Mesorat%20hashas for Bava Batra 271:15

הכותב נכסיו לבנו לאחר מותו: איתמר מכר הבן בחיי האב ומת הבן בחיי האב

is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the second part of the expression may be taken as an interpretation of the first. Thus: 'We acquired possession etc.' because 'he gave him possession'. Consequently, the two parts imply only one transfer of possession which, unless 'from this day' is inserted, cannot be effective or valid. (Rashb.) ');">³⁹</span> R. Hanina of Sura demurred: Is there anything we do not know and the scribes would know?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If most scholars do not know the difference between the one and the other formula, would the scribes be able to tell what this one or the other implied? ');">⁴⁰</span> The scribes of Abaye were asked and they knew;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference in the meaning and purport of the two formulae. ');">⁴¹</span> the scribes of Raba, and they knew.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference in the meaning and purport of the two formulae. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, whether [the order was]. 'He conferred upon him possession&nbsp;… and we acquired it of him', or, 'We acquired it of him&nbsp;… and he conferred upon him possession the insertion of 'from this day] is not required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Nahman. ');">⁴²</span> and their dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Judah and R. Jose as to whether the insertion, 'from this day', is required. ');">⁴³</span> [has reference only to the case] where [the deed reads], 'a memorandum of the transaction that took place in our presence'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the deed is not one recording a transfer of possession through the witnesses; but a memorandum of the transactions at which the witnesses were present. R. Jose holding that even in such a case the date of the memorandum proves its import. ');">⁴⁴</span> R. Kahana said: I mentioned the reported statements in the presence of R. Zebid of Nehardea, and he told me: You read thus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in the form of an enquiry: 'Raba inquired of R. Nahman' etc., supra. ');">⁴⁵</span> [but] we have the following version: Raba said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a statement of fact, not an inquiry. ');">⁴⁶</span> in the name of R. Nahman, 'In [the case of] a deed of transfer this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 575, n. 6. ');">⁴⁷</span> is not required whether [the formula was], 'He conferred upon him possession&nbsp;… and we acquired it of him' or, 'We acquired it of him&nbsp;… and he gave him possession'; their dispute [has reference only to the case] where [the formula is], 'a memorandum of the transaction that took place in our presence'. IF A PERSON ASSIGNED HIS ESTATE, IN WRITING TO HIS [TO BE HIS] AFTER HIS DEATH. It was stated: If the son sold [the estate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assigned to him by his father for possession after his death. ');">⁴⁸</span> during the lifetime of his father, and died while his father was still alive,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Bava Batra 271:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.