Objection #1: Why does borrowing entitle him to take from buyers?

Objection #2: The teaching did not mention that anyone bought anything!

Correction - Version #1: Rather, Reuven sold his father's property in Yakov's lifetime, and Reuven died. After Yakov dies, Reuven's son (Chanoch) takes from the buyers;

This is among the most difficult monetary laws. Why can't the buyers say 'you do not inherit what your father sold!'?

Objection: This is not difficult! Chanoch can say 'I do not take because I inherit Reuven, rather, because I inherit Yakov.'

Support: "Tachas Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha" (your sons will be in your father's stead, i.e. one directly inherits his grandfather if his father died first).

Correction - Version #2: Rather, the following was considered difficult.

If a firstborn (Reuven) sold his extra portion in Yakov's lifetime, and Reuven died, Reuven's son Chanoch takes from the buyers;

This is among the most difficult monetary laws. Why can't the buyers say 'you do not inherit what your father sold!'?

Suggestion: Chanoch can say 'I do not take because I inherit Reuven, rather, because I inherit Yakov.'

Rejection: The law is true even if he (Rashbam - Chanoch; R. Gershom - Yakov) is not a firstborn, surely the extra portion is due to Reuven!

Objection: This is not difficult! Chanoch can say 'I inherit Yakov. I am in place of my father, therefore I get the extra portion!'

Correction - Version #3: Rather, the following was considered difficult.

Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before Shimon stole. Later, he stole. Shimon cannot verify his signature, but others can testify about it.

This is among the most difficult monetary laws. Since we do not trust Shimon, why does it help if others recognize his signature? (Perhaps he did not sign on the date of the document, rather, later, after he stole!)

Objection: This is not difficult! Perhaps the case is, we saw the signatures on the document before Shimon stole!

Correction - Version #4: Rather, the following was considered difficult.

Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before he inherited (Rashash - was standing to inherit) Moshe, then he inherited Moshe (Rashash - became his heir, e.g. Moshe's heir died). Shimon cannot verify his signature, but others can testify about it.

This is among the most difficult monetary laws. Since we do not trust Shimon, why does it help if others recognize his signature? (Perhaps he signed after he inherited (or became an heir)!)

Objection (#1): This is not difficult! Here also, the case is, we saw the signatures on the document from before this!

Correction - Version #5: Rather, the following was considered difficult.

Shimon signed on a document for Moshe before he became Moshe's son-in-law, then he became his son-in-law. Shimon cannot verify his signature, but others can testify about it.

Why does it help if others recognize his signature (perhaps he signed after he became his son-in-law!)?

Suggestion: Perhaps here also, we saw the signatures on the document from before this!

Rejection: Rav Yosef bar Minyomi taught that the law applies even if we did not see the signatures on the document before this!

Objection: This is not difficult! Perhaps the Torah decreed that a relative is not believed, even though we do not suspect that he would lie! (This is also Objection #2 to Version #4.)

Support: Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon ha'Kohen could not testify together, even though we do not suspect that they would lie. Rather, the Torah decreed that relatives are not believed.

Conclusion: Really, Version #1 was correct. (Reuven sold Yakov's property. Reuven died, and then Yakov died. Chanoch takes from the buyers. It is difficult, for they should be able to say 'you do not inherit what your father sold!')

"Tachas Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha" does not teach that a grandchild directly inherits his grandfather. Rather, it is merely a blessing (that a Tzadik will have children to inherit him).

Question: It is not merely a blessing. The law is true!

(Mishnah): A house fell on Reuven and his father or Morishav (someone else whom Reuven inherits). Reuven left creditors (or a wife entitled to a Kesuvah). The creditors say that the father died first (and Reuven inherited him, so they may collect from the father's property). His father's heirs say that Reuven died first.

Suggestion: The father's heirs are Reuven's sons. 'Morishav' is Reuven's brother.

If a grandchild does not directly inherit his grandfather, the verse is merely a blessing. Even if Reuven died first, the creditors should collect, for the property passes to Reuven before it goes to Reuven's sons!

Answer: No, the father's heirs are Reuven's brothers. 'Morishav' is Reuven's uncle. (However, if the father's heirs were Reuven's sons, the creditors would collect no matter who died first.)

Question: If a woman died after her son, does he 'inherit' her in the grave, i.e. to pass her property to his paternal brothers?

Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If a man was captured and his son died here (or vice-versa, and we do not know who died first), the father's heirs and the son's heirs divide the property.

Question: What is the case?

If it is like we said, the father's heirs are also the son's heirs!

Answer: Rather, a man was captured, and his daughter's son died here. The father's heirs and the grandson's heirs divide the property.

If we would say that a son inherits in the grave, even if the grandson died first, he inherits his grandfather in the grave to pass the property to his paternal brothers!

We conclude that a son does not inherit in the grave.

(Rav Acha bar Minyomi): We can also learn this from our Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If a house fell on Reuven and his mother, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that his heirs divide her property with her heirs.

If a son inherits in the grave, even if the son died first, he inherits his mother to pass her property to his paternal brothers!

Question: Why doesn't a son inherit in the grave?

Answer (Abaye): The Torah mentions Sivah (transferal of inheritance from tribe to tribe) regarding a son and a husband (who inherit their mother and wife, respectively);

Just like a husband in the grave does not inherit (his wife), also a son.

Reuven told Shimon 'I sell to you the property of Bar Sisin's house'. There was a certain land called by that name. Reuven said that it was not Bar Sisin's, it was just called on his name.

Rav Nachman gave the land to Shimon.

Question (Rava): Reuven was established to be the owner. To take the house from him, the burden of proof is on Shimon (that it was Bar Sisin's property)!

Contradiction: Rav Nachman and Rava said just the contrary in a different case!

Reuven (to Shimon): What are you doing in this house?

Shimon: I bought it from you, and I have lived here the years needed to make a Chazakah.

Reuven: (I did not sell it to you.) I have been living in the inner rooms of the house (so you have no Chazakah).

Rav Nachman: (To get the house,) Shimon must prove that he was alone in the house.

Objection (Rava): Shimon has a Chazakah. To take the house from him, the burden of proof is on Reuven (to prove that he lived in the inner rooms)!

(Summation of contradiction: In the first case, Rav Nachman considers the buyer to be Muchzak, and Rava says that the seller is Muchzak. In the latter case, each holds the opposite!)

Answer - part 1: Rava does not contradict himself. In the first case, the seller is on the property, so he is Muchzak;

In the second case, the buyer is on the property, so he is Muchzak.

Answer - part 2: Rav Nachman does not contradict himself. In the first case, since the property is called by Bar Sisin's name, the seller must prove that it was not really Bar Sisin's;

In the second case, living in the house for the years of Chazakah only supports his claim that he had a document and lost it. Even if he had the document, he would have to validate it! (Here also, he must prove that his Chazakah was valid.)