When a Shechiv-M'ra who recovered came before Rav Huna, to reclaim his property, he told him that he had not given away his property in the conventional manner - because, having written the Sh'tar and handed it to the beneficiary in addition to having made a Kinyan, he could no longer retract (as we just learned).

In a case where someone wrote 'be'Chayai u've'Mosi', Rav considered it to be a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra (and permitted the benefactor to retract). The reason that the benefactor inserted 'be'Chayai' was - merely as a good sign that he would live.

Shmuel rules 'Harei hi ke'Matnas Bari', and the reason that he added u've'Mosi' was - as if to say from now and forever.

Shmuel did not have a Safek like he does in the case of 'Matnas Shechiv-M'ra she'Kasuv bah Kinyan' - because the fact that he specifically said 'be'Chayai' clarifies his intention.

We know that the current case is one of a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra, and not of a Matnas Bari - from the fact that Rav gave it the Din of a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra.

In all the previous cases, we rule like Shmuel. In this case however the Nehardai rule - like Rav.

According to Rava, in a case where the Shechiv-M'ra wrote, not 'be'Chayai', but 'me'Chayai' - the beneficiary acquires the property, and the benefactor may no longer retract.

Ameimar however - rules against Rava (making no distinction between 'be'Chayai' and 'me'Chayai'.

When Rav Ashi remarked that his ruling was obvious, bearing in mind the Neherdai's previous statement Ameimar replied that - we may well have thought that they would nevertheless concede that there is a difference between 'be'Chayai' and 'me'Chayai'.

A Shechiv-M'ra who wrote in the Sh'tar 'be'Chayim (or me'Chayim) u've'Ma'ves' recovered and came before Rav Nachman in Neharda'a. Rav Nachman sent him to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba in Shum Tamya - because he did not want to issue a ruling like Rav in Neharda'a, which was Shmuel's territory.

When, in the case of a woman who had written her Matnas Shechiv-M'ra 'me'Chayim u'le'Achar Misah', Rava followed his previous ruling and placed her property in the domain of the beneficiary - she did not give up, but insisted that he had erred in his ruling.

Rava countered this, by instructing his Sofer (Rav Papa b'rei d'Rav Chanan) to write the property in her name, but to add the words 'Socher aleihen O Mata'an' (a term borrowed from Bava Metzi'a, which indicated that he was tricking her).

The woman, who realized what Rava meant, reacted - by cursing him that his boat should sink in the river.

Rava tried to circumvent her curse - by soaking his clothes in water ...

... but he did not succeed, and his boat sank (though not with him inside it).

One normally ascertains that a Sh'tar Matnas Shechiv-M'ra has actually been written by a Shechiv-M'ra - by writing in the Sh'tar 'ke'de'Katzir ve'Rami be'Arseih' (meaning that he was sick and bedridden).

In our Mishnah, which discusses a Sh'tar from which 'ke'de'Katzir ve'Rami be'Arseih' was omitted, Rebbi Meir maintains that the onus lies on the Shechiv-M'ra to prove that he is indeed a Shechiv-M'ra - because most people are not Shechiv-M'ras.

According to the Chachamim however - the onus lies on the beneficiary to prove that the donor was a Shechiv-M'ra, because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah' (the onus lies on the claimant to substantiate his claim).

Besides the fact that the Shechiv-M'ra was sick and bedridden, they would customarily write in a Matnas Shechiv-M'ra that - he subsequently died from his illness.

In a case where this was not done, the problem would be - the possibility that he actually recovered from his original illness, and fell ill again later and died, in which case, the property ought really to go to the Shechiv-M'ra's heirs.

When such a case occurred, Rabah ruled 'Harei Meis, ve'Harei Kivro Mochi'ach Alav', by which he meant that - since they now saw that he was dead and buried, it was safe to assume that he died from his original illness ...

... and that the property would therefore go - to the beneficiary.

When, in the case of a sinking ship, the Mishnah in Gitin rules 'Nosnin alav ...

... Chumrei Chayim', the Tana means that - if his wife is a bas Kohen to a Yisrael, she is forbidden to eat Terumah (in case he is still alive).

... Chumrei Meisim, he means that - if she is a bas Yisrael to a Kohen, she is forbidden to eat Terumah (in case he is not).

The basic principle that distinguishes between a man whose ship sank and that of a Shechiv-M'ra is that - whereas the majority of people whose ships sink, do not survive, the majority of sick people, do.

This distinction prompts Abaye to query Rabah's previous ruling on the grounds that - if we consider the case of a Yisrael who was married to a bas Yisrael as if he was alive (le'Chumra), how much more so should we assume that the Shechiv-M'ra recovered and died only later.

Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua establishes Rabah like Rebbi Nasan, in the Beraisa which asks 'Mi Motzi mi'Yad Mi'? - in the case of a Sh'tar Matanah which fails to indicate whether the benefactor was a Shechiv-M'ra or a Bari.

Rebbi Ya'akov rules that he (the benefactor) always takes from them (the beneficiaries), and not vice-vers - because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah'.

Rebbi Nasan - agrees with this only if he is a Shechiv-M'ra at the time of the claim, but not if he is a Bari at that time.

The Machlokes between Rabah and Abaye that we just cited conforms to this Machlokes inasmuch as - Rabah holds like Rebbi Nasan (who goes after what he is now), and Abaye, like Rebbi Ya'akov (who holds that the majority of sick people recover).

We rule that 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid', Tamei, b'Reshus ha'Rabim', Tahor'. With regard to Shabbos, a Bik'ah - a field or a series of fields surrounded by a wall, is a R'shus ha'Yachid.

With regard to Tum'ah ...

... in the summer - it has a Din of a R'shus ha'Rabim.

... in the winter - it has the Din of a R'shus ha'Yachid.

The reason for this distinction is - because, in the winter, when the ground has been seeded, people are careful not to walk there.

When Rebbi Elazar says 'u'le'Tum'ah ke'Machlokes', he means that - Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Ya'akov argue there like they argue in the previous case, only a Chezkas Taharah replaces the Chezkas Mamon (according to Rebbi).

The Safek here is - whether the person entered the Bik'ah in the summer or in the winter.

According to Rebbi Nasan - it depends on when he appears before Beis-Din (in the summer or in the winter), whereas according to Rebbi Ya'akov - we place him on a Chezkas Taharah, irrespective of when he asks the She'eilah.

When Rava qualifies Rebbi Elazar's statement to where no winter passed from the time the valley was fenced, he mens - once a winter has passed, it remains a R'shus ha'Yachid even in the summer.

The basis of Rava's statement is either a Sevara (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava') or - a Chumra de'Rabbanan.

We refute the text 've'Amar Rava', in which case Rebbi Elazar's statement is based on that of Rava on the grounds that - Rebbi Elazar lived much before Rava, and it is unlikely for a statement by him to have depended upon one of Rava for interpretation.

According to Rabeinu Chananel - Rava actually comes to argue with Rebbi Elazar, who does not differentiate in the way that Rava does.

Rabeinu Chananel also explains Rava differently than we did before - by establishing 'Lo Avru alav Y'mos ha'Geshamim' (not from the time that the Bik'ah was fenced, but) from the time that the Tum'ah was lying in it.