Question: Rav Nachman taught that if a Shechiv Mera said 'the debt owed to me should be to Ploni', this takes effect, even though a healthy person cannot do this!

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Matnas Shechiv Mera makes Ploni the heir (and heirs acquire debts), therefore he acquires the debt.

Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): A healthy person can transfer a debt, like Rav Huna taught.

(Rav Huna): If Reuven tells Shimon in front of Levi 'you have money of mine. Give it to Levi', Levi acquires it.

Version #1 - Question: If a Shechiv Mera gave a date tree to Yehudah and its fruits to Moshe, what is the law?

Version #1A (Rashbam): Do we say that he left the place from which the fruits grow (the branches) for Moshe, therefore he did not give all his land to Yehudah, so it is not considered a Matnas Shechiv Mera?

Or, do we say that he gave all his land to Yehudah, so it is a Matnas Shechiv Mera?

Version #1B (Tosfos): Do we say that he left for Moshe the place the fruits grow from, therefore Moshe acquires something already here (and what grows from it), so the gift is valid?

Or, did he leave for Moshe only the fruits that will grow, and one cannot transfer ownership of something that is not yet in the world, so the gift is invalid? (end of Version #1B)

Question: If you will say that he did not leave (place on the tree) for Moshe, if he left the fruits for himself, what is the law?

Answer (Rava citing Rav Nachman): He left place on the tree for himself.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: One leaves for himself generously.

Version #2 - R. Aba: These questions were asked according to Reish Lakish!

(Reish Lakish): If one sells a house and stipulates 'on condition that the top is mine', the roof is his.

Question: If he gave a house to Yehudah and the roof to Moshe, what is the law? (Do we say that he left rights for Moshe to extend ledges from the roof, or not?)

Question: If you will say that he did not leave rights for Moshe, if he left the roof for himself, what is the law?

Answer (Rava citing Rav Nachman): If you will say that if one gave a house to Yehudah and the roof to Moshe, he did not leave rights for Moshe to extend ledges from the roof, if he left the roof for himself, he left for himself rights to extend ledges.

This is according to Rav Zvid, who says that (since a roof surrounded by a 10-Tefachim wall is not included when a house is sold, even without a stipulation, therefore,) if he stipulated to keep the top, he reserves the rights to extend ledges.

(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): If a Shechiv Mera wrote all his property to others, if he intended from the beginning to give away all his property, they all acquire after he dies (even though no Kinyan was made). If he recovers, he can retract the entire gift;

If he originally intended to keep some of his property, and (after giving some) later decided to give the rest, (if they made Kinyanim) they all acquire after he dies (our text, Rambam; Me'iri - they acquire immediately). If he recovers, he can retract only the last gift.

Question: (Why can't he retract from the first gifts? Even if he paused in the middle, perhaps) he intended from the beginning to give away everything, and he paused to think about what was left to give!

Answer: Presumably, a Shechiv Mera first thinks about everything he has to give before he starts giving it.

(Rav Acha bar Minyomi): If a Shechiv Mera wrote all his property to others, and he recovered, he cannot retract. We are concerned lest he has property abroad (that he did not give, therefore it is like the gift of a healthy person).

Question: The Mishnah says that if he did not keep property for himself, he can retract. Why are we not concerned?

Answer #1 (Rav Chama): The case is, he said 'I give all my property.'

Answer #2 (Mar bar Rav Ashi): The case is, we are Muchzak that he has no other property.

Question: (When he may retract,) if he retracted part of the gift, is this a retraction of the entire gift?

Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven said 'I give all my property to Ploni. I give some of it to Almoni', Almoni acquires, but Ploni does not.

Suggestion: Almoni acquires after Reuven dies, but Ploni does not. Retracting part of the gift to Ploni (i.e. what he gave to Almoni) is a retraction of the entire gift.

Rejection: No. The case is, Reuven recovered. (The gift to Almoni was partial, therefore Reuven cannot retract from it).

Support (Seifa): If he said 'I give some of my property to Ploni. I give all of it to Almoni', Ploni acquires, but Almoni does not.

We understand why if Reuven recovered, he can retract;

But if Reuven died, both should acquire! (Reuven gave all his property. 'I give all of it to Almoni', means the rest!)

Objection (Rav Yemar): Even if the entire Beraisa discusses when he recovered, it shows that a partial retraction is a full retraction!

If it is a full retraction, this explains why Almoni acquires;

If it were not a full retraction, Reuven gave all his property, and he would be able to retract also the gift to Almoni!

The Halachah is, a partial retraction is a full retraction.

We can explain the Reisha whether Reuven died or recovered. In the Seifa, we must say that he recovered.

Question: If a Shechiv Mera made all his property Hekdesh, and recovered, what is the law?

Do we say that regarding Hekdesh, one decides absolutely to give it (even if he will recover)?

Or, do we say that one never abandons himself (to be left without anything if he recovers)?

Question: If he made all his property Hefker (and recovered), what is the law?

Do we say that since also poor people can take Hefker, he decided absolutely to give it?

Or, do we say that one never abandons himself?

Question: If he gave all his property to the poor, what is the law?

Do we say that regarding the Mitzvah of Tzedakah, surely he decided absolutely to give it?

Or, do we say that one never abandons himself?

These questions are unsettled.