We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentions Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are valid. Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains ...

... 'at the beginning' as - 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirshah'.

... 'in the middle' as 'Yirshah ve'Tinasen lo be'Matanah vi'Yirshah'.

... 'at the end' as ' Yirshah ve'Tinasen lo'.

Rebbi Yochanan then qualifies our Mishnah by confining it to one recipient and one field. But if the Sh'chiv-Mera was giving even one field to two people (half to each) or two fields to even one person, then the Tana would not extend the Lashon Matanah to wherever the Sh'chiv-Mera used a Lashon Yerushah.

The Din in that case will be that - wherever the Sh'chiv-Mera used a Lashon Matanah, the gift will be effective, and wherever he used the Lashon Yerushah, it will not ...

... because it is 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah').

In the previous case, according to Rebbi Elazar - the Lashon Matanah even there, will extend to where he used a Lashon Yerushah, and the Matanah will take effect in both cases.

According to Ravin, in a case where the Sh'chiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash P'loni Sadeh P'lonis', Rebbi Yochanan says 'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'. When Rav Dimi cited ...

... Rebbi Elazar as saying 'Kanah', he was referring to a case of Adam Achas u'Shetei Sados or Sadeh Achas u'Shenei B'nei Adam exclusively (in which case Rav Dimi and Ravin are of one accord in this point).

... Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Lo Kanah' with regard to Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam - we are forced to concede that Ravin and Rav Dimi disagree in this point ...

... as Ravin himself concludes.

In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval bi'She'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo', we justify the Kashya that we just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Resh Lakish on to that of Ravin - by ascribing that wording to our own inference, rather to Rebbi Elazar himself.

Resh Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling. According to him, Shimon would not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh P'lonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum' - because we would then ascribe the Lashon Matanah to Reuven, and the Lashon Yerushah, to Shimon.

And Shimon would only acquire the second field if the Sh'chiv-Mera said - 'P'loni u'Peloni Yirshu Sadeh P'lonis u'Pelonis she'Nasatim lahem Matanah, ve'Yirashum' ...

... in which case we will say that just as 'Yerushah' pertains to each son, so too, does 'Matanah'.

Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like Resh Lakish, the above opinion to conform to that of ...

... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval ... Lo' is - that of Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi Yochanan.

... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo' is - Rav Dimi citing Rebbi Elazar.

... Rav Sheshes, who says 'Afilu Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam' is - that of Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan.

Rav Sheishes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a father says 'T'nu Shekel le'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a Sh'chiv-Mera on his death-bed or he might be referring to - a man who is going overseas, and is asking Beis-Din to feed his children from his estate while he is away.

The Tana rules there that - each week we give them out of their father's estate the Sela that they require.

We would follow his instructions (and give them only a Shekel), in spite of the fact that his sons really need more - had he said 'Al Titnu lahem Ela Shekel' (an indication that he means exactly what he says).

In Kesuvos, we establish the author of the above Beraisa as Rebbi Meir, who rules - 'Mitzvah Le'kayem Divrei ha'Meis' (It is a Mitzvah to carry out the wishes of the deceased).

In spite of that however, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the father used, we give his sons what they need - because we assume that in this case, the father really wants to satisfy his children's needs, and he only said 'Al Titen lahem Ela Shekel', to encourage them to lead a more modest life-style.

In a case where the father added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu Acherim Tachteihem', the Tana of the Beraisa rules that - irrespective of which Lashon he used, we only give the children a Shekel.

Rav Sheishes extrapolates from there that - even in a case of two fields and two people, as long as by one of them a person uses a Lashon Matanah, both recipients acquire the two fields.

Rav Sheishes himself establishes the Beraisa - where the 'Acherim' is also the next of kin, and the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who permits a father to transfer his property in this manner, even using a Lashon Yerushah).

The case will then be - where he left instructions to feed two of his sons at the above-mentioned rate, and bequeathed whatever remains to one of his other sons.

Rav Sheishes learns like that - in order to remove the Kashya from Rav Hamnuna and Rav Nachman (even though he himself clearly considers this answer a Dochek).

According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yishmael B'no Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we will discuss on the following Daf), we will establish the case - where 'Acherim' is the next closest relative after his sons, such as his daughter or his brothers.

Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa, which rules in the case 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha Yirash P'loni, ve'Acharei Acharecha, Yirash P'lonii', in the event that ...

... things follow that course that - we follow his instructions to the letter.

... the second beneficiary (the first P'lonii) dies before the first recipient that - the first beneficiary's heirs inherit the property after him.

Rav Ashi proves from here that - the Lashon Matanah ('Nechasai lach') is effective even with regard to two fields and two recipients.

Even though we are talking about the same field, Rav Ashi compares it to two fields - because the two recipients only acquire it one after the other, and not simultaneously.

We attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya - (like Rav Sheishes answered his own) by establishing it by the next of kin, and according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.

We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ivya, who said that - according to Rebbi Yochanan 'Nechasai lach ve'Acharecha li'Peloni, ve'Rishon Ra'uy le'Yorsho, Ein le'Sheini be'Makom Rishon'. Likewise in the Reisha of the Beraisa, having established the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, Acharecha ought not to inherit either.

The reason for this is - because according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, unless the father specifically uses a Lashon Matanah, an heir inherits as a Yoresh, and not as a beneficiary, in which case no condition is possible, and his children will inherit him, and not 'Acharecha'.

We therefore conclude - with a Kashya on all the above opinions except for Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Sheishes (as well as Resh Lakish, as we shall now see).

There cannot be a Kashya on Resh Lakish from the Beraisa - because then Rava would not have ruled like him against Rebbi Yochanan, as he did in Yevamos (in this case together with two other cases).

We reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah after a Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not in the way prescribed by Resh Lakish) like Resh Lakish - by establishing it by 'Toch K'dei Dibur', where Resh Lakish will concede that it is effective.

We cannot answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way - because, had they been lenient with regard to two fields and two people (even 'Toch K'dei Dibur'), then that is the case that they ought to have presented, rather than one field and two people or one person and two fields (which we would have understood ourselves from a 'Kal va'Chomer', even 'Achar K'dei Dibur').

We rule that - 'Toch K'dei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami', with the sole exceptions of Avodas Kochavim and Kidushin.

The ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...

... Avodas Kochavim are that - if someone designates an object for idolatrous purposes, it remains Asur be'Hana'ah (due to Chumra de'Avodas Kochavim), even if he retracts from his designation 'Toch K'dei Dibur' .

... Kidushin are that - if someone betroths a woman with money, which he switches over to a gift 'Toch K'dei Dibur', the Kidushin remains intact (and she is considered Safek Mekudeshes, since it is only a Chumra d'Rabbanan).

The Chachamim issued this stringency by Avodah-Zarah due to the Chumra of Avodah-Zarah, by Kidushin - to avoid rumors that the children that she bears from a subsequent marriage are Mamzerim.

When someone says two things 'Toch K'dei Dibur, assuming that ...

... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim') - both of them take effect (and he sells the animal in question, using half the proceeds to buy an Olah, and half, to buy a Shelamim.

... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and Yerushah, in our case) then we ignore the one that cannot take effect, and apply the one that can.

... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel', 'Hein Chaser, hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur) then - the Din varies, depending upon circumstances, as we discussed there.

'Toch K'dei Dibur' is not considered 'K'dei Dibur' in all cases - in the event that one specifically states that he is retracting.