Bava Batra 155b (קנה:) — the Talmud in English

That is why they came

therefore they came to Rabbi Akiva,

and said to him

and asked him:

What is the ruling regarding examining him

whether he has signs of maturity? For if they do not find signs of maturity in him, the sale will be nullified.

But if you say

that only

from the age of twenty

can he sell—that is, only once he has reached twenty years,

what is accomplished by examining him!?

What benefit is there to the examination? Even if they do not find signs of maturity in him, he is already an adult, and his sale is valid.

For

yet

after all,

we learned

in a Mishna in tractate Niddah [47b]:

One who is twenty years old and has not produced two pubic hairs

which are signs of maturity,

must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he is a eunuch.

He has the status of a eunuch and is considered to have reached maturity, because this is his nature and he does not grow hairs; therefore, he has the status of an adult. And once he is established as a eunuch, he

neither performs halitza nor levirate marriage

with the wife of his brother who fell before him for levirate marriage, because one who is incapable of fathering children neither performs halitza nor contracts levirate marriage.

From here Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty against Rav Huna, who holds that a son may sell his father’s property only from the age of twenty: according to his view, there is no benefit whatsoever in examining for signs of maturity, since in any event his sale is valid at that age.

The Gemara answers:

Was it not stated concerning it

that we did not learn regarding this Mishna:

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said

that it is not sufficient for him to bring proof that he is twenty years old and has not produced two hairs in order to give him the status of an adult as a eunuch; rather,

and he is one

in whom the signs of a eunuch have appeared.

He requires additional physical signs, as explained there, in order to establish that he is a eunuch. But if he has merely failed to produce two hairs, that is not sufficient proof. Therefore, it is understandable that they wished to examine him, to see whether he had the other signs; for if they were absent, he would still be a minor.

Rava said: The language is also precise

you can infer that the Gemara’s answer is correct from

the fact that it teaches

that it is stated in this teaching:

“and he is the eunuch,”

with the definite article, indicating that he is known to be a eunuch—that is, he possesses additional signs of a eunuch.

Conclude from it

that this is the reason for establishing him as a eunuch, and not merely the fact that he has no hairs.

The Gemara now discusses the matter:

And if the signs of a eunuch did not appear in him

if the signs of a eunuch did not appear in him and he has no hairs,

until when

do we continue to regard him as a minor?

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Until most of his years.

Once he reaches thirty-six years, which are most of a person’s years, as a person generally lives seventy years, then even if he has no additional signs, we regard him as a eunuch, and he has the status of an adult.

When people came before Rabbi Ḥiyya

who had not produced signs of maturity, namely, two hairs,

if they were thin

if they were thin of flesh,

he would say to them

he would tell them:

“Become robust.”

They should restore their health, and then the signs would appear.

And if they were robust

if people who were robust of flesh came before him,

he would say to them: “Become thin.”

He would tell them to make themselves thinner.

The Gemara explains:

For these signs

these signs

sometimes appear because of thinness

at times they appear when a person is thin.

At times they appear because of robustness.

At times they appear when a person is robust of flesh. Therefore, this is the advice he gave them.

They raised a dilemma before them

the scholars of the yeshiva were uncertain: From when may a son sell real estate that he inherited from his father?

Is it

during the period

during the eighteenth year or during the twentieth year

, regarded as before the period

meaning that he is still considered not to have reached the age of maturity with regard to selling his father’s property, until eighteen or twenty full years have passed?

Or is it regarded as after the period?

At the very beginning of the eighteenth year, is he considered to have reached the age at which he has the status of an adult with regard to being able to sell real estate?

Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: During the period, it is regarded as before the period.

He is still considered a minor and cannot sell until the year has passed.

Rava bar Rav Sheila said that Rav Naḥman said: During the period, it is regarded as after the period

during the year he is considered an adult

and can already sell.

The Gemara explains:

And this ruling of Rava

Rava’s ruling

was not stated explicitly

it was not stated explicitly,

rather, it was stated by inference.

We learned it from an incident that occurred:

There was a certain person who was during the period

he was in his eighteenth year,

who went and sold property

he went and sold property.

And he came before Rava

and they came to ask Rava whether the sale was valid or not.

He said to them: “It is nothing!”

He told them that the sale was nullified.

One who saw

Rava’s ruling

thought that it was because during the period it is regarded as before the period

and he had not yet reached the requisite age. This is the Gemara’s meaning: Rava’s statement was inferred from this incident.

But the Gemara rejects this:

That is not so!

That was not the reason. Rather,

there, he saw excessive foolishness in him.

He saw that the young man was excessively foolish, in that

he was releasing his slaves

he had freed his slaves. From this Rava saw that his judgment could not be relied upon, and therefore he nullified the sale—not because the young man had not yet reached the requisite age.

Giddel ben Menashya sent

a question

to Rava: “Let our master teach us: A girl who is fourteen years and one day old

who had not yet reached the age of eighteen, but

understands the nature of commerce

she is particularly sharp in commercial matters,

what is the ruling?

May she sell even property belonging to her father? Since there is no concern that she will sell it for less than its true value, as she possesses sufficient understanding.

He sent back to him

he replied to him:

“If she understands the nature of commerce, her purchase is a valid purchase and her sale is a valid sale.”

Even though she has not reached the age of eighteen or twenty.

And let him have sent regarding a boy

why did Giddel ben Menashya ask Rava only about a girl and not about a boy?

The Gemara explains:

“The incident that occurred was such.”

This was not merely a general question about the status of a girl; rather, it concerned a specific incident that had occurred involving a girl.

And let him have sent to him: “A girl who is twelve years and one day old,”

why did he ask about a girl who was fourteen years old and not about one who was twelve, since she becomes an adult from that age?

The Gemara also answers this:

“The incident that occurred was such.”

There was a certain person who was under twenty

an incident occurred involving a person under twenty,

who went and sold his father’s property

who went and sold property belonging to his father,

like Giddel bar Menashya

in accordance with the ruling of Giddel bar Menashya, that if he understands the nature of commerce, his sale is valid.

He came before Rava

he came before Rava in order to retract from the sale, since he was under twenty.

His relatives said to him

his relatives advised him:

“Go eat dates

eat dates,

and throw the pits

and throw the pits

in Rava’s study hall

in Rava’s beit-midrash, so that he would consider you foolish and nullify the sale.

He did so

he acted accordingly.

He said to them: “Your sale is not a sale!”

Rava told them that the sale was nullified because the young man was behaving like a fool. But

when they wrote for him

a document

when they wrote for him a legal document stating that the sale was nullified,

the purchasers said to him

the purchasers said to the seller:

“Go say to Rava

go and tell Rava something clever [their intention was that Rava would see that he was intelligent and the sale would remain valid], and ask Rava as follows: Is it possible that

the Scroll of Esther costs one zuz

and

the document of the Master costs one zuz!?”

How can it be that the scribe takes one zuz as his fee for writing a Scroll of Esther and also takes one zuz as his fee for writing the Master’s legal document, even though writing the document is much shorter!?

He went and said to him

he went and said this to Rava.

He said to them

Rava said to the purchasers:

“His sale is a sale!”

The sale was not nullified.

His relatives said to him

the seller’s relatives said to Rava:

“The purchasers taught him!”

He is not intelligent; rather, the purchasers taught him to say this.

He said to them: “They explained it to him, and he understood.”

They explained it to him, and he understood.

“And since they explained it to him and he understood, he clearly knows.”

Since he understands when something is explained to him, he understands the nature of commerce, and his sale is a valid sale.

“And as for the fact that he acted this way,”

and as for the fact that he threw the pits,

“it was excessive brazenness that he possessed.”

This resulted from the brazenness in him, and not from foolishness.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

Although they said that he may sell his father’s property only from the age of twenty,

“with regard to testimony, his testimony is testimony.”

He is fit to testify from the age of thirteen, once he has produced signs of maturity.

Mar Zutra said

Mar Zutra adds and says:

“We said

that he may testify from the age of thirteen

only with regard to movable property,

only with regard to movable property;

but with regard to real estate, no.”

He is disqualified from testifying regarding real estate until he reaches twenty.

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: “What is different about movable property,

why may he testify regarding movable property? It is because

“his sale is a sale,”

he may sell it, and therefore he is also fit to testify regarding it.

“If so,”

if we say that the validity of testimony depends on the ability to sell, this presents a difficulty:

“Did we not learn,”

after all, we learned in a Mishna:

“The young children’s purchases are valid purchases, and their sales are valid sales.”

Minors may buy and sell movable property from the age of six or seven.

“Is their testimony also testimony!?”

Are we likewise to say that they may testify from that age?

He said to him

Mar Zutra explained to him:

“There,”

in the case of minors under thirteen, there is another deficiency, for

“I require”

the requirement of the verse must be fulfilled:

“And the two men shall stand,” and it is not present!

The witness must be an adult man, as stated in the verse concerning testimony, and a minor is not considered a man.

Ameimar said: “And his gift” -

“is a gift.”

Ameimar adds that although he may sell only from the age of twenty, he may give a gift once he is thirteen, even property belonging to his father, despite the fact that he does not understand the nature of commerce.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:

Rav Ashi raised an objection to him:

“Now, if with regard to a sale

and what is the case with a sale?

“in which he receives money,”

he receives money for it, demonstrating that he is acting intelligently,

“you said that he may not,”

he may not sell, because

“perhaps he will sell cheaply,”

perhaps he will sell it for less than its value.

“All the more so”

certainly,

“with regard to a gift, from which he receives no benefit,”

he receives

“nothing at all,”

surely it should be that his gift is not a valid gift.