Question: Why can't he take from the buyers? Even according to the opinion that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, this is when the son did not die in his father's lifetime. Rather, they gave to him money before his father died;

However, when [the property] fell to him when he is Goses (about to die), they said above (127b) that even according to R. Meir, who says that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, this does not help at all to acquire property that fell to him when he is Goses!

Answer (Rivam): Surely, the sale is not a sale. Here we discuss returning the money. According to letter of the law, his son takes from the buyers the lien that they had, since they do not have even a lien on the land for their money.

Consequence: According to this, we must say that [the Makshan] holds that Adam Meshabed (puts a lien on) Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam;

If he cannot be Meshabed, what was the question "they should say to him, your father sold and you take away!"? Ein Adam Meshabed Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Implied question: We said above (157a) that if one said "d'Ikni (what I will acquire, you have a lien on it)" and acquired and bequeathed, there is no lien on it!

Answer: Shmuel [said so] like he taught elsewhere. He holds that a Milveh Al Peh is not collected from orphans;

However, we hold that [a Milveh Al Peh] is collected from orphans. [The money owed to the buyers] is like a loan, and there is a lien for it, even though Lo Ba l'Olam.

Question: Still, what was the question "they should say to him, your father sold. Why do you take away?!" Perhaps the reason is because (the buyers are like a creditor, and) a creditor does not collect from Ra'uy (property destined to come) just like a woman's Kesuvah [is not collected from Ra'uy]!

A Mishnah (Bechoros 52a) teaches that she does not take from Ra'uy.

Answer: Perhaps this is only for a Kesuvah, but a creditor collects from Ra'uy.

Question: If so, when it lists in Kesuvos (54b) several ways in which Tana'im of the Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah, why doesn't it say also regarding Ra'uy, which is not [collected] for a Kesuvah, but it is [collected] for a creditor?

However, if a creditor does not [collect from Ra'uy], this is fine.

Implied suggestion: We can bring a proof from what it says below (159b) 'is it not the case that "the father's heirs" are sons, and "those who bequeath to him" are brothers', i.e. ["sons" are] sons of the son, and it says that a creditor does not receive!

Rejection: That is not because [a creditor] does not collect from Ra'uy. Rather, it is because he says that he comes to due to the rights of his father's father.

Implied suggestion: We can bring a proof [oppositely] from Rav Nachman's teaching that orphans who collected for their father's debt, a creditor collects it from them. This shows that [a creditor] collects from Ra'uy!

Rejection: This is not Ra'uy. Rather, it is Meshubad to [the creditor] due to R. Nasan's teaching.

Question #1: It should have said "a son who borrowed", and not "a son who sold", and not say "his son takes from the buyer"!

Question #2: Why should the buyer have a lien against his father? Is he better than [a creditor owed] a Milveh Al Peh? This [buyer] is the ultimate Milveh Al Peh!

Answer (Ri): This property, the father wrote it to the son "from today and after death", i.e. the Guf (permanent rights) from today, and Peros after death, like we learned above (136a);

Those who sent this teaching here from [Eretz Yisrael] hold like R. Yochanan, who said above (136a) that if the son sold in his father's lifetime, and the son died, the buyer does not acquire.

Still, this is "the most difficult monetary law", for they should say to him "your father sold....!"

Assertion: The text does not say "if it was said, so it was said", for they sent all of these teachings from [Eretz Yisrael];

What they sent "this is the most difficult monetary law", [the recipients] did not know regarding which teaching they sent so.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): There is a validation [on the document].

Objection (Ri): The other judges themselves, couldn't they err about the man, whether or not he is a thief? [The judges] sign only about the signatures of the witnesses. The judges need not even read what is written in the document!

Explanation #2 (Ri): "If his handwriting was established in Beis Din" means that Beis Din saw his handwriting [on this document] before he became a thief, so we cannot say that after [he became a thief] he signed.

Support: This is like "a Kesuvah document was established in the market" in Kidushin (50b), and like "since it was established in Beis Din, we do not say [that the bearer is believed through a Migo, that he could have burned it], in Sanhedrin (31b). This means that Beis Din already saw the document, and like I explained in Bava Metzi'a (18b).

Inference: From here we learn that if two testified and afterwards became relatives, others testify about their handwriting, that they recognize it, and we are not concerned lest they signed today. (Tumim (46:36) asks that the Gemara was Machshir one relative. If there is reason to think that we disqualify two relatives, what is Tosfos' source to be Machshir? He answers that Tosfos holds like the Rambam, that a relative through marriage is Pasul only mid'Rabanan. When a Yisrael signed after a Kusi, we rely on the Yisrael to know that the Kusi was Kosher. This is valid since a Kusi is Pasul only mid'Rabanan. Perhaps likewise here, we need a stranger (who is fully Kosher) to know that it was signed on the date written! Tosfos understands that the singular "son-in-law" is a terse expression; really, it is Kosher even if sons-in-law signed.)

Explanation: The verse teaches that a Tzadik will merit sons like himself, like it says afterwards "Teshisemu l'Sarim b'Chol ha'Aretz."

Question #1: Why didn't Rav Sheshes bring our Mishnah? It is a simple [proof for his teaching]!

Question #2: Rav Sheshes himself said above (114b, that the Mishnah teaches) that a woman [bequeaths] to her son [but not vice-versa] - the Chidush is that this is like a wife to her husband; (Tosfos had the Bach's text. In our text, the Stam Gemara taught this)

Just like a wife to her husband (he does not inherit her when he is dead to pass her property to his heirs,) also a woman to her son, the son does not inherit his mother in the grave to bequeath to his paternal brothers!

Answer (Tosfos' Rebbi): Because this Beraisa is mistaken he brought it, because he wanted to fix it.

Reference: Above (114b DH Mah) I explained this matter, what is the source that a husband does not inherit his wife when he is in the grave. (One inherits in the grave to bequeath to his relatives only through Mishmush, which we learn from "u'Ven Ein Lo", i.e. those who inherit due to kinship. A husband does not inherit due to kinship.)

Explanation: Because here we discuss in whose Chazakah is property, it brings that episode, which also discusses establishing property in the Chazakah of the buyer and in the Chazakah of the seller.

Question: This is astounding, that the Gemara brings it twice in one Maseches - once here, and above (30a)!