The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people. Consequently, when ruling in this matter the Sages did not act in accordance with the halakha, but allowed the mother of the sons of Rokhel to give this valuable piece of jewelry to their sister without an act of acquisition having been performed.

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said to the Rabbis: There was an incident involving a certain man of Meron who was in Jerusalem, and he had a lot of movable property. And he desired to give the movable property as gifts to various individuals, but they could not be acquired by pulling. The Rabbis said to him: There is no remedy for transferring the property unless he transfers the movable property by means of transferring the ownership of land.

He went and acquired one plot of rocky land adjacent to Jerusalem, and he said: I give the north part of this area to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And I give the south part of the area to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And he died, and the Sages upheld his statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed cannot transfer property without an act of acquisition. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: Do you bring proof from there? The man of Meron was healthy at the time. This was not the gift of a person on his deathbed, and it could not be acquired by verbal instruction.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was cursing them? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They were maintaining thorns in a vineyard and did not uproot them, and Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 5:8): With regard to one who maintains thorns in a vineyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He has proscribed the vineyard, rendering it forbidden due to the prohibition against diverse kinds. And the Rabbis say: Only growing a matter, i.e., a crop, the like of which people usually maintain, proscribes a vineyard and renders it forbidden.

The Gemara asks: Granted, if it were saffron that grew in the vineyard, it is useful for seasoning and other uses, and therefore it proscribes the vineyard. But with regard to thorns, for what are they useful? Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? It is because in Arabia they maintain thorns in the fields for their camels. Rabbi Eliezer holds that since thorns are maintained in one place, they are considered useful everywhere.

Rabbi Levi says: An act of acquisition may be performed in order to effect acquisition of property from a person on his deathbed even on Shabbat, even though transactions are not performed on Shabbat. And this, that an act of acquisition must be performed, is not stated in order to take into consideration the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that the gifts of any person on his deathbed require an act of acquisition. Rather, the reason for this is that if a person on his deathbed requests the performance of an act of acquisition, his request is fulfilled, lest his anxiety upon seeing that his will is not being carried out cause him to lose control of his mind due to his grief, exacerbating his poor physical state.

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer says: On Shabbat, the verbal statement of a person on his deathbed stands, as he cannot write, and the Sages instituted that he can effect the transaction verbally lest the inability to do so exacerbate his condition. But a verbal instruction does not stand if stated on a weekday. Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to Shabbat, the Sages stated that his verbal instruction is sufficient, even though writing is prohibited. One can infer a fortiori that the same applies with regard to a weekday, when writing is permitted.

Similarly, one can acquire property on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire property on behalf of an adult, since he can perform the act of acquisition himself; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The Sages stated this halakha with regard to a minor, and one may infer a fortiori that this also applies with regard to an adult, who is able to perform the act of acquisition himself.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is ex-pressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who distributes his property by verbal instruction, on a weekday, his statements stand, because he can write, but his statement does not stand on Shabbat, because he cannot write.

Rabbi Yehoshua