If a person says, "My property should be given to Ploni''; if the recipient is a Kohen and amongst the property there are slaves, even if the recipient refuses to accept the slaves, they may eat Terumah.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Since he said, "I don't want them'', they go to the inheritors.

R. Ila: They disagree when his statement is not clear - what is the case? If it is certain that he wants them, all agree that the slaves may eat Terumah; if it is certain that he does not want them, all agree that the inheritors receive them. Rather, the case must be when he was unclear...

Rabbanan reason that he wanted them originally and he later changed his mind.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reasons that since he said "I don't want them'', they go to the inheritors.

Beraisa (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel): A daitiki (will) can override an earlier daitiki but a gift cannot override an earlier gift.

R. Abba bar Chanah said that both R. Yochanan and Raish Lakish said - any case where if he recuperated, he would receive back all of the property that he gave away as part of his will (which is the established law of a deathly ill person), he also receives back gifts that he gave.

It is like the case of the sister of R. Chunia, who wrote over her property to R. Chunia when she was deathly ill. She suddenly needed to sell some of that property and she gave the money to her husband. After she died, R. Chunia came to claim that money using the document that he had received from her.

The husband: Why did you not come to make your claim while she was still alive?

R. Chunia: I did not want to upset her.

Despite this, R. Ami ruled that the gift (that was sold and the money given to the husband) must not be given to R. Chunia.