The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Bava Batra, the longest tractate in the Talmud in terms of page count, has been dedicated by our good friend and pioneering Daf Yomi student, Yirud Adam Azra Keshim Yishinu Rehayahu, for the success of his dear children. May they grow up to give him much satisfaction, and may they have wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. With the help of God, may they be blessed at the proper time with appropriate matches, and may he, his wife, and his entire family be blessed and honored by the Lord. Amen, amen.
We begin immediately after the parenthetical discussion. The passage begins: “The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvia wrote her assets to Rav Zutra bar Tuvia,” her son. Why did she give him all her assets while she was still alive? She wanted to get married, and she did not want the assets to go to her new husband if she were to get divorced or die. Therefore, she gave the assets to her son.
Sure enough, she got married and then was divorced. She came before Rabbi Bibi and asked for the assets back. The only reason she had given them to her son was that she was getting married, and now that she was no longer married, she wanted them back.
Rabbi Bibi understood the arrangement as a condition: “If I marry Rav Zutra, I am giving you the money.” Since she married Rav Zutra, she fulfilled the condition. Therefore, once she married him, the gift was a valid gift. She had the money, and she married Rav Zutra; that was sufficient.
Rav Huna bar Rav Yehoshua said to him: “It is because you come from the family of Eli, the priest, that you say such things.” Since the family of Eli was subject to a shortened lifespan, he was telling him that he was making statements that did not make sense.
Remember that we learned yesterday about a case of redirecting assets. What does that mean? It refers to a woman who transfers her assets elsewhere because she wants to get married. Even according to the opinion that holds that when a person redirects her assets in order to marry, the recipient acquires them, that opinion does not apply here.
Even if one holds that the recipient acquires the assets in such a case, that is only when she gives them over without specifying her reason. She gives them because she wants to get married, but she does not state that explicitly. However, everyone agrees that if, at the time of the gift, she clarifies that she is giving the assets only because she wants to get married and does not want them to go to her husband, then, if she is divorced, the assets return to her. Therefore, she can go back to her son and reclaim the gift.
The Gemara brings another story. The mother of Rami bar Chama wrote her assets to Rami bar Chama at night. In the morning, she retracted and wrote all her assets to her other son. The first son went to one rabbi, who told him, “You are the legal owner; the assets are yours.” The second son went to Rabbi Nachman, who told him, “You are the rightful owner of the gift.” Each rabbi supported a different son.
Rav Sheshet came to Rabbi Nachman and asked him why he had awarded the gift to the second son. If his reason was that she had retracted while she was still alive, that seemed difficult. She had been a person on her deathbed, and she had given the assets to the first son. Once a person on her deathbed gives an asset, perhaps the gift should take effect when she dies. According to that reasoning, the assets should go to the first son, because she gave them to him and then died.
But Shmuel taught that in every case involving a gift given by a person on her deathbed, if the person recovers, she can retract. If she gave away all her assets and then recovered, she could take them back. If so, she should also be able to change her mind while she is still on her deathbed. Even though she initially gave the assets to the first son, she should be able to retract and give them to the second son. That was Rabbi Nachman’s reasoning.
Rav Sheshet responded that Shmuel’s ruling may mean that she can retract the gift and take the assets back for herself, but not that she can retract it in order to give the assets to someone else. Rabbi Nachman answered that this was not so. Shmuel holds that she can retract the gift either to take the assets back for herself or to give them to someone else. That was why she was able to give them to the second son.
At the bottom of the page, the Gemara discusses a case in which a person gave a gift while on her deathbed and then recovered. If she did not leave over any land for herself, the gift can be retracted. A gift of all one’s assets is different: when the person becomes healthy, she can take it back. Since she is now healthy and wants the assets back, she can retract the gift.
Why, then, do we say that when she died, the first gift remains in force? The initial gift was made as a gift given by a person on her deathbed, and it came to pass that she died from that illness. Therefore, the first rabbi said that the assets go to the first son. Just as she could retract the gift if she became healthy, she could also retract it while still on her deathbed. That is why Rabbi Nachman gave the assets to the second son.
The Gemara brings a third story. The mother of Rav Amram the Pious had a bundle of documents. Before she died, she said, “Let all these documents go to my son Amram.” Rav Amram’s brothers came to Rabbi Nachman and argued that she had not made a formal acquisition. She had not performed a formal act of acquisition; she had only said it. Nevertheless, Rabbi Nachman ruled that merely saying it was sufficient, as though the assets had been transferred.
There was also the sister of Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana. She wrote her assets to Rav Tovi bar Rav Mattana in the morning. In the afternoon, she began crying. Since he was a Torah scholar, she said to him, “Now my master is counted among the rabbis, while I am not counted among the rabbis.” She was concerned that people would say that she had given the assets to him because he was a Torah scholar and had not given them to her other relatives because they were not. She feared that this would cause people to speak badly about her. Therefore, she changed her mind.
This returns us to the same law. If a healthy person gives everything away, the gift has already taken effect and cannot be retracted. But if she could reclaim it upon recovering from her illness, then she can change her mind while still on her deathbed as well. Her retraction is a valid retraction.
The Gemara tells of a woman who had a field. Whenever she became ill and thought she was going to die, she would transfer the field to Rav Dimi. When she recovered, she would take it back. This happened repeatedly: she would become ill and give Rav Dimi the field, and then she would become healthy and retract the gift.
One time, she became ill again and sent for Rav Dimi, saying, “Come; I want to give you the field.” Rav Dimi replied, “I am not coming. I have had enough of this. You give the field to me and then take it back; you give it to me and then take it back.” He was tired of what seemed to be a repeated false alarm.
She sent for him again and said, “Come and acquire the field wherever you want.” Rav Dimi then had an idea. He went and left a small portion of the field for her. Once she retained a small portion for herself, there was no longer a right of retraction. He then performed the formal act of acquisition with her.
When she recovered again, she wanted to retract and take back the field. She came to Rabbi Nachman and said, “I want my field back.” Rabbi Nachman sent for Rav Dimi and asked him to come to the court.
Rav Dimi replied, “Why should I come? What do I have to come for? She left over a small piece of land for herself. It is a completely clear case; the field is mine.”
Rabbi Nachman sent back to Rav Dimi, “If you do not appear, I will strike you with a thorn that does not cause bleeding.” In other words, he would place him under a ban or otherwise punish him for being in contempt of court.
Rabbi Nachman then questioned the witnesses. “Tell me what happened in the house when she gave the assets to Rav Dimi.” The witnesses replied that before she gave over the gift, she had said explicitly, “I am about to die.”
This introduces a new law. When a person gives a gift because she believes that death is imminent, and she explicitly mentions death at the time of the gift, the gift is treated differently. Even if she retained a portion for herself, the assets return if she recovers. If she says at the time of the gift, “I am going to die,” that indicates that she is giving the assets because she expects to die. If she ultimately dies, the gift remains in force; if she recovers, it returns to her.
Rav Dimi had thought that by arranging for her to retain a small portion, he had prevented retraction. But she had outsmarted him by explicitly saying, “I am going to die.” Ordinarily, when a person simply gives one asset here and another asset there, retaining something for herself can prevent retraction. But when she says at the time of the gift that she is going to die, that creates a different type of gift. It is a gift given because of the expectation of death, and the assets return if she recovers.
The witnesses had been present when she made that statement. Rav Dimi may not have been there at that moment; he arrived afterward. He was prepared to accept a small portion as a safeguard against retraction, but the witnesses established that the gift had been made because she explicitly believed she was dying.
According to the Rashbam, even if they had performed a formal act of acquisition, it would not change the ruling. Since the gift was made because she believed death was imminent, the gift returns if she recovers. In a place where no formal act of acquisition had been performed, it is even clearer that the gift was made only because of the expectation of death.
It was taught: What is the law of a partial gift given by a person on her deathbed, when no formal acquisition was performed? If she retained a small piece of land, is the gift valid? The novelty would be that a partial gift is treated partly like a gift given by a healthy person and partly like a gift given by a person on her deathbed.
It has the status of a gift given by a healthy person, because when a healthy person gives a gift, it is complete once it is given and cannot be retracted. A partial gift given by a person on her deathbed likewise cannot be retracted. But it also has the status of a gift given by a person on her deathbed, because if she dies, no formal act of acquisition is required.
The Gemara challenges this attribution. Rav said to them, “Did I not already tell you not to hang empty jugs on Rav Nachman?” In other words, do not attribute incorrect statements to Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman said the exact opposite: in the case of a person on her deathbed who gives only part of her assets, a formal act of acquisition is required. Without one, the gift does not take effect, even if she dies.
When is it true that a formal act of acquisition is unnecessary? Only when the person gives away all of her assets. But when she gives away only part of them, she must perform a formal act of acquisition. Thus, in a partial gift, two elements are required: the person must be giving the gift while on her deathbed, and there must be a formal acquisition.
According to the Rashbam, if a formal acquisition was performed together with the retention of a portion, then the recipient keeps the gift even if the donor dies. The formal acquisition is necessary in a partial gift. That is the conclusion attributed to Rav Nachman.
The Gemara now challenges this teaching, because it is a significant novelty. It asks about a baraita that says that if a person on her deathbed retains even a small piece of land, the gift remains valid. Does that not imply that the gift takes effect even without a formal acquisition?
The Gemara answers that the baraita may be referring to a case in which a formal acquisition was performed. The proof comes from the latter clause: if the person did not retain even a small piece of land and gave away everything, the gift can be retracted if the person recovers. If the first clause also referred to a case without a formal acquisition, then even when the person gave away everything, the recipient should retain it once a formal acquisition had been performed. Nevertheless, the latter clause says that the gift can still be retracted. This shows that the baraita may be discussing a case in which there was a formal acquisition.
Therefore, the baraita does not disprove Rav Nachman. It can be explained as follows: in a partial gift, a formal acquisition is required; and even when a formal acquisition was performed, if the person gave away all of her assets, the gift can still be retracted if she recovers, because we assume that she gave away everything only because she thought she was going to die.
Rav Mesharsheya raises another question. There was a story involving the mother of the sons of Rochel. She was ill and had a piece of jewelry. She said, “I want this jewelry to go to my daughter.” She stated that the jewelry was worth twelve coins. She then died, and the jewelry was given to the daughter. The jewelry represented only part of her assets, and no formal acquisition had been performed. This seems to show that a partial gift can take effect without a formal acquisition.
The Gemara answers that the case involved a woman who had said, “I am going to die.” Once she explicitly says that she is about to die at the time of the gift, the gift is governed by the rules of a gift made because of imminent death. If she dies, the partial gift remains valid even without a formal acquisition.
The Rashbam explains that the name Rochel is the name of a person. Since the woman said that she was going to die, the gift was made because of her expectation of death. Although it was a partial gift and no formal acquisition was performed, she died, and therefore the gift remained in force. Normally, without a formal acquisition, the gift would not take effect. The novelty here is that when she explicitly mentioned death, the gift remains valid if she dies.
The Gemara then discusses another matter. A man gave a gift to his wife, and another gift to his servant. The giver died before the messenger delivered the gift. In the case of a divorce document, it would not be delivered after the husband’s death, because a messenger cannot acquire it for the woman while the husband is alive; it is a disadvantage to her. But if a person says, “Give a certain amount of money to so-and-so,” and the giver dies, the money is given after his death. The gift took effect during his lifetime because it is a benefit to the recipient.
When the messenger takes possession of money for another person, the recipient acquires it because the transaction is entirely beneficial to him. The messenger is not acquiring a disadvantage on his behalf. Therefore, the money can be delivered after the giver’s death.
What indicates that this case is discussing a situation in which no formal acquisition was performed? The Gemara compares it to a divorce document. Just as, in the case of a divorce document, the husband gives it to a messenger without performing a formal acquisition with the messenger, so too, in the case of the instruction, “Give a certain amount of money to so-and-so,” the money was given to a messenger without a formal acquisition.
If the giver was on his deathbed and said, “Give a certain amount of money to so-and-so,” then, even though it was only a partial gift and no formal acquisition was performed, the recipient receives it if the giver dies. This seems to contradict Rav Nachman, who said that a partial gift from a person on her deathbed requires a formal acquisition.
The Gemara answers that this case involves a person who said, “I am going to die.” A gift given because of imminent death is different. Although it is only a partial gift, the statement takes effect even without a formal acquisition. The Sages were concerned that if they did not honor the words of a person who said that he was dying, he might become distressed and die. Therefore, they treated such a gift seriously.
A gift given because of imminent death does not necessarily mean that the person is physically lying on her deathbed. It can refer to a healthy person who says, “I am dying,” and gives away an asset because she believes that she will die. The concern is that if people do not listen to her words, she may become distressed. Therefore, the Sages applied the law of a person on her deathbed even when she was not actually lying on a deathbed.
Rav Gunav of Jerusalem offers a different explanation. In his view, even when a person on her deathbed mentions death at the time of the gift, a formal acquisition is required if she gives away only part of her assets. The rule is always that a partial gift requires a formal acquisition.
According to this explanation, the earlier cases in which the gift took effect without a formal acquisition were cases in which the person gave away all of her assets. The case of the woman who gave her one piece of jewelry to her daughter was also understood as a case in which the jewelry represented everything she had, rather than a partial gift. If it was only a partial gift, then the absence of a formal acquisition would present a difficulty.
The conclusion is that a partial gift given by a person on her deathbed requires a formal acquisition. Even if the person ultimately dies because of the illness, a formal acquisition is required in a partial gift. However, a gift given because of imminent death is different: if the person says that she is going to die, no formal acquisition is required, provided that she ultimately dies.
If the person recovers, the gift can be retracted. This is true even if a formal acquisition was performed, because the gift still has the status of a gift given by a person on her deathbed. A person who gives away all her assets while on her deathbed can always retract if she recovers. Even if she performed a formal acquisition, the gift returns to her upon recovery.
Thus, the rule is as follows. A partial gift given by a person on her deathbed requires a formal acquisition. A gift given because of imminent death does not require a formal acquisition if the person dies. But if the person recovers, she can retract the gift, even if a formal acquisition was performed. Although she gave away only part of her assets, once she explicitly said that she was giving it because she was going to die, the gift is treated in accordance with the laws of a person on her deathbed.