Bava Batra 159a — the Talmud in English

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

was stated:

it is necessary to say that they sent a different ruling:

A son who sold his father’s property during his father’s lifetime,

a son who sold his share in his father’s inheritance during his father’s lifetime, and the son died during the father’s lifetime, and afterward the father died, then

his son

the son’s son, the grandfather’s grandson,

takes it away from the purchasers

the grandfather’s land that his father sold to them, since when his father sold them the grandfather’s property, the property still did not belong to him, because the grandfather was alive at that time.

And this is that which is difficult in monetary law.

And the Gemara explains the difficulty:

And let them say to him: Your father sold, and you take it away!

that the purchasers should say to the son’s son: Your father sold to us, and why do you not uphold your father’s sale!? The Gemara asks:

And what is the difficulty?

Why is this “difficult in monetary law”?

Perhaps he can say: I come by virtue of my father’s father!

The grandson who is now taking it from the purchasers can say to them: I do not come by virtue of my father, but directly by virtue of my grandfather, and he did not sell you his property!

Know

evidence for this,

as it is written [

Psalms 45 ]

“In place of your fathers shall be your sons; you shall appoint them as officers throughout the entire land.”

That is to say, the grandson, in place of his father, inherits the grandfather. It follows that the property did not pass through the father to him at all, and therefore he takes it away from the purchasers.

Rather, if there is a difficulty —

this is the difficulty.

The Gemara tries another possibility.

A firstborn son who sold the firstborn share during his father’s lifetime, and died

the son

during his father’s lifetime,

and afterward the father died,

his son [

the grandson ]

takes it away from the purchasers. And this is that which is difficult in monetary law.

For

his father sold, and he takes it away!?

Why should the grandson not uphold his father’s sale?

And if you would say

if we wish to answer,

here too, he said: I come by virtue of my father’s father.

That the grandson inherits the grandfather directly, as above, here this is not possible. For

if he comes by virtue of his father’s father,

if he inherits directly from the grandfather,

what is he doing with the firstborn share!?

After all, he has no right to receive a firstborn share, since only his father is a firstborn, whereas he has no right of firstborn status.

But the Gemara rejects this:

And what is the difficulty!?

After all, here too one can argue as follows:

Perhaps he can say, I come by virtue of my father’s father,

that he indeed inherits the grandfather directly,

and I stand in place of my father,

but he also has his father’s rights, and therefore inherits from the grandfather like his father, who also receives a firstborn share.

Rather, if there is a difficulty —

this is the difficulty.

The Gemara tries another way.

He knew testimony for him in a document,

when he was initially fit, and signed a document belonging to his fellow

before he became a robber,

when he was fit,

and he became a robber,

and became disqualified for testimony,

he does not testify concerning his handwriting,

since he is a robber and is not trustworthy.

But others testify.

And the Gemara assumed that others can testify and validate his signature.

And this law is difficult:

now,

if

he himself is not trustworthy

to validate his signature because he is suspected of lying, why

are others trustworthy!?

Why are others more trustworthy than he? And why should we not be concerned that perhaps he signed the document after he had already been disqualified, and everything is false? And what is added by the others validating his signature, which was made falsely!?

The Gemara rejects this:

And what is the difficulty!?

Perhaps this is not what it is referring to. Rather,

perhaps

in a case

where his handwriting had been established in court,

perhaps it is referring to a case in which the court wrote a validation for a document made while he was fit. And now the witnesses are not validating his signature; rather, they testify that they signed the court’s validation, and this was still before he became disqualified. Therefore they are trustworthy. And this law is not difficult in monetary law.

Rather, if there is a difficulty —

this is the difficulty.

The Gemara tries another way.

He knew testimony for him in a document before it fell to him as an inheritance,

one who was one of the witnesses who signed a document before he inherited the property concerning which he testifies in the document, and now he became its heir, for example, because those who were closer died,

he cannot validate his handwriting,

since he has an interest in his testimony, because now he is an heir, and if the sale document is forged, he will not inherit.

But others can validate his handwriting.

And this is difficult: why can others validate it? After all, one who has an interest in the matter is disqualified because of the concern that he is lying, and it is possible that everything is forged.

The Gemara rejects this:

And what is the difficulty!? Perhaps here too, for example, where his handwriting had been established in court,

and the witnesses testify concerning the validation in court, which was before he became one with an interest in his testimony. And this law is not difficult in monetary law.

The Gemara tries to establish it in another manner.

Rather, if there is a difficulty —

this is the difficulty:

He knew testimony for him before he became his son-in-law,

one who was a signing witness on a document before he became related to him,

and he became his son-in-law,

and now he is disqualified for testimony on account of being a relative,

he does not testify concerning his handwriting,

because he is now a relative,

but others testify,

since they are not relatives.

And this is difficult in monetary law:

he himself is not trustworthy, others —

are trustworthy!?

If he is not trustworthy because there is a deficiency in his trustworthiness, why are others trustworthy? Perhaps he forged the document, as with a robber and one who has an interest in the matter.

And if you would say

and perhaps you will say and answer that

here too, for example, where his handwriting had been established in court,

and therefore they testify concerning the validation, which was made before he became a relative.

But Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Nahman said,

that this law is correct

even though his handwriting had not been established in court!

But the Gemara rejects this:

And what is the difficulty!? Perhaps

the fact that a relative is disqualified for testimony

is a decree of the King,

a decree of Scripture,

and not because he lies.

For if you do not say so,

if you wish to say that a relative’s disqualification is because of the concern that he is lying, then

Moses and Aaron concerning their father-in-law,

why could they not testify concerning their father-in-law? And is it

because they are not trustworthy!?

After all, certainly in this respect they are trustworthy.

Rather,

necessarily,

it is a decree of the King that they should not testify for him

concerning their father-in-law, despite being trustworthy, because the Torah disqualified a relative from testifying.

Here too,

also in our case,

it is a decree of the King that he should not testify concerning his handwriting for his father-in-law.

But others, who are not relatives, can testify, and if so, there is no difficult monetary law here.

Rather, actually, as we said at first,

like the first possibility, that a son sold his father’s property.

And that which is difficult for you,

what was difficult,

“In place of your fathers shall be your sons,”

and the grandson inherits the grandfather directly, and not by virtue of his father —

that one was written as a blessing.

This is only a blessing: that the righteous should have sons and grandsons who inherit them; but the inheritance in fact passes through the father. Therefore this is “difficult in monetary law,” since the purchasers say to him: Your father sold, and why are you taking away the property? After all, you come by virtue of your father’s inheritance.

And they sent this halakha from there.

And now the Gemara wishes to prove that “In place of your fathers shall be your sons” is not only a blessing.

And can you really say?

How can one say that only

as a blessing it was written,