בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה קִנְיָן אֶלָּא מֵחֲמַת הַמִּיתָה וְאַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ וְאִשְׁתִּיק The reason for Shmuel’s ruling is that it is known that an act of acquisition was performed only due to his expectation of imminent death. This ruling indicates that if the giver does not recover, the recipient acquires the gift, and the performance of an act of acquisition does not indicate that the giver intended to transfer the property only after his death. Rav Naḥman indicated the answer to Rava with a gesture of his hand, and Rava was silent.
כִּי קָם אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא מַאי אַחְוִי לָךְ אֲמַר לֵיהּ בִּמְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ When Rav Naḥman arose from his place, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What did he indicate to you with that gesture? Rava said to him: He indicated that the statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by requiring an act of acquisition to be performed in addition to bestowing the gift.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מְיַפֶּה אֶת כֹּחוֹ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וּקְנֵינָא מִינֵּיהּ מוֹסִיף עַל מַתַּנְתָּא דָּא The Gemara asks: What is considered an act of acquisition that enhances the legal power of the recipient? Rav Ḥisda said: An act of acquisition is clearly intended only to reinforce the legal power of the recipient when, for example, the following phrase is written in the deed: And we, the witnesses, acquired it from him by means of an act of acquisition in addition to this gift. This indicates that the act of acquisition was not performed in order to effect the actual acquisition.
פְּשִׁיטָא כָּתַב לָזֶה וְכָתַב לָזֶה הַיְינוּ דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר דְּיָיתֵיקֵי מְבַטֶּלֶת דְּיָיתֵיקֵי כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה כָּתַב וְזִיכָּה לָזֶה רַב אָמַר רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר שֵׁנִי קָנָה § It is obvious that if a person on his deathbed wrote a deed of transfer granting his property to this individual, and he then wrote a deed granting the same property to that individual, i.e., a second recipient, this is the case discussed by Rav Dimi. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: A later will [dayetikei] nullifies an earlier will. The amora’im disagree with regard to a case where one wrote a deed of transfer and also conferred possession of the property on this individual, and then he wrote a deed of transfer and conferred possession of the same property on that second individual. Rav says: The first recipient acquires the gift, and Shmuel says: The second recipient acquires the gift.
רַב אָמַר רִאשׁוֹן קָנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר שֵׁנִי קָנָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע The Gemara explains: Rav says that the first recipient acquires the gift. Since an additional act of conferring possession of the property was performed, the gift is considered like the gift of a healthy person, which cannot be retracted. Shmuel says that the second recipient acquires the gift because it is considered like the gift of a person on his deathbed, which can be retracted.
וְהָא אִפְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav and Shmuel already disagree about this matter once? With regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed, Rav maintained that the gift cannot be retracted, whereas Shmuel maintained that the acquisition was not effective. Why is it necessary to record another disagreement with regard to the same principle?
צְרִיכָא דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם דִּקְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ אֲבָל בְּהָא דְּלָא קְנוֹ מִינֵּיהּ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב צְרִיכָא The Gemara replies: It is necessary to cite both cases. This is because if it were stated only with regard to that case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that only in that case Rav says that the gift cannot be retracted, because an act of acquisition was performed. But in this case, where an act of acquisition was not performed, one might say that he concedes to Shmuel. And if it was stated only with regard to this case, where he conferred possession of the property on the recipient through a deed alone, one might say that only in this case Shmuel says that he can retract the gift. But in the other case, where an act of acquisition was recorded in the deed, one might say that Shmuel concedes to Rav that he cannot retract it. Therefore, it is necessary to cite both cases.
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ מִבֵּי רַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ מַהוּ שְׁלַח לְהוּ אֵין אַחַר קִנְיָן כְּלוּם In Sura they taught the statements of Rav and Shmuel that way, as stated above. In Pumbedita they taught their statements like this: Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: After the death of Rav, the following question was sent from the study hall of Rav to Shmuel: Let our teacher teach us: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed of transfer granting all of his property to others, and they performed an act of acquisition, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in reply: After an act of acquisition is performed, nothing can effect a retraction of the gift.