Bava Batra 123a (קכג.) — the Talmud in English

And

one might reason and say: Is it not so that

it is an a fortiori inference

that he should take a double portion corresponding to one brother, since one can juxtapose his

portion with that of one, [

for example, if he had only one brother],

with his portion with that of five.

Just as, when his portion is with that of one,

the firstborn takes

a double portion corresponding to one, so too, when his portion is with that of five, he takes a double portion corresponding to one.

Alternatively, you may follow this line of reasoning,

and reason in the opposite direction: Perhaps one should juxtapose

his portion with that of one and his portion with that of five: Just as, when his portion is with that of one,

the firstborn takes

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

he takes

a double portion of all the property.

And since the matter cannot be decided by reasoning alone, we must derive it from the verses.

The verse states, (Deuteronomy 21:16)

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

and this is a superfluous phrase , and it comes to teach us that

the Torah increased the inheritance with regard to brothers.

This means that he does not take a double portion of all the property, but only a double portion corresponding to one of the brothers.

This

teaches

that you should not reason in accordance with the latter formulation, [

that he should take a double portion of all the property],

but in accordance with the former formulation.

And the baraita 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 defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel, and he was not reckoned as firstborn.”

That is, to say that he was the firstborn rather than 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.”

The Gemara will explain below what new teaching is conveyed by each verse cited in this baraita.

And it says (there, verse 2)

“For Judah prevailed over his brothers, and a ruler came from him, but the birthright was Joseph’s.”

The baraita analyzes this:

Birthright is stated with regard to Joseph, and birthright is stated with regard to future generations,

“that he shall have the judgment of the birthright.”

Just as the birthright mentioned

with regard

to Joseph,

he took

a double portion

only

corresponding to one

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

so too, the birthright mentioned with regard to future generations,

the firstborn takes

a double portion corresponding to one.

The baraita 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 bow? Is it not already stated: “For I do not trust in my bow, and my sword cannot save me”?

Rather, “my sword”—this is prayer ,

“my bow”—this is supplication .

This concludes the baraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is the purpose of the phrase “And it says”?

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

The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita was saying:

And

if you should say,

perhaps you will say:

This

verse

comes only for the teaching of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 that he causes his sons to inherit” does not come to teach us that the Torah increased the inheritance with regard to brothers, as above, but rather to teach the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka [cited below, that a father may cause his property to be inherited by whichever of his sons he wishes]. Therefore, the baraita cites an additional verse from the Prophets and derives from it that the firstborn takes the birthright portion only corresponding to one of the brothers .

The Gemara continues to explain why the verse cited in the baraita afterward was brought: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, and a ruler came from him, but the birthright was Joseph’s.”

And if you should say,

the law of the

birthright, from

the word

“his birthright,” cannot be derived.

Therefore,

come and hear: “But the birthright was Joseph’s.”

And we derive by means of a binyan av “birthright” from “his birthright.”

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

And if you should say: As for Joseph himself, from where do we know that it was a double portion corresponding to 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.”

It follows that he took only a portion corresponding to one of the brothers.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

How do we know that “one portion” means an additional portion corresponding to one of the brothers?

Say that it means merely a palm tree [

perhaps he gave 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,”

so it follows that he took the portion of two tribes.

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

The Gemara objects:

What did he see?!

Was it not so that

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

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

Rather,

this is what we find difficult:

What did he see that he gave it to Joseph

rather than to his other brothers?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him:

I shall give you a parable: To what is this comparable? To a householder who raised an orphan in his home. 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 supported and sustained him in Egypt. Therefore, he gave him the birthright that he had taken from Reuben .

He said to him: And if Reuben had not sinned, Joseph would have gained nothing whatsoever ?!

That is, what did Jacob give Joseph? Was not Reuben’s birthright taken from the portion of the other brothers and added to Joseph’s portion, whereas Jacob gave him nothing of his own?

Rather, certainly, in addition to Reuben’s birthright, he also gave him additional gifts, both from his own property and special blessings with which he blessed him.

If so, there is another reason why he gave Joseph the birthright.

Rather, your teacher Rabbi Yonatan did not say so!

Rather, he said as follows:

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

and through the prayer described below; 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 meant by “Leah preceded her through mercy”?

As it is written: “And Leah’s eyes were tender.”

What is meant by “tender”?

If you say that they were literally tender,

that is, dripping with tears.

And is it

possible

to say so?! Even

with regard to the disgrace of an impure animal, Scripture did not speak explicitly, as it is written: “From the pure animal and from the animal that is not pure,”

for Scripture added eight letters rather than say “from the impure animal” ;

would Scripture speak of the disgrace of the righteous?!

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: Her gifts were extensive [

that is, substantial], for she merited priesthood, Levite descent, and kingship.

Rav said: Actually, they were literally tender. And this was not a disgrace for her; rather, it was praise of her,

because

she would hear people at the crossroads saying: Rebecca has two sons, and Laban has two daughters; the elder daughter is destined for the elder son, and the younger daughter for the younger son,

and she would sit at the crossroads and ask: “What are the deeds of the elder one?”

And they would answer her:

“He is an evil man who robs people.”

And she would continue asking:

“What are the deeds of the younger one?”

And they would answer her:

“He is a wholesome man who dwells in tents.”

And she would cry until the eyelashes of her eyes fell out.

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

What is meant by “hated”?

If you say that she was literally hated,

is it possible that, while Scripture did not speak of the disgrace of an impure animal, it would speak of the disgrace of the righteous?

Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the deeds of Esau were hateful to her, and He opened her womb.

Therefore she merited taking the birthright first, since she preceded Rachel in prayer.

And what modesty did Rachel possess?

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Was he not

Jacob’s father’s brother, Laban, but rather

the son of his 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 prevail over him.”

He said to her: “What is his deception?”

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

He will not agree to marry me before her].

He said to her: “I am his brother in deception.”

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

She said to him: “But are the righteous permitted to employ

deception?”

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 her

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 to herself: “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 then she was not Leah?

Rather, because of the signs that Jacob had given Rachel, and that she gave to Leah, he did not recognize her until that moment.

In connection with the Gemara’s earlier discussion, which explains the verses concerning Jacob and his sons, the following statement was brought:

Abba Ḥalifa Kroyya asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba:

The Torah states: “And all the persons who came with Jacob to Egypt were seventy persons.”

In their total you find,

that it is stated that their number altogether was

seventy

persons, whereas

when counted individually [

when they are enumerated one by one]

you find sixty-nine.

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

The word “and” is an amplification, teaching that an additional twin was born there].

If so,

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

a twin was born with Benjamin,