Rav Nachman ruled that one cannot transfer intangible items, like the right to live in a house or the right to future fruits from a tree even on one's deathbed. By doing this, he equates a gift on one's deathbed to a regular gift. However, he ruled elsewhere that the rights to collect a loan with an oral agreement can be transferred to another on one's deathbed, even though this right can't be transferred from one who is not on one's deathbed. The Gemara brings two resolutions.

If one gave a tree to one person and the fruits to another, can we assume that when the giver gave the tree to one, he retained the space on the tree where the fruits grow and passed those on to the other, making it an effective gift as he is giving a part of the tree that is in existence. Or did the giver not retain the space where the fruits go and gave the second person the right to collect fruits that will grow that are not yet in existence, which is not a valid gift? If the answer is that it is not effective, would it be the same work in a case where one gives the tree to someone but retains the fruits for oneself? A different version of this question is brought by Rabbi Abba. In his version, this differentiation between selling to two people and selling to one person and retaining part for oneself was asked on a statement that Reish Lakish made about one who sold a house without the upper level. According to both versions, the answer is that we can definitively say in the case that one sold/gave part to someone else, the part they retained would remain in their possession as surely people retain generously when it affects themselves.

If one begins dividing up one's possessions and stops in the middle and then continues and gives away the rest, are the first gifts viewed as regular gifts (as one was only giving part of their possessions at that point) or are they viewed as gifts on one's deathbed since in the end, all of the possessions were given away?

Rav Acha rules that even if one gave away one's possessions on one's deathbed and then healed, even if those were all of that person's known possessions, one should be concerned that maybe the person has other possessions in another country and therefore the gift is effective. This seems to contradict the Mishna.  How can this be explained?

If one gives away money on one's deathbed and then changes one's mind about part of the funds, does that cancel the entire first gift or only part? What are the ramifications of this? The Gemara brings a braita to prove that the first gift is completely canceled. At first, the Gemara rejects the proof but then reestablishes it and concludes that the first gift is completely canceled.

If one consecrates all of one's property on one's deathbed, or declares it all ownerless, or gives it all to charity, and then gets better, is this canceled?