Commentary for Bava Batra 276:14

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תלוש אין מחובר לא

been taken] in order to provide against an erring court!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a second court that might be called upon to deal with the question of the remarriage of the parties, and that might wrongly assume that the previous court had satisfied itself as to their identity. Now, if here provision was made against an erring court, why is not such provision necessary in the case spoken of by R. Dimi? ');">³⁷</span> No;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of a court is not to be compared with that of witnesses. ');">³⁸</span> a court does not minutely examine [the decision of] another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'. ');">³⁹</span> court;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, no court must arrange halizah or annul a minor's betrothal unless the parties are known to it. ');">⁴⁰</span> [that of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'after'. ');">³⁹</span> witnesses, [however], it does minutely examine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, every document that would be brought before them, though attested by witnesses, would always be carefully scrutinised. Witnesses, therefore, nay put on record the statements of a dying man (as R. Dimi stated supra) even though they had not satisfied themselves as to whether the debt he mentioned was really due to him. ');">⁴¹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A FATHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who directed that after his death his estate shall be given to his son, so that the land itself is acquired by the son at once while the right of usufruct remains with the father. ');">⁴²</span> MAY PLUCK [THE FRIT] AND GIVE IT TO ANY ONE HE WISHES FOR CONSUMPTION; AND ANY PLUCKED [FRUIT] WHICH HE LEAVES [AFTER HIS DEATH] BELONGS TO [ALL] THE HEIRS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not only to that son to whom the estate had been assigned. ');">⁴³</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. PLUCKED [FRUIT] only belongs to all the heirs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'. ');">⁴⁴</span> [but] not [fruit] that is still attached to the ground?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'joined'. Since our Mishnah stated that detached fruit belongs to all the heirs it seems to imply that fruit attached to the ground is regarded as the ground itself and belongs to the son to whom the estate was assigned. ');">⁴⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 276:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.