Commentary for Bava Batra 258:9

לימא נמי תיהוי תיובתיה דריש לקיש ותסברא והא אמר רבא הלכתא כותיה דריש לקיש בהני תלת

[Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited by R. Ashi. ');">²⁵</span> then,] a refutation of [the views of] all of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the Amoraim who maintained, supra, that if one gave instructions for field to be given as an 'inheritance' to one person and as a 'gift' to another, his instructions are invalid. As has been proved, the Baraitha cited by R. Ashi does not, as has been suggested, deal with the case of one who is entitled to be heir, but with that of any stranger appointed by the testator; and, though the estate was given as a 'gift' to one, and as an 'inheritance' to another, possession is acquired, the instructions of the testator being obviously regarded as legally valid. How then, could the Amoraim mentioned maintain that the testator's instructions in such a case are invalid, and that the person appointed as heir does not acquire possession of the estate? ');">²⁶</span> — This is a refutation.

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 258:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.