Bava Batra 257

אי לאפוקי מדרבא מוסיף הוא אי דמר בר רב אשי לית הלכתא כמר בר רב אשי אי לאפוקי מדשמואל ורב ששת ורב פפא הא איתותבו

If [its purpose is] to exclude Raba's [law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the evidence of certain relatives, supra 128a. ');">¹</span> surely] he [merely] adds [to that of R. Abba]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without disagreeing with R. Abba's law. ');">²</span> If [to exclude the law] of Mar son of R. Ashi, [surely, it has already been stated that] the law is not according to Mar son of R. Ashi!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, state the same thing again? ');">³</span>

אלא לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן ומאתקפתא דמר בר רב אשי:

If to exclude [the laws] of Samuel and R. Shesheth and R. Papa, to these, surely, objections have already been raised!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the law could not, in any case, be decided in accordance with their views. ');">⁴</span> — But, [this is the object of the declaration:] To exclude [the law] of R. Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the assignment of one's entire estate to one child among all the heirs (supra 128b), which is contrary to that of R. Abba. ');">⁵</span> and [that which was to be implied by] the difficulty of Mar son of R. Ashi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, contrary to the law of R. Abba (supra 128b), sought to prove that the borrower need not take an oath. ');">⁶</span>

המחלק נכסיו על פיו ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד כו': היכי דמי מתנה בתחלה היכי דמי באמצע היכי דמי בסוף

IF ONE DISTRIBUTED HIS PROPERTY VERBALLY [AND] GAVE TO ONE [SON] MORE, AND TO [ANOTHER] ONE LESS, etc. How is one to understand [the giving of] A GIFT AT THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, or AT THE END? — When R. Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine. ');">⁷</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: [If one wrote,] 'Let a certain field be given to X and he shall inherit it,' this is [called] A GIFT AT THE BEGINNING. [If he wrote], 'let him inherit it and it shall be given to him', this is [called] A GIFT AT THE END. 'Let him inherit it and let it be given to him so that he may inherit it', this is A GIFT IN THE MIDDLE. [This law is] only [applicable to the case] of one person and one field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' IN such a case, the expression of 'inheritance' is counteracted by that of 'gift'. ');">⁸</span> but not to [the case of] one person and two fields,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, in connection with one field, the expression of 'inheritance' and with the other that of 'gift' was used, the latter field is acquired by the donee but not the former. ');">⁹</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן תנתן שדה פלונית לפלוני ויירשה זו היא מתנה בתחלה יירשה ותנתן לו זו היא מתנה בסוף יירשה ותנתן לו ויירשה זו היא מתנה באמצע

[or] one field and two persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the testator said, e.g., that the half of the field shall be inherited by one person and the other half shall be taken as a gift by another, the latter acquires possession of his share, but the former does not, ');">¹⁰</span> R. Eleazar said: ['The same law applies] even [to the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons'. [The law,]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a Talmudic comment, nad does not belong to R. Eleazar's statement (Rashb.). ');">¹¹</span> however, [is] not [applicable] in [the case of] two fields and two persons.

ודוקא באדם אחד ושדה אחת אבל באדם אחד ושתי שדות שדה אחת ושני בני אדם לא

When Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine. ');">⁷</span> he said: [In the case where one wrote], 'Let this field be given to X, and let Y inherit that [other] field', R. Johanan said: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter and certainly the former. ');">¹²</span> acquires possession, [and] R. Eleazar said: He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter. ');">¹³</span>

ר' אלעזר אומר אפי' אדם אחד ושתי שדות שדה אחת ושני בני אדם אבל בשתי שדות ושני בני אדם לא

does not acquire possession. Said Abaye to Rabin: You have given us satisfaction [in one [respect] and cause for demurring in another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');">¹⁴</span> [For, as regards the apparent contradiction between the statement] of R. Eliezar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Dimi's report, supra, where it is stated that possession is acquired. ');">¹⁵</span> and the other statement of His<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Rabin's report, according to which possession is not acquired. ');">¹⁶</span>

כי אתא רבין אמר תנתן שדה פלונית לפלוני ויירש פלוני שדה פלונית רבי יוחנן אומר קנה רבי אלעזר אומר לא קנה

one can well explain [that there is] no [real] difficulty [since] one statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'; viz., the first statement. ');">¹⁷</span> [may be said to refer to the case] of one person and two fields;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both fields were given to him at the same time; and since he acquires possession of the one field, (given as a gift), he also acquires possession of the other. ');">¹⁸</span> and the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', the second statement; that of Rabin, ');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבין אנחתת לן חדא ואתקפת לן חדא בשלמא דר' אלעזר אדרבי אלעזר לא קשיא כאן באדם אחד ושתי שדות כאן בשני בני אדם ושתי שדות

to two persons and two fields. [The contradiction], however, [between the first statement] of R. Johanan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In R. Dimi's report. ');">²⁰</span> and his second one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the report of Rabin. ');">²¹</span> [presents] a difficulty!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first statement no possession is acquired even in the case where the two fields were assigned as an inheritance to one person, much less where they were so assigned to two persons, while according to the second statement, possession is acquired even in the case of two fields and two persons. ');">²²</span>

אלא דר' יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן קשיא

— [We<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Dimi and I (Rabin). ');">²³</span> are] Amoraim [in dispute] as to [which were the views] of R. Johanan. Resh Lakish, however, said: No possession is [ever] acquired<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the expression of 'inheritance' was used together with that of 'gift', in the case of two persons and two fields. ');">²⁴</span>

אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן

unless [the testator] had said, 'Let X and Y inherit this and that particular field, which I had assigned to them as a gift, so that they may inherit them'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both acquire possession of the respective fields, because the testator had used the expression, 'I had assigned to them as a gift', implying that the gift was made before it was assigned as 'inheritance' (R. Gersh.). ');">²⁵</span> [The following Amoraim are] in [the same] dispute [as that of those mentioned]. R. Hamnuna said: [The law that possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the expression of 'gift' was used with that of 'inheritance'. ');">²⁶</span> is acquired], was only taught [in the case of] one person and one field, but not [in the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in agreement with the statement of R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan, supra. ');">²⁷</span>

וריש לקיש אמר לא קנה עד שיאמר פלוני ופלוני יירשו שדה פלונית ופלונית שנתתים להם במתנה ויירשום

And R. Nahman said: [The same law applies] even [to the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons, but not [to that of] two fields and two persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Agreeing with the view of R. Eleazar, supra. ');">²⁸</span> And R. Shesheth said: [Possession is acquired] even [in the case of] two fields and two persons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Rabin stated in the name of R. Johanan. ');">²⁹</span> R. Shesheth said: I derive my decision from the following Baraitha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whence do I say it? For it was taught'. ');">³⁰</span>

בפלוגתא אמר רב המנונא לא שנו אלא אדם אחד ושדה אחת אבל אדם אחד ושתי שדות שדה אחת ושני בני אדם לא ורב נחמן אמר אפילו אדם אחד ושתי שדות שדה אחת ושני בני אדם אבל שתי שדות ושני בני אדם לא ורב ששת אמר אפי' שתי שדות ושני בני אדם

If one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dying person, or one setting out on a long journey. ');">³¹</span> said, 'Give my children<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of the estate he leaves behind. ');">³²</span> a <i>shekel</i> a week',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their maintenance. ');">³³</span>

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא האומר תנו שקל לבני בשבת וראוין ליתן סלע נותן להן סלע ואם אמר אל תתנו להן אלא שקל אין נותנין להן אלא שקל ואם אמר אם מתו

and they require a <i>sela'</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sela' = two shekels. ');">³⁴</span> a <i>sela'</i> is to be given to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By mentioning shekel, the father did not imply the exclusion of the bigger sum. He only meant to convey his wish that his sons were no to be given more than their weekly requirements. ');">³⁵</span> If, however, he said,'Give them no more than a shekel', only a <i>shekel</i> is to be given to them. But if he gave instructions [that] if these died