Bava Batra 124b — the Talmud in English

What is the reason?

It is uncertain to him ,

whether the halakha follows Rabbi

only

against his colleague

that is, when one tanna disputed him],

and not against his colleagues

and the halakha does not follow him when many disputed him]. And here, since many disputed him, the halakha does not follow him.

Or the halakha follows Rabbi against his colleague and even against his colleagues.

Therefore, if the judge ruled like one of them, we do not reverse his ruling .

Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: It is forbidden

to act in accordance with Rabbi’s words.

And if he acted, his ruling is void.

And this is because he

held that the halakha follows Rabbi against his colleague but not against his colleagues.

And Rav Naḥman himself

[in his own name]

said: It is permitted to act in accordance with Rabbi’s words.

Because he

held that the halakha follows Rabbi against his colleague and even against his colleagues .

Rava said: It is forbidden to act in accordance with Rabbi’s words. But if he acted, it remains done.

He held: “Inclining” was stated.

That is, it was said in the beit-midrash to incline the judgment in accordance with the Sages—to judge according to their words ab initio. Nevertheless, if the ruling was issued in accordance with Rabbi, the judgment is not reversed .

Rav Naḥman taught in “the other books of the school of Rav”

“The books of the school of Rav” means Torat Kohanim ], and Rav Naḥman had the following version in them:

“With all that will be found to him,” excluding appreciation that the heirs improved after the death of their father. But appreciation by which the properties appreciated

of themselves

after the death of their father, he takes.

And who is it? It is Rabbi.

As above.

On the other hand,

Rami bar Ḥama taught in “the other books of the school of Rav”: “With all that will be found to him,” excluding appreciation by which the properties appreciated

of themselves

after the death of their father; and all the more so, appreciation that the heirs improved after the death of their father, he does not take.

And who is it? It is the Sages.

This concludes the discussion concerning ruling the halakha in the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages. However, in the conclusion we rely on the words of Rav Pappa, which will be brought below (125b), who ruled in accordance with the words of the Sages. Since Rav Pappa was the latest of all the amoraim brought above.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A firstborn does not take a double portion of a loan

by a document .

And the Gemara asks:

For whom?

That is, according to which position did Rabbi Yehuda hold, such that he needed to state this law?

If you say according to

the opinion of

the Sages,

it is obvious!

Now

even

appreciation that is in his possession

such as a dug-up field that became sheaves, as above],

the Sages say that he does not take,

for the firstborn does not take a double portion of them;

a loan

which is not in his possession at all—

is it necessary to state this?!

Rather, according to

the opinion of

Rabbi.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that even according to Rabbi, the firstborn does not take a double portion of a loan, since it is not in his possession at all; rather, he has merely a piece of paper in his hand, and it is a complete case of property due to come into his possession.

The Gemara asks: If so,

then what of that which was taught: “If they inherited a debt document, the firstborn takes a double portion, both of the principal and of the interest”—who is it? Neither Rabbi nor the Sages?!

Therefore, the Gemara retracts and explains Rabbi Yehuda’s words:

In fact,

he innovated his law

according to

the opinion of

the Sages!

And

if you say: According to the Sages, it is obvious that he does not take, since it is not in his possession at all, as we asked above.

One can say:

It was necessary. It might enter your mind to say that a loan, since he holds the document, is considered as though it has been collected,

and even the Sages would agree that the firstborn takes a double portion of a loan;

it teaches us

Rabbi Yehuda, that he does not take a double portion of a loan, for it is considered property due to come into his possession.

However, according to Rabbi, the firstborn takes a double portion of a loan, since it is considered appreciation that occurs by itself, as we explained above (124a ).

They sent word from there,

they sent from the Land of Israel to Babylonia]:

A firstborn takes a double portion of a loan, but not of interest

such as when he lent to a gentile]. And the reason will be explained below.

And we raised the matter:

For whom?

If you say according to the Sages: Now, regarding appreciation that is in his possession, the Sages say that he does not take; is it necessary to say this regarding a loan?!

Rather, according to Rabbi.

And according to Rabbi, he does not take

a double portion of interest?!

But was it not taught: “Rabbi says: A firstborn takes a double portion both of a loan and of interest”?

Rather,

in fact, it is the Sages.

And

it teaches us that

a loan is considered as though it has been collected,

and even according to the Sages it is considered to be in his possession, and the firstborn takes a double portion of it. And not in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Shmuel above.

However, he does not take a double portion of interest, since he comes to take something that was never his, and it is property due to come into his possession.

But the money of the loan—since he lent him money, and he takes that money by virtue of the document, it follows that the document is held in his possession in place of his money, and it is like collateral. And regarding a loan for which collateral was deposited, everyone agrees that he takes a double portion, for a creditor acquires collateral .

Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Amemar happened to come to our place,

Amemar happened to come to our locality]

and expounded: A firstborn takes a double portion of a loan, but not of interest.

He said to him: The people of Nehardea follow their position

Amemar held like Rav Naḥman, who is brought below, as both of them were from Nehardea].

For Rabbah said,

orphans who

collected land

for their father’s debt,

he has

that is, the firstborn takes a double portion]. Since the land was encumbered to their father during his lifetime, and it is like collateral. And it is considered to be in his possession .

But if they

collected money, he does not have it.

Because “a loan is given for expenditure,” and this is not the money that he lent him. It is as though their father had never possessed it.

And Rav Naḥman said: If they collected money, he has it,

he takes a double portion], for they lent money, and with money he is considered to be in possession .

But if they

collected land, he does not have it.

For they lent him money, and not land.

Abaye said to Rabbah: According to you, this is difficult,

and

according to Rav Naḥman, it is difficult: