Commentary for Bava Batra 296:11

א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי ותהוי נמי בשעמד אי אמרת בשלמא חזרה במקצת הויא חזרה בכולה היינו דשני מיהת קנה אלא אי אמרת חזרה במקצת לא הויא חזרה בכולה ניהוי כמחלק ולחד מינייהו לא ליקנו

recovered, one can well understand why the second does not acquire possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when he received the gift the testator had left for himself nothing. ');">²⁹</span> if, however, it is said [to refer to the case] where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The testator. ');">²⁸</span> died, both should have acquired ownership!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in such a case possession is acquired by the recipients whether the testator had left anything for himself or not. Consequently it must he concluded that the final clause refers to the case where the testator recovered; and since the final clause refers to a case of recovery the first clause also must refer to such a case. ');">³⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 296:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.