Bava Batra 155a — the Talmud in English

This is what he said to him:

This is how he challenged him:

Rabbi Yohanan challenged Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Granted, according to me,

this is good according to my method,

for I say that the proof is through validation of the document; this is where you can find it,

therefore it is possible to establish

that the purchasers had taken possession of the properties,

that the purchasers were in possession of the properties, as we explained above, that they were in possession, and the heirs wished to take them from them, since they had validated the document, or according to the Sages, who say that there is no need to validate it.

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

that in order for the purchasers to be in possession, they must bring witnesses in order to take the properties from the heirs,

how

can you find that the purchasers had taken possession of the properties?

How can it be that they are in possession without witnesses?

He said to him:

Resh Lakish answers:

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

Here I concede that the heirs’ challenge is not sufficiently strong to take the properties from the purchasers.

For

what do they claim?

What are they claiming?

He was a minor

at the time of the sale, and this is not a claim, because

the presumption is 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 do not sign without clarifying whether the sale is valid, and it is necessary to add that this is not an ordinary presumption, as we thought above, but rather it is like anan sahadei, that this is how it was; therefore the purchasers are in possession of the properties by virtue of this presumption.

Introduction

A minor may sell movable property when he is six or seven years old, and the matter depends on the measure of his sharpness. By Torah law, a minor cannot transfer ownership, אלא the Sages instituted that he may sell, for the sake of his livelihood. If the minor needs money for his sustenance, he may sell his movable property and support himself from it. But with regard to land, they did not institute this, since a minor’s mind is drawn toward money; the Sages were concerned that perhaps he would sell his valuable land for a small amount of money. But with movable property there is no concern, because his mind is drawn also toward movable property. Furthermore, since land is worth a great deal of money, he can lose a great deal. This is not so with movable property, for 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 properties?

At what age may the son sell land that he inherited from his father. And specifically land that he inherited from his father; but land that he acquired himself, he may sell immediately when he reaches thirteen years of age. And likewise movable property: he may sell it when he reaches the age of young children, from six or seven years old, depending on his sharpness.

He said:

Rava said in the name of Rav Nahman: At eighteen years of age,

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

Rav Huna bar Hinena said in the name of Rav Nahman: From twenty years of age.

Only from the time that he has completed twenty years and one day may he sell.

Rabbi Zeira challenged

Rav Huna, from

an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold his father’s properties and died.

And the properties were held in the hands of the purchasers.

And the family members came,

his heirs,

and challenged, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death,

At the time of his father’s death and the sale of the land, he was a minor, since he had not brought signs of maturity. Therefore, despite having reached the age at which the Sages instituted that one may sell his father’s properties, since he was a minor because he had not brought signs of maturity, his sale is not a sale, and therefore the properties come to them by the law of inheritance.

And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the law concerning examining him

after his death, to see whether he had brought signs of maturity, for if he had not brought them, then even though he was at the age when he could sell, since he had not brought signs of maturity, he has the status of a minor.

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

The family members have no permission to remove him from his grave and thereby disgrace him, in order to examine whether he has signs.

And furthermore,

there is also another reason why one may not examine whether he has signs or not, for

signs are liable to change after death,

and it is impossible to rely on the examination, because it is possible that he was an adult and had brought signs, but they fell out after death.

And from here Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Huna:

Granted, according to the one who says

according to the one who holds that

eighteen years of age

he may sell land,