Study Bava Batra folio 129A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי לאפוקי מדרבא – מוסיף הוא! אי דמר בר רב אשי – לית הלכתא כמר בר רב אשי! אי לאפוקי מדשמואל ורב ששת ורב פפא – הא איתותבו!
If his statement is said to exclude the statement of Rava that the testimony of members of the third generation concerning members of the first generation is valid, this is difficult, as Rava’s statement is not in conflict with R' Abba’s statement that the testimony of members of the third generation with regard to members of the second generation is valid; it merely adds to it. If it is said to exclude the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi that a grandfather can testify concerning his grandchild, this is also difficult, as it has already been established that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi. If it is said to exclude the rulings of Shmuel and Rav Sheshet and Rav Pappa, that a person who became blind can testify about what he saw beforehand, this too is difficult, as their rulings were refuted based on a baraita.
אלא לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן, ומאתקפתא דמר בר רב אשי.
The Talmud explains: Rather, Mar Zutra’s statement is said to exclude the statement of R' Yoḥanan that one cannot testify that a specific one of his sons is his firstborn, and to exclude the strong objection of Mar bar Rav Ashi to the statement of R' Abba with regard to a case where a debtor admitted to part of a claim and witnesses testified that he repaid the entire debt. Despite Mar bar Rav Ashi’s objection, the halakha is that the debtor is not liable to take an oath.
המחלק נכסיו על פיו, ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד כו׳. היכי דמי מתנה בתחלה, היכי דמי באמצע, היכי דמי בסוף?
§ The Mishnah teaches: With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one other son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as an inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands. The Talmud asks: What are the circumstances where it is phrased as a gift at the beginning? What are the circumstances where it is phrased as a gift in the middle? What are the circumstances where it is phrased as a gift at the end?