Halachot Regarding Childhood & Coming of Age

(21) He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.

Rabbi Ulla the Great taught at the entrance to the house of the Nasi: Although the Sages said that a person is not obligated to sustain his sons and daughters when they are young, still, he must sustain the very young ones. The Gemara asks: Until when are they considered very young? Until the age of six, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said: A six-year-old minor may go out by means of his mother’s eiruv, if she prepared an eiruv on one side of the city. He is included in his mother’s eiruv rather than that of his father, as he is considered subordinate to his mother.

A minor who does not require his mother is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah of dwelling] in the Sukkah.

A minor who requires its mother is exempt from the [restrictions of] an eruv. His mother and one who does not need his mother may mix [ie, prepare] food for two meals ...

One who knows how to shake [a lulav] is required to [fulfill the mitzvah of shaking the] lulav. One who knows how to wear tzitzit (fringes) is obligated [to fulfill the mitzvah of wearing fringes].

One who knows how to speak, his father shall teach him the Shema and Torah and the Holy Language.

But if he is not worthy [of doing these things] his father takes his Tefillin (phylacteries), checking them and immersing them, and rendering them profane (ie not sacred).

One who knows how to guard his body eats pure food.

R. Samuel b. R. Isaac taught in the name of R. Samuel b. Eleazar: The seven "vanities" mentioned by Koheleth correspond to the seven worlds which a man beholds.

At a year old he is like a king seated in a canopied litter, fondled and kissed by all.

At two and three he is like a pig, sticking his hands in the gutters.

At ten he skips like a kid. At twenty he is like a neighing horse, adorning his person and longing for a wife.

Having married, he is like an ass [working hard for a livelihood]

When he has begotten children, he grows brazen like a dog to supply their food and wants.

Rav Hamnuna said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because schoolchildren there were interrupted from studying Torah, as it is stated: “And I am filled with the wrath of God, I cannot contain it, pour it onto the infants in the street and onto the gathering of youths together, for men and women alike will be captured, the elderly along with those of advanced years” (Jeremiah 6:11). Rav Hamnuna explains: What is the reason that the wrath is poured? It is because infants are outside in the streets and are not studying Torah.

But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: There are twelve hours in the day. During the first three, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and engages in Torah study.

During the second three hours, He sits and judges the entire world. Once He sees that the world has rendered itself liable to destruction, He arises from the throne of judgment and sits on the throne of mercy, and the world is not destroyed.

During the third set of three hours, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains the entire world, from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice.

During the fourth three hours, He sits and makes sport with the leviathan, as it is stated: “There is leviathan, whom You have formed to sport with” (Psalms 104:26). Evidently, God makes sport every day, not only on that one day. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: He makes sport with His creations, just as He sports with the leviathan; He does not make sport of His creations but on that day alone.

The Gemara asks: If God no longer makes sport, what does He now do during the fourth three-hour period of the day? The Gemara answers: He sits and teaches Torah to schoolchildren, as it is stated: “Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts” (Isaiah 28:9). The verse is interpreted in the following manner: To whom does God teach knowledge, and to whom does He make to understand the message? To those who are just weaned from the milk and to those who are drawn from the breasts, i.e., children only recently weaned from nursing.

For Job said: "It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed God in their hearts, it proves that the burnt-offering is due to be brought for sinful meditation of the heart."

Rabbi Aha said in the name of Rabbi Hanina bar Papa: In order that Israel might not say: "In the past we used to offer up sacrifices, and engage in the study of them; now that there are no sacrifices, is it necessary to engage in the study of them?" the Holy One, blessed be He said, to Israel: "If you engage in the study of them, I account it unto you as if you had offered them up."

Rabbi Huna said two things. [The first was]: All the exiles will be gathered in only through the merit of the study of Mishnah.

What is the reason [for this assertion]? [It is said], Yea, if they engage in the oral learning among the nations, I will now gather them up (Hosea VIII, 10).

In the latter clause we arrive at the case of schoolchildren who come to learn Torah in his house, and this ruling applies from the time of the ordinance of Yehoshua ben Gamla and onward.

What was this ordinance? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Yehoshua ben Gamla. If not for him the Torah would have been forgotten from the Jewish people.

Initially, whoever had a father would have his father teach him Torah, and whoever did not have a father would not learn Torah at all. The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that allowed them to conduct themselves in this manner? They interpreted the verse that states: “And you shall teach them [otam] to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), to mean: And you yourselves [atem] shall teach, i.e., you fathers shall teach your sons.

When the Sages saw that not everyone was capable of teaching their children and Torah study was declining, they instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in Jerusalem.

The Gemara explains: What verse did they interpret homiletically that enabled them to do this? They interpreted the verse: “For Torah emerges from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3). But still, whoever had a father, his father ascended with him to Jerusalem and had him taught, but whoever did not have a father, he did not ascend and learn. Therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in one city in each and every region [pelekh]. And they brought the students in at the age of sixteen and at the age of seventeen.

But as the students were old and had not yet had any formal education, a student whose teacher grew angry at him would rebel against him and leave. It was impossible to hold the youths there against their will. This state of affairs continued until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted an ordinance that teachers of children should be established in each and every province and in each and every town, and they would bring the children in to learn at the age of six and at the age of seven. ...

Rav said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, a teacher of children: Do not accept a student before the age of six, as he is too young, and it is difficult for him to learn in a steady manner. From this point forward, accept him and stuff him with Torah like an ox. And Rav further said to Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat: When you strike a child for educational purposes, hit him only with the strap of a sandal, which is small and does not cause pain. Rav further advised him: He who reads, let him read on his own; whoever does not read, let him be a companion to his friends, which will encourage him to learn to read.

(4) It is related of the son of Gorgias of Lydda that he ran away from school and his father pointed to his ear. (i.e. he threatened to punish him.) In fear of his father he went and destroyed himself in a pit. They went and inquired of Rabbi Ṭarfon who ruled: We do not withhold anything from him. (He is buried with full rites, it is not considered suicide)

(5) It is related of a child in Benei Beraḳ that he broke a bottle on the Sabbath and his father pointed to his ear. In fear of his father he went and destroyed himself in a pit. They inquired of Rabbi Akiba who ruled: We do not withhold anything from him.

(6) Hence the Sages ruled: A man should not point at the ear of a child, but either punish him immediately or keep silent and say nothing to him.

R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: With human nature, a child and a woman, the left hand should repulse them but the right hand bring them back. (One should not be too severe with them, not suppressing their desires but disciplining them.)

(18) in reference to Numbers 13:29: “Amalek dwells in the land [of the Negev]”: What [reason] did they see for opening with Amalek? A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a child who misbehaves and is beaten with a strap. When they wanted to intimidate him, they reminded him of the strap. Similarly Amalek had been an evil strap for Israel.

The Gemara relates a similar incident. Rav happened to come to a certain place where he decreed a fast but rain did not come. The prayer leader descended to lead the service before him and recited: He Who makes the wind blow, and the wind blew. He continued and said: And Who makes the rain fall, and the rain came.

Rav said to him: What are your good deeds? He said to him: I am a teacher of children, and I teach the Bible to the children of the poor as to the children of the rich, and if there is anyone who cannot pay, I do not take anything from him. And I have a fishpond, and any child who neglects his studies, I bribe him with the fish and calm him, and soothe him until he comes and reads.

If a man has a wayward and defiant son, who does not heed his father or mother and does not obey them even after they discipline him,

his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the public place of his community.

They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is disloyal and defiant; he does not heed us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”

Thereupon the men of his town shall stone him to death. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst: all Israel will hear and be afraid.

(1) (Devarim 21:18) "If there be to a man a son (who goes astray"): and not if there be to a son (one who has not reached the state of manhood) a son.

(2) "a son": and not a daughter.

(3) "a son": and not a man (one who has

reached the state of manhood.) A minor is exempt, for he is not obligated in (the observance of) mitzvot.

(4) "sorer" ("who turns astray") "umoreh" ("and who teaches"): two times. He turns astray from the Torah, and he teaches himself a "different way" (viz. Ibid. 20) "he gluts and he guzzles."

(5) (Variantly: Just because he used his father's money he must die?! Only he is judged based on his future behavior - better he die while [relatively] innocent and not for more severe sins. His father desired a captive woman and brought the devil into his home and caused his son to be rebellious. The result will be that he will kill him in an unnatural way, as it states (v. 22) "And if there be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, then he shall be put to death...").

(6) Variantly: "sorer": against the words of his father, "umoreh": against the words of his mother. "sorer": against the words of the Torah; "umoreh": against the words of the prophets. "sorer": against the words of witnesses; "umoreh": against the words of judges.

(7) R. Yashiah said: Three things were told to me by R. Zeira in the name of the men

of Jerusalem: A sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity) — if her husband wishes to forgive her, he may do so. A sorer umoreh — if his father and mother wish to forgive him, they may do so. An elder who rebels against beth-din — if his colleagues wish to forgive him, they may do so.

(8) And when I came and presented this to R. Yehudah b. Betheira, with two he agreed, and with one he did not agree. With (what was stated concerning) sorer umoreh, and with sotah, he agreed. With a rebellious elder, he did not agree — so as not to multiply dissension in Israel.

(9) "not heeding the voice of his father and the voice of his mother": I might think (that this applies) even if his father and mother told him to light a candle and he refused; it is, therefore, written "not heeding" here —"not heeding" elsewhere (Ibid. 20) as an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as "not heeding" there — "sorer umoreh … glutting and guzzling," so, "not heeding" here" — "sorer umoreh," glutting and guzzling. "glutting and guzzling": R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: He is not liable (for this) until he steals (what he consumes) from his father and from his mother.

(10) "and they chastise him": by stripes.

(11) "And he does not listen to them": This teaches that he is flogged in the presence of three.

(1) (Devarim 21:19) "Then his father and mother shall take hold of him": We are hereby taught that he is not liable unless he has a father and a mother. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If his mother were not fit for (i.e., similar to) his father, he does not become a sorer umoreh.

(2) "and they shall take him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place": This is a mitzvah, (but not categorical).

(3) "This, our son," who received stripes before you — whereby we are taught that if one of them died, he is not stoned.

(4) (Ibid. 20) "And they shall say to the elders of his city": If one of them (either his father or his mother) had a severed hand, or were lame or mute of deaf or blind, he does not become a sorer umoreh, it being written "and they shall seize him" — and not if their hand were severed; "and they shall take him out" — and not if they were lame; "and they shall say" — and not if they were mute; "this, our son" — and not if they were blind;" "not heeding our voice" — and not if they were deaf, (in which case they could not hear his refusal to heed them.)

They warn him before three (judges) and administer stripes. If he reverted to his wrong, he is judged by twenty-three, but he is not stoned unless there be among them the first three, it being written "This, our son," who received stripes before you — whereby we are taught that if one of them died, he is not stoned. "glutting and guzzling": glutting flesh and guzzling wine. Even though there is no proof for this, there is intimation of it in (Proverbs 23:20) "Do not be among the guzzlers of wine, among the glutters of flesh for themselves" and in (Ibid. 21) "For the guzzler and the glutter will be poor, and the slumberer will wear tatters."

§ The mishna teaches that the boy does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If he ate any other food but did not eat meat, or if he drank any other beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he actually eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard.”

And although there is no explicit proof to the matter, there is an allusion to the matter in another verse, as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” (Proverbs 23:20). And the verse states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags.

Rabbi Zeira expounds the same verse and says: With regard to anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.”

MISHNA: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, or he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.

GEMARA: The Gemara explains the reasons for the various halakhot taught in the mishna: If he stole that which belonged to his father and ate on his father’s property, even though this is accessible to him and it is easy for him to steal, he is afraid that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.

If he stole that which belonged to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft is not easily accessible to him, as it is performed on someone else’s property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin.

And all the more so if he stole that which belonged to others and ate on his father’s property, in which case it is not accessible to him, and he is also afraid of his father.

Therefore, he is not liable unless he steals that which belonged to his father and eats on the property of others, in which case it is easily accessible to him, and he is not afraid, and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son unless he steals that which belonged to his father and that which belonged to his mother.

The Gemara asks: With regard to his mother, from where does she have independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the halakha that anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanan bar Molada say that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats it, and he purchases inexpensive wine and drinks it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? Rather, say that the boy stole from money set aside for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother.

The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: If you wish, say instead that another person gave property to the mother and said to her: This shall be yours on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother’s property.

MISHNA: If his father wishes to have him punished but his mother does not wish that, or if his father does not wish to have him punished but his mother wishes that, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish that he be punished.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being not suited for the father? If we say that due to their union they are among those who are liable to receive karet [excommunication], in which case the marriage does not take effect, and certainly if the union puts them in the category of those who are liable to receive one of the types of court-imposed death penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? Ultimately, his father is still his father and his mother is still his mother, and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects.

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this halakha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value.

In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the halakha. If you wish, say instead that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: And is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him?

Rather, there has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning.

Rabbi Yonatan says: This is not so, as I saw one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, and I even sat on his grave after he was executed.

(6) A minor may read the Torah in public and also translate the text for the congregation into Aramaic, but he may not recite the introductory prayers and blessing before Shema, and he may not pass before the ark to lead the congregation in prayer, and he may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction.

A minor whose limbs are exposed [due to ragged clothing] may recite the introductory prayers and blessing before Shema and translate the Torah reading into Aramaic, but he may not read from the Torah out of respect for the Torah; he may not pass before the ark to lead the congregation in prayer; and he may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction out of respect for the congregation.

(3) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the recitation of Shema and from phylacteries, but are obligated in T'filah, mezuza and Grace after Meals.

(12) Zavim, Zavot(two different categories of impure individuals), women who are menstruating, and women who gave birth [and have yet to immerse in the mikvah] are permitted to read the Torah and to learn Mishna, Midrash, laws, and Aggadot.

(13) A bachelor may not act as a teacher of children, nor may a woman act as a teacher of children. Rabbi Elazar says: Even one who does not have a wife may not act as a teacher of children.

(14) Everyone who is entered in the records, from the age of twenty years up, shall give the Eternal's offering.

(1) The Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: (2) Take a [separate] census of the Kohathites among the Levites, by the clans of their ancestral house, (3) from the age of thirty years up to the age of fifty, all who are subject to service, to perform tasks for the Tent of Meeting.

(1) On the first day of the second month, in the second year following the exodus from the land of Egypt, the Eternal spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, saying: (2) Take a census of the whole Israelite community by the clans of its ancestral houses, listing the names, every male, head by head. (3) You and Aaron shall record them by their groups, from the age of twenty years up, all those in Israel who are able to bear arms.

(12) A man may not be secluded with two women lest he sin with them, but one woman may be secluded with two men. Rabbi Shimon says: Even one man may be secluded with two women when his wife is with him, and in that situation he may even sleep in the same inn with two women, because his wife guards him from sinning with them. They further said that a man may be secluded with his mother, and with his daughter, and sleep alongside them with bodily contact without clothes, since there is no concern that they will engage in sexual intercourse. And when they, the son or daughter, have grown up, this one sleeps in her garment and that one sleeps in his garment, but they may share a bed.

The Sages taught: If one’s beard is fully grown, he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community for various matters, and to descend before the ark as a prayer leader, and to lift his hands for the Priestly Benediction.

From when is a priest fit for Temple service? It is from the time he reaches puberty and grows two pubic hairs. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he is not fit for Temple service until he is twenty years of age.

The Gemara asks: Until what age is one still considered a minor? Rav Ḥisda said: A girl until she is three years and one day old, and a boy until he is nine years and one day old, for these are the ages from which a sexual act in which they participate is considered a sexual act. Some say: A girl eleven years and one day old and a boy of twelve years and one day old, as that is the age at which they are considered adults in this regard. This age is only approximate, as the age of majority for both this, the boy, and that, the girl, is at the onset of puberty in accordance with the verse: “Your breasts were formed and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7).

§ Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: Children who have reached the age of majority, i.e., a boy who is thirteen years old and a girl who is twelve years old, are examined for signs indicating puberty if it is necessary to determine their adulthood for the purpose of betrothal, for the purpose of divorce, for the purpose of ḥalitza, and for the purpose of stating a girl’s refusal to remain married.

But in order to sell from the property that one inherited from his father, the seller must be older, and one cannot sell this property until the seller is twenty years old.

The Gemara asks: But once I examined the boy for the purpose of betrothal, why do I need to examine him again for the purpose of divorce?

The Gemara answers: This is necessary only with regard to the levirate marriage of a minor, as we learned in a mishna: A boy who is nine years and one day old who engaged in intercourse with his yevama, i.e., his brother’s widow, acquired her as his wife by means of engaging in the act of intercourse. Although a minor cannot betroth a woman under ordinary circumstances, in the case of levirate marriage the act of intercourse of a nine-year-old with his yevama effects acquisition.

But he cannot give her a bill of divorce until he reaches his majority. It is therefore necessary to examine him at the time of the divorce.

The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a boy for the purpose of ḥalitza: This is mentioned to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yosei says, as Rabbi Yosei says: “Man,” i.e., an adult man, is written in the Torah passage with regard to ḥalitza, as the verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). But a woman, whether she is an adult or a minor, can be released by ḥalitza, as the verse does not indicate her age.

To counter this, Rav Naḥman teaches us that a woman is juxtaposed to a man in this passage, indicating that the yevama must also have reached adulthood, and the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a person for the purpose of stating her refusal. This is mentioned to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yehuda says, as Rabbi Yehuda says that a girl whose mother or brother married her off while she was a minor can nullify her marriage by refusing to remain married, and she can state this refusal until she reaches complete maturity, i.e., when the area covered by black pubic hairs is greater than the skin of the genital area.

Rav Naḥman therefore teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and once a girl has developed two pubic hairs she cannot state her refusal.

Rav Naḥman states: But in order to sell from the property that one inherited from his father, the seller must be older, and he cannot sell the property until he is twenty years old. This is mentioned to the exclusion of the opinion of the one who says that the seller can be eighteen years old.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to the age when a minor can sell property inherited from his father, during the time, i.e., during his twentieth year, is considered as before the time when it is permitted, and he cannot sell until the end of his twentieth year.

And the halakha is in accordance with the ruling that Rava sent to Giddel bar Menashe, that a child who has reached his majority and understands the nature of business negotiations can sell land.

The Gemara continues: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Mar Zutra, that one who is not fit to sell land is also not fit to bear witness with regard to land.

And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ameimar, that an orphan under the age of twenty can bestow gifts from the property he inherited from his father.

And the halakha is in accordance with the statement that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says with regard to all the matters that he mentioned.

(8) The first time a Bar Mitzvah is called to the Torah, after he has concluded the second berachah over [the reading of] the Torah, the father says the following berachah: Baruch ata Adonoy Elokeinu melech ha'olam asher petarani mei'onsho shel zeh [Blessed are You, Adonai, our God, Ruler of the universe Who has freed me from the punishment due this boy]. It is a mitzvah for a father to prepare a festive meal on the day that his son becomes Bar Mitzvah, that is, on the first day of his fourteenth year. If the boy delivers a Torah discourse, it is considered a meal for the sake of a mitzvah even if [the banquet] is not given on the [Bar Mitzvah] day.