Commentary for Bava Batra 273:15

מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק ע"כ לא פליגי רבי ורשב"ג התם אלא דמר סבר קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי ומר סבר קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי אלא הכא

— this will be a point of dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., we have arrived at the dispute'. ');">⁴⁰</span> between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbi he has not properly performed his duty; since the commandment relating to ethrog requires the fruit itself to be the property of him who makes liturgical use of it, while the ethrog, in this case, does not itself belong to him, he having received it for use only. According to Rabban Simeon R. Gamaliel, however, who allows the first recipient to sell the estate as his own property, the ethrog also is regarded as his own property, and may therefore be used for the performance of the commandment. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Nahman b. Isaac demurred: The dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel can only extend as far as [the case] there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the gift consisted of an estate which produced fruit. ');">⁴²</span> because [one] Master is of the opinion [that] acquisition of usufruct is like the acquisition of the capital, and the other] Master is of the opinion [that] acquisition of the usufruct is not like the acquisition of the capital, but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the ethrog. ');">⁴³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 273:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.