הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר – הַיְינוּ דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּנָחֲתִי לָקוֹחוֹת לִנְכָסִים. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּנָחֲתִי לָקוֹחוֹת בִּנְכָסִים?
This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Granted, according to my explanation of the mishna, that I say that presenting proof through the ratification of the deed is sufficient in order to enable the recipient to claim the gift, this is the reason that with regard to the incident in Bnei Brak you find the possibility that the buyers take possession of the property by ratifying the deed. It is therefore possible that the buyers held the property, and the relatives were claiming it from them. But according to you, that you say that the proof must be presented by bringing witnesses, how can you find circumstances in which the buyers take possession of the property, since they have no proof?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ בְּעַרְעָר דִּבְנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, דְּלָאו עַרְעָר הוּא. מַאי קָאָמְרִי? קָטָן הָיָה; חֲזָקָה אֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲשָׂה גָּדוֹל.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I concede to you with regard to a case where the members of the deceased’s family contested the legality of the buyers’ claim that their contesting the legality of that claim is not taken into consideration, since they are contesting the deed held by the buyers. It is therefore possible for the buyers to take possession of the property, as in this case what do the relatives say? They say that the seller was a minor. But there is a presumption that witnesses do not sign the document unless the seller has become an adult. In the mishna, by contrast, there is no presumption that counters the giver’s claim that he was on his deathbed. The recipient is therefore required to bring proof that the giver was healthy.
אִיתְּמַר: קָטָן, מֵאֵימָתַי מוֹכֵר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו? רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. וְהָא דְּרָבָא – לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר.
§ It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following matter: From when, i.e., from what age, can a minor sell his deceased father’s property? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: From the time he is eighteen years old, and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana says that Rav Naḥman says: From the time he is twenty years old. The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק בְּאֶחָד שֶׁמָּכַר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו, וּמֵת; וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה, וְעִרְעֲרוּ לוֹמַר: קָטָן הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה. וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִין לְנַוְּולוֹ. וְעוֹד, סִימָנִין עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה,
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the aforementioned baraita: There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold some of his father’s property, which he had inherited, and he died, and the members of his family came and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death, and therefore the sale was not valid. And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to exhume the corpse in order to examine it and ascertain whether or not the heir was a minor at the time of his death? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is not permitted for you to disgrace him for the sake of a monetary claim. And furthermore, signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death, and therefore nothing can be proved by exhuming the body. Rabbi Zeira explains the objection: Granted, according to the one who says that the heir can sell the property once he is eighteen years old,
הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָתוּ וְאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים, כִּי בָּדְקוּ לֵיהּ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא תְּנַן: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת – יָבִיאוּ רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים; וְהוּא הַסָּרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם!
this is the reason that they came and said to Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to examine the corpse? But if you say that he can sell the property from the time he is twenty years old, even if they examine him, what of it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nidda 47b): With regard to a twenty-year-old man who did not develop two pubic hairs, proof must be brought that he is twenty years old, and then he is no longer considered a minor. And he is the sexually underdeveloped man, who is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. Therefore, if his married brother dies childless, he neither performs ḥalitza nor enters into levirate marriage with his widow. Since a twenty-year-old is considered an adult even if he has not developed signs of puberty, there is no reason to examine the body.
לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: וְהוּא שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס? אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: וְהוּא הַסָּרִיס; שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara replies: Wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: And is this the halakha only where he developed the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man? Otherwise, a twenty-year-old who has not developed two pubic hairs is still considered a minor. The examination of the deceased could therefore be effective to see if he has other signs of being sexually underdeveloped. Rava said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: And he is the sexually underdeveloped man. The usage of the definitive article indicates that the mishna is referring to one who is clearly a sexually underdeveloped man. The Gemara affirms: One can conclude from the mishna that the mishna is speaking of one who developed the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man.
וְכִי לָא נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס, עַד כַּמָּה? תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עַד רוֹב שְׁנוֹתָיו. כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אִי כָּחֵישׁ אֲמַר לְהוּ: לִיבְרֵי; וְאִי אִבְּרִי אֲמַר לְהוּ: לִיכְחוֹשׁ. דְּהָנֵי סִימָנֵי – זִמְנִין דְּאָתוּ מֵחֲמַת כְּחִישׁוּתָא, זִמְנִין דְּאָתוּ מֵחֲמַת בְּרִיּוּתָא.
The Gemara asks: And if he did not develop the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man, until when is he considered a minor if he does not develop two pubic hairs? Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita: He is considered a minor until most of his years have elapsed, i.e., until he is thirty-five years old. When the case of one who had not developed pubic hair would come before Rabbi Ḥiyya, he would offer the following advice: If the person was thin, he would say to those appearing in court: Cause him to become fat, and if he was fat, he would say to them: Cause him to become thin. This is because these signs indicating puberty sometimes develop due to excessive thinness, and sometimes they develop due to corpulence.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹךְ זְמַן – כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן, אוֹ כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן? (אָמַר) רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן. רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: תּוֹךְ זְמַן כִּלְאַחַר זְמַן.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: During the time, i.e., the year, when a minor comes of age with regard to selling his deceased father’s property, i.e., during his eighteenth or twentieth year, is this year considered as before the time that he comes of age or is it considered as after the time? Does one come of age at the beginning or end of that year? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: During that time is considered as before the time, and he does not come of age until the year has elapsed. Rava bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Naḥman says: During that time is considered as after the time, and he is considered as having come of age during that year.
וְהָא דְּרָבָא, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר – דְּהָהוּא תּוֹךְ זְמַן דְּאָזֵיל זַבֵּין נִכְסֵי, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. מַאן דַּחֲזָא סָבַר, מִשּׁוּם דְּתוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן; וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם שְׁטוּתָא יַתִּירְתָא חֲזָא בֵּיהּ – דַּהֲוָה קָא מְשַׁחְרַר לְהוּ לְעַבְדֵיהּ.
The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As there was a certain person who was during the time, i.e., the year, when one comes of age who went and sold his father’s property, and the case came before Rava. Rava said to the litigants: He did not do anything, and the sale is not valid. One who observed Rava’s ruling assumed that he ruled in this manner because he maintained that during the time when he comes of age is considered as before the time. But that is not so. The reason for Rava’s ruling was that there, Rava observed excessive mental incompetence in the behavior of that individual, as he was emancipating his slaves. Since Rava saw that he was mentally incompetent, he invalidated the sale.
שְׁלַח לֵיהּ גִּידֵּל בַּר מְנַשְּׁיָא לְרָבָא, יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד, יוֹדַעַת בְּטִיב מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן; מַהוּ? שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: אִם יוֹדַעַת בְּטִיב מַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן – מִקָּחָהּ מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָהּ מִמְכָּר.
§ Giddel bar Menashya sent an inquiry to Rava: Let our teacher instruct us: With regard to a girl who is fourteen years and one day old who understands the nature of business negotiations, what is the halakha? Can she sell property that she inherited from her father? Rava sent a reply to Giddel bar Menashya: If she understands the nature of business negotiations her purchase is a valid purchase and her sale is a valid sale.
וְלִישְׁלַח לֵיהּ תִּינוֹק! מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה. וְלִישְׁלַח לֵיהּ תִּינוֹקֶת בַּת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד! מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה.
The Gemara asks: But Giddel could have sent this question to Rava with regard to a boy. Why did he not do so? The Gemara answers: The incident that took place, took place in this way. The Gemara asks: But he could have sent this question to Rava with regard to a girl who is twelve years and one day old, at which age a girl reaches her majority. Why did he not do so? The Gemara answers: The incident that took place, took place in this way.
וְהָא דְּרָבָא, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר – דְּהָהוּא פָּחוּת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים דַּאֲזַל זַבֵּין נִכְסֵי אֲבוּהוּ, כְּגִידֵּל בַּר מְנַשְּׁיָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ קְרוֹבֵיהּ: זִיל אֱכוֹל תַּמְרֵי, וּשְׁדִי (בֵּיהּ) קַשְׁיָיתָא בֵּי רָבָא. עֲבַד הָכִי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: זְבִינֵיהּ לָאו זְבִינֵי.
The Gemara notes: And this statement of Rava was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, as it was inferred from the following incident. There was a certain person who was under twenty years old and understood business negotiations who went and sold his father’s property, in accordance with the ruling that Rava sent to Giddel bar Menashya, and the case came before Rava. The seller’s relatives said to the one who sold the property: Go eat dates and throw the pits into Rava’s house, in order to prove to Rava that their relative was not mentally competent. He did so. Rava said to them: His sale is not a valid sale.
כִּי קָא כָּתְבוּ לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לָקוֹחוֹת: זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא, מְגִלַּת אֶסְתֵּר – בְּזוּזָא; שְׁטָרָא דְמָר בְּזוּזָא?! אֲזַל אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ קְרוֹבֵיהּ: לָקוֹחוֹת אַגְמְרוּהוּ! אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַסְבְּרִי לֵיהּ – סָבַר. כֵּיוָן דְּמַסְבְּרִי לֵיהּ, וְסָבַר – מִידָּע יָדַע, וְהַאי דַּעֲבַד הָכִי – חוּצְפָּא יַתִּירָא הוּא דַּהֲוָה בֵּיהּ.
When they were writing for him a writ containing the decision, the buyers said to the seller, in order to prove that he was mentally competent: Go and say to Rava: The scroll of Esther, which is a large scroll, is bought for a dinar. Why then does the short writ containing Master’s ruling also cost a dinar, which was the scribe’s fee? The seller went and said this to Rava. Rava said to them: His sale is a valid sale. The boy’s relatives said to Rava: The buyers taught him to say that. Rava said to them: Even so, when they explain the matter to him he understands. Since, when they explain a matter to him he understands, he knows what he is doing. And the reason that he acted in this manner, throwing the pits into Rava’s house, was because of excessive impudence that was in him, not mental incompetence.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וּלְעֵדוּת – עֵדוּתוֹ עֵדוּת. אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְמִטַּלְטְלֵי, אֲבָל לִמְקַרְקְעֵי – לָא.
§ Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And with regard to the testimony of one who is not old enough to sell property that he inherits from his father, his testimony is valid testimony. Mar Zutra said: We said that his testimony is valid only with regard to movable property, but not with regard to land.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מִטַּלְטְלִי – דִּזְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי; אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָא דִּתְנַן: הַפָּעוֹטוֹת – מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּעֵדוּתָן עֵדוּת?! אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, בָּעֵינָא ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים״, וְלֵיכָּא.
Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: In what way is movable property different from land? It is different because with regard to movable property his sale is a valid sale. But if that is so, consider that which we learned in a mishna (Gittin 59a): A purchase made by young children is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. Is it possible that also in the case of young children their testimony is valid testimony? Isn’t it an established halakha that minors are disqualified from bearing witness? Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: There, with regard to testimony, I require the witnesses to be men, as the verse states: “Then the two men shall stand” (Deuteronomy 19:17), which is interpreted as referring to witnesses, and this requirement is not fulfilled in the case of young children.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: וּמַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה זְבִינֵי – דִּמְקַבֵּל זוּזֵי, אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא – דִּלְמָא מוֹזֵיל וּמְזַבֵּין; כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן מַתָּנָה – דְּלָא מָטֵי לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
§ Ameimar says: With regard to one who is not old enough to sell property that he inherits from his father, if he gave a gift from the property, his gift is a valid gift. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Now, if with regard to a sale, in which he receives money, you say that the Sages instituted an ordinance that he is not authorized to sell, lest he reduce the price of the property and deplete his father’s estate, all the more so in the case of a gift he is not authorized to give a gift, as nothing at all comes into his possession in exchange. Ameimar said to Rav Ashi:
