Rabba said: He is dead, and his grave proves that he died. It may therefore be assumed that he did not recover from his sickness, and his gift remains valid. Abaye said to him: And now, if in the case of a ship that sank, where the fate of most of the passengers of sunken ships is to perish, the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead are applied to them due to the uncertainty as to whether they are alive or dead, in the case of sick people, where the fate of most sick people is to return to life, all the more so is it not clear that one should assume that he recovered from the illness and his gift is invalid?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whose opinion is that halakha of Rabba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where one who gave his property to others claims that since he was on his deathbed at the time he can retract the gifts, and the recipients claim that he was healthy and cannot retract it, who removes the property from whose possession? The giver can remove it from the recipients’ possession without proof, as the property was previously established to be in his possession, but the recipients can remove it from the giver’s possession only with proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov.

Rabbi Natan says: The presumption is that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. Therefore, if he is currently healthy, the obligation is upon him to bring proof that he was on his deathbed when he gave his property to others. If he is currently on his deathbed, the obligation is upon the recipients to bring proof that he was healthy then.

Rabbi Elazar says: And with regard to a case of uncertain ritual impurity, the halakha depends on the same dispute. This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:7): The halakha is that a case where it is uncertain if something or someone became impure in the public domain, the item or person is deemed pure. With regard to an expanse of fields, in the summer, when many people pass through the fields, it is considered the private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, but it is considered the public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, and if one is uncertain as to whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed pure.

In the rainy season, when not many people pass through the fields, an expanse of fields is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Therefore, if one is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, he is deemed impure. If one does not know whether the day he entered the expanse of fields was considered part of the summer or the rainy season, and he is uncertain whether he was rendered impure there, Rabbi Ya’akov maintains that he retains the status of purity that he held before entering the fields. According to Rabbi Natan, it is presumed that he entered the fields during the same season in which he came to ask whether he was rendered impure.

Rava disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and says: They taught the ruling of the mishna only with regard to a case where the rainy season has not yet passed over the fields after the possibility arose that the fields contained impurity. But if the rainy season has already passed over the fields, it is considered the private domain both with regard to this, Shabbat, and with regard to that, ritual impurity. Even though the one who passed through the fields came to ask about his status in the summer, when the fields should be considered the public domain, he is nevertheless deemed impure even according to Rabbi Natan, and there is no parallel dispute with regard to uncertain ritual impurity.

§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant, and since the property is in the possession of the giver, the recipients must bring proof that they have the right to receive it.