Bava Metzia 19b — the Talmud in English

This—

as we say in the beraita: “He should not return it”—

concerns

a gift

from a healthy person.

But this—

our Mishna, from which it is implied: if he said, “Give,” they give—

concerns

a gift

from a dangerously ill person.

And the Gemara explains the reason: with a gift from a dangerously ill person there is nothing to be concerned about when he says, “Give,” whereas with a gift from a healthy person there is reason for concern, and therefore he should not return it:

The Mishna, which teaches

as is implied]:

“If he said:

‘Give,’

they give,”

is dealing

with

a gift

from a dangerously ill person, who can retract,

he can retract his gift, for such is the law with every gift from a dangerously ill person, that he can retract it], and therefore they return it—when he says, “Give”—because

we say

that we say]:

“What is there to say? Perhaps he initially wrote it for this person, then changed his mind and did not give it to him, and afterward wrote it for another person and gave it to him, but

nevertheless

now he is retracting from that

second person

to whom he gave it,

and he wants to give it to the first, and therefore he says, ‘Give it to the first’”—

[for what reason need you be concerned: perhaps he wrote his field for the person named in the found document, but did not give it to him, and the gift did not take effect; afterward he wrote that same field for another person and gave him the document that he wrote for him, and perhaps now—when he says, “Give it to this first person”—he is retracting his gift to the second person and says to give it to this one, so that he will acquire it and not the second person]—

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

If he gave it to

the second person

as a gift from a healthy person,

the second person

has no loss

through returning the document to the first person,

for

if

two documents emerge

before the court—after all,

the latter

is the one who

acquired it, for the giver retracted

from

the earlier one—

and

if he likewise gave it to him as a gift from a dangerously ill person,

the second person,

there is no loss in it

for the second person, and for the same reason:

the latter acquired it, for he 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 gift from a healthy person, he will have no loss through our returning the document of the gift from a dangerously ill person to the first person, for when the two documents come before the court—the one that we now give to the first person and the one that was given to the second person—the court will award it to the second person, because the court will say: he retracted from his first gift, and he can retract from it, since it is a gift from a dangerously ill person, from which the giver retracts; and because of this they will award it to the second person, as is indeed the law, and the second person will not suffer loss through our returning the document to the first person]—

and the same law and the same reason apply if he gave it to the second person as a gift from a dangerously ill person: the second person will not suffer loss through our returning the document to the first person, for when the two documents come to court, the court will award it to the second person, because the court will say: he retracted from the gift from a dangerously ill person that he gave to the first person], it follows that there is no concern here at all if we return the document to the first person when he says, “Give,” and this is our Mishna!

When it teaches in the beraita: “

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

it concerns

a document of a

healthy person

that was found,

for

a healthy person

is not one who can retract

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 it

the field owner wrote his field

for this one—

for the one to whom we are returning it—

initially, but

in the end

he changed his mind,

the writer

and did not give it to him,

to the first person,

and afterward he wrote it

for the field

for another person 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: “I

cannot retract by retracting,”

and therefore

I shall say to them

to the court:

“I gave it to this one,”

the first person,

and let them return

the court

it to him,

to the first person,

so that the first person produces

the first person

this document, which is earlier, and he himself acquired it first,

and not 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 another person, and you are retracting! Rather, if

indeed

you

indeed

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

at the present time,

and give it to him, for if

you are speaking falsely, and

you gave it to another person, there is no loss in it

for that second person to whom you gave it,

for he acquired it first”!

[Perhaps this is what happened: the writer wrote this found document in order to give it to the person named in it, but the writer changed his mind and did not give him the document and he did not acquire the field; rather, the field owner wrote another document for another person and gave him the document, so that 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 shall lie in court and say: I gave the document to the first person; through this the first person will acquire the field, for when both of them present documents of a gift from a healthy person in court, the court will award it to the first person, since one cannot retract from a gift from a healthy person” \-

And for this reason we say to the writer of the document: “Perhaps you indeed wrote it for the first person and did not give it to him, whereas afterward you wrote it for another person and gave it to him, and you want to retract from the second person; therefore we will not return the document to the first person. But if we suspect you of acting improperly, and you indeed did not give it to the second person, and you properly want the first person to acquire it, go and write him a second document now. In this manner we are certain that no person will suffer loss, for if you truly gave it to the second person, when both of them produce the documents in their possession, the second person will acquire it, since his date is earlier than the document now written in the first person’s name”; and this is the beraita!

The Sages taught: Rav Zevid challenged

the resolution of Rabbi Abba bar Memel:

But both this and that are taught as daytaot

after all, both in the Mishna and in the beraita we taught “daytaot,” which implies: a gift from a dangerously ill person]!?

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

from a dangerously ill person, and it is not difficult:

This—

our Mishna—

concerns him, meaning: when the writer of the document himself says that it should be given; that is, he is still alive, and documents later than this document, if there were such documents, belonged to the dangerously ill person himself; and it explains and proceeds.

And this—

the beraita—

concerns his son, when the son of the dangerously ill person, who had meanwhile died, is the one who admits; that is, the dangerously ill person meanwhile died, and documents later than this document, if there were such documents, may have belonged to the son, as it explains and proceeds.

The Mishna—

we infer: if he

says:

“Give,”

they give, in his case

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

he is one who can retract,

since he is still alive, he could retract from the gift from a dangerously ill person that he gave; 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 another person, there is no loss in it

for the second person,

for the first and the latter—

who come before the court—after all,

the latter acquires it, because

we

say:

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 gift from a healthy person , to another person, that second person will have no loss through the document being given to the first person, for when the two documents signed by the father come before the court, the second person will prevail in court, since the court will say: the dangerously ill person retracted from his first gift, and he can retract from it]; and since there is no concern that anyone will suffer loss, they return it, and this is our Mishna!

When it teaches in the beraita: “

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

it concerns his son,

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

we say:

Perhaps his father wrote it for this one [

for the one named in the document before us],

and the father changed his mind

the father

and did not give it to him,

to this one, and meanwhile the father died,

and after

he died

his father, he wrote it

the son—who inherits the field—a document

for another person 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, and he had the right to give it to the second person,

but

nevertheless

now he is retracting

the son

from that

second person, and

he thinks

to himself:

“I cannot retract by retracting,”

and therefore:

“I shall say to them”

to the court

“My father gave it to this one,”

the first person,

and let them give him

the court to the first person

his document, and let the first person emerge

the first person

from this one [

from the second person]

for

when he comes with the second person before the court, after all,

he acquires it,

for his document is earlier,

and I shall divide

I

with him,

the first person—

Therefore

we

say to him

the son:

“We will not give this document to this one, for perhaps his father wrote it, but did not give it to him, and you gave it to another person, and you are retracting! Rather, if what you say is true, that your father gave it to the first person,

to 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 another person, there is no loss in it

for that other person,

for

after all,

the first and the latter [

an earlier document and a later document]

the first

is the second person whose document’s date is earlier—

acquires it”—

[Perhaps his father wrote the document before us, but changed his mind and did not deliver it to him, and the recipient did not acquire the field; after the father’s death, the son who inherited his father went and wrote a document for the field for another person and delivered it to him, and it belongs to him since the father did not give the document to the first person; and perhaps now the son is retracting from what he gave to the second person, and he says to himself: “I cannot retract, so I shall 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 the 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 one, because we are concerned that perhaps your father wrote it for him but did not deliver it, and afterward you gave the field to another person, whereas now you are retracting, and therefore you say that it should be returned to the second person. Therefore we say to you: if it is indeed true as you say, that your father gave him the document, then write him another document now. In this manner we are certain that no person will suffer loss, for if your father truly did not give this person the document and you gave the field to another person, that other person will not suffer loss, since when the two documents come before the court, the other person to whom you gave it will acquire it, because his date is earlier than the new document; and when there is an earlier and a later one, the earlier one acquires it, since your gifts are gifts from a healthy person”—and this is the beraita!

The Sages taught:

He found a receipt

that a woman wrote 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 it: he shall return it to the husband; but

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

And we raise an objection:

When the woman admits it, at any rate, he shall return it to the husband!?

And why do they return it to him!?

But

behold,

let us be concerned: perhaps she wrote

the receipt

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

Tishrei, and she went and sold her ketuba for beneficial consideration

the woman went and sold her ketuba cheaply

from Nisan until Tishrei,

and her sale is a valid sale, for she had still not received her ketuba,

but

if the husband

produces the receipt that was written in Nisan

he produces the receipt whose date is in Nisan,

and comes to seize

the purchasers’ property unlawfully,

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

Rava said:

he answered:

Rava:

explained: