Commentary for Bava Kamma 192:2

איכא דאמרי ת"ש דא"ר מתון א"ר יהושע בן לוי נחלקה התיומת נעשה כמי שנטלה ופסול ש"מ

— No; the case where it was removed is different, as the leaf is then missing altogether. Some [on the other hand] read thus. Come and hear what R. Mathon said, that R. Joshua b. Levi stated that if the central leaf was split it would be considered as if it was altogether removed and the <i>Lulab</i> would be disqualified;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Should it be disqualified, it would, if occurring whilst in the possession of the robber, be considered a change and confer ownership.] ');">¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 192:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.