Bava Batra 137b — the Talmud in English

If he does not fulfill his obligation with it

if he does not fulfill his obligation with it,

for what purpose did he give it to him

to him?

Rather

certainly,

, with regard to fulfilling the obligation, everyone agrees that he fulfills his obligation with it.

But if

he sold it or ate it, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rava bar Rav Huna said: The brothers

who inherited an etrog from their father, or

who purchased an etrog with

money that their father had bequeathed to them, and they had not divided it among themselves, and it was still lying in

the estate's joint possession,

and

one of them took it

without his brother's knowledge,

and fulfilled his obligation with it,

we see:

if

there are many etrogim in the joint possession of the estate, and that brother

can eat it,

and his brothers do not object to this on account of it,

he fulfills his obligation.

For we apply to it, “for you.”

But if not, he does not fulfill his obligation.

Since it is not entirely his. And with regard to the four species, we require “for you,” that it be entirely his, and not partially his.

And specifically when there is an etrog for each and every one,

then they do not object if he eats it,

but a citron or a pomegranate, no.

Rava said:

One who says to his fellow

“This etrog is given

to you as a gift, on the condition that you return it to me.”

He took it

, and fulfilled his obligation with it.

If

he returned it

afterward, as he had told him,

he fulfills his obligation.

If he did not return it, he does not fulfill his obligation.

Since he did not fulfill the condition, the gift is retroactively nullified.

It comes to teach us that a gift on the condition of returning it is called a gift.

There was a certain woman who had a date palm

that was planted

in the land of Rav Bibi bar Abaye.

Whenever she would go to cut it down, he would object to her.

Each time she would come to cut it down, he would object to her.

She acquired it for him for all his lifetime.

That woman acquired the date palm for Rav Bibi during his lifetime, on the condition that it would return to her or to her heirs after his death.

He went and acquired it for his minor son.

He acquired the date palm for his minor son, in accordance with the view of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that ownership of the produce is considered like ownership of the substance.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said,

and is it

because you come from Mulai

from the descendants of Eli, who come from the city of Mulai,

that you say defective words

?!

For

even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not say

that ownership of the produce is like ownership of the substance

except

when he gave the produce to one person, and the substance

to another, but

if he retained the substance

for himself, no!

And in this case he agrees that ownership of the produce is not like ownership of the substance.

And if so, in our sugya, where she retained the substance of the date palm for herself after Abaye's death, even according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, ownership of the produce is not considered like ownership of the substance.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

One who says to his fellow:

“This ox is given to you as a gift on the condition that you return it to me,”

and

he consecrated it,

the recipient

, and returned it, it is consecrated and returned.

That is, this return fulfills the condition, even though he consecrated it.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What has he returned?

What sort of return is this? For it is not in his possession, but in the possession of the consecration.

He said to him: And what has he deprived him of?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see: If he said to him, “On the condition that you return it,”

and he did not say “to me,”

he has returned it.

He has returned the ox to him and fulfilled the condition.

But,

if he said to him, “On the condition that you return it to me,” he said to him something fit for him.

We require a return fit for him, and if he consecrated it, it is not fit for him. And it is not considered a return.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who writes his property to another, and the latter says, “I do not want them,” acquires them, even while standing and crying out.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He did not acquire them.

As explained below.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: And they do not disagree.