Study Bava Batra folio 159A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
איתמר: בן שמכר בנכסי אביו בחיי אביו, ומת – בנו מוציא מיד הלקוחות. וזו היא שקשה בדיני ממונות – ולימרו ליה: אבוך מזבין, ואת מפיק?!
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?
ומאי קושיא? דלמא מצי אמר: מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא – תדע, דכתיב: ״תחת אבתיך יהיו בניך, תשיתמו לשרים בכל הארץ״!
The Talmud 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 should be your sons; you should make them into princes throughout the land” (Psalms 45:17). The phrase “In the place of your fathers should be your sons” indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, and he does not inherit through his father.
אלא אי קשיא, הא קשיא – בן בכור שמכר חלק בכורה בחיי אביו, ומת בחיי אביו – בנו מוציא מיד הלקוחות. וזו היא שקשה בדיני ממונות – אבוה מזבין, איהו מפיק?! וכי תימא, הכא נמי אמר: מכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא; אי מכח אבוה דאבא קא אתיא, בחלק בכורה מאי עבידתיה?
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?
Text data via Sefaria: William Davidson Edition - English and William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic, CC-BY-NC; edition provenance: Koren. Display terminology has been modernized for readability.