Bava Batra 123b (קכג:) — the Talmud in English

As it is written

“And Benjamin, his brother, the son of his mother”?

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Abba H alifa,

“I had a precious pearl in my possession, and you seek to cause me to lose it?!”

That is to say: I have regarding this question a precious insight, like a pearl, which I would not want to reveal; therefore, at first I dismissed you with a trivial response.

This is what Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said:

The one who completed the number of seventy

was Jochebed, who was conceived on the way and born between the walls.

As it is stated: “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt.” Her birth was in Egypt,

but she was not conceived in Egypt.

Therefore, Scripture did not enumerate her, since she had not yet emerged into the air of the world, but was still in her mother’s womb.

Rav Helbo asked Rav Shemuel bar Nahmani: It is written, (

Genesis 30:25)

“And it was when Rachel had given birth to Joseph

and Jacob said to Laban: Send me, that I may go to my place and to my land

,” etc.’’

An explanation is required:

Why specifically when Joseph was born?

Why did Jacob decide to return to the Land of Israel specifically when Joseph was born?

He said to him: Our forefather Jacob saw that the descendants of Esau would be delivered only into the hands of the descendants of Joseph,

as it is stated: “And the house of Jacob shall be fire, and the house of Joseph flame, and the house of Esau straw,” etc.

He raised an objection:

But it is written in the Book of Samuel (I 30), concerning the war against Amalek, when they raided Ziklag and carried off David’s wives,

“And David struck them from twilight until the evening of the next day.”

Amalek was a descendant of Esau, as he was the son of Eliphaz, and he was delivered into the hands of David, who was from the tribe of Judah. Why, then, do we say that he is delivered only into the hands of the descendants of Joseph?

He said to him: The one who taught you Prophets did not teach you Writings

[The one who taught you Prophets did not teach you Writings].

As it is written (

I Chronicles 12:21),

“When he went to Ziklag, there fell to him from Manasseh Adnah

(It should read: “Adnach

) and Jozabad, and Jediael, and Michael, and Jozabad, and Elihu, and Zillethai, commanders of the thousands who were from Manasseh.”

Thus, since there were among his men descendants of Joseph, Amalek was delivered into his hands.

Rav Yosef raised an objection:

Is it not written (

I Chronicles 4:42), “And some of them, from the descendants of Simeon, five hundred men went to Mount Seir, with Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, at their head, and they struck the remnant of the survivors of Amalek, and they dwelt there until this day”

Amalek was therefore delivered into their hands, even though they were not descendants of Joseph?

Rabba bar Sheila said: Ishi was descended from Manasseh. As it is written: “And the sons of Manasseh: Hepher and Ishi.”

Therefore, Amalek was delivered into their hands.

The Gemara will explain below with regard to which assets the firstborn receives a double portion. The Torah states,

“For he acknowledges the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him a double portion of all that is found with him,”

and we derive from the fact that it is written

“is found with him”

that the firstborn receives a double portion only of something that is in the father’s possession at the time of his death. However, with regard to something that is destined to come into the father’s possession after his death, he does not receive a double portion.

It will be explained before us which assets are considered “destined to come into one’s possession,” and which are considered “in one’s possession.”

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

The firstborn receives a double portion of the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, and of consecrated animals,

if his father was a kohen . This will be explained below.

And

he likewise receives a double portion

of the increase in value by which the assets increased

on their own

after the death of their father .

How

[In what type of increase does he receive a double portion]?

If

their father left them

a cow leased

[that is, he gave it to another person to work with it, with that person receiving half the profit],

[that is, he gave it to another person to work with it, with half the profit going to him], or rented

[for a fixed sum for a specified period],

to others,

and it was not in the father’s possession at the time of his death, the firstborn receives a double portion of the cow’s rental or leasing fee .

Or

in the case

that it was grazing in the pasture

[in a field where its food was available]

and gave birth,

even though it gave birth after the father’s death,

the firstborn receives a double portion

of the offspring. Since this is an increase that occurred automatically, it is considered as though the father had possessed that increase during his lifetime .

But

if the orphans

built houses and planted vineyards

with the assets that their father had bequeathed to them, and afterward they came to divide them,

the

firstborn

does not receive a double portion

of the increase by which the orphans improved the assets. This concludes the beraita.

And we raised a discussion concerning it:

This “foreleg, cheeks, and maw”—what are the circumstances?

If they came into their father’s possession

during his lifetime,

it is obvious

that the firstborn receives a double portion, like the rest of the father’s assets.

And if they did not come into their father’s possession,

then

they are prospective assets, and the firstborn does not receive

a double portion

of prospective assets as he does of assets in one’s possession ?

This is not comparable to an increase by which the assets increased after their father’s death. There, the father possessed the substance of the assets during his lifetime, and since they increased on their own, the father is considered to have possessed even the increase.

But with regard to the priestly gifts, the father acquired nothing during his lifetime, and they have the status of prospective assets?

The Gemara answers:

Here we are dealing with those accustomed to give priestly gifts to a particular kohen

[that is, the people of the city are relatives and acquaintances of this kohen, and they confer full ownership of the gifts from their animals upon him as soon as the animals are slaughtered, before the gifts are separated from the animal]

[that is, the townspeople are relatives and acquaintances of this kohen, and they effect a complete acquisition for him of the gifts from their animals as soon as the animals are slaughtered, before the gifts are separated from the animal] we are dealing ,

and

the case concerns an animal

that was slaughtered during his father’s lifetime,

and he holds that “unseparated gifts are considered as though they were separated.”

Even though the gifts had not yet actually been separated, they are considered as though they had come into his possession, and he acquired them. Therefore, his firstborn son receives a double portion of those gifts.

We learned further in the beraita that the firstborn receives a double portion of

consecrated animals

[such as lesser sanctified offerings, which are eaten by their owners] that were slaughtered during his father’s lifetime.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does he receive a double portion?

Are they not his?

Although the owners have the right to eat from the offerings, nevertheless the meat is not considered their property ; rather, “they acquire it from the table of the Most High.”

The Gemara answers: The case is

with lesser sanctified offerings

during the animal’s lifetime ,

and it is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that they are the owners’ property

in every respect, even for the purpose of betrothing a woman with them. Therefore, the firstborn receives a double portion of them.

And where are the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili stated?

As it is taught in a beraita:

In the Torah it is stated (Leviticus 5:21): “If a person sins

and commits a treacherous act against the Lord

and denies his fellow’s claim concerning a deposit, a loan, or robbery”: From here we learn that one who claims money from another, and the latter denies the claim and swears falsely, is obligated to bring a guilt-offering for robbery.

And we derive from that which is written, “and commits a treacherous act against the Lord,”

to include

one who denies owing his fellow

light sanctified property,

who likewise brings a guilt-offering for robbery, because

it is the property of its owners. These are the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

We also learned in the beraita cited above:

“If their father left them a cow that was leased or rented out and was in the possession of others, or that was grazing in the pasture and gave birth, the firstborn takes a double share in it

as the verse states.”

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Now, if a cow that was leased or rented out, which does not stand in the domain of its owner [

meaning that it is not in the father’s possession],

you say that he takes [

meaning that he takes a double share in it],

is it necessary to state this with regard to one grazing in the pasture?!

It is obvious that he takes a double share in it, since his father had possession of it?

The Gemara answers:

This teaches us that in the case of a cow that was leased or rented out,

the firstborn takes a double share in it only when it is leased

in a manner analogous to one grazing in the pasture.

That is to say:

Just as one grazing in the pasture

takes a double share, since

its growth comes about on its own,

and not as a result of the orphans’ efforts, since

they do not incur any expense for its food, [

they did not spend anything on its sustenance; rather, it fed itself in the field].