Commentary for Bava Batra 99:11

ר' יוסי אומר

that if a woman sold the property of which the husband had the usufruct and then died, the husband could recover it from the purchaser).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband being in the position of a 'prior purchaser'. V. B.K. 88. ');">¹¹</span> Where, however, they both sold it [together] to a third party or if the wife sold it to the husband, the sale is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence (to revert to the original question), if the wife sells to her husband the so-called 'property of plucking', the sale is valid, and she cannot plead, 'I did it to oblige my husband'. ');">¹²</span> Alternatively, I may say that Amemar based his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if the wife or the husband sold the 'property of plucking' the sale becomes void on the death of the wife or husband respectively. So R. Gersh. Rashb. refers it to the ruling that if both husband and wife sell, their action is void, but, as will be seen, R. Eliezer's dictum by no means bears this out. V. infra p. 208, n. 2. ');">¹³</span> on the view expressed by R. Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not on the regulation of the Sages. ');">¹⁴</span> For it has been taught: 'If a man sells his slave but stipulates [with the purchaser] that he shall continue to serve him for thirty days, R. Meir says that the rule of "one or two days"15 applies to the first [the original owner] because the slave is still "under" him, and it does not apply to the second because the slave is not "under" him.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the original owner smites him during this time and he survives a day or two, he is not guilty of murder, but if the purchaser smites him, even if he survives a day or two, he is guilty of murder. B.K. 50a. ');">¹⁶</span> He [R. Meir], holds that possession of the increment is on a par with possession of the principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'increment' here is the labour of the slave and the 'principal' is the slave himself. R. Meir holds that for the purposes of this law the one who disposes of the labour of the slave is in the position of owner. ');">¹⁷</span> 'R. Judah says that the rule of 'one or two days' applies to the second [the purchaser], because the slave is "his money", but not to the first, because he is not "his money".' His opinion is that the possession of the increment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'increment' here is the labour of the slave and the 'principal' is the slave himself. R. Meir holds that for the purposes of this law the one who disposes of the labour of the slave is in the position of owner. ');">¹⁷</span> is not on a par with possession of the principal. 'R. Jose says

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 99:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.