Bava Batra 258

יירשו אחרים תחתיהם בין שאמר תנו בין שאמר אל תתנו אין נותנין להן אלא שקל

others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whom he nominated. ');">¹</span> shall be his heirs in their stead, only a <i>shekel</i> [a week] is to be given to them, whether he used the expression 'give' or 'give no [more]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is obvious that he desired to economise in the weekly maintenance of his children in order that as much as possible may remain for his appointed heirs. ');">²</span> Now here, surely, it is [a case] similar to that of two fields<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) The total sum of the shekels to be given to the children and (b) the sum to be given subsequently to his appointed beneficiaries. ');">³</span>

והא הכא דכשתי שדות וכשני בני אדם דמי וקתני דקני

and two persons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) The children, (b) the other heirs. In the case of the former he used the expression of 'giving'; in that of the latter, 'inheritance'. ');">⁴</span> and yet it is taught that possession is acquired.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the appointed heirs. Since it has been said that the children were not to be given more than a shekel a week in order to leave as much as possible for the appointed heirs, it is obvious that the latter acquire possession. Thus, the law of R. Shesheth is proved. ');">⁵</span> He raised this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited. ');">⁶</span>

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בראוי ליורשו ור' יוחנן בן ברוקה היא

as an objection [to the opinions of his colleagues]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hamnuna and R. Nahman, who stated that in such a case one cannot dispose of an 'inheritance' to strangers. ');">⁷</span> and he [himself] gave the reply: [The Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which allows one to bequeath his estate by the use of the term 'inheritance'. ');">⁸</span> deals with such persons] as are entitled to be his heirs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He did not bequeath the estate to strangers, but to one or more of his legal heirs. Hence the question of the use of the term 'inheritance' does not arise. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב אשי תא שמע נכסי לך ואחריך יירש פלוני ואחרי אחריך יירש פלוני מת ראשון קנה שני מת שני קנה שלישי ואם מת שני בחיי ראשון יחזרו נכסים ליורשי ראשון

and this [law is in agreement with the law of] R. Johanan b. Beroka.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who allows the appointment to an estate of one of the heirs to the exclusion of all others, infra 130a. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Ashi said: Come and hear! [If a person said], '[I give<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Using the expression of gift. ');">¹¹</span> ] my estate to you; and after you, X shall be [my] heir; and after X,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after after you'. ');">¹²</span>

והא הכא דכשתי שדות ושני בני אדם דמי וקתני דקנה

Y shall be heir', [when the] first dies, the second acquires the ownership; when the second dies, the third acquires the ownership. And if the second died in the lifetime of the first, the estate reverts to the heirs of the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third can gain possession from the second only, and since the latter died before he himself gained possession, the entire estate must revert to the first. ');">¹³</span> Now here, surely, [the case] resembles that of two fields and two persons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) The 'gift' of usufruct to the first, and (b) the transmission thereof as 'inheritance' to the second or the entire estate to the third. ');">¹⁴</span> and yet it was taught that possession is acquired!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' which shows that, even in such a case, the term 'gift', used with reference to one, makes effective the term 'inheritance' applied to the other. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי בראוי ליורשו ור' יוחנן בן ברוקה היא אי הכי מת שני קנה שלישי

And if it be suggested [that] here also [one deals with the case of one] who is entitled to be his heir and [that] it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement declaring the term 'inheritance' effective. ');">¹⁶</span> is [in accordance with the view of] R. Johanan b. Beroka;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 539, n. 12. ');">¹⁷</span> if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the second was not a stranger, but an heir. ');">¹⁸</span>

הא שלח רב אחא ברי' דרב עויא לדברי ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני וראשון ראוי ליורשו אין לשני במקום ראשון כלום שאין זה לשון מתנה אלא לשון ירושה וירושה אין לה הפסק

[the question arises, how can it be said that if] the second died, the third acquired possession? Surely, R. Aha the son of R. Iwya sent [the following message]: According to the view of R. Johanan b. Beroka,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that provided the beneficiaries are heirs, the testator can distribute his property among them in any manner he thinks fit. ');">¹⁹</span> [if one said],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without specifying whether as a 'gift' or an 'inheritance'. ');">²⁰</span> 'My estate [shall be] yours, and after you [it shall be given] to X', and the first is [one who is] entitled to be his heir, the second has no [claim] whatsoever in face of the first,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or his heirs. ');">²¹</span>

תיובתא דכולהו תיובתא

for this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The vague expression, 'shall be yours'. ');">²²</span> is not a [specific] expression of 'gift' but [rather] of 'inheritance'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the person is a legal heir. ');">²³</span> and an inheritance cannot be terminated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An estate, once bequeathed by a father to one of his heirs, becomes the absolute property of that heir, from whom it is transmitted to his own heirs. The father has no right to interrupt his succession by appointing any other person as second heir. ');">²⁴</span>

לימא נמי תיהוי תיובתיה דריש לקיש ותסברא והא אמר רבא הלכתא כותיה דריש לקיש בהני תלת

[Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited by R. Ashi. ');">²⁵</span> then,] a refutation of [the views of] all of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the Amoraim who maintained, supra, that if one gave instructions for field to be given as an 'inheritance' to one person and as a 'gift' to another, his instructions are invalid. As has been proved, the Baraitha cited by R. Ashi does not, as has been suggested, deal with the case of one who is entitled to be heir, but with that of any stranger appointed by the testator; and, though the estate was given as a 'gift' to one, and as an 'inheritance' to another, possession is acquired, the instructions of the testator being obviously regarded as legally valid. How then, could the Amoraim mentioned maintain that the testator's instructions in such a case are invalid, and that the person appointed as heir does not acquire possession of the estate? ');">²⁶</span> — This is a refutation.

לא קשיא כאן בתוך כדי דבור כאן לאחר כדי דבור

May this be regarded also as a refutation of [the view of] Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds the opinion that the expression of 'gift' used in connection with the one, does not make effective the term 'inheritance' applied to the other. ');">²⁷</span> — [How can] you think so! Did not Raba say,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 36a, Hul. 76a. ');">²⁸</span> 'The law is in accordance with [the views] of Resh Lakish in these three [cases]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which the view he advanced here is one. Surely, it would not have been regarded as law if it were refuted by the Baraitha. ');">²⁹</span>

והלכתא כל תוך כדי דבור כדבור דמי לבר מעבודת כוכבים

— [This is] no difficulty, [for] here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha; according to which possession is acquired when the expression 'gift' was used in the case of one and that of 'inheritance' in the case of the other. ');">³⁰</span> [the expressions of 'gift' and 'inheritance' may have been uttered] one immediately after the other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'within as much (time) as is required for an utterance', i.e., the time needed to utter a short greeting such as, 'Peace be upon thee my master', represented by the three words, [H] ');">³¹</span> there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the statement of Resh Lakish. ');">³²</span> [the two expressions] may not have been uttered one immediately after the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after the time required for an utterance. ');">³³</span> And the law is that [expressions uttered] immediately after one another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'within as much (time) as is required for an utterance', i.e., the time needed to utter a short greeting such as, 'Peace be upon thee my master', represented by the three words, [H] ');">³¹</span> [are] always [regarded] as having been uttered simultaneously, except, [in the case of] idolatry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one set aside an object for idol worship, though he withdrew immediately, the object remains prohibited. [Or, according to Tosaf. if a man proclaims an idol as his god, his immediate retraction does not save him from the death penalty. (V. Ned. 87a.)] ');">³⁴</span>