Commentary for Bava Batra 296:13

איבעיא להו הקדיש כל נכסיו ועמד מהו מי אמרינן כל לגבי הקדש גמר ומקני או דלמא כל לגבי נפשיה לא גמר ומקני

recovered [the following objection may be raised].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the argument that the Baraitha supplies no proof to the statement that the partial withdrawal is considered complete withdrawal, ');">³⁴</span> If it is said [that] partial withdrawal is [considered] complete withdrawal, one can at least understand why the second acquires possession;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when the part was given to him, the rest of the estate having been withdrawn from the first, the testator was in possession of some property. ');">³⁵</span> if, however, It is said [that] partial withdrawal is not [considered] complete withdrawal, [the testator] should be [regarded] as one who distributes [his possessions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first is retaining the remainder of the estate while the second acquires possession of its part. ');">³⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 296:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.