Bava Batra — Daf 152b

בידוע שלא היה קנין אלא מחמת המיתה ואחוי ליה בידיה ואשתיק

כי קם אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא מאי אחוי לך אמר ליה במיפה את כחו

היכי דמי מיפה את כחו אמר רב חסדא וקנינא מיניה מוסיף על מתנתא דא

פשיטא כתב לזה וכתב לזה היינו דכי אתא רב דימי אמר דייתיקי מבטלת דייתיקי כתב וזיכה לזה כתב וזיכה לזה רב אמר ראשון קנה ושמואל אמר שני קנה

רב אמר ראשון קנה הרי היא כמתנת בריא ושמואל אמר שני קנה הרי היא כמתנת שכיב מרע

והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא במתנת שכיב מרע שכתוב בה קנין

צריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רב משום דקנו מיניה אבל בהא דלא קנו מיניה אימא מודה ליה לשמואל ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר שמואל אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרב צריכא

בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא שלחו ליה מבי רב לשמואל ילמדנו רבינו שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחרים וקנו מידו מהו שלח להו אין אחר קנין כלום

because it is known that the [symbolic] acquisition took place  only on account of [his expectation of] death'!  He answered him  by [a wave of] his hand and remained silent.  When he rose, R. Nahman b. Isaac asked Raba, 'What did he indicate to you?' [Raba] replied to him,' That Rab Judah's report refers to the case] where [the testator] strengthened the donee's claims.'  In what manner [is it indicated that one wished to] strengthen the donee's claims? — R. Hisda replied: [By including in the deed the formula]. 'And we  acquired from him  in addition to this [presentation of the] gift.' [It is] obvious [that where a dying man] gave [all his estate] in writing to one man  and [subsequently] to another  the [law is the] very same as [that which] R. Dimi enunciated when he came, [vis., one] will annuls [another] will.  [If. however.] he wrote [a deed of the gift] and handed  it  to one  and [subsequently] wrote [a deed of the gift] and handed  it  to another,  Rab said: The first acquires [its] ownership; while Samuel said: The second acquires [its] ownership. Rab said, 'the first acquires [its] ownership' for  it is like the gift of a person in good health;  while Samuel said, the second acquires [Its] ownership', for it is like the gift of a dying man. But surely their  difference of opinion on the [principle] has [already] once been expressed in [the case of] the [deed of a] gift of a dying man, in which symbolic acquisition was entered!  [Both are] required. For if [their dispute] had been stated [in connection] with the first case,  [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] Rab adheres  to [his opinion], because symbolic acquisition took place;  but in this case,  where no symbolic acquisition took place, it might have been suggested [that] he agrees with Samuel.  And if [their dispute] had been stated [in connection] with the second case,  [it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] Samuel adheres  to [his opinion];  but in that [case]'  it might have been suggested [that] he agrees with Rab. [Hence both were] required. At Sura they taught as above.  At Pumbeditha they taught as follows.  R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: [The following enquiry] was sent from the academy  to Samuel. 'Will our Master instruct us [as to] what [is the law in the case where] a dying man gave all his estate to strangers, in writing; and symbolic acquisition [also] took place,  [but was not entered in the deed]?'  He replied  to them: 'After [symbolic] acquisition no withdrawal is of any avail'.