Bava Batra 124a (קכד.) — the Talmud in English

Even if they are leased or rented,

he does not take a double portion except in a case where

the enhancement occurs automatically, without any expenditure for their maintenance

. The Gemara discusses who the tanna was who taught the aforementioned beraita, and who held that a firstborn takes a double portion of the enhancement in which the assets increased automatically after the father's death:

Who is the tanna? It is Rabbi.

As it was taught

in a beraita:

A firstborn does not take a double portion of the enhancement in which the assets increased

on their own

after the death of their father.

Rabbi says: I say that a firstborn takes a double portion

of the enhancement in which the assets increased

on their own

after the death of their father. But he does not take a double portion of enhancement produced by the orphans after the death of their father.

Therefore: If

they inherited

their father's loan, for which there was

a promissory note, the firstborn takes a double portion.

Since the note is in their possession, and they collect the debt by virtue of it, it is as though the note itself increased automatically. Therefore, the firstborn takes a double portion of it.

But according to the Rabbis, since the assets increased after the father's death, he does not take a double portion of that enhancement.

And if

a promissory note was issued against them

stating that they owed money to others,

the firstborn pays a double portion.

Just as he took a double portion of the assets, so too he pays a double portion of the debt, since all those assets became encumbered to the creditor.

And

in any event,

if he said, “I will not pay

a double portion to the creditor,

and

in exchange for this

I will not take

a double portion as a firstborn,

he is permitted.

This concludes the beraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is the rationale of the Rabbis?

Why does he not take a double portion of the enhancement in which the assets increased after death?

The verse states

(Deuteronomy 21:17):

“To give him a double portion”; the Merciful One calls it a gift.

And we derive:

Just as a gift

cannot be transferred to others

until it reaches his hand, [that is, until it reaches the donor's hand], since “a person cannot transfer an item that has not yet come into the world,”

so too the firstborn portion

the father cannot bequeath to his son

until it reaches his hand.

Therefore, he does not acquire the enhancement in which the assets increased after the father's death.

Therefore, he does not acquire the increase produced by the assets after the father’s death.

And Rabbi says

The verse states, “a double portion,”

indicating two portions: an additional portion and an ordinary portion. Since the verse mentions them with one expression,

it juxtaposes the firstborn portion to the ordinary portion:

Just as the ordinary portion, even though it has not reached his hand,

he bequeaths it to his sons,

so too the firstborn portion, although it has not reached his hand,

he takes a double portion of it.

But with fully anticipated property, such as enhancement produced by the orphans, he does not take a double portion, as it is written, “of all that shall be found to belong to him,” excluding that which is not found in his possession at all.

The Gemara asks: According to

the Rabbis,

why did they derive this specifically from “to give him”? For likewise,

“a double portion” is also written,

as Rabbi expounded.

The Gemara answers:

That

was necessary

to give it to him adjacent to one boundary.

That is, wherever his ordinary portion fell to him by lot, there he takes his firstborn portion without another lottery. His brothers cannot give him his firstborn portion elsewhere.

The Gemara asks:

According to

Rabbi,

why did he derive this specifically from “a double portion”? For likewise,

“to give him” is also written

as the Rabbis expounded.

The Gemara answers:

That

was necessary to teach us:

If he says, “I will neither take nor pay,” he is permitted.

Rav Pappa said:

If they inherited from their father

a palm tree, and

afterward it

thickened [that is, it became thicker], or they inherited

([it became thicker]), or they inherited

land, and

afterward

the river deposited silt [the river overflowed its banks and fertilized the field, thereby improving it],

([the river overflowed its banks and fertilized the field, thereby improving it]),

in this case,

everyone

whether according to the Rabbis or according to Rabbi,

agrees that

the firstborn

takes

a double portion of the enhancement. Since it still bears its original name. [That is, the palm tree is still called a palm tree even though it became thicker, and the land is still called land even though it was improved.] And the father is considered to have possessed these things.

They disagree in

a case where they inherited

a plowed field [a field of grain],

([a field lying fallow]),

and

after death

it became a field of grain [it produced ears of grain], or

([it produced stalks of grain]), or

young palm trees [palms without fruit]

([palms without fruit])

and

after death

they became dates.

One master holds [Rabbi]: A firstborn takes a double portion, since it is

([Rabbi]) that the firstborn receives a double portion, since it is

enhancement that occurs automatically.

And the other master holds [the Rabbis]: He does not take a double portion, since

([the Sages]) that he does not receive a double portion, since its

its name changed

after death, and it is deemed anticipated property.

Rabba bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya:

A judge who

acted in accordance with Rabbi's ruling has acted properly,

and we do not return the case to him as one who “erred in a matter of Mishna.” Similarly, if he acted

in accordance with the Rabbis' ruling, he has acted properly.