Bava Batra 271

כדאמר רב חסדא וקנינא מיניה מוסיף על מתנתא דא ה"נ דאמר אף כתובו וחתומו והבו ליה

— As R. Hisda said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 152b. ');">¹</span> [This is a case where the witnesses record,] 'And we have acquired [legal possession] of him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they had executed the legal formality of conveyance by means of a kinyan (v. Glos.) between the testator and the recipient. ');">²</span> in addition to [the presentation of] this gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 152b. ');">³</span>

איתמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כותבין ונותנין וכן אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כותבין ונותנין:

[so] here also [the testator's motive may be known] when he declared, 'Also write, and sign, and deliver to him.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in which case the testator clearly indicated that the gift was independent of the written deed, the purpose of which was only to strengthen the beneficiary's claims. ');">⁴</span> It was stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is that [the deed of a gift] is written and delivered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the testator's death; if it was ascertained (as R. Johanan stated, supra) that the purpose of the deed was to strengthen the beneficiary's claim. ');">⁵</span> And Raba in the name of R. Nahman said likewise: The <i>halachah</i> is that [the deed] is written and delivered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the testator's death; if it was ascertained (as R. Johanan stated, supra) that the purpose of the deed was to strengthen the beneficiary's claim. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכותב נכסיו לבניו צריך שיכתוב מהיום ולאחר מיתה דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אינו צריך

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A PERSON [DESIRES] TO GIVE HIS ESTATE IN WRITING TO HIS SONS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a person in good health who desires, for example, to marry a second time, and wishes to protect the sons that were born from his first marriage from the possible seizure of his estate by his second wife, in payment of her kethubah. ');">⁶</span> HE MUST WRITE, '[THIS ESTATE IS ASSIGNED]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the land itself. ');">⁷</span> FROM THIS DAY AND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The produce thereof also. ');">⁸</span>

הכותב נכסיו לבנו לאחר מותו האב אינו יכול למכור מפני שהן כתובין לבן והבן אינו יכול למכור מפני שהן ברשות האב

AFTER [MY] DEATH';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If, 'from this day', is not specified, the gift is invalid, since a person cannot give possession after his death. ');">⁹</span> THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAID: THIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The addition, 'from this day'. ');">¹⁰</span> IS NOT NECESSARY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given infra. ');">¹¹</span>

מכר האב מכורים עד שימות מכר הבן אין ללוקח בהן כלום עד שימות האב:

IF A PERSON ASSIGNED HIS ESTATE, IN WRITING, TO HIS SON<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserting the formula, 'from this day and after my death'. The law that follows applies to a gift made to any other person. ');">¹²</span> [TO BE HIS]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son's. ');">¹³</span> AFTER HIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The testator's. ');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וכי כתב מהיום ולאחר מיתה מאי הוי הא תנן מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט ואם מת חולצת ולא מתייבמת

DEATH, THE FATHER MAY NOT SELL [IT]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The land and its produce. ');">¹⁵</span> BECAUSE IT IS ASSIGNED IN WRITING TO THE SON, AND THE SON MAY NOT SELL [IT] BECAUSE IT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE FATHER. IF THE FATHER SOLD [THE ESTATE]. THE SALE IS VALID UNTIL HIS DEATH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sold until he dies', Until then only, may the buyer have its usufruct. ');">¹⁶</span> IF THE SON SOLD [IT], THE BUYER HAS NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER UPON IT UNTIL THE FATHER'S DEATH.

התם מספקא לן אי תנאה הוי אי חזרה הוי אבל הכא הכי קאמר ליה גופא קני מהיום פירא לאחר מיתה:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [Of] what [avail] is it that he wrote, 'FROM THIS DAY, AND AFTER [MY] DEATH'? Surely we learnt, [if one inserts in a divorce]. 'from this day, and after [my] death', the divorce is valid and invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a divorce and it is not a divorce'. It is not certain whether by the first part of the expression he meant the divorce to be effective at once, in which case it is valid; or whether by the second part of the expression he withdrew the first, and desired the divorce to become effective after his death, in which case (since one cannot divorce after death) it is invalid. ');">¹⁷</span> and if he dies she is subject to the law of <i>halizah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Since it is possible that the divorce was invalid and she is therefore the widow of a husband who died without issue. ');">¹⁸</span> but not to that of the levirate marriage!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is also possible that the divorce was valid, and a divorced woman may not be married by the brother of her former husband. Similarly, in the case of the will, the same doubt exists, why, then was it said that possession was definitely acquired? ');">¹⁹</span>

רבי יוסי אומר אינו צריך: רבה בר אבוה חלש על לגביה רב הונא ורב נחמן אמר ליה רב הונא לרב נחמן בעי מיניה הלכה כרבי יוסי או אין הלכה כר' יוסי אמר ליה טעמיה דרבי יוסי לא ידענא הלכה איבעי מיניה אמר ליה את בעי מיניה אי הלכה אי לא וטעמיה אנא אמינא לך

— There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the divorce. ');">²⁰</span> it is doubtful whether it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The addition, 'and after death'. ');">²¹</span> is a condition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that when he dies the divorce shall be considered as having taken effect from now; and since the condition has been fulfilled, the divorce is valid. ');">²²</span>

בעא מיניה אמר ליה הכי אמר רב הלכה כרבי יוסי בתר דנפקו אמר ליה היינו טעמיה דרבי יוסי דאמר זמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו תניא נמי הכי רבי יוסי אומר אינו צריך מפני שזמנו של שטר מוכיח עליו

or a retraction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Asserting that the divorce was not to take effect from that day onwards, as the first part of the expression implied, but only after his death; and since one cannot give a divorce after death, the document is invalid. ');">²³</span> Here, however, [it is obvious that] he meant to say this to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the son. ');">²⁴</span> 'Acquire the land itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the body', i.e., the principal. capital, actual estate. ');">²⁵</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן בהקנאה מהו אמר ליה בהקנאה אינו צריך

today; the fruit after [my] death'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a divorce, such a division in the meaning of the two parts of the expression is, of course, impossible. ');">²⁶</span> R. JOSE SAID: THIS IS NOT NECESSARY. Rabbah b. Abbuha was indisposed [and] R. Huna and R. Nahman came in [to see him]. 'Ask him', said R. Huna to R. Nahman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Nahman was Rabbah b. Abbuha's son-in-law.] ');">²⁷</span> '[is] the <i>halachah</i> in accordance with [the view of] R. Jose or [is] the <i>halachah</i> not in accordance with [the view of] R. Jose?' — 'I do not [even] know R. Jose's reason, replied the other, '[shall] I ask him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah. ');">²⁸</span>

רב פפי אמר איכא אקניתא דצריך ואיכא אקניתא דלא צריך אקנייה וקנינא מיניה לא צריך קנינא מיניה ואקנייה צריך

[about] the <i>halachah</i>?' 'You inquire of him,' said [R. Huna] 'whether the <i>halachah</i> [is according to R. Jose] or not; and as to his reason I will tell you [it later].' [Thereupon, R. Nahman] inquired of [Rabbah], who replied to him, 'Thus said Rab: The <i>halachah</i> [is] in accordance with [the view of] R. Jose'. When<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'. ');">²⁹</span> they came out, [R. Huna] said to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman. ');">³⁰</span> 'This is R. Jose's reason: He is of the opinion that the date of the deed proves its import,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the presentation of the gift is to begin on that day (though the expression 'from that day' was not inserted). Had it been intended to postpone the presentation till after death, there would have been no point in recording the date of the deed. ');">³¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב חנינא מסורא מי איכא מידי דאנן לא ידעינן וספרי ידעי שאלונהו לספרי דאביי וידעי ולספרי דרבא וידעי

Thus it was also taught [elsewhere]: R. Jose said, 'This is not necessary, because the date of the deed proves its import.' Raba inquired of R. Nahman: What [is the law] in [the case of a deed of transfer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'giving', or 'transferring possession' of the gift, i.e., when it is recorded in the deed that the legal formality of conveyance, the kinyan, had been executed as between the testator and the recipient, which virtually places the gift in the possession of the recipient. Does R. Judah in such a case also require the specific insertion, 'from this day'? ');">³²</span> — He said to him: in [the case of] a deed of transfer this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The insertion, 'from this day'? ');">³³</span>

רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר בין אקנייה וקנינא מיניה בין קנינא מיניה ואקנייה לא צריך ובדוכרן פתגמי דהוי באנפנא פליגי

is not required. R. Papi said: There are deeds of transfer where [this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The insertion, 'from this day'? ');">³³</span> is] required, and there are deeds of transfer where [this is] not required. [If the deed reads]. 'He conferred upon him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The donee. ');">³⁴</span> possession', [concluding with], 'and we<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses. ');">³⁵</span>

אמר רב כהנא אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב זביד מנהרדעא ואמר לי אתון הכי מתניתו לה אנן הכי מתנינן לה אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן בהקנאה אינו צריך בין אקנייה וקנינא מיניה בין קנינא מיניה ואקנייה לא צריך בדוכרן פתגמי דהוו באנפנא פליגי:

acquired it from him',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the testator, by symbolic acquisition. ');">³⁶</span> there is no need [for this].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the insertion of 'from this day'. Since two distinct kinds of transfer of possession have been mentioned, [1] he conferred possession and [2] we acquired etc., the claim of the donee is thereby strengthened and he acquires ownership of the gift even though, 'from this day' has not been recorded. ');">³⁷</span> [If, however, it reads], 'We acquired it from him' [concluding with], 'he gave him possession', this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The addition of 'from this day'. ');">³⁸</span>

הכותב נכסיו לבנו לאחר מותו: איתמר מכר הבן בחיי האב ומת הבן בחיי האב

is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the second part of the expression may be taken as an interpretation of the first. Thus: 'We acquired possession etc.' because 'he gave him possession'. Consequently, the two parts imply only one transfer of possession which, unless 'from this day' is inserted, cannot be effective or valid. (Rashb.) ');">³⁹</span> R. Hanina of Sura demurred: Is there anything we do not know and the scribes would know?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If most scholars do not know the difference between the one and the other formula, would the scribes be able to tell what this one or the other implied? ');">⁴⁰</span> The scribes of Abaye were asked and they knew;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference in the meaning and purport of the two formulae. ');">⁴¹</span> the scribes of Raba, and they knew.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference in the meaning and purport of the two formulae. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, whether [the order was]. 'He conferred upon him possession&nbsp;… and we acquired it of him', or, 'We acquired it of him&nbsp;… and he conferred upon him possession the insertion of 'from this day] is not required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Nahman. ');">⁴²</span> and their dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Judah and R. Jose as to whether the insertion, 'from this day', is required. ');">⁴³</span> [has reference only to the case] where [the deed reads], 'a memorandum of the transaction that took place in our presence'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the deed is not one recording a transfer of possession through the witnesses; but a memorandum of the transactions at which the witnesses were present. R. Jose holding that even in such a case the date of the memorandum proves its import. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Kahana said: I mentioned the reported statements in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, and he told me: You read thus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in the form of an enquiry: 'Raba inquired of R. Nahman' etc., supra. ');">⁴⁵</span> [but] we have the following version: Raba said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a statement of fact, not an inquiry. ');">⁴⁶</span> in the name of R. Nahman, 'In [the case of] a deed of transfer this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 575, n. 6. ');">⁴⁷</span> is not required whether [the formula was], 'He conferred upon him possession&nbsp;… and we acquired it of him' or, 'We acquired it of him&nbsp;… and he gave him possession'; their dispute [has reference only to the case] where [the formula is], 'a memorandum of the transaction that took place in our presence'. IF A PERSON ASSIGNED HIS ESTATE, IN WRITING TO HIS [TO BE HIS] AFTER HIS DEATH. It was stated: If the son sold [the estate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assigned to him by his father for possession after his death. ');">⁴⁸</span> during the lifetime of his father, and died while his father was still alive,