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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 29, 2017 | 讚壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 127

There are various halachot that do not apply to a tumtum (one whose genitals are covered up and it is unclear if there are male or female) who is then “opened up” and found to be a male. 聽One cannot be a firstborn if it is doubtful whether or not he is the firstborn.聽 The exact situation that this halacha refers to is discussed. 聽A father is believed to say a particular son is the firstborn but what if there is reason to believe that is not the case (evidence or circumstantial evidence shows otherwise)?

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诇讚讛 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 讘砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Ameimar says: A tumtum who was found to be male also does not reduce the additional portion of the firstborn. His portion is not taken into account in the calculation of the firstborn鈥檚 additional portion. For example, if there are three brothers: A firstborn, an ordinary brother, and a tumtum, the firstborn receives one-third of the property as his additional portion, as he would if he and the ordinary brother were the only heirs, and the remaining two-thirds are divided among all three brothers. This is because it is stated with regard to the portion of the firstborn: 鈥淎nd they have borne him sons鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that the brother of a firstborn does not affect his additional portion unless he is recognized as a son at the moment of his birth.

专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻专 诪砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Rav Sheizevi says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not circumcised on the eighth day, if his eighth day occurs on Shabbat, although the mitzva of circumcision on the eighth day generally overrides Shabbat prohibtions. As the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3), which is interpreted to mean that he is not circumcised on the eighth day, in the event that it occurs on Shabbat, unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.

专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讟诪讗讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻专 诪砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Rav Sherevya says: His mother is also not rendered ritually impure due to his birth, as the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that she is not rendered impure unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讬讘讛 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 砖专讘讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Nidda 28a): A woman who miscarries a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [ve鈥檃ndroginos] observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a male and to a female. Since it is uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must observe the halakhot of ritual impurity according to both possibilities. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sherevya that a woman who gives birth to a tumtum is not rendered impure at all. The Gemara affirms: This is a conclusive refutation.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say it is also a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sheizevi with regard to circumcision, as the halakha of circumsicion is stated together with the halakha of ritual impurity?

转谞讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, and therefore he rules stringently, that she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for both possibilities. Rav Sheizevi鈥檚 ruling can follow the same logic: The infant should not be circumcised on Shabbat, as it is uncertain whether the mitzva of his circumcision overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, that the tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, the mishna should have stated that the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and to a female, and also as a menstruating woman. If it is uncertain whether the halakhot of ritual purity after birth pertain to a woman who gives birth to a tumtum at all, she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for any blood that emerges in the time period following the birth, as it should have the status of the blood of a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 住驻拽

Rava says that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami that a tumtum firstborn does not receive a double portion of the inheritance. The baraita states: From the phrase 鈥渢he firstborn son鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15) it is derived that only a son receives a double portion, but not a tumtum, and only a definite firstborn receives a double portion, but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 住驻拽 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, the halakha that a son receives a double portion but a tumtum does not is understandable, as it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, but what case does the halakha that only a definite firstborn receives a double portion but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn serve to exclude? Why would one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn receive a double portion?

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讚专砖 专讘讗 讚讚专砖 专讘讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讘诪讞讘讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude that which Rava taught, as Rava taught that if two wives of the same husband gave birth to two males in hiding, so that it is unknown which son was born first, and the husband subsequently had other sons, each of the two possible firstborns writes an authorization to the other. Since their brothers can claim against each of them individually that he is not the firstborn and does not deserve a double portion, each writes the other an authorization to collect his portion, so that they can jointly claim the additional portion in any event.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛 诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

Rav Pappa subsequently said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Ravin send a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, stating: I asked all my teachers about this matter and they did not tell me anything; but this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized, i.e., it was known which one of them was the firstborn, and they were ultimately mixed, and now the firstborn cannot be identified, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.

讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛 诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

Rava then established an amora to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my part. But this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately mixed, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗拽专讗 讚讗讙诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 注诇 讗讞专 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛

The residents of Akra De鈥橝gma sent the following inquiry to Shmuel: Teach us, our master: If the court had a presumption concerning this son, that he is a firstborn, and his father says concerning another son of his: He is his firstborn, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in response: Both of these sons write an authorization,

讝讛 诇讝讛

each to the other.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara questions this ruling: Whichever way you look at it, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is difficult. If he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to this issue, he should have sent them a response in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he should have sent them a response in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel鈥檚 response is not in accordance with either tannaitic opinion.

诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: He is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore he sent them a response that incorporates both opinions.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讬专 讬讻讬专谞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara explains: What is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: He shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, a father is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻讱 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讝讛 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

From here, Rabbi Yehuda says that a man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, even if he has sons presumed to be older. And just as a man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a man who is a priest is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a yevama who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza], in which cases he is disqualified from the priesthood due to his flawed lineage [岣lal]. And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讬讻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讬讻讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the reason that it is written: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge;鈥 he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need the term 鈥渉e shall acknowledge鈥?

讘爪专讬讱 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case when he requires identification, i.e., when there is no presumption as to the identity of the firstborn. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion only in a case where another son is presumed to be the firstborn.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讗讞专 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to the Rabbis, with regard to what halakha is it necessary for the verse to teach that a father鈥檚 identification of his firstborn is deemed credible? If it is with regard to giving him a double portion, it is superfluous. Let the son be only like another person, i.e., one who is not an heir; if the father wants to give him a double portion of his estate as a gift, can he not give it to him? Since the father can give a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the halakha that a firstborn receives a double portion.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary with regard to property that came into the father鈥檚 possession afterward, after he testified that his son is his firstborn. He could not have given him this property as a gift, as at the time of his testimony, the property did not yet belong to him, and one cannot transfer ownership of an item that one does not own. Therefore, it is necessary for the verse to teach that the father鈥檚 testimony is deemed credible so that the son can receive a double portion of the father鈥檚 future property as well.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, which would mean that one can give away his property even before it enters his possession, why do I need the term 鈥渉e shall acknowledge鈥?

讘谞讻住讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜住住

The Gemara answers: The term is necessary for a case where property came into the father鈥檚 possession when he was moribund, at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge,鈥 to teach that the son who the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 注诇 讗讞专 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:3): If the court had a presumption concerning a son that he is a firstborn, and his father said concerning another son of his that he is his firstborn, the father鈥檚 statement is deemed credible. If the court had a presumption concerning a son that he is not a firstborn, and his father said that he is his firstborn, the father鈥檚 statement is not deemed credible.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asserts that as the two halakhot of the baraita seem to contradict each other, it must be that the first clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause represents the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讚诪砖诪砖 诇讬 讻注讘讚讗 拽讗诪专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if one says about another: He is my son, and then says: He is my slave, his latter statement is not deemed credible. It cannot disqualify him from marrying a Jewish woman or exclude him from his inheritance. Conversely, if he first says: He is my slave, and then says: He is my son, his latter statement is deemed credible, as in his first statement he presumably was saying: He serves me as a slave does.

讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛 讗讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 注诇 讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

And the opposite halakha applies to one at the tax house: If one is passing the customs house and says about a certain person: He is my son, and then later says: He is my slave, his latter statement is deemed credible, as he presumably says that the other is his son only to evade paying a tax for possessing a slave. Conversely, if he says at the customs house: He is my slave, and then later says: He is my son, his latter statement is not deemed credible, as one would not unnecessarily render himself liable to pay a tax.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖讜 讻讘谉 讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖讜 讻注讘讚 讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one was serving another person like a son serves his father, and the person being served came and said: He is my son, and then said: He is my slave, his latter statement is not deemed credible. Additionally, if one was serving another person like a slave serves his master, and the one being served came and said: He is my slave, and then said: He is my son, his latter statement is not deemed credible. This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that if he first says that he is his slave and then says that he is his son, his latter statement is deemed credible.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛转诐 讚拽讗专讜 诇讬讛 注讘讚讗 诪爪专 诪讗讛 诪讗讬 诪爪专 诪讗讛 诪爪专 注讘讚讗 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There, in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is presumed to be a slave because everyone calls him: A slave on whose border [metzar] are one hundred. Since everyone is referring to him in this manner, the person he served cannot call into question his status as a slave by saying that he is his son. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that on his border [metzar] are one hundred? The Gemara answers: One hundred dinars are adjacent to [metzar] this slave. In other words, he is worth one hundred dinars.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讘讚讬 讙谞讘转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讗爪诇讱 讗转讛 诪讻专转讜 诇讬

Rabbi Abba sent several rulings from Eretz Yisrael to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, including the following: In the case of one who says to another: You stole my slave, and he says in response: I did not steal him, and when the first inquires: If so, what is the nature of his presence in your possession, the latter responds: You sold him to me,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 127

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 127

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 诪诪注讟 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诇讚讛 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘谉 讘砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Ameimar says: A tumtum who was found to be male also does not reduce the additional portion of the firstborn. His portion is not taken into account in the calculation of the firstborn鈥檚 additional portion. For example, if there are three brothers: A firstborn, an ordinary brother, and a tumtum, the firstborn receives one-third of the property as his additional portion, as he would if he and the ordinary brother were the only heirs, and the remaining two-thirds are divided among all three brothers. This is because it is stated with regard to the portion of the firstborn: 鈥淎nd they have borne him sons鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15), which is interpreted to mean that the brother of a firstborn does not affect his additional portion unless he is recognized as a son at the moment of his birth.

专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讬诪讜诇 诇砖诪谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讬诪讜诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻专 诪砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Rav Sheizevi says: A tumtum who was found to be male is also not circumcised on the eighth day, if his eighth day occurs on Shabbat, although the mitzva of circumcision on the eighth day generally overrides Shabbat prohibtions. As the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised鈥 (Leviticus 12:2鈥3), which is interpreted to mean that he is not circumcised on the eighth day, in the event that it occurs on Shabbat, unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.

专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讗讬谉 讗诪讜 讟诪讗讛 诇讬讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讜讟诪讗讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻专 诪砖注转 诇讬讚讛

Rav Sherevya says: His mother is also not rendered ritually impure due to his birth, as the verse states: 鈥淚f a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, then she shall be unclean seven days,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that she is not rendered impure unless he is recognized as a male from the moment of his birth.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讬讘讛 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 砖专讘讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Nidda 28a): A woman who miscarries a tumtum or a hermaphrodite [ve鈥檃ndroginos] observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to a male and to a female. Since it is uncertain whether the fetus is male or female, the woman must observe the halakhot of ritual impurity according to both possibilities. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sherevya that a woman who gives birth to a tumtum is not rendered impure at all. The Gemara affirms: This is a conclusive refutation.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say it is also a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sheizevi with regard to circumcision, as the halakha of circumsicion is stated together with the halakha of ritual impurity?

转谞讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, and therefore he rules stringently, that she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for both possibilities. Rav Sheizevi鈥檚 ruling can follow the same logic: The infant should not be circumcised on Shabbat, as it is uncertain whether the mitzva of his circumcision overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 转砖讘 诇讝讻专 讜诇谞拽讘讛 讜诇谞讚讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, that the tanna of the mishna in tractate Nidda is uncertain whether the birth discussed in the verse includes that of a tumtum, the mishna should have stated that the woman observes the strictures of a woman who gave birth to both a male and to a female, and also as a menstruating woman. If it is uncertain whether the halakhot of ritual purity after birth pertain to a woman who gives birth to a tumtum at all, she should observe the halakhot of ritual impurity for any blood that emerges in the time period following the birth, as it should have the status of the blood of a menstruating woman. The Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 住驻拽

Rava says that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami that a tumtum firstborn does not receive a double portion of the inheritance. The baraita states: From the phrase 鈥渢he firstborn son鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:15) it is derived that only a son receives a double portion, but not a tumtum, and only a definite firstborn receives a double portion, but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn.

讘砖诇诪讗 讘谉 讜诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专 讜诇讗 住驻拽 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, the halakha that a son receives a double portion but a tumtum does not is understandable, as it is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ami, but what case does the halakha that only a definite firstborn receives a double portion but not one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn serve to exclude? Why would one about whom it is uncertain if he is a firstborn receive a double portion?

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讚专砖 专讘讗 讚讚专砖 专讘讗 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讬诇讚讜 砖谞讬 讝讻专讬诐 讘诪讞讘讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude that which Rava taught, as Rava taught that if two wives of the same husband gave birth to two males in hiding, so that it is unknown which son was born first, and the husband subsequently had other sons, each of the two possible firstborns writes an authorization to the other. Since their brothers can claim against each of them individually that he is not the firstborn and does not deserve a double portion, each writes the other an authorization to collect his portion, so that they can jointly claim the additional portion in any event.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 讚讘专 讝讛 砖讗诇转讬 诇讻诇 专讘讜转讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬 讚讘专 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛 诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

Rav Pappa subsequently said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Ravin send a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, stating: I asked all my teachers about this matter and they did not tell me anything; but this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized, i.e., it was known which one of them was the firstborn, and they were ultimately mixed, and now the firstborn cannot be identified, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.

讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛 诇讗 讛讜讻专讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛 讝讛 诇讝讛

Rava then established an amora to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my part. But this is what they said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the two sons were initially recognized and were ultimately mixed, each writes an authorization to the other. If they were not initially recognized, each does not write an authorization to the other.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗拽专讗 讚讗讙诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬诇诪讚谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 注诇 讗讞专 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讛专砖讗讛

The residents of Akra De鈥橝gma sent the following inquiry to Shmuel: Teach us, our master: If the court had a presumption concerning this son, that he is a firstborn, and his father says concerning another son of his: He is his firstborn, what is the halakha? Shmuel sent to them in response: Both of these sons write an authorization,

讝讛 诇讝讛

each to the other.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻专讘谞谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara questions this ruling: Whichever way you look at it, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion is difficult. If he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to this issue, he should have sent them a response in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he should have sent them a response in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel鈥檚 response is not in accordance with either tannaitic opinion.

诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: He is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda or in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore he sent them a response that incorporates both opinions.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讬专 讬讻讬专谞讜 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara explains: What is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? As it is taught in a baraita: Expounding the verse: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Sages said: He shall acknowledge him to others. In other words, a father is deemed credible to tell others that this is his firstborn.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻讱 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讝讛 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

From here, Rabbi Yehuda says that a man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, even if he has sons presumed to be older. And just as a man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a man who is a priest is deemed credible to say about his son: This is a son of a divorced woman, or: This is a son of a yevama who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza], in which cases he is disqualified from the priesthood due to his flawed lineage [岣lal]. And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讬讻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讬讻讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is the reason that it is written: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge;鈥 he derives from these words that a father is deemed credible to attest to the identity of his sons. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need the term 鈥渉e shall acknowledge鈥?

讘爪专讬讱 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for a case when he requires identification, i.e., when there is no presumption as to the identity of the firstborn. In such a situation the verse teaches that the father is deemed credible. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion only in a case where another son is presumed to be the firstborn.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讜 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讗讞专 讗讬诇讜 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘讗 诇讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to the Rabbis, with regard to what halakha is it necessary for the verse to teach that a father鈥檚 identification of his firstborn is deemed credible? If it is with regard to giving him a double portion, it is superfluous. Let the son be only like another person, i.e., one who is not an heir; if the father wants to give him a double portion of his estate as a gift, can he not give it to him? Since the father can give a double portion to the firstborn without having to testify that he is his firstborn, it cannot be that the verse is teaching us that he is deemed credible with regard to the halakha that a firstborn receives a double portion.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘谞讻住讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary with regard to property that came into the father鈥檚 possession afterward, after he testified that his son is his firstborn. He could not have given him this property as a gift, as at the time of his testimony, the property did not yet belong to him, and one cannot transfer ownership of an item that one does not own. Therefore, it is necessary for the verse to teach that the father鈥檚 testimony is deemed credible so that the son can receive a double portion of the father鈥檚 future property as well.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讬讻讬专 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that a person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world, which would mean that one can give away his property even before it enters his possession, why do I need the term 鈥渉e shall acknowledge鈥?

讘谞讻住讬诐 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜住住

The Gemara answers: The term is necessary for a case where property came into the father鈥檚 possession when he was moribund, at which point he cannot transfer ownership of any of his property to others. It is with regard to such property that the verse states: 鈥淗e shall acknowledge,鈥 to teach that the son who the father states is the firstborn will receive a double portion even of that property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 注诇 讗讞专 砖讛讜讗 讘讻讜专 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讜 诪讜讞讝拽讬谉 讘讜 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讻讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:3): If the court had a presumption concerning a son that he is a firstborn, and his father said concerning another son of his that he is his firstborn, the father鈥檚 statement is deemed credible. If the court had a presumption concerning a son that he is not a firstborn, and his father said that he is his firstborn, the father鈥檚 statement is not deemed credible.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asserts that as the two halakhot of the baraita seem to contradict each other, it must be that the first clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and the latter clause represents the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讚诪砖诪砖 诇讬 讻注讘讚讗 拽讗诪专

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if one says about another: He is my son, and then says: He is my slave, his latter statement is not deemed credible. It cannot disqualify him from marrying a Jewish woman or exclude him from his inheritance. Conversely, if he first says: He is my slave, and then says: He is my son, his latter statement is deemed credible, as in his first statement he presumably was saying: He serves me as a slave does.

讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛 讗讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讛讬讛 注讜讘专 注诇 讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

And the opposite halakha applies to one at the tax house: If one is passing the customs house and says about a certain person: He is my son, and then later says: He is my slave, his latter statement is deemed credible, as he presumably says that the other is his son only to evade paying a tax for possessing a slave. Conversely, if he says at the customs house: He is my slave, and then later says: He is my son, his latter statement is not deemed credible, as one would not unnecessarily render himself liable to pay a tax.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖讜 讻讘谉 讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讛讬讛 诪砖诪砖讜 讻注讘讚 讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one was serving another person like a son serves his father, and the person being served came and said: He is my son, and then said: He is my slave, his latter statement is not deemed credible. Additionally, if one was serving another person like a slave serves his master, and the one being served came and said: He is my slave, and then said: He is my son, his latter statement is not deemed credible. This contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that if he first says that he is his slave and then says that he is his son, his latter statement is deemed credible.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛转诐 讚拽讗专讜 诇讬讛 注讘讚讗 诪爪专 诪讗讛 诪讗讬 诪爪专 诪讗讛 诪爪专 注讘讚讗 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There, in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is presumed to be a slave because everyone calls him: A slave on whose border [metzar] are one hundred. Since everyone is referring to him in this manner, the person he served cannot call into question his status as a slave by saying that he is his son. The Gemara asks: What does it mean that on his border [metzar] are one hundred? The Gemara answers: One hundred dinars are adjacent to [metzar] this slave. In other words, he is worth one hundred dinars.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 注讘讚讬 讙谞讘转 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讙谞讘转讬 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讗爪诇讱 讗转讛 诪讻专转讜 诇讬

Rabbi Abba sent several rulings from Eretz Yisrael to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma, including the following: In the case of one who says to another: You stole my slave, and he says in response: I did not steal him, and when the first inquires: If so, what is the nature of his presence in your possession, the latter responds: You sold him to me,

Scroll To Top