Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 26, 2017 | 讗壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 124

Study Guide Bava Batra 124-125. Does the firstborn get the double portion of the increased value of possessions that belonged to the father but were not in the hands of the father at the time of death (they were on loan or had wandered off)? 聽What is a loan is returned from a non Jew – does he get double from the loan and from the interest?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗祝 诪讜讞讻专转 讜诪讜砖讻专转 砖讘讞讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 讗转讬 讚诇讗 讞住专讬 讘讛 诪讝讜谞讬

so too in the case of a cow that was leased or rented, the baraita is referring only to a case where the enhancement came by itself, as the brothers did not lose money for its sustenance, since it was stipulated that the one who rented or leased it would provide its feed.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): A firstborn does not take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred after the death of the sons鈥 father. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that a firstborn does take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, e.g., the birth of a calf, but not of the enhancement that the orphans caused after their father鈥檚 death.

讬专砖讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讬爪讗 注诇讬讛谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜转谉 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜讟诇 专砖讗讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: Therefore, if they inherited a promissory note indicating a debt owed to their father, the firstborn takes a double portion of the money when it is collected, as this is an enhancement to the estate that came by itself. The Gemara adds: In a case where a promissory note emerged against them for their father鈥檚 debt, the firstborn gives, i.e., repays, a double portion of the debt. But if he says: I am not giving a double portion of the debt and I am not taking a double portion of the estate, he is permitted to do so, and he is exempt from paying a double portion.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇转转 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讛 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 诪转谞讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗祝 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 诇讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis that the firstborn does not receive a double portion of any enhancements that occur after the death of the father? The verse states: 鈥淕iving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17); by employing the term 鈥済iving鈥 the Merciful One calls the double portion a gift. Just as a recipient of a gift does not acquire a gift unless it first reaches the possession of the one giving the gift, so too the firstborn does not acquire the portion of the firstborn unless it has reached the possession of the father before he died.

讜专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪拽讬砖 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诇讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 诪讛 讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗祝 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the reason for his ruling that a firstborn receives a double portion of the enhancement is that the verse states: 鈥淎 double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17). It juxtaposes the portion of the firstborn to the portion of an ordinary son, in that just as the portion of an ordinary son is inherited even from property that did not reach the father鈥檚 possession before he died, so too, the portion of the firstborn is inherited even from property that did not reach the father鈥檚 possession before he died.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪爪专讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis as well, isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥渁 double portion鈥 written? The Gemara answers: That phrase can be said to teach a different halakha, requiring the brothers to give the firstborn both of his portions on one border, i.e., adjoining, and not in separate locations.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇转转 诇讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 专砖讗讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥済iving him鈥 written? The Gemara answers: That phrase can be said to teach a different halakha, that if the firstborn says: I am not taking a double portion of the estate and I am not giving a double portion of the debt, he is permitted to do so. Since the inheritance is referred to as a gift, he has the right to refuse it.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诇讬诐 讗专注讗 讜讗住讬拽 砖讬专讟讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞驻讜专讛 讜讛讜讛 砖讜讘诇讬 砖诇讜驻驻讬 讜讛讜讜 转诪专讬 讚诪专 住讘专 砖讘讞讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara discusses several types of enhancement. Rav Pappa says: With regard to a palm tree that became enhanced by growing broader after the father鈥檚 death, or land that yielded silt and thereby became enhanced, everyone agrees that the firstborn takes a double portion of the enhancement. When they disagree is in a case when fodder [ba岣fura], i.e., grain that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, becomes full ears, of grain, and when date flowers [shelofafei] become fully developed dates. As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that since this enhancement develops by itself, the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of it, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that since the item transformed, it is not considered the same item that was in the father鈥檚 possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讛

Rabba bar 岣na says that Rabbi 岣yya says: A judge who acted, i.e., ruled, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has acted legally, and one who acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis has also acted legally. Either way, the decision stands.

诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讗讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

The Gemara explains: Rabbi 岣yya is uncertain as to whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies specifically to a dispute with one other tanna but not to a dispute with several of his colleagues, or whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies even to a dispute with several of his colleagues, as in this case, where the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since he was uncertain, he left the decision to each individual judge.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 拽讗 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

Rav Na岣an says that Rav says: It is prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his single colleague, but not in his disputes with several of his colleagues.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 拽讗 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

And Rav Na岣an says his own statement: It is permitted to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: He holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not only in his disputes with his single colleague, but even in his disputes with several of his colleagues.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讗诐 注砖讛 注砖讜讬 拽讗 住讘专 诪讟讬谉 讗讬转诪专

Rava says: It is prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but if a judge acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what is done is done and the decision stands. The Gemara explains: He holds that it was stated that one is inclined to follow the opinion of the Rabbis ab initio, but if a judge rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, his decision stands.

转谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 驻专讟 诇砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 砖拽讬诇 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments that there are conflicting opinions in halakhic midrash as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as each opinion is supported by a different version of the midrash. Rav Na岣an taught a baraita from the other books of the school of Rav [debei Rav], i.e., a volume of halakhic midrash other than Torat Kohanim, which is a halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. The phrase from the verse: 鈥淏y giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), excludes the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father鈥檚 death, of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: But of the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, he does take a double portion. The Gemara comments: And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 驻专讟 诇砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma taught a different version of the baraita from the other books of the school of Rav: 鈥淥f all that he has鈥 excludes the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: And all the more so, he does not take a double portion of the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father鈥檚 death. The Gemara comments: And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of the Rabbis. Accordingly, there is a discrepancy between the baraitot as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 砖讘讞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪诇讜讛 诪讘注讬讗

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A firstborn does not take a double portion of a loan, i.e., of a debt that is owed to the father. The Gemara asks: According to whom is this halakha stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now that the Rabbis say that a firstborn does not take a double portion even with regard to the enhancement of property that is in the possession of the father, is it necessary to state that he is not entitled to a double portion of a loan? The debt is not in the father鈥檚 possession at the time of his death; it is merely due to him.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬

Rather, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Although he holds that a firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property itself, he concedes that he is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt, as it was not in the possession of his father at the time of his death.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬专砖讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But if so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: If the sons inherited a promissory note, the firstborn takes a double portion of the payment of both the value of the loan itself and the interest? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, nor the opinion of the Rabbis.

诇注讜诇诐 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it was necessary to state it. It might enter your mind to say that with regard to a loan, since the creditor holds a promissory note, it is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession, so too, the firstborn should be entitled to a double portion even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that the loan is not considered to be in the creditor鈥檚 possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讘讬转

The Gemara relates: They sent the following ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: If the father lent money to a gentile, the firstborn takes a double portion of the value of the loan itself, but not of the interest, as the interest is considered property due to the father.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 砖讘讞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪诇讜讛 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom is this halakha stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now that the Rabbis say that a firstborn does not take a double portion even with regard to the enhancement of property, which is in the possession of the father, is it necessary to state that they would hold that he is not entitled to a double portion of a loan? Since the debt is not in the father鈥檚 possession at the time of his death, as it is merely due to him, the rabbis would certainly not hold that the firstborn takes a double portion of it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇专讘讬 讘专讘讬转 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转

Rather, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is it so that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the interest? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A firstborn takes a double portion of both the value of the loan itself and the interest?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪诇讜讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, the halakha sent from the Sages of Eretz Yisrael is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that the Rabbis concede that the firstborn receives a double portion of the value of the loan itself, because a loan is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession. By contrast, the interest on the loan is not considered as though it is already in the creditor鈥檚 possession, and therefore the firstborn does not receive a double portion of its payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 讗诪讬诪专 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讚专讬砖 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

Rav A岣 bar Rav said to Ravina: Ameimar arrived at our locale and taught that a firstborn takes a double portion of the value of a loan itself, but not of the interest. Ravina said to him: The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 conform to their standard line of reasoning. Ameimar followed the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who was one of the Sages of Naharde鈥檃, as was Ameimar.

讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara explains: As Rabba says: If the sons collected land as payment of a debt owed to their father, the firstborn has a double portion of it, but if they collected money, he does not have a double portion. And Rav Na岣an says that if they collected money, he has a double portion, but if they collected land, he does not have a double portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an it is also difficult. According to your opinion it is difficult

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 124

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 124

讗祝 诪讜讞讻专转 讜诪讜砖讻专转 砖讘讞讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 讗转讬 讚诇讗 讞住专讬 讘讛 诪讝讜谞讬

so too in the case of a cow that was leased or rented, the baraita is referring only to a case where the enhancement came by itself, as the brothers did not lose money for its sustenance, since it was stipulated that the one who rented or leased it would provide its feed.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): A firstborn does not take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred after the death of the sons鈥 father. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that a firstborn does take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, e.g., the birth of a calf, but not of the enhancement that the orphans caused after their father鈥檚 death.

讬专砖讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讬爪讗 注诇讬讛谉 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜转谉 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜讟诇 专砖讗讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: Therefore, if they inherited a promissory note indicating a debt owed to their father, the firstborn takes a double portion of the money when it is collected, as this is an enhancement to the estate that came by itself. The Gemara adds: In a case where a promissory note emerged against them for their father鈥檚 debt, the firstborn gives, i.e., repays, a double portion of the debt. But if he says: I am not giving a double portion of the debt and I am not taking a double portion of the estate, he is permitted to do so, and he is exempt from paying a double portion.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇转转 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪转谞讛 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 诪转谞讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗祝 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 诇讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the ruling of the Rabbis that the firstborn does not receive a double portion of any enhancements that occur after the death of the father? The verse states: 鈥淕iving him a double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17); by employing the term 鈥済iving鈥 the Merciful One calls the double portion a gift. Just as a recipient of a gift does not acquire a gift unless it first reaches the possession of the one giving the gift, so too the firstborn does not acquire the portion of the firstborn unless it has reached the possession of the father before he died.

讜专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诪拽讬砖 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诇讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 诪讛 讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗祝 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 诇讬讚讬讛

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the reason for his ruling that a firstborn receives a double portion of the enhancement is that the verse states: 鈥淎 double portion鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17). It juxtaposes the portion of the firstborn to the portion of an ordinary son, in that just as the portion of an ordinary son is inherited even from property that did not reach the father鈥檚 possession before he died, so too, the portion of the firstborn is inherited even from property that did not reach the father鈥檚 possession before he died.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪爪专讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis as well, isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥渁 double portion鈥 written? The Gemara answers: That phrase can be said to teach a different halakha, requiring the brothers to give the firstborn both of his portions on one border, i.e., adjoining, and not in separate locations.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇转转 诇讜 讛讛讜讗 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 谞讜讟诇 讜讗讬谞讬 谞讜转谉 专砖讗讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, isn鈥檛 the phrase 鈥済iving him鈥 written? The Gemara answers: That phrase can be said to teach a different halakha, that if the firstborn says: I am not taking a double portion of the estate and I am not giving a double portion of the debt, he is permitted to do so. Since the inheritance is referred to as a gift, he has the right to refuse it.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诇讬诐 讗专注讗 讜讗住讬拽 砖讬专讟讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讞驻讜专讛 讜讛讜讛 砖讜讘诇讬 砖诇讜驻驻讬 讜讛讜讜 转诪专讬 讚诪专 住讘专 砖讘讞讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬砖转谞讬

The Gemara discusses several types of enhancement. Rav Pappa says: With regard to a palm tree that became enhanced by growing broader after the father鈥檚 death, or land that yielded silt and thereby became enhanced, everyone agrees that the firstborn takes a double portion of the enhancement. When they disagree is in a case when fodder [ba岣fura], i.e., grain that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe, becomes full ears, of grain, and when date flowers [shelofafei] become fully developed dates. As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that since this enhancement develops by itself, the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of it, and one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that since the item transformed, it is not considered the same item that was in the father鈥檚 possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注砖讛

Rabba bar 岣na says that Rabbi 岣yya says: A judge who acted, i.e., ruled, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has acted legally, and one who acted in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis has also acted legally. Either way, the decision stands.

诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讗讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

The Gemara explains: Rabbi 岣yya is uncertain as to whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies specifically to a dispute with one other tanna but not to a dispute with several of his colleagues, or whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies even to a dispute with several of his colleagues, as in this case, where the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Since he was uncertain, he left the decision to each individual judge.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 拽讗 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

Rav Na岣an says that Rav says: It is prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: Rav holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his single colleague, but not in his disputes with several of his colleagues.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 拽讗 住讘专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜

And Rav Na岣an says his own statement: It is permitted to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: He holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not only in his disputes with his single colleague, but even in his disputes with several of his colleagues.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗住讜专 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讗诐 注砖讛 注砖讜讬 拽讗 住讘专 诪讟讬谉 讗讬转诪专

Rava says: It is prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but if a judge acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what is done is done and the decision stands. The Gemara explains: He holds that it was stated that one is inclined to follow the opinion of the Rabbis ab initio, but if a judge rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, his decision stands.

转谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 驻专讟 诇砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讗讘诇 砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 砖拽讬诇 讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments that there are conflicting opinions in halakhic midrash as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as each opinion is supported by a different version of the midrash. Rav Na岣an taught a baraita from the other books of the school of Rav [debei Rav], i.e., a volume of halakhic midrash other than Torat Kohanim, which is a halakhic midrash on the book of Leviticus. The phrase from the verse: 鈥淏y giving him a double portion of all that he has鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), excludes the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father鈥檚 death, of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: But of the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, he does take a double portion. The Gemara comments: And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 讘讻诇 讗砖专 讬诪爪讗 诇讜 驻专讟 诇砖讘讞 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讘讞 砖讛砖讘讬讞讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讬转转 讗讘讬讛谉 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rami bar 岣ma taught a different version of the baraita from the other books of the school of Rav: 鈥淥f all that he has鈥 excludes the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father鈥檚 death, of which the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion. The Gemara infers: And all the more so, he does not take a double portion of the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father鈥檚 death. The Gemara comments: And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of the Rabbis. Accordingly, there is a discrepancy between the baraitot as to whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 砖讘讞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪诇讜讛 诪讘注讬讗

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A firstborn does not take a double portion of a loan, i.e., of a debt that is owed to the father. The Gemara asks: According to whom is this halakha stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now that the Rabbis say that a firstborn does not take a double portion even with regard to the enhancement of property that is in the possession of the father, is it necessary to state that he is not entitled to a double portion of a loan? The debt is not in the father鈥檚 possession at the time of his death; it is merely due to him.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬

Rather, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Although he holds that a firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property itself, he concedes that he is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt, as it was not in the possession of his father at the time of his death.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬专砖讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But if so, in accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: If the sons inherited a promissory note, the firstborn takes a double portion of the payment of both the value of the loan itself and the interest? It is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, nor the opinion of the Rabbis.

诇注讜诇诐 诇专讘谞谉 讜讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇讜讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the payment of a debt is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it was necessary to state it. It might enter your mind to say that with regard to a loan, since the creditor holds a promissory note, it is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession, so too, the firstborn should be entitled to a double portion even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that the loan is not considered to be in the creditor鈥檚 possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讘讬转

The Gemara relates: They sent the following ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: If the father lent money to a gentile, the firstborn takes a double portion of the value of the loan itself, but not of the interest, as the interest is considered property due to the father.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 砖讘讞讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 砖拽讬诇 诪诇讜讛 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: According to whom is this halakha stated? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now that the Rabbis say that a firstborn does not take a double portion even with regard to the enhancement of property, which is in the possession of the father, is it necessary to state that they would hold that he is not entitled to a double portion of a loan? Since the debt is not in the father鈥檚 possession at the time of his death, as it is merely due to him, the rabbis would certainly not hold that the firstborn takes a double portion of it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讜诇专讘讬 讘专讘讬转 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘讬谉 讘诪诇讜讛 讘讬谉 讘专讘讬转

Rather, it must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is it so that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the interest? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A firstborn takes a double portion of both the value of the loan itself and the interest?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪诇讜讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讙讘讬讗 讚诪讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, the halakha sent from the Sages of Eretz Yisrael is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that the Rabbis concede that the firstborn receives a double portion of the value of the loan itself, because a loan is considered as though it has already been collected and is in the creditor鈥檚 possession. By contrast, the interest on the loan is not considered as though it is already in the creditor鈥檚 possession, and therefore the firstborn does not receive a double portion of its payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 讗诪讬诪专 诇讗转专讬谉 讜讚专讬砖 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘专讘讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛专讚注讬 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜

Rav A岣 bar Rav said to Ravina: Ameimar arrived at our locale and taught that a firstborn takes a double portion of the value of a loan itself, but not of the interest. Ravina said to him: The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 conform to their standard line of reasoning. Ameimar followed the opinion of Rav Na岣an, who was one of the Sages of Naharde鈥檃, as was Ameimar.

讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara explains: As Rabba says: If the sons collected land as payment of a debt owed to their father, the firstborn has a double portion of it, but if they collected money, he does not have a double portion. And Rav Na岣an says that if they collected money, he has a double portion, but if they collected land, he does not have a double portion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽砖讬讗 诇讚讬讚讱 拽砖讬讗

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Na岣an it is also difficult. According to your opinion it is difficult

Scroll To Top