Bava Batra 155a (קנה.) — the Talmud in English

This is what he said to him:

This is how he challenged

Rabbi Yoḥanan challenged Reish Lakish: “Granted, according to me,

this is suitable for my position,

as I say that the proof is the validation of the document; this is how you can find it,

therefore it can be established

that the purchasers had taken possession of the property,

meaning that the purchasers were in possession of the property, as we explained above, and the heirs seek to take it from them, since they validated the document—or according to the Sages, who say that it need not be validated.

But according to you, who say that the proof is testimony by witnesses,

meaning that, in order to be considered in possession, the purchasers would have to bring witnesses to take the property from the heirs,

how

can you find a case in which the purchasers had taken possession of the property?

How could they be considered in possession without witnesses?

He said to him:

Reish Lakish answers:

I concede to you regarding the claim of the family members, that it is not a valid claim,

meaning, here I concede that the heirs’ claim is not strong enough to take the property from the purchasers.

For

what do they claim?

What are they asserting?

“He was a minor”

at the time of the sale. But this is not a valid claim, because

“There is a presumption that witnesses do not sign a document unless he has become an adult.”

There is an assessment that he was an adult, since the witnesses would not sign without clarifying that the sale was valid. And it must be added that this is not an ordinary presumption, as we had understood above; rather, it is equivalent to the situation of anan sahadei, “we are certain witnesses,” that this is what occurred. Therefore, the purchasers are considered in possession of the property by virtue of this presumption.

Introduction

A minor may sell movable property when he is six or seven years old, depending on the degree of his acuity. By Torah law, a minor cannot transfer ownership, but the Sages enacted that he may sell, for the sake of his livelihood. If the minor needs money for his subsistence, he may sell his movable property and support himself from the proceeds. But they did not enact this with regard to real estate, since a minor’s mind is inclined toward money; the Sages were concerned that he might sell valuable property of his at a small price. With regard to movable property, however, there is no such concern, since his mind is inclined toward movable property as well. Moreover, since real estate is worth a great deal, he could suffer a substantial loss. This is not so with movable property, because even if he sells it for less than its value, the loss will not be great.

It was stated: From when may he sell his father’s property?

At what age can a son sell real estate that he inherited from his father? This applies specifically to real estate that he inherited from his father; but real estate that he purchased himself, he may sell immediately upon reaching thirteen years of age. Similarly, movable property may be sold when he reaches the age of the pe’utot, from six or seven years old, depending on his acuity.

He said:

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: An eighteen-year-old,

once he has completed eighteen years and one day, may sell.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said that Rav Naḥman said: From the age of twenty.

Only once he has completed twenty years and one day may he sell.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection

to Rav Huna, from

“There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold his father’s property and died.”

The property was in the possession of the purchasers.

“And the members of the family came,”

his heirs,

“and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death,”

meaning, at the time of his father’s death and of the sale of the real estate, he was a minor because he had not manifested signs of adulthood. Therefore, although he had reached the age at which the Sages enacted that one may sell his father’s property, since he was still a minor because he had not manifested signs of adulthood, his sale was invalid, and consequently the property belonged to them by inheritance.

“And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the law regarding examining him”

after his death, to see whether he had manifested signs of adulthood? For if he had not manifested them, then although he had reached the age at which he could sell, since he had not manifested signs of adulthood, he has the status of a minor.

He said to them: “You are not permitted to disgrace him!”

The family members are not permitted to remove him from his grave and thereby disgrace him in order to examine whether he had the signs.

“Moreover,”

there is an additional reason why they may not examine whether he had the signs, namely:

“Signs are liable to change after death,”

and the examination cannot be relied upon, since it is possible that he was an adult and had manifested the signs, but that they fell out after his death.

And from here Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty to Rav Huna:

“Granted, according to the one who says,”

according to the one who holds that

“an eighteen-year-old”

may sell real estate,