כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ מוֹסִיף עַל מַתַּנְתָּא דָּא הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאָמַר אַף כְּתוֹבוּ וַחֲתוֹמוּ וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ It is as Rav Ḥisda says that if it is written in the will: And we acquired it from him through an act of acquisition in addition to this gift, this formulation does not cancel the will’s power to take effect after the person’s death, as the intention of referring to it as a gift is merely to enhance the legal power of the recipient by confirming the transfer through an act of acquisition. Here too, in a case where he says: Write and sign a document as well, and give it to him, it is apparent that his request is to enhance the legal power of the recipient by writing a document in addition to transferring the gift itself.
אִיתְּמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲלָכָה כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין וְכֵן אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הֲלָכָה כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין: It was stated that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case. And Rava says similarly that Rav Naḥman says that the halakha is that one writes a document and gives the money in this case.
מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ MISHNA: A healthy person who writes a document granting his property to his sons in his lifetime, but wishes to continue to derive benefit from it until his death, must write: I give the property from today and after my death. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He need not write: From today and after my death; it is sufficient for him to write that the transfer will take effect after he dies.
הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ הָאָב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּתוּבִין לַבֵּן וְהַבֵּן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב If one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, the father cannot sell the property because it is written as granted to the son, and the son cannot sell it because it is still in the possession of the father with regard to using the property and consuming its produce.
מָכַר הָאָב מְכוּרִים עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת מָכַר הַבֵּן אֵין לַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב: If the father sold the property, it is sold to the purchaser inasmuch as he may use it and consume its produce until the father dies, at which point it belongs to the son. If the son sold it during his father’s lifetime, the purchaser has no right to use it until the father dies.
גְּמָ׳ וְכִי כָּתַב מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה מַאי הָוֵי הָא תְּנַן מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵּט וְאִם מֵת חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת GEMARA: And if he wrote: I give the property from today and after my death, what of it? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Gittin 72a): If a husband said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from today and after my death, it is a bill of divorce but not a complete bill of divorce, and therefore if he dies without children his wife performs the ritual through which a woman is freed of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza], as perhaps the bill of divorce is invalid and she is bound by the levirate bond and may not remarry without first performing ḥalitza. But she does not enter into levirate marriage, as perhaps the bill of divorce is valid, and it is forbidden for a divorcée to marry her former husband’s brother.
הָתָם מְסַפְּקָא לַן אִי תְּנָאָה הָוֵי אִי חֲזָרָה הָוֵי אֲבָל הָכָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ גּוּפָא קְנִי מֵהַיּוֹם פֵּירָא לְאַחַר מִיתָה: The Gemara answers: There, we are uncertain if the expression: And after my death, is meant as a condition, i.e., if I die you will be divorced retroactively from today, or if it is a retraction of the statement: From today, meaning that the divorce would take effect only after his death, which would render it invalid. But here, in the case of a deed of gift, there is no contradiction in the statement, as this is what the father is presumably saying to him: Acquire the property itself today, and the produce after my death.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ חֲלַשׁ עָל לְגַבֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לָא יָדַעְנָא הֲלָכָה אֶיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ אִי הֲלָכָה אִי לָא וְטַעְמֵיהּ אֲנָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ § The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh was sick, and Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman entered to visit him. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: Ask him whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei or the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: I do not know Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning; can I ask him about the halakha? Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: You ask him if the halakha is in accordance with his opinion or not, and I will tell you his reasoning afterward.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי אָמַר רַב הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּתַר דִּנְפַקוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו Rav Naḥman asked Rabba bar Avuh. Rabba bar Avuh said to him that this is what Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. After they left, Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman that this is Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning: He says that writing: From today and after my death, is unnecessary because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect. The Gemara adds: That is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 8:4): Rabbi Yosei says that he need not write: From today and after my death, because the date written in a document proves when it takes effect.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן בְּהַקְנָאָה מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּהַקְנָאָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ § Rava asked Rav Naḥman: In a case where the father performed an act of transfer, transferring his property to his son after his death, what is the halakha? Is it still necessary to write: From today and after my death? Rav Naḥman said to him: In a case where he performed an act of transfer, he need not write: From today and after my death.
רַב פַּפֵּי אָמַר אִיכָּא אַקְנְיָתָא דִּצְרִיךְ וְאִיכָּא אַקְנְיָתָא דְּלָא צְרִיךְ אַקְנְיֵיהּ וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ לָא צָרִיךְ קְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ וְאַקְנְיֵיהּ צְרִיךְ Rav Pappi said: There is a case of transfer where he needs to write: From today and after my death, and there is a case of transfer where he does not need to do so. If it is written in the deed that he transferred it to him and we, the witnesses, acquired it from him, he does not need to write: From today and after my death. But if the statement is written in the opposite order: We acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he still needs to write: From today and after my death.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא יָדְעִינַן וְסָפְרֵי יָדְעִי שְׁאֵלוּנְהוּ לְסָפְרֵי דְאַבָּיֵי וְיָדְעִי וּלְסָפְרֵי דְרָבָא וְיָדְעִי Rav Ḥanina of Sura objects to this distinction: Is there anything that we, the Sages, do not know, and the scribes know? The distinction between the two opposite orderings of the above statement was unknown to the Sages. The Gemara relates that the Sages asked Abaye’s scribes and they knew the distinction, and they asked Rava’s scribes and they also knew the distinction.
רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר בֵּין אַקְנְיֵיהּ וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ בֵּין קְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ וְאַקְנְיֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ וּבְדוּכְרַן פִּתְגָמֵי דַּהֲוֵי בְּאַנְפַּנָא פְּלִיגִי Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether it is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he need not write: From today and after my death, as the act of transfer is mentioned in any event. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in the mishna disagree whether the phrase: From today and after my death, is necessary only with regard to a case where the deed merely states: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence, without any mention of an act of transfer.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא וַאֲמַר לִי אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ אֲנַן הָכִי מַתְנֵינַן לָהּ אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בְּהַקְנָאָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בֵּין אַקְנְיֵיהּ וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ בֵּין קְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ וְאַקְנְיֵיהּ לָא צְרִיךְ בְּדוּכְרַן פִּתְגָמֵי דַּהֲווֹ בְּאַנְפַּנָא פְּלִיגִי: Rav Kahana said: I stated this halakha in the presence of Rav Zevid of Neharde’a, and he said to me: You teach it like this, i.e., as a question and answer followed by a dispute; we teach it like this, i.e., as a single, unbroken statement: Rava says that Rav Naḥman says that in a case where transfer is mentioned in the deed, the owner need not write: From today and after my death. This is the halakha whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether the wording is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him; he need not write: From today and after my death. They disagree only with regard to a case where the wording is: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence.
הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ אִיתְּמַר מָכַר הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב וּמֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב § The mishna teaches that if one writes a document granting his property to his son from today and after his death, neither he nor the son can sell the property. It was stated that in a case where the son sold the property during the father’s lifetime, and then the son died during the father’s lifetime, after which the father died as well,