Bava Batra 126a — the Talmud in English

and a loan that was owed to him

that is, a loan that the firstborn had been required to collect from their father,

they divide

the firstborn and the ordinary son divide the firstborn’s double share between them.

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

In the discussion before us, the law in the following case will be explained: The firstborn demanded that the estate be divided immediately, so that he could improve his own share, but the orphans did not divide it and improved the property. Does the firstborn receive a double share of that increase in value?

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

against the orphans and demanded that the inheritance be divided,

he protested!

That is, it is as though he acquired the firstborn’s share, and if the orphans improved his share, he acquires the increase in value, as though it were his property that had been improved.

The reason is that we accept the principle that “the firstborn has a double share even before the division,” and from the moment he demanded his firstborn’s share, he acquired it wherever it might be.

Rabba said: It stands to reason that Rav Asi’s ruling applies when

the property contained

grapes, and the orphans harvested them,

or

olives, and they picked them, but

if

they trod them,

the orphans,

no.

The firstborn does not receive a double share, because by changing the form of the grapes, the orphans acquired them. 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 share.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If

they trod them,

does he receive a double share?!

But

at first they were grapes,

and

now they are wine

[wine]! Why should the orphans not acquire the grapes by changing their form?

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Ukva bar Hama said

in another matter, which will be brought below, the practical consequence is

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

Here too

Rav Yosef’s statement can be explained as meaning that he

gives him the value of the damage to his grapes.

It follows that Rabba and Rav Yosef did not disagree about the law; one stated it in this wording, and the other stated it in different wording.

Where were

the words

of

Rav

Ukva bar Hama

mentioned above stated?

In connection with what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a firstborn and an ordinary son inherited grapes from their father and harvested them, or olives and picked them, the firstborn receives a double share, even if they trod them.

The difficulty was raised:

If they trod them? At first they were grapes, and now they are wine?

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

As above.

Another matter concerning the laws of the firstborn:

Rav Asi said: If a firstborn took a share

of the property

like an ordinary son,

and did not demand his firstborn’s share,

he waived it.

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

The reason is that the firstborn’s share is called a gift in the Torah, as the verse says: “To give him a double share.” If he does not want this property, it is not a gift for him, and he will no longer acquire it.

The Gemara explains:

What does “he 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 share.

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 does not have

a right to his firstborn’s share

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 or relinquish something that has not yet come into existence.

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 share even before the division.

If so, it is something that has already come into existence,

and once he waived it with regard to this, he waived it with regard to all of it.

And the statements of Rav Pappi and Rav Pappa were not stated explicitly; rather, they were inferred

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

This was the incident:

There was a certain firstborn who went and sold his property and the property of an ordinary son,

that is, he sold his firstborn’s share and part of the property belonging to his ordinary brother.

The orphaned sons of the ordinary son went to eat dates from those purchasers.

They struck them.

The purchasers struck the orphans and prevented them from eating from their own property.

The relatives said to them

the relatives of the orphans:

“Is it not enough that you unlawfully 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

nothing through this sale

at all.

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