Bava Batra 124
אַף מוּחְכֶּרֶת וּמוּשְׂכֶּרֶת – שְׁבָחָא דְּמִמֵּילָא קָא אָתֵי, דְּלָא חָסְרִי בַּהּ מְזוֹנֵי.
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.
מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יְתוֹמִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן.
§ 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’ 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’s death, e.g., the birth of a calf, but not of the enhancement that the orphans caused after their father’s death.
יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹתֵן פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נוֹתֵן, וְאֵינִי נוֹטֵל״ – רַשַּׁאי.
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’s 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.
מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – ״מַתָּנָה״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא; מָה מַתָּנָה – עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִידֵיהּ, אַף חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה – עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִידֵיהּ.
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: “Giving him a double portion” (Deuteronomy 21:17); by employing the term “giving” 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.
וְרַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פִּי שְׁנַיִם״ – מַקִּישׁ חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה לְחֵלֶק פָּשׁוּט; מָה חֵלֶק פָּשׁוּט – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ, אַף חֵלֶק בְּכוֹרָה – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מְטָא לִידֵיהּ.
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: “A double portion” (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’s possession before he died, so too, the portion of the firstborn is inherited even from property that did not reach the father’s possession before he died.
וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״פִּי שְׁנַיִם״! הָהוּא לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ אַחַד מִצְרָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis as well, isn’t the phrase “a double portion” 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.
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״לָתֶת לוֹ״! הַהוּא שֶׁאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נוֹטֵל וְאֵינִי נוֹתֵן״ – רַשַּׁאי.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well, isn’t the phrase “giving him” 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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּיקְלָא וַאֲלֵים, אַרְעָא וְאַסֵּיק שִׂירְטוֹן – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּשָׁקֵיל. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בַּחֲפוּרָה וַהֲוָה שׁוּבְלֵי, שְׁלוּפְפֵי וַהֲווֹ תַּמְרֵי; דְּמָר סָבַר: שְׁבָחָא דְּמִמֵּילָא, וּמָר סָבַר: אִישְׁתַּנִּי.
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’s 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 [baḥafura], 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’s possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion of it.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר חָנָא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: עָשָׂה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי – עָשָׂה. כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים – עָשָׂה.
§ Rabba bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירָיו; אוֹ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲבֵירָיו.
The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי. קָא סָבַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירָיו.
Rav Naḥman 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.
וְרַב נַחְמָן דִּידֵיהּ אָמַר: מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי. קָא סָבַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מֵחֲבֵירָיו.
And Rav Naḥman 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.
אָמַר רָבָא: אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, וְאִם עָשָׂה – עָשׂוּי. קָא סָבַר: מַטִּין אִיתְּמַר.
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.
תָּנֵי רַב נַחְמָן בִּשְׁאָר סִפְרֵי דְּבֵי רַב: ״בְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״ – פְּרָט לְשֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יוֹרְשִׁין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. אֲבָל שֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן – שָׁקֵיל. וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא.
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 Naḥman 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: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), excludes the enhancement that the heirs brought about after their father’s 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’s death, he does take a double portion. The Gemara comments: And whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
תָּנֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא בִּשְׁאָר סִפְרֵי דְּבֵי רַב: ״בְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר יִמָּצֵא לוֹ״ – פְּרָט לְשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יוֹרְשִׁין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן – דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל. וּמַנִּי – רַבָּנַן הִיא.
Rami bar Ḥama taught a different version of the baraita from the other books of the school of Rav: “Of all that he has” excludes the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father’s 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’s 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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה. לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא שְׁבָחָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא שָׁקֵיל; מִלְוָה מִבַּעְיָא?!
§ 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’s possession at the time of his death; it is merely due to him.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי.
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.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בֵּין בַּמִּלְוָה בֵּין בָּרִבִּית. מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי וְלָא רַבָּנַן!
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.
לְעוֹלָם לְרַבָּנַן, וְאִצְטְרִיךְ – סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: מִלְוָה – כֵּיוָן דְּנָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא, כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel’s 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’s 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’s possession, and the firstborn is not entitled to a double portion.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה, אֲבָל לֹא בָּרִבִּית.
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.
לְמַאן? אִילֵּימָא לְרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא שְׁבָחָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ – אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּלָא שָׁקֵיל; מִלְוָה מִבַּעְיָא?!
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’s 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.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי. וּלְרַבִּי, בָּרִבִּית לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בֵּין בַּמִּלְוָה בֵּין בָּרִבִּית!
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’t 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?
לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן הִיא, וּמִלְוָה כְּמַאן דְּגַבְיָא דָּמְיָא.
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’s possession. By contrast, the interest on the loan is not considered as though it is already in the creditor’s possession, and therefore the firstborn does not receive a double portion of its payment.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: אִיקְּלַע אַמֵּימָר לְאַתְרִין, וְדָרֵישׁ: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּמִּלְוָה, אֲבָל לֹא בָּרִבִּית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְהַרְדָּעֵי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ –
Rav Aḥa 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’a conform to their standard line of reasoning. Ameimar followed the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who was one of the Sages of Naharde’a, as was Ameimar.
דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – אֵין לוֹ. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – יֵשׁ לוֹ, גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – אֵין לוֹ.
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 Naḥman says that if they collected money, he has a double portion, but if they collected land, he does not have a double portion.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא, לְרַב נַחְמָן קַשְׁיָא. לְדִידָךְ קַשְׁיָא,
Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman it is also difficult. According to your opinion it is difficult
