אמר עולא לא קשיא כאן בבנו כאן באחר הואיל ודעתו של אדם קרובה אצל בנו:
for the buyer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the buyer must pay the price, at which the fruit was valued, to the heirs. This proves that even attached fruit does not belong to him to whom the soil belongs but to the heirs. In the case, then, of our Mishnah also, attached fruit should belong to all the heirs.
');"><sup>4</sup></span> — 'Ulla replied: There is no difficulty Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah.
');"><sup>5</sup></span> [the law deals] with one's [own] son;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the estate was assigned by a father to a son, and the latter did not sell it to another person.
');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Tosefta Ketubot
If the son sold [property written to him by his father for after his death] and (sic! according to Ehrfurt manuscript and most Rishonim, see Lieberman's notes) his father died, if there is property [still] attached to the ground [i.e. that the buyer has not used in the meantime], they evaluate for him [i.e. the property returns to the inheritors, but the buyer gets a certain amount of money as if he were a tenant, see end of this halakhah, also Lieberman and Tosefta Ketubot 8:4 above]. One who receives a field from his fellow [and then the original owner wants it back] which is an irrigated field or orchard [two types of field that are a lot of work to look after], if there is property attached to the ground, they evaluate for him [as a tenant]. One who receives a field from his fellow and the 7th year arrives, if there is property attached to the ground, they evaluate for him. (The following is not in the printed edition but supplied by Ehrfrut manuscript:) One who receives a field from his fellow and the time arrives when he has to leave, if there are [property] attached to the ground, they evaluate for him. And for all of these, they evaluate them as if he were a tenant.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
