Bava Batra 126a (קכו.) — the Talmud in English

and a loan owed by him

that is, a loan that the firstborn owed their father,

they divide

they divide the firstborn’s portion between them.

It was explained above that the firstborn does not receive a double portion of the appreciation produced by the orphans in the property after their father’s death.

In the passage before us, the law will be explained in a case where the firstborn demanded that the property be divided immediately, so that he could produce appreciation in his portion, but the orphans did not divide it and produced appreciation in the property: Does he receive a double portion of the appreciation?

Rav Huna said that Rav Asi said: If a firstborn protested

against the orphans and demanded that the inheritance be divided,

he has protested!

That is, it is as though he acquired the firstborn’s portion, and if the orphans produced appreciation in his portion, he acquires the appreciation as though it were his property that produced it.

The reason is that we maintain: “The firstborn has a double portion even before the division,” and once he demanded his firstborn’s portion, he acquired it wherever it might be.

Rabba said: Rav Asi’s reasoning is compelling in

a case where the property contained

grapes, and they harvested them,

the orphans, or

olives, and they picked them, but

if

they trod them,

the orphans,

no.

The firstborn does not receive a double portion. For they acquired them through a change in form. In any event, they must pay him the value of the damage to his grapes, as will be explained below.

And Rav Yosef said: Even if they trod them,

the firstborn receives a double portion.

The Gemara challenges: Is it really the case that when

they trod them

he receives a double portion?!

But

initially they were grapes,

and

now they are wine

[wine]! Why should they not acquire the grapes through a change in form?

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said

elsewhere, as will be cited below, the practical implication is

to give him the value of the damage to his grapes.

Here too

Rav Yosef’s statement can be explained as follows: He

gives him the value of the damage to his grapes.

It follows that Rabba and Rav Yosef do not disagree concerning the law; rather, one stated it in this formulation and the other in a different formulation.

Where was it stated

where were

the

words of

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama

mentioned above?

With regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A firstborn and an ordinary heir whose father left them grapes, and they harvested them, or olives, and they picked them, the firstborn receives a double portion, even if they trod them.

We raised the difficulty:

Even if they trod them? Initially they were grapes, and now they are wine?

Mar Ukva bar Ḥama said: To give him the value of the damage to his grapes.

As above.

Further laws concerning the firstborn:

Rav Asi said: If a firstborn took a portion

of the property

equal to that of an ordinary heir,

and did not demand his firstborn’s portion,

he has waived it.

He no longer receives a firstborn’s portion, as follows.

The reason is that since the firstborn’s portion is called a gift in the Torah, as the verse states, “to give him a double portion,” if he does not desire this property, it is not a gift for him, and he will no longer acquire it.

The Gemara explains:

What does “he has waived it” mean?

Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: He waived it with regard to that field.

But with regard to the other property, he receives a double portion.

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: He waived it with regard to all the property.

The Gemara explains:

Rav Pappa, who said in the name of Rava that he waived it with regard to that field, holds that the firstborn has no

right to his firstborn’s portion

before the division, and

therefore

with regard to what came into his possession, he waived it; with regard to the rest, he did not waive it.

For a person cannot transfer ownership of something that has not yet come into the world.

And Rav Pappi, who said in the name of Rava that he waived it with regard to all the property, holds that the firstborn does have a right to his portion before the division.

And if so, it is something that has come into the world,

and since he waived it in this case, he waived it in all of them.

And this statement of Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference

that is, their statements were not made concerning this subject, but were inferred from another matter, from an incident that occurred.

And this was the incident:

There was a certain firstborn who went and sold his property and that of the ordinary heir,

he sold his firstborn’s portion and part of the property of his ordinary heir-brother.

The orphans, the sons of the ordinary heir, went to eat dates from those purchasers.

They struck them.

The purchasers beat them and prevented them from eating from their property.

The relatives said to them

the relatives of the orphans:

“Is it not enough that you purchased their property, but you also struck them

[is it not enough that you unlawfully purchased their property; you also beat them]?!”

They came before Rava, and he said to them:

The sale is void, and

the firstborn did

in this sale

nothing at all.

Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi disagreed concerning these words of Rava.