Bava Batra 123b — the Talmud in English

For it is written ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Abba Halifa,

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

That is to say, I have in this question a precious insight like a pearl, which I would not want to reveal; therefore, at first I put you off with straw.

This is what Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said:

the one who completed the number of seventy

was Jochebed, whose conception was on the way and whose birth was between the walls.

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

but her conception was not in Egypt.

And therefore Scripture did not specify her, since she had not yet emerged into the air of the world, but was in her mother’s womb.

Rav Helbo asked Rav Shmuel bar Nahmani: It is written,

(Genesis 30:25)

“And it was when Rachel had borne Joseph

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

” and so forth.

An explanation is needed:

What is different when Joseph was born?

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

He said to him: Our father Jacob saw that the seed of Esau would be delivered only into the hand of the seed of Joseph ,

as it is stated, “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for straw,” and so forth.

He raised an objection to him:

Is it not written in the Book of Samuel (I 30) concerning the war against Amalek, when they raided Ziklag and took away David’s wives,

“And David smote them from the twilight until the evening of the next day”?

Amalek was of the seed of Esau, for he was the son of Eliphaz, and he was delivered into the hand of David, who was of the tribe of Judah. Why, then, do we say that he is delivered only into the hand of the seed 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]).

For it is written

(I Chronicles 12:21),

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

(it should read “Adnah”)

and Jozabad and Jediael and Michael and Jozabad and Elihu and Zilthai, chiefs of the thousands who were of Manasseh.”

And if so, since there were with him men from the sons of Joseph, Amalek was delivered into his hand.

Rav Yosef objected:

Is it not written (I Chronicles 4:42),

“And some of them, from the sons of Simeon, went to Mount Seir—five hundred men—and Pelatiah and Neariah and Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, at their head; and they smote the remnant of the survivors of Amalek, and they dwelt there until this day”?

Amalek was thus delivered into their hand, even though they were not of the sons of Joseph?

Rabba bar Shila said: Ishi came from the sons of Manasseh. For it is written, “And the sons of Manasseh: Hepher and Ishi.”

And therefore Amalek was delivered into their hand.

The Gemara below will explain with respect to which property the firstborn takes a double portion. It is stated in the Torah,

“For he shall recognize 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 what is written

“is found with him,”

that the firstborn takes a double portion only of something that is in the father’s possession at the time of death. But with regard to something fit to come into the father’s possession after death, he does not take a double portion.

It will be explained before us which property is considered “fit to come into possession,” and which is “held.”

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

The firstborn takes a double portion in the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, and in consecrated property,

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

And

he likewise takes a double portion

in the increase by which the property increased

on its own

after the death of their father .

How

([in which increase does he take a double portion]?)

If

their father left them

a cow leased on shares

([that is, he gave it to another to work with it, and that person would give him half the profit]),

or rented out

([for a fixed sum for a specified period]),

in the possession of others,

and it was not in the father’s possession at the time of death, the firstborn takes a double portion of the cow’s rental payment .

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 takes a double portion

in the offspring. Since this is an increase that occurs on its own, it is considered as though the father had held that increase during his lifetime .

But if the orphans

built houses and planted vineyards

with the property that their father bequeathed to them, and afterward they came to divide it,

the

firstborn does not take a double portion

in the increase by which the orphans increased the property. This concludes the beraita.

And we raised a difficulty 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 will take a double portion, like the rest of the father’s property.

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

surely

it is property fit to come into possession, and the firstborn does not take

a double portion

in property fit to come into possession as in held property ?

This is not comparable to the increase by which the property increased after their father’s death. There, the father held the substance of the property during his lifetime, and since it increased on its own, the father is considered to have held even the increase. But with regard to the priestly gifts, the father acquired nothing at all during his lifetime, and it is property fit to come into possession?

of an asset merely destined to come into the estate, as he does of an asset already in the estate ?

The Gemara answers:

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

([that is, the people of the city, his relatives and acquaintances, grant him a complete acquisition of the gifts from their animals immediately upon slaughter, before they are separated from the animal])

and

it is dealing with an animal that was slaughtered during the lifetime of his father,

and he holds that “gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated .”

And even though the gifts had not yet actually been separated, they are as though they had come into his possession, and he acquired them. Therefore, his firstborn son takes a double portion in those gifts.

We further learned in the beraita that the firstborn takes a double portion in consecrated property ([such as lesser sanctified offerings, which are eaten by the owners]) that was slaughtered during his father’s lifetime. And the Gemara asks: why does he take a double portion?

in which the animal was slaughtered during the father’s lifetime,

and he holds that “priestly gifts that have not yet been separated are considered as though they had been separated.”

Although 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 .

For

they are not his?

And although the owners have the right to eat from the consecrated offerings, nevertheless the meat is not considered their property ,

but “they acquire from the table of the Most High.”

And the Gemara answers: it is speaking

of lesser sanctified offerings

and according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who says that it is the owners’ property

for every matter, even for betrothing a woman with it. Therefore, the firstborn takes a double portion in it.

And where were the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean taught?

and it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that they are the property of the owners

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

Where are the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught?

For it was taught in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 5:21), “When a person sins

in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 5:21), “When a person sins

and commits a trespass against the Lord

and denies to his fellow concerning a deposit, or concerning a loan placed in his hand, or concerning robbery”: And from here we learned: one who claims money from his fellow, and he denies it, and swears falsely, is liable to bring a guilt-offering for robbery.

And we derive it from that which is written, “and commits a trespass against the Lord

to include

if he denied

lesser sacred offerings

belonging to his fellow, so that he too brings a guilt-offering for robbery, because

they are the property of the owners. These are the words of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

We further learned in the beraita above:

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

a double portion.”

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

Now, in the case of a cow hired out or rented out, which does not stand in the possession of its owner

it is not found in the father’s possession,

you say that he takes,

that is, he takes a double portion in it,

is it necessary to ask about a cow grazing in the pasture?!

Is it not obvious that he takes a double portion in it, since his father had possession of it?

And the Gemara answers:

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

in which the firstborn takes a double portion, he takes it only when it is hired out

in a manner similar to a cow grazing in the pasture.

That is:

just as a cow grazing in the pasture

takes a double portion, since

the improvement comes on its own,

and not through the labor of the orphans, since

they do not incur a loss for its food,

they did not spend any food on it; rather, it ate on its own in the field.