Previously, I thought that I had a son. Now that I have been informed that I do not have a son, my property shall be given to so-and-so. Or if he was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall his property be given? And he said to them: Previously, I thought that my wife was pregnant. Now that I have been informed that my wife is not pregnant, my property shall be given to so-and-so. And if it then became known, in either of those cases, that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is not a valid gift, since he clearly indicated that he bestowed the gift on that recipient only because he thought he had no heir.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as the case where he said: I thought that I had a son, is different, since he stated the reason for his actions.

Since the difference between the cases is obvious, the Gemara asks: He who asked it, why did he ask it? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that when the bedridden man mentioned that he does not have a son, he is mentioning it only as an expression of his sorrow, since the matter of the disposal of his estate brings it to mind, but he is not mentioning this as the reason for the gift, the baraita therefore teaches us that the reference to his son indicates that had he known that he had a son, he would not have given his property to others.

§ Unlike the gifts of a healthy person, the gifts of a person on his deathbed do not require a formal act of acquisition. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: From where is it derived that this halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is by Torah law? As it is stated in the passage delineating the laws of inheritance: “If a man dies, and he does not have a son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term “you shall cause…to pass” is superfluous, as the verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his daughter. One can therefore derive from this term that you have another case of causing property to pass to another, which is comparable to this case of inheritance, which does not require an act of acquisition. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers” (Numbers 27:9). The verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his brothers, as inheritance is transferred by itself, without any intervention. One can therefore derive from the term “you shall give” that you have another case of giving that is comparable to this case. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav Naḥman, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term “you shall cause…to pass”? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which is taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to all of the heirs, the term giving was stated in the Torah, and here, with regard to the daughter, the term causing to pass was stated. One can derive from this that there is no heir who can cause one’s inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe except for the daughter, since her son and her husband inherit from her, and they may be of a different tribe.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term “Then you shall give”? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira maintains that this usage is the usual manner of the verse, and one cannot derive anything from this term.

Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “In those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came to him, and said to him: So says the Lord: Instruct your household, for you will die, and you will not live” (II Kings 20:1). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and he arose, and went to his home, to his city; and he instructed his household, and strangled himself” (II Samuel 17:23). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

The Sages taught: Before his death, when he saw that Absalom’s rebellion against King David had failed, Ahithophel instructed his sons with regard to three matters: Do not be participants in a dispute. And do not rebel against the kingship of the house of David. And if the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, sow wheat, as it is a sign that the wheat crop will thrive. Mar Zutra said: It was stated that the wheat crop will thrive if Shavuot is a cloudy day, not if it is a clear day. The Sages of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: According to both opinions, a clear day does not literally mean a clear day, nor does a cloudy day literally mean a cloudy day. Rather, even if the day is cloudy but a north wind is blowing the clouds away, this is considered a clear day.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We teach this matter of signs concerning crops with regard to the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, as Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: At the conclusion of the final day of the festival of Sukkot, everyone looked upon the smoke rising from the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the smoke inclined toward the north due to a south wind, the poor were glad and the homeowners were sad, because this was a sign that the year’s rainfall would be plentiful, and although the rain would produce an abundant crop, the produce would decay due to the humidity. The humidity would make it difficult to store the abundant harvest, forcing the homeowners to sell the produce quickly at a lower price.

If the smoke inclined toward the south due to a north wind, the poor were sad and the homeowners were glad, because this indicated that the year’s rainfall would be sparse and the produce would be meager and would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the east due to a west wind, everyone was glad, because this indicated that there would be sufficient rainfall to ensure a substantial crop, and at the same time, the produce would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the west due to an east wind, everyone was sad, because the east wind does not bring rain, and this indicated that there would be a drought.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: An east wind is always beneficial, and a west wind is always harmful. A north wind is beneficial to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and harmful to the olives when they are blossoming. And a south wind is harmful to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and beneficial to the olives when they are blossoming.

And Rav Yosef says, and some say it is Mar Zutra who says this, and some say it is Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who says this: The following is your mnemonic to remember which wind is beneficial to which crop: The Table is in the north of the Sanctuary, and the Candelabrum is in the south. This one increases its own, and that one increases its own, i.e., the Table, upon which the shewbread made from wheat is placed, is in the north, and the north wind is beneficial to the wheat. The Candelabrum, which is lit with olive oil, is in the south, and the south wind is beneficial to the olives. In any event, the baraita contradicts the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi with regard to the effect of the western and eastern winds.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the east wind, is for us, in Babylonia, and that, the west wind, is for them, in Eretz Yisrael. In Babylonia the east wind is beneficial, because water is plentiful there, and the dry east wind does not harm the crops. In Eretz Yisrael the east wind is harmful, because water is scarce, and the east wind ruins the crops, whereas the west wind brings the necessary rain.

It is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says: If the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, this is a good sign for the entire year. Rav Zevid said: With regard to this first day of Rosh HaShana, if it is warm, the entire year will be warm, but if it is cold, the entire year will be cold. The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether one knows this or not?