משנה: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ אַחַר מוֹתוֹ הָאָב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּתוּבִין לַבֵּן וְהַבֵּן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב. מָכַר הָאָב מְכוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת מָכַר הַבֵּן אֵין לַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב. הָאָב תּוֹלֵשׁ וּמַאֲכִיל לְכָל־מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וּמַה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ תָּלוּשׁ הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death164“Today” for the transfer of title to the property, “after my death” for the transfer of usufruct.,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary165Without an explicit disclaimer, a deed is always deemed to be valid from the day it was written; Giṭṭin 7:3 Note 67.. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs166As movables, it is part of the estate, not only of the son inheriting the particular real estate..
הלכה: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְבָנָיו כול׳. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים אָעִיל עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵהַיּוֹם לְאַחַר מִיתָתוֹ מַתָּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה אֵינוֹ גֵט. חֲבֵרָייָא אָֽמְרִין. כֵּן אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינָהּ הִיא איסרטה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. כֵּן אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינָהּ בַּגִיטִּין וְאֵינָהּ בַּמַּתָּנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. בְּמַתָּנָה אִם כָּתַב מֵהַיּוֹם מַתָּנָה בְרוּרָה הִיא. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר כָּתַב בָּהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. לְשַׁייֵר בָּהּ אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת. אֲבָל בְּגִיטִּין אִם כָּתַב בָּהּ מֵהַיּוֹם כָּרוּת הוּא. לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר כָּתַב בָּהּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. לְשַׁייֵר לוֹ גוּפָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוֹן בַּר כַּהֲנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי לָא. לְשַׁייֵר לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא מָצִינוּ אִשָּׁה נְשׂוּאָה לָזֶה וּמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ לָזֶה. רִבִּי זֵירָא מְקַייֵם לֵיהּ וְצָװַח לֵיהּ. בְּנֵייהָ דְאוֹרָיְתָא. HALAKHAH: “One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. 167A slight reformulation of a paragraph in Giṭṭin 7:3, explained there in Notes 67–75. The colleagues say, so he told him: this is no condition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun168In Giṭṭin: R. Ze‘ira. For reasons of chronology, this is the more convincing reading. said, so he told him: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi La said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira confirmed him169Probably one should read with the text in Giṭṭin: מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ “he acclaimed him”. and called him “son of the Torah.”
הָאוֹמֵר. טַבִּי עַבְדִּי עָשִׂיתִי בֶּן חוֹרִין. עֲשִׂיתִיו בֶּן חוֹרִין. עוֹשֶׂה אֲנִי אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. הֲרֵי הוּא בֶן חוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה בֶן חוֹרִין. הֲרֵי זֶה זָכָה. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִלְבַד בִּשְׁטָר. יֵעָשֶׂה בֶן חוֹרִין. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא זָכָה. 170A slight reformulation of a text in Giṭṭin 1:6, explained there in Notes 157–162. Tosephta 9:14.“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free; then he acquired.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rebbi says, he acquired, but the Sages say, he did not acquire.”
הָאוֹמֵר. שָׂדֶה פְלוֹנִית נָתַתִּי לִפְלוֹנִי. נְתוּנָה לוֹ. תְּהֵא שֶׁלּוֹ. יִנְחַל פְּלוֹנִי בִנְכָסַײ. יַחֲזִק פְּלוֹנִי בִנְכָסַײ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. תִּינָּתֵן לוֹ מַתָּנָה. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. זָכָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא זָכָה. וְכוֹפִין אֶת הַיּוֹרְשִים לְקַייֵם דִּבְרֵי הַמֵּת. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אַף הַכּוֹתֵב דִּיאֵתֶימוֹן בְּלַעַז הֲרֵי זוֹ כְמַתָּנָה. רִבִּי חָנִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. חִיזַּרְתִּי עַל כָּל־בַּעֲלֵי לְשׁוֹנוֹת לֵידַע מָהוּ דִּיאֵתֶימוֹן וְלֹא אָמַר לִי אָדָם דָּבָר. If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything171Title to property cannot be transferred by simple declaration; cf. Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5. The Tosephta disagrees, 9:12. The Tosephta text is explained away by the Babli, Giṭṭin40b.. It should be given to him as a gift, Rebbi says, he acquired172If this was a death-bed declaration., but the Sages say, he did not acquire; but one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words.173Babli Giṭṭin 14b,15a,40a; Ketubot 70a. It was stated174Tosephta 9:14.: Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes διέθεμεν175“I disposed by will”, from Greek “to dispose” (H. M. Pineles). A. Gulak, Tarbiz 1 fasc. 4 (1931) 144–146 has noted that the expression τάδε διεθέμην is used in Egyptian Greek deeds; also cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, p. 143. Since the expression is a legal Greek term, its use characterizes a valid deed even though the corresponding use of the past in Hebrew was declared invalid as statement of a deed. (S. Lieberman, Tosefta kiFshutah Bava batra p. 441, wants to infer that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel validates also the Hebrew נָתַתִּי; this seems unjustified.) in Greek it is a gift. Rebbi Ḥanin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to know what is διέθεμεν and nobody told me anything176They were not acquainted with Greek legalese..
הָאוֹמֵר. יִינָֽתְנוּ נְכָסַיי לִפְלוֹנִי. מֵת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי. מֵת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי. הָרִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן קוֹדֵם. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי בְחַיֵי רִאשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וְאִם מֵת יַחֲזִיר לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַנּוֹתֵן. מֵת הַשְּׁלִישִי בְחַיֵּי הַשֵּׁינִי הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת. וְאִם מֵת יַחֲזִיר לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הַנּוֹתֵן. מֵת הַשֵּׁינִי וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי בְחַיֵי רִאשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְקוֹנֶה קַרְקַע. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אֲכִילַת פֵּירוֹת בִּלְבַד. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָהּ בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. וְלֹא בְמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא. כְּהָדָא הַהִיא אִיתָא כִּתְבַת נִיכְסָהּ לְחַד בַּר נַשׁ. צִרְכַת וְזִבְנַת לְבַעֲלָהּ. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר מַדְייָא אַעֵיל עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָהּ בְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלֹא כְמַתְּנַת בָּרִיא הוּא. הָדָא אִיתָא מִכֵּיוָן דְּבַעֲלָהּ זָקוּק מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ מְזוֹנֵי. וְלֹא כְמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא. עַד כְּדוֹן זָקוּק מְסַפְּקָא פִיתָּא וְקִיטְנֵי. דִּילְמָא בֵיעֵי דִּלְמָא תַּרְנוֹגַלִּין. מִמַּה דְתַנֵּי. הָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְקוֹנֶה קַרְקַע. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. מוֹכֶרֶת אֲפִילוּ לוֹכַל דְּבָרִים מְעוּלִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. תַּנֵּיי תַּמָן. קְבוּרָה בִמְזוֹנוֹת. לֹא הָיָה לָהּ קְבוּרָה. מִן מַה דְתַנֵּי. הָראשׁוֹן אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְקוֹנֶה קַרְקַע. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. מוֹכֵר קַרְקַע וְלוֹקֵחַ קְבוּרָה. 177This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Ketubot 9:1, Notes 66–85. The text is partially problematic. One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather178Since Z has to receive the property from Y’s estate, if Y never got the property Z cannot get it. Babli 136b.. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first179One has to read: The second. one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate180The expression “my property should be given to X” is the language of a bequest. The bequest was conditional. If the condition becomes moot, the bequest becomes unconditional. In Ketubot, Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell., the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct181Babli 137a.. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will182This is intelligible only in the Ketubot version. Since a death-bed will becomes valid only at the moment of death, the lien formulated by the bequeather already became active; the property is Y’s before X’s death-bed will is activated.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person183He holds that the property was given to X for his use; therefore he may sell it for profit but is barred from giving it away.. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man184In her will. From the following it is clear that in this case, there was no separation of properties. During the woman’s lifetime, her husband has the usufruct of her properties. Therefore, she can neither sell them nor give them away.. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia185It is not clear whether his name was bar Madia or bar Maria. brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan186One has to read: R. Yose; the story is dated three generations after R. Joḥanan and contradicts the latter’s statement above. said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired180The expression “my property should be given to X” is the language of a bequest. The bequest was conditional. If the condition becomes moot, the bequest becomes unconditional. In Ketubot, Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell. the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there187Mishnah Ketubot 4:6. that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired180The expression “my property should be given to X” is the language of a bequest. The bequest was conditional. If the condition becomes moot, the bequest becomes unconditional. In Ketubot, Rebbi is reported to permit the first holder to sell the real estate and use the proceeds for himself; then the second and third will receive nothing since the real estate for which the condition was formulated is no longer operative. Naturally, he may sell only if prior to the sale he had acquired the property. So here one should understand acquired as acquired in order to sell. the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִילֵּין דְּכָֽתְבִין. אִין סְנָת אִין סְנוּת. תְּנַאי מָמוֹן הוּא וְקִייַמְנוּהָ רַבָּנִן. Rebbi Yose said: About those who write, “if she hates, if she is hated”. This is a stipulation about money; the rabbis upheld it188A prenuptial agreement about eventual divorce settlements disregarding rabbinic rules in the matter is valid. Cf. Note 131..