Bava Batra 124a — the Talmud in English

Even if leased and rented,

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

the increase comes on its own, for they did not lack food for it .

The Gemara discusses who is the tanna who taught the above beraita, and held that a firstborn takes a double portion of an increase by which the assets increased on their own after the father’s death:

Whose [opinion] is it? It is Rabbi’s.

For it was taught

in a beraita:

A firstborn does not take a double portion of an increase by which the assets increased

on their own,

after their father’s death.

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

of an increase by which the assets increased

on their own

after their father’s death. But not of an increase by which the orphans caused the assets to increase after their father’s death.

Therefore: If

they inherited

a loan owed to their father, for which there was

a debt document, the firstborn takes a double portion.

Since the document is held in their hands, and by virtue of it they collect the debt, it is as though the document itself increased on its own. Therefore, the firstborn takes a double portion of it .

But according to the Sages, since it increased after the father’s death, he does not take a double portion of it.

And if

a debt document was issued against them

for debts that they owed to others,

the firstborn gives a double portion.

Just as he took a double portion of the assets. Since all those assets became encumbered to the creditor .

And

in any event,

if he said, “I do not give”

a double portion to the creditor,

and

in opposition to this

“I do not take”

a double portion, as is the law of a firstborn ,

he is permitted.

This is the end of the beraita.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the Sages?

Why does he not take a double portion of an increase by which the assets increased after death ?

The verse says

(Deuteronomy 21:17):

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

And we derive:

Just as a gift

he cannot give to others

until it reaches his hand, [until it reaches the hand of the giver], since “a person cannot transfer an object that has not yet come into the world,”

so too the firstborn portion

so too the firstborn portion,

the father cannot bequeath it to his son

until it reaches his hand.

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

And Rabbi says

The verse says, “a double portion,”

which implies

, two portions: a firstborn portion and an ordinary portion. And since Scripture mentioned them with one word,

it juxtaposes the firstborn portion with 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 a completely prospective asset, such as an increase by which the orphans caused the assets to increase, he does not take a double portion, for it is written, “of all that is found to him,” excluding this, which is not found in his possession at all.

And the Gemara raises an objection: According to

the Sages,

why did they derive specifically from “to give him”? The verse also

likewise wrote “a double portion,”

as Rabbi derives?

And the Gemara answers:

That

was necessary

to give it to him along one boundary .

That is, in the place where his ordinary portion fell to him by lot, there he takes the firstborn portion without another lottery. His brothers cannot give him his firstborn portion in another place .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

According to

Rabbi,

why did he derive specifically from “a double portion”? The verse also

likewise wrote “to give him”

as the Sages derive?

And the Gemara answers:

That

was necessary to teach us:

If he said, “I do not take and I do not give,” he is permitted.

Rav Pappa said:

If they inherited from their father

a date palm, and

afterward it

grew thicker [it thickened], or they inherited

([it became thicker]), or they inherited

land, and

afterward

a silt deposit arose [the river overflowed its banks and fertilized the field, and it thereby improved],

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

in this case,

everyone

whether according to the Sages or according to Rabbi,

do not dispute that the

firstborn

takes

a double portion of the increase. Since its original name still applies. [That is, the palm is still called a palm even though it grew thicker, and the land is called land even though it improved.] And the father is considered to have held these things .

They disagree in

a case in which they inherited

a plowed field [a fallow field],

([a field lying fallow]),

and

after death

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

([it produced stalks of grain]), or

young date palms [date palms without fruit]

([palms without fruit])

and

after death

they became dates.

For one held [Rabbi]: A firstborn takes a double portion, since it is

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

an increase that comes on its own.

And one held [the Sages]: He does not take a double portion, since its name

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

changed after death, and it is prospective.

after the father’s death, and it is property not yet in his possession.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya:

A judge who

acted in accordance with the words of Rabbi has acted,

and we do not return his ruling as that of “one who erred concerning a matter of Mishna.” And likewise, if he acted

in accordance with the words of the Sages, he has acted.