## Bava Kamma Daf 88b

###### Bava Kamma 88b:1
[Bava Kamma 88b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:1)

אֲזַל רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּנִכְסֵי. אֲזַל רַבִּי אַבָּא אַמְרַהּ לְמִילְּתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא, אֲזַל רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וָמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Abba went before Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba** to claim his mother’s property. Rabbi Yirmeya **established him** as the owner **of the property,** in accordance with what was written in the document. **Rabbi Abba,** the mother’s husband, **went** and **said** a report of **the matter before Rav Hoshaya. Rav Hoshaya went** and **said** a report of the matter **before Rav Yehuda.** Rav Yehuda **said to** Rav Hoshaya: **This** is what **Shmuel says:** In a case of **a woman who sold her usufruct property,** which belongs to her but whose profits her husband garners, **in her husband’s lifetime, and** then she **died, the husband repossesses** the property **from the purchasers.** The granting of her property by means of the document is analogous to a sale, and Rabbi Abba can repossess the property from Rav Shmuel bar Abba.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:2
[Bava Kamma 88b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:2)

אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא, דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ לְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ – הַבֵּן אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בִּרְשׁוּת הָאָב; וְהָאָב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְכּוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּתוּבִין לַבֵּן. מָכַר הָאָב – מְכוּרִים עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת. מָכַר הַבֵּן – אֵין לוֹ לַלּוֹקֵחַ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said that** *halakha* **before Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba,** who had ruled that the property belongs to Rav Shmuel bar Abba. **He said to them: I know the mishna** that supports my opinion, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Batra* 136a): In the case of **one who writes** a document transferring ownership of **his property to his son,** stating that the transfer should take effect immediately but the son will have use of it only **after** the father’s **death, the son cannot sell** the property **due to** the fact **that it is** still **in the father’s possession. And the father,** even though he retained the right to use the property, **cannot sell** the property **due to** the fact **that it is written** as belonging **to the son.** If **the father sold** the property, then **it is sold** to the extent that the purchaser may use it **until** the father **dies.** If **the son sold** the property during his father’s lifetime, **the purchaser does not have** the right to use the property **until the father dies.**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:3
[Bava Kamma 88b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:3)

כִּי מָיֵית אָב מִיהָא אִית לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי אָב – דְּלָא אֲתוֹ לִידֵי הַבֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba infers: **In any event,** if the son sold the property during his father’s lifetime, **when the father dies the purchaser has** rights to the property. **And** this would be so **even though** it is a case **where the son died in the father’s lifetime, where** the property **never came into the son’s possession.**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:4
[Bava Kamma 88b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:4)

כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר: לָא שְׁנָא מֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב – דְּלָא אֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ דְּבֵן, לָא שְׁנָא מֵת הָאָב בְּחַיֵּי הַבֵּן – דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ דְּבֵן; קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s analysis is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says:** There is **no difference** if **the son died in the father’s lifetime, where** the property **never came into the son’s possession,** and there is **no difference** if **the father died in the son’s lifetime, where the** property **came into the son’s possession.** In any event, **the purchaser acquired** the property.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:5
[Bava Kamma 88b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:5)

דְּאִתְּמַר: מָכַר הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, וּמֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records a dispute between the *amora’im* with regard to this point. **As was stated:** In a case where **the son sold** the property **in the father’s lifetime, and the son died in the father’s lifetime, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser did not acquire** the property. **Reish Lakish says: The purchaser acquired** the property.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:6
[Bava Kamma 88b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:6)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ – אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין ״מָכַר הַבֵּן – לֹא קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב״, וְכִי מָיֵית הָאָב אִית לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ – דְּלֹא מֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵי הַבֵּן. אֲבָל מֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, דְּלָא אֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ דְּבֵן – כִּי מָיֵית אָב נָמֵי לֵית לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The purchaser did not acquire** the property, because he could have **said to you: When the mishna teaches** that if **the son sold** the property during his father’s lifetime **the purchaser does not acquire** any rights to use the property **until the father dies, and** one could infer that **when the father dies the purchaser has** rights to the property, the mishna is discussing a case **where the son did not die during the father’s lifetime,** so **that** the property **came into the son’s possession** upon the father’s death, before the purchaser acquired it. **But** if **the son died in the father’s lifetime,** so **that** the property **did not come into the son’s possession,** then **even when the father dies the purchaser does not have** rights to the property.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:7
[Bava Kamma 88b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:7)

אַלְמָא קָא סָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת – כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וְכִי זַבֵּין – לָאו דִּידֵיהּ זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Apparently,** Rabbi Yoḥanan **holds** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and to **its produce is considered to be like ownership of the item itself.** Even though the property itself did not belong to the father, it is as though the father owned the property, because all of the produce belonged to him in practice. Therefore, **when** the son **sold** the property, **he sold** property **that did not belong to him.**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:8
[Bava Kamma 88b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:8)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ – כִּי קָתָנֵי מַתְנִיתִין: ״מָכַר הַבֵּן אֵין לַלּוֹקֵחַ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הָאָב״ – כִּי מָיֵית אָב מִיהַת אִית לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ; לָא שְׁנָא לָא מֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב – דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ דְּבֵן, וְלָא שְׁנָא מֵת הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב – דְּלָא אֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ דְּבֵן; קָנָה לוֹקֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says** that the **purchaser acquired** the property based on this claim: **When the mishna teaches** that if **the son sold** the property during his father’s lifetime **the purchaser does not have** any right to use the property **until the father dies,** and one could infer that **in any event, when the father dies the purchaser has** rights to the property, the mishna means that there is **no difference** if **the son did not die in the father’s lifetime, where the** property **came into the son’s possession, and** there is **no difference** if **the son died in the father’s lifetime, where the** property **did not come into the son’s possession.** In either case, the **purchaser acquired** the property.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:9
[Bava Kamma 88b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:9)

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, וְכִי (קָא) זַבֵּין – דִּידֵיהּ (קָא) זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Apparently,** Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish **holds** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and to **its produce is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself. And** therefore **when** the son **sold** the property, **he sold** property **that belonged to him.**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:10
[Bava Kamma 88b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:10)

וַאֲנַן הַשְׁתָּא, בֵּין רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא וּבֵין רַב יְהוּדָה – כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ סְבִירָא לְהוּ. וְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי, כִּי מָיֵית אָב וּמָיֵית הַבֵּן בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, אַמַּאי אִית לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ? כִּי (קָא) זַבֵּין הַאי – לָאו דִּידֵיהּ (קָא) זַבֵּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba. **And now** for **us, whether** if one discusses the opinion of **Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba and whether** one discusses the opinion of **Rav Yehuda, they** both **hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,** that ownership of the rights to use an item and to its produce is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself. **And Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: If** it **enters your mind** that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and to **its produce is considered to be like ownership of the item itself,** then **when the father dies and the son** had **died in the father’s lifetime, why does the purchaser have** rights to the property? **When** the son **sold** it, **didn’t he sell** property **that did not belong to him?**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:11
[Bava Kamma 88b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:11)

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t it** correct to **conclude from** the mishna that **ownership of** the rights to use an item and to **its produce is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself?** Therefore, Rav Shmuel bar Abba should receive the property transferred to him by his mother, as the fact that the husband owned the rights to its produce does not limit her ability to transfer her property to her son.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:12
[Bava Kamma 88b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:12)

אַהְדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לְהוּ, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ אֵינָהּ דּוֹמָה לְמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **brought back** Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s reply **before Rav Yehuda.** Rav Yehuda **said to them: This is** what **Shmuel said: This** *halakha*, that a husband can repossess the property that his wife sold before she died, **is not similar to** the *halakha* of **our mishna** concerning a father who transfers his property to his son while retaining the right to garner the profits.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:13
[Bava Kamma 88b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:13)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי תָּנֵי אִיפְּכָא: ״הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לְאָבִיו״ – אִיכָּא לְמִפְשַׁט מִינַּהּ דְּקִנְיַן פֵּירוֹת לָאו כְּקִנְיַן הַגּוּף דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reasoning** for distinguishing between the two cases? **Rav Yosef said: Granted, if** the mishna had **taught the opposite** and stated that in the case of **one who writes** a document transferring ownership of **his property to his father** after his death, with the son retaining the right to garner the profits until then, and the father sold the property during his son’s lifetime, the purchaser has rights to the property after the son dies, then **it is** possible **to resolve from** the mishna **that ownership of** the rights to use an item and to **its produce is not considered to be like ownership of the item itself.**


###### Bava Kamma 88b:14
[Bava Kamma 88b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:14)

אֶלָּא הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: ״הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִבְנוֹ״, מִשּׁוּם דְּרָאוּי לְיוֹרְשׁוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef continues: **But now that** the mishna **teaches** specifically: **One who writes** a document transferring ownership of **his property to his son,** the ability of the son to sell the property is **due to** the fact **that** the son **is fit to inherit** from **him** and already has a right to the property, and not just due to the existence of the document. In the case of Rav Shmuel bar Abba as well, the woman’s property is inherited by her husband, not her son, so she cannot transfer it to Rav Shmuel bar Abba.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:15
[Bava Kamma 88b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַטּוּ בְּרָא יָרֵית אַבָּא, אַבָּא לָא יָרֵית בְּרָא?! אֶלָּא לְאַבְרוֹחִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵי מִבְּרֵיהּ קָא אָתֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, לְאַבְרוֹחִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵי מֵאֲחוּהּ אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **Is this to say that a son inherits** from **a father,** but **a father does not inherit** from **a son?** There is no difference between their rights to inherit from one another. **Rather,** even if the mishna taught a *halakha* concerning a son transferring his property to his father, the son’s reason for doing so could have been that **he comes to hide his property from his** own **son** and wants his father to inherit from him instead. **Here too,** when a father transfers his property to his son, **he comes to hide his property from** the son’s **brothers,** as the father has other sons but does not want them to inherit from him. Therefore, the mishna’s choice of case cannot serve as a basis for inference.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:16
[Bava Kamma 88b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:16)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״אֵינָהּ דּוֹמָה לְמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ״? מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת אוּשָׁא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, וּמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: **Rather, what** was Shmuel’s reason for saying that the right of a husband to the property that his wife sold before she died **is not similar to our mishna** that states that a father does not have rights to property sold by his son? The difference is **due to** the rabbinic **ordinance of Usha,** an ordinance instituted with regard to a husband’s rights to his wife’s property. **As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: In** the town of **Usha** the Sages **instituted** that in the case of **a woman who sold her usufruct property in her husband’s lifetime and** then **died, the husband repossesses** it **from the purchasers.** This ordinance was instituted only for the benefit of a husband, but not for the benefit of a father or son.


###### Bava Kamma 88b:17
[Bava Kamma 88b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/88b:17)

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״מְעִידִים אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְנָתַן כְּתוּבָּתָהּ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Idi bar Avin said: We too learn** of the ordinance of Usha in the *baraita*: If witnesses said: **We testify about so-and-so that he divorced his wife and gave** her the full value of the obligations recorded in **her marriage contract,**