שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת וְכַמָּה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב קַרְקַע כְּדֵי פַרְנָסָתוֹ וְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר מְטַלְטְלִין כְּדֵי פַרְנָסָתוֹ § The mishna teaches (146b): If a person on his deathbed reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. The Gemara asks: And how much is meant by the term: Any amount? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means land that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood. Since he reserved this land for himself, one can assume that he wished to transfer the rest of his property in any event. And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: Even if he reserved for himself movable property that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood, his gift is valid.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא כַּמָּה מְכַוְּונָן שְׁמַעְתָּתָא דְסָבֵי קַרְקַע טַעְמָא מַאי דְּאִי קָאֵי סָמֵיךְ עֲלֵיהּ מִטַּלְטְלִי נָמֵי אִי קָאֵי סָמֵיךְ עִילָּוַיְהוּ Rabbi Zeira said: How meticulous are the halakhic statements of the elders Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya. With regard to land, what is the reason that he must have reserved enough for his livelihood? The reason is that if he recovers he will rely on that land for his livelihood. With regard to movable property as well, if he recovers he will rely on it for his livelihood.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף וּמַאי כַּוּוֹנְתָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר מְטַלְטְלִין קַרְקַע תְּנַן מַאן דְּאָמַר כְּדֵי פַרְנָסָתוֹ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא תְּנַן Rav Yosef objects to Rabbi Zeira’s statement: What is meticulous about these statements? The statement of the one who says the gift is valid even if he reserved for himself movable property is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that he must leave himself land. The statement of the one who says that he must leave himself an amount sufficient to provide for his livelihood is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that his gift is valid if he reserved for himself any amount.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּתָנֵי קַרְקַע קַרְקַע דַּוְקָא וְהָא תְּנַן הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא לֹא יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם הוּא בֶּן חוֹרִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר כׇּל נְכָסַי נְתוּנִין לִפְלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵרִבּוֹא שֶׁבָּהֶן Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And anywhere that the term land is taught, does it mean specifically land? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Pe’a 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving away. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated.