Answer: Elsewhere, Rav Chisda said that (a document is merely to help the recipient if) it says 'v'Kanina Minei (we did Chalipin with the giver, to acquire for the recipient), to add to this document';

Likewise, here we can say that he said 'even write, sign and give a document to Ploni.'

(Rav Yehudah and Rava): We write and give after death (if it was to help Ploni).

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one wants to write his property to his children (e.g. before he marries a woman, so his children will receive it after he dies, and she will not be able to collect her Kesuvah from it) he must write 'from today and after I die';

R. Yosi says, he need not write this.

If one wrote his property to his son (for after his death), the father may not sell it because he already wrote it to the son. The son may not sell it because (the Peros) still belongs to the father.

If the father sold it, the buyer may use it until the father dies. if the son sold it, the buyer does not receive anything until the father dies.

(Gemara) Question: Even if he writes 'from today and after I die', why does it help?

(Mishnah): If one gave a Get and said 'this is your Get from today and after I die', she is Safek divorced. If he died without children, she does Chalitzah, she may not do Yibum.

Answer: There, we are unsure if he intended to make a condition (this is your Get from today, on condition that I die (from this sickness)), or if he originally wanted the Get to take effect from today, and retracted, and said '(no, rather,) after I die';

Here, we are sure that he wants the son to receive permanent rights to the property from today, and to receive the Peros after the father's death.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): He need not write this.

Question (Rav Nachman): Does the Halachah follow R. Yosi?

Answer (Rabah bar Avuha): Yes.

(Rav Huna): R. Yosi's reason is that the date on a document proves that it should take effect (at least partially, i.e. regarding permanent rights to the property) from that day.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yosi): He need not write this, because the date on a document proves that it should take effect from that day.

Version #1 - Question (Rava): What is the law regarding a Hakna'ah document (it says that a Kinyan (Chalipin) was done. Does R. Yehudah admit that it need not say 'from today and after I die')?

Answer (Rav Nachman): He agrees that it need not say this (because the Kinyan took place today).

(Rav Papa): Some Hakna'ah documents must say this. Others need not;

If it says 'Aknei (... and later) u'Kanina Minei', Aknei means that the witnesses acquired for him. U'Kanina is an extra expression to show that the giver wants the Kinyan to take effect immediately, therefore it need not say 'from today and after I die';

If it says 'Kanina Minei (...) v'Aknei', Aknei merely explains that Kanina Minei was a Kinyan. If it does not say 'from today and after I die', it is like a document after death (it is invalid).

Objection (R. Chanina of Sura): Most Chachamim do not know the difference between these expressions. Do the scribes know it?!

They asked the scribes of Abaye and Rava, and they knew the difference.

(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Whether it says 'Aknei u'Kanina Minei' or 'Kanina Minei v'Aknei', it need not say 'from today and after I die';

R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue about documents that do not mention a Kinyan.

Version #2 - Rav Zvid of Neharde'a: Rava taught (like Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua) in the name of Rav Nachman.

(R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then he died in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it;

(Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father dies).

R. Yochanan says that the buyer never gets it. He holds that Kinyan Peros (rights to the produce) is like Kinyan ha'Guf (ownership of the matter itself. The son never properly owned it, therefore the buyer does not get it);

Reish Lakish says that the buyer gets it, for Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.

Question: They argued about this elsewhere!

(R. Yochanan): If one sold his land for a limited amount of time, the buyer brings Bikurim and recites the declaration;

(Reish Lakish) The buyer brings Bikurim, but he does not recite the declaration;

R. Yochanan says that he recites the declaration. Since Kinyan Peros is k'Kinyan ha'Guf, he can thank Hash-m for "ha'Adamah Asher Nosata Li";

Reish Lakish says that he cannot say this, for Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.

Answer: R. Yochanan had to teach here that the buyer does not get it;

Even though normally, Kinyan Peros k'Kinyan ha'Guf, one might have thought that a father (even when he retains the Peros) concedes full ownership to the son, and the son's sale stands. R. Yochanan teaches that this is not so.

Also, Reish Lakish had to teach here that the buyer gets it;

Even though normally, Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf, one might have thought that one always favors himself (even against his son), and when he retains the Peros, he also keeps full ownership, and the son's sale is void. Reish Lakish teaches that this is not so.

Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If one said 'my property is (given) to you (Shimon), and after you (die) Ploni will inherit, and after him Almoni', after Shimon dies, Ploni acquires. After Ploni dies, Almoni acquires;

If Ploni died before Shimon, when Shimon dies it goes to Shimon's heirs.

Summation of question: If Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf, Shimon never really owned it, it should go to the heirs of the giver!

Answer (Reish Lakish): R. Hoshaya answered, the law is different when he says 'after you...' This expression shows that he wants each recipient to get full ownership.

Rabah bar Rav Huna asked similarly of Rav. Rav answered like R. Hoshaya.

Contradiction (Beraisa): If Ploni died before Shimon, when Shimon dies it goes to the heirs of the giver.

Answer: Tana'im argue about whether or not 'after you' is different.