## Bava Batra Daf 129a

###### Bava Batra 129a:1
[Bava Batra 129a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:1)

אִי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרָבָא – מוֹסִיף הוּא! אִי דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי – לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי! אִי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְרַב פָּפָּא – הָא אִיתּוֹתְבוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Rabbi 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*.


###### Bava Batra 129a:2
[Bava Batra 129a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:2)

אֶלָּא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמֵאַתְקָפְתָּא דְּמָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** Mar Zutra’s statement is said **to exclude** the statement **of Rabbi 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 Rabbi 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.


###### Bava Batra 129a:3
[Bava Batra 129a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:3)

הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו, רִיבָּה לְאֶחָד וּמִיעֵט לְאֶחָד כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מַתָּנָה בַּתְּחִלָּה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בָּאֶמְצַע, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בַּסּוֹף?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna 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 Gemara 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?**


###### Bava Batra 129a:4
[Bava Batra 129a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:4)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית לִפְלוֹנִי, וְיִירָשֶׁהָ״ – זוֹ הִיא מַתָּנָה בַּתְּחִלָּה. ״וְיִירָשֶׁהָ וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ״ – זוֹ הִיא מַתָּנָה בַּסּוֹף. ״יִירָשֶׁהָ וְתִנָּתֵן לוֹ וְיִירָשֶׁהָ״ – זוֹ הִיא מַתָּנָה בָּאֶמְצַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that where one on his deathbed instructed: **Such and such a field will be given to so-and-so and he will inherit it, this is** a case where it is phrased as **a gift at the beginning.** Where he instructed: **And he will inherit it and it will be given to him, this is** a case where it is phrased as **a gift at the end.** Where he instructed: **He will inherit it and it will be given to him and he will inherit it, this is** a case where it is phrased as **a gift in the middle.**


###### Bava Batra 129a:5
[Bava Batra 129a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:5)

וְדַוְקָא בְּאָדָם אֶחָד וְשָׂדֶה אַחַת; אֲבָל בְּאָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, שָׂדֶה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *halakha* that his statement is valid pertains **specifically** to a case where the two terms, giving and inheritance, are employed **with regard to one person and one field. But** if they are employed **with regard to one person and two fields,** e.g., if he says: Reuven will inherit this field and will be given that field, or **one field and two people,** e.g., Reuven will inherit half of this field and Shimon will be given the other half, the part that was phrased as inheritance does **not** take effect. Only the part that is phrased as a gift takes effect.


###### Bava Batra 129a:6
[Bava Batra 129a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:6)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, שָׂדֶה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם; אֲבָל בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says: Even** in a case where the two terms are employed with regard to **one person and two fields,** or **one field and two people,** his instruction takes effect, as both terms were employed with regard to the same person or the same field. **But with regard to two fields and two people,** it does **not** take effect, as the two instructions are not connected to one another.


###### Bava Batra 129a:7
[Bava Batra 129a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:7)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: ״תִּנָּתֵן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית לִפְלוֹנִי, וְיִירַשׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית״ – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: קָנָה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that if one on his deathbed said: **Such and such a field will be given to so-and-so, and so-and-so,** i.e., another person, **will inherit such and such a field,** i.e., another field, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that even the latter person, who was designated to inherit his field, has **acquired** it. **Rabbi Elazar says:** He has **not acquired** it.


###### Bava Batra 129a:8
[Bava Batra 129a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבִין: אַנְחֵתְתְּ לַן חֲדָא, וְאַתְקֵפְתְּ לַן חֲדָא! בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּאָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, כָּאן בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Ravin: You have lightened our** burden with **one** statement that you cited, **but you have made it difficult for us** with the other **one. Granted,** the contradiction **between** this statement **of Rabbi Elazar** that you cited and the previously cited statement **of Rabbi Elazar** is **not difficult. There,** in the previously cited statement, Rabbi Elazar said that the directive takes effect **with regard to** a case of **one person and two fields,** and **here** he said that the directive does not take effect **with regard to** a case of **two people and two fields.**


###### Bava Batra 129a:9
[Bava Batra 129a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:9)

אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** the apparent contradiction **between** one statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** and the other statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan** is **difficult,** as Rav Dimi cited in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s name that his directive takes effect only in a case of one person and one field, and according to your citation in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan it takes effect even in a case of two people and two fields.


###### Bava Batra 129a:10
[Bava Batra 129a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:10)

אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravin answered him: Rav Dimi and I **are *amora’im*, and** we each have a different tradition **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.**


###### Bava Batra 129a:11
[Bava Batra 129a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:11)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר, לֹא קָנָה עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי יִירְשׁוּ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית וּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁנְּתַתִּים לָהֶם בְּמַתָּנָה, וְיִירָשׁוּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravin continued: **And Reish Lakish says** that one has **not acquired** the field in the case of two people and two fields **unless** the giver **says: So-and-so and so-and-so will inherit such and such a field and such and such** a field **that I have given them as a gift, and they will inherit it.**


###### Bava Batra 129a:12
[Bava Batra 129a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:12)

בִּפְלוּגְתָּא – אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא אָדָם אֶחָד וְשָׂדֶה אַחַת; אֲבָל אָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, שָׂדֶה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – לֹא. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, שָׂדֶה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם; אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם – לֹא. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This dispute between the *amora’im* of Eretz Yisrael is also the subject **of a dispute** between the *amora’im* of Babylonia. **Rav Hamnuna says:** The mishna **taught** that when both giving and inheritance are mentioned one can increase the portion of one of his sons **only** with regard to a case of **one person and one field, but** with regard to **one person and two fields,** or **one field and two people,** it is **not** effective. **And Rav Naḥman says: Even** in a case of **one person and two fields,** or **one field and two people,** it is effective, **but** in a case of **two fields and two people,** it is **not. And Rav Sheshet says: Even** in a case of **two fields and two people,** it is effective.


###### Bava Batra 129a:13
[Bava Batra 129a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/129a:13)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר: ״תְּנוּ שֶׁקֶל לְבָנַי בְּשַׁבָּת״, וּרְאוּיִן לִיתֵּן סֶלַע – נוֹתֵן לָהֶן סֶלַע. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אַל תִּתְּנוּ לָהֶן אֶלָּא שֶׁקֶל״ – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא שֶׁקֶל. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אִם מֵתוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ketubot* 6:10): If a person on his deathbed, or **one who** is going overseas, **says** to his children’s steward: **Give a shekel to my children** every **week** for their needs, **and** this is a situation where, based on their needs, **they are fit** for the steward **to give them a *sela*,** i.e., double the amount, **he gives them a *sela*.** When the father mentioned a shekel, he presumably meant that the children should be given a sum in accordance with their actual requirements, not that specific amount. **But if he said: Give them only a shekel,** the steward **gives them only a shekel,** and no more. **And if he said: If** my children **die,**