Bava Batra 52a — the Talmud in English

And if he transgressed and

received it from the minor

, he should not return it to him, since the minor does not know how to safeguard it, rather,

he should make an investment for him

[a store of value; the Gemara explains this below], until he grows up, and then return it to him.

And if

the minor

dies

, he should return it to his heirs, such as his father or brother.

And all of them—

a woman, a slave, and even a minor—

who said at the time of their death

[in the manner of a confession before death], concerning money that had been deposited with them,

“It belongs to so-and-so”—

he should act according to their explanation,

giving it to the person whom they named.

But if not,

meaning, if it does not appear to the depositary that the money really belongs to the person they named, but in fact belongs to the husband, master, or householder, and they made this statement only out of shame, so that they would not be regarded as thieves—

he should make

the depositary

another interpretation

of

their explanation, meaning that he should give it to the husband, master, or householder.

to est otдать imushchestvo muzhu, gospodinu ili khozya inu.

An incident involving

the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

who,

when she was dying, said: “These earrings belong to Marta and the sons of his daughter!”

An incident involving the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who, at the time of her death, said: “These earrings in my possession are not mine; they belong to the Sage Marta, the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and to his sister’s sons.”

Her husband,

Rabba bar bar Ḥana,

came before Rav, and Rav said to him:

Rav:

If she is trustworthy in your eyes

[if your wife’s statement is trustworthy to you], so that they really belong to her and she did not steal them from you:

act according to her explanation,

as she said, and give them to those people.

But if not,

if her statement is not trustworthy to you, and you suspect that she stole them from you:

make another interpretation

of

her explanation,

meaning: keep them for yourself.

Some say that this is what he said to him

[there are those who say that Rav said the following to Rabba bar bar Ḥana]:

If they are wealthy in your estimation

[if you regard as wealthy those whom she says own the earrings]:

act according to her explanation! But if not,

if they are not wealthy in your estimation:

make another interpretation

of

her explanation,

and keep them for yourself.

The Master said: “If he received it

from the minor, he should make an investment for him”:

And we explain:

What is meant by an investment?

Rav Ḥisda said:

He should purchase

a Torah scroll

for the minor to study from; and when he grows up, he should give it to him completely.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

He should purchase

a date palm that

he

the minor

eats dates from

[a palm from which the minor eats dates while he is still a child], and when he grows up, he should give him the entire palm.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Nor does a father

have a presumption of ownership

with regard to the property of a son, nor does a son

have a presumption of ownership

with regard to the property of a father.”

Rav Yosef said: Even if they divided

[separated]—the father from the son, so that the son no longer depended on his father’s table and no longer managed his father’s property—even so, they do not establish a presumption of ownership against one another, because even in this situation they are not strict with one another.

No

Rava said:

If

they divided, they do not

say that they lack a presumption of ownership; rather, each does establish a presumption of ownership against the other.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi carried out a legal act: If they divided—

they do not, in accordance with Rava’s view

[Rav Pappi ruled in practice that once they divided, each has a presumption of ownership against the other, in accordance with Rava].

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

He told me

[he said to me],

Rav Ḥiyya of Hormiz Ardashir

[the name of a place],

that

[he had said to him]

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov had told him in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: If they divided—

they do not.

And the halakha is: If they divided—

they do not.

It was also taught in a beraita: A son who divided

from his father,

and a wife who was divorced

—

are like all other people.

It was stated:

One of the brothers

[for example, the eldest brother after the father’s death]

who conducted business within the household

[managed the jointly owned property],

and purchase documents

[deeds of sale]

and promissory notes

for loans made to others

were issued in his name,

as though he were the purchaser and the lender,

and

the brother

said: “They are mine,

because

they came to me from my mother’s father’s household,

and you have no share in them, since you are sons of my father but not sons of my mother”:

Rav said: He must bring proof,

that the purchase was not made and the loan was not given from the jointly owned property of himself and his brothers who shared the same father.

And Shmuel said: The brothers must bring proof

that they have a share in those purchase documents and promissory notes.

Shmuel said: My father agrees with me

[meaning Rav, whose name was Abba]:

If he dies,

that brother, and has heirs,

the brothers

of the deceased

must bring proof

that the documents belong to them.

Rav Pappa challenged

Shmuel’s statement regarding Rav:

Do we make a claim on behalf of orphans concerning something that their father did not claim

[do we make a claim for orphans that their father himself could not have made]!?

That is: According to Rav, if their father had been alive, we would have left the documents in the brothers’ possession until the brother brought proof. But once he died, are we to say that the son’s legal power is greater than that of the father, and that the brothers will lose!?

Rav Pappa adds to strengthen his challenge:

But Rava took a pair of shearing scissors

[a pair of scissors used by cloth shearers to cut cloaks]

and a book of aggada

[a book of non-legal teachings]

from orphans without proof, when they were objects ordinarily lent or rented,

meaning, witnesses knew that these objects had belonged to someone else, but they were in the father’s possession when he died. If these objects had not been items ordinarily lent or rented, the father would have been trusted to claim that he had purchased them, because “the presumption concerning what is in a person’s possession is that it is his,” and that he was not holding stolen property. Even if he had not stated this claim explicitly and had died, the objects would not have been taken from the orphans, since we would make this claim on behalf of the orphans as well. But these objects were items ordinarily lent or rented, and Rava took them from the orphans without the owners bringing proof that they still belonged to them and that the father had held them only as a borrower or renter—