וּלְטַעְמָיךְ זַבֵּין שָׁוֵי חַמְשָׁא בְּשִׁיתָּא הָכִי נָמֵי דִּזְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי And according to your reasoning, that the money he receives in exchange for the property is a reason one could consider his sale valid, if he sold property worth five dinars for six dinars, would his sale also be a valid sale?
אֶלָּא קִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּיָנוֹקָא מְקָרְבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּי זוּזֵי וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי זִמְנִין דִּמְקַרְקְשִׁי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי אָזֵיל מְזַבֵּין לְכוּלְּהוּ נִכְסֵי דַּאֲבוּהּ אֲבָל גַּבֵּי מַתָּנָה אִי לָאו דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ הֲנָאָה מִינֵּיהּ לָא הֲוָה יָהֵיב לֵיהּ מַתָּנָה אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן תֶּיהְוֵי מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה דְּלִעְבְּידוּ לְהוּ מִילֵּי Rather, the Sages maintain that a child’s inclination is to be attracted to money. And if you say that his sale is a valid sale, there may be times that there are potential buyers who rattle the dinars before him in order to tempt him to sell, and he will go and sell all of his father’s property. That is why the Sages ruled that all of his sales are not valid. But with regard to a gift, if he did not derive benefit from the recipient, he would not give him a gift. The Sages therefore said: Let the gift of an orphan be a valid gift, so that people will perform beneficial matters for the orphans, as the orphan can reciprocate by giving gifts.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בּוֹדְקִין לְקִדּוּשִׁין לְגֵרוּשִׁין וְלַחֲלִיצָה וּלְמֵיאוּנִין וְלִמְכּוֹר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים § Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: Children who have reached the age of majority, i.e., a boy who is thirteen years old and a girl who is twelve years old, are examined for signs indicating puberty if it is necessary to determine their adulthood for the purpose of betrothal, for the purpose of divorce, for the purpose of ḥalitza, and for the purpose of stating a girl’s refusal to remain married. But in order to sell from the property that one inherited from his father, the seller must be older, and one cannot sell this property until the seller is twenty years old.
וְכֵיוָן דִּבְדַקְנָא לְקִדּוּשִׁין לְגֵרוּשִׁין לְמָה לִי לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְיִבּוּם דִּתְנַן בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא עַל יְבִמְתּוֹ קְנָאָהּ וְאֵין נוֹתֵן גֵּט עַד שֶׁיִּגְדַּל The Gemara asks: But once I examined the boy for the purpose of betrothal, why do I need to examine him again for the purpose of divorce? The Gemara answers: This is necessary only with regard to the levirate marriage of a minor, as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 45a): A boy who is nine years and one day old who engaged in intercourse with his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow, acquired her as his wife by means of engaging in the act of intercourse. Although a minor cannot betroth a woman under ordinary circumstances, in the case of levirate marriage the act of intercourse of a nine-year-old with his yevama effects acquisition. But he cannot give her a bill of divorce until he reaches his majority. It is therefore necessary to examine him at the time of the divorce.
לַחֲלִיצָה לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר אִישׁ כָּתוּב בַּפָּרָשָׁה אֲבָל אִשָּׁה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה וּבֵין קְטַנָּה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמַקְּשִׁינַן אִשָּׁה לְאִישׁ דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a boy for the purpose of ḥalitza: This is mentioned to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yosei says, as Rabbi Yosei says: “Man,” i.e., an adult man, is written in the Torah passage with regard to ḥalitza, as the verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). But a woman, whether she is an adult or a minor, can be released by ḥalitza, as the verse does not indicate her age. To counter this, Rav Naḥman teaches us that a woman is juxtaposed to a man in this passage, indicating that the yevama must also have reached adulthood, and the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
וּלְמֵיאוּנִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה שָׁחוֹר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a person for the purpose of stating her refusal. This is mentioned to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yehuda says, as Rabbi Yehuda says that a girl whose mother or brother married her off while she was a minor can nullify her marriage by refusing to remain married, and she can state this refusal until she reaches complete maturity, i.e., when the area covered by black pubic hairs is greater than the skin of the genital area. Rav Naḥman therefore teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and once a girl has developed two pubic hairs she cannot state her refusal.
וְלִמְכּוֹר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמַּאן דְּאָמַר בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה Rav Naḥman states: But in order to sell from the property that one inherited from his father, the seller must be older, and he cannot sell the property until he is twenty years old. This is mentioned to the exclusion of the opinion of the one who says that the seller can be eighteen years old.
וְהִלְכְתָא תּוֹךְ זְמַן כְּלִפְנֵי זְמַן וְהִלְכְתָא כְּגִידֵּל בַּר מְנַשֶּׁה The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to the age when a minor can sell property inherited from his father, during the time, i.e., during his twentieth year, is considered as before the time when it is permitted, and he cannot sell until the end of his twentieth year. And the halakha is in accordance with the ruling that Rava sent to Giddel bar Menashe, that a child who has reached his majority and understands the nature of business negotiations can sell land.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּמָר זוּטְרָא וְהִלְכְתָא כְּאַמֵּימָר וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בְּכוּלְּהוּ: The Gemara continues: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Mar Zutra, that one who is not fit to sell land is also not fit to bear witness with regard to land. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ameimar, that an orphan under the age of twenty can bestow gifts from the property he inherited from his father. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says with regard to all the matters that he mentioned.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמְחַלֵּק נְכָסָיו עַל פִּיו רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אֶחָד בָּרִיא וְאֶחָד מְסוּכָּן נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נִקְנִין בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה וְשֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אַחְרָיוּת אֵין נִקְנִין אֶלָּא בִּמְשִׁיכָה MISHNA: With regard to one who divides his property between various recipients by means of verbal instruction, Rabbi Elazar says: Both in the case of one who is healthy and in the case of one who is dangerously ill, the halakha is as follows: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, is acquired by means of money, by a deed of transfer, or by taking possession of it. And that which does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling.