## Bava Batra Daf 151b

###### Bava Batra 151b:1
[Bava Batra 151b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:1)

וְכִי קָיְימָא הֲוָת הָדְרָא בָּהּ. זִימְנָא חֲדָא חֲלַשָׁא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: תָּא קְנִי. שְׁלַח: לָא בָּעֵינָא. שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: תָּא קְנִי כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵית. אֲזַל שַׁיַּירה וּקְנוֹ מִינַּהּ. כִּי קָיְימָא, הָדְרָא בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and when she recovered she would retract** her gift. On **one occasion she was sick. She sent** a message **to** Rav Dimi: **Come** and **acquire** my property. **He sent** a message back to her: **I do not want** to come. **She sent** a message **to him: Come** and **acquire** my property in **any manner that you want. He went and reserved** for her part of the orchard, **and** he **acquired** the rest of the property **from her** with an act of acquisition. **When she recovered she retracted** the gift.


###### Bava Batra 151b:2
[Bava Batra 151b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:2)

אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: תָּא. לָא אֲתָא. אָמַר: מַאי אֵיתֵי? הָא שַׁיַּירִה וּקְנוֹ מִינַּהּ! שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: אִי לָא אָתֵית, מָחֵינָא לָךְ בְּסִילְוָא דְּלָא מַבַּע דְּמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**She came before Rav Naḥman** to reclaim it. Rav Naḥman **sent** a message **to** Rav Dimi: **Come** to court. Rav Dimi **did not come. He said: What** reason is there for **me to come? Didn’t** I **reserve** part of the property for her, **and** I **acquired** the rest of the property **from her** with an act of acquisition? Therefore, the acquisition is complete. Rav Naḥman **sent** a message **to** Rav Dimi: **If you do not come, I will strike you with a thorn [*besileva*] that does not draw blood,** i.e., I will excommunicate you.


###### Bava Batra 151b:3
[Bava Batra 151b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:3)

אֲמַר לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי: הֵיכִי הֲוָה מַעֲשֶׂה? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַרָה הָכִי: ״וַוי דְּקָא מָיְתָה הָךְ אִיתְּתָא!״ אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִם כֵּן, הֲוָה מְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה, וּמְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה – חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Inquiring into the matter, Rav Naḥman **said to the witnesses: How did the act** of transferring the property take place? The witnesses **said to** Rav Naḥman: **This** is what **she said: Woe, that woman is dying!** Rav Naḥman **said to them: If so, this is** a case of **one who issues directives** with regard to his property **due to** his expectation of his imminent **death. And one who issues directives due to** his expectation of his imminent **death can retract** his gift even if he did not transfer all of his property, as he evidently granted the gift only because he expected to die.


###### Bava Batra 151b:4
[Bava Batra 151b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:4)

אִיתְּמַר: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת; אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא – שֶׁאִם עָמַד אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, וַהֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע – דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed with regard to **a gift of a person on his deathbed** that includes only **a part** of his property. **The Sages said** the following **before Rava in the name of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, who said** it **in the name of Rav Naḥman: This** type of gift **is** in some respects **like the gift of a healthy person, and** in other respects **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** it, as stated in the mishna. **And it is like** the **gift of a person on his deathbed, as it does not require** an act of **acquisition.** Rather, it is acquired by means of verbal instruction alone.


###### Bava Batra 151b:5
[Bava Batra 151b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:5)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא, לָאו אָמֵינָא לְכוּ: לָא תִּיתְלוֹ בּוּקֵי סְרִיקֵי בְּרַב נַחְמָן? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, וּבָעֲיָא קִנְיַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** the Sages: **Did I not say to you: Do not hang empty pitchers [*bukei*] upon Rav Naḥman,** i.e., do not attribute incorrect statements to him? **This is** what **Rav Naḥman says:** A gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property **is like the gift of a healthy person and requires** an act of **acquisition.** If an act of acquisition is not performed, the acquisition of the gift is not effective even if the owner dies.


###### Bava Batra 151b:6
[Bava Batra 151b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:6)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת. מַאי, לָאו דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ? לָא, דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ. אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: לֹא שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא – אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת. וְאִי דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ, אַמַּאי אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from the mishna (146b): If **he reserved** for himself **any amount of land, his gift stands. What, is it not** referring even to a case **where** the gift **was not acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition? **No,** it is referring to a case **where** the gift **was acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition. Rava asks: **If that is so, say the last clause** of the mishna: If **he did not reserve** for himself **any amount of land,** and he recovered, **his gift does not stand. And if** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the gift **was acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition, **why does his gift not stand?**


###### Bava Batra 151b:7
[Bava Batra 151b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ – עָמַד חוֹזֵר; בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְצַוֶּה אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to** Rava: **This is** what **Shmuel says:** With regard to **a person on his deathbed who wrote** a deed granting **all of his property to others** without reserving anything for himself, **even though** the gift **was acquired from his possession** by means of an act of acquisition, if **he recovers, he can retract** his gift. The reason for this is that **it is known that he was issuing directives** with regard to his property **only due to** his expectation of his imminent **death.**


###### Bava Batra 151b:8
[Bava Batra 151b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לְרָבָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִמָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה, וְאָמְרָה: ״תִּנָּתֵן כְּבִינְתִּי לְבִתִּי״ – וְהִוא בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וּמֵתָה – וְקִיְּימוּ דְּבָרֶיהָ. הָתָם בִּמְצַוָּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection to Rava:** There was **an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and she said: My brooch [*keveinati*] shall be given to my daughter, and it is** valued **at twelve hundred dinars. And** this woman subsequently **died, and** the Sages **upheld her statement** even though the gift included only a part of her property and an act of acquisition was not performed. Rava replied: That incident is different, as the case **there** is referring **to one who issues directives due to** his expectation of his imminent **death.**


###### Bava Batra 151b:9
[Bava Batra 151b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, וּמֵת – לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina raised an objection to Rava** from a mishna (*Gittin* 13a): In the case of **one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, or:** Give **this bill of manumission to my slave, and** then he **dies, one should not give it after** his **death.** But if one says: **Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and** then he **died, one does give** the recipient the money **after** his **death.** This indicates that a gift of a person on his deathbed that includes only a part of his property does not require an act of acquisition.


###### Bava Batra 151b:10
[Bava Batra 151b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:10)

וּמִמַּאי דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ? דּוּמְיָא דְּגֵט – מָה גֵּט לָאו בַּר קִנְיָן, אַף הַאי נָמֵי דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ! הָתָם נָמֵי, בִּמְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** can one learn **that** the money **was not acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition? This is learned from the fact that this *halakha* was juxtaposed to the *halakha* with regard to a bill of divorce, indicating that this case is **similar to a bill of divorce. Just as a bill of divorce is not subject to** the standard *halakhot* of an act of acquisition, **so too,** in **this** case of the gift of one hundred dinars, the mishna is referring to a case **where** the money **was not acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition. Rava replied: **There, too,** the mishna is referring **to one who issues directives** with regard to his property **due to** his imminent **death.**


###### Bava Batra 151b:11
[Bava Batra 151b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:11)

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: מְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה בְּעָלְמָא – בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן, וְכִי תַּנְיָא הָנֵי מַתְנְיָיתָא – בִּמְחַלֵּק כׇּל נְכָסָיו, דְּהַהִיא – מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שַׁוְּיוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** The gift of **one who issues directives** with regard to his property **due to** his expectation of his imminent **death generally requires** an act of **acquisition. And when it is taught** in **these *baraitot*** that an act of acquisition is not required, the *baraitot* are referring **to one who divides all of his property** between different recipients, **as** in **that** case, the Sages **accorded** the gift the legal status of **a gift of a person on his deathbed.**


###### Bava Batra 151b:12
[Bava Batra 151b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/151b:12)

וְהִלְכְתָא: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת – בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵת. מְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה לָא בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן, וְהוּא דְּמֵת; עָמַד – חוֹזֵר, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is that **a gift of a person on his deathbed** that includes only **a part** of his property **requires** an act of **acquisition;** otherwise it is invalid **even though he** subsequently **died,** and the gift is inherited by his heirs instead. The gift of **one who issues directives** with regard to his property **due to** his expectation of his imminent **death does not require** an act of **acquisition. And this** applies only **when** he subsequently **died.** If he **recovered,** he can **retract** his gift **even though it was acquired from him** by means of an act of acquisition.