Bava Batra

— In respect of the prayer of the High Priest [on the Day of Atonement] Raba,  however, said in the name of R. Nahman: The [validity of a verbal] gift of a dying man is a mere [provision] of the Rabbis  lest his mind become affected.  But did R. Nahman say so?  Surely R. Nahman said: Although Samuel had stated that if a person sold a bond of indebtedness to another and subsequently  remitted [the debt] it is remitted,  and that even an heir may remit,  Samuel, [nevertheless]. admits that if he presented it to him as the gift of a dying man, he cannot [subsequently] remit it.  [Now]. if it is agreed'  that [this  is] Biblical, one can well understand the reason why one cannot remit [the debt]; if, however, It is maintained  that [this is merely] Rabbinical, why should he not be able to remit [it]? — It is not Biblical; but was given  [the same force] as [a law] of the Torah. Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: If a dying man said, 'Let X live  in this house', or,'Let X eat the fruit of this date-tree', his Instructions are to be disregarded  unless he used the following expression:  'Give this house to X that he may live in it', or 'Give this date-tree to X that he may eat of its fruit'  Does this mean to imply  that R. Nahman holds the opinion that [only] the rights  that a man in good health may confer,  may also be conferred by  a dying man, [while those] which a man in good health cannot confer,  can neither be conferred by a dying man?  Surely Raba said in the name of R Nahman: