• Audio Timestamps

0:00 - The 3 Sugyos

2:58 - Review of 3 Sugyos

5:51- Siman

8:07 - 4 Blatt Back Chazarah

15:26 - Pop Quiz (Last 7 blatt)

For access to all Zichru resources including PDFs, and illustrations CLICK HERE

• מתנת שכיב מרע... שמא תטרף דעתו עליו

Amoraim offer various sources for מתנת שכיב מרע – the gift of a gravely ill person, which takes effect without a kinyan (Tosafos says these sources are an אסמכתא, because the law is d’Rabbonon). Rav says the word "והעברתם" written by inheritance teaches יש לך העברה אחרת שהיא כזו – there is another transferring that is like this one (inheritance), which is מתנת שכיב מרע. Rabbah bar Avuha darshened the word "ונתתם" by inheritance that יש לך נתינה אחרת שהיא כזו – there is another “giving” like this (inheritance), namely מתנת שכיב מרע. Other Amoraim quote the instructions of Chizkiyah or אחיתפול to their respective households before dying, which indicates they took effect בצואה בעלמא – with mere instructions. Rava quoted Rav Nachman saying: מתנת שכיב מרע מדרבנן בעלמא היא – a שכיב מרע’s gift is only Rabbinical in nature, without any source, and was enacted שמא תטרף דעתו עליו – lest his mental state worsen. The שכיב מרע’s agitation that his instructions will not be followed may exacerbate his condition, so the Rabbis enacted that his verbal instructions alone effect the transaction.

• המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול, but not in the case of a מתנת שכיב מרע

The Gemara questions the assertion that Rav Nachman holds that a מתנת שכיב מרע is only דרבנן. Shmuel said: המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול – one who sells a document of debt to his fellow, and later forgives the debt, [the debt] is forgiven. Since the money was owed to the seller, it remains in his power to forgive the debt. Moreover, even the seller’s יורש can be מוחל the debt after the seller’s death. However, Rav Nachman said: מודה שמואל שאם נתנו במתנת שכיב מרע – Shmuel agrees that if [the creditor] gave it as a מתנת שכיב מרע, דאינו יכול למוחלו – that [his heir] cannot forgive it. If a מתנת שכיב מרע is effective מדאורייתא, it is understandable that the lender’s heir cannot forgive the debt, which has been completely transferred to the recipient. But if Rav Nachman holds a מתנת שכיב מרע is only effective מדרבנן, why can’t the heir forgive the debt? The Gemara answers: אינה של תורה – [this law] is not Biblical in origin, ועשאוה כשל תורה – but they treated it like something which is Biblical, in order to assure the שכיב מרע that his instructions will be fulfilled.

• A שכיב מרע cannot transfer something that a בריא cannot transfer (e.g. “to live in this house”)

Rav Nachman said that if a שכיב מרע says, ידור פלוני בבית זה – “Ploni shall have the right to live in this house,” or יאכל פלוני פירות דקל זה – “Ploni shall have the right to eat the fruits of this palm tree,” it is ineffective. Living in a house is intangible and cannot be transferred by an ordinary kinyan. Fruit of a tree, which have not yet grown, are a דבר שלא בא לעולם and cannot be transferred. However, if he said, תנו בית זה לפלוני וידור בו – “Give this house to Ploni, and he will live in it,” or תנו דקל זה לפלוני ויאכל פירותיו – “Give this palm tree to Ploni, and he will eat its fruits,” the transfer is effective. The Gemara asks that this demonstrates that Rav Nachman holds מילתא דאיתא בבריא – something which is within the ability of a healthy person to transfer, איתא בשכיב מרע – is within the ability of a שכיב מרע to transfer, but דליתא בבריא ליתא בשכיב מרע – something which is not within a healthy person’s ability to transfer (such as intangible rights), is not within a שכיב מרע’s ability to transfer.

Siman - Kumzitz

At the kumzitz arranged to keep the mental state of the שכיב מרע stable as he promised presents to all the participants, including a שטר חוב to the kumzitz leader which no one could be מוחל, it was learned that he is unable to gift to the guitar player the right to live in his house to practice for a future kumzitz.