We now present Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya (from the Beraisa of Rebbi Akiva) on Resh Lakish differently, as we just explained. The problem with Resh Lakish, who now holds 'Re'ayah be'Eidim' is - how the purchaser can possibly take possession of the property (seeing as there is no way of proving that he was a Gadol at the time of the sale)?

There is no problem with Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Re'ayah be'Kiyum ha'Sh'tar, either because it speaks where the purchaser substantiated the Sh'tar, or - because, seeing as the brothers admitted that the Sh'tar was written, that was not even necessary (like the Rabanan in our Mishnah).

Resh Lakish resolves the problem - by dismissing the brothers' argument (that their deceased brother was a Katan at the time of the sale), due to the Chazakah that - witnesses only sign on a Sh'tar where all the parties concerned are Gedolim.

We conclude 'Modeh bi'Sh'tar she'Kasvo, Ein Tzarich Le'kaymo'. We know that this applies even in a case where it is the witnesses who then attempt to disqualify the Sh'tar - since we also switched the opinions in the Beraisa of 'Ein Ne'emanim Le'paslo ... ' (where it was the witnesses who attempted to disqualify the Sh'tar), to conform to Rebbi Yochanan. (See also Tosfos DH 'Ela le'Didach').

Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that a son is not permitted to sell his father's property until he reaches the age of eighteen. According to Rav Huna bar Chin'na Amar Rav Nachman - it is until he turns twenty.

The Mishnah in Nidah rules that if someone turns twenty and has not yet produced signs of puberty - he is a Saris (a eunuch).

The Tana is speaking - in connection with Yibum and Chalitzah, to which a Saris is not subject (even if he is a Gadol).

Based on this Mishnah, Rebbi Zeira asks from the Beraisa of Rebbi Akiva on Rav Huna bar Chin'na Amar Rav Nachman - what is then the point of examining him for signs of puberty, seeing as at the age of twenty, even if he has no Simanim, he be considered a Saris, who is a Gadol?

To answer this Kashya, we cite Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav, who establishes the Mishnah - where he also possessed the signs of a Saris (as listed in Yevamos). Otherwise, he will be considered a Katan.

Rav Ashi proves from the words 've'Hu ha'Saris' - what we just said (that he is only a Saris as long as he possesses the signs of one).

This does not mean that someone who neither possesses the signs of a Saris nor has developed signs of maturity, is a Katan for the rest of his life - since in fact, he becomes a Gadol once he reaches the age of thirty-six ...

... which according to the Pasuk in Tehilim "Yemei Shenoseinu bahem Shiv'im Shanah", means - that he has lived most of his life in this world.

To reconcile this Halachah (which requires a combination of signs of puberty plus the age of eighteen or even twenty), with the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos, that considers a boy a Gadol at the age of thirteen - we restrict it to the Din of selling one's father's property (which requires a special maturity), but when it comes to all other issues, a person becomes a Gadol already at the age of thirteen.

When they brought before Rebbi Chiya someone over the age of twenty, who had not yet shown signs of puberty he would either say - 'Strengthen him' or 'Make him weak', depending upon whether the delay was caused by weakness or by too much strength.

Following that, if nothing happened - he would then know that they were indeed Sarisim.

When Rava Amar Rav Nachman says 'Toch Z'man ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman', he means that if a boy (or a girl) in the eighteenth or twentieth year sells his father's property, he is considered a Katan, and his sale is invalid.

Rava bar Shilo Amar Rav Nachman holds 'Toch Z'man ke'le'Achar ha'Zeman', and his sale is valid.

Rava did not actually state what we quoted him as saying. When the case came before him (of a youth in his eighteenth [or twentieth]-year who had sold his father's property) he ruled (in the name of Rav Nachman) that - the sale was invalid.

We refute the proof from there that he holds 'Toch Zman ke'Lifnei ha'Zeman' on the grounds that this particular teenager had acted stupidly, by setting free his Eved Cana'ani, causing himself an immense loss, and proving his incompetence with regard to business matters. That is why Rava invalidated the sale.

Gidal bar Menasheh asked Rava what the Din will be regarding a fourteen-year old girl who was an adept saleswoman. He asked specifically about ...

... a girl, and not a boy, and about ...

... a girl of fourteen and not of twelve - because that was the case that was originally brought before him.

Rava replied that - her transactions were valid.

We reject the suggestion that Gidal bar Menasheh's She'eilah concerned the sale of Metaltelin since the Mishnah in Gitin has already taught us that - a child is permitted to sell Metaltelin from the age of six or seven (in which case Rav Gidal's She'eilah would make no sense).

When a nineteen-year old youth sold some of his father's property, his brothers advised him to eat dates in Rava's presence and throw the pits in front of him - they intended him to look foolish and therefore incompetent in handling his father's property (to encourage Rava to invalidate the sale).

The purchasers countered this by instructing him to say to Rava 'Megilas Esther be'Zuza, Sh'tara de'Mar be'Zuza'!, by which they meant that - when the Sofer wrote out the document of sale, he (the seller) should claim that if a Megilah cost a Zuz, then Rava's Sofer ought not to be charging a Zuz for a regular Sh'tar (proving that he was not as stupid as they thought at first).

Rava rejected the brothers' argument, claiming that he only said what he said because he had been taught to say it on the grounds that - if he was smart enough to understand it and then to convey the appropriate message, then he was also smart enough to sell his father's property.

And as for the young man's previous action (of spitting out the date-pits in front of him), Rava reinterpreted that - as a sign of Chutzpah (rather than of stupidity).

When Rav Huna b'rei d'Rav Yehoshua validated a youth under twenty to testify he was referring to - testifying on something that he witnessed after he turned bar-Mitzvah.

Mar Zutra confined this to testimony concerning Metaltelin - since one is believed to buy and sell Metalt'lin at that age.

Nevertheless, a six or seven-year old is not permitted to testify in matters concerning Metaltelin (even though he is permitted to buy and sell them) - because, when it comes to Eidus, the Torah writes in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim ... ", precluding Ketanim under bar-Mitzvah from testifying.

Ameimar ruled that - a gift (of Karka) of a thirteen-year old Yasom - is valid, even though his sale is not.

Rav Ashi objected to this however on the grounds that - if he is no believed to sell his father's property, because he might sell it too cheaply, how much more so will he not be believed to give it away, where he receives nothing in exchange.

Ameimar countered Rav Ashi's Kashya by suggesting that - according to Rav Ashi (who bases his criyteris on gain and loss), if a child sells Metalt'lin worth five Zuz for six, his sale ought to be valid, yet it is certainly not.

So we have to say that - for fear that the child, attracted to money, will, due to his inexperience, sell all his father's property for a song, Chazal forbade him to sell, irrespective of how much he might earn from the sale. A gift on the other hand, is not a question of money, but that the beneficiary probably did the son a favor, which he would like to repay. So Chazal instituted that his gifts should be valid, tyhereby encouraging people to do Yesomim favors.