Study Bava Batra folio 152B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בידוע שלא היה קנין אלא מחמת המיתה. ואחוי ליה בידיה, ואשתיק.
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.
כי קם, אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא: מאי אחוי לך? אמר ליה: במיפה את כחו.
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.
היכי דמי מיפה את כחו? אמר רב חסדא: ״וקנינא מיניה מוסיף על מתנתא דא״.
The Talmud 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.
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.
§ 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.