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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 28, 2017 | 讙壮 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 126

A firstborn that protests, his protest is valid. 聽There is a debate among the Rashbam and Rabbeinu Chananel, what he is protesting. 聽Limitations are put on this halacha by Rabba. 聽If a firstborn gives up his rights to a double portion when dividing a particular property, Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi debate (based on a situation where Rava聽gave a psak about in a different case) whether Rava held that he gave up rights to the double portion of all the properties or only of that particular property? 聽This debate is based on whether one holds that the firstborn gains rights to his double portion immediately upon the death of the father, even before the land is divided or whether that he gains rights to it only once the property is divided. 聽The mishna differentiates between a聽person who聽says that he will not bequeath the double portion to his firstborn to a person who says he will equally divide his portion. 聽The first is not allowed as it goes against what it says in the Torah and the second is allowed because it is viewed as a gift. 聽One needs to use the language of a gift in order to bypass Torah laws of inheritance. 聽What type of proof can be used to prove one is the firstborn in order to get the double portion?


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

讜诪诇讜讛 砖注诪讜 驻诇讙讬

And as for a loan that is with the firstborn, i.e., he had borrowed money from his father then his father died, it is uncertain whether the payment should be considered property due to the father or property possessed by him. Therefore, the firstborn and his brothers divide the additional portion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘讻讜专 砖诪讬讞讛 诪讬讞讛

搂 With regard to the halakha that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property resulting from the actions of the heirs, Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: A firstborn who protested the efforts of enhancing the property before it is divided has protested, and if the brothers use resources from the estate to enhance it against his will, he is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讘爪专讜诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪住拽讜诐 讗讘诇 讚专讻讜诐 诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讻讜诐

Rabba said: Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion is reasonable in a case where they inherited grapes on a grapevine and the brothers harvested them against the will of the firstborn, or if they inherited olives on olive trees and the brothers harvested them, as in these cases, the produce itself did not change. But if they treaded on them, converting them into wine or oil, even if the firstborn protested their doing so, he is not entitled to a double portion. And Rav Yosef said: Even if they treaded on them, the firstborn is entitled to a double portion.

讚专讻讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 注讬谞讘讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion, according to Rav Yosef, even if they treaded on them? Since the brothers transformed the produce, as initially it was in the form of grapes and now it is wine, they have acquired it in the same manner that a thief acquires an item he stole. Therefore, the firstborn should have no share of the enhancement.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜

The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef did not mean that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value of the wine. Rather, his intention was the same as that which Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says in a different context, that the ruling is referring to a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the brothers must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his additional portion of the grapes. Here, too, Rav Yosef meant that the brothers must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his grapes.

讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜讘爪专讜诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪住拽讜诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讻讜诐 讚专讻讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 注讬谞讘讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜

The Gemara explains: Where, i.e., in what context, was the statement of Rav Ukva bar 岣ma stated? It was in reference to that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a firstborn and an ordinary son whose father left them grapes and they harvested them, or if he left them olives and they harvested them, the firstborn takes a double portion. This is the halakha even if they treaded on them. The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion if they treaded on them; initially they were grapes, and now it is wine? Mar Ukva bar 岣ma says: Shmuel did not mean that he is entitled to a double portion of the wine; rather, the reference is to a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the ordinary brother must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his grapes.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘讻讜专 砖谞讟诇 讞诇拽 讻驻砖讜讟 讜讬转专 诪讗讬 讜讬转专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉

Rav Asi says: A firstborn who took a portion of the property like that of an ordinary heir has relinquished his right to an additional portion. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has relinquished his additional portion? Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, since he did not exercise his right to an additional portion, but he has not relinquished his right to receive an additional portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜诪讛 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讞讬诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讗讞讬诇

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, because he holds that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, he has waived his additional portion of what has already reached his possession, namely, the field that was divided, but he has not waived his portion of the other fields of the estate.

讜专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉 拽讗 住讘专 讬砖 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜诪讚讗讞讬诇 讘讛讗 讗讞讬诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜

And Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property, as he holds that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, since he waived his additional portion in this field, he has waived his portion of all of the property.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚讛讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讚讗讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讚驻砖讜讟 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 讘谞讬 驻砖讜讟 诇诪讬讻诇 转诪专讬 诪讛谞讛讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讞讜谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讗 讚讝讘谞转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诪讞讗 谞诪讬 诪讞讬转讜 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara notes: And this dispute of Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As there was a certain firstborn who went and sold his property and the property of his deceased ordinary brother, i.e., their respective portions of their father鈥檚 property, before the property was divided. The orphan sons of the ordinary brother went to eat dates from the field that was now in the possession of those purchasers, due to their father鈥檚 share in the field. The purchasers hit them, as though they were thieves. The relatives of the orphans said to the purchasers: Not only did you purchase their property illegally, but you now hit them as well? They came before Rava, who said to them: The firstborn has done nothing. His sale was not valid.

诪专 住讘专 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讘驻诇讙讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa disagree with regard to Rava鈥檚 intention. One Sage, Rav Pappi, holds that he has done nothing with regard to his brother鈥檚 portion, as he had no right to sell it; with regard to his own additional portion, the sale was valid, as it was in his possession even before the division of the property. And one Sage, Rav Pappa, holds that he has done nothing with regard to all of the property, as he does not possess the additional portion before the property is divided between the brothers.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讻讜专 砖诪讻专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讬砖 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛

The Gemara notes that they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: A firstborn who sold his additional portion before the division of the property has done nothing. Apparently, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division. But the halakha is that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讚专讬砖讘讗 驻诇讙 讘爪谞讗 讚驻诇驻诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘砖讜讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬转专转讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讬转专转讛 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra of the house of Rishba, who was a firstborn, divided a basket of peppers from the estate of his father with his brothers equally. He came before Rav Ashi to claim a double portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Ashi said to him: Since you relinquished your additional portion with regard to some of the estate, you have relinquished your additional portion with regard to all of the property, as a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 诇讗 讬讬专砖 注诐 讗讞讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讛转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛

MISHNA: In a case of one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double portion of my estate; or one who says: So-and-so, my son, will not inherit my estate among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah.

讛诪讞诇拽 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 驻讬讜 专讬讘讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 诇讗讞讚 讜讛砖讜讛 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讻转讘 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讘讚讘专 砖诇 诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say elsewhere that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah with regard to monetary matters, his stipulation stands?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讬讱 注诇讬 砖讗专 讻住讜转 讜注讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 砖诇 诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kiddushin 3:7): If one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no ability to claim from me food, clothing, and conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to monetary matters, such as food and clothing, his stipulation stands, despite being counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one should be able to stipulate that his firstborn son not receive a double portion, or that one of his sons not inherit from him at all, as inheritance is a monetary matter.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讬讚注讛 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there, the woman knew of his stipulation and waived her rights. Therefore, the stipulation stands. Here, the son whose portion was reduced did not waive his portion. Therefore the stipulation is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专讬 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef says that if a man says: So-and-so is my firstborn son, the son takes a double portion of his inheritance based on this testimony. If he says: So-and-so is a firstborn, the son does not take a double portion, as perhaps the man was saying that the son is his mother鈥檚 firstborn but not his own firstborn.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注转 讚讛讜讛 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讘讜讻专讗 住讻诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讜讻专讗 住讻诇讗 拽讗专讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabba bar bar 岣na and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabba bar bar 岣na said to him: From where do you know? He answered: Because his father would call him a foolish firstborn. Rabba bar bar 岣na replied: Perhaps he is his mother鈥檚 firstborn, as any firstborn of a mother is also called a foolish firstborn.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬 砖讻讞转 讘专讬 讚讘讜讻专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣nina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi 岣nina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi 岣nina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikh岣t, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讜讗 讙诪讬专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗讘讗 诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 诇讗 诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he is his mother鈥檚 firstborn? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that the saliva of a father鈥檚 firstborn heals this ailment but the saliva of a mother鈥檚 firstborn does not heal this ailment.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讘谉 讛讘讻讜专 诇砖谞讬讗讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛

Rabbi Ami says: In the case of one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [tumtum] and whose skin became perforated so that his genitals were exposed and he was found to be a male, he does not take a double portion of his father鈥檚 estate. As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if the firstborn son was [vehaya] hers that was hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that he is not considered a firstborn unless he is recognized as a son, i.e., male, from the moment of his coming into being [havaya], i.e., his birth.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: 鈥淚f there will be [yihyeh] to a man a stubborn and rebellious son鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:18), which is interpreted to mean that one is not judged in this manner unless he is recognized as a son from the moment of his coming into being.

  • 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 126

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 126

讜诪诇讜讛 砖注诪讜 驻诇讙讬

And as for a loan that is with the firstborn, i.e., he had borrowed money from his father then his father died, it is uncertain whether the payment should be considered property due to the father or property possessed by him. Therefore, the firstborn and his brothers divide the additional portion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘讻讜专 砖诪讬讞讛 诪讬讞讛

搂 With regard to the halakha that the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of the enhancement of the property resulting from the actions of the heirs, Rav Huna says that Rav Asi says: A firstborn who protested the efforts of enhancing the property before it is divided has protested, and if the brothers use resources from the estate to enhance it against his will, he is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讬 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讘爪专讜诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪住拽讜诐 讗讘诇 讚专讻讜诐 诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讻讜诐

Rabba said: Rav Asi鈥檚 opinion is reasonable in a case where they inherited grapes on a grapevine and the brothers harvested them against the will of the firstborn, or if they inherited olives on olive trees and the brothers harvested them, as in these cases, the produce itself did not change. But if they treaded on them, converting them into wine or oil, even if the firstborn protested their doing so, he is not entitled to a double portion. And Rav Yosef said: Even if they treaded on them, the firstborn is entitled to a double portion.

讚专讻讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 注讬谞讘讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪专讗

The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion, according to Rav Yosef, even if they treaded on them? Since the brothers transformed the produce, as initially it was in the form of grapes and now it is wine, they have acquired it in the same manner that a thief acquires an item he stole. Therefore, the firstborn should have no share of the enhancement.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜

The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef did not mean that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion of the enhanced value of the wine. Rather, his intention was the same as that which Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says in a different context, that the ruling is referring to a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the brothers must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his additional portion of the grapes. Here, too, Rav Yosef meant that the brothers must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his grapes.

讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 注谞讘讬诐 讜讘爪专讜诐 讝讬转讬诐 讜诪住拽讜诐 讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讚专讻讜诐 讚专讻讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 注讬谞讘讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪专讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讛讬讝拽 注谞讘讬讜

The Gemara explains: Where, i.e., in what context, was the statement of Rav Ukva bar 岣ma stated? It was in reference to that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a firstborn and an ordinary son whose father left them grapes and they harvested them, or if he left them olives and they harvested them, the firstborn takes a double portion. This is the halakha even if they treaded on them. The Gemara asks: Why is he entitled to a double portion if they treaded on them; initially they were grapes, and now it is wine? Mar Ukva bar 岣ma says: Shmuel did not mean that he is entitled to a double portion of the wine; rather, the reference is to a case where the wine spoiled, its value decreasing to below the initial value of the grapes, in which case the ordinary brother must give the firstborn payment for the damage to his grapes.

讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讘讻讜专 砖谞讟诇 讞诇拽 讻驻砖讜讟 讜讬转专 诪讗讬 讜讬转专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉

Rav Asi says: A firstborn who took a portion of the property like that of an ordinary heir has relinquished his right to an additional portion. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that he has relinquished his additional portion? Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, since he did not exercise his right to an additional portion, but he has not relinquished his right to receive an additional portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜诪讛 讚讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讞讬诇 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讗讞讬诇

The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion only with regard to that field that was divided, because he holds that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, he has waived his additional portion of what has already reached his possession, namely, the field that was divided, but he has not waived his portion of the other fields of the estate.

讜专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转专 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉 拽讗 住讘专 讬砖 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜诪讚讗讞讬诇 讘讛讗 讗讞讬诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜

And Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava that he has relinquished his additional portion with regard to all of the property, as he holds that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division of the property. And therefore, since he waived his additional portion in this field, he has waived his portion of all of the property.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讬 讜专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗讬转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗讬转诪专 讚讛讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讚讗讝讬诇 讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讚驻砖讜讟 讗讝讜诇 讬转诪讬 讘谞讬 驻砖讜讟 诇诪讬讻诇 转诪专讬 诪讛谞讛讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讞讜谞讛讜 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 拽专讜讘讬诐 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讗 讚讝讘谞转讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讬诪讞讗 谞诪讬 诪讞讬转讜 诇讛讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara notes: And this dispute of Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As there was a certain firstborn who went and sold his property and the property of his deceased ordinary brother, i.e., their respective portions of their father鈥檚 property, before the property was divided. The orphan sons of the ordinary brother went to eat dates from the field that was now in the possession of those purchasers, due to their father鈥檚 share in the field. The purchasers hit them, as though they were thieves. The relatives of the orphans said to the purchasers: Not only did you purchase their property illegally, but you now hit them as well? They came before Rava, who said to them: The firstborn has done nothing. His sale was not valid.

诪专 住讘专 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讘驻诇讙讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa disagree with regard to Rava鈥檚 intention. One Sage, Rav Pappi, holds that he has done nothing with regard to his brother鈥檚 portion, as he had no right to sell it; with regard to his own additional portion, the sale was valid, as it was in his possession even before the division of the property. And one Sage, Rav Pappa, holds that he has done nothing with regard to all of the property, as he does not possess the additional portion before the property is divided between the brothers.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘讻讜专 砖诪讻专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讬砖 诇讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讞诇讜拽讛

The Gemara notes that they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: A firstborn who sold his additional portion before the division of the property has done nothing. Apparently, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael hold that a firstborn does not have a right to his additional portion before the division. But the halakha is that a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讚专讬砖讘讗 驻诇讙 讘爪谞讗 讚驻诇驻诇讬 讘讛讚讬 讗讞讬谉 讘砖讜讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬转专转讛 讘诪拽爪转 讜讬转专转讛 讘讻诇 讛谞讻住讬诐 讻讜诇谉

The Gemara relates: Mar Zutra of the house of Rishba, who was a firstborn, divided a basket of peppers from the estate of his father with his brothers equally. He came before Rav Ashi to claim a double portion of the rest of the estate. Rav Ashi said to him: Since you relinquished your additional portion with regard to some of the estate, you have relinquished your additional portion with regard to all of the property, as a firstborn has a right to his additional portion before the division.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 诇讗 讬讬专砖 注诐 讗讞讬讜 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 砖讛转谞讛 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛

MISHNA: In a case of one who says: So-and-so, my firstborn son, will not take a double portion of my estate; or one who says: So-and-so, my son, will not inherit my estate among his brothers, he has said nothing, as he has stipulated counter to that which is written in the Torah.

讛诪讞诇拽 谞讻住讬讜 注诇 驻讬讜 专讬讘讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讬注讟 诇讗讞讚 讜讛砖讜讛 诇讛谉 讗转 讛讘讻讜专 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讻转讘 讘讬谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬谉 讘住讜祝 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands. But if he said that they will receive the property not as a gift but as inheritance, he has said nothing. If he wrote in his will, whether at the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end, that he is granting them the property as a gift, his statement stands.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗诪专 讘讚讘专 砖诇 诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, doesn鈥檛 he say elsewhere that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah with regard to monetary matters, his stipulation stands?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 讛专讬 讗转 诪拽讜讚砖转 诇讬 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 诇讬讱 注诇讬 砖讗专 讻住讜转 讜注讜谞讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜转谞讗讜 讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讚讘专 砖诇 诪诪讜谉 转谞讗讜 拽讬讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kiddushin 3:7): If one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no ability to claim from me food, clothing, and conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to monetary matters, such as food and clothing, his stipulation stands, despite being counter to that which is written in the Torah. According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one should be able to stipulate that his firstborn son not receive a double portion, or that one of his sons not inherit from him at all, as inheritance is a monetary matter.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讬讚注讛 讜拽讗 诪讞诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬诇

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there, the woman knew of his stipulation and waived her rights. Therefore, the stipulation stands. Here, the son whose portion was reduced did not waive his portion. Therefore the stipulation is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专讬 讛讜讗 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 拽讗诪专

Rav Yosef says that if a man says: So-and-so is my firstborn son, the son takes a double portion of his inheritance based on this testimony. If he says: So-and-so is a firstborn, the son does not take a double portion, as perhaps the man was saying that the son is his mother鈥檚 firstborn but not his own firstborn.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注转 讚讛讜讛 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讘讜讻专讗 住讻诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讻诇 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 谞诪讬 讘讜讻专讗 住讻诇讗 拽讗专讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabba bar bar 岣na and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabba bar bar 岣na said to him: From where do you know? He answered: Because his father would call him a foolish firstborn. Rabba bar bar 岣na replied: Perhaps he is his mother鈥檚 firstborn, as any firstborn of a mother is also called a foolish firstborn.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讛讜讜 讗转讜 诇讙讘讬 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬 砖讻讞转 讘专讬 讚讘讜讻专讗 讛讜讗 讜诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi 岣nina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi 岣nina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi 岣nina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikh岣t, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 讛讜讗 讙诪讬专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗讘讗 诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗诪讗 诇讗 诪住讬 专讜拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: But perhaps he is his mother鈥檚 firstborn? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that the saliva of a father鈥檚 firstborn heals this ailment but the saliva of a mother鈥檚 firstborn does not heal this ailment.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 砖谞拽专注 讜谞诪爪讗 讝讻专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讘谉 讛讘讻讜专 诇砖谞讬讗讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛

Rabbi Ami says: In the case of one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [tumtum] and whose skin became perforated so that his genitals were exposed and he was found to be a male, he does not take a double portion of his father鈥檚 estate. As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if the firstborn son was [vehaya] hers that was hated鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that he is not considered a firstborn unless he is recognized as a son, i.e., male, from the moment of his coming into being [havaya], i.e., his birth.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 诪砖注转 讛讜讬讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: 鈥淚f there will be [yihyeh] to a man a stubborn and rebellious son鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:18), which is interpreted to mean that one is not judged in this manner unless he is recognized as a son from the moment of his coming into being.

Scroll To Top