משנה: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כָּל־נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים שִׁייֵר קַרְקַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא מַתָּנָתוֹ קַייֶמֶת. לֹא שִׁייֵר קַרְקַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אֵין מַתָּנָתוֹ קַייֶמֶת. לֹא כָתַב בָּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא אוֹמֵר שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָייִתִי וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים בָּרִיא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָייָה שֶׁשְּׁכִיב מְרַע הָיָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָֽרְאָייָה. MISHNAH: If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate77Since he reserves property for himself, it is a sign that he hopes to recover. The gift document written on his orders is not a death-bed will. But if in the document itself it is described as a last will and testament, it is revocable at all times. his gift is permanent; if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent78A death-bed will (which may be written as a gift document and does not have to follow the formal rules of a will) is revocable if the patient recovers.. If [in the document] it was not written “bedridden”; he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rebbi Meїr79He holds that the actual situation before the court may serve as prima facie evidence that so was the prior state. If the bequeather is healthy now, proof is required that he was not healthy when the gift document was written.
An alternative interpretation would be that he holds that a duly executed and witnessed document is always valid unless proven invalid. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is advantaged.”. But the Sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants80As long as the gift described in the document was not executed, the recipient is a claimant and the document is subject to the giver’s interpretation unless the claimant can prove otherwise. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is disadvantaged.”.
הלכה: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כָּל־נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים כול׳. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. שִׁייֵר מְטַלְטְלִין לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא הִנִּיחַ לוֹ מָעוֹת וְלָקַח קַרְקַע כְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁייֵר לוֹ קַרְקַע. וְדָא דְתֵימַר. לֹא שִׁייֵר קַרְקַע כָּל־שֶׁהוּא אֵין מַתָּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. בְּאוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִבְרִיא. אֲבָל אִם הִבְרִיא הָדָא הִיא דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יַנַּאי. עָשׂוּ דִבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע כְּבָרִיא שֶׁכָּתַב וְנָתַן. וְהוּא שֶׁמֵּת מֵאוֹתוֹ הַחוֹלִי. מְסוּכָּן שֶׁחִילֵּק נְכָסָיו בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בַּשַׁבָּת מַה שֶׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי. וְאִם הוּא בָרִיא עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב בַּכֶּסֶף בַּשְּׁטָר וּבַחֲזָּקָה. HALAKHAH: “If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he reserved any movables, he did not do anything81The Babli disagrees, 150a, if the amount reserved is more than minimal.. But if he reserved money and bought real estate it is as if he reserved real estate. And what you say that if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not a gift, if he did (not)82Clearly, the cases where the patient recovers and has occasion to revoke his will, or when he dies, are switched in the text. recuperate. But if he did [not]82Clearly, the cases where the patient recovers and has occasion to revoke his will, or when he dies, are switched in the text. recuperate, that is the case about which Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, they treated words of a bedridden person like those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered83Ketubot 11:1 Note 23; Giṭṭin 1:6, Note 201; Babli Giṭṭin 13a, 15a; Bava batra 151a,175a.; but only if he died from that sickness. If a critically ill person distributed his property84By oral instruction., whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath85When acquisition is forbidden., what he did is valid. But if he was healthy [it is valid] only if he wrote “by money, or contract, or possession.86Mishnah Qiddušin 1:5.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִיטְמָא בְסָפֵק בִּקְעָה בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים. בָּא לִשְׁאָל בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה נִשְׁאֲלִין לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה. בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים נִשְׁאֲלִין לוֹ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִלְבַד יָמִים הַסְּמוּכִים לַגְּשָׁמִים. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Somebody became possibly impure87Mishnah Ṭahorot 6:6 declares that a doubt which arises about impurity in a private domain is treated as if the case were about certain impurity whereas in a public domain the same case is treated as one of purity. Mishnah 6:7 then notes that an agricultural area is treated like a private domain during the rainy season (the entire time between ploughing at the time of the first rains through harvest in early summer) but as a public domain after the harvest is completed and the fields are cleared. in an agricultural area whether in summer or in winter; this refersn to the dispute between Rebbi Meїr and the Sages88Since R. Meїr holds that individual cases have to be decided according to the situation actually before the court (Note 79), for him the problem is not the state of the area when the question arose but when it is asked of the rabbinic authority.. If he comes to ask in summer, one answers him according to the rules of summer; in the winter, one answers him according to the rules of winter. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only days close to the rainy season89Even R. Meїr will not decide according to the situation when the question was asked if there was a long interval between the creation of the problem and its resolution..
רִבִּי יַנַּאי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. יַד הַשְׁטָרוֹת לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. לֹא כָתַב לָהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע וְהוּא אוֹמֵר שְׁכִיב מְרַע וכול׳. וַהֲוָה רִבִּי יַנַּיי מְקַלֵּס לֵיהּ. הַזָּלִים זָהָב מִכִּיס. בְּנִי אַל יָלִיזוּ מֵעֵינֶיךָ וגו׳. חַד טְלִי זְבִין נִיכְסוֹי. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר. חֲזָקָה עַל בֶּן דַּעַת חָֽתְמוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לַעֲקוֹר נִכְסִין מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה עָלָיו לְהָבִיא הָֽרְאָייָה. אוֹמֵר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יַד הַשְׁטָרוֹת לָעֶלְיוֹנָה. רִבִּי יָסָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַה בְּרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא יַד הַשְׁטָרוֹת לָעֶלְיוֹנָה. וְהֵיךְ אַתּוּן אָֽמְרִין. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף וְאָמַר. חֲזָקָה עַל בֶּן דַּעַת חָֽתְמוּ. וָתְּ אָֽמְרָת. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לַעֲקוֹר נְכָסִים מִמִּשְׁפָּחָה לְמִשְׁפָּחָה עָלָיו לְהָבִיא רְאָייָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא לָא אָֽמְרִית הָדָא מִילְּתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. אֲפִילוּ בָּעֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִיכְפּוֹר. וְלָא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵם רִבִּי. יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְלָאו מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. אֶלָּא חֲכָמִים שֶׁהֵן כְּרִבִּי. Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged80,As long as the gift described in the document was not executed, the recipient is a claimant and the document is subject to the giver’s interpretation unless the claimant can prove otherwise. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is disadvantaged.”91In the Babli, 154b, the version is: The holder of a document of indebtedness or gift has to get judicial confirmation of its validity.. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah: “If [in the document] it was not written ‘bedridden’ but he says, I was bedridden,” etc.92The position of the anonymous majority in the Mishnah. Rebbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet93Is. 46:6.,” “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,94Prov. 3:21.” etc.95Similar texts are in Kilaim 8:1 Note 17, Yebamot 1:1 Notes 96–103, Soṭah 2:6 Note 177, Qiddušin 3:5 Note 166. A young man was selling his properties96Real estate. Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:8 permits underage children to buy and sell movables as soon as they are able to handle money. The inference is that for real estate transactions one has to be an adult. The Babli, 156a, restricts the right to sell inherited real estate to people who have reached the age of 20. It is clear from the case discussed here that this is a purely Babylonian restriction.. The case97The family objected to his selling inherited real estate. They disputed the validity of the deed on the grounds that the seller was underage. came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the presumption is that they98The witnesses. signed for a mentally capable person99He agrees that the seller of real estate not only has to be an adult (13+ years for a male, 12+ years for a female) but also must understand the consequences of what he is doing.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family, he has to bring proof100That he was an adult understanding what he was doing.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the holder of documents is advantaged79He holds that the actual situation before the court may serve as prima facie evidence that so was the prior state. If the bequeather is healthy now, proof is required that he was not healthy when the gift document was written.
An alternative interpretation would be that he holds that a duly executed and witnessed document is always valid unless proven invalid. The technical term for this position is: “the holder of a document is advantaged.”. Rebbi Yasa asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, how about Rebbi, since Rebbi said, the holder of documents is disadvantaged? He told him, everybody agrees that the holder of documents is advantaged. But how could you say that a case came before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph who said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. And you said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family to another family, he has to bring proof! He told him, I never said this101He now holds that the person attacking the validity of a duly witnessed document, not the defendant, must prove his case. In the Babli (Ketubot 18b) this opinion is credited to R. Simeon ben Laqish, confirmed in his name by the Yerushalmi Ševi‘it 10:5 Note 96 and Giṭṭin 4:2 Note 46, in R. La’s name Ketubot 2:3 Note 61.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Yasa, even if Rebbi Joḥanan wants to deny it, did not Rebbi Yannai say in the name of Rebbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah? This is the opinion of the Sages91In the Babli, 154b, the version is: The holder of a document of indebtedness or gift has to get judicial confirmation of its validity. who follow Rebbi102But R. Joḥanan himself decides practice to follow R. Meїr..
רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. חִילּוּפִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. מָהוּ חִילּוּפִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. חֲבֵרַייָא רַבְרְבַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. עֵדִים. חֲבֵרַייָא זְעִירַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. אֵין עֵדִים. כְּלוּם פְּלִיגֵי אֶלָּא עַל הָעֵדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם לִכְתּוֹב שְׁכִיב מְרַע וְלֹא כְתַבְתֶּם שַׁקָּרִים אַתֶּם. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meir103Since Rav and R. Joḥanan decide in the same sense, this is the established practice in the Yerushalmi. This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. Samuel said, the Mishnah is inverted104The opinion ascribed to R. Meїr in this Mishnah is rejected by him in another.. In what is the Mishnah inverted? The senior colleagues said, “witnesses.”105In Mishnah Ketubot 2:3, an anonymous Mishnah which therefore is held to represent R. Meїr’s opinion, witnesses may agree that they signed a deed but that nevertheless the deed is invalid since they acted under duress. Therefore, R. Meїr in the Mishnah here should not object to an investigation of the witnesses on a document of questionable validity. The junior colleagues said, no “witnesses”: did they only disagree about witnesses106There is no discrepancy between the two Mishnaiot since the question here is about the claim of the donor, not about the witnesses.? Rebbi Aḥa said, since I told you to write “bedridden” and you did not write it, you are liers107Even if the disagreement is about witnesses, it has nothing to do with the Mishnah in Ketubot. Since people who write down oral dispositions of a sick person are required to state in the document that it is a death-bed will, the donor claims that the document is invalid because it did not follow his instructions and, therefore, the genuine signatures on the document convict the signatories of lying..