Bava Batra 126

ומלוה שעמו פלגי

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.

אמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי בכור שמיחה מיחה

§ 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.

אמר רבה מסתבר טעמיה דרב אסי בענבים ובצרום זיתים ומסקום אבל דרכום לא ורב יוסף אמר אפילו דרכום

Rabba said: Rav Asi’s 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.

דרכום מעיקרא עינבי השתא חמרא

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.

כדאמר רב עוקבא בר חמא ליתן לו דמי היזק ענביו הכא נמי נותן לו דמי היזק ענביו

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 Ḥama 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.

היכא איתמר דרב עוקבא בר חמא אהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בכור ופשוט שהניח להן אביהן ענבים ובצרום זיתים ומסקום בכור נוטל פי שנים אפילו דרכום דרכום מעיקרא עינבי השתא חמרא אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא ליתן לו דמי היזק ענביו:

The Gemara explains: Where, i.e., in what context, was the statement of Rav Ukva bar Ḥama 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 Ḥama 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.

אמר רב אסי בכור שנטל חלק כפשוט ויתר מאי ויתר רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר באותה שדה רב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר בכל הנכסים כולן

§ 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.

רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר באותה שדה קא סבר אין לו לבכור קודם חלוקה ומה דאתא לידיה אחיל אידך לא אחיל

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.

ורב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר בכל הנכסים כולן קא סבר יש לו לבכור קודם חלוקה ומדאחיל בהא אחיל בכולהו

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.

והא דרב פפי ורב פפא לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דההוא בכור דאזיל זבין נכסי דידיה ודפשוט אזול יתמי בני פשוט למיכל תמרי מהנהו לקוחות מחונהו אמרי להו קרובים לא מיסתייא דזבנתינהו לנכסייהו אלא מימחא נמי מחיתו להו אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו לא עשה ולא כלום

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’s 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’s 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.

מר סבר לא עשה כלום בפלגא ומר סבר בכולהו

Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa disagree with regard to Rava’s intention. One Sage, Rav Pappi, holds that he has done nothing with regard to his brother’s 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.

שלחו מתם בכור שמכר קודם חלוקה לא עשה כלום אלמא אין לו לבכור קודם חלוקה והלכתא יש לבכור קודם חלוקה

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.

מר זוטרא מדרישבא פלג בצנא דפלפלי בהדי אחין בשוה אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה הואיל ויתרתה במקצת ויתרתה בכל הנכסים כולן:

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.

מתני׳ האומר איש פלוני בני בכור לא יטול פי שנים איש פלוני בני לא יירש עם אחיו לא אמר כלום שהתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה

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.

המחלק נכסיו על פיו ריבה לאחד ומיעט לאחד והשוה להן את הבכור דבריו קיימין ואם אמר משום ירושה לא אמר כלום כתב בין בתחלה בין באמצע בין בסוף משום מתנה דבריו קיימין:

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.

גמ׳ לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דאי רבי יהודה האמר בדבר של ממון תנאו קיים

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’t he say elsewhere that if one stipulates counter to that which is written in the Torah with regard to monetary matters, his stipulation stands?

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בדבר של ממון תנאו קיים

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.

אפילו תימא רבי יהודה התם ידעה וקא מחלה הכא לא קא מחיל

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.

אמר רב יוסף אמר איש פלוני בני בכורי הוא נוטל פי שנים איש פלוני בכור הוא אינו נוטל פי שנים דלמא בוכרא דאמא קאמר

§ 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’s firstborn but not his own firstborn.

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא בכור אמר ליה מנא ידעת דהוה קרי ליה אבוה בוכרא סכלא דלמא בוכרא דאמא הוא דכל בוכרא דאמא נמי בוכרא סכלא קארו ליה

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

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חנינא אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא בכור אמר ליה מנא ידעת אמר ליה דכי הוו אתו לגבי אבוה אמר להו זילו לגבי שכחת ברי דבוכרא הוא ומסי רוקיה

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi Ḥanina: 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 Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment.

ודלמא בוכרא דאמא הוא גמירי בוכרא דאבא מסי רוקיה בוכרא דאמא לא מסי רוקיה

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

אמר רבי אמי טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר אינו נוטל פי שנים דאמר קרא והיה הבן הבכור לשניאה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה

§ 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’s estate. As the verse states: “And if the firstborn son was [vehaya] hers that was hated” (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.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אף אינו נידון כבן סורר ומורה דאמר קרא כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה עד שיהא בן משעת הויה

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as the verse states: “If there will be [yihyeh] to a man a stubborn and rebellious son” (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.