שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר תְּנוּ הַלְוָאָתִי לִפְלוֹנִי הַלְוָאָתוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּבָרִיא רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר הוֹאִיל וְיוֹרֵשׁ יוֹרְשָׁהּ With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: Give the loan owed to me to so-and-so as a gift, the loan owned to him is acquired by so-and-so. And this is the halakha despite the fact that this does not apply in the case of a healthy person, as one cannot transfer a loan to a third party without a promissory note. Rav Pappa says: In this case the halakha of transferring loans differs with regard to a person on his deathbed, since an heir inherits loans without a promissory note, and the Sages accorded the gift of a person on his deathbed the halakhic status of an inheritance.
רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר הַלְוָאָה אִיתָא בְּבָרִיא וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ תְּנֵהוּ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קָנָה Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: A loan without a promissory note can be conferred as a gift by a healthy person. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Huna says that Rav says, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to one who said to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, give it to so-and-so, if this was stated in the presence of all three of the parties, the third party acquires the money without an act of acquisition and without the need for witnesses.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ דֶּקֶל לְאֶחָד וּפֵירוֹתָיו לְאַחֵר מַהוּ מִי שַׁיַּיר מְקוֹם פֵּירֵי אוֹ לָא שַׁיַּיר אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר לְאַחֵר לָא הָוֵי שִׁיּוּר לְעַצְמוֹ חוּץ מִפֵּירוֹתָיו מַהוּ § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to one who gave a palm tree to one person and its fruit to another, what is the halakha? Did he reserve the place of the fruit on the tree for the second person in order to give him a tangible object, and therefore the second person acquires the fruit, or did he not reserve it, and the second person does not acquire the fruit? Furthermore, if you say that giving the palm tree to one person and giving the fruit to another is not considered reserving the place of the fruit unless this is explicitly stipulated, then if he reserves the fruit for himself, stating that the tree is given to another except for its fruit, what is the halakha?
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר דֶּקֶל לְאֶחָד וּפֵירוֹתָיו לְאַחֵר לָא הָוֵי שִׁיּוּר מְקוֹם פֵּירֵי דֶּקֶל לְאֶחָד וְשִׁיֵּיר פֵּירוֹתָיו לְפָנָיו שַׁיַּיר מְקוֹם פֵּירֵי מַאי טַעְמָא כֹּל לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּעַיִן יָפָה מְשַׁיֵּיר Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: Even if you say that giving the palm tree to one person and its fruit to another is not considered reserving the place of the fruit for the second person, if he gave the palm tree to one person and reserved the fruit for himself, he also reserved the place of the fruit for himself. What is the reason for this distinction? The reason is that anything that one reserves with regard to himself, he reserves generously, and therefore he reserves for himself not only the fruit itself, but also the place of the fruit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי אֲנַן אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁדְּיוֹטָא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁלִּי דְּיוֹטָא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁלּוֹ Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We learned the aforementioned statement of Rav Naḥman with regard to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish concerning a different matter, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: In the case of one who sells a house to another and says to him: I am selling the house on the condition that the upper story [deyota] remains mine, the upper story remains his.