Ketubot 55b — the Talmud in English

b.

And concerning the tithe-offering of demai

specified in the Mishna in Demai [chapter 4, Mishna 1].

The Gemara is astonished:

And

since

Rav

who disagrees with Rav Natan

does not follow an estimation—is this indeed the basis of their disagreement, that is, of Rav and Rabbi Natan?!

a. The Sages enacted that the gift of a person dangerously ill does not require an act of acquisition, lest his mind become confused; therefore they said that his words are considered as though written and delivered.

b. Although a healthy person cannot transfer to another the loan that he lent, the gift of a person dangerously ill acquires even a loan.

c. The gift of a person dangerously ill acquires only after death.

d. A person dangerously ill who recovered from his illness thereby retracts his gift.

And it was stated: The gift of a person dangerously ill

—which does not require a document or an act of acquisition, and in which it is written, “When he was ill and lying in his bed” [and all the other expressions of a person dangerously ill]—

in which an act of acquisition is written,

that is, it is written in the document that an act of acquisition by means of a cloth was performed in order to transfer it to the recipient of the gift; the amoraim disagreed concerning it:

At Rav’s academy, in the name of Rav, they said

[

in Rav’s academy they would say in Rav’s name]:

He mounted it

the giver

on two steeds [

the giver mounted his gift upon two animals], that is: he gave it two powers, and he explains it as he proceeds.

And Shmuel said: I do not know how to rule concerning it

[I do not know how to judge it]!

And the Gemara explains:

At Rav’s academy, in the name of Rav, they said: He mounted it on two steeds:

It is like the gift of a healthy person, and it is

also

like the gift of a person dangerously ill!

It is like the gift of a healthy person:

with regard to

that if he recovered, he cannot retract it,

and it is not like the gift of a person dangerously ill, who, if he recovered from his illness, can retract it.

And

it is like the gift of a person dangerously ill: that if he said, “The loan that I lent

to another is given

to so-and-so”—

the loan is

acquired by so-and-so

because it is the gift of a person dangerously ill; but on account of the act of acquisition he cannot acquire it, since an act of acquisition by means of a cloth is not effective for transferring a loan to another.

And Shmuel said: I do not know how to rule concerning it:

For

perhaps he did not complete the transfer of it

through the gift of a person dangerously ill, which does not require an act of acquisition or a document,

but only through a document

and an act of acquisition he completed the transfer of it, and it was after death that he completed the transfer of it, as with the rest of the gift of a person dangerously ill; but there is no document

and an act of acquisition that acquire

after death,

and therefore perhaps it does not acquire at all.

Thus, even Rav follows an estimation that he intended to mount the gift upon two powers; and although he did not explicitly state that this was indeed his intention, Rav transfers money on that basis.

It follows that Rav too follows a person’s presumed intention: he presumed that the giver intended to place the gift upon two legal powers, and although he did not explicitly state that this was his intention, Rav transfers the money.