וְכִי קָיְימָא הֲוַת הָדְרָא בָּהּ. זִימְנָא חֲדָא חָלְשָׁא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: תָּא קְנֵי, שְׁלַח: לָא בָּעֵינָא. שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: תָּא קְנֵי כָּל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵית. אֲזַל שִׁיְּירָהּ וְקָנוּ מִינָּהּ. כִּי קָיְימָא הֲדַרָא בָּהּ,

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.

אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. שָׁלַח לֵיהּ: תָּא. לָא אֲתָא, אֲמַר: מַאי אֵיתֵי? הָא שִׁיְּירָהּ וְקָנוּ מִינָּהּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: אִי לָא אָתֵית, מָחֵינָא לָךְ בְּסִילְוָא דְּלָא מַבַּע דָּמָא.

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.

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

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.

אִיתְּמַר: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת – אֲמַרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן דַּאֲמַר 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.

§ 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.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: לָאו אָמִינָא לְכוּ, לָא תִּיתְלוּ בּוּקֵי סְרִיקִי בְּרַב נַחְמָן? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא וּבָעֲיָא קִנְיָן.

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.

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

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?

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

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, 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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב מְשָׁרְשִׁיָּא לְרָבָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִמָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי רוֹכֵל שֶׁהָיְתָה חוֹלָה, וְאָמְרָה: תִּנָּתֵן כְּבֵינָתִי לְבִתִּי, וְהוּא בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, וּמֵתָה, וְקִיְּימוּ דְּבָרֶיהָ! הָתָם בִּמְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה.

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.

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

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.

וּמִמַּאי דְּלָא קָנוּ מִינֵּיהּ? דּוּמְיָא דְּגֵט, מַה גֵּט לָאו בַּר קִנְיָן, אַף הַאי נַמִי דְּלָא קָנוּ מִינֵּיהּ! הָתָם נַמִי בִּמְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה.

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.

רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲמַר: מְצַוֶּה מֵחֲמַת מִיתָה בְּעָלְמָא בָּעֲיָא קִנְיָן, וְכִי תַּנְיָא הָנֵי מַתְנִיָּיתָא – בִּמְחַלֵּק כָּל נְכָסָיו, דְּהַהִיא מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שָׁוְיוּהָ.

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.

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

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.