Question: For which teaching(s) was it necessary to teach that the Halachah follows R. Aba?

Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Rava (that Reuven's grandson can testify about Reuven's brother).

Rejection: R. Aba taught a smaller Chidush (that Reuven's grandson can testify about Reuven's nephew). We cannot infer that the Halachah does not follow Rava (perhaps R. Aba agrees with Rava)!

Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Mar bar Rav Ashi (that a man can testify about his grandfather).

Rejection: We already taught that explicitly!

Suggestion: He must teach that the Halachah does not follow Shmuel, Rav Sheshes and Rav Papa.

Rejection: They were already refuted!

Answer: He teaches that the Halachah does not follow R. Yochanan (who ruled like Chachamim of R. Yehudah), and not like Mar bar Rav Ashi's objection (that even R. Shimon ben Elazar exempts from the oath in this case).

(Mishnah): If one (a Shechiv Mera) stipulated how much each son should receive, and gave some sons more than others...(If he wrote at the beginning, middle or end that it is a gift, it takes effect.)

Question: What is the case of a gift at the beginning, middle or end?

Answer (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): At the beginning is when he said 'field Plonis will be given to Ploni and he will inherit it';

In the end is when he said 'he will inherit it and it will be given to him;

In the middle is when he said 'he will inherit it and it will be given to him and he will inherit it.

This applies only to one field and one recipient. If there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, the expression of a gift takes effect, and the expression of inheritance does not take effect.

(R. Elazar): Even if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, both Kinyanim work;

However, if there are two fields and two recipients, the expression of gift takes effect, and the expression of inheritance does not take effect.

(Ravin): If he said 'field Plonis will be given to Ploni, Ploni will inherit field Plonis', R. Yochanan says that he acquires, and R. Elazar says that he does not.

(Abaye): One of your teachings we understand. The other contradicts what Rav Dimi taught!

You do not contradict R. Elazar. Your teach about two fields and two recipients, and R. Elazar teaches that the expression of inheritance does not acquire.

We cannot resolve R. Yochanan!

Conclusion: Rav Dimi and Ravin argue about R. Yochanan's opinion.

(Reish Lakish): For both to acquire, he must say 'Ploni and Almoni will inherit fields Plonis and Almonis that I gave them for a gift, and they will inherit them.

Other Amora'im argue as R. Yochanan and R. Elazar argue.

(Rav Hamnuna): This applies only to one field and one recipient, but if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, the expression of inheritance does not take effect.

(Rav Nachman): Even if there are two fields and one recipient, or one field and two recipients, both Kinyanim work;

However, if there are two fields and two recipients, the expression of inheritance does not take effect.

(Rav Sheshes): Even regarding two fields and two recipients, both take effect.

Support (Rav Sheshes for himself - Beraisa): If Reuven said (before he left) 'give a Shekel (of my money) to my sons each week', and it is proper to give to them two Shekalim, we give to them two (he only intended that they should receive the minimum necessary);

If he said 'give to them a Shekel', we give only one.

If he said 'if they die, others (Ploni and Almoni) should inherit' (instead of their sons - this shows that he wants the rest of his money to go to the others), whether he said 'give' or 'give only', we give only one.

Culmination of support: This is like two fields (the weekly Shekalim and the remaining money) and two recipients (his sons and the others), and both acquire!

Rejection (Rav Sheshes): This is not a proof. Perhaps the others could inherit Reuven, and the Beraisa is R. Yochanan ben Brokah (130a, who says that an expression of inheritance works).

Question (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): If Reuven 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.

This is like two fields (Rashbam - Ploni does not receive anything in Shimon's lifetime; R. Gershom - Shimon only received Peros of the land, but Ploni inherits the land itself) and two people, and both acquire!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is not a proof. Here also, Ploni could inherit Reuven, and the Beraisa is R. Yochanan ben Brokah!

Rejection: If so, Almoni would not acquire when Ploni dies!

(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Avya): According to R. Yochanan ben Brokah, if David said 'my property is to you (Shimon), and after you to Ploni', if Shimon could inherit David, Ploni does not get anything. 'To you' denotes an inheritance, and not a gift, and one cannot stipulate after inheritance.

This refutes all the opinions (except for R. Yochanan according to Ravin, and Rav Sheshes).

Suggestion: Reish Lakish is also refuted.

Rejection: That cannot be. Rava said that the Halachah follows Reish Lakish against R. Yochanan in three places (and this is one of them)!

Rather, in the Beraisa he said 'after you Ploni will inherit' Toch Kedei Dibur (within the time to say three or four words, therefore the first expression of a gift also applies to Ploni);

Reish Lakish discusses when the inheritance was not said Toch Kedei Dibur of the gift, therefore it needs its own expression of a gift.

The Halachah is, anything said within Toch Kedei Dibur is like part of the previous matter, except for (Rashbam - designation for; Tosfos - acceptance of) idolatry, (blasphemy, divorce) and Kidushin.