Study Bava Batra folio 137A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
תנאי היא. דתניא: ״נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני״, וירד ראשון ומכר ואכל – השני מוציא מיד הלקוחות, דברי רבי. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אין לשני אלא מה ששייר ראשון.
The Talmud answers: The halakha in this case is a dispute between tanna’im; as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who said: My property is given to you, and after you, to so-and-so, and the first recipient entered the property and sold it and consumed the profits, the second recipient repossesses the property from the purchasers, as the property belongs to him after the death of the first recipient; this is the statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The second recipient receives only that which the first beneficiary left, since his sale is valid.
ורמינהי: ״נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני״ – יורד ראשון ומוכר ואוכל, דברי רבי. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אין לראשון אלא אכילת פירות בלבד.
And the Talmud raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta 8:4): If one says: My property is given to you, and after you, to so-and-so, the first one may enter the property and sell it and consume the profits; this is the statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The first one has only the right of consumption of the produce.
קשיא דרבי אדרבי, ודרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל!
This statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi is difficult as it is contradicted by the other statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi, and this statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is difficult as it is contradicted by the other statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Their opinions in the latter baraita seem to be the opposite of those in the former baraita.
דרבי אדרבי לא קשיא – הא לגופא, הא לפירא. דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא קשיא – הא לכתחלה, הא דיעבד.
The Talmud answers: The apparent contradiction between one statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi and the other statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi is not difficult; this ruling that the first one cannot sell it is referring to the property itself, and that ruling that he can sell it is referring to the produce. The apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the other statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is not difficult either; this statement, that the first has only the right to consume the produce, is referring to his rights ab initio, whereas that statement, that if he sold the property the second one gets nothing, is referring to the halakha after the fact.