Bava Batra

If [its purpose is] to exclude Raba's [law,  surely] he [merely] adds [to that of R. Abba]!  If [to exclude the law] of Mar son of R. Ashi, [surely, it has already been stated that] the law is not according to Mar son of R. Ashi!  If to exclude [the laws] of Samuel and R. Shesheth and R. Papa, to these, surely, objections have already been raised!  — But, [this is the object of the declaration:] To exclude [the law] of R. Johanan,  and [that which was to be implied by] the difficulty of Mar son of R. Ashi. IF ONE DISTRIBUTED HIS PROPERTY VERBALLY [AND] GAVE TO ONE [SON] MORE, AND TO [ANOTHER] ONE LESS, etc. How is one to understand [the giving of] A GIFT AT THE BEGINNING, IN THE MIDDLE, or AT THE END? — When R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: [If one wrote,] 'Let a certain field be given to X and he shall inherit it,' this is [called] A GIFT AT THE BEGINNING. [If he wrote], 'let him inherit it and it shall be given to him', this is [called] A GIFT AT THE END. 'Let him inherit it and let it be given to him so that he may inherit it', this is A GIFT IN THE MIDDLE. [This law is] only [applicable to the case] of one person and one field,  but not to [the case of] one person and two fields,  [or] one field and two persons.  R. Eleazar said: ['The same law applies] even [to the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons'. [The law,]  however, [is] not [applicable] in [the case of] two fields and two persons. When Rabin came  he said: [In the case where one wrote], 'Let this field be given to X, and let Y inherit that [other] field', R. Johanan said: He  acquires possession, [and] R. Eleazar said: He  does not acquire possession. Said Abaye to Rabin: You have given us satisfaction [in one [respect] and cause for demurring in another.  [For, as regards the apparent contradiction between the statement] of R. Eliezar  and the other statement of His  one can well explain [that there is] no [real] difficulty [since] one statement  [may be said to refer to the case] of one person and two fields;  and the other,  to two persons and two fields. [The contradiction], however, [between the first statement] of R. Johanan,  and his second one  [presents] a difficulty!  — [We  are] Amoraim [in dispute] as to [which were the views] of R. Johanan. Resh Lakish, however, said: No possession is [ever] acquired  unless [the testator] had said, 'Let X and Y inherit this and that particular field, which I had assigned to them as a gift, so that they may inherit them'. [The following Amoraim are] in [the same] dispute [as that of those mentioned]. R. Hamnuna said: [The law that possession  is acquired], was only taught [in the case of] one person and one field, but not [in the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons.  And R. Nahman said: [The same law applies] even [to the case of] one person and two fields [or] one field and two persons, but not [to that of] two fields and two persons.  And R. Shesheth said: [Possession is acquired] even [in the case of] two fields and two persons. R. Shesheth said: I derive my decision from the following Baraitha.  If one  said, 'Give my children  a shekel a week',  and they require a sela',  a sela' is to be given to them.  If, however, he said,'Give them no more than a shekel', only a shekel is to be given to them. But if he gave instructions [that] if these died