כָּאן בְּצוֹוֵחַ מֵעִיקָּרָא כָּאן בְּשׁוֹתֵק מֵעִיקָּרָא וּלְבַסּוֹף צוֹוֵחַ Here, in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset. As soon as he is given the deed of gift he states that he does not want it. In this case, he does not receive the property. There, in Shmuel’s statement, it is a case where he is initially silent when he receives the deed of gift, and is ultimately shouting in protest that he does not want it. In this case he acquires the gift before he protests, so it is his.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק זִיכָּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְשָׁתַק וּלְבַסּוֹף צָוַוח בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says that if the owner transfers ownership of the property to him through another person, who performs an act of acquisition for this other party in his presence, and he was initially silent, i.e., when the act of acquisition is performed, but ultimately shouted in protest when the property is actually given to him, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.
דְּתַנְיָא הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְאָמַר הַלָּה אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן אִם הָיָה רַבָּן שֵׁנִי כֹּהֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר הַלָּה אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן כְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): If one wrote a document granting his property to another, and there were slaves among his property, and the other person said: I do not want them, if their second master, i.e., the recipient, was a priest, they partake of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as his protest is ignored. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once the other person said: I do not want them, the giver or his heirs have already acquired them, and they are the slaves’ owners.
וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ וְתַנָּא קַמָּא אֲפִילּוּ עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ And we discussed the baraita: And does the first tanna hold that he acquires them even if he is standing and shouting in protest that he does not want them? That is not reasonable.
אָמַר רָבָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּצוֹוֵחַ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא קָנֵי שָׁתַק וּלְבַסּוֹף צָוַוח דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּקָנֵי Rava says, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says: In a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset, when he is given the gift, everyone agrees that he did not acquire them. In a case where he was silent at the time and ultimately shouted in protest, everyone agrees that he acquired them.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי שֶׁזִּיכָּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְשָׁתַק וּלְבַסּוֹף צָוַוח דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר מִדִּשְׁתֵיק קְנִינְהוּ וְהַאי דְּקָא צָוַוח מִהְדָּר הוּא דְּקָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ When they disagree it is in a case when he transfers ownership to him through another person, and the recipient was there and was silent, and ultimately, when he actually receives the slaves, he shouted in protest. As the first tanna holds that once he was initially silent, he acquired them, and the fact that he is shouting indicates that he is retracting his initial acceptance of the gift. His acquisition cannot be canceled in this manner. If he does not want to own the slaves, he can sell them, give them away, or emancipate them.
וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר הוֹכִיחַ סוֹפוֹ עַל תְּחִלָּתוֹ וְהַאי דְּלָא צָוַוח עַד הַשְׁתָּא דְּסָבַר כִּי לָא מָטוּ לִידִי מַאי אֶצְוַוח And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent; he never intended to acquire the slaves. And the reason that he did not shout in protest until now is that he reasoned: As long as they did not enter my possession, to what end will I shout?
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי אֵין אוֹמְרִין כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם בִּשְׁטָר זוֹכֶה לְפִיכָךְ יָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִכּוּלָּם § The Sages taught (Tosefta 9:6): If a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and three hundred to so-and-so, and four hundred to so-and-so, in this case one does not say that whoever appears first in the deed acquires his money first. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the one who gave the gifts, and it becomes clear that the money given was pledged to a creditor, then the creditor collects from all of them.
אֲבָל אָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַחֲרָיו לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹמְרִין כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם בַּשְּׁטָר זוֹכֶה לְפִיכָךְ יָצָא עָלָיו שְׁטַר חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן אֵין לוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו אֵין לוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשֶּׁלִּפְנֵי פָנָיו But if a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, then one says: Anyone who appears first in the deed gains. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the giver, the creditor first collects from the last one of the recipients. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the previous recipient. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the recipient listed before the previous recipient.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִי בְּנִי בְּכוֹר כָּרָאוּי לוֹ נוֹטְלָן וְנוֹטֵל אֶת בְּכוֹרָתוֹ אִם אָמַר בִּבְכוֹרָתוֹ יָדוֹ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה רָצָה נוֹטְלָן רָצָה נוֹטֵל בְּכוֹרָתוֹ The Sages taught in a baraita: If there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my firstborn son, as is appropriate for him, the firstborn takes the two hundred dinars and takes his portion as a firstborn as well. If he said: Give my firstborn son two hundred dinars for his portion as a firstborn, he does not receive both, but he has the advantage; if he wants, he takes the two hundred dinars, and if he wants, he takes his portion as a firstborn.
וּשְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ מָאתַיִם זוּז לִפְלוֹנִית אִשְׁתִּי כָּרָאוּי לָהּ נוֹטַלְתָּן וְנוֹטֶלֶת אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אִם אָמַר בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ The baraita continues: And similarly, if there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my wife, as is appropriate for her, she takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of her marriage contract as well. If he said: Give her two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract,