Bava Batra 123a — the Talmud in English

And

it is possible to reason and say: Is it not so that

it is a logical judgment

that he should take a double portion as one? For there is a basis for comparison

between his portion with one

[as, for example, he had only one brother],

and his portion with five.

Just as, when his portion is with one,

the firstborn takes

a double portion as one, so too, when his portion is with five, a double portion as one.

Or go by this way,

and reason in the opposite direction: perhaps there is a basis for comparison:

his portion with one and his portion with five—just as his portion with one

the firstborn takes

a double portion in all the property, so too, when his portion is with five

he will take

a double portion in all the property.

And since by reasoning it is impossible to decide this doubt, we must derive this from the verses.

The verse therefore says, (

Deuteronomy 21:16)

“And it shall be on the day when he causes his sons to inherit,”

and it is a superfluous verse, and it comes to teach us that

the Torah enlarged the inheritance with regard to brothers.

That is to say, he does not take a double portion in all the property, but only a double portion as one of the brothers.

Here

you have learned that

you should not reason according to the latter formulation,

[above, that he should take a double portion in all the property],

but according to the first formulation.

And the beraita continues:

And it says (

I Chronicles 5:1)

“And the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel—for he was

the firstborn, but when he profaned his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel, and not to be reckoned according to the birthright.”

[That is, to say that he was the firstborn and not Reuben], but only to say that he should take a double portion. As it is written: “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon.”

Further below it will be explained what was newly taught by each verse brought in this beraita.

And it says (

ibid., verse 2)

“For Judah was mighty among his brothers, and a ruler came from him, but the birthright belonged to Joseph.”

And the beraita infers:

“Birthright” was stated with regard to Joseph, and “birthright” was stated with regard to the generations, “

the right of the birthright belongs to him.”

Just as the birthright that is stated

with regard

to Joseph

he took

a double portion

only

as one

of the brothers [for Ephraim and Manasseh each took only one portion, and they did not take a portion corresponding to all the brothers],

so too, the birthright that is stated with regard to the generations,

a firstborn takes

a double portion as one.

The beraita continues:

And it says (

Genesis 48:22)

“And I have given you one portion above your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow,”

but did he take it with his sword and with his bow? Yet it has already been said, “For I did not trust in my bow, and my sword did not save me”?

Rather, “my sword”—this is prayer

“my bow”—this is supplication

This is the end of the beraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “And it says”?

Why did we need additional verses from the words of the Prophets in order to derive that the firstborn does not take a double portion in all the property?

And the Gemara answers that this is what the beraita said:

And

if you should say,

perhaps you will say,

this

verse

, it came for the purpose of [teaching] Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka,

therefore

come and hear: “And the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel.”

That is, perhaps you will say that “And it shall be on the day when he causes his sons to inherit” did not come to teach us that “the Torah enlarged the inheritance with regard to brothers,” as above, but to teach us the law of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka [brought below, that the father may cause his property to be inherited by whichever of his sons he wishes]. Therefore, the beraita brought an additional verse from the words of the Prophets, and derives from it that the firstborn takes the birthright portion only as one of the brothers .

And the Gemara continues to explain why the verse in the beraita that follows was brought: “For Judah was mighty among his brothers, and a ruler came from him, but the birthright belonged to Joseph.”

And if you should say,

the law of

the birthright, from

the word

“his birthright,” we do not derive.

Therefore,

come and hear: “And the birthright belonged to Joseph.”

And we learned by an av: “birthright” from “his birthright.”

And the verse that follows, “And I have given you one portion above your brothers,” must be brought, because:

And if you should say, Joseph himself—from where [do we know] that it was a double portion as one?

Perhaps he took a portion corresponding to all of them?

Therefore

come and hear: “And I have given you one portion above your brothers.”

Behold, he took only as one of the brothers.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

From where do we know that “one portion” means an additional portion as one of the brothers,

perhaps it means merely a date-palm

[perhaps he added to him only a small amount of land]?

He said to him: The verse says concerning you, “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon,”

behold, he took like two tribes.

Rabbi Helbo asked Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani: What did Jacob see that he took the birthright from Reuben and gave it to Joseph?

And the Gemara asks:

What did he see?!

For is it not so that

“when he profaned his father’s couch” is written!

And as punishment for this Jacob took the birthright from him!

Rather,

this is what is difficult for us:

What did he see that he gave it to Joseph

specifically more than to his other brothers?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said to him:

I will give you a parable: To what is this comparable? To a householder who raised an orphan in his house. In time, that orphan became wealthy and said, “I will benefit the householder from my property.”

So too, Jacob wished to benefit Joseph from his property, in return for the fact that Joseph sustained and provided for him in Egypt. Therefore, he gave him the birthright that he had received from Reuben .

He said to him: And if not for Reuben’s sin, Joseph would have derived no benefit and nothing at all ?!

That is to say: What did Jacob give Joseph? Was not Reuben’s birthright from the portion of the other brothers, which he added to him, whereas he gave him nothing of his own?

Rather, certainly, besides Reuben’s birthright he also gave him additional gifts, both of his property and special blessings with which he blessed him.

If so, there is another reason for the fact that he gave Joseph the birthright.

Rather, Rabbi Yonatan your teacher did not say so!

Rather, he said as follows:

The birthright was fit to emerge from Rachel, as it is written, “These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph.” But Leah preceded her through mercy,

and through prayer as follows, and therefore she merited the birthright.

And because of the modesty that Rachel possessed

[as will be explained below]

the Holy One, blessed be He, returned it to her.

What is “Leah preceded her through mercy”?

For it is written, “And Leah’s eyes were tender.”

What is “tender”?

If you say actually tender,

that is, shedding tears.

But

is it possible

to say so?! Yet even

with regard to the disgrace of an impure animal the verse did not speak, as it is written, “of the pure animal and of the animal that is not pure,”

for the verse added eight letters so as not to say, “of the impure animal” ,

and with regard to the disgrace of righteous women the verse would speak?!

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: Her gifts were long

[that is, great], for she merited priesthood, the Leviteship, and kingship.

Rav said: Actually, [her eyes were] tender. And it is not a disgrace for her; rather, it is praise for her,

because

she would hear at the crossroads people saying: Rebecca has two sons, Laban has two daughters; the older one to the older one, and the younger one to the younger one,

and she would sit at the crossroads and ask: “The older one—what are his deeds?”

And they would answer her:

“He is an evil man, robbing people.”

And she would continue and ask:

“The younger one—what are his deeds?”

And they would answer her:

“He is a wholehearted man, dwelling in tents.”

And she would weep until the lashes of her eyes fell out.

And this is what is written: “And the Lord saw that Leah was hated.”

What is “hated”?

If you say actually hated,

is it possible that with regard to the disgrace of an impure animal the verse did not speak, but with regard to the disgrace of righteous women the verse would speak?

Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the deeds of Esau were hated in her eyes, and He opened her womb.

And therefore she merited taking the birthright first, since she preceded Rachel through prayer.

And what modesty did Rachel possess?

For it is written, “And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother and that he was Rebecca’s son.”

And the Gemara raises the difficulty:

Yet

Jacob was not the brother of her father, Laban, but

the son of her father’s sister ?

Rather,

this is how he spoke with her:

He said to her, “Will you marry me?”

She said to him, “Yes. However, my father is a deceiver, and you will not be able to overcome him.”

He said to her, “What is his deceit?”

She said to him, “I have an older sister, and he will not marry me off before her.”

[He will not agree to marry me before her].

He said to her, “I am his brother in deceit.”

And this is what he said to her: “For he is her father’s brother.”

She said to him: “Is it permitted for righteous people to act

deceitfully?”

He said to her:

“Yes.”

For it is stated (II Samuel 22:27):

“With the pure you show yourself pure, and with the crooked you show yourself cunning” .

Jacob gave

to Rachel

signs

that she would tell him at night when she lay with him,

but when they brought Leah in, she thought: “Now my sister will be humiliated.” She gave them to her.

[When they brought Leah to the wedding canopy in her place, Rachel said in her heart, “Now my sister will be ashamed,” and she gave her the signs so that she would not be ashamed].

And this is what is written: “And it came to pass in the morning, and behold, she was Leah.” By implication, until now she was not Leah?

Rather, because of the signs that Jacob gave Rachel, and she gave them to Leah, he did not know her until that time.

Incidentally to the Gemara’s discussion above, which explains the verses of the portion concerning Jacob and his sons, the following statement was brought:

Abba Halifa Kerya asked Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

It is written in the Torah: “And all the souls who came with Jacob to Egypt were seventy souls.”

In their total you find,

it is stated that their number altogether was

seventy

souls, whereas

in their particulars

[when he counts them one by one]

you find seventy less one.

He said to him: A twin sister was born with Dinah, as it is written, “And Dinah his daughter.”

[The word “and” is an inclusion, and teaches that another twin was born there].

From now on,

if “and” comes to include a twin sister, should we also say that

a twin sister was born with Benjamin,