[If] one sent wedding gifts to the house of his father-in-law, [even if] he sent a hundred maneh there, and he ate there a groom's meal worth [as little] as a dinar, they cannot be reclaimed. [If] he did not eat a groom's meal there, they can be re-claimed. [If] he sent many wedding gifts, [on the understanding] that they return with her to her husband's house, they can be reclaimed. [If he sent] few wedding gifts [on the understanding] that she use them in her father's house, they cannot be re-claimed.

[If] one who was lying ill wrote [away] all his property to others, but retained some property, his gift is upheld. [If] he did not retain any property, his gift is not upheld.  [If] he did not record in it [that he was] lying ill, [and] he says that he was ly-ing ill, whereas they say that he was healthy, he must bring proof that he was lying ill; [these are] the words of R' Meir. But the Sages say: The one who exacts from another must bring the proof.

[If] someone distributes his property orally —- R' Eliezer says: Whether he is healthy or dangerously ill, properties which can become subject to a lien are acquired through money, a document, or an act of possession. Those which cannot become sub-ject to a lien are acquired only through meshichah. They said to him: It occurred with the mother of the sons of Rochel that she was ill and she said, “Give my veil to my daughter; it is worth twelve maneh,” and she died, and they upheld her words. He said to them: [As to] the sons of Rochel, their mother should bury them. The Sages say: On the Sabbath his words are upheld, be-cause he cannot write, but not on weekdays. R' Yehoshua says: They said [it] on the Sabbath, and certainly on weekdays.  Similarly, one can acquire on behalf of a minor, but one cannot acquire on behalf of an adult. R' Yehoshua says: They said [it] for a minor, and certainly for an adult.

[If] a house collapsed upon a man and his father, or upon him and one from whom he inherits, and there was a wife's kesubah or a creditor's [claim outstanding] against him —- the father's heirs claim [that] the son died first and then the father; [while] the creditors claim [that] the father died first and then the son —- Beis Shammai say: They divide [the estate]. But Beis Hillel say: The property retains its status.