Bava Batra 123

חלקו עם אחד וחלקו עם חמשה מה חלקו עם אחד פי שנים כאחד אף חלקו עם חמשה פי שנים כאחד

There may be times when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with one other brother, and there may be times when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with five brothers, and there is no indication that the Torah differentiates between the manner in which the respective firstborns collect in each scenario. Therefore, just as when a firstborn takes his portion, dividing the estate with one other brother, he receives double the property received by one inheritor, so too, when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with five brothers, he receives double the property received by one inheritor.

או כלך לדרך זו חלקו עם אחד וחלקו עם חמשה מה חלקו עם אחד פי שנים בכל הנכסים אף חלקו עם חמשה פי שנים בכל הנכסים

The baraita suggests the opposite logical derivation: Or perhaps go this way: There may be times when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with one other brother, and there may be times when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with five brothers. Therefore, just as when a firstborn takes his portion, dividing the estate with one other brother, he receives a double portion of all the property, so too when a firstborn takes his portion of the inheritance, dividing the estate with five brothers, he receives a double portion of all the property.

תלמוד לומר והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו התורה ריבתה נחלה אצל אחין הא אין עליך לדון כלשון האחרון אלא כלשון הראשון

As the logical inference can lead to either conclusion, the halakha is determined by a derivation from a verse. The verse states: “Then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit” (Deuteronomy 21:16). As the next verse spells out: “But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the former verse is ostensibly redundant. The additional verse is therefore understood as an inclusion: The Torah increased inheritance with regard to the brothers, indicating that the more brothers there are, the greater the portion they collect from the entire estate. Therefore, you should not reason in accordance with the final formulation, in which the baraita suggests that the firstborn inherits twice as much as all the other brothers combined, but in accordance with the first formulation, according to which the firstborn inherits twice as much as each other brother.

ואומר ובני ראובן בכור ישראל כי הוא הבכור ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכרתו לבני יוסף בן ישראל ולא להתיחש לבכרה ואומר כי יהודה גבר באחיו ולנגיד ממנו והבכרה ליוסף

The baraita reinforces this statement by citing additional verses: And the verse states: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but, inasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright [bekhorato] was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, yet not so that he was to be reckoned in the genealogy as firstborn” (I Chronicles 5:1). And the following verse states: “For Judah prevailed above his brothers, and the prince came of him; but the birthright [vehabekhora] was Joseph’s” (I Chronicles 5:2).

נאמרה בכורה ליוסף ונאמרה בכורה לדורות מה בכורה האמורה ליוסף פי שנים כאחד אף בכורה האמורה לדורות פי שנים כאחד

The baraita derives: Birthright, i.e., firstborn status, is stated here with regard to Joseph, and birthright is stated in another verse concerning the double portion with regard to the later generations: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the birthright [habekhora] is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17). Just as the birthright stated with regard to Joseph is double the property received by one inheritor, as the Gemara will explain, so too the birthright stated with regard to the later generations is double the property received by one inheritor.

ואומר ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי בחרבי ובקשתי וכי בחרבו ובקשתו לקח והלא כבר נאמר כי לא בקשתי אבטח וחרבי לא תושיעני אלא חרבי זו תפלה קשתי זו בקשה

The baraita cites additional related verses: And with regard to Jacob’s bequest to Joseph, the verse states: “Moreover I have given to you one portion above your brothers, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow” (Genesis 48:22). The baraita explains the verse: But is it so that Jacob took the portion with his sword and with his bow? But isn’t it already stated: “Through You do we push down our adversaries; through Your name do we trample those that rise against us. For I trust not in my bow, neither can my sword save me” (Psalms 44:6–7)? Rather, what is the meaning of “with my sword”? This is referring to prayer. What is the meaning of “with my bow”? This is referring to petition. This concludes the baraita.

מאי ואומר וכי תימא האי לכדרבי יוחנן בן ברוקא הוא דאתא תא שמע ובני ראובן בכור ישראל

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What is the reason the baraita cites additional proofs, introducing them with the term: And the verse states? The Gemara explains: And if you would say that the proof from the verse: “Then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit” is not valid, as perhaps this verse comes to teach the halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that a father may designate property for whichever child he desires, then come and hear a separate proof: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel…his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel.” As Joseph’s birthright was that his sons received two portions, evidently the birthright of the firstborn is that he receives double the amount received by one inheritor.

וכי תימא בכורה מבכורתו לא גמרינן תא שמע והבכרה ליוסף

And if you would say that this is not a proof either, as we do not derive the meaning of the term: “Birthright [bekhora]” (see Deuteronomy 21:17) from the similar but not identical term of: “His birthright [bekhorato],” come and hear a proof from the term employed in the following phrase from the verse: “But the birthright [vehabekhora] was Joseph’s.”

וכי תימא יוסף גופיה ממאי דפי שנים כאחד הוה תא שמע ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך

The Gemara continues to explicate the biblical citations in the baraita: And if you would say that this is not a proof either, as concerning Joseph himself, from where may it be learned that his birthright was double the property received by one inheritor? Come and hear a proof: “Moreover I have given to you one portion above your brothers,” indicating that Joseph received one more portion than each of the other sons of Jacob.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אימא דיקלא בעלמא אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say that the term “one portion” is referring to a mere palm tree or some other relatively small extra gift, instead of a full, equal share? Abaye said to him: For you, i.e., to answer your question, the verse states: “Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall be mine” (Genesis 48:5). Evidently, Joseph’s children together received portions equal to that of Reuben and Simeon together, i.e., two full portions.

בעא מיניה רבי חלבו מרבי שמואל בר נחמני מה ראה יעקב שנטל בכורה מראובן ונתנה ליוסף מה ראה ובחללו יצועי אביו כתיב אלא מה ראה שנתנה ליוסף

§ Rabbi Ḥelbo asked Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What did Jacob see that he took the status as firstborn from Reuben and gave it to Joseph? The Gemara wonders: What does he mean, what did he see? The matter is written explicitly: “But, inasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph” (I Chronicles 5:1). Rather, Rabbi Ḥelbo’s question was: What did he see that he gave it specifically to Joseph?

אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לבעל הבית שגדל יתום בתוך ביתו לימים העשיר אותו יתום ואמר אהניהו לבעל הבית מנכסי אמר ליה ואי לאו דחטא ראובן לא מהני ליה ליוסף ולא מדעם

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani answered Rabbi Ḥelbo: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To a homeowner who raised an orphan in his home. Eventually, that orphan became wealthy and said: I will provide benefit to the homeowner from my property. Similarly, since Joseph sustained Jacob in Egypt for a number of years, Jacob saw fit to repay the kindness. Rabbi Ḥelbo said to him: And if Reuben did not sin, would Jacob not have provided any benefit to Joseph? It cannot be that Jacob repaid Joseph only as a result of Reuben’ sin.

אלא רבי יונתן רבך לא כך אמר ראויה היתה בכורה לצאת מרחל דכתיב אלה תלדות יעקב יוסף אלא שקדמתה לאה ברחמים ומתוך צניעות שהיתה בה ברחל החזירה הקדוש ברוך הוא לה

Rather, doesn’t your teacher Rabbi Yonatan say like this: It was appropriate for the child receiving the status of firstborn to emerge from Rachel, as it is written: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2), indicating that Joseph was Jacob’s primary progeny. But Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with appeals for mercy, i.e., with prayer, and thereby earned the status as firstborn for her firstborn. But because of the modesty that Rachel possessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, returned the status as firstborn to her. This is why Jacob gave the status as firstborn to Joseph.

מאי קדמתה לאה ברחמים דכתיב ועיני לאה רכות מאי רכות אילימא רכות ממש אפשר בגנות בהמה טמאה לא דבר הכתוב דכתיב מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהרה בגנות צדיקים דבר הכתוב אלא אמר רבי אלעזר שמתנותיה ארוכות

The Gemara explains this answer: What does it mean that Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with mercy? As it is written: “And Leah’s eyes were weak [rakkot]” (Genesis 29:17). What is the meaning of “rakkot”? If we say that her eyes were literally weak, is it possible that the verse would say that? The verse there did not speak to the disparagement of even a non-kosher animal, as it is written: “From the pure animals and from the animals that are lacking purity” (Genesis 7:8). The verse states: “That are lacking purity” rather than stating explicitly and disparagingly: That are impure. If that is so with regard to animals, did the verse speak here to the disparagement of the righteous? Rather, Rabbi Elazar says: The term alludes to the fact that her gifts, i.e., the gifts given to her descendants, e.g., the priesthood and the monarchy, were long-lasting [arukkot], as they were passed down from generation to generation.

רב אמר לעולם רכות ממש ולא גנאי הוא לה אלא שבח הוא לה שהיתה שומעת על פרשת דרכים בני אדם שהיו אומרים שני בנים יש לה לרבקה שתי בנות יש לו ללבן גדולה לגדול וקטנה לקטן

Rav says that there is a different explanation of the verse: Actually, the verse means that her eyes were literally weak, and this is not a denigration of her but a praise of her. As she would hear people at the crossroads, coming from the land of Canaan, who would say: Rebecca has two sons, and her brother Laban has two daughters; the older daughter will be married to the older son, and the younger daughter will be married to the younger son.

והיתה יושבת על פרשת דרכים ומשאלת גדול מה מעשיו איש רע הוא מלסטם בריות קטן מה מעשיו איש תם ישב אהלים והיתה בוכה עד שנשרו ריסי עיניה

Rav continues: And she would sit at the crossroads and ask: What are the deeds of the older son? The passersby would answer: He is an evil man, and he robs people. She would ask: What are the deeds of the younger son? They would answer: He is “a quiet man, dwelling in tents” (Genesis 25:27). And because she was so distraught at the prospect of marrying the evil brother, she would cry and pray for mercy until her eyelashes fell out. Since the weakness of her eyes was due to this cause, characterizing her eyes as weak constitutes praise. This is Leah’s prayer for mercy to which Rabbi Yonatan referred.

והיינו דכתיב וירא ה׳ כי שנואה לאה מאי שנואה אילימא שנואה ממש אפשר בגנות בהמה טמאה לא דבר הכתוב בגנות צדיקים דבר הכתוב אלא ראה הקדוש ברוך הוא ששנואין מעשה עשו בפניה ויפתח את רחמה

The Gemara comments: And her desire not to marry Esau is the basis of that which is written: “And the Lord saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb” (Genesis 29:31). What is the meaning of “hated”? If we say that she was literally hated, is it possible? The verse there did not speak to the disparagement of even a non-kosher animal, so did the verse here speak to the disparagement of the righteous? Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, saw that the behavior of Esau was hated by her, and therefore: “And He opened her womb.”

ומאי צניעות היתה בה ברחל דכתיב ויגד יעקב לרחל כי אחי אביה הוא וכי בן רבקה הוא והלא בן אחות אביה הוא אלא אמר לה מינסבת לי אמרה ליה אין מיהו אבא רמאה הוא ולא יכלת ליה

The Gemara now explains the second part of Rabbi Yonatan’s explanation: And what was a demonstration of the modesty that Rachel possessed? As it is written: “And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebecca’s son” (Genesis 29:12). The Gemara asks: But isn’t he the son of her father’s sister? Why did he say that he was her father’s brother? Rather, Jacob and Rachel had the following exchange: Jacob said to Rachel: Will you marry me? Rachel said to him: Yes, but my father is a deceitful person, and you cannot defeat him.

אמר לה מאי רמאותיה אמרה ליה אית לי אחתא דקשישא מינאי ולא מנסבא לי מקמה אמר לה אחיו אני ברמאות אמרה ליה ומי שרי להו לצדיקי לסגויי ברמאותא אין עם נבר תתבר ועם עקש תתפל מסר לה סימנין

Jacob said to her: What is his method of deceit of which I need be aware? Rachel said to him: I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before he marries her off, even if he promises that he will do so. Jacob said to her: I am his brother, i.e., equal, in deceit, and he will not be able to deceive me. That is why Jacob said that he was “her father’s brother.” Rachel said to him: But is it permitted for the righteous to act deceitfully? Jacob answered her: Yes, in certain circumstances. As the verse states concerning God: “With the pure You show Yourself pure; and with the crooked You show Yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27). Therefore, to counter Laban’s deceit, Jacob gave Rachel secret signs to prove to him that she was the one marrying him.

כי קא מעיילי לה ללאה סברה השתא מיכספא אחתאי מסרתינהו ניהלה והיינו דכתיב ויהי בבקר והנה היא לאה מכלל דעד השתא לאו לאה היא אלא מתוך סימנים שמסר לה יעקב לרחל ומסרתה ללאה לא הוה ידע לה עד ההיא שעתא

Laban did in fact attempt to have Jacob marry Leah instead of marrying Rachel. When Laban’s associates were bringing Leah up to the wedding canopy to marry Jacob, Rachel thought: Now my sister will be humiliated when Jacob discovers that she is the one marrying him. Therefore, Rachel gave the signs to Leah. And this is as it is written: “And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah” (Genesis 29:25). This verse is difficult, as by inference, should one derive that until now she was not Leah? Rather, through the signs that Jacob gave to Rachel and that she gave to Leah, he did not know it was she until that moment. This is the modesty of Rachel to which Rabbi Yonatan was referring.

בעא מיניה אבא חליפא קרויא מרבי חייא בר אבא בכללן אתה מוצא שבעים בפרטן אתה מוצא שבעים חסר אחד אמר ליה תאומה היתה עם דינה דכתיב ואת דינה בתו אלא מעתה תאומה היתה עם בנימן דכתיב

§ The Gemara continues its discussion of Jacob’s family. Abba Ḥalifa Karoya asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the total tally of Jacob’s family members who descended to Egypt, you find seventy, as stated in the verse: “All the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt, were seventy” (Genesis 46:27). By contrast, in their individual listing, when the family members of each of his sons are listed by name, you find seventy-less-one. How can this be resolved? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: A twin sister was born with Dinah, as it is written: “And [ve’et] his daughter Dinah” (Genesis 46:15). The term et implies an unspecified additional person. Abba Ḥalifa Karoya replied: If that is so, one would have to say that a twin sister was born with Benjamin, as it is written:

ואת בנימין אחיו בן אמו אמר מרגלית טובה היתה בידי ואתה מבקש לאבדה ממני הכי אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא זו יוכבד שהורתה בדרך ולידתה בין החומות שנאמר אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים לידתה במצרים ואין הורתה במצרים

“And he lifted up his eyes, and saw et Benjamin his brother, his mother’s son” (Genesis 43:29), which would render the count of seventy in-correct. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: There was a goodly pearl [margalit] in my hand, and you are trying to have me lose it. He continued: So said Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This missing seventieth person is Jochebed, whose conception was on the journey, as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, and she was born within the walls, i.e., in Egypt, as it is stated: “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt” (Numbers 26:59). Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. Accordingly, the family had seventy persons upon arrival, but she could not have been listed as descending to Egypt.

בעא מיניה רבי חלבו מרבי שמואל בר נחמני כתיב ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף וגו׳ מאי שנא כי אתיליד יוסף אמר ליה ראה יעקב אבינו שאין זרעו של עשו נמסר אלא ביד זרעו של יוסף שנאמר והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש וגו׳

§ Rabbi Ḥelbo asked Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: It is written: “And it came to pass, when Rachel gave birth to Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban: Send me away, that I may go to my own place, and to my country” (Genesis 30:25). What was different when Joseph was born, that Jacob decided only then to return home? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: Jacob our patriarch saw prophetically that the descendants of Esau will be delivered only to the hand of the descendants of Joseph, as it is stated: “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for straw, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them” (Obadiah 1:18). Jacob had left Eretz Yisrael to escape Esau, but he now felt confident that he could return without endangering his family.

איתיביה ויכם דוד מהנשף ועד הערב למחרתם אמר ליה דאקריך נביאי לא אקריך כתובי דכתיב בלכתו אל צקלג נפלו עליו ממנשה עדנה ויוזבד וידיעאל ומיכאל ויוזבד ואליהוא וצלתי ראשי האלפים אשר למנשה

Rabbi Ḥelbo raised an objection to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: Concering a battle between the Jewish people and the nation of Amalek, who descend from Esau, the verse states: “And David smote them from the twilight even to the evening of the next day” (I Samuel 30:17). David was from the tribe of Judah, yet he was able to defeat the descendants of Esau. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: Whoever read and taught Prophets to you did not read and teach Writings to you, as it is written: “As he went to Ziklag, there fell to him of Manasseh, Adnah, and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zillethai, captains of thousands that were of Manasseh, and they helped David against the troop” (I Chronicles 12:21–2). The verse in Writings teaches that David’s campaign against Esau was led by Joseph’s descendants, from the family of Manasseh.

מתיב רב יוסף ומהם מן בני שמעון הלכו להר שעיר אנשים חמש מאות ופלטיה ונעריה ורפיה ועזיאל בני ישעי בראשם ויכו את שארית הפלטה לעמלק וישבו שם עד היום הזה אמר רבה בר שילא ישעי מבני מנשה אתי דכתיב ובני מנשה חפר וישעי

Rav Yosef raises an objection: Another verse indicates that the descendants of Simeon also have the ability to defeat the descendants of Esau: “And some of them, even of the sons of Simeon, five hundred men, went to Mount Seir, having for their captains Pelatiah, and Ne’ariah, and Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi. And they struck the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped, and dwelled there until this day” (I Chronicles 4:42–43). Rabba bar Sheila said in response: Ishi came from the children of Manasseh, as it is written: And the sons of Manasseh: Hepher and Ishi.

תנו רבנן הבכור נוטל פי שנים בזרוע ובלחיים ובקיבה ובמוקדשין ובשבח ששבחו נכסים לאחר מיתת אביהן

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 7:4–5): The firstborn priest takes a double portion of the foreleg, and of the jaw, and of the maw, which are given to a priest from all slaughtered non-sacred cattle, sheep, and goats (see Deuteronomy 18:3). And a firstborn, whether he is a priest or non-priest, takes a double portion of his father’s sacrificial animals and of the enhancement of the property that occurred after the death of their father.

כיצד הניח להן אביהן פרה מוחכרת ומושכרת ביד אחרים או שהיתה רועה באפר וילדה בכור נוטל פי שנים אבל בנו בתים ונטעו כרמים אין בכור נוטל פי שנים

The baraita continues: How so? To what type of enhancement is this referring? If their father left them a cow that was leased or rented in the possession of others, or if it was grazing in the meadow, and it gave birth, then the firstborn takes a double portion of the rental income or of the calf. But if the inheritors built homes or planted vineyards after their father’s death, thereby enhancing the property, the firstborn does not take a double portion. This is not considered enhancement of the father’s property, but profit due to their actions.

האי הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה היכי דמי אי דאתי לידי אבוהון פשיטא ואי דלא אתי לידי אבוהון ראוי הוא ואין הבכור נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Concerning this right to collect a double portion of the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, what are the circumstances? If they came into the possession of their father, then it is obvious that the firstborn collects a double portion. And if they did not come into the possession of their father, then these items are merely property due to their father, and the firstborn does not take a double portion of property due to the deceased as he does the property his father possessed.

הכא במכירי כהונה עסקינן ודאשתחיט בחיי דאבוהון וקסבר מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמו

The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with associates of the priesthood, i.e., people who have an arrangement with a specific priest to give him their priestly gifts. And it was a case where the animal was slaughtered while the father was alive, and the tanna of this baraita holds: Priestly gifts that were not yet separated are considered as though they have already been separated. Therefore, even though the gifts were not yet given, they were considered in the possession of the priest before his death.

מוקדשין לאו דידיה נינהו

The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita: Why does the firstborn take a double portion of the father’s sacrificial animals? Isn’t it so that once the father consecrates them, they belong to Heaven and are not his?

בקדשים קלים ואליבא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר ממון בעלים הוא דתניא ומעלה מעל בה׳ לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממון בעלים דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי

The Gemara answers: This is stated with regard to a case of offerings of lesser sanctity, such as peace offerings, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: These sacrificial animals are considered the property of their owners, as opposed to property of Heaven. As it is taught in a baraita that concerning one who steals another’s property and takes a false oath denying he has done so, incurring the obligation to bring a guilt-offering, the verse states: “And commits a trespass against the Lord, and deals falsely with his neighbor” (Leviticus 5:21). The verse serves to include offerings of lesser sanctity, which are the property of their owners; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Consequently, the firstborn collects a double portion of these as well.

הניח להן אביהן פרה מוחכרת ומושכרת ביד אחרים או שהיתה רועה באפר וילדה בכור נוטל בה פי שנים השתא מוחכרת ומושכרת דלאו ברשותא דמרה דידהו קיימא אמרת שקיל רועה באפר מיבעיא

The baraita states: If their father left them a cow that was leased or rented in the possession of others, or if it was grazing in the meadow, and it gave birth, then the firstborn takes a double portion of the rental income or calf. The Gemara asks: Now that in a case where the cow was leased or rented to others, where the animals are not in their owner’s possession, you say that the firstborn takes a double portion, in a case where it was grazing in the meadow, is it necessary for the baraita to state that he receives a double portion?

הא קא משמע לן דמוחכרת ומושכרת דומיא דרועה באפר מה רועה באפר שבחא דממילא קא אתי ולא קא חסרי בה מזונא

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita teaches us: It teaches that a case where the animal was leased or rented is similar to a case where it was grazing in the meadow, in that just as in a case where it was grazing in the meadow, the enhancement came by itself and the brothers did not lose money for its sustenance,