Bava Batra

if [the first recipient] is not able  properly to perform the precept  therewith, for what [other purpose] was the thing given to him!  But [it is obvious] that no one [can]  dispute [the view] that [the first recipient] may properly perform the commandment with it;  [as regards, however, the case where] he sold, or consumed it, this will be a point of  dispute between Rabbi and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: When brothers acquired an ethrog  out of an [inherited] estate,  [and] one of them used for its ritual purpose,  if he is able to eat it,  he has [also] properly acquitted himself of his ritual duty;  but if not, he has not acquitted himself of his ritual duty.  This, however, only in the case where an ethrog is available for everyone [of the brothers]. Raba said: [If one said to another,] 'This ethrog is given to you as a gift on the condition that you return it to me', [and the recipient] used it for its ritual purpose,  then if he [subsequently] returned it, he is exempt;  [if] he did not return it, be is not exempt. [Hereby] we are taught that a gift [presented] on the condition that it be returned is regarded as a [proper] gift. A certain woman owned a palm-tree on ground belonging to R. Bibi b. Abaye. Whenever she went to cut it he showed resentment, [so] she made it over to him for life.  He thereupon went and made it over to his little son.  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: 'Because you are [yourselves] frail [beings] you speak frail words.  Even Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel gave his decision only [in the case where the original owner had assigned the estate] to another [person], but not when [it is to return] to [the owner] himself'. Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: [If one said to another], 'This ox is given to you as a gift on the condition that you return it to me', [and the recipient] consecrated, and returned it, both the consecration and the restitution are legally valid.  '[But] what', asked Raba of R. Nahman, 'has he returned to him?'  'And what', replied the other, 'has he taken away from him?'  But, said R. Ashi, the matter is looked into: If he said to him, 'on condition that you return it' [he has no claim upon the donee, for] he had surely returned it, if, [however], he said to him, 'on condition that you return it to me', [he can claim compensation], since he implied [that the return must be of] a thing which he may use. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [If a person] assigned his estate, in writing, to another, and the latter  said, 'I do not want it', he acquires possession [of it] even if he stands and protests.  R. Johanan, however, said: He does not acquire possession. R. Abba b. Memel said: There is [really] no difference of opinion between them;