## Bava Batra Daf 137a

###### Bava Batra 137a:1
[Bava Batra 137a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:1)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״נְכָסַי לְךָ וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי״, וְיָרַד רִאשׁוֹן וּמָכַר וְאָכַל – הַשֵּׁנִי מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁשִּׁיֵּיר רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *halakha* in this case **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*; as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to one who said: **My property** is given **to you, and after you, to so-and-so, and** the **first** recipient **entered** the property **and sold** it **and consumed** the profits, **the second** recipient **repossesses** the property **from the purchasers,** as the property belongs to him after the death of the first recipient; **this is the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second** recipient receives **only that which the first** beneficiary **left,** since his sale is valid.


###### Bava Batra 137a:2
[Bava Batra 137a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:2)

וּרְמִינְהִי: ״נְכָסַי לְךָ וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי״ – יוֹרֵד רִאשׁוֹן וּמוֹכֵר וְאוֹכֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵין לָרִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from another *baraita* (*Tosefta* 8:4): If one says: **My property** is given **to you, and after you, to so-and-so, the first one may enter** the property **and sell** it **and consume** the profits; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The first one has only** the right of **consumption of the produce.**


###### Bava Batra 137a:3
[Bava Batra 137a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:3)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי אַדְּרַבִּי, וּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This statement **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **is difficult** as it is contradicted by the other statement **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and** this statement **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is difficult** as it is contradicted by the other statement **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** Their opinions in the latter *baraita* seem to be the opposite of those in the former *baraita*.


###### Bava Batra 137a:4
[Bava Batra 137a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:4)

דְּרַבִּי אַדְּרַבִּי לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא לְגוּפָא, הָא לְפֵירָא. דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא לְכַתְּחִלָּה, הָא דִּיעֲבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi and the other statement **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi is **not difficult; this** ruling that the first one cannot sell it is referring **to** the property **itself,** and **that** ruling that he can sell it is referring **to the produce.** The apparent contradiction between one statement **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** and the other statement **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** is **not difficult** either; **this** statement, that the first has only the right to consume the produce, is referring to his rights ***ab initio*,** whereas **that** statement, that if he sold the property the second one gets nothing, is referring to the *halakha* **after the fact.**


###### Bava Batra 137a:5
[Bava Batra 137a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:5)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵיזֶהוּ רָשָׁע עָרוּם? זֶה הַמַּשִּׂיא עֵצָה לִמְכּוֹר בִּנְכָסִים כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: Who is a cunning wicked person? This** is **one who provides advice to sell property in accordance with** the ruling of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.** Although Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the sale is valid, he does not permit one to do so *ab initio*, as that would deprive the second designated recipient of the property. Therefore, one who advises the first recipient to do so is considered a cunning wicked person.


###### Bava Batra 137a:6
[Bava Batra 137a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וּמוֹדֶה, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **concedes that if** the first recipient **gave** the property to another **as the gift of a person on his deathbed,** in which case no formal act of acquisition is required, **he has done nothing;** the second recipient can repossess the property from the one to whom it was given.


###### Bava Batra 137a:7
[Bava Batra 137a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וּכְבָר קְדָמוֹ ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason? Abaye says:** The recipient of **the gift of a person on his deathbed acquires** it **only after** the person’s **death, and** in this case, the acquisition of the recipient resulting from the statement of: **After you,** i.e., the second designated recipient, **has already preceded** the acquisition of the first one.


###### Bava Batra 137a:8
[Bava Batra 137a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:8)

וּמִי אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הָכִי? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע, מֵאֵימָתַי קָנָה? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: עִם גְּמַר מִיתָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: לְאַחַר גְּמַר מִיתָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But did Abaye** actually **say this,** that the gift of a person on his deathbed takes effect only after his death? **But wasn’t it stated** in an amoraic dispute concerning the matter: **From when does** the recipient of **the gift of a person on his deathbed acquire** it? **Abaye says: With the completion of death,** i.e., at the moment he dies; **and Rava says: After the completion of death.**


###### Bava Batra 137a:9
[Bava Batra 137a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:9)

הָדַר בֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵהַהִיא. מִמַּאי דְּמֵהַהִיא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? דִּלְמָא מֵהָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Abaye retracted that** latter statement. The Gemara asks: **From where** is it known **that he retracted that** statement? **Perhaps he retracted this,** i.e., the statement that the recipient acquires it only after the person’s death, and his conclusion is that he acquires it at the moment of his death.


###### Bava Batra 137a:10
[Bava Batra 137a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:10)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּתְנַן: ״זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ אִם מַתִּי״; ״זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״; ״זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ לְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That possibility **should not enter your mind, as we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 72b): If a man on his deathbed says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce if I die,** or: **This is your bill of divorce** if I die **from this illness,** or: **This is your bill of divorce after I die, he has said nothing.** The divorce does not take effect after his death. Evidently, when one gives instructions on his deathbed, his intention is for them to be effective after he dies.


###### Bava Batra 137a:11
[Bava Batra 137a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְהוֹצִיאָן לְחֵירוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** that if the first recipient sells the property, the sale is valid, **and** this is the *halakha* **even if there were** Canaanite **slaves** included **in** the property **and** the first recipient **emancipated them.**


###### Bava Batra 137a:12
[Bava Batra 137a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:12)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְמֶיעְבַּד אִיסּוּרָא לָא יָהֲבִינַן לָךְ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that the giver **would have said to him: I did not give you** my Canaanite slaves **to transgress a prohibition,** as it is prohibited to emancipate Canaanite slaves, Rabbi Yoḥanan **teaches us** that he has the legal right to do so.


###### Bava Batra 137a:13
[Bava Batra 137a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:13)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂאָן תַּכְרִיכִין לְמֵת. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לְשַׁוּוֹיִנְהוּ אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה לָא יְהַבִי לָךְ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel even if he made** the gift into **shrouds for a corpse.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that the giver would have said to him: **I did not give you** my possessions **to render them into items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited,** but rather so that you may use and enjoy them, and Rabbi Yoḥanan **teaches us** that he may do so.


###### Bava Batra 137a:14
[Bava Batra 137a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:14)

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״אֶתְרוֹג זֶה נָתוּן לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה, וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לִפְלוֹנִי״, נְטָלוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְיָצָא בּוֹ – בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught:** If one said to another: **This *etrog* is given to you as a gift, and after you** die, **to so-and-so,** and **the first** recipient then **took it and fulfilled** his obligation of taking the four species on the first day of *Sukkot* **with it,** when one is obligated to take species that belong to him, in this case, **we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** as to the nature of the ownership of the first recipient. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion that he cannot sell the *etrog*, it is not considered entirely his, and he does not fulfill his obligation by taking it. According to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that he can sell it, he fulfills his obligation.


###### Bava Batra 137a:15
[Bava Batra 137a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/137a:15)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי. אֶלָּא הָכָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this** statement, reasoning that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree only there,** in the case of: After you, with regard to the nature of the recipient’s ownership; **as** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is considered like ownership of the item itself, and** the other **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and the **profits** it engenders **is not considered like ownership of the item itself. But here,** with regard to the *etrog*,