(152a:1)איתמר מתנת שכיב מרע שכתוב בה קנין בי רב משמיה דרב אמרי ארכביה אתרי ריכשי ושמואל אמר לא ידענא מאי אדון בה
(152a:1)§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed. In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav: The person on his deathbed caused the recipient to mount two steeds, i.e., he strengthened the validity of his gift in two different ways. And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift, as it may not be a valid gift.
(152a:2)בי רב משמיה דרב אמרי ארכביה אתרי ריכשי הרי היא כמתנת בריא הרי היא כמתנת שכיב מרע הרי היא כמתנת בריא שאם עמד אינו חוזר הרי הוא כמתנת שכיב מרע שאם אמר הלואתו לפלוני הלואתו לפלוני
(152a:2)The Gemara explains: In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav that he caused him to mount two steeds. On the one hand, it is like the gift of a healthy person, but on the other hand, it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, as, if he recovers he cannot retract the gift, because an act of acquisition was performed. It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as, if he said that the loan owed to him should be given to so-and-so, the loan owed to him is acquired by so-and-so, whereas a healthy person cannot transfer his right to collect a debt except in the presence of all three parties.
(152a:3)ושמואל אמר לא ידענא מאי אדון בה שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה
(152a:3)And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift. Perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that he resolved to transfer it to him only with a deed. The gift of a person on his deathbed takes effect only after he dies, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner.
(152a:4)ורמי דרב אדרב ודשמואל אדשמואל דשלח רבין משמיה דרבי אבהו הוו ידעי ששלח ר' אלעזר לגולה משום רבינו שכיב מרע שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת אין כותבין ונותנין שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכתא כותבין ונותנין
(152a:4)The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav and another statement of Rav, and between this statement of Shmuel and another statement of Shmuel. This is as Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent a ruling to the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, in the name of our teacher, Rav: With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: Write a deed and give with it one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he died before the deed was written, it is not written and given to that person. The reason for this is that perhaps he resolved to transfer the gift to him only with the deed, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that the deed is written and given to the recipient.
(152a:5)קשיא דרב אדרב קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל
(152a:5)The Gemara concludes: The first statement of Rav is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Rav, and the first statement of Shmuel is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Shmuel.
(152a:6)דרב אדרב לא קשיא הא דקנו מיניה הא דלא קנו מיניה דשמואל אדשמואל לא קשיא במיפה את כחו
(152a:6)The Gemara replies: The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rav and the other statement of Rav is not difficult. This statement, that the gift is valid, is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from the person on his deathbed by means of an act of acquisition. That other statement is referring to a case where the gift was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition, but only by verbal instruction, and therefore the deed is not written after his death. The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Shmuel and the other statement of Shmuel is not difficult, as Shmuel’s statement that the deed is written after his death is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by providing him with a deed, and he was not making the gift contingent upon the delivery of a deed.
(152a:7)יתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק אחוריה דרבא ויתיב רבא קמיה דרב נחמן קא בעי מיניה מי אמר שמואל שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה והא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחרים אף על פי שקנו מידו עמד חוזר
(152a:7)Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and Rava asked Rav Naḥman: Did Shmuel actually say that perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that the person on his deathbed resolved to transfer ownership of the gift only with the deed, and therefore the gift is invalid, as a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, even though they performed an act of acquisition, if he recovers he can retract his gift?
(152b:1)בידוע שלא היה קנין אלא מחמת המיתה ואחוי ליה בידיה ואשתיק
(152b:1)The reason for Shmuel’s ruling is that it is known that an act of acquisition was performed only due to his expectation of imminent death. This ruling indicates that if the giver does not recover, the recipient acquires the gift, and the performance of an act of acquisition does not indicate that the giver intended to transfer the property only after his death. Rav Naḥman indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.
(152b:2)כי קם אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא מאי אחוי לך אמר ליה במיפה את כחו
(152b:2)When Rav Naḥman arose from his place, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What did he indicate to you with that gesture? Rava said to him: He indicated that the statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by requiring an act of acquisition to be performed in addition to bestowing the gift.
(152b:3)היכי דמי מיפה את כחו אמר רב חסדא וקנינא מיניה מוסיף על מתנתא דא
(152b:3)The Gemara asks: What is considered an act of acquisition that enhances the legal power of the recipient? Rav Ḥisda said: An act of acquisition is clearly intended only to reinforce the legal power of the recipient when, for example, the following phrase is written in the deed: And we, the witnesses, acquired it from him by means of an act of acquisition in addition to this gift. This indicates that the act of acquisition was not performed in order to effect the actual acquisition.
(152b:4)פשיטא כתב לזה וכתב לזה היינו דכי אתא רב דימי אמר דייתיקי מבטלת דייתיקי כתב וזיכה לזה כתב וזיכה לזה רב אמר ראשון קנה ושמואל אמר שני קנה
(152b:4)§ It is obvious that if a person on his deathbed wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to this individual, and he then wrote a deed granting the same property to that individual, i.e., a second recipient, this is the case discussed by Rav Dimi. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: A later will [dayetikei] nullifies an earlier will. The amora’im disagree with regard to a case where one wrote a deed of transfer and also conferred possession of the property on this individual, and then he wrote a deed of transfer and conferred possession of the same property on that second individual. Rav says: The first recipient acquires the gift, and Shmuel says: The second recipient acquires the gift.
(152b:5)רב אמר ראשון קנה הרי היא כמתנת בריא ושמואל אמר שני קנה הרי היא כמתנת שכיב מרע
(152b:5)The Gemara explains: Rav says that the first recipient acquires the gift. Since an additional act of conferring possession of the property was performed, the gift is considered like the gift of a healthy person, which cannot be retracted. Shmuel says that the second recipient acquires the gift because it is considered like the gift of a person on his deathbed, which can be retracted.
(152b:6)והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא במתנת שכיב מרע שכתוב בה קנין
(152b:6)The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav and Shmuel already disagree about this matter once? With regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed, Rav maintained that the gift cannot be retracted, whereas Shmuel maintained that the acquisition was not effective. Why is it necessary to record another disagreement with regard to the same principle?
(152b:7)צריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רב משום דקנו מיניה אבל בהא דלא קנו מיניה אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר שמואל אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא
(152b:7)The Gemara replies: It is necessary to cite both cases. This is because if it were stated only with regard to that case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that only in that case Rav says that the gift cannot be retracted, because an act of acquisition was performed. But in this case, where an act of acquisition was not performed, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel. And if it was stated only with regard to this case, where he conferred possession of the property on the recipient through a deed alone, one might say that only in this case Shmuel says that he can retract the gift. But in the other case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he cannot retract it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite both cases.
(152b:8)בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא שלחו ליה מבי רב לשמואל ילמדנו רבינו שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחרים וקנו מידו מהו שלח להו אין אחר קנין כלום
(152b:8)In Sura they taught the statements of Rav and Shmuel that way, as stated above. In Pumbedita they taught their statements like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: After the death of Rav, the following question was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting all of his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in reply: After an act of acquisition is performed, nothing can effect a retraction of the gift.
