## Bava Batra Daf 159a

###### Bava Batra 159a:1
[Bava Batra 159a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:1)

אִיתְּמַר: בֵּן שֶׁמָּכַר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו, וָמֵת – בְּנוֹ מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁקָּשָׁה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – וְלֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ: אֲבוּךְ מְזַבֵּין, וְאַתְּ מַפֵּיק?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that **it was stated:** With regard to **a son who sold** some **of his father’s property during his father’s lifetime, and** the son **died,** the son’s **son repossesses** the property **from the buyers. And this is a difficult** *halakha* **with regard to monetary law,** as the buyers **can say to** the son’s son: Does **your father sell** the property to us **and you repossess** it?


###### Bava Batra 159a:2
[Bava Batra 159a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:2)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מָצֵי אָמַר: מִכֹּחַ אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא קָאָתֵינָא – תִּדַּע, דִּכְתִיב: ״תַּחַת אֲבֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ, תְּשִׁיתֵמוֹ לְשָׂרִים בְּכׇל הָאָרֶץ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come** to repossess the property **on the basis of** the right of my **father’s father** to the property, as I inherit directly from him. **Know** that this is so, **as it is written: “In the place of your fathers shall be your sons; you shall make them into princes throughout the land”** (Psalms 45:17). The phrase “In the place of your fathers shall be your sons” indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, and he does not inherit through his father.


###### Bava Batra 159a:3
[Bava Batra 159a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:3)

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא – בֵּן בְּכוֹר שֶׁמָּכַר חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו, וָמֵת בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו – בְּנוֹ מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁקָּשָׁה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – אֲבוּהּ מְזַבֵּין, אִיהוּ מַפֵּיק?! וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי אָמַר: מִכֹּחַ אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא קָאָתֵינָא; אִי מִכֹּחַ אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא קָא אָתְיָא, בְּחֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** there is a *halakha* with regard to monetary law that poses **a difficulty, this is the difficult** *halakha*: With regard to **a firstborn son who sold, during his father’s lifetime,** the **portion of the firstborn** that he was set to inherit, **and** he **died in his father’s lifetime, his son can repossess** the portion of the firstborn **from the buyers. And this is a difficult** *halakha* **with regard to monetary law,** as **his father sells** the property and **he repossesses** it. **And if you would say: Here too, he says: I come** to repossess the property **on the basis of** the right of my **father’s father** to the property, this is not a valid claim, as, **if he comes** to repossess the property **on the basis of** the right of his **father’s father, what is the relevance of** the **portion of the firstborn,** since he is not his grandfather’s firstborn?


###### Bava Batra 159a:4
[Bava Batra 159a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:4)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מָצֵי אֲמַר: מִכֹּחַ אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא קָאָתֵינָא – וּבִמְקוֹם אָב קָאֵימְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come** to repossess the property **on the basis of** the right of my **father’s father** to the property, **and** yet I receive the portion of the firstborn, as **I stand in** my **father’s stead.**


###### Bava Batra 159a:5
[Bava Batra 159a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:5)

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא – הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה גַּזְלָן, וְנַעֲשָׂה גַּזְלָן – הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְעִידִין. הַשְׁתָּא אִיהוּ לָא מְהֵימַן, אַחְרִינֵי מְהֵימְנִי?! וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁקָּשָׁה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** there is a *halakha* with regard to monetary law that poses **a difficulty, this is the difficult** *halakha*: One **knew testimony supporting** another, and his testimony was written **in a document before he became a robber, and** then **he became a robber** and was disqualified from bearing witness. In this case, **he may not testify as to** the legitimacy of **his handwriting. But others may testify** that it is his handwriting on the document. The difficulty is that **now** that **his** testimony **is not deemed credible,** although he knows of the matter with certainty, is it logical that **others are deemed credible** and his signature is ratified according to their testimony? **And this is a difficult** *halakha* **with regard to monetary law.**


###### Bava Batra 159a:6
[Bava Batra 159a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:6)

מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **What is the difficulty? Perhaps** this *halakha* is referring to a case **where** the signature **was** already **presumed by** the **court** to be **his handwriting** before he was disqualified, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.


###### Bava Batra 159a:7
[Bava Batra 159a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:7)

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא – הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ עֵדוּת בִּשְׁטָר עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּפּוֹל לוֹ בִּירוּשָּׁה; הוּא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְקַיֵּים כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים יְכוֹלִין לְקַיֵּים כְּתַב יָדוֹ. וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** there is a *halakha* with regard to monetary law that poses **a difficulty, this is the difficult** *halakha*: One **knew testimony supporting** another concerning the latter’s ownership of a plot of land, and his testimony was written **in a document before** the land **came into** the witness’s possession **as an inheritance,** which caused the witness to become an interested party. In this case, the witness **may not ratify his handwriting. But others may ratify his handwriting.** The Gemara rejects this: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps here too,** the *halakha* is referring to a case **where** the signature **was** already **presumed by** the **court** to be **his handwriting** before he became an interested party, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.


###### Bava Batra 159a:8
[Bava Batra 159a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:8)

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא – הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ בְּעֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ, וְנַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ – הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְעִידִין. הוּא לָא מְהֵימַן, אַחְרִינֵי מְהֵימְנִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** there is a *halakha* with regard to monetary law that poses **a difficulty, this is the difficult** *halakha*: One **knew testimony with regard to** another, and his testimony was written in a document **before he became** that person’s **son-in-law, and** then **he became his son-in-law.** In this case, the son-in-law **may not testify as to his handwriting,** since one cannot bear witness for his relative. **But others may testify** that it is his handwriting. Is it logical that **his** testimony **is not deemed credible,** yet **others are deemed credible** and may ratify his signature?


###### Bava Batra 159a:9
[Bava Batra 159a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, וְהָא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Here too,** the *halakha* is referring to a case **where** the signature **was** already **presumed by** the **court** to be **his handwriting** before he became a relative, this is difficult. **But doesn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say** that **Rav Naḥman says:** Others may testify as to the validity of his handwriting **even though** the signature **was not** previously **presumed by** the **court** to be **his handwriting?**


###### Bava Batra 159a:10
[Bava Batra 159a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:10)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא גְּזֵירַת מֶלֶךְ הִיא, דְּאִיהוּ לָא מְהֵימַן, וְאַחְרִינֵי מְהֵימְנִי – וְלָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּמְשַׁקַּר! דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן לְחוֹתְנָם – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְהֵימְנִי הוּא?! אֶלָּא גְּזֵירַת מֶלֶךְ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָעִידוּ לָהֶם, הָכָא נָמֵי – גְּזֵירַת מֶלֶךְ הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יָעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ לְחוֹתְנוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is the King’s edict,** i.e., a divine decree, **that** the testimony of a son-in-law **is not deemed credible, and** yet the testimony of **others is deemed credible, and** the reason he is disqualified is **not that he is** suspected of **lying.** This must be so, **as if you do not say so,** why are **Moses and Aaron** disqualified from bearing witness **for their father-in-law?** Could this be **because their** testimony **is not deemed credible? Rather, it is the King’s edict that** even Moses and Aaron **shall not bear witness for** their relatives. **Here too, it is the King’s edict that** a son-in-law **shall not testify as to** the validity of **his handwriting for his father-in-law.**


###### Bava Batra 159a:11
[Bava Batra 159a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:11)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״תַּחַת אֲבֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ״ – הָהוּא בִּבְרָכָה כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the difficulty is **actually as we said initially,** with regard to the *halakha* that if a son sold some of his father’s property and then died, the son’s son repossesses the property from the buyers. **And** with regard to the verse **that** posed **a difficulty for you: “In the place of your fathers shall be your sons”** (Psalms 45:17), which apparently indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, this is not difficult. **That** verse **is written as a blessing.** The verse does not indicate the halakhic status of the grandson’s inheritance, and the reason he can repossess the property is still difficult.


###### Bava Batra 159a:12
[Bava Batra 159a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/159a:12)

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ בִּבְרָכָה כְּתִיב –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But can you say** that the verse **is written as a blessing,**