§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed. In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav: The person on his deathbed caused the recipient to mount two steeds, i.e., he strengthened the validity of his gift in two different ways. And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift, as it may not be a valid gift.

The Gemara explains: In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav that he caused him to mount two steeds. On the one hand, it is like the gift of a healthy person, but on the other hand, it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, as, if he recovers he cannot retract the gift, because an act of acquisition was performed. It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as, if he said that the loan owed to him should be given to so-and-so, the loan owed to him is acquired by so-and-so, whereas a healthy person cannot transfer his right to collect a debt except in the presence of all three parties.

And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift. Perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that he resolved to transfer it to him only with a deed. The gift of a person on his deathbed takes effect only after he dies, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner.

The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rav and another statement of Rav, and between this statement of Shmuel and another statement of Shmuel. This is as Ravin sent in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: You should know that Rabbi Elazar sent a ruling to the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, in the name of our teacher, Rav: With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: Write a deed and give with it one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and he died before the deed was written, it is not written and given to that person. The reason for this is that perhaps he resolved to transfer the gift to him only with the deed, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that the deed is written and given to the recipient.

The Gemara concludes: The first statement of Rav is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Rav, and the first statement of Shmuel is difficult, as it is apparently contradicted by the other statement of Shmuel.

The Gemara replies: The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rav and the other statement of Rav is not difficult. This statement, that the gift is valid, is referring to a case where the gift was acquired from the person on his deathbed by means of an act of acquisition. That other statement is referring to a case where the gift was not acquired from him by means of an act of acquisition, but only by verbal instruction, and therefore the deed is not written after his death. The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Shmuel and the other statement of Shmuel is not difficult, as Shmuel’s statement that the deed is written after his death is referring to a case where the giver was clearly enhancing the legal power of the recipient by providing him with a deed, and he was not making the gift contingent upon the delivery of a deed.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was sitting behind Rava, and Rava was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and Rava asked Rav Naḥman: Did Shmuel actually say that perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that the person on his deathbed resolved to transfer ownership of the gift only with the deed, and therefore the gift is invalid, as a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, even though they performed an act of acquisition, if he recovers he can retract his gift?