Bava Batra 125a — the Talmud in English

For you it is difficult, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

what is different about money, that he does not

take a double share from it? Certainly, this is the reason:

for these are not the money that their father left.

If so, he should likewise not take a double share of land, for

the land, too, is not this land that their father left,

since, had the borrower wished, he could have discharged the debt with money?

And furthermore, the Master said,

Rabba himself said:

it stands to reason that the reasoning of the people of the West is that if the grandmother preceded and sold it, her sale is a valid sale?

This will be explained at length below.

But as regards our matter, it is explained there that property destined to come into the possession of the decedent, if, as long as it has not yet come into his possession, it is possible to sell the property to another and remove it from the inheritance, is considered ra'ui.

If so, also in the case before us, the borrower can sell the land and discharge his debt with money or with other land; and we should have judged the land to be ra'ui.

If so, it is difficult: why did Rabba say that if they collected land, it is considered muchzak, and the firstborn takes a double share of it?

And likewise

for Rav Naḥman it is difficult: what is different about land, that he does not

take a double share of it? Certainly, this is the reason:

for this is not the land that their father left.

If so, he should likewise not take a double share of the money, for

the money, too, is not this money that their father left.

For “a loan is given for expenditure”?

And furthermore, Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: If orphans collected land in payment of their father’s debt, the creditor returns and collects from them.

But if they collected money, he does not return and collect from them, for “the movable property of orphans is not pledged to a creditor.”

And it is explained that land is considered more in the possession of the creditor than money; if so, it is difficult: why, if they collected land, is it considered more ra'ui than money?

He said to him

Rabba said to Abaye:

It is not difficult for me, and it is not difficult for Rav Naḥman.

Since both Rav Naḥman and I

are stating the reasoning of the people of the West,

that is, we came to explain the words of “they sent from there,” above, who said that the firstborn takes a double share of a loan but not of interest,

and we do not hold

like them.

Rather, we hold in accordance with the words of Rabbi Judah in the name of Samuel, that the firstborn does not take a double share of a loan—whether they collected land or whether they collected money—since it is not considered muchzak in the land until the land comes into his possession.

The Gemara explains:

what is “grandmother”

that we said above?