Bava Batra

This [law is a matter of dispute between] Tannaim.  For it was taught: [If a person said.] My estate [shall be] yours, and after you [it shall be given] to X', and the first [recipient] went down [into the estate] and sold [it] and spent [the money],  the second may reclaim [the estate] from those who bought it;  [these are] the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The second [may] receive only what the first had left. An incongruity was pointed out: [If a person said]. 'My estate [shall be] yours and after you [it shall be given] to X', the first [may] go down [into the estate], and sell [it] and spend [the money; these are] the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The first has only [the right of] usufruct. [This, surely, presents] a contradiction [between one statement] of Rabbi and the other statement of his,  and [between one statement] of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and the other statement of his!  — There is no contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi,  [since] one  [may refer] to the capital;  and the other,  to the usufruct.  There is [also] no contradiction between the two statements of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel  [since] one  may speak of what is the proper thing;  the other, of the law ex post facto. Abaye said: Who is a cunning rogue? — He who counsels  to sell an estate,  in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. R. Johanan said: The halachah is according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who [however], admits that if [the estate] was assigned  as the gift of a dying person, the transaction is invalid.  What is the reason? — Abaye said, [because] the gift of a dying person is acquired only after death, and [by that time] 'after you'  had preceded him.  But did Abaye say so? Surely it was stated: When is possession of the gift of a dying man acquired? Abaye said, 'at death', and Raba said, 'after death'!  Abaye withdrew from that opinion.  Whence [is it proved] that he withdrew from this view,  perhaps he withdrew from that?  — This cannot be entertained,  for we have learnt: [If a dying man  said to his wife] 'Here is thy divorce should I die'  [or] 'Here is thy divorce [after] my present illness'  [or] 'Here is thy divorce after [my] death', [the divorce in all these cases] is invalid. R. Zeira said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and even if the estate contained slaves whom he liberated.  [Is this not] obvious? — It might have been presumed [that] he could be told that it was not given to him for the purpose of doing what was prohibited,  hence he taught us [that we do not say so]. R. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and even in the case where a dead man's shrouds were made of it.  [This is surely] obvious! It might have been presumed that it was not given to him  to turn  into [something of which it is] forbidden to have any benefit  so he taught us [that this is not so]. R. Nahman b. R. Hisda gave the following exposition. [If one said to another]. 'This ethrog  is given to you as a gift, and after you  [it shall be given] to X', [and] the first [recipient] took it and performed with it his duty,  — this will be a point of dispute  between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel.  R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: The dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel can only extend as far as [the case] there  because [one] Master is of the opinion [that] acquisition of usufruct is like the acquisition of the capital, and the other] Master is of the opinion [that] acquisition of the usufruct is not like the acquisition of the capital, but here,