## Bava Batra Daf 152b

###### Bava Batra 152b:1
[Bava Batra 152b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:1)

בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה קִנְיָן אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת הַמִּיתָה. וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתִּיק.

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


###### Bava Batra 152b:2
[Bava Batra 152b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:2)

כִּי קָם, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַאי אַחְוִי לָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּמְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ.

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


###### Bava Batra 152b:3
[Bava Batra 152b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:3)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: ״וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ מוֹסִיף עַל מַתַּנְתָּא דָּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara 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.


###### Bava Batra 152b:4
[Bava Batra 152b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:4)

פְּשִׁיטָא – כָּתַב לָזֶה וְכָתַב לָזֶה, הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: דְּיָיתֵיקֵי מְבַטֶּלֶת דְּיָיתֵיקֵי. כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה, כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה – רַב אָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֵׁנִי קָנָה.

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


###### Bava Batra 152b:5
[Bava Batra 152b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:5)

רַב אָמַר: רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֵׁנִי קָנָה – הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav says** that the **first** recipient **acquires** the gift. Since an additional act of conferring possession of the property was performed, the gift **is** considered **like** the **gift of a healthy person,** which cannot be retracted. **Shmuel says** that the **second** recipient **acquires** the gift because **it is** considered **like** the **gift of a person on his deathbed,** which can be retracted.


###### Bava Batra 152b:6
[Bava Batra 152b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:6)

וְהָא אִפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא – בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t** Rav and Shmuel already **disagree about this** matter **once? With regard to** a deed pertaining to the **gift of a person on his deathbed in which** it **is written** that an act of **acquisition** was also performed, Rav maintained that the gift cannot be retracted, whereas Shmuel maintained that the acquisition was not effective. Why is it necessary to record another disagreement with regard to the same principle?


###### Bava Batra 152b:7
[Bava Batra 152b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:7)

צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב, מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ; אֲבָל בְּהָא, דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ – אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies: It **is necessary** to cite both cases. This is **because if it were stated** only **with regard to that** case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that only **in that** case **Rav says** that the gift cannot be retracted, **because an act of acquisition was** performed. **But in this** case, **where an act of acquisition was not** performed, one might **say** that **he concedes to Shmuel. And if it was stated** only **with regard to this** case, where he conferred possession of the property on the recipient through a deed alone, one might say that only **in this** case **Shmuel says** that he can retract the gift. **But in the other** case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might **say** that Shmuel **concedes to Rav** that he cannot retract it. Therefore, it **is necessary** to cite both cases.


###### Bava Batra 152b:8
[Bava Batra 152b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/152b:8)

בְּסוּרָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי; בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – מַתְנוּ הָכִי, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ, מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לְהוּ: אֵין אַחַר קִנְיָן כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In Sura they taught** the statements of Rav and Shmuel **that way,** as stated above. **In Pumbedita they taught** their statements **like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says:** After the death of Rav, the following question **was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us:** With regard to **a person on his deathbed who wrote** a deed of transfer granting **all** of **his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is** the *halakha*? Shmuel **sent to them** in reply: **After** an act of **acquisition** is performed, **nothing** can effect a retraction of the gift.