Explanation: [According to you, the buyer must bring witnesses. How is it found that the buyer has the property, and] the heirs must bring witnesses that he was a minor? Also, if they cannot find, why did they protest to check him? (Maharsha. Maharshal, according to R. Simchah miDesvi - according to you, we must say that the buyer brought witnesses that he was an adult. How will the heirs bring witnesses that he was a minor? And if they cannot find, why did they protest to check him? Surely we rely on the witnesses' testimony!)

Opinion #1: The Rashbam rules like R. Yochanan and Shmuel, who hold here that one who admits that he wrote a document, [the bearer] need not validate it.

Rebuttal (and Opinion #2 - Ri): This is unreasonable, for we hold like Rav Nachman, who holds that one who admits that he wrote a document, [the bearer] must validate it, for we hold like him in monetary laws. Also R. Chananel rules [like Rav Nachman].

Version #1: The text in old Seforim, and also R. Tam's text, is as follows. Rav said in the name of Nachman 18 years old. Rav Huna bar Chitzva said in the name of Nachman 20 years old.

Version #1: The text says after this "Rava's teaching was not said explicitly, rather, it was inferred. There was a man less than 20 who sold his father's property... Rava told them, since they explain to him and he understands, he knows. This that he did so (threw pits in front of Rava) was excessive brazenness in him";

Explanation: He reached the age to sell his father's property. Initially Rava thought that he is a lunatic, and therefore his purchase or sale is not a purchase or sale;

At the end, when he saw that they explain to him and he understands, if so he is not a total lunatic. Since he reached his time to sell, he can sell.

Question: Rava contradicts himself! Here he says 18 years, and in Gitin (65a) regarding three Midos (levels) of a minor..., Rava said "to sell his father's property, he must be 20"!

Answer #1 (Ri): It seems that the text in Gitin says Rabah, the colleague of Rav Yosef, who was wont to teach Midos, like in Shabbos (95b) "there are five Midos (laws) of Kli Cheres";

The text there says Rabah, since he said to Rav Asi (who was in Eretz Yisrael) "perhaps you heard..." Rava did not ascend to Eretz Yisrael like Rabah did.

Disclaimer: This is not such a proof. We find that also Rava made Midos, for Rava said in Gitin (79a) "there are three Midos about Gitin...", and Rava said also in Chulin (17b) "there are three Midos of a knife..."

Conclusion: However, it seems that the text there (Gitin 65a) says Rabah, due to the question here, like I explained.

Support: If the text there says Rabah, this is better regarding what he said in the three Midos of a minor "if he reached the age of vows, his vows are binding and what he made Hekdesh is Hekdesh. Corresponding to him (i.e. at this age), a Ketanah can do Chalitzah."

Inference: Rava holds that a minor [girl] can do Chalitzah. However, in Nidah (46a), Rava said that a girl who reached her years need not be checked. There is a Chazakah that she brought Simanim;

We conclude there that Rava said only for Mi'un, but for Chalitzah she must be checked. If the text there (Gitin 65a) says Rabah, this is fine.

Answer #2 (Rashbam): "Corresponding to him, a Ketanah may do Chalitzah" means 12 years and a day, for then she becomes an adult.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. If so, it should not have said "corresponding to him, a Ketanah" (since she is not a minor), rather, "corresponding to him, she does Chalitzah"!

Rather, it connotes corresponding to him, a Ketanah who reached the age of vows, which is 11 years and a day.

Answer #3: (R. Tam): Surely, Rava holds like this, like he ruled in Yevamos (105b) and below in our Sugya (156a);

In Gitin, Rava discusses according to R. Yosi, who says that a Ketanah can do Chalitzah, for we say in Yevamos (105b) that according to R. Yosi, a Ketanah may do Chalitzah from when she is at the age of Pa'utos. Rava said from when she reached the age of vows.

Inference: He says according to R. Yosi, and [Rava] holds there like the opinion that the Halachah is from when she brings two hairs.

Alternative text: According to texts that say here in Rava's opinion "until he is 20' it is fine what it says in Gitin (65a).

Rejection: That text is unreasonable. It obligates erasing from texts that say "Rava did not say so explicitly, rather, it was inferred", which is written after "Gidal bar Menasheh sent..." (If Rava holds that he cannot sell until he is 20, we could not infer this from the episode with the youth below 20 who ate dates. Rava initially disqualified the sale because it seemed that he was insane!)

The Rashbam explained that the reason is because they explained to him, and he understood. If so, he is a big Chacham, and he knows business well. Since it resembles the episode of Gidal bar Menasheh, it brings it after [the episode].

Rejection: This is totally unreasonable. Because he understood [when they explained to him], was he considered a Chacham who knows business well?!

Conclusion: Therefore, it seems that the text of old Seforim is better.

Opinion #1 (Rashbam): This refers only to his father's property, but property that he bought or that others gave to him for a gift, he can sell it.

Support: Also the Rif explained that property that he bought, we are not concerned if he sells it.

Implied question: We say below (155b) that regarding land, their testimony is not testimony, i.e. for the sake of land, like I will explain below!

Answer: That is because [a youth] has an affinity for coins, and he is not expert in appraising [value].

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): The same applies to property that he acquired. He cannot sell it, because he has an affinity for coins.

Question (Ri): We should say that [just like] he was insane when he sold, he was insane when he bought (like it says in Kesuvos 20a)!

Answer: This is not difficult. The reason is not due to insanity, rather, because he has an affinity for coins.

Explanation #1: This was at an age that he was proper to sell, each opinion like he holds (18 or 20). Presumably, he did not sell before this.

This Sugya is like the opinion above (154b) that the buyer had the property. Therefore, it says "if they check him, what does it help?"

However, according to the opinion that [the property] was in the Chazakah of the heirs, it should not have said this expression, rather, "why is checking needed? Obviously, he was an adult!"

Consequence: [Since you must say that this was said according to the opinion that the buyer had the property,] there is not a total proof that he sold at an age of selling. (It is merely presumable.)

Explanation #2 (Rivam): Granted, according to the opinion that [the age is] 18, and the buyer had the property, and the heirs came and protested to say that he was a minor, and they needed to bring a proof that he was a minor, and they did not find witnesses that he was less than 18...

Remark: Had they found, they would not need more. Even if he brought hairs, [his sale] has no effect!

However, they found witnesses that he was less than 20, and they wanted to say that perhaps he did not bring two hairs, and he is still a minor;

However, if they did not find witnesses that he was less than 20, [Chachamim] would establish him to be an adult [of 20], for there is a Chazakah that witnesses sign a document only if an adult of 20 did it (sold);

Implied suggestion: He was not established to be 20 so that he would be considered a Seris.

Rejection: We cannot say so, for if so, what was the question "but according to the one who says [that one can sell only if he is] 20, what does checking do?" It helps greatly, for if we do not know his age, through the Chazakah that witnesses sign a document only if an adult of 20 did it, we would not establish him to be a Seris.

Conclusion: Through that Chazakah, we establish him to be a Seris.

Support: Now it is a proper question. Granted, according to the opinion that says 18, this is why they asked if they may check. However, according to the opinion that says 20, even if he checks him, [what does it help]?

Explanation: This question is according to what we concluded above, that the property was in the buyer's possession, like I explained above;

However, according to the opinion that it was in the Chazakah of the heirs, he could have asked properly that granted, according to the opinion that says 18, this is why he said "may I check him?";

After he brought witnesses that he was 18, the heirs claimed that he did not yet bring two hairs, and he was still a minor, even though he was 18, and the sale was totally void.

Implied question: However, according to the opinion that 20 (is the age to sell), even if he did not bring two hairs, he was an adult, and the heirs could not claim anything!

Answer: The Gemara discusses according to the conclusion that the property was in the Chazakah of the buyer.

Implied question: The Gemara could have answered that he sold below the age, and he knew business well, and they wanted to check him, whether or not he brought two hairs;

If he was a minor, he is like Pa'utos. Their sale of land is invalid, like we say below!

Answer: The Gemara properly answered [that he is an adult Seris at age 20 only if he has signs of a Seris].

Support #1: This is the text in Yevamos (97b) in all Seforim.

Support #2: This [text] seems more correct, for "when they came in front of R. Chiya" connotes that they did not yet bring hairs, therefore he said to fatten them or slim them, so they would bring h99;

This is unlike Seforim that say "sometimes [Simanim] fall out due to obesity."

Implied question: "Her purchase is a purchase" was not really [needed to be] taught. It is obvious!

Answer: Agav (along with) "her sale is a sale", it taught also "her purchase is a purchase."

Implied suggestion: This refers to testimony about land.

Rejection #1: Why is [testimony about] Metaltelim different?!

Rejection #2: Here, no lunacy applies [to disqualify from testimony]!

Explanation: Rather, this refers to testimony, to say that this land was worth a certain amount. Since [a youth] has an affinity for coins, he will appraise it for less than its value;

However, he will not appraise Metaltelim for less than their value, since he has an affinity also for Metaltelim. Also, Metaltelim do not [often] decrease in value like land does.