If one receives a gift and doesn't immediately say, "I don't want it," the gift is acquired by that person, even if they later scream that they don't want it. However, if someone else accepted the gift on their behalf and they were in the room and did not protest, there is a debate between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the rabbis about whether or not the gift is acquired.

If on one's deathbed, one promised different amounts of money to a few different people in one sentence, it is assumed that the person intended to gift it to them each at the same time. Therefore, if a creditor of the deceased comes to collect a debt, it is collected proportionally from each of them, depending on the amount they were given. However, if the person promised the gift in a particular order, the creditor collects first from the one who received last, and then from the second-to-last, etc.

If on one's deathbed one said he was giving an amount of money to one who was "owed" money by them (i.e. a firstborn, wife, or creditor), was the intention to return the money owed or was this a gift in addition to money owed. This depends on how the promise was worded. If he said, "as is appropriate for him/her," the money is considered an addition to what was owed. But if the promise was "for his portion as a firstborn/for her ketuba, then the son/wife receiving can choose to accept either the amount of money promised on the deathbed or the double portion/ketuba. If it is a creditor, the amount promised is taken for the debt. Rav Nachman explains that this is based on Rabbi Akiva's position that if one adds unnecessary words, they must be adding something. Therefore, when one says "as is appropriate," it is understood to be adding something more than what was owed.

If on one's deathbed one says that someone owes him/her money, can witnesses document the statement without verifying? Is there a concern the court will act upon it without checking into it (therefore the witnesses can't write it) or can we assume the court will do their homework (and therefore the witnesses can write it)? According to a braita, Rabbi Meir holds that it can be written without verifying and therefore when the heirs want to collect based on the document, they must prove they are owed the money. The rabbis hold that it cannot be written unless it is verified and therefore do not require any further proof to collect. However, Rav Nachman explains that there is a different version of the braita that Rabbi Meir says the document cannot be written based on the statement of the person on their deathbed, whereas the rabbis permit. He further explains that Rabbi Meir is concerned about a court that may rule without checking for further proof and therefore the document should not be written. The ruling is that we are not concerned that a court will err and not check into the details. However, this is true for a case of witnesses, not for a previous court ruling. If a court supervises a chalitza or mi'un, they must check the details carefully as a later court will rely on it, permitting a woman to remarry, without checking that it was all done properly. However, a document signed by witnesses testifying to what a person said on their deathbed can be written without checking the details, as the court will check the veracity of the contents of the document before ruling based on it.