infer: If he

we infer: if he

says: “

Give it,”

they give it, in his case [

in the case of the writer of the document himself ], meaning: he is still alive and says, “Give it,”

he can revoke it,

since he is still alive, he could have retracted from the gift of a shekhiv mera that he gave, and therefore they return it, because

we say: Alternatively,

this document was signed but not delivered to the first person, and

he gave it—

the father gave the field afterward—

to someone else, there is no loss

to the second person,

for the first and the later one—

those who come before the court—

the later one acquires it,

because

we

say:

He retracted from the first one [

even if the father gave the field after the date of this document [which was written but not delivered to the first person]—as a healthy person’s gift —to someone else, that second person will suffer no loss when the document is given to the first. For when both documents signed by the father come before the court, the second person will prevail in judgment, since the court will say: The shekhiv mera retracted from his first gift, and he can retract from it ]; and since there is no concern that anyone will suffer a loss, they return it, and this is the case of our Mishna!

When the beraita teaches: “

Even though both of them admit, he may not return it either to this one or to that one”—

it concerns his son,

the son of the writer of the document, who meanwhile died, and who said, “Give it”; and therefore they do not return it, because

we say:

Perhaps his father wrote it for this person [

the person named in the document before us ],

but reconsidered

the father

and did not give it to him

to this person, and meanwhile the father died.

And after

he died,

his father, he wrote

the son, who inherited the field, a document

for someone else and gave it to him,

and it belongs to him, since the father did not give the document to the first person, and the son inherited it, so he was entitled to give it to the second person;

but

now

he is retracting

the son

from that

second person, and

he thinks

to himself: “

I cannot retract by retracting,

and therefore

I will say to them

to the court

that my father gave it to this one,

the first person,

and let them give him

the court should give the first person

his document, and let the first person emerge

the first person

from him, this one [

from the second person ],

for

when he comes with the second person before the court,

he will acquire it,

since his document is earlier,

and I will divide

I

with him,

the first person—

Therefore

then

we say to him

the son: “

We will not give this document to this person, for perhaps his father wrote it but did not give it to him, and you gave it to someone else, and now you are retracting! Rather, if you are truly saying that your father gave it to him,”

the first person,

go now and write him another document

with today’s date,

for even if his father did not give it to him and you wrote it for someone else, there is no loss

to that other person,

since

it is the case that

the first and the later [

an earlier-dated document and a later-dated document ],

the first

is the second person, whose document is earlier dated,

acquires it”— [

Perhaps this person’s father wrote the document before us, but then regretted it and did not deliver the document to him, and the recipient did not acquire the field. After the father’s death, the son, who inherited from his father, went and wrote a document concerning the field for someone else and delivered it to him, and it belongs to that person since the father did not give the document to the first person. Perhaps now the son is retracting from what he gave to the second person and says to himself: “I cannot retract, so I will lie to the court and say that my father gave this document to the first person. They will give him the document, and we will go and take the field from the second person, who is its true acquirer, and I will divide the field with the first person” ]—

and therefore we say to the son: “We will not return the document to this person, because we are concerned that perhaps your father wrote it for him but did not deliver it, and afterward you gave the field to someone else, whereas now you are retracting from that gift, and this is why you say that it should be returned to the second person. Therefore we say to you: If what you say is indeed true—that your father gave him the document—then write him another document now. In this way we are certain that no one will suffer a loss, because if your father truly did not give this person the document and you gave the field to someone else, that other person will not lose, for when both documents come before the court, the other person to whom you gave it will acquire it, since his document is dated earlier than the new document; and when there is a first and a second, the first acquires it, since your gifts are gifts of a healthy person”; and this is the beraita!

The Sages taught:

He found a quittance

that a woman had written to her husband: “I have received my ketuba,” and at the time it was found she had not yet been divorced from him:

When the woman admits: he should return it to the husband; when

the woman does not admit: he should return it neither to this one nor to that one.

And we challenge this:

When the woman admits, at least, he should return it to the husband!?

And why do we return it to him!?

But

behold,

let us be concerned: perhaps she wrote

the receipt

to give it in Nisan, but did not give it until

Tishrei, and then went and sold her ketuba for beneficial consideration The woman went and sold her ketuba cheaply

that is, the woman went and sold her marriage settlement cheaply

from Nisan until Tishrei,

and her sale is valid, since she had not yet received her ketuba,

but

if the husband

produces the receipt dated Nisan he will produce the receipt dated Nisan,

he will produce the receipt dated Nissan,

and come to collect from

the purchasers unlawfully,

that is: the husband will retain the land designated for her ketuba—which belongs to a purchaser—unlawfully, since this field belongs to the purchaser!?

Rava

explained:

explained: