Commentary for Ketubot 166:10

ואם תמצי לומר תרוייהו דוקא תרתי למה לי צריכא דאי כתב לה פירי פירות ולא כתב לה עד עולם הוה אמינא פירי פירות הוא דלא אכיל אבל פירא דפירי פירות אכיל להכי איצטריך עד עולם ואי כתב לה עד עולם ולא כתב לה פירי פירות הוה אמינא לעולם אפירות קאי להכי איצטריך פירי פירות:

But if you should say that both expressions are essential why do we need both? Both are necessary. For if he only wrote “usufruct of the usufruct” and did not write “without end,” I would have said that he does not eat “usufruct of the usufruct” but “usufruct of the usufruct of the usufruct” he can eat, therefore he needs to write “without end.” And if he only wrote “without end” and did not write “usufruct of the usufruct” I would have said that he is only referring to “usufruct,” therefore it needed to write “usufruct of the usufruct.”

Explore commentary for Ketubot 166:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.