Commentary for Bava Kamma 176:10

ואנן השתא בין ר' ירמיה בר אבא ובין רב יהודה כר' שמעון בן לקיש סבירא להו וקאמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא אי סלקא דעתך קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי כי מיית אב ומיית הבן בחיי האב אמאי אית ליה ללוקח כי קא זבין האי לאו דידיה קא זבין

Resh Lakish on the other hand said that the purchaser would [in all cases] acquire title [to the estate after the death of the vendor's father], for the Mishnaic statement, 'If the son disposed of them the purchaser would have no hold on them until the father died,'implying that at least after the death of the father the purchaser would own them, applies equally whether the son did not die in the lifetime of the father, in which case the estate had entered into the possession of the son, or whether the son did die during the lifetime of the father, in which case the estate never did come into the possession of the son, [as in all cases] the purchaser would acquire title [to the estate as soon as the vendor's father died]. This shows that in the opinion of Resh Lakish a right to [mere] usufruct does not yet amount to a right in the very substance [of the estate], from which it follows that when the son sold the estate [during his father's lifetime] he was disposing of a thing that legally belonged to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he had the reversionary right while the father possessed merely for time being the right to usufruct. [The bracketed passage is an interpolation and not part of R. Jeremiah's argument.] ');">¹⁰</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 176:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.