Commentary for Bava Kamma 176:8

ר' שמעון בן לקיש אומר קנה לוקח כי קתני מתני' מכר הבן אין ללוקח עד שימות האב כי מיית אב מיהת אית ליה ללוקח לא שנא לא מת הבן בחיי האב דאתו לידיה דבן ולא שנא מת הבן בחיי האב דלא אתו לידיה דבן קנה לוקח

in the lifetime of the father and it so happened that the son died during the lifetime of the father, R. Johanan said that the purchaser would not acquire title [to the estate], whereas Resh Lakish said that the purchaser would acquire title [to the estate]. R. Johanan, who held that the purchaser would not acquire title to the estate, would say to you that the Mishnaic statement, 'If the son disposed of them the purchaser would have no hold on them until the father dies, 'implying that at any rate after the death of the father the purchaser would own them, refers to the case where the son did not die during the lifetime of the father, so that the estate had actually entered into the possession of the son, whereas where the son died during the lifetime of the father, in which case the estate had never entered into the possession of the son, the purchaser would have no title to the estate even after the death of the father. This shows that in the opinion of R. Johanan a right to usufruct amounts in law to a right to the very substance [of the estate],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As indeed followed by him in Git. 47b and elsewhere. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 176:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.