If one accepted a deposit from a minor, he cannot return it to him, as a minor is unable to properly safeguard the item. Instead, he must make a safe investment [segulla] for him, and if the minor dies, he must return it to his heirs.

And with regard to all these people, who said at the time of their death that the deposited item belongs to so-and-so, the bailee should act as they had explained, and if their explanation was not credible, the bailee should form an explanation of their explanation, i.e., ignore what they said.

The Gemara relates: When the wife of Rabba bar bar Ḥana was dying she said: These rings that are in my possession belong to Marta and the sons of her daughter. Rabba bar bar Ḥana came before Rav to ask what he should do. Rav said to him: If she is credible in your eyes, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation, i.e., ignore what she said, and as her heir, keep them for yourself.

And there are those who say that this is what Rav said to him: If you assess that it is likely that the rings were deposited with her, act as she had explained, and if not, form an explanation of her explanation.

The baraita stated that if the bailee took a deposit from a minor, he must make a safe investment for him. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: The bailee should purchase a Torah scroll for the minor. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He should purchase a date palm, from which the minor will consume dates.

§ The mishna teaches: And a father does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a son’s property, and a son does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to a father’s property. Rav Yosef says: Even if they separated and the son is no longer dependent on his father, the presumption of ownership still cannot be established by a father or son with regard to the other’s property. Rava says: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: Rav Pappi performed an action and ruled that if they separated, that is not the halakha, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that Rav Ḥiyya, from the city of Hurmiz Ardeshid, told me that Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov told him in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov: If they separated, that is not the halakha. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha: If they separated, that is not the halakha, and the presumption of ownership can be established. This is also taught in a baraita: A son who separated himself from his father’s finances and a wife who became divorced are like all other people with regard to establishing the presumption of ownership.

§ It was stated: There was a case of one of the brothers in a family who was engaging in commerce in the house, managing the family finances after the death of their father, and there were bills of sale [onot] and other documents circulating with his name appearing as the owner of the property and as a lender, and that brother said: The money and property are mine, as they fell to me as an inheritance from the house of the father of my mother, who is not the mother of the other brothers, Rav says: It is upon him to bring proof of ownership; otherwise the property is divided equally among the brothers. And Shmuel says: It is upon the brothers to bring proof that the money or property belonged to their common father and consequently now belongs to all of them. Shmuel says: Abba, i.e., Rav, concedes to me that if that brother dies, it is upon the brothers to bring proof in order to collect money from the deceased brother’s heirs.

Rav Pappa objects to Shmuel’s addendum: Do we claim on behalf of orphans anything that their father could not claim for them? But didn’t Rava remove a pair of scissors used for cutting garments and a book of aggada from orphans without requiring the prior owner who had asked the orphans to return these items to bring proof of ownership, and he would rule the same in the case of all items with regard to which it is common for them to be lent, and the one in possession has no presumption of ownership?