Commentary for Arakhin 52:44

האנן לא תנן הכי רבי אליעזר אומר

Shall we say that they are conflicting about this [principle], R'Meir holding that the acquisition of usufruct is like the acquisition of the capital itself, whereas R'Judah and R'Simeon hold that the acquisition of usufruct is not like the acquisition of the soil itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As long as his father lived the son had but the usufruct of the field he had purchased from the former. He did not really own the soil, because in the year of Jubilee the soil would have reverted to his father, the original owner. R. Meir, however, would hold that the acquisition of the usufruct is like the acquisition of the soil itself. Therefore when he consecrated it in his father's lifetime, it was to be regarded as a field acquired by purchase, the soil belonging to him with the usufruct, whence it could no more acquire the status of a field of possession, with the rules relevant thereto. R. Judah and R. Simeon, on the other hand, hold that the acquisition of usufruct is not like the acquisition of the soil, hence it could become a field of possession only if the father died before the son consecrated it. This being a very obvious rule, no Scriptural law was necessary to teach what applies here. What required the Scriptural guidance was the case of his having consecrated the field before his father died to teach that although at the time of its consecration the field was one acquired by purchase, nevertheless since the father died before its being redeemed, it is considered a field of his possession. For the original purchase did not include the field, only the usufruct.');">¹¹</span>

Explore commentary for Arakhin 52:44. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.