Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 176:13

מאי טעמא אמר רב יוסף בשלמא אי תני איפכא הכותב נכסיו לאביו איכא למפשט מינה דקנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי

and R. Jeremiah b. Abba accordingly argues thus: If you assume that a right to usufruct amounts [in law] to a right in the very substance, why then on the death of the father, if the son has previously died during the lifetime of his father, should the purchaser have any title to the estate, since when the son sold it he was disposing of a thing not belonging to him? Does not this show that a right to [mere] usufruct does not amount to a right to the very substance?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the gift of the mother to R. Samuel her son should become valid at her death in spite of the right to usufruct vested in R. Abba her second husband during her lifetime. ');">¹³</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Kamma 176:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.